California Judge Orders Uber and Lyft To Classify Drivers As Employees (theverge.com) 149
A California judge ruled that Uber and Lyft must classify their drivers as employees in a stunning preliminary injunction issued Monday afternoon. The Verge reports: The injunction is stayed for 10 days, however, giving Uber and Lyft an opportunity to appeal the decision. Uber said it planned to file an immediate emergency appeal to block the ruling from going into effect. [...] Drivers' groups hailed the ruling as forward progress in their fight to upend Uber and Lyft. "Today's ruling affirms what California drivers have long known to be true: workers like me have rights and Uber and Lyft must respect those rights," Mike Robinson, a Lyft driver and member of the Mobile Workers Alliance, a group of Southern California drivers, said in a statement.
But Uber maintains this ruling will result in fewer jobs during a global pandemic that is putting strain on the state's economic conditions. "The vast majority of drivers want to work independently, and we've already made significant changes to our app to ensure that remains the case under California law," an Uber spokesperson said. "When over 3 million Californians are without a job, our elected leaders should be focused on creating work, not trying to shut down an entire industry during an economic depression." A Lyft spokesperson agreed. "Drivers do not want to be employees, full stop," the spokesperson said. "We'll immediately appeal this ruling and continue to fight for their independence. Ultimately, we believe this issue will be decided by California voters and that they will side with drivers." Earlier today in an op-ed via The New York Times, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said lawmakers should require gig economy companies to create benefits funds, which would "give workers cash that they can use for the benefits they want, like health insurance or paid time off."
But Uber maintains this ruling will result in fewer jobs during a global pandemic that is putting strain on the state's economic conditions. "The vast majority of drivers want to work independently, and we've already made significant changes to our app to ensure that remains the case under California law," an Uber spokesperson said. "When over 3 million Californians are without a job, our elected leaders should be focused on creating work, not trying to shut down an entire industry during an economic depression." A Lyft spokesperson agreed. "Drivers do not want to be employees, full stop," the spokesperson said. "We'll immediately appeal this ruling and continue to fight for their independence. Ultimately, we believe this issue will be decided by California voters and that they will side with drivers." Earlier today in an op-ed via The New York Times, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said lawmakers should require gig economy companies to create benefits funds, which would "give workers cash that they can use for the benefits they want, like health insurance or paid time off."
If this sticks I foresee Uber and Lyft exiting CA (Score:2)
That would probably be best for all. Their goals and the state's goals are simply too far apart. It is certain that somebody will step up and fill any void left when they leave.
Re:If this sticks I foresee Uber and Lyft exiting (Score:4, Funny)
somebody will step up and fill any void left
Taxi cab companies have placed a rush order for fleets of yellow Crown Vics, pre-scented with B.O. and cigarettes.
Re: lol no (Score:2)
Where else in the US are people going to use uber and lyft?
And... the answer is: everywhere with cell reception.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. There will be a few people left to say Uber and Lyft is in the state of California. But, if you "make" Uber and Lyft "follow the law" the numbers don't add up to make them all employees. So, you're correct they might not leave, but you won't be able to get an Uber or Lyft with the current payment model.
If the company can't make money, they won't, and will leave and every Californian can cuddle up next to their "follow the law"
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, they're not making money already, but look at the insane 'value' the stockmarket puts on Uber.
Re: lol no (Score:2)
Paratransit is readily available in most large cities in California. For people who cannot ride a bus, it's a good subsidized option.
Cute (Score:5, Insightful)
"When over 3 million Californians are without a job, our elected leaders should be focused on creating work, not trying to shut down an entire industry during an economic depression." A Lyft spokesperson agreed. "Drivers do not want to be employees, full stop,"
" Yes, people should be employed, but not directly by us, and should have their worker rights..... but not by us" - Uber
Re:Cute (Score:5, Interesting)
Uber and Lyft are for part time work. Not a full time raising a family job.
