In many ways, I can see it. I think the issue lies in a lot of Uber's current policies around drivers e.g. very strict rules around cancellations. If Uber was just a lead generation provider then it shouldn't care or intervene if a driver decides they don't want a job, but depending on the scenario you can be punished if you don't want to take a job.
Part of me thinks Uber could get away with this if they just relaxed some of their current driver policies (e.g. more limited penalties for cancellations). The issue is whether doing so would drastically deteriorate the quality of the service for riders.
I'm going to go with yes. The only times I use ride sharing services (Lyft, not Uber) are in high-density situations like getting to and from the airport. Depending on the hour there will be dozens to hundreds of drivers hovering in the area trying to get rides. As soon as "rider available" appears on screen a dozen different drivers are mashing the accept button.
Up until a year or two ago, the drivers would then see where I want to go and then call me on the phone to say they didn't want to go there, telling me to cancel the ride they had accepted. I systematically refused every time so that (usually after a few minutes) they would give up and cancel it themselves. This would usually happen for 2 or 3 drivers in a row, making ride-sharing a miserable experience for me.
I assume the cancellation penalties have been made much more serious, because this hasn't happened to me in a while now.
I've only had that happen a couple of times for me, but that's because I'm mostly a Lyft user. What was more common on Lyft was drivers calling me to ask "Where are you going?", and when I'd respond with "I already put my destination into the app", they'd hang up and cancel on me.
Edit: About the cancellation penalties. I don't know about Uber, but on Lyft when I as a rider have to cancel on somebody, I sometimes see options pop up saying "driver asked me to cancel" or "driver is not moving". They know when drivers are using trickery to get out of dinging their cancellation rate. And when I have to cancel for "driver is not moving", I also get a message saying they'll waive the cancellation fee because there was an issue with my ride (note: I get this message before I see the list of cancellation reasons to pick from, not after).
First, the driver doesn't see your destination until he picks you up.
Second, there is no competition or reason to rush to "mash" the button, the ride request is exclusive to you as a driver for the 10 seconds that you see it.
[1] Edit: To clarify, I mean "the model they're promoting of what their core business is", i.e. the claim that "they're a lead-gen platform they license out"; I'm not saying they're business model is financially non-viable.
They don't just take a commission, they set the entire price.
They set the rules, about the types of vehicles, about cleanliness, about myriad other things. The route. "Lead generation" is obtuse.
Honestly, just keep the 'we don't show drivers with a less than X star rating' in place, and allow the rider to give the driver a low rating for cancelling. Self correcting problem - drivers that routinely cancel will be pushed out, and the (potential) one bad rating shouldn't hurt routinely good drivers.
This is the exact reason I want Uber to lose this. Anything that would keep drivers classified as contractors is harmful to the actual customers, because the drivers being employees mean that they have to actually follow policies set by Uber.
I suspect if/when this gets to a higher court, the whole thing will come crashing down, because to allow Uber's weaselly redefinition of common terms, would be to allow other classes of employment to similarly become unprotected.
Which is also one of the reasons that Uber became successful. A lot of the "Uber for..." companies that provided more personal services like massages or house cleaning failed for this exact reason. As soon as a user found a provider they liked it was easy for the two parties to come to a deal for ongoing service and cut out the tech company. That is how a lead generating company works. Uber doesn't function that way because the provider and the consumer don't have an ongoing relationship because the drivers have all been commoditized.
If I am an employee of a company, they are probably not going to let me work for a competitor while I am on the clock with them.
Having the app enabled is being on-call for potential assignments, not actually working. In my youngest years, I did that for multiple temp agencies at the same time a lot. Are they employees of both? Sure. Multiple W-2 employers is not that uncommon for people doing temp work.
> How should benefits be calculated?
In most cases, they will probably work little enough for each as to not reach mandatory benefit eligibility under most employer mandates.
> If I am an employee of a company, they are probably not going to let me work for a competitor while I am on the clock with them.
If you are an employee of a company giving on-demand assignments, they probably aren't going to consider you on the clock merely because you have indicated you are available to take an assignment if it becomes available.
If there are minimum paid shift rules in play, they may consider you on the clock and demand exclusivity for the paid period once you accept a job, even if there is a lull between assignments, though.
