Current Events > CA just passed a bill for reclassifying gig (Uber, Lyft, etc) employees

(+) Yeah! (+)

You love to see it

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/technology/california-passes-landmark-bill-to-remake-gig-economy.html
---

Oooooooh boy

---

I'm suspecting Uber, Lyft, etc. will stop operations in California after this.

--- Does that mean they'd actually have to fire the employees?
--- Do all of these employees then get unemployment income?
---

C&P plz
---

So Taxi drivers will make a comeback again?
---

LOL! Underpay?! I guess Texas is different, but my buddy makes $300 - $500 a weekend as an Uber driver. Double/triple rate (can't remember which) for events and holidays.
---

CableZL posted...

I'm suspecting Uber, Lyft, etc. will stop operations in California after this.

--- Does that mean they'd actually have to fire the employees?
--- Do all of these employees then get unemployment income?

Under the measure, which would go into effect Jan. 1...

Uber/Lyft and clones basically have until the end of the year to wind down operations in California, or lawyer into a convoluted loophole that makes the drivers legally considered franchisees or something.

Would this affect airbnb as well?
---

kinetika_ posted...

LOL! Underpay?! I guess Texas is different, but my buddy makes $300 - $500 a weekend as an Uber driver. Double/triple rate (can't remember which) for events and holidays.

Rates are different in every region, I believe California has the lowest ones. I get 72 cents a mile and 15 cents a minute in Nebraska without surges and usually average $27-30 an hour on weekends and $15 an hour when driving during the week (which is very rarely).

Apparently a lot of California drivers do it full time too
---

Is this something the drivers actually want?
---

Thanks a lot to those that demanded this be full time instead of on the side...

emblem boy posted...

Is this something the drivers actually want?

I'm a driver

And fuck no

The full time drivers probably were the ones pushing for this

It's the perfect side gig. Do it whenever you want. Don't take that shit away
---

side gigs are the ones taking away full time jobs.

---

I just started driving for Uber and I'm in Cali lol
---

SwaggieBeIIe462 posted...

Thanks a lot to those that demanded this be full time instead of on the side...

Those are one who will get screwed over the worst.
Sure, you'll be "employees" now, but the software backend isn't going to let anyone be "full time" anymore.

fan357 posted...

side gigs are the ones taking away full time jobs.

People tend to forget this lol

The Taxi association in my area fought tooth and nail to prevent Uber from coming here. They know it'll bankrupt them and we all know how awful the job market is nowadays.
---

emblem boy posted...

Is this something the drivers actually want?

Who cares what people just trying to make a little extra cash want

The elite California liberals know whats best for them
---

Under the measure, which would go into effect Jan. 1, workers must be designated as employees instead of contractors if a company exerts control over how they perform their tasks or if their work is part of a companys regular business.

Wait what

What about the actual contract labor industry?
---

Please fix the trucking industry first. It's so, so bad.
---

It's so stupid. Honestly, I don't know why old dinosaurs even try to understand technology.
---

"Hey can I clock in to do a few hours of driving tonight?"

"sorry you're not scheduled you can work Wednesday at 3 PM does that work?"

"no I have a job then"

"sorry"
---

SK8T3R215 posted...

"Hey can I clock in to do a few hours of driving tonight?"

"sorry you're not scheduled you can work Wednesday at 3 PM does that work?"

"no I have a job then"

"sorry"

Uber's actual argument is even worse

https://twitter.com/faizsays/status/1171865967321702400

Uber says it will not reclassify drivers as employees in the wake of landmark California law, despite the lack of ride-hail exemption in #AB5. Lead attorney argues Uber is exempt from requirements because "drivers work is outside the usual course of Uber's business."

Uber counsel Tony West had pointed to legal rulings in making this argument. "In fact, several previous rulings have found that drivers work is outside the usual course of Uber's business, which is serving as a technology platform for several different types of" marketplaces.

---

Balrog0 posted...

SK8T3R215 posted...

"Hey can I clock in to do a few hours of driving tonight?"

"sorry you're not scheduled you can work Wednesday at 3 PM does that work?"

