Uber and Lyft Need To Make Drivers Employees, Appeals Court Rules (cnet.com) 88
An appeals court ruled Thursday evening that an injunction issued against Uber and Lyft over the status of their drivers was an appropriate measure. CNET reports: The injunction was issued in August by Judge Ethan Schulman of the San Francisco Superior Court, who ruled that the ride-hailing companies must start classifying their drivers as employees in the state. The judge allowed the companies 10 days to appeal the ruling, which they did. The First Appellate District court in San Francisco heard arguments from the companies last week and issued its ruling Thursday siding with Schulman. The appeals court said in its 74-page ruling that there was an "overwhelming likelihood" Uber and Lyft are violating California law AB5. That law requires some employers that use independent contractors to reclassify their workers as employees and provide more worker benefits.
The injunction stems from a lawsuit against Uber and Lyft filed by the state of California in May in conjunction with the city attorneys from San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. The suit says the companies "exploited hundreds of thousands of California workers" by classifying drivers as independent contractors and are violating AB5, which took effect in January. As this lawsuit works its way through the courts, Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies have sponsored a state ballot measure campaign with nearly $200 million to bring the issue to voters. Proposition 22 aims to create an exemption for the companies to AB5 and allow them to continue classifying their workers as independent contractors. The report notes that this latest appeals court ruling "won't have an immediate effect. The court gave the companies at least a 30-day stay without requiring any changes to driver status."
The injunction stems from a lawsuit against Uber and Lyft filed by the state of California in May in conjunction with the city attorneys from San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. The suit says the companies "exploited hundreds of thousands of California workers" by classifying drivers as independent contractors and are violating AB5, which took effect in January. As this lawsuit works its way through the courts, Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies have sponsored a state ballot measure campaign with nearly $200 million to bring the issue to voters. Proposition 22 aims to create an exemption for the companies to AB5 and allow them to continue classifying their workers as independent contractors. The report notes that this latest appeals court ruling "won't have an immediate effect. The court gave the companies at least a 30-day stay without requiring any changes to driver status."
If the numbers don't work (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If the numbers don't work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If the numbers don't work (Score:4, Informative)
uber / lift contribute to traffic congestion
https://usa.streetsblog.org/20... [streetsblog.org]
and increase green house gases
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
while the CEO makes $47M / year. It's a scam. For you to claim somehow it's bad that a ride costing you a couple bucks more while paying livable wages, benefits, attains driver certicitcations and traing, maintains their vehciles, and contributes to local tax bases is all horrible - just because you have to pay a couple bucks more. Your selfishness is deplorable
Re:If the numbers don't work (Score:5, Informative)
again, because they pay their workers real wages, benefits and don't require them to use their own vehicles.
Most taxi drivers in California are contractors, not employees. They do not receive benefits. Most taxi drivers either lease their cab from the dispatcher or own their own vehicle (leasing only the medallion).
California Gig-Worker law aimed at Uber may hit taxis instead [sfchronicle.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Ensuring that they also are paid at least minimum wage with benefits seem like a positive.
Re: If the numbers don't work (Score:2)
Will Uber/Lyft be able to control when and for how long a driver works? The companies can't afford to pay minimum wage to anyone willing to sit in their car and wait for a ride any time, day or night.
Personally it makes no difference to me - I've never used a ride share service, and I am unlikely to use one in the future. Gig economy ride share services could all go away tomorrow and I wouldn't miss them, but I do know there are lots and lots of people that need/feel they need the income these gig economy j
Re: (Score:2)
Will Uber/Lyft be able to control when and for how long a driver works?
Yes, an employer can do that.
Re:If the numbers don't work (Score:5, Insightful)
Even more importantly, Uber and Lyft have succeeded only because they skirted civil law on such a wide scale that enforcement was unable to keep up. They are clearly guilty of:
1) classifying drivers in a way that makes them money but was always considered grey and is now considered illegal
2) using drivers' cars allowing them to circumvent all the rules, regulations, insurance, liability, and sanitation requirements imposed by cities on taxis
3) for a long time seriously violated airport codes which have very specific rules regarding passenger pickup and drop off (and made revenue by charging taxis for the right of pickup) which took them years to catch wise to
4) skirted the liability when an accident happened, leaving the driver holding a bag of excrement because their private car insurance didn't cover commercial activity
On top of that they both have serious culture problems which are widely documented and none are profitable. Even on top of that, they're investing heavily in autonomous cars: they're going to eliminate drivers themselves because they have no path to profitability or sustainability with their current model. So all the drivers are going to get laid off anyways by these guys given their strategy, so might as well pull the band aid off now and hit these parasite companies before they can benefit from their strategy.
