# Uber is fighting Dynamex rule



## Leoncio

Attention Uber drivers, Uber just sent you an email to help them fight the Dinamex case rule which may give drivers the right to normal employees compensation, like minimum wage and vehicle cost assistance. Do not help them, Do not opt in, Uber and Lyft is fighting Sacramento, and they are using the excuse : look, drivers want to be free, independent not employees, this is a lie. Lets not play this game again!


----------



## Fozzie

After the way they treat you as an independent contractor, you want to become a corporate employee?

*WHY?*


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Fozzie said:


> After the way they treat you as an independent contractor, you want to become a corporate employee?
> 
> *WHY?*


better pay, benefits etc etc

but in the end Uber will likely do everything in their power to not allow us to be employees so instead of us being employees we will get a bunch more stuff and stay IE's


----------



## Leoncio

Drivers are not becoming employees, but they will be entitled to get a minimum wage or compensation after expenses, based on this rule, look at NY drivers now after legislation was forced on Uber, Lyft and Juno, to garantee drivers a minimum an hour, compare it to what Los Angeles drivers make now.


----------



## Fozzie

Leoncio said:


> Drivers are not becoming employees, but they will be entitled to get a minimum wage or compensation after expenses, based on this rule, look at NY drivers now after legislation was forced on Uber, Lyft and Juno, to garantee drivers a minimum an hour, compare it to what Los Angeles drivers make now.


$15 /hr Gross with the stipulation that you can't work multiple apps is a HUGE pay cut. I don't want a MINIMUM wage. I don't want more BS "benefits" like Stride, I want to make my own decisions and work when I want without acceptance/cancel requirements.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Fozzie said:


> $15 /hr Gross with the stipulation that you can't work multiple apps is a HUGE pay cut. I don't want a MINIMUM wage. I don't want more BS "benefits" like Stride, I want to make my own decisions and work when I want without acceptance/cancel requirements.


they can't stipulate we can't work separate apps unless we sign some sort of agreement and we arent in a position to reveal any secrets of the companies to begin with

that is a non issue


----------



## Leoncio

Thats also part of the benefits, they are going to have to cut in the flooding of drivers, if they deactivate you, they'll have to pay unemployment, disability if you get injured while driving, also please note the wages in NY is about 27 an hour. As a seasoned driver with over 24000 rides with Uber and Lift under my belt, I think this is our best chance to finally get some benefits. If you are a driver you should know what I am talking about.


----------



## Fozzie

uberdriverfornow said:


> they can't stipulate we can't work separate apps unless we sign some sort of agreement and we arent in a position to reveal any secrets of the companies to begin with
> 
> that is a non issue


They sure could prevent you from working for "the competition" if you become an employee. One app. Work when they say to work. Work where they want you to work. Pickup ALL riders assigned with no cancellations.



Leoncio said:


> Thats also part of the benefits, they are going to have to cut in the flooding of drivers, if they deactivate you, they'll have to pay unemployment, disability if you get injured while driving, also please note the wages in NY is about 27 an hour. As a seasoned driver with over 24000 rides with Uber and Lift under my belt, I think this is our best chance to finally get some benefits. If you are a driver you should know what I am talking about.


You have "health" benefits... through Stride. Representation? Driver Advisory Council 2.0

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR


----------



## everythingsuber

Uber/Lyft are currently shitting themselves.
Pretty much the same as those who supported child labour did when that was abolished.

https://uberlyftdrivers.com/2019/06/14/uber-and-lyft-are-scared/


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Fozzie said:


> They sure could prevent you from working for "the competition" if you become an employee. One app. Work when they say to work. Work where they want you to work. Pickup ALL riders assigned with no cancellations.
> 
> 
> You have "health" benefits... through Stride. Representation? Driver Advisory Council 2.0
> 
> BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR


NO LAW IN HISTORY PREVENTS ANY EMPLOYEE FROM WORKING FROM ANY OTHER EMPLOYER

end of story


----------



## Fozzie

uberdriverfornow said:


> NO LAW IN HISTORY PREVENTS ANY EMPLOYEE FROM WORKING FROM ANY OTHER EMPLOYER
> 
> end of story


It's called a non compete agreement or clause.


