Uber Will 'Shut Down' in California If It Must Classify Drivers as Employees

[Twdft]

Almost 69% of Uber and Lyft drivers do it as a side hustle, to help pay the bills. When they fall behind a little, they work some extra nights. When they're flush, they may not work as much. If anyone plans of driving for Uber or Lyft as a full time, life supporting job, then they have made a series of terrible life decisions that landed them there in the first place.

Any full time job, whatever it is, unskilled or not, should provide enough money to actually live a life. The fact that there are people in poverty working full time is the biggest flaw in capitalism. It is why minimum wage is a thing and why it should be increased.

[Zan15]

The best way to handle bad policies from state officials is for businesses and workers to leave the state. Money ( tax revenue) talks louder than complaints.

so forcing companies to pay people what they are legally required to is bad policies?

They are also violating federal labor laws by not paying them as employees, thus why the IRS has always gone after these incorrect classifications for all that "tax revenue".

- - - Updated - - -

Almost 69% of Uber and Lyft drivers do it as a side hustle, to help pay the bills. When they fall behind a little, they work some extra nights. When they're flush, they may not work as much. If anyone plans of driving for Uber or Lyft as a full time, life supporting job, then they have made a series of terrible life decisions that landed them there in the first place.

So terrible life decisions allow companies to completly take advantage of workers to the point its highly illegal and hardly even covers cost of the driver.
Ah got ya, great logic

- - - Updated - - -

If you were one of the millions of people who depended on '$5/hour' gig economy job to get by, would you rather make $5/hour or make $0/hour because well-meaning people got rid of your gig economy job because 'you were being exploited' in their view.

The well-wishes of those well-meaning people don't pay your bills, the $5/hour did. And now its gone.

and you are one of the millions of people who had to pay govt benefits to these same people because the corporation did not even come close to compensating them a fair wage and benefits

[I Push Buttons]

and you are one of the millions of people who had to pay govt benefits to these same people because the corporation did not even come close to compensating them a fair wage and benefits

I don't see how shifting them getting some help from the government to make ends meet to wholly subsisting on government assistance because they are now entirely out of work due to their jobs being eliminated by people supposedly fighting for them, is solving that problem.

[Ivanstone]

I don't see how shifting them getting some help from the government to make ends meet to wholly subsisting on government assistance because they are now entirely out of work due to their jobs being eliminated by people supposedly fighting for them, is solving that problem.

Its nice to see you admitting that its ok for the government to subsidize shitty companies by giving their employees proper compensation. Walmart executives will give you a gold star for your business acumen.

[eschatological]

Except not really since that $5/hour figure is highly exaggerated.

The reality is more like "I make $15/hour, but after paying for gas, the car payment, the car insurance, getting the car cleaned once a week, etc., its only $9/hour"...

But such expenses are true for everyone, 'gig economy' workers aren't some special case... If someone has to spend $20/week on transportation to get to their minimum wage job, are you going to try and abolish their job too because by that same flawed logic they are getting paid less than minimum wage after spending that $20 to get there?

This would be fine if Uber paid a reasonable amount of money for gas per mile driven, which they don't.

I mean, I know when I drive somewhere FOR WORK, my work sure as shit gets receipts and reimburses me, in full, for the gas I buy for that work trip. Which Uber does not do.

Likewise, if I'm injured or get in an accident at work, my work is required to have insurance, and/or some form of worker's compensation, to make sure I'm at least somewhat taken care of. Something Uber does not do.

This is a pretty simple thing to understand: Uber is trying to re-brand wage theft as something cool-sounding, like "the gig economy," while taking no responsibility or liability to maximize profits. And it should be illegal.

Hell, until a couple years ago when women started speaking out about being raped and sexually assaulted in Ubers/Lyfts, neither company had an adequate background check for their drivers either.

[Hilhen7]

I don't see how shifting them getting some help from the government to make ends meet to wholly subsisting on government assistance because they are now entirely out of work due to their jobs being eliminated by people supposedly fighting for them, is solving that problem.

Why should they subsidize Uber for the same work that taxi cab drivers do? If anything your giving Uber an advantage over taxi companies for no real reason.

[Twdft]

I don't see how shifting them getting some help from the government to make ends meet to wholly subsisting on government assistance because they are now entirely out of work due to their jobs being eliminated by people supposedly fighting for them, is solving that problem.

If your business is only profitable by paying its employees so little money they have to get additional government help to survive, your business deserves to die.

[PC2]

That's a very good point. In the past many automated jobs gave way to new jobs. ATM's, for example, haven't replaced bank tellers, those tellers just perform different functions.