That is called a "Taxi". and even then you are barely going to make it.
There are millions of part-time workers that are still employees. Their compensation is often hourly but could involve other forms of comp, like commissions and bonuses. The fact that these Uber and Lyft drivers are part time doesn't in itself rule out employee status. They could be considered clocked in the minute the open the app and declare themselves available. Uber could be guaranteeing them a basic hourly compensation plus a piece of the rides they fill, along with paying social security and offering benefits.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In MA, they'd need to require a 4 hour shift from you, or be forced to pay for 4 hours anyway. That was done to prevent companies from scheduling workers for random, ridiculous shifts that weren't worth the time or cost of transportation.
The law would need to be updated a bit.
Re:Cute (Score:5, Insightful)
Good luck running a business where your employees are allowed to work whenever they feel like, for as long as they feel like. I'd just schedule myself for whenever there are the fewest customers, so I could just collect the basic hourly compensation while doing as little work as possible. To prevent that, Uber/Lyft are gonna be forced to schedule their drivers to work shifts if this ruling stands.
We can argue that Uber/Lyft are keeping too large a percentage of the fare for themselves. But the entire premise behind their business model is that taxi services do not offer enough granularity in employee/vehicle scheduling. Sometimes there are too many drivers working, resulting in money wasted in employee pay and idling taxis. Sometimes there are not enough drivers, resulting in customers having to wait longer to get a ride - revenue is lost from some customers giving up and not bothering to go where they wish to go.
Uber/Lyft's business model adds more granularity to scheduling. By dynamically raising/lowering fares as demand increases or falls, they encourage more or fewer drivers to be available at any given time instantaneously in respond to demand. This reduces waste from drivers and vehicles sitting idle, and reduces customer wait time. If you make this type of dynamic scheduling economically unviable and force these companies to schedule workers in larger shift blocks, then have no competitive advantage over traditional taxi companies. And there's no reason for them to exist in regions already serviced by transitional taxi companies.
As for employers paying a portion of your payroll taxes, you're incredibly naive if you think this actually results in you making more money. Your employer doesn't see the cost to employ you as just your wages. They see it as a lump sum of your wages + payroll taxes + insurance + benefits. Requiring them to pay half of your payroll taxes simply results in them reducing something else to compensate - usually your wages or benefits. Your net compensation is the same regardless of who pays the payroll taxes.
Re:Cute (Score:4, Interesting)
If that's the case then it really wouldn't matter much to Uber if they were paying you or the taxman, so that begs the question. Why are they fighting so hard against it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck running a business where your employees are allowed to work whenever they feel like, for as long as they feel like. I'd just schedule myself for whenever there are the fewest customers, so I could just collect the basic hourly compensation while doing as little work as possible. To prevent that, Uber/Lyft are gonna be forced to schedule their drivers to work shifts if this ruling stands.
We can argue that Uber/Lyft are keeping too large a percentage of the fare for themselves. But the entire premise behind their business model is that taxi services do not offer enough granularity in employee/vehicle scheduling. Sometimes there are too many drivers working, resulting in money wasted in employee pay and idling taxis. Sometimes there are not enough drivers, resulting in customers having to wait longer to get a ride - revenue is lost from some customers giving up and not bothering to go where they wish to go.
Uber/Lyft's business model adds more granularity to scheduling. By dynamically raising/lowering fares as demand increases or falls, they encourage more or fewer drivers to be available at any given time instantaneously in respond to demand. This reduces waste from drivers and vehicles sitting idle, and reduces customer wait time. If you make this type of dynamic scheduling economically unviable and force these companies to schedule workers in larger shift blocks, then have no competitive advantage over traditional taxi companies. And there's no reason for them to exist in regions already serviced by transitional taxi companies.
