Court Rules California's 'Gig Worker' Initiative is Unconstitutional (yahoo.com) 205
Slashdot reader phalse phace tipped us off to a breaking story. Reuters reports:
A California judge on Friday ruled that a 2020 ballot measure that exempted ride-share and food delivery drivers from a state labor law is unconstitutional as it infringed on the legislature's power to set standards at the workplace...which makes the entire ballot measure "unenforceable", Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch wrote in the ruling.
Gig economy companies including Uber, Lyft, Doordash and Instacart were pushing to keep drivers' independent contractor status, albeit with additional benefits.
Gig economy companies including Uber, Lyft, Doordash and Instacart were pushing to keep drivers' independent contractor status, albeit with additional benefits.
Point (Score:5, Informative)
The crucial point here was that the proposition included wording that would expressly limit the constitutional power of the legislature to set subsequent laws. No law under the constitution can do that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Finding a clause like that isn't terribly surprising, considering how closely involved the gig companies were in the creation of this legislation. But, the people did in fact vote in the proposition. The judge can definitely strike that clause from the law, but dropping the entire proposition seems akin to legislating from the bench. I'd be wary of allowing this judge to take such a broad stroke action.
Re:Point (Score:5, Informative)
The rules in California don't allow for a proposition to be amended. So you can't just drop part of it; if any part is unconstitutional, the whole thing has to go as was mentioned in TFA.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe you are wrong. I refer you to the text of the proposition:
Article 11. Severability
7467. (a) Subject to subdivision (b), the provisions
of this chapter are severable. If any portion, section,
subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase,
word, or application of this chapter is for any reason
held to be invalid by a decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter.
The people of the State of California hereby decl
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should have also quoted part b:
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if any portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, or application of Section 7451 of Article 2 (commencing with Section 7451), as added by the voters, is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall apply to the entirety of the remaining provisions of this chapter, and no provision of this chapter shall be deemed valid or given force of
Re: (Score:2)
Section 7451 is only the bit about classifying ride-share drivers as independent contractors. The amendment rules are in Section 7465 of Article 9 of the proposition, so the part you quoted doesn't apply.
Re:Point (Score:4, Interesting)
Strange then that the judge specifically noted the exception to the severability provision:
"When the People adopted Proposition 22, they expressed their intention that its provisions be severable, except that,if Section 7451 is held to be unconstitutional, the whole Act should be stricken. (Bus. & Prof. Code, Â 7467, subd. (b).)"
Re: (Score:2)
The order's rationale that Section 7451 is unconstitutional is ... well ... embarrassingly bad. It looks at an entirely different section of the law, on a different topic, says that part is unconstitutional (on questionable grounds), and then says that means Section 7451 is unconstitutional.
It is such gross error that the state appeals court should assign the case to a different judge, because this one obviously cannot do his job in a remotely competent way.
Re: (Score:2)
Hoist with their own petard, as it were.
The judge's opinion is pretty short (12 pages) and to the point, and has way more information than TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
But if the entire proposition is struck down due to the fact that propositions can't be amended, then how can that severability provision apply? It was struck down.
Having a proposition try to override the usual process for how-to-deal with itself getting invalidated, is just as crazy as a EULA which explains under what circumstances you've become bound by that EULA. In both cases, whatever it says isn't pertinent. It's only after you agree to a EULA that its words have any power, and it's only if a court do
Re: (Score:2)
Supreme court: *blows whistle* That bill is unconstitutional anyway so it doesn't matter if the president signs it or not.
Though in theory if it weren't for that Congress *could* override the veto with a 2/3 majority vote.
Re: (Score:2)
TFA doesn't say that, it just says the judge filled the while thing was unenforceable without providing any explanation for the inseverability. When two concurrent initiatives on the same topic both succeed, the conflicting provisions of the one that got fewer votes are severed, unless it was an "all-or-nothing" proposition or either proposition was a comprehensive scheme, such that mixing provisions would lead to results that surprise the voters.
Re: (Score:2)
Other coverage I read suggested that there were at least three parts of the proposition that were found unconstitutional, althought the legislative restrictions were the most clear. You can claim severability, but if the proposition was that flawed then it becomes unworkable.
