US Court Rules Uber and Lyft Workers Are Contractors (bbc.com) 95
A US court has ruled (PDF) that "gig" economy giants including Uber and Lyft can continue treating their workers as independent contractors in the state of California. The BBC reports: The California appeals court found that a labor measure, known as Proposition 22, was largely constitutional. Labour groups and some workers had opposed the measure, saying it robbed them of rights like sick leave. The firms say the proposition protects other benefits such as flexibility.
The latest ruling overturns a decision made by a lower court in California in 2021, which found that Proposition 22 affected lawmakers' powers to set standards at the workplace. The state of California and a group representing Uber, Lyft and other firms appealed against the decision. On Monday, a three-judge panel at the appeals court ruled that workers could be treated as independent contractors. However it removed a clause, which put restrictions on collective bargaining by workers, from Proposition 22.
The latest ruling overturns a decision made by a lower court in California in 2021, which found that Proposition 22 affected lawmakers' powers to set standards at the workplace. The state of California and a group representing Uber, Lyft and other firms appealed against the decision. On Monday, a three-judge panel at the appeals court ruled that workers could be treated as independent contractors. However it removed a clause, which put restrictions on collective bargaining by workers, from Proposition 22.
Reasonable ruling (Score:3)
What were the arguments for being treated as employees?
Re:Reasonable ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
This ruling is the result of decades of Court packing. This kind of Labor used to be called piece work and it was banned ages ago. It's a way to get around labor law protection. Nothing more nothing less
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The IRS is seriously underfunded, and can't mount the legal attack and audits required.
Rich people are no longer audited because no staff can be spared for years to mount the case.
Re: (Score:1)
Rich people are no longer audited because no staff can be spared for years to mount the case.
OK, but why does it take years? Just legal shenanigans, one bullshit argument after another? Would it fix that if the IRS could sue for the costs of their employees' time when someone opposes an audit and turns out to be in violation?
Re: (Score:1)
No. Because the IRS is (and can be) bought off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And it's wonderful to see people so aggressively denying reality...
Re:Reasonable ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
If by "hostile to gig work" you mean "against abusive labor practices" then, yes.
They want big labor unions working for big corporations
Um... Labor unions don't work for "big corporations".
There's just too much nonsense here for me to even begin. Keep licking that boot.
Re:Reasonable ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
The IRS rules don't work that way. There are ~20 criteria, and there is no official cutoff. You listed some that Uber & Lyft don't meet, but left out many other criteria that they pass, such as allowing workers to choose their own hours, paying them based on production rather than time, not requiring uniforms, workers using their own equipment, allowing them to work for others (many workers drive for both Uber and Lyft), etc.
Being an employee is not "better" than being a contractor, just different. Gig work mostly fits with contracting. Trying to wedge it into employment law doesn't work very well for either the companies or the workers.
The best solution would be to create a new 3rd category of worker, with more protections while retaining flexibility. But until that happens, this is a good ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
The variety of rules rather than specific rules leave the decisions in the hands of a bureaucracy which needs to be courted yearly, and helps bulk out the IRS with bureaucrats to handle complex cases rather than, say, enforce anything consistently. It also empowers employers who can afford lawyers rather than employees who cannot.
For low level work like taxi cab service (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't "get" unemployment insurance. Your employer buys you unemployment insurance. It's an important distinction, because that's money that could have been going to your pocket. I choose to be a contractor because I don't want my employer deciding how much personal leave I get, or how much of my paycheck goes to "training" or "401k match" or "whatever they personally decide is most important for me". They give me a
Re:Reasonable ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
They are independent contractors. They bring their own tools (cars), they set their own hours, they can accept or deny jobs.
California is a very liberal state, but voted for this bill with an 18 point margin. This wasn't the result of advertising or people being misinformed. AB5 (the bill that Prop 22 partly overturned) has been disastrous for part time workers in the state, effectively gutting the entire freelance journalist profession in the state. My only real issue with Prop 22 was that it was clearly a sweetheart deal for rideshare companies and didn't just overturn AB5 and return to the status quo ante bellum, so to speak.
They don't bring their own tools (Score:2)
As for their own hours, if you're only on during profitable times they'll eventually cut you off. Much like a boss would if you were avoiding work.
California voted the bill down after a half billion+ advertising campaign (and that's just what Uber alone spent). They confused everyone, especially the drivers. It just goes to show tha
Re: (Score:3)
As for their own hours, if you're only on during profitable times they'll eventually cut you off. Much like a boss would if you were avoiding work.