McDonalds doesn't care if I also work at Burger King. Target doesn't care if I also work at WalMart. A plumber is generally fine if their assistant also works for another one.
All of this is subject to still doing the first job satisfactorially, of course.
Ironically, taxi drivers are also contractors. I’m surprised nobody has brought up the fact that the status quo pre-Uber was a contractor model as well.
The real problem is that the Dynamex decision is legislation from the bench that redefines “contractor.” The historical definition of a contractor was basically only c in the abc test. It will be interesting to see how the court decisions come down. As the press release points out, the precedent so far is mixed.
AB5 is a law codifying the Dynamax decision--the precise opposite of legislating from the bench.
A coordinated Amazon/Uber/Lyft shut down in California would be something to behold.
That amount of money can go a long way. Unfortunately.
Failing that, if they are to be counted as individual contractors they should be able to negotiate like those: without one-sided deceptive deals.
The politics of what has occurred here is probably the pendulum swinging too far, but in the right direction: the classification of 'contractor' just isn't correct to describe these workers, and the legislature did its best to rectify that.
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Open-F...
my experience is that this is hardly ever true in politics. Legislators are generally balancing what they think is right (or what they think voters think is right) with what is in their own self interest (such as getting re-elected). As a result, they most often do their best to serve their own self-interest first and foremost. They raarely try to rectify something if rectifying it is at odds with their self-interest.
Rectifying this situation would likely involve some third category "somewhere in the middle", but that's not what we got.
You can work only when the platform routes a job to you, not “whenever you want”. It's on-demand temporary work with a faster “job is available, do you accept it?” cycle than most, but the general idea of such on-demand work as regular W-2 employment has been around for a long time.
It's frightening to see people just lap that up because it happens to coincide with their day job. But nothing in labor law prevents a company like Uber from "disrupting work" and offering that flexibility to employees.
I agree with the OP, and I am not just "repeating the Uber party line". I believe 3 categories of work are needed:
1. Employee (e.g. current W2), where you have a single full-time employer who is primarily responsible for your wages and benefits.
2. Independent Contractor, where the IC has full control over their rates, where they do the work, their tools, etc.
3. "Flexible" employee, where the employee has full control over their hours and availability, and to work for multiple employers, but doesn't have control over rates or how the work is done.
This would take the pressure of other industries that use independent contractors, such as tech.
Right now a couple of bad actors like Uber, are ruining the independent contractor category of work. Forcing states to put more laws in place.
It reminds me of before my software engineering career, when I was working at The Gap. The job wasn't great, but a lot of people really needed more hours. Unfortunately, there was a rule that nobody could work more than 29 hours a week. Everyone hated it. Employees hated it the most because if they needed extra money they couldn't take an extra shift. The managers hated it too because it was just more rules for them to deal with.
Apparently, this rule existed because there was a law saying that past 30 hours a week, employees had to get some extra benefits. Gap corporate just changed the job to avoid that law. As a result, that job got worse, and nobody got more benefits. Just unintended consequences.
I drove for Uber and it was seriously the only job I could get and it saved my life. I know of many other drivers who are battling disabling conditions who drive for Uber as well. Jobs that are as flexible as Uber are non-existent.
I find it really disappointing how many people debate this issue without ever actually listening to the people in poverty. That means talking to real people doing the job. Not just the protestors in the streets. And frankly, if you have time to protest, you're probably not that poor. The poorest of the poor work whenever they can and do not spend time on things that don't earn them money.
People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because its better than any of their alternatives
If the government really care about worker well being then the government should directly help them, instead of using company as middleman. For example by providing universal health care or universal basic income.
That's not how it works. Uber isn't operating at a profit because their current-investor-subsidized-rates are below the cost of their service. But there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem there: there rates are low because they want to gain marketshare, which is only enabled by the flood of VC/IPO money.
Eventually, all of the rideshare companies will need to raise their rates to cover the cost of service, and that cost should include reasonable remuneration for their workers. If it turns out the market isn't viable at those costs (i.e. if people just stop taking rideshares altogether because it's too expensive), then it never should have existed in the first place.
I think we basically agree. The dangerous outcome is that Uber becomes more expensive for end users in California, Uber drivers become employees, but they make exactly minimum wage because that's the minimum Uber can pay them, and Uber's profits in California go to zero. (I doubt the Uber business will cease to exist because taxis are so bad in comparison.) Uber's market shrinks because they became more expensive, so they can hire fewer people.
