Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Transportation

Lyft Sparks Uproar After Opening Online Store to Sell Masks to Its Drivers (theguardian.com) 60

Posted by EditorDavid from the safety-at-a-price dept.
"The ride-hailing platform Lyft has opened an online store to sell masks and other protective gear as the Covid-19 pandemic intensifies, enraging drivers and labor organizers who say the company should be providing these free," reports the Guardian: The tech company's move to sell drivers protective gear rather than provide it resurfaces the debate of whether drivers are employees or independent contractors, and to what extent the tech giants carry responsibility for the work conditions of gig workers... The Lyft store launched on 1 June, a company spokeswoman told the Guardian, and sells the supplies "at cost", she said.

"Lyft does not make a profit on PPE," she said, adding that Lyft had distributed more than 150,000 sanitizing products and masks to drivers since the Covid-19 crisis began. "The Lyft store is a resource to provide millions of drivers across the US easy access to cleaning supplies and face masks that have consistently been difficult to find." Still, drivers complain they have shouldered much of the safety responsibilities, and cost. Eden Alva, a driver organizer in the Bay Area, said Lyft should not be charging drivers for the personal protective equipment required to work safely but instead providing it free...

"From the start they have pushed all costs, expenses and risks on to drivers while pocketing as much revenue as possible," he said. "During a crisis like coronavirus, drivers suffer even more, and there isn't any form of safety net."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lyft Sparks Uproar After Opening Online Store to Sell Masks to Its Drivers More

Lyft Sparks Uproar After Opening Online Store to Sell Masks to Its Drivers

Comments Filter:

  • You're independent contractors, remember? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Sunday July 19, 2020 @08:44AM (#60306973)
    Yeah, I know that's pretty much a farce.

    But it's true that an enterprise with no fixed relationship with the workers will struggle with fixed expenses like sending "X" masks to every driver per month. How many people sign up as a driver and do a few trips for a few weeks and then hardly ever if at all? How many run bot the Uber and Lyft apps and take whatever is best at the moment?

    • Good point. People could just sign up, get free equipment and never do any work.

      The whole issue seems kind of overblown. Lyft is providing supplies at cost to contractors who have no obligation to do any work. A loose relationship has its advantages and disadvantages for both parties.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        No danger of that if Lyft priority vets drivers like they are supposed to.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          *properly vets drivers

          bloody auto-correct and tiny screens, this is why I need a phone that folds out to 10 inches

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

        The whole issue seems kind of overblown. Lyft is providing supplies at cost to contractors who have no obligation to do any work. A loose relationship has its advantages and disadvantages for both parties.

        Oddly the relationship is "loose" enough that Lyft requires drivers to use masks even in jurisdictions where there is no mask mandate [lyft.com], but not "loose" enough for the drivers to tell Lyft to stay in its "arrange a ride share" lane. Oh, and Lyft is also attempting to dictate what passengers must wear, wheth

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Well that's thing, in the UK they are employees.

    • Contractors are responsible for their own uniforms, they are typically not responsible for mandatory disposable PPE required when contracting to a company. This is why at my work when I walk into the building with a Worley engineer in toe they get given the same face mask I do.

  • Welcome to the gig economy, this is just the second phase of the race to the bottom. Not only do you make minimum wage, you need to supply your own vehicle and gas, but now supplies to keep people safe

    And people are wondering why socialism is gaining traction with the young. The young cannot afford rent and if they went to college they pretty much bought a house with nothing to show for it. All the have to look forward to is a life of debt (unless you are offspring of the super rich).

    Socialism started of

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sycodon ( 149926 )

      Holy Fuck. A pack of 10 costs $8

      I worked at a manufacturing facility and we bought our own damned safety glasses and boots.

    • And people are wondering why socialism is gaining traction with the young. The young cannot afford rent and if they went to college they pretty much bought a house with nothing to show for it. All the have to look forward to is a life of debt (unless you are offspring of the super rich).

      Erm, college tuition rose because of socialist-like policies of making college more accessible to more people by providing easy or guaranteed student loans.. If you increase the the number of people wishing to buy and the a

  • Tennessee Ernie Ford said it best:

    They owe their soul to the company store.