California labor law is messy. It has loose links to federal definitions of employee classifications, and without a proper federal designation I doubt this issue can really be resolved. On one side of the equation, you need to make s
Re:Point (Score:5, Insightful)
I don’t know what the right approach is for Uber and their ilk, or if a one-size-fits-all is just the wrong approach. What I do know is that these people are so out of alignment with California labor law that it will continue to cause problems until some form of middle ground is found.
Then shut them down.
Look, if a company isn't willing to do business in a manner that complies with applicable labor laws, then that company should not be allowed to do business. The fact that a company has trouble turning a profit while following the labor laws doesn't give that company any special right to violate them.
Nothing in the labor laws precludes business owners giving employees autonomy over their hours or driving area, so there is no fundamental reason why businesses cannot operate under existing labor laws while treating these gig workers as employees other than the cost, which they don't want to pay.
These companies want the benefits of operating in a state with high wages, because wealthier people are more likely to use their services, but they don't want the added responsibility of paying a fair wage. That's fine. They can shut down.
Re:Point (Score:4, Insightful)
Then shut them down.
Look, if a company isn't willing to do business in a manner that complies with applicable labor laws, then that company should not be allowed to do business. The fact that a company has trouble turning a profit while following the labor laws doesn't give that company any special right to violate them.
Nothing in the labor laws precludes business owners giving employees autonomy over their hours or driving area, so there is no fundamental reason why businesses cannot operate under existing labor laws while treating these gig workers as employees other than the cost, which they don't want to pay.
These companies want the benefits of operating in a state with high wages, because wealthier people are more likely to use their services, but they don't want the added responsibility of paying a fair wage. That's fine. They can shut down.
This. Why do business owners think they have a constitutional right to be profitable? It's a dumb business, it doesn't work. When the investors' money runs out, it will go broke. This is a feature of the system, not a bug, and it shows that the system is working.
Re: (Score:3)
I couldn't agree more. Fuck every single person who needs a little extra cash because some fuckwit tried to make a career out of it. The poor person honestly being stupid enough to think they can undercut cab monopolies? Fuck them. People honestly believing they have a right to do what they want with their automobile? Fuck them twice. Bow to the cab monopolies or get fucked.
Not sure if you're replying to me, I didn't say anything about the drivers. I'm saying that Uber et al don't make a profit, and never have. It's not the drivers who paid millions of dollars to try and buy favorable legislation. A car owner has always been free to offer rides to anyone you choose, and they are free to charge whatever they choose for the privilege. Unprofitable businesses trying to labor laws makes no difference to this fact.
Re: (Score:2)
I replied to an article claiming that the article said a specific thing. I pointed out that the article did not, in fact, say that thing.
Don't be such a dickface, dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"It limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers' compensation law", making the entire measure unenforceable, the judge wrote.
Absolutely. Plus what government institution wants to limit their power?
The companies, whose business model relies on low-cost flexible labor, say that surveys show the majority of their workers do not want to be employees.
Contractors have existed for those that want that kind of freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
California ballot propositions can amend the state constitution. Can you elaborate on why you think, or that judge thinks, the proposition could not thus restrain the legislature?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Can you elaborate on why you think, or that judge thinks, the proposition could not thus restrain the legislature?
Yes.
Elaboration of the judge's reasoning:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21046832-castellanos-order [documentcloud.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. In short, the judge says that because the state constitution grants the Legislature (which explicitly includes voters passing initiative statutes) a "plenary power", voters passing an initiative statute cannot restrict the elected legislature. Which is pretty obviously an equivocation on "legislature".
And there are a bunch of other reasons that the judge claims basically everything else in the initiative was also unconstitutional, so throw the baby out with the bath water.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is an equivocation because it treats a restriction on the elected legislature -- which is the apparent scope of Article 9 of the proposition, because it talks about both houses of the legislature -- as a restriction on the entire Legislature. The court's decision also mentions that a initiative statute, like this one, cannot be overruled by the elected legislature directly; it must be sent to voters for approval.
Rather than treating Article 9 as a grant of additional powers to the elected legislature, w
Re: (Score:2)
Powers granted to the entire legislature are held by... wait for it... the entire legislature! Dum, da dum dum DUM!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are not held only by the part that is elected and meets in Sacramento.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Point (Score:5, Informative)
In California, ballot propositions which are approved can directly alter the state constitution [wikipedia.org]. If a ballot imitative passes that limits the legislature's constitutional powers, then the state's constitution is effectively changed to limit the legislature's powers thusly.