Is that better for anyone? It sounds worse for both Uber drivers and for Uber users than the status quo. Unless you think that a minimum wage job is superior to the current job of Uber driver, and we really need more minimum wage jobs.
Maybe I misunderstand, but what you're saying sounds vaguely like "I know what's better for you".
IMHO, the whole point of this law is just to weaken the existing precedent by giving exemptions to the Lawmakers' buddies and donors.
I can do 10 hours or I can do 0 hours based on nothing but my own whim. I don't have a problem with people organizing to get a better deal for themselves, but I like the way it works now.
I've worked for companies that misclassify workers, and Uber isn't it as far as I understand. I may be convinced otherwise, but I don't see it.
I guess the issue arises when we got people working full-time hours but still being classified as an independent contractor.
Why though? There's plenty of contractors in other industries that work exclusively for a single client, often for 40+ hours per week. In technology in particular it's more common than having multiple concurrent clients (per person, not per consultancy).
I'm a W-2 employee at the company I work for, and they don't dictate my hours.
To my knowledge, there are numerous business areas where it's possible to negotiate flexible work hours, so wouldn't this be here possible as well?
Basically there's a bunch of laws that spike certain expensive costs for employees if they work different amounts. Therefore its not very profitable to allow completely flexible work times. Otherwise many of their Hawaii drivers would drive for 21 hours for benefits, and the labor costs would be higher than if you were required to either drive for 20 hours or 40 hours.
I think ideally employees wouldn't be mandated to provide any expensive benefits to full-time employees and benefits would be centralized and funded through more taxation instead.
But mostly, uber is complaining because labor laws are complex
Ideally there wouldn't be a tradeoff, but in practice it seems like there is one.
Who are we really subsidizing here?
[1] https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17924628/uber-drivers-make-hou... (FWIW, I don't agree with all the math on their earnings, but there are a lot of other reports out there on that)
You raise a good point that labor law has an ugly bimodality regarding employee and independent contractor, where it might be better to refactor the law so that different protections apply based on some particulars of the arrangement. Working <10hrs/wk vs >20hrs/wk is one good place to draw a distinction.
"Please don't make insinuations about astroturfing. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried, email us and we'll look at the data."
Whether or not Uber drivers are employees or contractors under Dynamex and the ABC test is an open question, but the Uber explanation of the bill's impact is more or less correct.
Since Uber rates drivers, does background checks, sets the routes, leases cars, etc., how does Uber plan to avoid this check? Do ratings sort drivers, or is Uber effectively creating a credential that governs the driver? What does the distribution of driver activity look like?
It’s hard to believe an all-or-nothing determination will hold. Surely some fraction of most-active drivers will end up getting called employees.
It’s one thing to explain the law (and case law) and yet another to provide an explanation with evidence. The latter is what we need (especially as voters), yet the former is what lawyers like to peddle because it makes them money. Uber’s post is almost 100% legalese. CEO Dara had an opportunity to make a grounded statement here, but didn’t.
Currently, most drivers seem to drive for both Uber and Lyft (based on their cars having stickers for both). But if classified as employees, and being guaranteed a minimum wage, then Uber/Lyft might require them to be exclusively available. As a result, the drivers will have to choose either Uber and Lyft and since Uber has more market share, they will likely choose Uber and Lyft will be squeezed out.
What am I missing/misunderstanding above?
Will drivers be entitled to minimum wages from all of the apps they have active, or only when they have a fare?
Will there be a single union to bargain with all of the apps, or individual unions?
Another comment mentioned that Lyft might pay drivers more to keep them, but given that both Uber and Lyft are hemorrhaging money, it seems unlikely that either will be willing to pay drivers more. Also, Uber just needs to pay the same as Lyft for a little while, and just wait out the decline of Lyft due to AB5.
I mean, that has been Uber's MO since they started. AirBnB too, nothing new about this
TBH considering the language of the bill, it s very plausible to say that driving people around is not "their usual course". The same way that google is not an advertiser, and airbnb is not a hotel chain.
And yes, Uber does lease cars to its drivers.