As for employers paying a portion of your payroll taxes, you're incredibly naive if you think this actually results in you making more money. Your employer doesn't see the cost to employ you as just your wages. They see it as a lump sum of your wages + payroll taxes + insurance + benefits. Requiring them to pay half of your payroll taxes simply results in them reducing something else to compensate - usually your wages or benefits. Your net compensation is the same regardless of who pays the payroll taxes.
As far as your contention that you would be a slacker and just collect the base pay, that is called being an "unproductive employee", which quickly leads to being fired. But most people who are eligible for bonuses and commissions do the opposite, they work harder to get the extra comp.
Employers adds staff and schedule hours based on anticipated demand. They have to adjust both if the actual demand is significantly different from anticipated. You are relieving the companies of that risk by shifting it to
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck running a business where your employees are allowed to work whenever they feel like, for as long as they feel like. [...] Uber/Lyft are gonna be forced to schedule their drivers to work shifts if this ruling stands.
They could simply make X slots available, and drop drivers who "work" slots without taking fares.
We can argue that Uber/Lyft are keeping too large a percentage of the fare for themselves.
But they're actually taking too little a percentage, and losing money as a result. Their entire business model depends on level 4 and 5 self-driving vehicles being invented any day now.
Re: Cute (Score:4, Interesting)
Flight attendants and pilots would like to have a word with you regarding employees and determining their own schedules.
Re:Cute (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Contractor vs. Employee distinction is based on typically a 20-factor test, which focus on the amount of control the Principal exerts over their Agent and the various aspects of the work (See, e.g. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/f... [berkeley.edu]). Controlling the rates that customers pay goes to the control over how and with whom the Agent performs work, but the list of factors is neither exhaustive, nor is any single factor necessarily determinative.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in this case. Uber is the customer to the driver, not the passengers.
UBI (Score:3)
UBI means people dont need a full time job. They can drive Uber for a few hours and spend the rest of the time writing poetry. The pandemic has shown that UBI works. Full time jobs are not needed.
Re:UBI (Score:5, Interesting)
When there's a disparity between production and (desired) consumption, the economy corrects it by increasing prices. If 10 people want to buy burgers, but there are only 5 burgers which were made, the price of burgers increases until there are only 5 people remaining who are willing to buy the burgers at the higher price. Consumption has been reduced until it's equal to production.
That's what will happen with any UBI which results in a drop in productivity. Prices will increase, dropping the net effectiveness of the UBI (the $1000/mo or whatever you receive won't be able to buy as much). If you try to compensate for this by increasing the UBI further, that exacerbates the effect and prices increase even faster. This is basically what happened to Venezuela. They get most of their government revenue from oil exports. When the price of oil tanked, the government tried to keep government assistance programs (consumption) the same. But the amount of money coming in (production) wasn't enough to pay for all that consumption. So prices increased to keep the two equal. When the government doubled-down by increasing the value (in Bolivars) of those assistance programs, prices simply increased again to maintain conservation of productivity. And Venezuela ended up with hyperinflation.
The most important thing to getting a UBI to work is figuring out how to maintain the average level of people's productivity. Telling people that a UBI will allow them to just write poetry does the opposite, and ensures that a UBI will fail. This is why figuring out how to pay for a UBI is so important. As long as you're paying for it with regular tax revenue (productivity from people or companies sent to the government as taxes), the consumption you're giving out (UBI payments) equals stuff that was produced in the economy. And there's no inflationary effect. But if your proposal is to pay for a UBI by going into debt, that will just result in inflation. Hyperinflation if you insist on maintaining the UBI despite the price increases, as Venezuela did.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you need to read the Mythical Man Month. There is a thing called negative productivity. When people do what they like they are productive. When they are doing a job because they have no choice they generally are time sucks for their colleagues who DO like what they are doing. Not everyone's "poetry" is poetry. Some people's poetry is writing "software", some people's "poetry" is construction and for the truly horrible jobs UBI is the push needed to make automation cost effective.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, the most likely outcome of UBI is an increase in inflation until the UBI payment is basically worthless. If you try to inflation adjust it, you will create a hyperinflation loop.