Lots of companies bring in contractors to do repairs, and it is common to dictate the hours. If the manufacturing department is looking for a contractor to to clean the building, they have to do it between 6pm and 8am when the plant is closed. But when they contract for repairs, they probably have an SLA requiring response within 1 hour, between 8am and 5pm.
This is why there's not just a single criteria for determining the difference between a contractor and an employee, there are many. But the most insi
Re: (Score:2)
These companies spent a fortune fighting prop 22. https://www.latimes.com/califo... [latimes.com] You think they spent that sum for the benefit of their “contractors”?
Affect in Canada (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
California has fairly rules on split shifts, as well, though they're not as generous as they might be.
Re:Reasonable ruling (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't that the equivalent of if I call a plumber and he refuses to come by, I find one who is willing to show up? How does he become my employee suddenly?
Re: (Score:2)
On Lyft and Uber etc. you are not "calling a driver", you ask the company behind it to sent one.
So: from a user point of view they are certainly unnamed employees of said company.
Of course, there might be plumping companies so big that you call "Plumping Masters & Sons" and they sent a random guy to you, as well.
Re: (Score:1)
If I (as an employee) were to start doing work for a competitor while I was on the clock, my employer would be less that happy (as in "Your fired; the guards here will escort you out of the building).
Re: (Score:2)
Is it common for a Lyft/Uber driver to pick up a passenger from the other app before dropping off their current passenger? Sounds like that would result in poor ratings.
Re: (Score:2)
This ruling is the result of decades of Court packing.
Don't worry: give the shills a few hours and they'll come up with some argument along the lines of how it's really just the court respecting the rights of Californians to self-govern. :P
Re: (Score:1)
This ruling is the result of decades of Court packing.
You keep using that phrase [wikipedia.org]. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The ideological makeup of the Court has been mostly balanced, with swings in both directions over time.
Re: (Score:3)
Not in California. "Both directions" in California politics are so far to the left they can't even see the center. It's been that way for decades.
Re: (Score:3)
This ruling is the result of decades of Court packing.
Don't worry: give the shills a few hours and they'll come up with some argument along the lines of how it's really just the court respecting the rights of Californians to self-govern. :P
Don't need to wait that long. That's pretty much what this US Court used to decide this case.
State of California was trying to pick & choose which winning ballot propositions they wanted to follow and which ones they wanted to ignore. Court said, "Nope. Doesn't work that way. If the people vote FOR IT then you have to follow/obey it."
After all, the State has followed "Prop 13" for decades now even though it is now having serious effects on local government funding.
Re:Reasonable ruling (Score:4, Informative)
In a landmark decision issued in October of 2022, the Employment Court of New Zealand has held that four Uber drivers were employees, not independent contractors. "In relation to the four Uber drivers, the Employment Court said that they were subject to very effective direction and control exercised by Uber in a subtle way, including via the rating system, the incentive scheme, prompts, “encouragements”, a warning system, the disciplinary system and deactivation. The Uber drivers were not in business for themselves, they had no ability to set their own rates, market themselves or to contact their customers. The only way they could increase their earnings or profits was to work longer hours. The flexibility and choice the drivers had was not exclusive to a contractor relationship"
Re: Reasonable ruling (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Reasonable ruling (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Piece work is generally still allowed in most of the country. The only stipulation is that you can't end up paying less than minimum wage.
This typically works out well for both parties, and is very common in the construction industry. The workers can knock the job out and either move on to another job (maximizing their earnings) or just go home without having to work as much if there is no other work waiting. The employer gets things done quicker without the risk of people dragging their feet because the
Re:Reasonable ruling (Score:5, Interesting)
Because it doesn't pass the IRS test.
"IRS" test? I don't think I've heard of that. I have heard of the ABC test [ca.gov], which was enshrined in law in the infamous AB5 statute.
To be a contractor, you needed to pass all three criteria. Lyft and Uber, rightly in my view, claim their drivers do meet all three criteria. Test B raises some contention: are ride sharing companies in the transportation business? They say not: they're in the business of connecting independent drivers with riders.
