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.
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Even for a rightard, THAT is stupid
Re: (Score:2)
it is now f s b.
and one of the more chilling facts is that don the con loses.
he can run in 2024
Re: YAY COMMUNISM (Score:2)
Russia went to classical dictatorship with a veneer of fake elections while China went full fascist. Course the only differences between fascism and communism in practice given the lack of a post-scarcity society is the former is nationalistic and has 'private' businesses. Which are only private in the sense that the government doesn't get involved in the day to day production, they are still entirely beholden to do anything the government tells them.
Re: (Score:1)
A Capitalist government owns you every bit as much as a communist one.
The difference?
The Capitalist won't waste money on a bullet, he'll let you starve
Re: (Score:1)
It's TRUMP who has the secret bank account there!
The first amendment (Score:3)
As long as Uber does not put pressure on their drivers to vote a particular way, this suit will go nowhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The first amendment (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, NOPE. From what I've read, that was NOT what the court decided. HOWEVER, a biased hack working as a clerk wrote that in the summary, and *that's* what people have been basing it on ever since.
If companies are people, so Purdue Pharma should go to jail for all the opiod deaths? What part of it, the buildings? All of the stockholders?
And this falls under the heading of forced voting.
DO NOT TELL ME IT DOESN'T. AMERI-FUCKING-TECH and DICK-FUCKING-NOETEBART DID JUST THAT TO ME - IT WAS WRITE A LETTER TO MY C
Re: (Score:2)
It's been quite a bit longer than that. [wikipedia.org]
Prison for Corporations that are People (Score:2)
I'll believe Corporations are people and hence should enjoy the right of freedom of speech when all the executives of a corporation and board go to jail for the Corporation killing someone. If a Corporation is a person, then they should be held to the same criminal liability as a person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It does not have the right of "threatening their discharge" until they change their vote to what Uber likes.
That's the point of propaganda: And changing their app to suggest "Yes on Prop. 22", is applying pressure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
wrong. Uber has the right to terminate anyone they want. Don't like it, simply do not work there.
Wrong. Your employer can not force you to vote any particular way in order to maintain your employment. These types of tactics went out with vote stuffing in the 1880's.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The first amendment (Score:1)
Did you forget that the unions can and do tell people how to vote? They even got Ted Kennedy and others to create the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) which among other things eliminated the secret ballot. That way they could go after everyone who voted against forming a union. What you are saying sounds right, but in reality is only enforced or brought to light when the actions disagree with the view of the author or the government entity. If uber ran a massive vote for pelosi pop-up campaign, people would
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: The first amendment (Score:1)
The first amendment doesn't cover fraud and larceny , so fuck you, libtard.
it also doesn't cover other crimes such as death threats.
Re: (Score:2)
Please show proof that Uber uttered death threats, or committed fraud, or larceny. Even the people bringing suit aren't alleging such things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Don't allow Uber to bastardize the definition (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't allow Uber to bastardize the definition of Independant Contractor. Vote No on 22.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
There's about 100 legal levels to it, and moral ones as well. If you have about 2-3 hours I can explain it all to you. If you have no intention of thinking about that hard then please just do society a favor and vote No,
There are 20 factors under federal law. Applying those 20 factors to the Uber business model clearly results in the conclusion that their drivers are valid independent contractors. Why? Because they carefully designed their business model to comply with the existing rules. They went well out of their way to ensure compliance. California is most definitely moving the goalposts here. Uber built its business in full compliance with the law, and now they want to change the law specifically to destroy their bus
Re: (Score:2)
There are 20 factors under federal law. Applying those 20 factors to the Uber business model clearly results in the conclusion that their drivers are valid independent contractors.
I call bullshit. Because of your lawyer sig. If this is true, list all 20, and where are you getting the 20 from? Are you cherry-picking?
Re: (Score:2)
There are 20 factors under federal law. Applying those 20 factors to the Uber business model clearly results in the conclusion that their drivers are valid independent contractors.
I call bullshit. Because of your lawyer sig. If this is true, list all 20, and where are you getting the 20 from? Are you cherry-picking?
Seriously? Are so so lazy you can't even google it? This stuff isn't secret. Jesus, man. https://dsjcpa.com/the-irs-20-... [dsjcpa.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was careful when I said 100 levels, Propaganda to convince even lawyers to "look no further" is just one of those levels.
Funny how you didn;t explain at all how "the Uber business model clearly results in the conclusion that their drivers are valid independent contractors" for all 20 factors.
Way to prove your case...lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't do chess with pigeons, and especially not for free.
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, did you even read the 20 factors? They are employees because of these factors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 16, 18, and 19.
Re: (Score:2)
Not going to go through your whole list, but for item #1:
Instructions – workers who must comply with the business’ instructions as to when, where, and how they work are more likely to be employees than independent contractors.
Clearly Uber drivers have the freedom to turn the app on and off when they choose, to accept or reject riders when they choose, to take routes as they choose. They do not have to comply with "business instructions", such as a dress code or mandatory working hours or acceptable use policies. So based on this assessment, they are independent contractors, not employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Telling you that you have to do something (all jobs require you to do something) is not the same thing as "must comply with the business’ instructions as to when, where, and how they work". An example of the latter is "You must show up to work at <address> by 8a every day and must work a minimum 8 hours each day". And it's not just about getting paid, it is a requirement to stay employed. If you start taking off every Wednesday and only working 6 hour days, most companies will terminate you, eve
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that black-and-white. Read the last sentence "are more likely to be employees than independent contractors." It is a totality of the factors and not just yes for this factor no for that factor. It's more like "you might be a redneck".