----------



## The Entomologist

Ah the chain reaction I foresaw is finally starting to roll, I wonder if CA gov reads this website and they might have gotten the idea (from someone dunno who) that Uber was using technology to laugh at their stupidity, oh well, the world may never know.


----------



## everythingsuber

Fozzie said:


> They sure could prevent you from working for "the competition" if you become an employee. One app. Work when they say to work. Work where they want you to work. Pickup ALL riders assigned with no cancellations.
> 
> 
> You have "health" benefits... through Stride. Representation? Driver Advisory Council 2.0
> 
> BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR


There's bullshit and theres bullshit. No employer is going to put an employee at risk or danger so I think we can put a line though having to pick up any passenger assigned. Why push that kind of propaganda?

Now if you cancel on someone there's generally a good reason for it? Do you think Uber is going to fire you and end up being sued?


----------



## Fozzie

everythingsuber said:


> There's bullshit and theres bullshit. No employer risk or danger so I think we can put a line though having to pick up any passenger assigned. Why push that kind of propaganda?
> 
> Now if you cancel on someone there's generally a good reason for it? Do you think Uber is going to fire you and end up being sued?


If you're an employee, you do everything the employer tells you to do.

Do you think all workers can decline tasks if they don't want to do them? NO! You do what your boss/supervisor tell you to do, or you get fired and find another company to work for. That's what an employee is.

I don't want to be a Uber employee. If you do, that's on you.


----------



## Cvi

Uber is doing nothing different, by hiring independent contractors, than what courier companies have been doing for a long time. In fact, Uber's business practices are more amicable to our status as independent contractors than the business practices of courier companies. The only thing is that Uber is more visible. So it has caught the eye of lawmakers.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Fozzie said:


> It's called a non compete agreement or clause.


yes, that a driver would have to sign to agree to

just because we are made employees doesnt mean we automatically are no longer allowed to drive for a different company



Fozzie said:


> If you're an employee, you do everything the employer tells you to do.
> 
> Do you think all workers can decline tasks if they don't want to do them? NO! You do what your boss/supervisor tell you to do, or you get fired and find another company to work for. That's what an employee is.
> 
> I don't want to be a Uber employee. If you do, that's on you.


so now Fozzie wants us all to keep getting screwed because he doesnt want to be an employee

thats a good lil shill, Fozzie


----------



## The Entomologist

Fozzie said:


> If you're an employee, you do everything the employer tells you to do.
> 
> Do you think all workers can decline tasks if they don't want to do them? NO! You do what your boss/supervisor tell you to do, or you get fired and find another company to work for. That's what an employee is.
> 
> I don't want to be a Uber employee. If you do, that's on you.


They can't function with employment rules, no one would work for them after destroying their vehicles taking every ride at 10-15 bucks an hour, the point of this is to make a MASSIVE change for Uber/Lyft or let them die quietly as another company does contracting "right".

Either way, companies are lined up to take over for them, just like people are lined up to take your driving job, no body is irreplaceable.


----------



## Fozzie

uberdriverfornow said:


> yes, that a driver would have to sign to agree to
> 
> just because we are made employees doesnt mean we automatically are no longer allowed to drive for a different company


If you work for them, they can demand that you take all runs that they assign to you. 100% acceptance + 0% cancellation, or you're fired. How are you going to run multiple apps under those circumstances?



The Entomologist said:


> They can't function with employment rules, no one would work for them after destroying their vehicles taking every ride at 10-15 bucks an hour, the point of this is to make a MASSIVE change for Uber/Lyft or let them die quietly as another company does contracting "right".
> 
> Either way, companies are lined up to take over for them, just like people are lined up to take your driving job, no body is irreplaceable.


People once would have considered working for 60 cents per mile to be a deal breaker too. What are the rates in your area?

You can demand all you want, but if you're an employee they can kick you to the curb and replace you with a compliant ant. The over saturation everyone is facing right now proves that.