These companies are a blight on society. They should be smacked down and be dismantled.
Re: If the numbers don't work (Score:3)
Or you could just...not drive for Uber. Really if it's that bad, just don't do it. I'll be curious to see what happens to the homeless population in CA after Uber. Clearly since Uber is so bad, getting rid of it will decrease the homeless population.
Re: (Score:3)
If driving/not driving Uber was only affecting the drivers, that would have been a good idea, but it isn't. So, no, you could not.
Re: (Score:1)
I do not drive for any ride sharing. But I also refuse to use them completely on principle. I generally am in favor of the free market providing services like this, but I also believe in government's role to provide a fair playing field for all parties. In the case of ride sharing (and honestly eScooters are in this boat too), they have created so many problems for the cities they operate in beyond the driver situa
Re: (Score:3)
using drivers' cars allowing them to circumvent all the rules, regulations, insurance, liability, and sanitation requirements imposed by cities on taxis
Somehow every single Uber ride I had was much cleaner than regular taxi rides I have.
The main player here is that Uber requires cars to be not older than 5 years ("required" actually until recently, I noticed recently that some cars are older than that now) - that's a major factor in the cleanliness of the vehicle.
Lyft, on the other hand, is worse. By chanc
Re: (Score:2)
Why do "Somehow every single X that I" smell like astroturfing?
My experience with taxies is that they cars are white glove clean, as is almost all sectors where drivers are employed to move people cargo or very white boxes.
If its not, there is something very wrong with the infrastructure setup for taxis in that area. Most areas have them be vacuumed after each shift, and maybe even more cleaning if there has been spills. And to facilitate that, picking interiors that is as little textile as possible, since
Re: (Score:1)
But what if we want a cheap underclass to drive us around to our upscale millenial stores?!
Re: (Score:1)
but then ride costs become equal with REAL Taxi's (which is what this really is), which pays wages, benefits, local taxes and certifications and doesn't require your to live off the equity of your car.
In my state, no yellow cab taxi driver earns wages or has benefits from the company.
They are all independent contractors.
There is a huge difference though. They aren't just classified as contractors, they really are contractors.
Drivers set their own schedule, pay a fixed fee to dispatch per call/pickup, and there is no consequence for accepting/rejecting any particular dispatch sent to them.
There's no overtime either, and number of hours aren't dictated.
The state has a cap on that however. Similar to the
Re: (Score:2)
Taxi's (which is what this really is), which pays wages, benefits, local taxes and certifications and doesn't require your to live off the equity of your car.
Part about benefits is not true, basic internet search shows that: this for example
https://www.huffpost.com/entry... [huffpost.com]
It has been a battle, not unlike a battle of Uber drivers.
Capacity: Demand - Supply (Score:2)
Retroactive? (Score:2)
What happens when Uber and Lift lose the final appeal? Will all drivers become employees as of Jan 1, 2020? And be owed full benefits for the period between Jan 1, 2020 and when the final is lost?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The higher federals courts – including Supreme Court - have been stacked by the corporatists.
This is about a Californa law, so the federal courts have no jurisdiction.
The only way the feds would get involved is if Uber and Lyft could make a plausible argument that the Calfornia law violates federal law, and that is very unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
So if they lose the appeal and drivers are employees then the court will switch to deciding if retroactive pay and benefits are needed and to when.
Re: (Score:1)
I think if Uber and Lyft lose all of their appeals and lose on the ballot initiative, then you could see the app start opening a popup saying:
"This service is no longer offered in this area. Click this link for for information."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Prop 22 [ballotpedia.org] will likely moot the entire case.
Prop-22 is a toss-up. The polls are very close.