The error here appears to be that the ballot initiative was worded to create/amend a law. Not the state's constitution. Here's the prelude for prop 22 [ca.gov]:
Compare with the prelude for prop 13 [hjta.org] (limiting the legislature's ability to increase property taxes to just 1% per year)
The whole point of a ballot initiative is to bypass the legislature to add/change a law or the constitution. If the legislature isn't passing a law because it doesn't care enough, then passing a ballot initiative to make/amend a law makes sense. But (as in prop 22's case) if the legislature isn't passing a law because it's hostile to it, then there's little point passing a ballot initiative that changes law. The legislature can simply undo it by passing a new law which erases the ballot initiative. You need to make the ballot initiative change the state constitution if you want to make it legislature-proof.
Somewhere, some lawyer who drafted the proposition is doing a massive head-desk for screwing this up.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the real point is that a single judge overturned the democratic ballot voting process in a US state.
Oh for fucks sake, the ballot process was granted by the legislature, not the other way around, and the voters elect the legislature.
The Constitution says the legislature gets to pass laws about workers rights, and if the voters don't like that... they can change it.
You fucks and your fucking freedom fries, give me a break! Freeze peach!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, tell the people of California that the gig worker economy is going to be completely upended unless they elect Republicans less than a month before a Governor's recall election, I'm sure that will go well for the Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
W T F are you talking about? Why did you hang that very odd comment as a reply to mine? My comment wasn't high enough in the list for that to be the reason. Are you drunk?
Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Coalition (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Prosperity no. But as supplementary income (see the stitch story) I can see the appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
Prosperity no. But as supplementary income (see the stitch story) I can see the appeal.
I've seen some people try to use it as primary income. A real disaster.
And that's been the issue with some of the low income work. I see places like McDonald's, with too many people full timing it.
I surely support raising the minimum wage to at least 15 dollars per hour, but have trouble grokking that some people try to live off it.
Re: (Score:2)
These are real jobs, not fake ones. People keep trying to pretend that their employees are not real employees.
NO. It is illegal to have 'not real' jobs that you can pretend people are not using to pay all their real life bills.
There is no "this is just an 'extra' side hustle" ruling. Jobs are jobs, no matter if you want to pretend they are not jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not employees of the rideshare companies.
They are their own bosses, hence their status as independent contractors.
They still choose when to go on duty, which rides to accept.
The fact that they are their own secretaries regarding hours on duty is telling.
Quite honestly, if anything "gig worker" needs to be documented as a third type of worker distinct from both employee and independent contractor.
As far as I'm concerned both sides are trying to double dip and get the best of both worlds.
Re: (Score:2)
Cry me a river and get off your high horse. I am not a huge Uber/Lyft user, but during every one of the 20+ rides I have taken with these services, I have always asked if the people are happy doing what they're doing and have yet to hear any of them complain. The biggest benefit for them is always the freedom to do what they want. Let that sink in for a minute. They're HAPPY because they can work the hours they want, they can pick up whomever they want and reject whoever they don't. If they become empl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I surely support raising the minimum wage to at least 15 dollars per hour, but have trouble grokking that some people try to live off it.
As opposed to doing things the natural way, by living off of dirt and morning dew?
No, as opposed to doing a job that your employer only pays you what he has to, because any less would be illegal.
People with any initiative/ability should try to get work that pays more. Awaiting the slashdot hell that shall descend upon me.
I hope the day comes soon... (Score:5, Insightful)
... when Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and all these other parasitic companies that believe they are above the law go bankrupt.
We have taxi and hotel regulations for good reason. Rebranding yourself as something else to get around regulations should earn you fines and bankruptcy, not investor acclaim.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
... when Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and all these other parasitic companies that believe they are above the law go bankrupt.
Uber and Lyft are already bankrupt and have to keep getting more money to bail them out from "investors". Since the economy is basically on life-support and there's nothing much else to do with spare cash, they keep getting their handouts when they ask for them. But they're zombie companies, just like most of the banks, being re-animated by the effects of QE and zero-interest-rates.
Re: (Score:3)
The trouble with taxi companies is that they artificially limited the number of taxis/drivers to ensure their prosperity. Uber and Lyft were gladly adopted by many people because of this. But that doesn't make them decent or law abiding companies.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that. They're probably just licensed. With a license number. That might even be called a medallion number.