----------



## wicked

Don't support ANYTHING Uber wants you to support. Ever.

Ask yourself what Uber has done for you where it matters in dollars.

Nothing. **** them. I will dance on their bankrupt ashes.


----------



## Fozzie

uberdriverfornow said:


> yes, that a driver would have to sign to agree to
> 
> just because we are made employees doesnt mean we automatically are no longer allowed to drive for a different company
> 
> 
> so now Fozzie wants us all to keep getting screwed because he doesnt want to be an employee
> 
> thats a good lil shill, Fozzie


Spoken like a true ant, willing to sell their soul for an easy paycheck.

There is no free ride and if you become an employee you give up your autonomy.

Go ahead and find a W2 job somewhere, then tell your boss that you will only work from, say, 8 pm to 4 pm , Monday - Fridays, that you want to get paid up to 5 times a day, and that you want to work for their main competitor during business hours.

I know exactly what they'd tell you.


----------



## The Entomologist

Fozzie said:


> People once would have considered working for 60 cents per mile to be a deal breaker too. What are the rates in your area?


Those 60 cents a mile do not matter when you pick who you take, gaming the system I make about 30-40 bucks an hour on X, while it's true that a ton of desperate people will take those 10-15 bucks an hour, people who Uber are lazy as hell and only a small minority ant all day picking everything which would be the final number of employees they have, a car gets destroyed completely after anting for 2 years, I have friends who ant and are on their second or third vehicles, I wouldn't put my hopes on employment because it will reduce their drivers dramatically whilst another company will open ride share at contracting design and take over their empire, they have already foreseen this else they wouldn't be willing to sit and talk.



Fozzie said:


> You can demand all you want, but if you're an employee they can kick you to the curb and replace you with a compliant ant. The over saturation everyone is facing right now proves that.


And they will pay unemployment, let's see if it's less than "sign up bonuses".


----------



## observer

Fozzie said:


> It's called a non compete agreement or clause.


Noncompetes are unenforceable in California.


----------



## Fozzie

The Entomologist said:


> Those 60 cents a mile do not matter when you pick who you take, gaming the system I make about 30-40 bucks an hour on X, while it's true that a ton of desperate people will take those 10-15 bucks an hour, people who Uber are lazy as hell and only a small minority ant all day picking everything which would be the final number of employees they have, a car gets destroyed completely after anting for 2 years, I have friends who ant and are on their second or third vehicles, I wouldn't put my hopes on employment because it will reduce their drivers dramatically whilst another company will open ride share at contracting design and take over their empire, they have already foreseen this else they wouldn't be willing to sit and talk.
> 
> And they will pay unemployment, let's see if it's less than "sign up bonuses".


These companies have no loyalty, and if you're an employee, you'd be MORE disposable than you are right now. Uber and Lyft fill the streets with drivers paying NO benefits. If they start offering them, ants will line up for miles, begging for such the most mindless job in the world.

I don't want someone dictating that I work weekend bar close. I don't want someone making demands about my vehicles. I don't want their shit "benefits."

My car, my rules, my hours, my schedule. Anything short of that is a deal breaker.



observer said:


> Noncompetes are unenforceable in California.


While that may be true, they also operate in 49 other states and more than 80 countries.


----------



## observer

Fozzie said:


> These companies have no loyalty, and if you're an employee, you'd be MORE disposable than you are right now. Uber and Lyft fill the streets with drivers paying NO benefits. If they start offering them, ants will line up for miles, begging for such the most mindless job in the world.
> 
> I don't want someone dictating that I work weekend bar close. I don't want someone making demands about my vehicles. I don't want their shit "benefits."
> 
> My car, my rules, my hours, my schedule. Anything short of that is a deal breaker.
> 
> 
> While that may be true, they also operate in 49 other states and more than 80 countries.


Yepp but AB5 only applies in California.



uberdriverfornow said:


> NO LAW IN HISTORY PREVENTS ANY EMPLOYEE FROM WORKING FROM ANY OTHER EMPLOYER
> 
> end of story


While there are some states that enforce noncompetes, California is not one of those states.


