# Rideshare, retailers brace for tough U.S. independent contractor rule



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Rideshare, retailers brace for tough U.S. independent contractor rule


After weeks of lobbying the White House on how gig workers should be treated, the rideshare, delivery and retail industries are bracing for a new rule that is likely to make it easier to classify them as employees, multiple sources say. A proposed rule from the Department of Labor, aimed at...




www.reuters.com





*Rideshare, retailers brace for tough U.S. independent contractor rule*

By Nandita Bose
WASHINGTON, Sept 27 (Reuters)

- After weeks of lobbying the White House on how gig workers should be treated, the rideshare, delivery and retail industries are bracing for a new rule that is likely to make it easier to classify them as employees, multiple sources say. A proposed rule from the Department of Labor, aimed at defining whether gig workers for companies including Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and retailers such as Amazon.com Inc are misidentified as independent contractors, is under review at the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and is expected to be released in coming weeks.

While the details of the new rule are not known, the department could model it on legal guidance that says people economically dependent on a company are employees, or go even further to expand the pool of workers who should receive benefits, legal experts said. 

Groups representing employers, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The National Association of Home Builders, The National Retail Federation and the Associated Builders and Contractors have met with officials at the White House's Office of Management and Budget, according to White House records and sources.

Some of the groups have been trying, and failing, to convince the White House that any broad rule would hurt workers who want to remain independent and have flexibility, people familiar with the discussion said. More than one-third of U.S. workers, or nearly 60 million people, performed some sort of freelance work in the past 12 months, a December 2021 survey by freelancing marketplace Upwork showed.

Broadly defining independent contractors as employees would also force companies to pay benefits, such as overtime pay and health benefits, that would hurt their bottom line. Employers can save about 30 percent by skipping payroll taxes and unemployment and benefit costs, workers' groups estimate.

The meetings at the White House were one-sided, with officials at OIRA letting groups speak and not participating or asking follow-up questions, several employer sources said. They are interpreting that as a sign the Biden administration's mind is made up.

"It's all very political. The administration has been clear about the stakeholders they care about and how organized labor is something they care about," said a senior official at one of the employer groups, who met with the White House to discuss the proposed rulemaking.

"We expect it to be more antagonistic toward independent work," the official, who did not wish to be named said, and to hurt companies that rely on gig labor.

A White House official said that listening without comment is part of the standard rulemaking process at OIRA.

Representatives and lobbyists for employers argued against "administrator interpretation" and "the economic realities test" issued in 2015 under the Obama administration, which said most workers should be considered employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They also presented their opposition to the "ABC test" which determines employee status.

"I'm not optimistic that the concerns we raised is going to change the direction of the rulemaking," said another lobbyist for an employer group, who spoke to the White House.

The White House and the Department of Labor declined comment. Amazon did not respond to a request for comment. A spokeswomen for the Flex Association, which represents Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, said any drastic change that will limit workers' flexibility "could have dire economic consequences as well as reduce income and limit options for workers."

Gig Workers Rising, RideShare Workers United, Mobile Workers Alliance, We Drive Progress also met White House officials to broaden the definition of employee further, according to records and sources.

A growing number of companies, including in health care, are misclassifying hundreds of thousands of workers across the United States, they argued. Workers in industries that rely on contractors, like food delivery services, say they're left without social safety nets, accident coverage or paid sick leave, and squeezed by high gas prices.

"This is a model in which if we don't draw a line in this country, every job is at risk ... and so this rulemaking should be about ensuring people have basic protections," said Nicole Moore, a part-time Lyft driver and the president of the group Rideshare Drivers United.

Moore said the rulemaking would help Democrats if it were to be released before the November midterm elections that will determine whether Republicans or Democrats control Congress.

"The last thing Americans want is to hear promises on what the party stands for, what it will mean to have folks in the White House, Senate and House of Representatives and then to have nothing happen," she said.

"Leaving out misclassified workers would be a huge mistake."

This is President Joe Biden's second stab at re-setting rules about how employees can be defined, and is expected to be quickly challenged in court by companies.


----------



## Paladin220 (Jun 2, 2017)

Someone please tell the government we don't want to be employees and to leave us alone. If they get involved, they are just going to f*ck it up for us.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Paladin220 said:


> Someone please tell the government we don't want to be employees and to leave us alone.


So long as the gig companies continue to freeload off the govt they shouldn't be "left alone".



Paladin220 said:


> If they get involved, they are just going to f*ck it up for us.


"If they get involved"? They've BEEN involved for years to the tune of billions of dollars in public assistance being paid to woefully underpaid drivers.


----------



## Paladin220 (Jun 2, 2017)

Nats121 said:


> So long as the gig companies continue to freeload off the govt they shouldn't be "left alone".
> 
> 
> 
> "If they get involved"? They've BEEN involved for years to the tune of billions of dollars in public assistance being paid to woefully underpaid drivers.


What I'm talking about is if the government tries to regulate the gig economy and force all the companies to classify us as employees, it is not going to be better for us.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Paladin220 said:


> Someone please tell the government we don't want to be employees and to leave us alone. If they get involved, they are just going to f*ck it up for us.


You do not speak for all drivers. Not all drivers are opposed to getting unemployment when they can no longer drive because they've been deactivated. Not all drivers are opposed to earning a minimum wage. Not all drivers are opposed to being paid for overtime work. Not all drivers are opposed to the company they are driving for covering operational expenses.

There's a good reason that the flsa, fair labor standards act, provides that workers may not waive their rights under the ACT. It prevents employers from exploiting labor.

That's not to say that those who want to remain independent contractors should not be able to. All I'm saying is that you should speak for yourself and not try to represent the views of all drivers, because you don't.


----------



## bobby747 (Dec 29, 2015)

Go into business for yourself. Dara says 2030 all ev.
2 things
1 dara will not be with uber by then
2 uber will not be in business by than


----------



## Paladin220 (Jun 2, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You do not speak for all drivers. Not all drivers are opposed to getting unemployment when they can no longer drive because they've been deactivated. Not all drivers are opposed to earning a minimum wage. Not all drivers are opposed to being paid for overtime work. Not all drivers are opposed to the company they are driving for covering operational expenses.
> 
> There's a good reason that the flsa, fair labor standards act, provides that workers may not waive their rights under the ACT. It prevents employers from exploiting labor.
> 
> That's not to say that those who want to remain independent contractors should not be able to. All I'm saying is that you should speak for yourself and not try to represent the views of all drivers, because you don't.