Re: (Score:2)
When there's a disparity between production and (desired) consumption, the economy corrects it by increasing prices. If 10 people want to buy burgers, but there are only 5 burgers which were made, the price of burgers increases until there are only 5 people remaining who are willing to buy the burgers at the higher price. Consumption has been reduced until it's equal to production.
Why do so many people understand market forces when it comes to pricing physical goods, but are completely unable to apply the same rules to labor?
"If 10 companies want to employ people, but there are only 5 people which were willing to work at that rate, the price of salary increases until 5 more people are willing to work for the higher rate. Demand has been increased until it's equal to supply."
If there were a UBI sufficient to survive, then companies would only have to offer the differential amount requ
Re: (Score:2)
UBI = placate the masses while making the rich even richer and ensure the masses never become rich
How long before UBI is entirely consumed by increased housing costs?
I'm not sure that I'd like to press the launch button on the inflation rocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation is the only way to reduce economic inequality. If you dont have inflation the rich always stay rich. The only way for poorer folks to catch up is inflation.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe in the short term it helps you pay the rent. But unless you work hard and are super frugal it doesn't help you buy property. You landlord is going to notice your UBI income and raise the rent. This helps your landlord but it doesn't really help you in the long run. Even if UBI increases over time your landlord still wins more than you and the price of that property keeps going up and up and up. Hopefully, that last UBI check is enough to pay your funeral expenses, you're going to need it.
The way
Re: (Score:3)
You are falling for the fallacy of thinking that the landlord is holding your rent down because you dont have UBI. He is charging what the market will bear. He wont raise it if you get UBI as he is already charging the maximum he can. Its not like he will reduce the rent if your income goes down
Re: (Score:2)
The market will bear higher prices, at least initially, as universally there will be more cash available to pay rent. Its called universal basic income after all. On one hand you say that inflation is a way to reduce income inequality on the other you say that the inflation won't be in rent. If not in rent where exactly do you think we will have inflation with ubi? Yes, a larger money supply will drive inflation and will drive up the rent.
I suppose you could argue that UBI helps poorer folks more than r
Re: (Score:2)
UBI primarily drives inflation in salaries. If 2000 dollars is something a person gets for being a human than any job that pays less than 2000 will be automated and the only jobs will be those which pay more than 2000 a month so salaries will rise. The cost of automation will come out of the profits of the corporation which is basically the passive income of the rich who own stocks. Thats how inflation will reduce income inequalities.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, increase taxes on investment income. That'll make the economy better by encouraging more investment in borderline risks.
Re: (Score:2)
Any tax scheme that allows the wealthy to keep a larger portion of income very year, year after year, creates a flow of money toward rich people. I guess you believe in trickle-down economics, its been proven that it does not work. I'm advocating for a fair tax structure - where everyone is taxed at a similar rate, not necessarily simply increasing taxes on investment income. Can you even name one example where someone decided not to make money because of taxes? What are the choices, invest and pay taxe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because with UBI people dont have to cluster into a few cities where all the jobs are. This means the demand for rentals goes down. Supply and demand - rents will fall as vacancies rise.
Re: (Score:2)
If UBI isn't enough to cover the rent why would anyone move?
Re: (Score:2)
Printing money creates rapid inflation in a way that wage growth does not. How does living in Venezuela look to you?
UBI requires us to create dollars from nothing, which we will need to keep doing in larger amounts to keep UBI working, which devalues the dollar and will eventually make it worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Printing money creates rapid inflation in a way that wage growth does not. How does living in Venezuela look to you?
Don't change the subject. We're talking about UBI here, not printing money.
UBI requires us to create dollars from nothing, which we will need to keep doing in larger amounts to keep UBI working, which devalues the dollar and will eventually make it worthless.
If introduced as a replacement for existing tax breaks and social security benefits, the amount of extra money would be minimal. The point of UBI isn't so much that it's free money, the point is that it's stable and secure.