Your post is an excellent example of generalizing historical events to predict the future.

Ideas that are correct in principle will always be corroborated by repeated examples, however you should think about the future based on reasons and not based on historical confirmations. If you come to the correct conclusion then there is no harm done either way.

[Ivanstone]

Ideas that are correct in principle will always be corroborated by repeated examples, however you should think about the future based on reasons and not based on history. If you come to the correct conclusion then there is no harm done either way.

Ideas that are incorrect in principle will also be corroborated by repeated examples yet for some reason we should ignore when that happens and try them again and again and again. They're just ideas!

We know that the Gilded Age was a dumpster fire of economic policy so we are left with two choices:
1 - Let Uber re-enact it. Its just an idea!
2 - Kick them in the nuts until they beg for mercy. Its also an idea but one that might prevent a repeat of bad period in history.

[PC2]

Ideas that are incorrect in principle will also be corroborated by repeated examples yet for some reason we should ignore when that happens and try them again and again and again. They're just ideas!

We know that the Gilded Age was a dumpster fire of economic policy so we are left with two choices:
1 - Let Uber re-enact it. Its just an idea!
2 - Kick them in the nuts until they beg for mercy. Its also an idea but one that might prevent a repeat of bad period in history.

Okay so I'm saying justify a policy based on reasons instead of history. For example you can't look at the "The Gilded Age" and say that we should either copy the policies of that era or implement the opposite policies because you'd be relying on 'correlations'. Searching for reasons is entirely superior to that methodology because it means you're learning about 'causation', which is the only thing we actually want from historical data.

[Ivanstone]

Okay so I'm saying justify a policy based on reasons instead of history. For example you can't look at the "The Gilded Age" and say that we should either copy the policies of that era or implement the opposite policies because you'd be relying on 'correlations'. Searching for reasons is entirely superior to that methodology because it means you're learning about 'causation', which is the only thing we actually want from historical data.

So you understand why we use history but for someone reason play the “no history card” when it’s time to criticize any policies you actually like.

[arandomuser]

on one hand
uber makes no money it is basically funded at a net loss
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/8/20...t-traffic-2019
on the other hand lots of people make much needed money through uber and lyft.
bad business model but also bad for those workers losing their income
but this will also help taxi and cab drivers. which according to the website http://www.lacitycab.com/become-a-driver/
cab drivers in LA make 1700$ a week
so that will be nice they wont have to compete with the cheap labor of ride sharers

[Zan15]

I don't see how shifting them getting some help from the government to make ends meet to wholly subsisting on government assistance because they are now entirely out of work due to their jobs being eliminated by people supposedly fighting for them, is solving that problem.

short term no, but long term that company will be replaced with a company that will pay them as employees, i mean they existed before uber and paid well and legal wages. Maybe you forgot them, they were called Taxi companies.

BTW most of them, based on reports on average wages of ride sharing employees, were low enough that their benefits will not increase by losing their jobs.

Right now they would actually apply for unemployment and receive more than they were making with uber (even if it takes a few more weeks to get it) .

- - - Updated - - -

This would be fine if Uber paid a reasonable amount of money for gas per mile driven, which they don't.

I mean, I know when I drive somewhere FOR WORK, my work sure as shit gets receipts and reimburses me, in full, for the gas I buy for that work trip. Which Uber does not do.

Likewise, if I'm injured or get in an accident at work, my work is required to have insurance, and/or some form of worker's compensation, to make sure I'm at least somewhat taken care of. Something Uber does not do.

This is a pretty simple thing to understand: Uber is trying to re-brand wage theft as something cool-sounding, like "the gig economy," while taking no responsibility or liability to maximize profits. And it should be illegal.

Hell, until a couple years ago when women started speaking out about being raped and sexually assaulted in Ubers/Lyfts, neither company had an adequate background check for their drivers either.

Well to be fair if uber is not reimbursing enough for expenses then the drivers can write off the difference between IRS per mile rate or actual expenses on their taxes.
Problem is with standard deduction these drivers are paid so low their tax liability is usually zero before they even get to mileage/expense write offs.

i know someone that makes in excess 40k a year delivering newspapers. He deducts mileage every year and his tax liability is based on 3-5k of actual income after 40-45k miles driven @ 57.5 cents ($25,875 write off on top of other standard deductions). They don't pay him enough for cost but he makes it back on not having to pay taxes on the income that he normally would have too.


Uber and those type of companies are just a huge scam.
The owners, execs and big investors are just milking their investments and rolling them over to new suckers

They will never make money and yet people keep plowing money into them.
Even automation won't help the cost of lawsuits and insurance will make it impossible to make a profit at their prices

[Hammerfest]

Good riddance.