An outcome like that may be possible here as an unintended consequence, with Uber and Lyft capping most drivers at 20hrs a week, and full time drivers splitting their time between the two (20hrs for each).
This is where one can say sure. But in reality with the lack of public healthcare, it's just hiding an large cost on society when the person ends up running up medical bills and is unable to pay.
Does it make me a Microsoft employee if I use Outlook to conduct business? Does it make me an Ebay employee if I sell things through ebay? Until Uber eliminates the ability for drivers to drive Uber and Lyft simultaneously, and bounce between the services at will, I DO view it as drivers paying for 1) a dispatch and messaging service 2) payment processing 3) insurance 4) a resume host 5) a customer funnel. Thats more than just a technology or software company, Uber sells transportation services to drivers. The fact alone that they can have two messaging/dispatch apps open at once, on two phones, makes me question, which company do you think the driver works for? Both simultaneously? Just the one that the passenger is from? Is having both Uber and Lyft open looking for passengers any different than listing something I have for sale on Etsy, Ebay and Amazon, and pulling the listing once it sells out?
Similarly, Ebay's service is less dependent on how well you provide your commerce services, it pretty much lets the market determine your prospects on its platform. On the other hand, Uber is highly reliant on the conduct of its drivers and the service the provide.
The obvious Duck test is staring you in the face, that here is a new type of thing that only half looks like a duck, and should be treated as such, which is what rideshare companies have been arguing for forever, including at the legislative level. Instead of forcing a non-duck into a duck because of stupidity, lack of imagination, or pure emotional hatred for certain companies, the level-headed thing to do is to look at how such a new type of market really should work for the benefit of all participants. The race-to-the-bottom thing that drivers complain about is a consequence of ideological cock-blocking by pandering politicians unable to come up with a real solution between fucked-up taxi medallions and raw market forces. AB5's madness lies in pretending it's the 1950's and takes the cake in making it worse not just for gig companies but a shit load of other industries as collateral damage.
I agree with others. These “gig economy” jobs are a different classification of worker that doesn’t currently exist. Dunno what the details should be but they aren’t quite contractors and they aren’t quite employees.
California could have taken the lead and helped define this new classification...
If Microsoft is the one paying you, and dictating how you use Outlook, what you can say, who you talk to you - then yes, it does.
The only difference here is the payment. And to that end, if Outlook supported the ability to transfer money then it still wouldn't make Microsoft your employer...
I'm not saying you are guilty of this, but I think many of us with full-time, salaried jobs tend to not be able to grasp that yes, you can be an employee of multiple companies simultaneously.
You can't necessarily be paid by more than one employer for the same unit of time -- but that's not what's happening here.
If a driver who is an employee of both platforms accepts a Lyft ride, they are working as an employee for that one company for the duration of the ride. If they then accept an Uber ride, they are working as an employee for that one company for the duration of the ride.
Keep in mind there's no minimum amount of time you have to work to be considered working as an employee. Even if you're clocking in for just 5 minutes, you're still a working employee for those 5 minutes and should get paid for those 5 minutes.
The only difference between this type of employment relationship and traditional employment relationships is that at least in theory, the drivers can set their own working hours. Although the degree to which Uber and Lyft exert influence over drivers' working hours makes me wonder just how freely chosen they are.
But even if Uber, Lyft, and the like are able to argue that drivers can freely chose their working hours, that's NOT the only criterion necessary to be considered contractors. It is possible to be able to freely chose your own working hours yet still be classified properly as an employee, provided other factors point toward an employment relationship.
Im not even making the argument that they are employees or contractors, I am more saying that drivers are consumers of Ubers matching service, and that there is some accuracy in viewing Uber as a matchmaking service and payment facilitator.
> due to eleventh-hour amendments to the bill, many industries are now exempt from the new ABC test that AB5 will codify into state law
Anyone have information on the exemptions added to the bill, specifically if it exempts most of the big tech companies?
> "Transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere for everyone"
Sounds like transportation is their core business to me.
No, it exchanges it for attention, which it sells, but an exchange of the world's information for other valuable commodities is key to it's business model.
> Contrary to some of the rhetoric we’ve heard, AB5 does not automatically reclassify any rideshare drivers from independent contractors to employees.