Re: (Score:2)
> If introduced as a replacement for existing tax breaks and social security benefits, the amount of extra money would be minimal.
Good luck with that. I don't want to live like those in Venezuela. Hyperinflation is not a solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What 'straw bogeyman'? The money has to come from somewhere. I'd argue that the radical change you are talking about is not practical and will never have the idealized form you claim - which makes your argument the actual strawman. And 'existing tax breaks' are mostly for the wealthy and very poor, which doesn't help most people. What happens in your scenario when we've spent all of the Social Security money (that presumably we stop collecting under your scenario)?
At some point UBI requires printing mon
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so, because the rich get the money from inflation too, rents everything you buy, the rich have assets not dollars, and if they don't they would quickly move it into assets that inflation does not effect.
I don't know what we can do to reduce economic equality, and if we ever came up with an idea that would actually work I think it would never pass into law because the rich control the politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Salary income rises much faster than passive income in a high inflation environment. In low inflation environment people can take loans and buy assets so assets rise faster than salary income.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had UBI, I wouldn't work another day of my life. I'd live in a van down by the river or up in the woods.
Re: (Score:2)
And Maybe thats your poetry. If you dont like doing anything then removing you from the workplace is probably a net efficiency gain for your current colleagues.
Re: (Score:2)
The pandemic has shown that UBI works.
It has increased the debt by nearly $3 trillion dollars in less than one year. Explain in detail how that is "working".
Re: (Score:2)
Its called pump priming. Every dollar the govt gives out as UBI is spent at Walmart, the gas pump and on Comcast cable. Then Walmart, Chevron and Comcast goes on to use that dollar to order stuff from other companies. Every dollar of UBI generates 20 dollars of economic activity. Way more than any corporate tax break, R&D credit or mortgage loan deduction.
Re:UBI (Score:5, Insightful)
Its called pump priming. Every dollar the govt gives out as UBI is spent at Walmart, the gas pump and on Comcast cable. Then Walmart, Chevron and Comcast goes on to use that dollar to order stuff from other companies. Every dollar of UBI generates 20 dollars of economic activity.
That's the famous Keynesian multiplier. I believe most estimates are in the .8 to 3 range (5 for the wildly optimistic), not 20.
IMHO, the key question is not what the multiplier of a UBI is. It's what is that multiplier compared to what would happen if you didn't redistribute the income. That's a much harder question to answer. If you didn't redistribute, the untaxed people would spend some of that cash and invest other parts in productive assets (e.g. creating new companies). It's quite difficult to estimate either number with any precision because it's hard to do controlled experiments. That being said, I'll give you odds that leaving the money where it is winds up generating more growth.
Re:UBI (Score:5, Insightful)
If you didn't redistribute, the untaxed people would spend some of that cash and invest other parts in productive assets (e.g. creating new companies).
And who would those new companies sell to? What product would they be producing that isn't already being provided by the market?
Henry Ford figured out that if he paid people more, every other company had to pay people more to compete. Then there were a lot more customers with enough money to buy a Ford.
Re: (Score:2)
And who would those new companies sell to?
I'd use the same logic you use for government spending. Daddy Warbucks wants a yacht, so he needs to hire a crew, buy the boat, buy champagne to stock the galley, etc. The crew spends money on rent, boat shoes, sailor caps, anchor tattoos and the like. The boat builder employs carpenters, riggers, buys lumber, and on and on and on. It's the same process. And that's my point: is there any reason to believe government spending has a higher multiplier than private spending? It might be but I'd need some eviden
Re:UBI (Score:5, Insightful)
Pssst...: "Atlas Shrugged" was science fiction. And bad science fiction at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Pssst...: "Atlas Shrugged" was science fiction. And bad science fiction at that.
Don't exalt it with that label. It was fantasy. And a bad fantasy etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Pssst...: "Atlas Shrugged" was science fiction. And bad science fiction at that.