----------



## Fozzie

observer said:


> Yepp but AB5 only applies in California.


AB5 would set precedents that other states will quickly follow. What California does will eventually affect us all.


----------



## observer

Fozzie said:


> AB5 would set precedents that other states will quickly follow. What California does will eventually affect us all.
> 
> View attachment 328662


True but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Uber/Lyft have way to much power over drivers.

The consequences of the "Gig" economy affect all workers, not just Uber drivers.


----------



## The Entomologist

Fozzie said:


> These companies have no loyalty, and if you're an employee, you'd be MORE disposable than you are right now. Uber and Lyft fill the streets with drivers paying NO benefits. If they start offering them, ants will line up for miles, begging for such the most mindless job in the world.
> 
> I don't want someone dictating that I work weekend bar close. I don't want someone making demands about my vehicles. I don't want their shit "benefits."
> 
> My car, my rules, my hours, my schedule. Anything short of that is a deal breaker.


You still don't get that if sign up bonuses put a dent to their revenue, unemployment would destroy them within a year.

It feels as though you are trying to instill fear, don't get me wrong I like being a contractor and if they are willing to treat me like one, I will remain a contractor, though it doesn't matter to me anymore, I'm on my 3rd uber account and yes being an employee would **** me, still, I hate Uber with such a passion I would rather see them bankrupt and me on Lyft only than allow them to keep getting away with this farce.


----------



## Fozzie

The Entomologist said:


> You still don't get that if sign up bonuses put a dent to their revenue, unemployment would destroy them within a year.
> 
> It feels as though you are trying to instill fear, don't get me wrong I like being a contractor and if they are willing to treat me like one, I will remain a contractor, though it doesn't matter to me anymore, I'm on my 3rd uber account and yes being an employee would @@@@ me, still, I hate Uber with such a passion I would rather see them bankrupt and me on Lyft only than allow them to keep getting away with this farce.


Let unemployment destroy them. If they can't make appropriate changes to stay solvent, they go go bankrupt and get replaced by someone that has a working plan. If I wanted to be an employee, I'd work somewhere else doing something different. As things currently are, my flexibility is absolutely more important than undefined "minimum earnings" and benefits that we all know will be useless. Put their feet to the fire and renegotiate.


----------



## The Entomologist

Fozzie said:


> Let unemployment destroy them. If they can't make appropriate changes to stay solvent, they go go bankrupt and get replaced by someone that has a working plan. If I wanted to be an employee, I'd work somewhere else doing something different. As things currently are, my flexibility is absolutely more important than undefined "minimum earnings" and benefits that we all know will be useless. Put their feet to the fire and renegotiate.


The thing is... they can't really renegotiate anything, the CA bill is about to DESTROY them, they either mitigate 10-20 percent of the projected losses or they lose 100%, there is no negotiation going on at this point, just trying to save whatever they can, of course they will try to make it look like it isn't such a big deal to try to make the gov and drivers cave in but it seems that the girl who wrote that bill is well aware of what the drivers want, she picked this fight because she has insider info, meaning she probably visits this website, all she needs to know will be asked here and according to unanimous decision, it will pass or be rejected.

You do know how we hate uber here, right? :wink:


----------



## EM1

Leoncio said:


> Drivers are not becoming employees, but they will be entitled to get a minimum wage or compensation after expenses, based on this rule, look at NY drivers now after legislation was forced on Uber, Lyft and Juno, to garantee drivers a minimum an hour, compare it to what Los Angeles drivers make now.


Can you provide more details on this? I'm not familiar. How much do the NY drivers get for min wage/comp? Whats the diff between Socal drivers? Thank you.



uberdriverfornow said:


> NO LAW IN HISTORY PREVENTS ANY EMPLOYEE FROM WORKING FROM ANY OTHER EMPLOYER
> 
> end of story


That's not true. If you're in sales, you can't work for the competition. Life insurance, mortgages for example (I'm licensed in both).