Do you really think any of these companies are going to pay you overtime? They are also never going to pay your operating expenses or unemployment. If you're an employee, you wouldn't get deactivated you would get fired. Companies don't pay unemployment for an ex-employee who gets fired.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Now you have a crystal ball and are all knowing. You sound like a politician.


----------



## Paladin220 (Jun 2, 2017)

No crystal ball - just trying to look at it logically. Every change that is made by the gig companies ends up with the drivers getting less. If/when they are forced to do something like make us employees, they will figure out a way to limit the impact to their margins. They will figure out ways to comply with regulations while still paying us as little as possible. I hope I'm wrong and we get the fluffy cloud and teddy bear world that you are wishing for, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's not to say that those who want to remain independent contractors should not be able to. All I'm saying is that you should speak for yourself and not try to represent the views of all drivers, because you don't.


And neither do you. I don't know who you are, but the more you post the less inclined I am to believe you are a driver.

Any kind of employment law that puts drivers on an hourly wage will destroy rideshare and all the things _most_ drivers like about it; flexibility, going on/offline as it suits us, the right to accept and refuse rides as we see fit, etc.

The moment the TNCs have to pay a driver an hourly wage is the moment they will shift to maximum utilization per car, per hour, and at that moment there will be far fewer drivers employed, and the remaining drivers will be forced into working shifts and/or being "on call", i.e. drivers lose control of when they can go online.

Drivers desperately need representation, collective bargaining, the right to strike, due process before being deactivated, etc. If they somehow can pull off making us employees that grants drivers these goodies without the aforementioned baddies, then we will have a system _most_ drivers can likely live with. That seems a bridge to far however, especially with this current union run presidential administration.


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> "We expect it to be _more_ antagonistic toward _independent_ work," the official, who did not wish to be named said


Y’all might wanna heed them words. 


Michael - Cleveland said:


> this rulemaking should be about ensuring people have basic protections," said Nicole Moore, *a part-time Lyft driver*


Those “basic protections” are basic benefits that have been available within the workforce for years. It’s a well-known program called “*Get A Real Job!*” 
As an FYI: a part-time shit-gigger gigging around if/when they feel like it does _NOT_ have a real job.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Paladin220 said:


> Someone please tell the government we don't want to be employees and to leave us alone. If they get involved, they are just going to f*ck it up for us.


IF you continue to openly voice such opinions, you may be deemed to be a Domestic Terrorist, put in the same group as those unruly parents who want to educate their kids, and end up getting raided by the FBI at 6am on Sunday morning.
Be careful.
This isn't the USA of yesterday.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

UberBastid said:


> IF you continue to openly voice such opinions, you may be deemed to be a Domestic Terrorist, put in the same group as those unruly parents who want to educate their kids, and end up getting raided by the FBI at 6am on Sunday morning.
> Be careful.
> This isn't the USA of yesterday.


Pshaw, I feel the same way. I do not want to be an employee. There are plenty of W2 jobs out there if that’s what you want.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

_Tron_ said:


> And neither do you.


I'm not the one telling everyone else what they think or want. I'm not the one telling everyone else what company can, can't will or will not do. But @Palladin220 is. @Palladin220 invalidates their own opinions by stating them as fact and claiming everyone (all drivers) agree.


----------



## Invisible (Jun 15, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You do not speak for all drivers. Not all drivers are opposed to getting unemployment when they can no longer drive because they've been deactivated. Not all drivers are opposed to earning a minimum wage. Not all drivers are opposed to being paid for overtime work. Not all drivers are opposed to the company they are driving for covering operational expenses.
> 
> There's a good reason that the flsa, fair labor standards act, provides that workers may not waive their rights under the ACT. It prevents employers from exploiting labor.
> 
> That's not to say that those who want to remain independent contractors should not be able to. All I'm saying is that you should speak for yourself and not try to represent the views of all drivers, because you don't.


The gig companies do exploit the IC’s. I’m not for drivers being employees. But I am for drivers having some protections because of deactivations that were unwarranted and are a result of pax/customers lying. I’m for government regulation to protect the IC’s from these predatory and deceitful companies.

If gig workers were truly IC’s, then they’d know the locations of pickups/drop offs in advance, they’d know the pay, the pay wouldn’t keep going lower through the months/years, they’d have no threatening messages for canceling before a ride or order were picked up. And they wouldn’t have to sign up for blocks, as some food delivery gig companies require. They also would have the choice to decline pings without repercussions or threats of deactivations.

Rather than make IC’s employees, make the gig companies truly treat IC’s as IC’s. Right now they say they’re IC’s but are actually treating them more like employees, except with possible unjust deactivations and threats of possible deactivation.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Paladin220 said:


> No crystal ball - just trying to look at it logically. Every change that is made by the gig companies ends up with the drivers getting less. If/when they are forced to do something like make us employees, they will figure out a way to limit the impact to their margins. They will figure out ways to comply with regulations while still paying us as little as possible. I hope I'm wrong and we get the fluffy cloud and teddy bear world that you are wishing for, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.


"I" am wishing for? Where have I said I wished for anything? I haven't expressed any opinion here at all. I just object to you declaring what I want and telling everyone else what companies yo have no control over will do in the future.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Invisible said:


> The gig companies do exploit the IC’s. I’m not for drivers being employees. But I am for drivers having some protections because of deactivations that were unwarranted and are a result of lax/customers lying. I’m for government regulation to protect the IC’s from these predatory and deceitful companies.
> 
> If gig workers were truly IC’s, then they’d know the locations of pickups/drop offs in advance, they know the pay, the pay wouldn’t keeps going lower through the months/years, they’d have no threatening messages for canceling before a ride of order were picked up. And they wouldn’t have to sign up for blocks, as some food delivery gig companies require. They also would have the choice to decline pings without repercussions or threats of deactivations.
> 
> Rather than make IC’s employees, make the gig workers truly treat IC’s as IC’s. Right now they say they’re IC’s but are actually treating them more like employees, except with possible unjust deactivations and threats of possible deactivation.