"no I have a job then"

"sorry"

Uber's actual argument is even worse

https://twitter.com/faizsays/status/1171865967321702400

Uber says it will not reclassify drivers as employees in the wake of landmark California law, despite the lack of ride-hail exemption in #AB5. Lead attorney argues Uber is exempt from requirements because "drivers work is outside the usual course of Uber's business."

Uber counsel Tony West had pointed to legal rulings in making this argument. "In fact, several previous rulings have found that drivers work is outside the usual course of Uber's business, which is serving as a technology platform for several different types of" marketplaces.

Man, this trash is why people hate lawyers, and I'm saying this as a lawyer. This is such a disingenuous, anti-meaning, anti-reality argument that it should be considered frivolous.
---

taxi companies probably lobbied hard
---

oh great, now I can't have even that to fall back on

Do the customers actually want this? To pay more for Uber/Lyft? Or have it removed from the state entirely? I remember what it was like with cabs, they were the absolute fucking worst, and cost twice as much.
---

Wasn't the whole point of making them "app users" and not employees because if they were employees they would be cab drivers and would have to get certifications like any other cab driver?
---

@Old NoiseTank posted...

C&P plz

SACRAMENTO California legislators approved a landmark bill on Tuesday that requires companies like Uber and Lyft to treat contract workers as employees, a move that could reshape the gig economy and that adds fuel to a yearslong debate over whether the nature of work has become too insecure.

The bill passed in a 29-to-11 vote in the State Senate and will apply to app-based companies, despite their efforts to negotiate an exemption. On Wednesday morning, the Assembly gave its final approval, 56 to 15. Californias governor, Gavin Newsom, endorsed the bill this month and is expected to sign it. Under the measure, which would go into effect Jan. 1, workers must be designated as employees instead of contractors if a company exerts control over how they perform their tasks or if their work is part of a companys regular business.

The bill may influence other states. A coalition of labor groups is pushing similar legislation in New York, and bills in Washington State and Oregon that were similar to Californias but failed to advance could see renewed momentum. New York City passed a minimum wage for ride-hailing drivers last year but did not try to classify them as employees.

In California, the legislation will affect at least one million workers who have been on the receiving end of a decades-long trend of outsourcing and franchising work, making employer-worker relationships more arms-length. Many people have been pushed into contractor status with no access to basic protections like a minimum wage and unemployment insurance. Ride-hailing drivers, food-delivery couriers, janitors, nail salon workers, construction workers and franchise owners could now all be reclassified as employees.

But the bills passage, which codifies and extends a 2018 California Supreme Court ruling, threatens gig economy companies like Uber and Lyft. The ride-hailing firms along with app-based services that offer food delivery, home repairs and dog-walking services have built their businesses on inexpensive, independent labor. Uber and Lyft, which have hundreds of thousands of drivers in California, have said contract work provides people with flexibility. They have warned that recognizing drivers as employees could destroy their businesses.

It will have major reverberations around the country, said David Weil, a top Labor Department official during the Obama administration and the author of a book on the so-called fissuring of the workplace. He argued that the bill could set a new bar for worker protections and force business owners to rethink their reliance on contractors.

California legislators said the bill, known as Assembly Bill 5 and proposed by State Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, a Democrat, would set the tone for the future of work.

Today the so-called gig companies present themselves as the innovative future of tomorrow, a future where companies dont pay Social Security or Medicare, said State Senator Maria Elena Durazo, a Democrat. Lets be clear: there is nothing innovative about underpaying someone for their labor.

She added, Today we are determining the future of the California economy.

Ride-hailing drivers hailed the bills passage. I am so proud of ride-share drivers who took time out of their lives to share their stories, stand up, speak to legislators and hope they take a moment to bask in a victory, said Rebecca Stack-Martinez, a driver and an organizer with the group Gig Workers Rising.

---

Uber did not immediately have a comment. Earlier on Tuesday, it laid off 435 workers in its product and engineering teams, the companys second round of cuts in recent months.

Lyft said it was disappointed. Today, our states political leadership missed an important opportunity to support the overwhelming majority of ride-share drivers who want a thoughtful solution that balances flexibility with an earnings standard and benefits, said Adrian Durbin, a Lyft spokesman.