Anyway, in this case, the state passed a law with the intent of making drivers employees and the ride share companies shot back by betting an initiative passed overriding the legislature and saying, "no, they're not". All the court is saying is "yup, that's a legal initiative so it's now the law in California". I don't think it's the court's role to say whether the proposition was a good idea or not, We pass lots of propositions which are terrible ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
For One thing if you turn down on profitable rides Uber will fire you.
So? If my local handyman/contractor isn't willing to take my small jobs, I'm not going to hire him when I have a big job either - I'll work with the one that will take either one.
your local handyman/contractor sets rates (Score:2)
your local handyman/contractor sets rates.
Uber can send on an 50 mile one way trip out of your core zone to an area with low rides so you lose $$ to get back to your core area
Re: (Score:2)
your local handyman/contractor sets rates.
Sort of... I can also say I'll pay $100 for this job, take it or leave it - and he can decide whether to do it. Which is how Uber works.
Re: (Score:3)
For One thing if you turn down on profitable rides Uber will fire you.
So? If my local handyman/contractor isn't willing to take my small jobs, I'm not going to hire him when I have a big job either - I'll work with the one that will take either one.
First, let's correct the typo (later admitted and corrected by the OP in a followup). Uber will fire the driver for turning down UN-profitable rides.
That is: Uber often assigns a driver a ride on which he is guaranteed to lose money. Uber will get paid and profit, the driver will lose money. The driver cannot negotiate and will simply be fired ("deactivated from the platform").
For example. Uber knows the driver is 10 miles away from you. The driver will, at their own expense entirely, be required to go thos
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing about being "friable" that is specific to employees. If you hire a plumbing contractor multiple times, and you are ultimately not happy with their work, you can absolutely "fire" them.
If Uber and Lyft drivers aren't contractors, I don't know how anyone can be considered a contractor. Drivers can get jobs through both companies, they can choose to take or leave jobs based on whether they want to do them, they use their own equipment, they choose their own hours. I don't get how they can be c
Re: (Score:2)
News flash, if you're an independent contractor that a company feels they can't count on to do the jobs they want you to do, they won't keep trying to contract you anymore either.
Also, if you want to charge more than the company you are contracting for wants to pay you, they have every right to also refuse to take you on.
So, uh.... no.
Re: (Score:2)
What were the arguments for being treated as employees?
Well, using the construction industry as an example, being a contractor requires being licensed, bonded and insured. If your employer provides those things under their corporate umbrella, then guess what - you're an employee.
Also, usually being an independent contractor means the burden of finding clients falls upon you (advertising/word-of-mouth/etc.). If the company you're working for does that for you, again - you're an employee.
But we seem to be living in the timeline where courts just go with their g
Re:Reasonable ruling (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, usually being an independent contractor means the burden of finding clients falls upon you (advertising/word-of-mouth/etc.). If the company you're working for does that for you, again - you're an employee.
Nitpick: A lot of the cable installers in my area are contractors, and the cable company refers customers to them, they also pay the contractors.
Also, remember that contractors/companies can hire advertising companies to try to find leads for them. So it isn't a sure sign.
Well, using the construction industry as an example, being a contractor requires being licensed, bonded and insured. If your employer provides those things under their corporate umbrella, then guess what - you're an employee.
The tests are a lot more complex than just that. It's more of a "preponderance of the evidence" thing. For example, not all fields require all three. Bonding and insurance can often replace each other, for example. As a note, my brother should absolutely have been an employee in one of his previous jobs, but was treated as an independent contractor.
The IRS has a guide:
https://www.irs.gov/businesses... [irs.gov]
Some tests, and it's generally "majority rules"
How are you paid? Employee: Hourly/Salary, Contractor: By the job.
Can you set your own hours: Yes is sign of Contractor.
Do you provide your own equipment: Yes is sign of contractor
Are you told how to do your job: Yes is sign of employee. Note: "how to do job" can still be stuff like "must be to code" and still be for a contractor. This is like how a homeowner can hire a plumber/electrician and expect the work "to be code". IE meets quality standards.
Required to wear a uniform: Employee
Can't work for others: Employee. This can be complicated: An employee may be able to work for others, but it must be done during "non-company" time. IE the company owns the employee during those hours. My mom was an accountant. If she wasn't working for a firm, but had a dozen clients, who she'd shift between as documents became available, she had time, wasn't otherwise blocked, etc... Even if she bills them hourly, she's still a contractor.