----------



## The Entomologist

EM1 said:


> Can you provide more details on this? I'm not familiar. How much do the NY drivers get for min wage/comp? Whats the diff between Socal drivers? Thank you.


They are making 16 bucks an hour average.


----------



## EM1

observer said:


> Noncompetes are unenforceable in California.


I think that's only if you LEAVE the current employer. For example, you can't be a captive life insurance agent and then get appointed with another life insurance company...or...work for a mortgage company and then work for another mortgage company at the same time. Its prohibited and that rule is enforced pretty much everywhere. However, if you leave the company the 'noncompete' clause is not enforceable in California.

FYI. I was going to drive a little tonight. Opened a bottle of Pinot Noir & convinced myself to stay home.


----------



## Fozzie

The Entomologist said:


> The thing is... they can't really renegotiate anything, the CA bill is about to DESTROY them, they either mitigate 10-20 percent of the projected losses or they lose 100%, there is no negotiation going on at this point, just trying to save whatever they can, of course they will try to make it look like it isn't such a big deal to try to make the gov and drivers cave in but it seems that the girl who wrote that bill is well aware of what the drivers want, she picked this fight because she has insider info, meaning she probably visits this website, all she needs to know will be asked here and according to unanimous decision, it will pass or be rejected.
> 
> You do know how we hate uber here, right? :wink:


I hate Uber and lyft as much as the next poster, but I value my independent contractor status and flexibility more than I value the "perks" that these companies love to pretend are there for our benefit.

All that considered, I do also think that there is one more conspiracy agenda at work here...

1. California passes AB5. California drivers become employees and Uber/Lyft stocks tank;
2. Board of Directors immediately meet, and fire Dara and his cronies for incompetent leadership;
3. Dara uses his gloden parachute to bail, leaving someone else holding the bag while he escapes with the riches he stole from drivers;


----------



## observer

EM1 said:


> I think that's only if you LEAVE the current employer. For example, you can't be a captive life insurance agent and then get appointed with another life insurance company...or...work for a mortgage company and then work for another mortgage company at the same time. Its prohibited and that rule is enforced pretty much everywhere. However, if you leave the company the 'noncompete' clause is not enforceable in California.
> 
> FYI. I was going to drive a little tonight. Opened a bottle of Pinot Noir & convinced myself to stay home.


A life insurance agent is more of a "professional" job that requires passing a state test to be licensed so you may or may not be allowed to work for someone in a similar field.

An uber driver is not a "professional" that requires passing a state test for an occupational license.

Many workers work multiple jobs in the service industry because they don't offer full time employment.



Fozzie said:


> I hate Uber and lyft as much as the next poster, but I value my independent contractor status and flexibility more than I value the "perks" that these companies love to pretend are there for our benefit.
> 
> All that considered, I do also think that there is one more conspiracy agenda at work here...
> 
> 1. California passes AB5. California drivers become employees and Uber/Lyft stocks tank;
> 2. Board of Directors immediately meet, and fire Dara and his cronies for incompetent leadership;
> 3. Dara uses his gloden parachute to bail, leaving someone else holding the bag while he escapes with the riches he stole from drivers;


Then Uber becomes to big to fail and the investors realize they have to abide by employment laws and hire people that will do so either by making drivers employees or strengthening the independent contractors model.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

EM1 said:


> Can you provide more details on this? I'm not familiar. How much do the NY drivers get for min wage/comp? Whats the diff between Socal drivers? Thank you.
> 
> 
> That's not true. If you're in sales, you can't work for the competition. Life insurance, mortgages for example (I'm licensed in both).


noncompete clauses dont work in CA

try again


----------



## The Entomologist

Fozzie said:


> I hate Uber and lyft as much as the next poster, but I value my independent contractor status and flexibility more than I value the "perks" that these companies love to pretend are there for our benefit.
> 
> All that considered, I do also think that there is one more conspiracy agenda at work here...
> 
> 1. California passes AB5. California drivers become employees and Uber/Lyft stocks tank;
> 2. Board of Directors immediately meet, and fire Dara and his cronies for incompetent leadership;
> 3. Dara uses his gloden parachute to bail, leaving someone else holding the bag while he escapes with the riches he stole from drivers;