Right now, from what I've read, the administration (as in other countries) are trying to create a hybrid 'employee contractor' classification that provides for some of the basic protections afforded employees: social security contributions (where the company pays 1/2 your required ss tax), unemployment insurance, workers comp., etc.


----------



## Invisible (Jun 15, 2018)

Paladin220 said:


> Do you really think any of these companies are going to pay you overtime? They are also never going to pay your operating expenses or unemployment. If you're an employee, you wouldn't get deactivated you would get fired. Companies don't pay unemployment for an ex-employee who gets fired.


Wrong, companies due pay unemployment for people who were terminated unless it was for midconduct, like excessive absenteeism or telling your boss to F off. The burden of proof is on the employer to prove that the employee had misconduct.


----------



## Invisible (Jun 15, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Right now, from what I've read, the administration (as in other countries) are trying to create a hybrid 'employee contractor' classification that provides for some of the basic protections afforded employees: social security contributions (where the company pays 1/2 your required ss tax), unemployment insurance, workers comp., etc.


Interesting. For the younger IC’s who do gig work full-time and who didn’t work decades at W2 jobs, they’re going to have a rude awakening when they see how low their future social security earnings are. They’re missing out on employer contribution to their social security.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Paladin220 said:


> Companies don't pay unemployment for an ex-employee who gets fired.


Companies don't pay unemployment at all - they pay for unemployment insurance and the state unemployment office pays unemployment claims - and bills the company for a portion of the claim.

Do you understand that by gig companies shifting all operational costs on to their labor force, they are ducking their responisbillity for paying unemployment insurance, worker's comp and FICA taxes and pushing them on to you - all while paying you less than min wage? It's a very cynical business model - one that cheats workers out of required protections with promises of unattainable earnings.

And if you do not pay the required self-employment taxes on your earnings and required insurances coverages, then it is also the gig company that is setting you up to commit felony tax fraud.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

_Tron_ said:


> Drivers desperately need representation, collective bargaining, the right to strike, due process before being deactivated, etc. If they somehow can pull off making us employees that grants drivers these goodies without the aforementioned baddies, then we will have a system _most_ drivers can likely live with. That seems a bridge to far however, especially with this current union run presidential administration.


You just made the case for worker representation (ie: organizing - labor union) and then bashed the current administration for supporting organized labor. lol


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You just made the case for worker representation (ie: organizing - labor union) and then bashed the current administration for supporting organized labor. lol


Can you not perceive the difference?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

_Tron_ said:


> Can you not perceive the difference?


Perception is not the same thing as reality.


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

It's been mentioned before on this board is what we might need is a 3rd classification of employment for the GIG workers. Not quite a fully independent worker but not an employee either. I always believed that it should be set up similar to the cab companies where drivers pay a gate fee based on hours worked or flat fee per ride not a sliding scale or percentage. The drivers already pay for everything except for commercial insurance and that could be paid for with the extra money you'd make. The rates would be set by the PUC and driver would be independent for the most part. Uber would get paid for the use of their software and for connecting drivers with riders and nothing more.

But Uber and it's share holders would never agree to this because they would get only a tiny slice of the pie where as now they get almost half of what drivers earn. Ubers plan was never to create a self sustaining business model their drivers. Their plan was always to have their drivers build their business up for them so they could later disgard and replace you with self-driving cars and take 100 percent of the profits. Unfortunately for Uber this hasn't worked out as planned and those of you that still drive for Uber are still able to eek out a living.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

_Tron_ said:


> Any kind of employment law that puts drivers on an hourly wage will destroy rideshare and all the things _most_ drivers like about it; flexibility, going on/offline as it suits us, the right to accept and refuse rides as we see fit, etc.
> 
> The moment the TNCs have to pay a driver an hourly wage is the moment they will shift to maximum utilization per car, per hour, and at that moment there will be far fewer drivers employed, and the remaining drivers will be forced into working shifts and/or being "on call", i.e. drivers lose control of when they can go online.


I just reread the entire thread and nowhere does anyone say anything about employers paying drivers on an hourly wage. Where did you come up with that?

Under the law, employees can be paid a salary, a commission, or piecemiel, etc. There's nothing that requires that they be paid an hourly rate; only that they be paid for every actual hour they work at a rate no less than minimum wage.

And as I am absolutely certain you know, there are lots of exceptions even to those standards *including for tipped workers*.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Perception is not the same thing as reality.


You don't seem to understand either my original statement, or my questioning of your reply.

I have never called another UP member a shill, but based on the type of articles you post you seem to have an agenda other than supporting other drives. Something about you doesn't pass the sniff test. And your responses to my post confirms rather assuages my suspicion as to your motivations.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I just reread the entire thread and nowhere does anyone say anything about employers putting drivers on hourly wage. Where did you come up with that?
> 
> Under the law, employees can be paid a salary, a commission, or piecemiel, etc. There's nothing that requires that they be paid an hourly rate; *only that they be paid for every actual hour they work at a rate no less than minimum wage*.
> 
> And as I am absolutely certain you know, there are lots of exceptions even to those standards including for tipped workers.


That's an hourly wage sir.

I would LOVE to see someone engineer a way drivers could enjoy at least some of the benefits and protections of employee status. That would be driver Shangri-La. But my take is that we would need that third type of hybrid status in between IC and employee. I don't see either the current federal or my state administrations being able to think outside that box. Would love to be wrong about that.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

_Tron_ said:


> You don't seem to understand either my original statement, or my questioning of your reply.
> 
> I have never called another UP member a shill, but based on the type of articles you post you seem to have an agenda other than supporting other drives. Something about you doesn't pass the sniff test. And your responses to my post confirms rather assuages my suspicion as to your motivations.


I'm sure you'll understand if I don't care what your perception of me is. You've been around long enough to know that I've been here a very long time, as a driver. I was a moderator here under prior ownership, I was elected to Uber Crew two years ago and I've been writing extensively on Uber people.net for 7 years. In those seven years I've only driven full-time for maybe a couple of months. I'm far too busy with my own business for that. 

And it is business that drew me to Uber in the first place. I couldn't believe what I was reading in Forbes back in 2014 about a company that was being valued at billions of dollars when they didn't make anything or have any assets. That's what got me to start driving: in order to learn more about it. 