Pssst: "Duck Tails" is fiction too. And pretty funny fiction at that.
Seriously, what do you think rich people do with their wealth? I'll give you a hint: virtually none of it is gold bars in their basements. It's all invested in something, either assets for their personal use (e.g. mansions and cars, and that's generally a small portion of their net worth), productive assets like companies (and that's generally the bulk of it), or loaned out to other people (via a bank and perhaps the shady tax shelters). Y
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't redistribute, the untaxed people would spend some of that cash and invest other parts in productive assets (e.g. creating new companies).
That's what they always claim. But in fact, the wealthy are sitting on money and not investing it, because they can't find anywhere to invest it. Ironically, they can't find anywhere to invest it because people don't have enough money to make those investments viable by buying the resulting products and services. Besides the actual cash hoards in offshore tax havens and the like, the wealthy also have bogus investments that don't employ anyone. They just shuffle the money back and forth between themselves t
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't redistribute, the untaxed people would spend some of that cash and invest other parts in productive assets (e.g. creating new companies).
That's what they always claim. But in fact, the wealthy are sitting on money and not investing it, because they can't find anywhere to invest it.
A quick google search for wealthiest Americans suggests you are wrong: (note: 2019 numbers from Forbes)
Jeff Bezos, Amazon – $114 billion.
Bill Gates, Microsoft – $106 billion.
Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway – $80.8 billion.
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook – $69.6 billion.
Larry Ellison, software – $65 billion.
Larry Page, Google – $55.5 billion.
Sergey Brin, Google – $53.5 billion.
See that thing after their name? That is the company most of their money is invested in, and
Re:UBI (Score:5, Insightful)
Your UBI only pays $15/wk?
Ever notice how UBI fans can't do math?
Re:UBI (Score:4, Insightful)
Your UBI only pays $15/wk?
Ever notice how UBI fans can't do math?
To close the math loop, the most common UBI proposal is $1k/month (or $12k/year). That's not really enough to live on but gives you a good start. That turns out to be about $4 trillion a year, roughly the current size of US federal budget (without COVID spending).
If it paid the equivalent of $15/hour and a 40 hour week (about $2,400/month), that comes to about $10 trillion. Even in DC that's a lot of money, about half the US GDP.
Re: (Score:2)
Of that $4 trillion, about $1 trillion is already being spent on cash benefit programs such as Social Security and unemployment benefits, which would be mostly replaced by UBI. So the real increase in spending is about $3 trillion.
And yes, to supply that extra $3 trillion per year, you would have to increase tax rates. Right now taxes form about 15% of GDP [wikipedia.org]. Increasing the federal budget from $4 to $7 trillion would mean increasing that 15% to 26%. The average person would lose an extra 11% of their taxable
Re: (Score:2)
Many immediately retire.
Tax revenues plummet.
Oops.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those willing to retire on $12k/year were paying negligible taxes to begin with.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoever retires because they can get $12k/year in UBI are likely not contributing to the tax base or performing a meaningful job in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Of that $4 trillion, about $1 trillion is already being spent on cash benefit programs such as Social Security and unemployment benefits, which would be mostly replaced by UBI.
TBH, I'll believe that when I see it. It makes sense to me, eliminate all the social safety net programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, SNAP, the whole nine yards) and replace them with UBI. I don't think many people, and particularly no politician, will support that proposal.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes great sense. You can eliminate all the bureaucracy associated with those programs, AND all the bureaucracy associated with collecting taxes, by making a fixed UBI together with a flat tax.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's restricted to adult citizens it's a lot less. But still really expensive. If restricted to adult citizens who file income taxes it's even less, but again, still really costly.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's restricted to adult citizens it's a lot less. But still really expensive. If restricted to adult citizens who file income taxes it's even less, but again, still really costly.