Gig-type work has been under the spotlight for years as companies like Uber, Lyft and DoorDash in the United States as well as Didi Chuxing in China and Ola in India have grown into behemoths even as the contractors they relied on did not receive the benefits or minimum pay guaranteed to employees. Many of the companies have worked assiduously to beat back efforts to classify their workers as employees, settling class-action lawsuits from drivers and securing exemptions from rules that might have threatened the drivers freelancer status.

While regulators in California and at least three other states New York, Alaska and Oregon had found that ride-hailing drivers were employees under state laws for narrow purposes, like eligibility for unemployment insurance, those findings could be overridden by state laws explicitly deeming the drivers as contractors. About half the states in the nation had passed such provisions.

But more recently, the tide began changing. Two federal proposals introduced since 2018 have sought to redefine the way workers are classified to allow more of them to unionize. Those proposals have received support from candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, including Senators Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The presidential hopefuls also lent their endorsement to the California bill.

In Britain, Uber has appealed a decision by a labor tribunal that drivers must be classified as workers entitled to minimum wage and vacation. The countrys Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case next year.

Some form of benefits to some population of drivers seems inevitable, said Lloyd Walmsley, an equity research analyst at Deutsche Bank who follows the ride-hailing industry.

A critical question is how gig economy companies will react to Californias new law. Industry officials have estimated that having to rely on employees rather than contractors raises costs by 20 to 30 percent.

Uber and Lyft have repeatedly warned that they will have to start scheduling drivers in advance if they are employees, reducing drivers ability to work when and where they want.

Experts said that there is nothing in the bill that requires employees to work set shifts, and that Uber and Lyft are legally entitled to continue allowing drivers to make their own scheduling decisions.

In practice, Uber and Lyft might choose to limit the number of drivers who can work during slow hours or in less busy markets, where drivers may not generate enough in fares to justify their payroll costs as employees. That could lead to a reduced need for drivers over all.
---

But Veena Dubal, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, said it would still generally be advantageous for Uber and Lyft to rely on incentives like bonus pay to ensure they had enough drivers on the road to adjust to customer demand much more nimbly than if they scheduled drivers in advance.

It doesnt make sense for them to drastically limit flexibility, she said.

Some of the companies are not done fighting the bill. Uber, Lyft and DoorDash have pledged to spend $90 million to support a ballot initiative that would essentially exempt them from the legislation. Uber has also said it will litigate misclassification claims from drivers in arbitration and press lawmakers to consider a separate bill that could exempt them from A.B. 5s impact when the legislative session begins in January.

California cities will have ways to enforce the new law. In last-minute amendments to the measure, legislators gave large cities the right to sue companies that dont comply.

The bill was not universally supported by drivers. Some opposed it because they worried it would make it hard to keep a flexible schedule. After Uber and Lyft sent messages to drivers and riders in California in August asking them to contact legislators on the companies behalf, legislative aides said they had noticed a spike in calls.

As the bill wound its way through the Legislature, the ride-hailing companies sought an agreement that would create a new category of workers between contractor and employee. They met with labor groups and Governor Newsoms office to negotiate a deal to give drivers a minimum wage and the right to organize, while stopping short of classifying them as employees.

But in July and August, labor groups balked, and the proposed deal disintegrated. Some company officials have expressed cautious optimism in recent days about striking a deal with labor after the bills passage.

fin
3/3
---

CableZL posted...

I'm suspecting Uber, Lyft, etc. will stop operations in California after this.

--- Does that mean they'd actually have to fire the employees?
--- Do all of these employees then get unemployment income?

You can't really just pass a law and be like "surprise fuckers!" that's actually unconstitutional. There's always a time period where it doesn't take effect after being signed.

So basically, if they stop operations NOW and "fire" all those drivers, then nothing will happen.

---

TroutPaste posted...

Experts said that there is nothing in the bill that requires employees to work set shifts, and that Uber and Lyft are legally entitled to continue allowing drivers to make their own scheduling decisions.

How does that work exactly? They have to treat them like employees, but they don't actually have the ability to treat them like employees?
---

they should have just mandated part time employees only.
---

CA really stepped into it, maybe or maybe not. It would be amusing if it turns out the drivers would make about the same either way, whether contractors or employees. Never know, it could actually wind up that way after on the job research.

s0nicfan posted...