Dara neglected the company trying to throw left overs at drivers, while hes not Kalanick and the company still runs like shit, who do you think is responsible for it? As I said it 2 years ago, the problem is mid and upper management, companies this big suffer from infrastructure problems where reflected in those 2 areas, the areas where bosses don't care because someone else will take the blame (lower management or untouchable higher ups) or the worker is too insignificant to make a change, this is how a company turns into shit, Dara was supposed to analyze the driver's woes and make it right, he failed, I guess he should have driven more! or perhaps try to make a living out of driving on that salary alone.

Either way, what's about to happen is going to change this gig dramatically and drivers have nothing else to lose, guess who will?


----------



## everythingsuber

Fozzie said:


> If you're an employee, you do everything the employer tells you to do.
> 
> Do you think all workers can decline tasks if they don't want to do them? NO! You do what your boss/supervisor tell you to do, or you get fired and find another company to work for. That's what an employee is.
> 
> I don't want to be a Uber employee. If you do, that's on you.


Sorry thought slavery had run its course.
Uber ever deactivated anyone unjustly?
I'm obviously mistaken Uber telling you what you what you will and will not earn per job as a bad thing.

Anyone but a clueless Uber troll sees Uber for what it is. Try earning a living driving for them.


----------



## Fozzie

Uber or Lyft. I just want one of them to faceplant. The other can consolidate everything and raise prices to profitable levels without trying to conquer "market share" by stealing from drivers.


----------



## observer

BTW, I"m not necessarily for drivers becoming employees.

But at this point they are employees and independent contractors in name only.

This will force Uber to look at ways to make sure drivers really do qualify as independent contractors.


----------



## EM1

uberdriverfornow said:


> noncompete clauses dont work in CA
> 
> try again


Noncompete clauses refer to when you leave a company, the former employer attempts to prohibit you from working for a competitor. That's unenforceable in California. However, you are mistaken if you believe that for many industries, you can work for a company and its competitor at the same time. You will be fired, and have no recourse. Common sense. Do you think a mortgage broker can work for Quicken Loans and loanDepot at same time? Raytheon and Boeing? Etc.



observer said:


> A life insurance agent is more of a "professional" job that requires passing a state test to be licensed so you may or may not be allowed to work for someone in a similar field.
> 
> An uber driver is not a "professional" that requires passing a state test for an occupational license.
> 
> Many workers work multiple jobs in the service industry because they don't offer full time employment.
> 
> 
> Then Uber becomes to big to fail and the investors realize they have to abide by employment laws and hire people that will do so either by making drivers employees or strengthening the independent contractors model.


Good point Observer, but, lets go back to the life insurance example. Even for unlicensed positions, e.g., customer service, marketing, etc. the current employer will not allow you to work for a competitor. They will fire you and there is no recourse. This is true for many industries.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn

Fozzie said:


> After the way they treat you as an independent contractor, you want to become a corporate employee?
> 
> *WHY?*


Employees are entitled to min wage free and clear of _*all*_ *deductions*,
Wages must be paid free and clear of impermissible deductions -- s_*uch as the costs of operating the vehicle or traveling on the road *_

For Florida drivers this alone is a huge increase in pay.

This would be 57.5c per mile plus 14c a minute.
INCLUDING driving TO YOUR NEXT PICKUP.

SO the miles/time going to a pickup location would have to be paid as well.

This is a 4c per mile 6c per minute increase on loaded miles and 57.5c per mile 14.1c per minute increase on unloaded miles driving to pickup locations,

and 14.1c per minute waiting time at queues or sitting around waiting for a ping.

YES that's payable to employees.
If they can't go home to be "ON CALL" they are owed money. Being on Call at work is payable.

Whether or not it's payable depends on how many calls they get while on call, whether or not they can go home, and how long they have to respond.

20 seconds to respond, not making it home, and having 10+ calls while "on call" makes it almost impossible to justify that the "on call" time between fare isn't payable.