As a note, when this stuff about treating Uber drivers as employees came up, I looked further into it, and one of the discoveries is that a LOT of taxi drivers are treated as independent contractors - even though they're required to rent(IE they have to pay for it) a taxi from their dispatch company, have assigned hours(because that's when the medallion and taxi is available), etc... They're actually more employee-like than Uber.
So, Uber test, going by the average driver(I know that some drivers were more controlled, and thus some of them did get employee status):
1. Paid by the job. Contractor
2. Provide own equipment: Contractor (even if there are some rules on what cars qualify)
3. Told how to do job: Other than the 'task' and stuff like 'drive safe and follow traffic laws', not really: Contractor
4. Allowed to set own hours: Contractor
5. Allowed to refuse jobs, at least some: Contractor (note: I know they can't refuse too many, but you're also allowed to not keep calling contractors who decline your jobs too often).
6. Provided insurance: Employee
7. Allowed to work for other companies: I've heard that many drivers will have 2-3 phones and run Uber, Lyft, and whatever else on them. Contractor.
From form ss-8
Contractor: Premises: out in the public, not at Uber offices., pay type: piece work, no worker comp, liable for any damage they cause/receive, relationship can be terminated by either party without penalty/liability(IE they can just shut down the uber app and not sign in anymore), can perform similar services during time period, doesn't get vacation, personal days, holidays, etc... Driver determines territory(just less work if t
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that the IRS is just concerned with your federal tax liabilities, whereas your state's department of business and professional regulation (I'm going by Florida's term here, but each state should have something similar) handles licensing.
If Uber drivers are contractors, then states where taxi service is a licensed industry have a massive unlicensed taxi driver issue.
If Uber drivers are employees, then Uber is required to handle the the licensing side of things.
They've been operating in a le
Uber drivers are employees then need to cover all (Score:2)
Uber drivers are employees then need to cover all costs.
How will things work if Uber needs to pay for some one to return after an long trip back to to there core zone?
And that can happen was at ORD at midnight and someone was trying to get an cab to green bay wisconsin in the cab line.
Re: (Score:2)
The court goes with what the accuser and the defender are arguing in court.
They don't have the ability/power to just make a random ruling.
If the defender in this case simply brought up good arguments which the accuser could not make void, of course the ruling goes with the defender.
Re: (Score:2)
The court goes with what the accuser and the defender are arguing in court....If the defender in this case simply brought up good arguments which the accuser could not make void, of course the ruling goes with the defender.
All true and I still find this weird at times. I can imagine being a judge or jury member and internally screaming "but you're ignoring this giant issue over here!"
But that's how the system works: you decide the case based on what's said in court. Judges and juries are not investigators.
Not being a lawyer, I've got a question. At the appeals level are judges allowed to do their own case law research? Or do they only consider cases brought up by the two sides? I thought that's why judges have legal staff, to
Re: (Score:2)
actor or model if union may be under an hiring hal (Score:2)
actor or model if union may be under an hiring hall
Re: (Score:2)
Well, using the construction industry as an example, being a contractor requires being licensed, bonded and insured. If your employer provides those things under their corporate umbrella, then guess what - you're an employee.
Also, usually being an independent contractor means the burden of finding clients falls upon you (advertising/word-of-mouth/etc.). If the company you're working for does that for you, again - you're an employee.
But we seem to be living in the timeline where courts just go with their gut rather than what makes logical sense, so...
How is going with your gut different from "makes sense to me?" What I want courts going by is statues and case law, not their guts and not what they think ought to be.
Backing up to your examples, I'm not sure there are statues or regulations which say you I can't get a bond and use that to cover contractors I contract with. And as others have pointed out, there are many, many cases where a company will steer business to contractors without them being employees (e.g. we just bought a bunch of appliances and
Re: (Score:2)
On slashdot, I'd guess there are quite a few contract software developers who hang out here. These developers don't need to be licensed or bonded. So sure, there are some contract roles that require these things, but it's certainly not an intrinsic characteristic of being a contractor.
Re: (Score:2)
The same arguments used in every other country where the ruling has affirmed that the employees are in fact employees. I am a contractor. Someone working for Uber and Lyft do not have even remotely the ability and freedoms to define their contracts themselves. Heck I'd argue you as a full time employee have more freedom to define your working conditions at the time of employment.
Re:Reasonable ruling (Score:4, Insightful)
The same arguments used in every other country where the ruling has affirmed that the employees are in fact employees.
Which is entirely irrelevant since we're talking about a case in California. Shoot, what other states decide is irrelevant.