This may seem like an immediate contradiction, but I guess they've reframed it so their proposal is actually in line with AB5?
great pr-speak
> But just because the test is hard does not mean we will not be able to pass it. 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 digital marketplaces.
Also seems like they will continue to thwart where they can (which I can't blame them for really) but seems aggressive to note. This reads more like a shareholder update, which makes sense.
> Governor Newsom has already committed to sign AB5, which would go into effect in January 2020. Because we continue to believe drivers are properly classified as independent... drivers will not be automatically reclassified as employees, even after January of next year...
> Uber and Lyft together have already transferred $60 million into a campaign committee account, and we are open to investing more to put us in the strongest position possible to run a winning campaign... We are confident that California voters and the millions of riders and drivers who use Uber will step up to protect these important work opportunities.
Translation: "We're betting that we can get a ballot initiative passed legalizing what we do faster than the State of California can bust us for violating AB5."
> Importantly, our ballot measure will not ask voters to exempt us from AB5, even though nearly every other industry in California that works with independent contractors received an exemption from the ABC test through special amendments I mentioned earlier. Instead, we will ask voters to support the pro-driver policies we have advocated for: giving drivers access to benefits and an earnings floor and retaining the flexible access to on-demand work they enjoy today.
It doesn't sound like the proposal is intended avoid compliance with AB5 but to create conditions where new bills that make the ABC test harder pass will have less support.
What... how... I don't even know where to begin with this.
Connecting riders and drivers is one thing which takes advantage of their technology but their are others. Connecting riders and scooters, connecting couriers to restaurants and hungry people, connecting people who want to go to the Hamptons with helicopters, etc.
Uber will argue that it has nothing to do with the driving part and the driving is just one of the many uses of their technology.
The difficult part of that argument will be that they have so many rules and regulations that they place on drivers and rides that's it's hard to argue they're just providing a hands-off matching & logistics service.
Pretty clever wording by Uber here, I'd say. Although does not make sense to me.
the problem with that argument is that they have a lot of control of the driver side of the platform, directly through pricing and indirectly through ratings and access.
We expect we will continue to respond to claims of misclassification in arbitration and in court as necessary, just as we do now. But we will also continue to advocate for the independence and choice that drivers tell us again and again in surveys, polls, focus groups, and personal conversations that they value most.
Uber management is not going to get the message until top management goes to jail for contempt of court.
They will not be able to keep as many drivers or allow infinite drivers to sign up, and they will not be able to pay benefits to people who only work a very small amount per week (I assume this is in the law). But beyond that, there is absolutely no reason they cannot or should not continue to let drivers sign in and out when they want.
I understand A & B, but as for C, why does someone's normal job have to be in that same line of work to be considered an independent contractor? What does whether a person is a driver professionally, or a teacher making money on the side, determine whether they're performing work as a contractor?
Maybe someone more expert can explain.
-------
[1] ABC Test that all 3 conditions must be satisfied for worker to be considered a contractor:
"... (a) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and (b) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (c) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.”
The post talks about "potential harm" and says that how many hours drivers have to work and whether they can work for competitors at the same time "would all change." Is that right?
No one knows the true impact of this. Companies will find lots of interesting ways to follow the letter of the law but not the spirit of it. As they always do.
If you really want speculation on it then find someone who's actually a lawyer and not directly affected by it (so they aren't biased). Which I haven't seen yet.
(Detailed writeup on why speculation on things like this is almost always wrong http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/ )
Honestly I think their argument could be bolstered a lot if they made a simple change. Imagine you call an Uber, then your app tells you billy wants your job. You can see he is 4.5 star rated with 1000 rides, he is est 3 min away, and he wants $15. Do you accept? If so Uber connects you. If not Uber goes back to finding someone else.
With that change Uber removes itself from being in the business of rideshare, and now is in business of connecting drivers with riders (as they’ve claimed all along). They need to let drivers dictate prices and ask users to choose.
"In the US, 92% of drivers drive less than 40 hours per week, and 45% of drivers drive less than 10 hours per week. [...] We will continue to defend the innovation that makes that kind of choice, flexibility, and independence a reality for over 200,000 drivers in California".
1. Does this distribution looks in California, not across whole US? Why talk about two different cases, unless you cherry pick? 2. How does this % look like, when we look at drivers that work for more than few months?