It's also why some here may not understand why I may seem to appear to be on the side of companies in one piece I write while advocating for drivers in another piece. I am all about the business of business and the laws governing business. I find other people's opinions very interesting, and often not particularly well informed.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I'm sure you'll understand if I don't care what your perception of me is. You've been around long enough to know that I've been here a very long time, as a driver. I was a moderator here under prior ownership, I was elected to Uber Crew two years ago and I've been writing extensively on Uber people.net for 7 years. In those seven years I've only driven full-time for maybe a couple of months. I'm far too busy with my own business for that.
> 
> And it is business that drew me to Uber in the first place. I couldn't believe what I was reading in Forbes back in 2014 about a company that was being valued at billions of dollars when they didn't make anything or have any assets. That's what got me to start driving: in order to learn more about it.
> 
> It's also why some here may not understand why I may seem to appear to be on the side of companies in one piece I write while advocating for drivers in another piece. I am all about the business of business and the laws governing business. I find other people's opinions very interesting, and often not particularly well informed.


I could be wrong about you.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

_Tron_ said:


> That's an hourly wage sir.


No, it's not. I write employment contracts every day for my clients that specify a weekly salary for their employees. I keep them legally compliant by making sure that the weekly salary they pay is equal to or greater than minimum wage for the hours they are contracting with their employee.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

REX HAVOC said:


> It's been mentioned before on this board is what we might need is a 3rd classification of employment for the GIG workers. Not quite a fully independent worker but not an employee either. I always believed that it should be set up similar to the cab companies where drivers pay a gate fee based on hours worked or flat fee per ride not a sliding scale or percentage. The drivers already pay for everything except for commercial insurance and that could be paid for with the extra money you'd make. The rates would be set by the PUC and driver would be independent for the most part. Uber would get paid for the use of their software and for connecting drivers with riders and nothing more.


I agree a 3rd classification is needed (and i've been one of those here advocating for that) Not sure what it would look like - that's above my paygrade - but suspect it would include unemployment insurance, worker's comp and social security participation if nothing else.



> But Uber and it's share holders would never agree to this because they would get only a tiny slice of the pie where as now they get almost half of what drivers earn.


 I disagree. Since Kalanick's departure, the Uber board would be woefully irresponsible to not have an alternative business model ready to go should the US shoot down the IC model.


> Ubers plan was never to create a self sustaining business model their drivers.


True - it's never been about drivers - and never will be.


> Their plan was always to have their drivers build their business up for them so they could later disgard and replace you with self-driving cars and take 100 percent of the profits.


 Not true and way too simplified. First, Uber's business plan over time has changed almost as much as the weather. It went from a system to allow what Kalanick called 'ballers' being able to easily hail a black car, to wiping out back car services, to competing with LYFT for X rides to replacing individual car ownership to helicopter taxi serves to autonomous vehicles, and on and on. Yes, replacing drivers with autonomous vehicles was one part of the plan - mostly as a contingency against being forced to classify drivers as employees. But to suggest that autonomous vehicles would put more of the ride's fare in Uber's pocket is, imo, naïve. Because, second, It ignores the cost of acquiring, running and maintaining, repairing and replacing a fleet of tens of thousands of autonomous vehicles.


> ...those of you that still drive for Uber are still able to eek out a living.


Now THAT is debatable! lol

(even if I disagree with much of it - still a good post - thanks)


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No, it's not. I write employment contracts every day for my clients that specify a weekly salary for their employees. I keep them legally compliant by making sure that the weekly salary they pay is equal to or greater than minimum wage for the hours they are contracting with their employee.


Well I must respect your knowledge in this area then. BUT, there is still a question of the math. Here's an example of one [likely] way it could shake out if it goes south; drivers become employees. Ok, fine. Drivers, no matter what the pay scheme, are guaranteed a certain $ amount per hour. Put it another way if you like; any guarantee of any minimum amount of money for time spent working. Even if this amount is an average of the weekly pay, the driver will be eligible for pay _the moment they go online_. Not when the driver gets a ride and drops them off (period 2 and 3). Rather, periods 1,2, and 3. Why? Because the driver is an *employee*, and the moment he/she presents themselves for work they are eligible for pay. They are on the clock.

That's the gottcha. If the TNC must compensate the driver effectively so much per hour, no matter how you term it, the current paradigm goes out the window. Uber will be forced to maximize the utilization of the vehicle. That means no more cherry picking rides. You would have to pick up who U/L says you have to pick up. The car, like a hotel, must be near capacity, per hour, whenever possible. Then, shifts will be required because U/L isn't going to let 100 drivers be on the clock driving around when there are, say, 50 pax requesting rides. No more going on/offline as we please. That means the key feature of this work, flexibility, dies.

This is why I would not support any system other than a commission based one, with no guarantee of a minimum wage. So what does that make us? Contractors. But, we need all the protections you mentioned in a reply to someone else earlier. I think you left out due process for termination. And as you also mentioned earlier, that leaves us with the need for a hybrid system. I too have been beating the drum about a third way for years.

Add that all up and I just don't see the current administration or Big Labor wanting to give drivers what we really need. They don't understand a hybrid model any better than our state law makers.

I'd love to be wrong.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

REX HAVOC said:


> It's been mentioned before on this board is what we might need is a 3rd classification of employment for the GIG workers.


As I understand it there are at least three classes of workers. Employees, Contractors and Self Employed.
Perhaps we fit better in the third category.
Myself I would call us Freelance Workers.

A freelance worker is a nonpermanent, self-employed worker who provides products and services to multiple organizations. These professionals can work for as many clients and take on as many projects as their schedule allows.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

_Tron_ said:


> Well I must respect your knowledge in this area then. BUT, there is still a question of the math. Here's an example of one [likely] way it could shake out if it goes south; drivers become employees. Ok, fine. Drivers, no matter what the pay scheme, are guaranteed a certain $ amount per hour. Put it another way if you like; any guarantee of any minimum amount of money for time spent working. Even if this amount is an average of the weekly pay, the driver will be eligible for pay _the moment they go online_. Not when the driver gets a ride and drops them off (period 2 and 3). Rather, periods 1,2, and 3. Why? Because the driver is an *employee*, and the moment he/she presents themselves for work they are eligible for pay. They are on the clock.
> 
> That's the gottcha. If the TNC must compensate the driver effectively so much per hour, no matter how you term it, the current paradigm goes out the window. Uber will be forced to maximize the utilization of the vehicle. That means no more cherry picking rides. You would have to pick up who U/L says you have to pick up. The car, like a hotel, must be near capacity, per hour, whenever possible. Then, shifts will be required because U/L isn't going to let 100 drivers be on the clock driving around when there are, say, 50 pax requesting rides. No more going on/offline as we please. That means the key feature of this work, flexibility, dies.
> 
> ...