I am a contractor. Someone working for Uber and Lyft do not have even remotely the ability and freedoms to define their contracts themselves.
This is where we get into the weeds. As a driver, I get the very important decision of whether I want to work or not. That's kind of a big deal: as an employee, I can't just decide I'm not working today, I have to get my boss to approve it. Drivers get to say what kind of vehicle they'll be using with what amenities. For that matter, drivers provide the vehicle, not the ride sharing company. All of that sounds a lot like a contractor.
On the other hand, my understanding is Lyft and Uber have all sorts of restrictions on what rides you can accept and decline. I don't know L/U are demanding you take any given ride, you have a choice but that choice has consequences (don't accept this ride and you may not get any future ones). I'm OK with that, it seems reasonable to me that L/U need a way to incentivize/force drivers to take less desirable rides (although using pricing seems a more reasonable approach). Anyway, I don't see you or I have any say in how L/U decides whether to keep working with a given driver.
Finally, there's pricing. It also sounds like drivers have no say in pricing or how much they'll get paid for any given ride. That sounds closer to an employee to me. I don't know if there are other cases where someone steers business to a contractor but sets the job price for them.
I think we're losing the forest for the trees. The real issue is whether we want to use labor law to force companies to offer certain benefits by forbidding alternative labor arrangements. I think that's a flawed approach on practical and ethical grounds. Ethically, by what right do you tell me what jobs and compensation I can and cannot accept? If the terms you think are best are so good, why do my employer and I not already agree to them? And practically, it leads to all sorts of evasive and distortive behavior. And it precludes workers and employers discovering new and mutually beneficial work arrangements. Maybe some drivers would like to be semi-employees, with the flexibility to choose their hours but a guaranteed wage per hour. Current law doesn't allow this.
We've debated his on /. a zillion times. I don't expect to convince you or anyone else. Honestly, I'm not sure what arguments you could make which would convince me either.
Since one do contractors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't work with Uber. It's only slavery if they kidnapped you off the street and made you give rides to people. There is no "contract" in slavery, because you were fucking captured off the street and can get shot if you try to escape. If you willingly oblige to someone's needs for nothing in return that's some BDSM level shit. Or marriage.
Re: (Score:2)
One important feature of slavery, is that you can't choose to leave your "employer." This is certainly not true of Uber and Lyft. Nobody forces drivers to stay with these companies.
Another important feature of slavery is...lack of pay. Uber and Lyft drivers may not get paid much, but they do get paid.
I'm not saying these are "good" jobs, but I don't think they quite fit the definition of slavery.
slavery (Score:1)
'nuff said
Can't there be a third option? (Score:1)
It seems obvious to me that gig workers aren't really employees, and it's also obvious that they aren't fully independent contractors either. Why are the courts, lawmakers, the workers themselves, the companies... ALL of them, constantly trying to declare that gig workers are one or the other? Why isn't it possible to have a third option? Nobody seems to even throw the idea out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Why isn't it possible to have a third option?
Because the issues are not some theoretical, imaginary concepts that need to be sorted and pigeonholed due to somebody's OCD - it's about actual people, demanding actual protections and benefits for actual work they are doing from actual companies.
And guess what? Actual companies don't want to provide those actual protections and benefits on account of the fact that doing that would make exploitation of labor of said actual people more difficult and less profitable for said companies.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't disagree though...Here in NL we have contractors who might fit the legal definition but are basically just employees with their rights taken away. And there are independent contractors (notably in IT) who do not meet the legal definition, stick w
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the UK, we lead the world in destroying industries in an attempt to classify people as one thing or another. No one will admit it, but it's having a dramatic effect on our national economic growth - the flexible workforce and specialist skills that contractors bring are exactly what you need to innovate your way out of economic trouble, but right now, that whole sector is dramatically depressed, with a lot of specialists moving abroad (never to return, probably), and others choosing early retirement
Re: (Score:2)
Why are the courts, lawmakers, the workers themselves, the companies... ALL of them, constantly trying to declare that gig workers are one or the other?
Because the laws are written assuming you're one or the other, and there are important tax and regulation implications depending on which side you fall under.