I live in California and will vote for it. If you don't like gig work then don't do it, but it works well for others. Gigs shouldn't be outlawed.
Re: Killed by Amy Coney Barrett (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Killed by Amy Coney Barrett (Score:4, Insightful)
Statistics on siding with 'side of corporations' is interesting but says nothing, except to prejudice people one way or another. What is more relevant is how often she or any judge follows the WRITTEN law vice what is best or someone's personal opinion. What is also relevant is how many time a judge's decision is overruled vs upheld, but only in relation to following the law and precedent, not setting new precedent.
Re:Killed by Amy Coney Barrett (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Killed by Amy Coney Barrett (Score:5, Informative)
ACB is far more likely to follow the Constitution than RGB would have.
Cars didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written.
And slavery was legal. And women couldn't vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, only property owners could vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily. All SCOTUS judges are unknown quantities until they actually vote for a few times. Most of them in the last 50 years have had a bit of a surprise now and then. Roberts has become more moderate which surprised many, and even the resent Gorsuch voted opposite of what the government had wanted in a chase. These sorts of things happen when you tell someone "you can only be removed from office after an impeachment trial, and you no longer have to appeal to special interests of biannual electi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Killed by Amy Coney Barrett (Score:4, Insightful)
Packing the court is a terrible idea. I'm voting against Trump anyway, but it would be stupid, unwise, and cause so many problems down the road. The supreme court is not a third house of the legislature, it is there solely to resolve disputes and manage the operations of federal courts across the country.
Remember, whichever faction wins will eventually lose again. When a nuclear option is used to obtain a short term goal, then in a few years the other side gets to use the same weaponry. You pack the court now with a couple more judges just to get a ruling you like, then in 5 or 10 years the other side will add 2 more judges of their own, and so on.
If you want laws to be upheld by the courts, then tell your representatives to write them in a clear and unambiguous manner, written to pass constitutional muster, and get a constitutional amendment passed in preference to ignoring it. And while at it, ask congress reduce the power of the presidency instead of continually deferring to it to the point that the executive can rule by decree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Killed by Amy Coney Barrett (Score:4, Insightful)
"Deferring to congress" is a problem itself. The whole issue is that no case shows up to the supreme court unless it is already a complex issue that is not easily resolved; there is a dispute, there is more than one way to understand what is written, the law does not cover a subtlety, two lower courts have disagreed with each other, etc. The letter of the law is vague and unclear, and congress wants it that way. The courts are arbitrators here. If the letter of the law was clear and unambiguous then everything would be resolved with a summary judgement.
On the other hand, some things are clear, like the ACA (obamacare) where congress passed it unambiguously and they knew what they were voting on. If the court defers to congress then the ACA will be upheld.
Re: Killed by Amy Coney Barrett (Score:2)
That's cute, blame the courts because congress/senate fail to pass laws that work the way you think they should.
Democrats wrote laws to please corporate donors, then relied on 5 justices to "do the right thing" when their laws bump up against voter expectations.
If you want different court outcomes, write different laws.
and will uber fix the time clock leading to new la (Score:2)
and will uber fix the time clock leading to new lawsuit.
Say uber only pays when an ride is in the car vs paying for pick up time , waiting time, time that they forced drivers to sign up for open shifts?
Re: (Score:2)
and will uber fix the time clock leading to new lawsuit. Say uber only pays when an ride is in the car vs paying for pick up time , waiting time, time that they forced drivers to sign up for open shifts?
I think they would go in the other direction- make their business practices more aligned with a true contractor system. That would include:
Not dictating what worker does and how the worker does his or her job
Changing how the worker is paid (possibly by having or offering 3rd party payment processing) and ceding control of other financial aspects of the contractor's business
And probably a couple others.
Uber in those states would basically become a sales agent for the contractors, who more or less do bu
Re: (Score:2)
and they should change the app name to gypsy cab
There's a legal way around that (Score:2)
If it becomes a really big problem, there's a legal way around that. It's called a Constitutional amendment. It's a high hurdle, requiring 75% of the states (38 states), but it's the legal way. I doubt this will be the chosen method though. For decades, we've been sitting there and taking some pretty ridiculous things, and failing to avail ourselves of legal means. When the problems have been "solved", it's been by taking the easy way out:
Drugs? No need for Prohibition amendments to start a drug war.