I can't imagine that even government would be so stupid as to insist that a company pay someone for waiting time when the someone is free to choose when to go online or offline. That's not how it works currently. A company is liable only for paying waiting time when the employee is required to wait or be on call.

It's inconceivable, to me at least, that a deviation from that current requirement would be put in place for drivers. We're just not that special! Lol

And I could be wrong, but I doubt very much that any government regulation focus would be on paid time 'on duty', but rather on the safety net issues of workers comp, social security contributions, minimum wage protections, and providing affordable health care plans in which drivers could participate.

Looking at how Congress has focused on these particular issues in the past I believe this is what the future looks like for any new category of worker.


----------



## 202265 (Jun 14, 2020)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Do you understand that by gig companies shifting all operational costs on to their labor force, they are ducking their responisbillity for paying unemployment insurance, worker's comp and FICA taxes and pushing them on to you - all while paying you less than min wage?


I think this might be OK if there was a premium in earnings for this shift to ICs. This would allow ICs to pay for health insurance and retirement. As far as I know there is such a premium for technical services ICs for defense contractors and similar organisations.

Maybe that should be the focus of regulation of the rideshare companies instead of making all drivers employees.

On an unrelated note -- this may be a naive pipe dream -- I would also like to see safety of drivers addressed with the same standard in background checks for riders as for drivers. There should not be the double standard applied to driver safety as rider safety. Since most riders (in my experience i. LA and Washington D.C depend on rideshare they would submit to a background check.

Other safety related issues, for example, riders with very low ratings that drivers are incentivised to take could be addressed.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

bobbysocial said:


> I think this might be OK if there was a premium in earnings for this shift to ICs. This would allow ICs to pay for health insurance and retirement. As far as I know there is such a premium for technical services ICs for defense contractors and similar organisations.
> 
> Maybe that should be the focus of regulation of the rideshare companies instead of making all drivers employees.
> 
> ...


You can buy health insurance, contribute to retirement and social security and even buy workman’s comp insurance now. I don’t see these as benefits limited to employees. 
The issue I see is that the premiums for those are not sucked out of earnings for IC before payday. If you want them you have to have the discipline to pay for them. 
Let’s face it, most of the rideshare drivers wouldn’t even buy car insurance if they didn’t have to.


----------



## Mole (Mar 9, 2017)

Paladin220 said:


> Someone please tell the government we don't want to be employees and to leave us alone. If they get involved, they are just going to f*ck it up for us.


The city of Seattle and New York has set up rules and wages in those cities and the drivers are making a good wage they gave a mile and minute minimum wage and it keeps Uber from paying what ever they feel like that say.


----------



## Mole (Mar 9, 2017)

I’m hoping for major government intervention in all the states we need need mile and minute minimum wages health insurance vacation and sick time. This game is in favor of companies we need to level the playing field.


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I agree a 3rd classification is needed (and i've been one of those here advocating for that) Not sure what it would look like - that's above my paygrade - but suspect it would include unemployment insurance, worker's comp and social security participation if nothing else.
> 
> I disagree. Since Kalanick's departure, the Uber board would be woefully irresponsible to not have an alternative business model ready to go should the US shoot down the IC model. True - it's never been about drivers - and never will be. Not true and way too simplified. First, Uber's business plan over time has changed almost as much as the weather. It went from a system to allow what Kalanick called 'ballers' being able to easily hail a black car, to wiping out back car services, to competing with LYFT for X rides to replacing individual car ownership to helicopter taxi serves to autonomous vehicles, and on and on. Yes, replacing drivers with autonomous vehicles was one part of the plan - mostly as a contingency against being forced to classify drivers as employees. But to suggest that autonomous vehicles would put more of the ride's fare in Uber's pocket is, imo, naïve. Because, second, It ignores the cost of acquiring, running and maintaining, repairing and replacing a fleet of tens of thousands of autonomous vehicles. Now THAT is debatable! lol
> 
> (even if I disagree with much of it - still a good post - thanks)


Kalanick has been gone since 2017 and Uber and the Uber board under the new CEO has made no real attempt to fix their business model. In fact they made it worse by slowly decreasing the earnings of drivers as well as blocking legislation (AB5) that would have benefited many who drive for them. In fact any changes or concessions they made during the Prop 22 ballot initiative were either rolled back partially or entirely altogether.


----------



## 202265 (Jun 14, 2020)

Atavar said:


> You can buy health insurance, contribute to retirement and social security and even buy workman’s comp insurance now. I don’t see these as benefits limited to employees.
> The issue I see is that the premiums for those are not sucked out of earnings for IC before payday. If you want them you have to have the discipline to pay for them.
> Let’s face it, most of the rideshare drivers wouldn’t even buy car insurance if they didn’t have to.


The lack of discipline could be a factor for some, but I think even with discipline, after the costs of health insurance, retirement, social security, etc, there is nothing left of Uber earnings for any other more immediate basic neccessities. It may have been possible for drivers to manage the operational costs normally payed by employers in the past when drivers were earning more, i.e., when Uber was only taking 25% of rider payments. Then the 25% Uber share was replaced with the rate card with steadily decreasing milage and time rates. And now with the change to upfront pricing, not to mention reduced surge and reduced Quest amounts, even with driver financial disciple, the premium necessary for ICs to pay operational costs instead of the rideshare companies is not there.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

_Tron_ said:


> ... the moment he/she presents themselves for work they are eligible for pay. They are on the clock.


No, that's not true - and not how it currently works. Since I am the one who chooses when to go online and 'wait' for a request, my waiting time is not "on the clock". On the other hand, if my employer requires me to be available to accept an assignment, then the time I am waiting for that assignment is 'on-duty'.

There seems to be a general misconception among drivers that just because a gig driver is classified as an employee of the company they drive with/for that: 
_a) the company has to pay the driver for 'wait time' and _​_b) that the company will automatically schedule drivers for required work hours. (shifts)._​​Neither is (necessarily true.