If they're actually limited, and you live in a small town, it means you're in a Republican town, and the owner of the only taxi service is "friends" with the City Council. That's the only time small town limit taxis.
Instead, small towns set a minimum rate, which prevents price wars that screw up the market. The difficult thing in small towns is getting people to run a taxi service at all. So the
Re: I hope the day comes soon... (Score:3)
City run by democrats for at least 30 years. I donâ(TM)t know or care why there arenâ(TM)t enough cabs (whether it is government or taxi companies limiting them), but the situation was horrible. Forget about not being able to handle unusual demand peaks like concerts. Even the every day peaks of plane arrivals at the airport and train arrivals at the station had people waiting 30-60 minutes to cram into cabs with 4 strangers. Then wondering if one of these strangers is going to grab your luggage w
Re: (Score:2)
We have taxi and hotel regulations for good reason.
But that's the drivers. Not Uber/Lyft. Although they do provide a platform that enables drivers to bypass taxi medallion regulations, drivers will find other ways. We have quite a fleet of "Not For Hire" vehicles running around our city. Not Uber/Lyft. They have their own underground dispatching dispatching system. But they are all small operations that regulators have trouble penetrating.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's the drivers. Not Uber/Lyft.
Uber and Lyft are cab companies. They can call themselves whatever* they want, but in the end, they are cab companies.
* For those who get their undies in a uproar over someone saying they want to be called by a pronoun, they should be just as uproarious at these companies claiming they're not a cab company.
Re: (Score:2)
they are cab companies
How many cabs do they own?
Re: (Score:2)
You may get to see that for Uber (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if your company paid you not hourly or an annual salary but by the number of servers you have at the fix or lines of code. Then imagine that your company detects when you break servers for extra pay or has a algorithm detecting your padded code. Both of which would be trivial to implement these days. It would radically reduce the amount of pay and benefits they would need to give you and I can guarantee you somewhere out there is a Wall Street executive thinking about that and how they can get away with it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We have taxi and hotel regulations for good reason.
Aaaand, that good reason is enriching the existing taxi cartel? And labor union bosses?
Remember, that's what this is ultimately about: labor unions want to unionize Uber drivers and they can't effectively do that if they're contractors. Everything else is window dressing.
Originally it was so that taxi drivers (Score:5, Insightful)
What's making Uber at work is that there's a bunch of people who have lost their jobs to outsourcing an automation who have decent cars they bought when they still had decent jobs. Uber doesn't pay enough to cover maintenance on the car and pay for food and rent so eventually those drivers are going to put enough miles on their car that they break down and they'll no longer be able to drive for Uber. Eventually Uber will burn through the capital of their drivers and the whole system will collapse leaving a gaping hole in our public transportation system.
The system of limiting number of taxi drivers broke down though because we allowed the licenses to be sold and eventually instead of the driver's owning the licenses they were owned by large businesses who took advantage of cheap immigrant labor. The result was these big businesses would lease the license to an immigrant driver and treat them like contractors instead of his employees with the right to minimum wage. It was very similar to what Uber was doing but they were able to get away with it because they were using desperate immigrant workers of which there was a ready supply.
But the solution to one form of employee abuse isn't to just substitute it with another form of employee abuse. It's the stop all abuse of employees. Believe it or not this is something you want because s*** runs downhill and eventually the people abusing taxi cab drivers will want to abuse you. Eventually they'll want to apply the gig economy to your job.
Good (Score:2)
Proposition 22 was a payoff to get favorable laws passed for Uber and Lyft. They spent over $200 million getting that law passed. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/a... [buzzfeednews.com]
Difficult to say that's what the people wanted when a literal fortune was spent on a FUD campaign. I mean those companies could have done something really crazy and spent $200 million on salaries instead of lobbying. When you hear about companies leaving silicon valley for Texas, it's reasons like this.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an idea about how to find out what the people want. One could write down a description of a choice, and allow everyone meeting certain basic qualifications to record what their preference. The state could count up the recorded answers, publish the results, and use that to understand what the general public thinks should happen. We could even call it something like "voting". Or "ballot initiative" or "proposition" to use fancy words.