How does that work exactly? They have to treat them like employees, but they don't actually have the ability to treat them like employees?

Nothing really changes about the flexibility of the schedules or how they conduct their job.

The part that fucks over Uber here is that they now have basically just jumped around literally thousands of employees and are mandated because of ACA to provide them insurance or else there's a massive penalty.

---

This is a lot better than telling the taxi companies to adapt. Californians know what best for everyone.
---

s0nicfan posted...

How does that work exactly? They have to treat them like employees, but they don't actually have the ability to treat them like employees?

They can have them work set shifts if they want, they're just not obligated to, is what that's saying

---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

How does that work exactly? They have to treat them like employees, but they don't actually have the ability to treat them like employees?

They can have them work set shifts if they want, they're just not obligated to, is what that's saying

That makes sense. I must have just been reading it weird.
---

I think it makes sense tbh. Uber workers don't fit the ABC test to be considered contractors. And Uber/Lyft wont leave California lol so they're gonna have to figure something out that will benefit their employees while still being competitive against the Taxi industry or else they're fucked.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

I think it makes sense tbh. Uber workers don't fit the ABC test to be considered contractors. And Uber/Lyft wont leave California lol so they're gonna have to figure something out that will benefit their employees while still being competitive against the Taxi industry or else they're fucked.

I still haven't gotten a clear sense from any of these attempts to regulate Uber whether drivers will now also need to go through certification like taxi drivers or not.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

I think it makes sense tbh. Uber workers don't fit the ABC test to be considered contractors. And Uber/Lyft wont leave California lol so they're gonna have to figure something out that will benefit their employees while still being competitive against the Taxi industry or else they're fucked.

I still haven't gotten a clear sense from any of these attempts to regulate Uber whether drivers will now also need to go through certification like taxi drivers or not.

That doesn't seem to be what anyone is trying to push for other than the Taxi industry. So I doubt it, and this doesn't change that from what it looks like.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

I think it makes sense tbh. Uber workers don't fit the ABC test to be considered contractors. And Uber/Lyft wont leave California lol so they're gonna have to figure something out that will benefit their employees while still being competitive against the Taxi industry or else they're fucked.

Theoretically, this. Its how the free market should work

but the problem is we have no real accountability for companies so they can choose to fuck over the lowest employees here (the drivers) so that they can continue to pay the higher-ups millions of dollars

---

Uber will have to regulate schedules now, because there is a huge incentive to work during non peak hours: You get a huge base pay for doing nothing.

Uber will just bleed cash if it lets as many people sign on as they want at 3 am on Tuesday.
---

TheGoldenEel posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

I think it makes sense tbh. Uber workers don't fit the ABC test to be considered contractors. And Uber/Lyft wont leave California lol so they're gonna have to figure something out that will benefit their employees while still being competitive against the Taxi industry or else they're fucked.

Theoretically, this. Its how the free market should work

but the problem is we have no real accountability for companies so they can choose to fuck over the lowest employees here (the drivers) so that they can continue to pay the higher-ups millions of dollars

True, but how they handle this can make or break their business. Especially if other states adopt a similar bill.
---

Spooking posted...

Now self driving cars will take over and these people will be out of a job. Nice job, Cali. lmao

People are already losing jobs and will be losing jobs to automation anyway.

Dont act like you actually care.

And god forbid employees actually have power.
---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

Uber will have to regulate schedules now, because there is a huge incentive to work during non peak hours: You get a huge base pay for doing nothing.

Uber will just bleed cash if it lets as many people sign on as they want at 3 am on Tuesday.

What will probably happen is a "clock in" like system for drivers where they can be "rejected" for driving when they sign in if the time slot is saturated and then recommended more available slots, assuming they don't just flat out "fire" most of their part time drivers and start scheduling the rest like a regular business.
---

This is going to affect a lot of companies and a lot of people could lose their jobs if this goes into affect.

Postmates, which is a company planing go public will be have 2nd thoughts. Uber, Lyft, DoorDash are just the big ones. Instacart, EatClub and many other companies rely on the gig economy.

This is going to stifle entrepreneurship in the Bay Area. It's going also hurt the overall economy. If Dems wanted a recession, they may actually get one with this bill.
---