*FLSA Hours Worked Advisor*

_*Waiting Time*_
Whether time you spend waiting is hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act depends upon the circumstances. If circumstances indicate that you are engaged to wait, you are considered to be on duty and your time is hours worked. On the other hand, *if you are waiting to be engaged, you are considered to be off duty and your time is not hours worked*.
- US *Dept of Labor; Wait Time Rules*

----------------------------------------

*Waiting Time:*
Whether waiting time is hours worked under the Act depends upon the particular circumstances. Generally, the facts may show that the employee was engaged to wait (which is work time) or the facts may show that the employee was waiting to be engaged (which is not work time). For example, a secretary who reads a book while waiting for dictation or a fireman who plays checkers while waiting for an alarm is working during such periods of inactivity. These employees have been "engaged to wait."

*On-Call Time:*
An employee who is required to remain on call on the employer's premises is working while "on call." An employee who is required to remain on call at home, or who is allowed to leave a message where he/she can be reached, is not working (in most cases) while on call. Additional constraints on the employee's freedom could require this time to be compensated.
- US *Dept of Labor Wait Time and On-Call Rules*


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

bobbysocial said:


> On an unrelated note -- this may be a naive pipe dream -- I would also like to see safety of drivers addressed with the same standard in background checks for riders as for drivers. There should not be the double standard applied to driver safety as rider safety. Since most riders (in my experience i. LA and Washington D.C depend on rideshare they would submit to a background check.


Driver Safety issues are a state issue. (And I agree they should be addressed.)
But as long as the TNCs are the ones writing the state's laws it will get minimal attention in legislatures and lots of lip service from the TNCs


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Mole said:


> I’m hoping for major government intervention in all the states we need need mile and minute minimum wages health insurance vacation and sick time. This game is in favor of companies we need to level the playing field.


Other than enforcing the federal minimum wage for employees, the federal government has no authority to set wages. The rates/fares/wages paid by companies to drivers are a state issue. Since state legislatures are elected by a population of consumers whose interest is in keeping fares as low as possible - and campaigns are funded by corporate contributions - we/drivers have very little influence on state laws.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

REX HAVOC said:


> Kalanick has been gone since 2017 and Uber and the Uber board under the new CEO has made no real attempt to fix their business model. In fact they made it worse by slowly decreasing the earnings of drivers as well as blocking legislation (AB5) that would have benefited many who drive for them. In fact any changes or concessions they made during the Prop 22 ballot initiative were either rolled back partially or entirely altogether.


Yep - but at least what they've done since Kalanick's departure has attempted to be* legally compliant*. And they are still able to screw drivers - legally. Some in government are working to introduce legislation on a federal level that will prevent companies from being to skirt the rules of the FLSA just by declaring their work force 'independent contractors'. And they are trying to do that by still providing for the flexibility workers want with the labor protections all workers deserve. Obviously not everyone is going to agree with everything and everyone is sure to find fault something. That's usually a sign of good legislation. : )


----------



## thepukeguy (10 mo ago)

_Tron_ said:


> And neither do you. I don't know who you are, but the more you post the less inclined I am to believe you are a driver.
> 
> Any kind of employment law that puts drivers on an hourly wage will destroy rideshare and all the things _most_ drivers like about it; flexibility, going on/offline as it suits us, the right to accept and refuse rides as we see fit, etc.
> 
> ...


I agree completely with you. He’s just another liberal that can’t point one single policy that’s ever worked from that side of the brain. They like to point to Obamacare even though it raised everybody’s insurance rates by like 7000% but that’s progress yay progress.

If anything he’s a taxi cab driver and he knows if we were made employees we would all quit and drive taxis so we could make more than $10 an hour. You need to have a seriously wild imagination to even fathom making more money doing this on a W-2.

If there’s going to be any big sweeping changes that involves the government they should step in and guarantee us our 60% which is actually currently 30% because of the booking fee gerrymandering they came up with.

And we should not be allowed to undercut each other to do rides for less money which LYFT calls priority mode but Uber is going to come up with their own eventually. That is a public safety issue. If somebody wants to do a ride for less than 30% they are more than likely a pedophile I’m not sure so let me find a liberal they seem to be the experts on hiding pedophiles.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No, that's not true - and not how it currently works. Since I am the one who chooses when to go online and 'wait' for a request, my waiting time is not "on the clock". On the other hand, if my employer requires me to be available to accept an assignment, then the time I am waiting for that assignment is 'on-duty'.
> 
> There seems to be a general misconception among drivers that just because a gig driver is classified as an employee of the company they drive with/for that:
> _a) the company has to pay the driver for 'wait time' and _​_b) that the company will automatically schedule drivers for required work hours. (shifts)._​​Neither is (necessarily true.
> ...


Good references. I could see then where this could get quite convoluted; legislation, followed by a court case to decide if sitting in your car waiting for a request is on call or not.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

_Tron_ said:


> Good references. I could see then where this could get quite convoluted; legislation, followed by a court case to decide if sitting in your car waiting for a request is on call or not.


That part is actually clear cut (and established law).
It's a matter of who controls the worker's time: the employee, or the employer

If the employer requires an employee to be 'on-call' and to accept assignments during wai time, then the worker is "*on-duty*" and they are required to pay.
If the employee can choose to wait or not and is free to ignore requests and go about their day when and where they want, then they are "*not on duty while waiting*" for a request to come through..


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Atavar said:


> You can buy health insurance, contribute to retirement and social security and even buy workman’s comp insurance now. I don’t see these as benefits limited to employees.


But thats is precisely the issue: Employers, by law, are required to participate in paying for these programs. If an employer claims they do not have employees, but that their workforce is made up of independent contractors, then the employer is skirting their responsibility and shifting the total cost of social security, health care and unemployment insurance on to the worker. The government needs to determine once and for all if these gig companies are "avoiding" employer responsibilities (which is legal) or if they are "evading" employer responsibilities (which is criminal) - and if the courts find the rules to be ambiguous, it falls to congress to remove the ambiguity.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That part is actually clear cut (and established law).
> It's a matter of who controls the worker's time: the employee, or the employer
> 
> If the employer requires an employee to be 'on-call' and to accept assignments during that time, then the worker is "*on-duty*" and they are required to pay.
> If the employee can choose to wait or not and is free to ignore requests and go about their day when and where they want, then they are "*not on duty while waiting*" for a request to come through..