Now, in practice, I'm sure there will be some additional complica
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly what happened. However as a I pointed out when a quarter billion is spent on a FUD campaign don't expect a valid outcome. You know those warning stickers on products where something is only known to cause cancer in California? Brought to you by proposition 65.
In a way, it did (Score:2)
Both sides spent shitloads of money there so if the results are invalid, the truth is that they would have been invalid regardless.
Anyone being honest could look at the two final candidates for president in the last election and say that America could have done much better.
The influence of money on politics obscures everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but Biden's campaign spent more than a quarter of a billion more than Trump's campaign. Democrats overall spent $3 billion (with a B) more than Republicans.
I don't take very seriously the argument that campaign spending corrupts election results, but if one does, it's clear which party is doing more of the corruption there.
Campaign spending is mostly only useful to establish familiarity with a candidate or position. There's a secondary effect on turnout, but most of that is through negative campaigns
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I don't accept ANY election as revealing the will of the people. The choices are arbitrarily constrained. Instant Runoff Voting or Condorcet voting come closer, but they, also, are subject to perversion by massive propaganda. It just gets a lot more expensive to manage. OTOH, they have the problem of information overload, which they make a lot worse than plurality rules elections do.
FWIW, the Scientific American ran an article a few decades ago demonstrating that there was no possible electora
Re: (Score:2)
I have an idea about how to find out what the people want. One could write down a description of a choice, and allow everyone meeting certain basic qualifications to record what their preference.
It seems that Californians do exactly that every time they vote on their Constitution. You're not even smart enough to attempt to apply your reasoning to both sides of the argument; you just spew it out while talking about your conclusion, with no thought process involved. No critical thinking.
Californian voters have the power to change the Constitution if they decide to do so. Here, they were not asked to do that.
It was plainly stupid for Uber and Lyft to write in a, "and nobody can change it" provision.
Re: (Score:2)
I was describing elections and public balloting generally, not constitutional referenda specifically. Congratulations, Mr Smaertie Pantz, on your no-thought-process-involved critical failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you write those "blockquote" tags? Use a "quote" tag, moron.
You're just being an idiot. The subject has to do with what the Constitution allows. So you say something stupid, and then you fall back on, oh, you're not talking about the actual thing that happened, you just mean generally. Well, Mr. Fucking Genius, even generally, statutes do not override the Constitution. This is like failing middle school civics.
Please don't reply unless you learn how to use the quote tag, moron.
Re: (Score:2)
. They spent over $200 million getting that law passed.
Money which could have gone to their employees. Even if it's only a few hundred dollars per person, it's still extra money for the workers (i.e. cab drivers).
This is like when airlines claim they'll go bankrupt due to covid, yet spent billions tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money [forbes.com]buying back their stock. The same goes for J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, et al. If you have money to blow on bribing elected officials or buying back stock, you have mo
Re: (Score:3)
Difficult to say that's what the people wanted when a literal fortune was spent on a FUD campaign.
The people working for these gig economy companies wanted employee-like benefits with the flexibility of working how much or little they want and when they want. They voted for Prop. 22 because Uber, Lyft, Doordash, etc. told them that's what they'd.
But it turns out that these companies are not living up [protocol.com] to their end of the deal [nationalequityatlas.org], and in some cases reneging on promises.
Uber reneges on the ‘flexibility’ it gave drivers to win their support for Proposition 22 [latimes.com]
Last year, the ride-hailing service Uber
Re: (Score:2)
... a FUD campaign....
When you hear about companies leaving silicon valley for Texas, it's ....
a bullshit campaign. That's where it exists; in things you "hear about." Those of us that don't watch cable newsvertainment, that don't fill ourselves with credulous bullshit, don't hear "about" that at all. We hear specious claims that it is so, but the numbers don't back them up. Just some loudmouth on twitter whose other, more important company is already based in Texas. Well golly gee.
Man, CA people seem dense .... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I was an owner of a service like Uber, Lyft or DoorDash, I'd simply pull out of California. No sense doing business in a state that's hostile to the entire premise of your business model.
I get why this court ruling went the way it did - but it's more of a technicality. The *core* issue is the fact California would interpret these gig economy apps in a way that claims the people getting paid from them are "employees".
I kept trying to see how they could possibly think you're NOT an independent contractor if you're only logging into an app on your phone when YOU feel like it, and then voluntarily accepting the offers it pushes to you? The only sane conclusion I could come to was: A bunch of liberals who just have it out for all big businesses, and expect all of them to cover their entire cost of living, no matter how little work they do for them?