    "Some people say a man is made outta mud
    A poor man's made outta muscle and blood
    Muscle and blood and skin and bones
    A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong
    You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
    Another day older and deeper in debt
    Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
    I owe my soul to the company store
    I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
    I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine
    I loaded sixt

  • I have a question (Score:3)

    by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 ) on Sunday July 19, 2020 @08:57AM (#60307027)
    Why do Lyft and Uber get called "tech companies" in the press? They're just labor-scab pimps with apps that Larry Ellison's cat could have written. If they were cabs, their cars would need 6-month/10,000 mile safety inspections, extra insurance for passengers, and their drivers would probably need CDLs.

    • Why do Lyft and Uber get called "tech companies" in the press?

      Because their app is what differentiates them from other cab companies.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Zocalo ( 252965 )
        At least three of my local taxi companies - maybe 20-30 cars max - have apps, and while I only use of them their app is just as capable as Uber and Lyft's , showing things like where your cab currently is, driver name, car reg/type/colour, estimated ETA, and all that kind of stuff. I suspect it's something they've bought in along with some branding applied, but whatever. Two of the companies have been around so long they probably predate the web, and certainly the .com boom/bust. Unless the requirement i
        • No. However, the company that licensed the app and the tech to them can be labeled as a tech company. The farmer that uses a tractor and combine harvester is not an industrial manufacturer, but Caterpillar certainly is. Hope that helps.
      • Seems to me the program is nothing more then a dispatcher. Different way of connecting passenger to driver maybe. But still what taxi company do.

        • Computers help us do stupid things faster. Most of the things that computers commonly do are things that we can do much more slowly without them. They make certain things practical that weren't practical before. Cheap mobile phone internet has made it possible for you to get by-the-minute information about your driver. Other than that, Uber's primary contribution to the transportation industry has been doing an end-run around around the laws on taxis in many jurisdictions.

    • If they were cabs, no one would use them, because cabs sucked.

  • Selling independent contractors uniforms.
    Is very iffy as uniforms = employees and in some states uniforms must be free to employees. In other states the cost of the uniforms can not pull them under min wage.

    • Re:selling independent contractors uniforms. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by msauve ( 701917 ) on Sunday July 19, 2020 @09:32AM (#60307187)
      "Selling independent contractors uniforms."

      Wow, you're gonna tear a tendon stretching that far.

      PPE are not uniforms. It's not branding. Oddly enough, employers can require their employees to wear clothing at work and don't have to pay for it.

      I suppose they could provide "free," but we all know nothing is free - so they'd have to raise rates or take a bigger cut. And, of course, "free" would only mean some drivers taking advantage, and selling off their "free" stuff for profit. Selling to drivers at cost eliminates a lot of incentive for fraud and distributes the costs equitably.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 )
      It's legally dodgy as hell in the UK (and the EU as well, IIRC). Facemasks absolutely count as PPE - they're certainly classed as such in the UK government's Covid-19 briefings, etc., and PPE is covered by the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations, 1992 [hse.gov.uk]:

      Regulation 4 states:
      Every employer shall ensure that suitable personal protective equipment is provided to his employees who may be exposed to a risk to their health or safety while at work except where and to the extent that such risk has been

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        This is America. There's really only rule by class, not rule of law.

      • I'm pretty sure the law doesn't differentiate between employees or contractors on this - if they are working for you, then *you* need to ensure they have the necessary PPE.

        So, if I hire a painter or a carpenter to work on my home, I'm supposed to "ensure that they have the necessary PPE?" and magically know what PPE they need, buy it for them, and enforce their use?

        That said, I did tell the painter that it would be wise to wear hearing protection while operating his electric sander. He did show up with earmuffs the next day.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Zocalo ( 252965 )
          In that situation you are not the "employer" that the law is referring to; you're a client. The employer would actually be the company they set up to offer painting / carpentry services, or whatever. If it's all above board with taxes being paid etc. then even if it's a one man band you will receive and pay an invoice from the *company* for the work, and the decorator will then take their wage/share of the profits from that. They would also presumably be deducting the cost of any PPE as a legitmate busin

  • Reminds me of a company store [wikipedia.org]. The only real difference is Lyft claims to sell this stuff at cost out of "the goodness of their heart".

    • If the PPE is required to do their jobs, and Lyft charges for it, couldn't you still report it on your taxes?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        couldn't you still report it on your taxes?

        Yes. Schedule C as a business expense.

      • And? It's still money out of your pocket. Do you think if you report it on your taxes, it's magically not something you spend any more? To make it simpler for you. Out of $100, lets say you get $70 and Lyft gets $30. You spent $30 on gas. So you report $40 in earnings, and pay $10 taxes. Total income $30. Now, lets say you have to pay $5 for PPE, that's $65 you get out of $100. $35 in earnings. You pay $8.75 in taxes. $26.25 in total income. Does that help you understand things?

