Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Government United States

Drivers Sue Uber Over Pressure To Support Prop 22 (bloomberglaw.com) 77

Uber drivers say the company unlawfully pressured them to support a ballot initiative that would make gig workers independent contractors, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court by a proposed class of California drivers. Bloomberg Law reports: The suit alleges Uber used a coercive campaign of misinformation to exert pressure on drivers to advocate and vote for the passage of Proposition 22, which would overturn a California law that makes it difficult for the gig companies to be classified as contractors. If the workers were classified as employees, they would be entitled to overtime, minimum wage and other benefits. According to the complaint Uber, Lyft and other gig economy giants invested nearly $200 million into the campaign "Yes on 22."

The drivers in the lawsuit say they were faced with a "barrage of misinformation" about the ballot initiative through pop-ups on the Uber app, which made misleading representations about driver benefits under Proposition 22 including regarding accident insurance, earnings guarantees, scheduling, and anti-discrimination protections. One such pop-up only provides the opportunity for drivers to select "Yes on Prop. 22" or "OK," to exit, which pressures drivers to accept Uber's political stance, the complaint alleges. The proposed class action claims the company is attempting to direct the political activities of its California drivers with respect to Proposition 22, and threatening their discharge to coerce them to follow a particular political course of action, in direct violation of state law.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Drivers Sue Uber Over Pressure To Support Prop 22

Comments Filter:
  • by sabri ( 584428 ) on Thursday October 22, 2020 @07:48PM (#60638016)
    The first amendment is very clear. Uber has the right to advocate whatever they want. Uber has the right to say whatever it wants.

    As long as Uber does not put pressure on their drivers to vote a particular way, this suit will go nowhere.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      ... say whatever it wants.

      It does not have the right of "threatening their discharge" until they change their vote to what Uber likes.

      ... Uber does not put pressure on ...

      That's the point of propaganda: And changing their app to suggest "Yes on Prop. 22", is applying pressure.

      • by green1 ( 322787 )

        Do you guys not have secret ballots in the USA? In my country my employer has no possible way to know how I vote.

        Asking employees to vote a certain way is in no way akin to FORCING them to vote a certain way.

        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          It's a drawback with mail in voting, someone can stand there and be coercive while you fill out your ballot and then mail it for you. Some places allow you to cancel your mail in ballot as a work around for this but there's still timing.

          • by green1 ( 322787 )

            If Uber is doing this, that would be breaking all sorts of laws, and would get them in some real hot water. That's a VERY serious allegation you're making. I hope you have some proof to back it up.

            It sounds to me like Uber is simply asking their drivers for support on prop 22. As Uber has absolutely no way to know how the drivers actually vote, this seems to simply be a free speech issue, not a voter coercion issue.

            • by dryeo ( 100693 )

              I doubt that Uber is doing that. My answer was more general in answering your question about the secret ballot, mail in are less secret then filling out your ballot at the polling location and it is possible for an employer to know how you voted. As you say, it is illegal and probably doesn't happen, especially with a large company.

      • by sabri ( 584428 )

        And changing their app to suggest "Yes on Prop. 22", is applying pressure.

        Their app, their messaging.

        If you don't like it, create your own app. Because, you know, freedom.

        And make no mistake, that does not necessarily mean I agree with their messaging, or their treatment of drivers. In a healthy democracy, everyone gets to have freedom of speech, including those that I disagree with.

    • The first amendment doesn't cover fraud and larceny , so fuck you, libtard.

      it also doesn't cover other crimes such as death threats.

      • by green1 ( 322787 )

        Please show proof that Uber uttered death threats, or committed fraud, or larceny. Even the people bringing suit aren't alleging such things.

        • The problem is laws are only written with words. They can only prevent so much. Everyone knows it is fraud because what is happening now is not the original intent of the laws, but that doesn't mean it is easy to prove.
          • by green1 ( 322787 )

            You are alleging fraud where even the people bringing suit don't allege such. Please show your proof that this is fraudulent.