The trouble with a Constitutional amendment (Score:2)
Again, elections have consequen
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately gig app companies aren't giving that option
They sort of do. Want to be an independent contractor? Then drive for us. Want to be an employee? Here's the phone number of Yellow Cab's HR department.
Moot point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CA doesn't like you to work for yourself
No governments like that. There are too many advantages to being a sole proprietorship/independent contractor that were originally created to benefit Big Business. No fair you little guys finding a smart accountant and taking advantage of them yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like Californians are going to pass Prop 22. So, gig workers will never have the opportunity to work as contractors because it will be illegal to make an app that does that, and all future apps will have to use Uber's business model instead.
FTFY.
California prop will also insist... (Score:3)
California prop 22 will also make it so uber/lyft have to consider their employees w2 earners.
I expect uber to leave most markets in California altogether. I can't say that bothers me, but I'm not much of a taxi consumer nor do I drive one. I feel bad for some people that do it on the side for pocket change or as an easy no commitment kind of job to do. The people doing this as their main gig hopefully will get a full time job out of this but it still a terrible option.
I think most would be better off working at Target/Walmart or a grocery store. The shifts aren't always fun and you work weekends and holidays, but it's an essential job. Amazon warehouse is another option.
Uber and Lyft are unlicensed taxi cab companies that as far as I know still haven't turned a quarterly profit. They just keep getting investment money given to them because surely once the driveless car thing gets here they will be in perfect position to dominate. Or so they hope. I can't say I feel bad for this company in the least. They need to be governed a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect that the confusion over the effects of the proposition has been sewn to get people to vote opposite their best interests. And then if the measure passes, there will be a court challenge based on the fact that the voters were confused and didn't know what they were voting for.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't say that bothers me, but I'm not much of a taxi consumer nor do I drive one. I feel bad for some people that do it on the side for pocket change or as an easy no commitment kind of job to do. The people doing this as their main gig hopefully will get a full time job out of this but it still a terrible option.
At the risk of offense, that attitude bothers me. It sounds like you're not a driver, never have been one, and have little direct experience as either a driver or passenger. And yet you're making judgement calls about what's best for all the people actually involved in that market.
I humbly suggest all of us who are not passengers, drivers, or working for the ride share companies themselves just butt out. Fer cryin' out loud, let the people involved make the decisions about whether this is a terrible option
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I think he's just saying it how it is. You can't possibly think it's better to pay people less and less and less until they have to work for almost nothing.
As the consumer, yes I can. Or I might decide to pay more for a product because I sleep better at night knowing my producers are well compensated.
As the employer, maybe, maybe not. Perhaps paying more for higher quality drivers makes for a better ride experience and thus turns out to be profit-maximizing. Maybe it doesn't. Beats me. We have lots of cost-cutting discount products which compete with luxury brands so there's no one answer which works everywhere.
As the driver, maybe, maybe not. Fewer higher pay
Re: (Score:2)
And let's get down to the real motives behind AB5 and Prop 22. It was a blatant attempt by some trade unions to put the squeeze on their competitors. They wanted to unionize drivers so they could get more union dues.
True.
I also firmly believe free markets and competition prevent what you fear.
Same.
Here's my question to you: These companies treat their workers terribly, rip them off, rip off the customers, and in the case of food delivery, ALSO rip off the restaurants. It is also true that free markets require both parties to have the same information. These companies keep all of their market data secret. They keep secret from the drivers where the real demand is. They keep secret from the restaurants all of the sales data, consumer feedback, etc. In this situation, all it would take is one
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So... the answer is that workers aren't participating in a 'free market'.
If you parse more carefully, I was explaining how none of the participants have a free market. The drivers don't know where the demand is, they are often lied to about it with bogus "heat maps" that even in a perfect ideal case, only give absolute demand and not demand vs supply, which is the only metric that would be useful to the driver. They are also not given access to their ratings, or any complaints, or any other data whatsoever, that as a true independent contractor they would have access to. If they
We have a proposition on that (22?) (Score:2)
That said, if you want to be independent who is the government to tell you you can't? I assume you have at least half the brains of Lorena Gonzales (not a h
They are contractors and they get paid well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More options is always better.