Fast food chain is busy from 12 AM - 2 AM, 5 PM - 7 PM. These shifts may be desirable or undesirable because of the time they occur. To be able to get the "easy" shifts (slow ones) at 10 PM or something, they can make it so that you HAVE to take a part of the other shifts... If you can't, you don't meet their eligibility and you lose your job.
If you are an employee in a shift based business, you definitely give up some rights to having completely flexible work hours.
It would make sense that there are lot of drivers that don't drive very often. They might even have stopped driving altogether, but didn't cancel their account.
It's like a website talking about total users that ever signed up, instead of 7-day active users.
This subtlety could drastically change the data interpretation.
Despite how it is covered, the law notably fails to do ANYTHING to help gig employees as it just codifies existing case law.
What this law does do is carve out exceptions in that case law so that gig employees have LESS protection.
This law could have been paired with other real protections for gig employees but that did not happen. No minimum wage guarantee extensions, no rights to organize, no improvements in access to the safety net...etc
How do people let our politicians get away with claiming they are protecting people with a bill that does nothing but erode those protections?
It is actually not a terribly bad idea. They have the money to pay for the slow court battle, and it is strictly cheaper than complying.
I'm sure some of the exemptions are not so cool though.
This sounds a lot like someone apologizing and saying they are deeply sorry, only after they are caught doing something wrong.
I think for many "big tech" companies there needs to be a paradigm shift in how society views them, not as pure tech companies that produce technology solely for technology's sake, but like Uber - companies that use tech as a means to an end of a another business (in most cases). Facebook as a news company, Amazon as a retailer, Airbnb as a short term rental unit provider, etc. (these aren't all necessarily accurate descriptions).
How can they be for self-organization of drivers (as states in the release) while battling in other state courts for prohibiting unions?
If they want to allow drivers to also drive for other platforms (again, from the text), just don’t enforce such clauses in employment contracts.
They’re talking about all the changes they supposedly want to see while the only thing stopping it from happening is Uber deciding not to.
As if being an employee must mean a rigid schedule and inflexible working hours.
> Establishing — for the first time ever — a guaranteed minimum earnings standard
> So as you can see, we are not arguing for the status quo.
Well, ok. The real question though is why.
Only companies with massive investments can afford to burn cash to keep the price to the final user as low as Uber's.
Such regulation would reduce the number of competitors appearing on the market.
Translation: "We want to help our workers by fighting against their own attempts to assert their legal rights. We will do so in special courts where we hire and pay the judges. This will be perfectly fair."
What? Those are embarassing offers.
> Our proposal avoids the potential harm of forcing drivers to be employees, whether or not they want to—and the vast majority tell us they don’t want to be
I would love to see the data behind the 'vast majority'
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/UBER/
Looking at the 5 day stock trends, it seems up compared to last week.
Corps likely airbnb and uber should probably go back to building their platforms to promote occasional resource assignment rather than permanent.
This is the fiction sold by AirBnB, Uber, etc. You just can’t grow forever (as these companies require) by “sharing.” Do you think investors would continue to happily light billions on fire if Uber didn’t have huge ambitions?
This is very similar to Etsy. Founded as a handmade marketplace until they realized not enough people make stuff by hand to keep growing. Now it’s just a mass-produced shit shop just like every other place.
I guess we do live in a post-truth era.
And, of course, they will claim the most favorable definition. In other situations, notably when they are arguing against entrenched transit/transport interests, they "become" a transport company. It's a question of which hat fits the day.
Lawyers and representatives have been making stretch arguments for the entities they represent for centuries. Did you really expect the company's legal group to not try and argue around this? Why do you think they have jobs?
(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
Seems a little bit contradictory?
Still wouldn't mind seeing another ride share app with carpooling as the focus.
The reality is that all these “gig economy” companies are only able to compete by unfairly claiming that their employees are somehow not their employees.
The build up to this legislation was that it was specifically around companies like Lyft, Uber, Dolly, etc. To argue against this just shows how desperate the company is to not give up anything.
Personally I stopped using Uber in 2016 and never looked back. I'd rather pay more for a Lyft. If both of them disappear tomorrow, there will always be Taxis; and maybe cities will finally start building out real mass transit like America has needed for decades, instead of hanging on to the brain-dead dream of a self-driving cab.