[Die]

The public outcry against what the government was doing to rideshare in California was so strong that they hurriedly got this thing to an appeals court to get a judge to remove the court order just hours before it was to take effect. The California people are free to use Uber and Lyft again. The government will not make any more challenges and let it go to the November election, where prop 22 will pass and that will protect Uber and Lyft from AB5 thereafter.

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news...vice-on-friday

LOS ANGELES/NEW YORK (Reuters) - A California appeals court ruling on Thursday avoided a shutdown of ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft in the state, effectively handing a decision over gig worker benefits and pay to voters in a November ballot measure.

The last-minute ruling, in a case with potential ripple effects across the global gig economy, means drivers can continue working as independent contractors while the appeals court considers the question of driver status.

[Rasulis]

The public outcry against what the government was doing to rideshare in California was so strong that they hurriedly got this thing to an appeals court to get a judge to remove the court order just hours before it was to take effect. The California people are free to use Uber and Lyft again. The government will not make any more challenges and let it go to the November election, where prop 22 will pass and that will protect Uber and Lyft from AB5 thereafter.

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news...vice-on-friday

LOS ANGELES/NEW YORK (Reuters) - A California appeals court ruling on Thursday avoided a shutdown of ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft in the state, effectively handing a decision over gig worker benefits and pay to voters in a November ballot measure.

The last-minute ruling, in a case with potential ripple effects across the global gig economy, means drivers can continue working as independent contractors while the appeals court considers the question of driver status.

The implication is larger than that. It will protect not only Uber and Lyft business model, but also Doordash, Orange Crate, Instacart, etc.

[Die]

The implication is larger than that. It will protect not only Uber and Lyft business model, but also Doordash, Orange Crate, Instacart, etc.

I think there is some concern that prop 22 is going to have uber and lyft offer to pay part of some sort of health care costs and insurance costs. Those costs will ultimately be passed onto the drivers. Rideshare drivers in California will therefore earn less than their counterparts in other 49 states. Depending on how much it cuts into drivers earnings, prop 22 could cause rideshare drivers to flee California anyway, simply because they can make more money elsewhere. That means there is a chance prop 22 makes rideshare nonviable in California anyway if they can't find people willing to drive.

[Zan15]

If your business is only profitable by paying its employees so little money they have to get additional government help to survive, your business deserves to die.

Please even after all their abuse and subsidies they still will never be profitable.

- - - Updated - - -

I think there is some concern that prop 22 is going to have uber and lyft offer to pay part of some sort of health care costs and insurance costs. Those costs will ultimately be passed onto the drivers. Rideshare drivers in California will therefore earn less than their counterparts in other 49 states. Depending on how much it cuts into drivers earnings, prop 22 could cause rideshare drivers to flee California anyway, simply because they can make more money elsewhere. That means there is a chance prop 22 makes rideshare nonviable in California anyway if they can't find people willing to drive.

they won't be able to pass on the cost since as employees they will have to maintain wage requirements under CA law. Not to mention insurance requirements.

that is why they are fighting so hard. They don't have the money since they are running at huge losses just to feed their corporate salaries and corporate activities.

- - - Updated - - -

The public outcry against what the government was doing to rideshare in California was so strong that they hurriedly got this thing to an appeals court to get a judge to remove the court order just hours before it was to take effect. The California people are free to use Uber and Lyft again. The government will not make any more challenges and let it go to the November election, where prop 22 will pass and that will protect Uber and Lyft from AB5 thereafter.

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news...vice-on-friday

LOS ANGELES/NEW YORK (Reuters) - A California appeals court ruling on Thursday avoided a shutdown of ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft in the state, effectively handing a decision over gig worker benefits and pay to voters in a November ballot measure.

The last-minute ruling, in a case with potential ripple effects across the global gig economy, means drivers can continue working as independent contractors while the appeals court considers the question of driver status.

Whoot people will get to keep their ride sharing service!
Then complain next month when their taxes go up to pay for welfare for all those drivers, ACA subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, etc etc.

Pay 4 dollars now for a uber only to pay 14 dollars more next month in taxes. Great job subsidizing uber CA!

[Poopymonster]

I never understand how companies can get away with the term "contractor".

I guess they can hire kids for $1 a hour because they are "students", "learner" or something.

The term is "Intern" and you don't even have to pay them.

[xenogear3]

The term is "Intern" and you don't even have to pay them.

40-year old people call themselves "students" and "post doctors".