And sitting in the airport queue?

That's automatically payable to employees.

So to sum it up...

Employees-
57.5c per all miles including going to pickups
14.1c per minute for all time spent away from home (in this context)

So for 200 miles and 8 hours as an employee you would be ENTITLED TO..

$115 (untaxable reimbursements)
$67.68 (taxable pay)
+ Tips (Depending on the state tips MAY (But not necessarily be counted towards your min wage)
For a total of $182.68 or $22 an HOUR!

While this might not be an improvement everywhere it's a massive improvement for Orlando. (and you would get paid $8.46 an hour to sit in the airport queue)

It changes it from less than $10.00 an hour currently, to somewhere in the $22-25 an hour range.

(and they would more than likely kick people offline if there wasn't enough pings and tell you to go home)


----------



## Fozzie

everythingsuber said:


> Sorry thought slavery had run its course.
> Uber ever deactivated anyone unjustly?
> I'm obviously mistaken Uber telling you what you what you will and will not earn per job as a bad thing.
> 
> Anyone but a clueless Uber troll sees Uber for what it is. Try earning a living driving for them.


* There is no slavery. If you don't like it you always have the opportunity to leave and do something else. Why do you keep driving?
* Have they deactivated people unjustly? Sure. So have a ton of other companies that people here revere. 
* Uber telling us what to do IS a bad thing. It's sad that so many posters want to subject themselves to that by becoming employees regardless.

Label me a troll if you wish. I'd rather be an informed troll than Uber's *****.


----------



## observer

EM1 said:


> Noncompete clauses refer to when you leave a company, the former employer attempts to prohibit you from working for a competitor. That's unenforceable in California. However, you are mistaken if you believe that for many industries, you can work for a company and its competitor at the same time. You will be fired, and have no recourse. Common sense. Do you think a mortgage broker can work for Quicken Loans and loanDepot at same time? Raytheon and Boeing? Etc.
> 
> 
> Good point Observer, but, lets go back to the life insurance example. Even for unlicensed positions, e.g., customer service, marketing, etc. the current employer will not allow you to work for a competitor. They will fire you and there is no recourse. This is true for many industries.


I got my RE license a while back and most workers in the RE industry are independent contractors not employees.

The way brokers get around this is that your license ties you to a specific broker.

Someone really should look into this industry (and may be doing so) to see if it violates Dinamex.

I think it does.


----------



## Fozzie

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Employees are entitled to min wage free and clear of _*all*_ *deductions*,
> Wages must be paid free and clear of impermissible deductions -- s_*uch as the costs of operating the vehicle or traveling on the road *_
> 
> For Florida drivers this alone is a huge increase in pay.
> 
> This would be 57.5c per mile plus 14c a minute.
> INCLUDING driving TO YOUR NEXT PICKUP.
> 
> SO the miles/time going to a pickup location would have to be paid as well.
> 
> This is a 4c per mile 6c per minute increase on loaded miles and 57.5c per mile 14.1c per minute increase on unloaded miles driving to pickup locations,
> 
> and 14.1c per minute waiting time at queues or sitting around waiting for a ping.
> 
> YES that's payable to employees.
> If they can't go home to be "ON CALL" they are owed money. Being on Call at work is payable.
> 
> Whether or not it's payable depends on how many calls they get while on call, whether or not they can go home, and how long they have to respond.
> 
> 20 seconds to respond, not making it home, and having 10+ calls while "on call" makes it almost impossible to justify that the "on call" time between fare isn't payable.
> 
> And sitting in the airport queue?
> 
> That's automatically payable to employees.
> 
> So to sum it up...
> 
> Employees-
> 57.5c per all miles including going to pickups
> 14.1c per minute for all time spent away from home (in this context)
> 
> So for 200 miles and 8 hours as an employee you would be ENTITLED TO..
> 
> $115 (untaxable reimbursements)
> $67.68 (taxable pay)
> + Tips (Depending on the state tips MAY (But not necessarily be counted towards your min wage)
> For a total of $182.68 or $22 an HOUR!
> 
> While this might not be an improvement everywhere it's a massive improvement for Orlando. (and you would get paid $8.46 an hour to sit in the airport queue)
> 
> It changes it from less than $10.00 an hour currently, to somewhere in the $22-25 an hour range.
> 
> (and they would more than likely kick people offline if there wasn't enough pings and tell you to go home)


Still not enough to get me to drive in Orlando.