With the exception of Lyft, I've done work for all of these platforms for some spare cash. They've got plenty of issues worth complaining about, but all in all? They're a legitimate way to use some of your spare time to earn a few bucks to pay one or two of your bills off. If you feel like they "owe you" a job that pays for ALL your basic needs? You clearly are in a camp that wants to reform all of the basic economic principles of the USA, and I'm never going to agree with you.
Re:Man, CA people seem dense .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the thing. Uber and Lyft started as ride sharing services. That stopped long ago and they're operating as a fully fledged cab company now. The problem is they are not held to any of the same regulations as cab companies. Like operating vehicle fleets and safety inspections on said vehicles. The only winner here is Uber and Lyft, certainly not the employees (excuse me contractors) or the taxpayers.
Re: (Score:2)
That stopped long ago and they're operating as a fully fledged cab company now.
Not Uber/Lyft's idea. It was the influx of people who wanted to become full time cabbies that displaced people willing to do ride share (bypassing various jurisdictions taxi medallion requirements).
Like operating vehicle fleets and safety inspections on said vehicles.
That's the responsibility of the contracting drivers. Uber generally doesn't operate the fleet.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post implies that Uber and Lyft are not in control of their businesses. They followed the money and skirted the law.
Re: (Score:2)
You are stuck with a traditional view of the taxi business. Uber and Lyft sought to go into the dispatching function. Not the driving and operating part of the business. That bundling grew only after organized crime entered the business and was reinforced by regulatory infrastructures.
People have been picking up and transporting passengers for money since the first Chinese guy took his wheelbarrow into town and started hauling people around. It's one of the most popular sole proprietor business models in t
Re: (Score:2)
No, I support following established regulations. You know like the party of law and order claims to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to counteract congestion, do it the british way by taxing excessive demand.
The roads will clear up if people have to obey the law of supply and demand when they have to compete over a scarce resource.
Re: (Score:2)
Protecting crony capitalism is something you are supposed to be against
I want either less corruption or more opportunity to participate in it.
Re: (Score:2)
And as far as I'm concerned taxi companies are greedy monopolists who artificially inflated prices and ride sharing in general is an economic backlash provoked by the law of supply and demand.
The real winners here are the passengers.
Re:Man, CA people seem dense .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I kept trying to see how they could possibly think you're NOT an independent contractor if you're only logging into an app on your phone when YOU feel like it, and then voluntarily accepting the offers it pushes to you?
You're having trouble because that's not what these companies are doing.
They're requiring people to take rides/deliveries that they do not want to. They are also requiring activities by their drivers that CA law does not allow you to require of a contractor.
But hey, it's an app, so breaking the law must be OK!
re: requiring people to accept fares (Score:3)
Your definition of "requiring" and mine must be very different?
These apps literally pop up offers for you to accept or decline. Unless the ride-sharing company is making you ride along with someone putting a gun to your head and ordering you to "Press that accept button!", I just don't see it?
If you want to argue specifics, such as the accusations they "stop sending you work" if you decline more than a couple fares in a row? Then sure, those are different complaints that could be legitimately looked into. B
Re: (Score:2)
If there is any sort of penalty for not logging in during the times Uber or Lyft want you to, like going to the end of the list when a fare comes up, then there is a valid legal question.
Re: (Score:2)
The independent contractor bit fails based on both FLSB and California standards; the driver has no ability to control fares or how work is performed. In practical terms, I agree that they are not “employees,” but even for independent contractors you cannot pay them below minimum wage when there is a defined-time component to the work.
Re:Man, CA people seem dense .... (Score:5, Interesting)
If I was an owner of a service like Uber, Lyft or DoorDash, I'd simply pull out of California. No sense doing business in a state that's hostile to the entire premise of your business model.
Abusing workers? I'm glad California is hostile to that masquerading as a valid business model.
I get why this court ruling went the way it did - but it's more of a technicality.
To me it's a delicious technicality, because these companies spent a whole lot getting their empty victory.
With the exception of Lyft, I've done work for all of these platforms for some spare cash.
I was wondering when we would see the privilege, and there it is.
