California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

I'm enthusiastic about the software that Uber and Lyft are developing to make this whole thing work so beautifully. I catch their algorithms making mistakes sometimes. I catch them doing something sneaky sometimes (Lyft more than Uber.) I have some ideas on how to make it work better. I've done 2000 rides and picked up some really interesting people. I like to go to different cities and try them out. It's fun. If my enthusiasm makes me a shill, then so be it.

So.. they shouldn't have voted for it?

Lets say I have a club I own, but I need to keep the riff raff out.

I cant openly ban poor or low society people from entering which would be considered "evil". But what if I mandated every service from a staff must be tipped with atleast 100$, because we value our workers more here.

This achieves the same purpose and I get to pretend to be egalitarian.

If this law is passed, ride sharing apps will still exist. They will have a smaller roster of higher quality of drivers and be more expensive to use. It will be perfectly fine for most of the people commenting here.

Who it will destroy is the "riff raff", the people at the lowest rungs of the ladder on both ends. Those who cannot contribute work of sufficient quality to be paid for full time work and benefits. And those who cant afford more expensive ride sharing.

Basically a way to ask people of a certain level to leave the state because they cant participate in the economy anymore and appear compassionate at the same time. Insidiously genius.

You do know that social media accounts are primed then sold to achieve your exact reaction, no?

I couldn't get past the first few sections oF that soUrce, which incluDes nuggets like Or maybe AB 5 and Dynamex. Or maybe AB 5 and Dynamex and Borello. Or maybe just Dynamex.

The very recent Dynamex and the relatively old Borello decisions are California Supreme Court Cases that take precedence over California legislation baring a California Constitutional Amendment or sweeping labor reform. AB5 gets rid of ambiguities, not create them. That's why the intro to AB5 reads:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex).

AB5 is meant to bring state regulations in line with the courts, which just established new and important precedent for California labor law in Dynamex that created new ambiguities in a critical set of laws. That decision doesn't supersede Borello, which is a well litigated topic that any lawyer specializing in California labor law understands.

Thank you for the reference to AB2257 [0], I didn't know about it. A cursory scan implies that the legislature is responding to real situations like Vox Media's laying off of hundreds of journalists [1], more Borello (!) [2], some exceptions that reasonable people can argue is common sense or corruption [3], and a bunch of other boring stuff [4]. I don't have the time to really dig into the new bill but if you can name any specific section in either bill that you find particular egregious, I'm interested to know.

[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

[1] This bill would delete the existing professional services exemptions for services provided by still photographers, photojournalists, freelance writers, editors, and newspaper cartoonists. The bill would, instead, establish an exemption for services provided by a still photographer, photojournalist, videographer, or photo editor, as defined, who works under a written contract that specifies certain terms, subject to prescribed restrictions. The bill would establish an exemption for services provided to a digital content aggregator, as defined, by a still photographer, photojournalist, videographer, or photo editor. The bill would establish an exemption for services provided by a fine artist, freelance writer, translator, editor, content contributor, advisor, narrator, cartographer, producer, copy editor, illustrator, or newspaper cartoonist who works under a written contract that specifies certain terms, subject to prescribed restrictions.

[2] 2776. Section 2775 and the holding in Dynamex do not apply to a bona fide business-to-business contracting relationship, as defined below, under the following conditions:

(a) If an individual acting as a sole proprietor, or a business entity formed as a partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or corporation (“business service provider”) contracts to provide services to another such business or to a public agency or quasi-public corporation (“contracting business”), the determination of employee or independent contractor status of the business services provider shall be governed by Borello, if the contracting business demonstrates that all of the following criteria are satisfied: ...

[3] (2) (A) “Referral agency” is a business that provides clients with referrals for service providers to provide services under a contract, with the exception of services in subparagraph (C).

(B) Under this paragraph, referrals for services shall include, but are not limited to, graphic design, web design, photography, tutoring, consulting, youth sports coaching, caddying, wedding or event planning, services provided by wedding and event vendors, minor home repair, moving, errands, furniture assembly, animal services, dog walking, dog grooming, picture hanging, pool cleaning, yard cleanup, and interpreting services.

(C) Under this paragraph, referrals for services do not include services provided in an industry designated by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health or the Department of Industrial Relations as a high hazard industry pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) of Section 6401.7 of the Labor Code or referrals for businesses that provide janitorial, delivery, courier, transportation, trucking, agricultural labor, retail, logging, in-home care, or construction services other than minor home repair.

[4] (7) “Interpreting services” means:

(A) Services provided by a certified or registered interpreter in a language with an available certification or registration through the Judicial Council of California, State Personnel Board, or any other agency or department in the State of California, or through a testing organization, agency, or educational institution approved or recognized by the state, or through the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters, National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters, International Association of Conference Interpreters, United States Department of State, or the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

(B) Services provided by an interpreter in a language without an available certification through the entities listed in subparagraph (A).