Should Uber & Lyft be ordered to fully employ drivers?

[QuarterMillionMan]

In California a judge ordered Uber & Lyft to employ drivers vs independent contractors. Uber & Lyft intends to shut down their services in California.

[disneysteve]

I'm no expert but it's my understanding that once approved to work, Uber/Lyft drivers have no set schedule. You control when and how much you work and you're paid by the job, not by salary or by the hour. That sounds an awful lot like an independent contractor to me.

[Singuy]

I'm no expert but it's my understanding that once approved to work, Uber/Lyft drivers have no set schedule. You control when and how much you work and you're paid by the job, not by salary or by the hour. That sounds an awful lot like an independent contractor to me.

Yup don't understand what the judge is smoking. Uber workers are more individual contractors than most individual contractors..lol. No dedicated hours, no dress code, no quotas, no oversight, no equipment provided, and no one to answer to. Seriously can it be classified more as an individual contractor?

[disneysteve]

Uber workers are more individual contractors than most individual contractors..lol.

Exactly!

[rennigade]

All Uber and Lyft have to do is shut down overnight. Within a week, they'll be allowed to operate as normal. People will lose their minds if they have to go back to old school taxi service.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Maybe but people in the US are stupid. Uber doesn't pay it's drivers enough and drivers are stupid enough to keep on driving. It's completely subsidized. But nope I think if they shut down in CA I think they might find they aren't making as much as they expect. Rides have to be more expensive in order to make it work. but it somehow still isn't.

[disneysteve]

Uber doesn't pay it's drivers enough and drivers are stupid enough to keep on driving.

If drivers are willing to drive for what they're making, that's on them, isn't it? If they don't like the pay, the are free to stop doing it. If enough drivers stopped, then Uber would be forced to pay more.

[QuarterMillionMan]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/aug/10/uber-lyft-ruling-california-judge

This article talks about the judge's order.

[Singuy]

Maybe but people in the US are stupid. Uber doesn't pay it's drivers enough and drivers are stupid enough to keep on driving. It's completely subsidized. But nope I think if they shut down in CA I think they might find they aren't making as much as they expect. Rides have to be more expensive in order to make it work. but it somehow still isn't.

The pay is perfectly balanced as of now because all of these companies are data driven. Paying too much will lead to more Uber drivers on the road but not an increase amount of clients. So the uber driver will most likely make exactly the same as prior to the pay increase if the car remain idle longer due to a lack of clients. This stuff is all balanced as such and it's why capitalism + data collection = perfected pricing models.

[frugal saver]

I wonder if part of the decision had to do with Uber's program of leasing the vehicle to the driver, which kind of makes them like a regular taxi driver. (Most drive their own car, but the program exists.)

Or the fact that Uber (and probably Lyft) have a horrendous track record with checking their drivers. Taxi drivers have to have a valid drivers license (and the companies are part of a program so if their driver loses their license or gets a DUI, then the company is notified) and must have valid insurance. Uber has had MANY instances of drivers with no license, revoked license, no insurance, or insurance that refuses to pay after an accident while driving a client.

There were a bunch of long-running fights between Uber and the State of California to try to get them to comply. And Uber pretty much thumbed their nose at those pesky rules, claiming it was the driver's responsibility to self-monitor if they were legal to drive.

My neighbor, whose mental health issues kept him from most regular jobs, was an Uber driver. I personally would never have gotten into a car with him. There was a news story of an Uber driver that went crazy while driving a woman, and ended up naked in a gas station parking lot. My neighbor didn't return for several days and his car was gone for another week, so I always wondered if it was him.

I can kind of see why California is pushing Uber to take full responsibility for their drivers. But Uber has an established history of refusing to follow local laws, so this probably won't end well.

[disneysteve]

I certainly think it is Uber/Lyft's responsibility to verify that their drivers are legal (licensed, insured, etc.). But that still doesn't make the drivers employees as opposed to contractors.

[riverwed070707]

Uber & Lyft intends to shut down their services in California.

More jobs lost when they are already scarce Contractor or employee, I know a ton of people who rely on this income, some full time and they've already taken a massive hit due to COVID

[LivingAlmostLarge]

but there is little transparancy on what uber/lyft drivers really make . I'm curious what is the average?

[~bs]

dumb. if they're ICs, they're ICs. Won't such an order affect other ICs?

[ua_guy]

I hear both sides, but here's my take. The drivers need to be regulated as commercial drivers and they should be required to have a new class of commercial license which also needs to include DOT medical certification. Their vehicles need to be subject to FMCSA-like rules across 50 states, not local or municipal rules. As it stands, uber/lyft wanting to employ drivers as IC is all about pushing the liability for its services to its workforce. They want to bill it as a win for their employees to come and go as they please and to make as little or as much as they want without incurring other expense, but in reality it's a means to a very different goal for the stakeholders.

Let's talk about the money side of things. Pay has been a big issue. Totally honest, I've never met an uber/lyft driver who does that job exclusively and is a self-made millionaire. There aren't enough hours in the day, and the money just isn't that good. It seems most of the money doesn't actually go to the drivers themselves. I take issue with that, calling them IC's if they aren't getting the lion's share for their work.

For me, this is a philosophical issue. What kind of culture, and what kind of work do we want to create in this country? There are lots of hungry people who need work, but, is creating a class of casual self-insured workers below minimum-wage really the right thing to do to preserve our former status as a first-world nation? No, I don't think it is, and nobody will change my mind. At least the taxi industry had a few things right, and I get that it's not the way forward, but neither is Uber/lyft.