I was listening to an interview with a guy who used to advise Andrew Yang. He was making the argument to pay for UBI, you'll need to increase income taxes. When you net UBI and the increased tax, it winds up being an even smaller net increase in expenditure. IOW, for a huge swath of people, their UBI tax and UBI payment will basically cancel out so net net, it costs nothing. I vaguely understand the math and don't entirely buy the argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That gives everyone $1k/week, not month. So sure, $52k/year may be too much.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait for my holodeck chocked with Hollywood starlets, since we're imagining cool stuff!
Drivers do not want to be employees (Score:2)
"Drivers do not want to be employees" say the companies that would see their costs shoot up if they had to reclassify them as such.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uber and Lyft will fight for driver's rights (Score:2)
Uber: “The vast majority of drivers want to work independently, and we’ve already made significant changes to our app to ensure that remains the case under California law,”
Lyft: “Drivers do not want to be employees, full stop,” the spokesperson said. “We’ll immediately appeal this ruling and continue to fight for their independence..."
Both the companies are going to file appeal on behalf of their drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
I put this in xml element "sarcasm" but looks like Slashdot removed those tags..... Hope people know this is a sarcasm....
Re: (Score:2)
but looks like Slashdot removed those tags
<sarcasm>I would NEVER expect Slashdot to stoop to such behavior.</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
"Hope people know this is a sarcasm...."
You must be new here.
Even if your uid suggests otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
This'll come down to whether Trump wins (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Notably, the California NAACP is on Lyft's side.
Re: (Score:2)
People should be much more concerned about the fact that many state legislatures are just pass through conduits for bills written by unelected union officials from out of sate than about whether or not people enjoy the flexibility of being a contractor working their own hours.
Or even worse that the companies themselves are pushing drivers to back legislation that actually fucks over the drivers, using these rediculous overreach actions as bait.
Too blunt an instrument? (Score:2)
The gap between "employee" and "contractor" is perhaps too wide when hours are partially flexible. An in-between category could be created. The tricky part is not leaving loop-holes in the rules for co's to take advantage of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The tricky part is not leaving loop-holes in the rules for co's to take advantage of.
Which is exactly why the companies are emailing drivers to sign on to their own custom legislation that surely has no loop-holes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I've never seen such a pack of incompetents driving such piles of shit. Every time I drive through SF, some fuckface in a Taxi tries to hit me. And I used to live there, and had the same experience.
Gov't yes, Drivers maybe. (Score:2)
I understand why the government likes this ruling. Their tax collection is much easier and more certain when workers are employees and not contractors. But the workers are being just as greedy here. Nobody is forcing them to drive for these companies and a lot of people are unemployed now. They should be happy to be making money.
Re: (Score:3)
But the workers are being just as greedy here. Nobody is forcing them to drive for these companies and a lot of people are unemployed now. They should be happy to be making money.
They are not being greedy, they are being mistreated, misrepresented, and misinformed. So many parties fucking with them. It's sad. They are being ripped off by the companies algorithms. They are definitely being mistreated. Benefits has nothing to do with it. Absolutely tax collection is the only reason the government cares.
Coming soon (Score:2)
Fix: Let drivers set their own prices (Score:4, Insightful)
Though it's a bit late now, Uber should have turned their app into a real-time auction. Let riders put in their destination, desired arrival time and a bid, and have the app show the bid to drivers in the area who are able to make the journey, and let drivers decide whether to accept it. Drivers should also be able to put in a minimum price, in terms of $/mile and $/min waiting, etc., in the standard taxi structure, and Uber should show riders a typical price for their destination, based on recent accepted offers. Riders who aren't in a hurry could lowball a bit and accept a later arrival time. Riders in a hurry could offer a premium.