Then don't pass Prop 22. It makes Uber's business model the only legal business model. You won't be able to make an app that treats workers more fairly, or more like independent contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
Contract vs Employee is about degree of control. Do you set your own hours, provide your own tools, don't work in a company property - Contractor. Work 9 to 5 for a single day at a government job on a government computer at a government office - Employee.
There are other tests which Uber fails miserably, which is the whole point of the court case. If Uber really wants to call their driver's independent contractors, they need to not be dictating what each worker does and how the worker does his or her job. They also probably need to change how the worker is paid (possibly by having or offering 3rd party payment processing) and cede control of other financial aspects of the contractor's business. Their level of control over the drivers work and the method a
Decentralization (Score:2)
This may be good for traditional private car services and the decentralized ridesharing alternatives, e.g.:
arcade.city
swarm.city
Cell411
What if... (Score:2)
-- Allowed drivers to work for any company including mine.
-- Allowed drivers and passengers to bid for pricing, and I had no control.
-- I had no control over the type of car the driver drove.
-- I had no control over the hours that the driver worked.
-- I only took a flat 5% of the overall driver/passenger negotiated fee and the driver got the rest (including all tips).
-- I added every other possible degree of freedom for the drivers (that anyone could think
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. That would be 100% legal. If Prop 22 passes, it will become illegal.
Incorrect. Prop 22 is heavilly funded by the ridesharing companies and does the opposite- it considers all drivers for phone apps independent contractors regardless of how the app company exerts control and processes payments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
regardless of how the app company exerts control and processes payments.
I think your misunderstanding stems from this part. Prop 22 also requires that you exert control and process payments the way that Uber currently does.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you keep refining your model, you'll find a place where you finally end up on the other side of the "contractor" line. That's what these companies do -- they tweak the work conditions for their workers until they have as many of the advantages of having employees as possible, without being on the radar of labor regulators.
Some of the things they do are transparent dodges. I had to spend several months in Chicago last year, and used ride shares extensively. Talking to the drivers, I soon realize
Re: (Score:2)
The fiction here is that the leasing transaction and the ride payment are two completely unrelated things.
That is one of the so frustrating things about what these companies are doing. In that situation they pretend the transactions are different, but when it comes to the fare, they collect a fare and make a separate transaction to pay the worker (employ them), and maintain the fiction that it is a facilitated single transaction (network provider). They love having their cake and eating it too.
Re: What if... (Score:2)
I suspect the 2.5x lease payment you describe includes scheduled maintenance and comprehensive auto insurance, it's not just the car itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Prop 22 is heavily funded by the ridesharing companies and would classify such persons as independent contractors regardless of how the companies treated them.
I don't understand how this works! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Confused much?
Prop 22 asks for an exemption from current law which says Uber/Lyft drivers are employees and must be taxed as such. Uber/Lyft treated drivers as independent contractors. State stepped in and said "Nope". They are employees and a court case ensued. In the meantime, Uber/Lyft sponsored this initiative to carve out an exception and allow the independent contractor status.
I predict that your confusion (and others) will be used as grounds by the state to challenge a possible success of the propo
Re: (Score:2)
So I got the part where it's asking for an exception from current laws. But I'm still more confused.
If current laws mandate that drivers are employees, not contractors, then how come all current drivers are contractors?
Follow the money (Score:2)
The only reason the state is bitching about this is because they ultimately believe it's costing them money or possibly power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason the state is bitching about this is because they ultimately believe it's costing them money or possibly power.
I am going to be a bit more generous about political motives here. There is such a thing as protecting workers' rights and individual freedoms, and people across the political spectrum would tend to support those principles. I am not sure where Uber and Lyft figure in this, but I suspect that a major problem is drivers being treated as employees, without getting employee benefits.
I do not think anybody objects to self-employed taxi drivers, who operate under the badge of a local firm that gets them work. I
Where is the drug testing? (Score:2)
Put them out of business completely.
Require routine drug testing on all their drivers.