That's starting to look like California's Prop 22 guarantees, except it is guaranteeing 120% of minimum wage. AND NONE OF THE BENEFITS.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> But thats is precisely the issue: Employers, by law, are required to participate in paying for these programs. If an employer claims they do not have employees, but that their workforce is made up of independent contractors, then the employer is skirting their responsibility and shifting the total cost of social security, health care and unemployment insurance on to the worker. The government needs to determine once and for all if these gig companies are "avoiding" employer responsibilities (which is legal) or if they are "evading" employer responsibilities (which is criminal) - and if the courts find the rules to be ambiguous, it falls to congress to remove the ambiguity.


But the employer bears zero cost for those benefits. This is borne out in the fact that the employee is taxed for the employer contributions. 
All the employer does is shift money and pay the employer less while taking the credit.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Atavar said:


> But the employer bears zero cost for those benefits. This is borne out in the fact that the employee is taxed for the employer contributions.
> All the employer does is shift money and pay the employer less while taking the credit.


If the employer bears zero cost for those expenses, the gig companies would not be fighting so hard to not have to pay them. The entire gig labor force business model purpose is to shift as much of the operating cost of Labor onto the worker. Otherwise it would have no point.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If the employer bears zero cost for those expenses, the gig companies would not be fighting so hard to not have to pay them. The entire gig labor force business model purpose is to shift as much of the operating cost of Labor onto the worker. Otherwise it would have no point.


Just the act and administration of those payments costs money. Multiply that by the number of drivers and it is significant. The actual fees Themselves though are borne by the employee, even if only behind the scene. 
Some companies _choose_ to offer benefits like retirement matching funds as recruiting teasers. Those are not mandated by law.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Atavar said:


> Just the act and administration of those payments costs money. Multiply that by the number of drivers and it is significant. The actual fees Themselves though are borne by the employee, even if only behind the scene.
> Some companies _choose_ to offer benefits like retirement matching funds as recruiting teasers. Those are not mandated by law.


Yes, there is cost in administration, but it's minor (insignificant really, since the systems are already in place and in use for the tens of thousands of actual employees of the company and considering the complexity of finances and taxes of a $50 billion international corporation. And admin costs - in fact all business expenses - are tax deductible).

What 'fees' are you referring to... care to clarify?

Employers are responsible for paying 1/2 an employees social security contribution. That's about 7.5% of income.
An IC is required to pay both the employer and employee portions or about 15.5%.

Employers pay somewhere around 2.5% (varies by state) unemployment insurance for each employee
- and pay $0 for IC's.

And employers pay 100% of the cost of required worker's compensation insurance.

None of these costs are borne by the employee - and all are borne by an IC.

A company contributes $0 to an IC's health insurance, but by law, if they employ 50 or more full-time employees they must provide a health insurance plan to employees.

Now, if you are suggesting that a company just reduces worker pay to cover those costs "behind the scenes" then logically the same argument could also be made that in fact it is consumers of the company products and services that bear those costs through the cost of those products and services. Remember; there is no cap on what a company can charge it's customers - but there is a minimum wage a company must pay its employees! : )


----------



## Invisible (Jun 15, 2018)

Atavar said:


> But the employer bears zero cost for those benefits. This is borne out in the fact that the employee is taxed for the employer contributions.
> All the employer does is shift money and pay the employer less while taking the credit.


Employers contribute to Federal Unemployment Tax, State Unemployment Tax, FICA, Social Security Contribution and Workers Compensation Insurance. All that up to a lot of money when you have thousands and thousands of employees.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

Invisible said:


> Employers contribute to Federal Unemployment Tax, State Unemployment Tax, FICA, Social Security Contribution and Workers Compensation Insurance. All that up to a lot of money when you have thousands and thousands of employees.


That’s what I’m saying. The employers only contribute to those funds _after_ they’ve adjusted what they pay employees to cover them. If the employer didn’t have to contribute to those the employee would get paid more.
_And_ the employee is taxed on the employer contribution.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Atavar said:


> If the employer didn’t have to contribute to those the employee would get paid more.


That is a (wild) assumption and there is no evidence to support it.
First, when a company makes more profit, that profit goes to the owners/shareholders of the company - not the employees.
Second, employee wages are a function of the marketplace in which an employer competes for employees, not of the profitability of the company.


> ...the employee is taxed on the employer contribution.


No, they are not.


----------



## Wil Mette (Jan 15, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If the employer bears zero cost for those expenses, the gig companies would not be fighting so hard to not have to pay them. The entire gig labor force business model purpose is to shift as much of the operating cost of Labor onto the worker. Otherwise it would have no point.


Unless they are NOT fighting against those expenses and are fighting against bargaining in good faith.
Uber and good faith are opposites.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No, that's not true - and not how it currently works. Since I am the one who chooses when to go online and 'wait' for a request, my waiting time is not "on the clock". On the other hand, if my employer requires me to be available to accept an assignment, then the time I am waiting for that assignment is 'on-duty'.
> 
> There seems to be a general misconception among drivers that just because a gig driver is classified as an employee of the company they drive with/for that:
> _a) the company has to pay the driver for 'wait time' and _​_b) that the company will automatically schedule drivers for required work hours. (shifts)._​​Neither is (necessarily true.
> ...


There's actually a lot of legal precident for whether on call time is paid or not.

For on call time to be not paid the time between calls has to be excessive and you have to be free to go do something else and actually be able to accomplish it.


Uber/lyft/doordash etc?

The time between calls falls very much under the "must be paid" catagory.

If you have to respond instantly and the pings come so fast that you can't accomplish anything between them then they would be paid, also any time that you're queued at a FIFO airport queue would be paid as well, (being forced to stay on a premsisis and not being able to leave.

Additionally just not being able to drink alchohol while "on call" is another SPECIFIC example of things that make it payable.

Another example is that you're not able to make it home between every ping.



So to give two solid examples.


You're "on call" at home doing laundry.


Example 1.
You get 0-2 calls a night and are required to make it to wherever _within 3 hours_. You have enough time to shower before or after each call, and let the laundry machine finish it's cycle so you can change the laundry before going off to the call. You can't drink but if you've only had 1 drink you can sober uber all the way before leaving home.