    • The "only difference" is there's no company scrip and you're free to buy your equipment elsewhere, or most of everything else in the article.

      I've worked for and with several companies that have employee-only stores where goods are sold at cost to employees. Nothing unusual or wrong with that.

      It's not even unusual that departments sell their goods and services to other departments of the same company for accounting purposes. Which is kind of comparable as drivers aren't employees but contractors.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      Lyft drivers are not employees of Lyft.

      The State of California has a different opinion [businessinsider.com] on the matter.

      • California might want to consider them employees but it doesnâ(TM)t make a lot of sense. One of the reasons that California wants to consider them employees is for unemployment benefits but even this doesnâ(TM)t make much sense. If I drive for Uber/Lyft one month and then donâ(TM)t drive for a month, Iâ(TM)m not unemployed, I just didnâ(TM)t work. What prevents someone from working on even months and collecting unemployment on odd months?

        Same with PPE, unless Lyft requires a pers

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          What prevents someone from working on even months and collecting unemployment on odd months?

          Oh, I dunno, the fact that you're ineligible if you voluntarily quit your job [ca.gov]. It's also difficult to collect unemployment when you're still employed at a job but decide to take unpaid leave, a.k.a., work zero hours.

          Same with PPE, unless Lyft requires a person to drive a certain number of hours each month to get a certain amount of PPE, a person could collect the PPE and sell it and not drive.

          Oh no, someone has rece

  • ...don't work for lyft?

    How is it any more complicated?

  • Notwithstanding the discussion about contractors and employee relations, what I've noticed watching Lyft drivers lately is the following:
    1. * Put on mask, pick up passenger.
    2. * Drop off passenger.
    3. * Go park somewhere and take off mask and Juul in the driver's seat. Or, go have a cigarette and go back into car unmasked.
    4. * Continue driving around without mask on until about to pick next passenger up.
    5. * Put on mask a couple blocks away.
    6. * Repeat.

    At the end of the day because in reality, many Lyft driver

    • At the end of the day because in reality, many Lyft drivers are wearing masks for the optics and find it ineffective to keep wearing them

      False. Viruses do not linger in the air, they settle on surfaces, and then die soon after. There's quite a difference between sitting in a car after dropping off someone and having a ciggy and sitting in a small chamber where someone just coughs in your direction.

      Is it perfect? No. Is it just for optics and ineffective? No. Every little bit helps.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )

      Homemade masks provide *ZERO* protection to the person wearing them... because by the time aerosol droplets that are small enough to get through the pores of the mask are that close to your face, any droplets that come into contact with your mask will just be inhaled on your next breath

      They do inhibit asymptomatic transmission effectively by slowing down any droplets that escape your mouth in such circumstances so at least they will not typically reach other people under ordinary social conditions.

      Hom

      • Agreed on the homemade mask, of course, if passengers wear them consistently this helps the driver and perhaps subsequent passengers avoid infection.

        Regarding reporting this to the company..considering Lyft is based in SF where I live, all the company needs to do is look out the window or take a walk to see what I'm describing. It's really that common.

  • While I understand the general controversy of employee versus contractor do I have to wonder... Which employee or contractor gets enraged over not getting something for free? Besides, this late into the pandemic should every employee or contractor have a supply of masks regardless of where these came from. Everyone, from bosses to the homeless, have managed to get their hands on masks.

    There seems to be a notion of entitlement in these demands, which needs to be looked at. The company may actually just try t

  • Reading the comments has been interesting.

    From NoNonAlphaCharsHere:
    "Why do Lyft and Uber get called "tech companies" in the press? They're just labor-scab pimps with apps that Larry Ellison's cat could have written."

    I agree. Using available tech to provide a social service is not tech itself. It is like calling a self-serve laundry a tech company because they use appliance machines that a century ago were born from the current new technologies of those times. Or, calling a business office "tech" because

  • Yes, of course people want free stuff all the time, that includes both Lyft and their drivers in this case, but how about a pragmatic solution? Rather than pushing the costs onto contractors, they just need to push them onto customers. Lyft should allow each driver credit for PPE based on how much they work. Each ride can have a PPE surcharge for example, which would go towards credits for the driver to use in the Lyft PPE store.

    This would be no different that electricians, mechanics, construction workers,

  • Money is fungible. It's gotta come out of the driver's work effort somehow. Everything else is just accounting gimmicks.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close