It very much wasn't a technicality (Score:2)
Not surprisingly Uber got greedy and instead of buying a law that would break California labor law for 5 to 10
Re: (Score:2)
If I was an owner of a service like Uber, Lyft or DoorDash, I'd simply pull out of California. No sense doing business in a state that's hostile to the entire premise of your business model.
The "sense" is that you make a lot of money in California.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was an owner of a service like Uber, Lyft or DoorDash, I'd simply pull out of California. No sense doing business in a state that's hostile to the entire premise of your business model.
California has by far, the largest State economy in the U.S. Pulling out is not a easy business decision, no matter how hostile the State might be to your business model.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not dense (Score:3)
The problem is is that when it comes to labor rights you've got a handful of hobbyists and a few heads of the old unions versus think tanks with unlimited funding and massive focus groups and a media more than happy to assist those think tanks ala manufa
Re: (Score:2)
It's absolutely their right not to do business in California.
But if they do want to do business in California, they need to follow California law.
Re:Man, CA people seem dense .... (Score:5, Informative)
If I was an owner of a service like Uber, Lyft or DoorDash, I'd simply pull out of California. No sense doing business in a state that's hostile to the entire premise of your business model.
Leave an areas from which they derive a large chuck of their bookings and revenue? If California wasn't important to these companies, they wouldn't have spend all that money pushing Prop. 22
Uber Reveals One of Its Big Vulnerabilities [slate.com]
About 24 percent of Uber’s bookings -- all the money that customers pay through the app and in cash, including driver earnings -- occur in just five cities: New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, London, and São Paulo.
For a company that operates in more than 700 cities, including quite a few giants—Mexico City, Tokyo, Paris, Lagos, Hong Kong, Seoul, and Mumbai, to name a few—that concentration gives Uber a surprising vulnerability at the local level. And they know it. The filing reads:
"An economic downturn, increased competition, or regulatory obstacles in any of these key metropolitan areas would adversely affect our business, financial condition, and operating results to a much greater degree than would the occurrence of such events in other areas."
Re: (Score:3)
If I was an owner of a service like Uber, Lyft or DoorDash, I'd simply pull out of California.
That's why you never would be hired to run a big company like this. It is also why no company you start could get that big.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No sense doing business in a state that's hostile to the entire premise of your business model.
You're talking about companies that specifically are in legal trouble in almost every jurisdiction from every government the world over. I agree with you. They should just pull out, and then die.
I kept trying to see how they could possibly think you're NOT an independent contractor if you're only logging into an app on your phone when YOU feel like it, and then voluntarily accepting the offers it pushes to you?
Gotta love that word "pushes" you used. That is one of the *many* reasons why in many parts of the world they are repeatedly losing the contractor argument. There's a lot of legal text you're ignoring in your very simplified (dare I say "cherry picked") arguement.
Re: (Score:2)
Logging into an app and 'accepting a gig' does nor make you an independent contractor. As there is no individual contract for this gig.
To me, govt = huge union (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Autocracy (Score:2)
W3 LOVE DEMOCRACY, until we don't.
Sacks of shit.
Sets a bad precident IMO (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer so my understanding of the law is limited, but to me this seems to set a bad precedent limiting the power of initiatives. No matter how I feel about how CA voters have voted on this and other initiatives and referendums, the will of the voter should be sacrosanct in my opinion. I am not a fan of judges legislating, which this seem to be a case of to me, and even worse overriding the will of the voters.
All California initiatives and referendums override the ability of California legislature
Re: (Score:2)
the will of the voter should be sacrosanct
No room in there for civil rights? What happens when the voters of Humboldt County decide that there are too many hippie art communes in the area? And they need some sort of regulatory and permitting system?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no "precedent" created here. You're not a lawyer, but worse, you didn't even look up the legal words you used! And you probably think you understand what you said, but what you said is gobblygook. Even you don't know what it means.
The California Constitution grants the Legislature the power to pass legislation. Got that much? The voters cannot pass legislation that says the legislature can't change it. If the voters wanted to do that, first they'd need to vote to change the Constitution. Which they
On the up side (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod up.
What will be an interesting thing to watch is how the IRS and FLSB address it at a Federal level, because there are important points that need to get reconciled.
I don't think that's going to matter (Score:2)
You might be right as a matter of law, but judge Barrett couldn't name five fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment during her hearing and she was still seated. That's somethin
Uber could offer a constitutional amendment (Score:3)