Example 2. You get 3-5 calls a night and half the time you have to respond within an hour and you don't always make it back home before the next call comes in.



So these are 2 pretty textbook examples. 1 is a textbook example of not payable on call time. Example 2 is a textbook example of payable on call time.


Example 3. Logging in and having 0-15 minutes between pings, 15-20 calls a night no freedom to do anything, never going home in the middle of the night. 

Uber/lyft et all?

They are taking the textbook example of payable on call time and putting it on steroids and making an example that's 1000 miles further from being borderline.. If I stay logged in I don't have time to stop at a gas station to take a leak, let alone go home and go back to doing my laundry. Sure some days I can take out my computer and play video games but that's in the car, that's not going home to do it.


In order for on call time to not be payable you'd have to spend a large bulk of every on call night sitting at home watching netflix with no pants on, then be able to finish the episode, get dressed and go back out and make it back home, take your pants off and finish the episode, and watch a few more before getting called out again.


----------



## Buckiemohawk (Jun 23, 2015)

The issue is over the IC status. But truly the problem with these companies is the pay. They should only enforce a transparency in pay and that its. Drivers are paid 80 percent of each ride, and the min payout for a ride under a mile is 7.50. With a mile per rate of 1.25 in most areas and boom the problem is solved


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> There's actually a lot of legal precident for whether on call time is paid or not.
> 
> For on call time to be not paid the time between calls has to be excessive and you have to be free to go do something else and actually be able to accomplish it.
> 
> ...


I don't know where you got that, but you are misapplying the examples to gig driving.

All of a rideshare driver's time is non-mandatory time, 100% under the control of the driver/worker. The company never tells a driver that the must be on-line (ie "on-duty").

_>>> If I stay logged in I don't have time to stop at a gas station to take a leak, let alone go home and go back to doing my laundry. <<<_
That is your choice and as such, is not compensable as on-call time. Ever.
The TNCs have zero requirement that a driver must be online/on-call - But they do have a requirement that a driver be off-line/not-on-call after being on-call for x hours in a day.

These are the *Dept of Labor's specific definitions of 'wait time' and 'on-call-time'* under the Fair Labor Standards Act:

*Waiting Time:* Whether waiting time is hours worked under the Act depends upon the particular circumstances. Generally, the facts may show that the employee was engaged to wait (which is work time) or the facts may show that the employee was waiting to be engaged (which is not work time). For example, a secretary who reads a book while waiting for dictation or a fireman who plays checkers while waiting for an alarm is working during such periods of inactivity. These employees have been "engaged to wait."​​*On-Call Time:* An employee who is required to remain on call on the employer's premises is working while "on call." An employee who is required to remain on call at home, or who is allowed to leave a message where he/she can be reached, is not working (in most cases) while on call. Additional constraints on the employee's freedom could require this time to be compensated.​


https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/whdfs22.pdf



Now, conversely - if a driver was classified as an employee (instead of as an independent contractor), and required to be available to accept ride requests and required to accept those requests THEN, the employed driver would be paid for all time 'online/on-duty.
​


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I don't know where you got that, but you are misapplying the examples to gig driving.
> 
> All of a rideshare driver's time is non-mandatory time, 100% under the control of the driver/worker. The company never tells a driver that the must be on-line (ie "on-duty").
> 
> ...


Yes I am misapplying it to uber/lyft. If they ever lose the employment classification game that's what is going to happen, frankly it looks like the DOL may be targeting uber right now.


----------



## Buckiemohawk (Jun 23, 2015)

Their model and source of revenue would be finished if forced to label workers as employees


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Yes I am misapplying it to uber/lyft. If they ever lose the employment classification game that's what is going to happen, frankly it looks like the DOL may be targeting uber right now.


I'm not so sure it's the department of Labor so much as some really powerful divided politics. Democrats, who are usually on the side of Labor, are in this case falling for the BS the gig companies are spewing. I think that's because they see this as a consumer issue, helping drive costs of things like transportation down. To that end I cite the fact that both David Plouffe (Obama's campaign manager) and Ariana Huffington have both at times been on the Uber Board of Directors (with Kalanick).

And the truth is, you can make a case either way just as we drivers can also make the case for Independence and for employment protections.

It's not going to be possible to solve this issue in a way that satisfies everyone. In fact it may be that the definition of a good deal will be one that pisses everyone off in some way.


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

Paladin220 said:


> What I'm talking about is if the government tries to regulate the gig economy and force all the companies to classify us as employees, it is not going to be better for us.


There is ALREADY a classification for ICs. The problem is rideshare companies aren't adhering to that classification. And then here you come fortifying the position of RCs that they shouldn't be forced to follow the rules. Let them do what they will. Utter BS.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I'm not so sure it's the department of Labor so much as some really powerful divided politics. Democrats, who are usually on the side of Labor, are in this case falling for the BS the gig companies are spewing. I think that's because they see this as a consumer issue, helping drive costs of things like transportation down. To that end I cite the fact that both David Plouffe (Obama's campaign manager) and Ariana Huffington have both at times been on the Uber Board of Directors (with Kalanick).
> 
> And the truth is, you can make a case either way just as we drivers can also make the case for Independence and for employment protections.
> 
> It's not going to be possible to solve this issue in a way that satisfies everyone. In fact it may be that the definition of a good deal will be one that pisses everyone off in some way.


There's zero reason they can't classify us as employees while we retain the freedom if they structure the pay correctly to comply with the law.


What's stopping employees from showing up and asking their boss if they can start work early or go home early?

Not a damn thing.

Why do employees get scheduled?

Because it's easier to get everything staffed.


Uber is hiding behind "flexibility" because that's the only positive thing about driving for uber.

They can even allow drivers who are over their 40 hours to log in during "surge times".


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

Woohaa said:


> There is ALREADY a classification for ICs. The problem is rideshare companies aren't adhering to that classification. And then here you come fortifying the position of RCs that they shouldn't be forced to follow the rules. Let them do what they will. Utter BS.


It looks like the Biden administration will finally try to pass some sort of law protecting drivers employment rights. We will have to wait and see if it actually happens but gauging from the stock prices drop on Uber and Lyft shares I think some sort of bill will be passed just in time for Christmas.


----------