            As for "the original intent of the laws". of which law? The constitution which grants freedom of speech? Laws against fraud (which you've failed to provide any example of)? the federal laws that talk about independent contractors (which the uber drivers meet every criteria for)? or the law that's currently being proposed by prop 22?

    • Hey man I would be your Mistress!! Punish me! =>> gg.gg/mp7v4
      • by sabri ( 584428 )

        Hey man I would be your Mistress!! Punish me!

        Please pick a number. By the rate my marriages have been failing, you'll be next in line around 2029.

  • by yassa2020 ( 6703044 ) on Thursday October 22, 2020 @08:07PM (#60638052)

    Don't allow Uber to bastardize the definition of Independant Contractor. Vote No on 22.

  • by yassa2020 ( 6703044 ) on Thursday October 22, 2020 @08:41PM (#60638136)

    A lot of people falsely believe that prop 22 undoes AB5. It does not. It is an exemption for "App-based".

    It codifies their mistreatment and misclassification of their workers and provides them NO ADDDITIONAL BENEFITS while the wording makes it look like it does.

    It creates an extra regulatory and financial barrier to any app-maker who wants to ACTUALLY treat workers like independent contractors OR treat them better or different in any way from how Uber already treats them. READ AGAIN. It makes Uber's business model the only legal business model.

  • Not going to weigh in on the politics of this. I don't live in Cali, and I don't know 100% of the situation.

    So I'll ask this. If it passes, will those companies die? I do know that the margins on ride services aren't that great/ Good, but not great. If there is now an added requirement to list drivers as employees (vs contractors), and pay insurance, OT, and , unemployment insurance, employment taxes (which I'm betting it the real reason the state is now pushing this), etc, will the companies be able t

    • Will the end result of this (whether it's a state-sponsored money grab, or a sincere desire to look out for workers) be the end of Uber, Lyft, etc in Cali? Thus denying customers a valuable service?

      Short answer: no.

      Longer answer: maybe, and no. The truth is those companies are immensely profitable. They cook their books to make it look like they aren't, but they are. They take roughly 90-95% of what the consumer pays and only give 5-10% to the "contractor" doing 100% of the work. Overhead of operating an app, does not cost that much. Especially the low quality app that these companies run. Furthermore, the companies have said they have alternative strategies such as contracting out to fleet providers [slashdot.org].

  • One such pop-up only provides the opportunity for drivers to select "Yes on Prop. 22" or "OK," to exit, which pressures drivers to accept Uber's political stance, the complaint alleges.

    I note the touch of lawyers cleaning up this statement so they can't be sued for libeling Uber, perhaps by suggesting it was to make drivers fear for their jobs by clicking wrongly.

    In any case, assuming their statement as-is, it's simple political speech from the citizens who own Uber to the citizen workers using their apps.

    • Reading it again, it actually doesn't sound like coercion. If I was a driver and saw that popup, I would read "OK" as *eye roll* "OK". But low-key I would be worried that they would register it as dissent and give me fewer gigs. What's to stop them? Their algorithm is trade secret and it wouldn't be the first illegal thing encoded in their algorithm, and the attorneys general have failed to prosecute all the other illegal things they do, so...
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Annonce du Département de météorologie n 6 Le pussy888 / https://bit.ly/35C4u7G [bit.ly] typhon Molabe a touché du 28 au 30 octobre, 918kiss / https://bit.ly/34Ej8Mo [bit.ly] avertissant 31 provinces nx casino / https://bit.ly/37Pr93e [bit.ly] du nord-est, sud-est, pluies fortes à très fortes, certaines Annonce du Département météorologique "Typhoon" gclub / https://bit.ly/31THCzI [bit.ly] Molabe (Grade 5) (En vigueur du 28 au 30 octobre 2020) "Numéro 6 du 28 octobre 2020 @wowslot.net / ht [bit.ly]

"It might help if we ran the MBA's out of Washington." -- Admiral Grace Hopper

Working...