There's also some incentives out there to make lower level workers employees, because it's easier to manage their shit, taxes and such, than with independent contractors who have much more complicated taxes. Especially for lower level workers, getting their tax money in on a schedules Uncle Sam likes is harder(IE compliance is lower) when they're cont
Re: (Score:2)
The terms of their employment make it impractical to do other work while they're doing that work, which is what really makes them not contractors — all the other criteria only serve to prove that. There is no need for a third option. They are employees.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you need to tell that to the many Uber/Lyft drivers that have at least 2 phones set up and are monitoring both at the same time...switching between which rides they take back and forth..
I've been an Uber trip and the driver when getting in the ballpark of my house...accepts a Lyft job while finishing the Uber job for me.
Of course they did (Score:2, Insightful)
We're talking about workers rights here. The fact that every other court in the world where it has come up has ruled they are actually employees was a clear sign that this was going to happen in America, land of the free (to fuck over workers).
Re: (Score:2)
Every other court in the world? Oh, I forgot, the world only consists of the US and Europe, and we're not so sure about the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Every other court in the world? Oh, I forgot, the world only consists of the US and Europe, and we're not so sure about the US.
Yeah well it's only gone to court in a couple of countries and in those courts they were found to be employees. And given the US and Europe represent over 1billion and the near entirety of western civilisation and thus the overwhelming majority of the target market for US based tech companies, yeah ... the world only consists of the US and Europe as far as this topic is concerned.
In fact the only other finding in favour of Uber has been Australia, but that wasn't a court, that was the FWO (a government agen
Re: (Score:2)
This was a proposition approved by the people. The court just said it was constitutional.
We love democracy! Or do we?
Re: (Score:2)
This was a proposition approved by the people.
Oh it's so cute you think the people approve anything in America.
This was a proposition approved by the Uber and Lyft lobbying and marketing teams, nothing more. Tell someone something with some authority and you can get them to do (or believe anything). You can find the truth on that laptop of Hunter Biden that everyone is looking for.
Self-employment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Then they should do something else. Or, since they really are contractors, find other ways to make extra money while waiting for rides to show up.
Every time I've hired an Uber or Lyft ride, the driver had two smartphones, one running the Uber app and the other running the Lyft app. They were "working" for both companies at the same time, taking whichever ri
Re: (Score:2)
Then they should do something else. Or, since they really are contractors, find other ways to make extra money while waiting for rides to show up.
They don't have time to do that, which is why they're not contractors. Sooner or later they will have refused enough profitable fares on one service because they're making conflicting trips on the other that they will be removed from one of them. The unwritten terms of their employment (that the low-scoring employees are eventually removed) effectively prohibit that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also because the employer, not merely the contractor, is liable for damages. Avoiding responsibility for injuries, accidents, or abuse by drivers is a huge part of Lyft and Uber's business model.
Re: (Score:2)
California voters passed proposition 22 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
> That California voters passed this is astonishing.
Not if you've lived here long enough to remember what it was like here, before Uber and Lyft, when you had to rely on the legacy taxi companies like Yellow and Checker. The taxi companies here range from "bloody awful" to "the whole lot of them should be drawn and quartered." And if they'd paid half as much attention to customer satisfaction and quality of service as Uber and Lyft do, the latter would have been stillborn. Ride shares may have their
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody who's had to wait on hold for a taxi in a few hours loathes entrenched taxi interests and the politicians protecting them.
The People know this racket, and love Uber. Democracy in action.
Too many believe in the synonymous equivalence of their kind heart, and blabber chucked into their echo chamber to believe in. Both sides suffer this.
Keep an eye on the power brokers.
If you don't like the work... (Score:3)
....DON'T DO IT.
There are oodles of good-paying jobs out there. Go get one.
If, otoh gig work (or Amazon) are the only jobs you can get, well, you probably made some poor choices or are literally incompetent.
The world needs ditch-diggers (or their equivalent). Not everyone can be a CEO.
Why is there even a concept of full time benefits? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One proposal I've made to fix the problem of hiring people part time to avoid paying benefits would be to jack up the minimum wage for part time workers to the point that you might as well pay benefits.
Something like minimum wage for a full time job with benefits is $10/hour, but a non qualifying job has a minimum wage of $15/hour.
not a US court (Score:2)
A CA court is not a US court, even if it is located in the US.
Furthermore, because the CA Supreme Court is just a bunch of rubber-stampers hand-picked by Newsom to, er, rubber-stamp whatever he wants, this will be reversed. The law in question that was addressed by the proposition was just codifying what the CA Supreme Court had previously said in an opinion.