Also, taking the Postmates example, it isn't just a certain time, it's that you have to work a whole block of time, for example 11am-2pm. They tell you that this is a "peak earnings guarantee", but it actually guarantees nothing. If you work during those hours, and sh
Re: (Score:2)
But again, one factor does not make you employee or contractor, it's all the factors together.
Certainly. I just picked the first point because the AC near the top of thread included it in a long list. I don't have the time or interest to go through the entire list of 20 points. You can if you wish and I would be happy to discuss them with you.
Also, taking the Postmates example, it isn't just a certain time, it's that you have to work a whole block of time, for example 11am-2pm.
I'm sorry but this is exactly the kind of thing lawyers argue about in court. There is a lot of nuance to the interpretation of your example, and it likely involves both legal precedent and employment law. My interpretation (IANAL) is that working a block of ti
Re: (Score:2)
No
Nothing else needs be said.
Re: (Score:1)
only substantiall intellectual work can be without control over what and how work is done.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They moved the goalposts. It's not fair. So what?
We already have a history in California of driving away businesses that we don't like for political or social reasons. We're infamous for it. This doesn't set a bad precedent, it re-enforces that the law adapts to serve the public, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't allow Uber to bastardize the definition (Score:5, Insightful)
California is most definitely moving the goalposts here.
So what if they are? That's literally the job of legislatures. There's a whole lot of worker protection stuff in law for very good reasons. Independent contractors have previously been exempt, because they typically enjoyed other advantages. If uber's business model is legal then they've found a way to legally abuse the independent contractor rules to avoid giving protections to people who are in a position that need them. So, it's the legislature's job to close off that avenue of abuse.
Uber built its business in full compliance with the law, and now they want to change the law specifically to destroy their business model.
If their business model is based on an unintended and unforeseen loophole in the law that causes a lot of people in jobs with no protections, then yes they want to destroy that loophole. If uber's business model is built entirely on a loophole and goes against the spirit of the law it was always likely the loophole would be closed. That's uber's problem for setting up such a precarious business.
This is problematic.
Not even slightly.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of the new wave of "tech" companies such as Uber, Lyft, Task Rabbit, Grub Hub, Air BnB, etc, aren't really tech companies. They don't really invent any significant new technology: for the most part they are just a database + and app + a payment platform, i.e. nothing novel. What they are at their core are platforms for evading labour laws and foisting equipment costs and risk onto employees while at the same time not having to pay benefits.
This is happening in places invisible to consumers as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Independent contractors have previously been exempt, because they typically enjoyed other advantages.
Such as what? Be more specific on the "advantages enjoyed by independent contractors" and then explain why Uber is exploiting a loophole. Not liking the fact that Uber doesn't offer full-time employment to drivers who want it is not a valid criticism.
Re: (Score:2)
So what if they are? That's literally the job of legislatures. There's a whole lot of worker protection stuff in law for very good reasons. Independent contractors have previously been exempt, because they typically enjoyed other advantages.
Even if I agreed with the gist of the proposition, which I do not, I would vote against. Using the proposition process to change laws like this is a long term nightmare which can make reasonable reforms much more difficult in the future, as the legislature will forever have to dance around the language locked into law by this proposition.
The legislature should do its job, and we Californians should see that Sacramento allows important businesses to be run properly. Whichever side of the line Uber falls, s
Re: Don't allow Uber to bastardize the definition (Score:5, Interesting)
Scab cabs and Uber should have been shut down immediately. But politicians didn't give a crap because they're in love with lax regulation by so-called regulators and their political masters.
Re: (Score:2)
For once Barbara, oh no wait, I always disagree with you...
They're scab labour, union-busters who now want the the same protections as regular cab drivers.
I don't think that's fair at all. Many Uber drivers are from the former legal framework. They're just trying to go where the work is. Getting fucked under framework A vs getting fucked over framework B, is still getting fucked.
But politicians didn't give a crap because they're in love with lax regulation by so-called regulators and their political masters.
So...if prop 22 passes then Uber are the de facto political masters. The regulators work for them. And anyone who wants to do business differently.... Maybe we can agree on something here.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because Uber stared out as a ride sharing program. Then it morphed into being a cab company without going through any of the legal hoops.
Re: (Score:2)
This is it. I worked for a transportation for 7 years during the rise of Uber. You wouldn't believe all the shit that goes into making a legal transportation company function. Uber and these others were straight up ignoring it and not getting punished. It's frustrating because you start wondering if maybe you should just start ignoring the law too and see if you get in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea does it suck not having insurance. but there is nothing to say they arent contractors. unless you can point that out.
Like many things, people have differing opinions about where to draw lines in definitions. The law is written to supply that line, from a legal standpoint. Ostensibly, the law is based upon what the lawmakers believe are fair guidelines for what does/doesn't qualify. In the end, you personally don't need to agree with the definition of contractor/employee they come up with. You just need to recognize the definition they're using and either accept it or work to have it changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a good summary [nolo.com] based on AB5 which went into effect at the beginning of the 2020 calendar year.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really extremely simple:
If you're doing something a few hours a week for multiple companies, you're probably an independent contractor.
If you're doing it 30+ hours a week for the same company, then you're an employee. And it's vital that we force them to admit that and provide benefits -- or other companies will contrive ways to declare everybody an independent contractor to escape all of their obligations to their employees.
Re: (Score:1)
they provider their own car, their own insurance, their own hours.
They are not allowed to choose any car they want. Uber maintains automobile liability insurance on behalf of all U.S. rideshare drivers while logged onto the Uber app, and they are only allowed to work when Uber says they can.
there is nothing to say they arent contractors.
You can still be an employee even if you are under contract and not paid hourly or yearly. They are employees because they can't hire their own employees to do the work on their behalf.
Prop 22 is a shitshow (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Will Uber/Lyft die? (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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].
H789 (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Annonce du Département de météorolo (Score:1)