At a stroke, this would solve two problems. First, it would erase the accusation that drivers are not employees. If drivers are negotiating price with riders, then Uber is clearly only a platform to connect the two and process payment (for which it would take a cut). It's the same as eBay; buyers and sellers negotiate price through an online auction, and no one tries to claim the sellers are eBay employees. Second, it would eliminate the artificiality of surge pricing; prices would rise and fall naturally in response to supply and demand, and Uber couldn't be blamed for putting its thumb on the scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's the obvious thing. There is a reason they don't do it.
Second, it would eliminate the artificiality of surge pricing;
One of the many reasons, this is a feature, not a bug. Hint: they don't even pass surge pricing to the driver.
If drivers are negotiating price with riders, then Uber is clearly only a platform to connect the two and process payment (for which it would take a cut).
Another reason, they take a cut, AND decide which drivers get which rides, AND use their algorithm to cheat, and make sure they can skim even more and more off the top with multiple scams.
Re: (Score:2)
they don't even pass surge pricing to the driver.
Cite? I've read articles quoting drivers who prefer only to work during surge times, because they make more money. Your claim also contradicts the claims on Uber's web site, which say that Uber's percentage doesn't change during surge pricing. https://www.uber.com/us/en/dri... [uber.com]. Note that I'm not saying that Uber is above lying for any moral reasons, but publicly-traded companies get hammered by the SEC for making provably false statements that could affect the share price, which this is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uber doesn't want that. They want to use the humans until they can replace them with robots (self-driving cars) and then kick the humans to the curb. And they want to set the fares at that point, not have people bidding.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber doesn't want that. They want to use the humans until they can replace them with robots (self-driving cars) and then kick the humans to the curb. And they want to set the fares at that point, not have people bidding.
It would be trivial for them to make that transition. If they had the auction system running, with human drivers, they could just introduce their own automated vehicles and have them bid against the humans. Not having to pay a human, they could easily underbid the humans and quickly drive them out.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how actual ride sharing services do it. Uber/Lyft, etc are not ride sharing. They are taxi replacements.
I am not too familiar with the ride sharing space, but here is one that runs in Europe- blablacar [blablacar.co.uk]
So long (Score:2)
Degree of control is the measure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
and was making almost 6K (Canadian) a month
Do you mean his net profit was $6k a month, or his gross income was $6k a month? Living in one of the UK's biggest taxi capitals (and therefore speaking to plenty of drivers about their incomes and costs) I'd be astounded if a 7-hour driving shift left £3.5k after costs.
- How much a month goes on petrol?
- How much a month on insurance?
- How much on car maintenance?
- How much for a spare car when this one is in the garage?
- What's the depreciation on a reliable car that drives 7 hours a day?
7 hours a d
Clearly (Score:3)
Drivers do not want to be employees, full stop.
Which obviously explains why the Mobile Workers Alliance is so supportive of this ruling. /s
Mismatched categories (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, there are really some people who might benefit from this. At least some sort of health insurance and unemployment coverage.
That being said, many Uber drivers I personally know cannot actually be employees:
- They have incorporated their own companies, and some lucky ones actually upgraded to multi-vehicle limousine services
- They work for both Uber and Lyft at the same time (or maybe more, like Doordash, etc) depending on time of day, location, etc
I understand California needs Uber drivers chip into their local employment funds, and whatnot. However there should be a third category between fully bound employees, and fully independent contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to be a full-time employee to be an employee.
In fact, I imagine MOST of their employees won't be full-time employees. They'll be flexibly part-time employed.
Hence using two services makes no difference, and having companies doesn't make much difference - either they are just contracting those companies and it's up to that "subcontractor" to arrange employee benefits, or they are employing the individual and can't have a company playing middle-man.
Not sure why they haven't demanded bennies before (Score:2)
I mean, the Microsoft lawsuit was almost 20 years ago ("contractor" sued for benefits in federal court, got them).
Contractors, my butt.
Oh, and about cabs: I drove for Yellow in Philly in the mid-seventies. I was "part time"... so I drove 42 hours a week. "Full time was 6 days a week, 48 hours". I got to pick my days.