----------



## Leoncio

EM1 said:


> Can you provide more details on this? I'm not familiar. How much do the NY drivers get for min wage/comp? Whats the diff between Socal drivers? Thank you.
> 
> 
> That's not true. If you're in sales, you can't work for the competition. Life insurance, mortgages for example (I'm licensed in both).


There are different "types" of self employment, you are right, real estate agents can only work under one broker at a time, but doctors (surgeons, radiologists, anesthesiologists) are also self employed but can work at different hospitals, for example. They are like drivers but they all set their own fees, unlike Uber and Lyft drivers that are bound by rules and compensation is set without a say. Here is where the Dinamex ruling comes to help drivers in this case.


----------



## EM1

observer said:


> I got my RE license a while back and most workers in the RE industry are independent contractors not employees.
> 
> The way brokers get around this is that your license ties you to a specific broker.
> 
> Someone really should look into this industry (and may be doing so) to see if it violates Dinamex.
> 
> I think it does.


Touche. Independent Agents/Brokers (life insurance, mortgages etc.) CAN and ARE usually appointed with multiple companies. Thats the benefit of being independent. But the noncompete rule applies to Employees. And if you are a W2 employee, for many industries, you cannot work for a competitor. Now maybe you can work for Subway & Jersey Mikes at the same time, but for many industries you cannot and you will be fired if you do. I've seen it. And it makes sense. If you work customer service for insurance company A, you could easily strike a deal to work for insurance company B and steal clients. Just a rudimentary example.


----------



## Fozzie

Leoncio said:


> They are like drivers but they all set their own fees, unlike Uber and Lyft drivers that are bound by rules and compensation is set without a say. Here is where the Dinamex ruling comes to help drivers in this case.


You're only bound by those rules, terms and conditions because you agreed to them. You can't agree, then demand changes to the agreed to terms after the fact.


----------



## observer

EM1 said:


> Touche. Independent Agents/Brokers (life insurance, mortgages etc.) CAN and ARE usually appointed with multiple companies. Thats the benefit of being independent. But the noncompete rule applies to Employees. And if you are a W2 employee, for many industries, you cannot work for a competitor. Now maybe you can work for Subway & Jersey Mikes at the same time, but for many industries you cannot and you will be fired if you do. I've seen it. And it makes sense. If you work customer service for insurance company A, you could easily strike a deal to work for insurance company B and steal clients. Just a rudimentary example.


Cooking fries at Mcdonalds is very similar to cooking fries at BK. Driving a pax for Uber is the same as driving a pax for Lyft.

Drivers have no access to customer information. They have no access to *any* confidential information.



Fozzie said:


> You're only bound by those rules, terms and conditions because you agreed to them. You can't agree, then demand changes to the agreed to terms after the fact.


Uber does this all the time.


----------



## Fozzie

observer said:


> Uber does this all the time.


Yep. They do it, and people keep agreeing to the new terms.


----------



## EM1

observer said:


> Cooking fries at Mcdonalds is very similar to cooking fries at BK. Driving a pax for Uber is the same as driving a pax for Lyft.
> 
> Drivers have no access to customer information. They have no access to *any* confidential information.
> 
> 
> Uber does this all the time.


Agreed. I'm just staying that for some industries, you can't work for the competitor. Since Rideshare is a relatively new industry, who knows since there isn't any precedence. You could flash the Uber sign and then switch them to Lyft if it pays more? Either way its a big Ponzi schem and a sham.

Basically, for shitty jobs you can work for competitors, generally speaking...and usually for better paying more professional jobs, you can't. But there's always exceptions and circumstances that permit it.

Btw I'm buying a Powerball ticket tomorrow. So be extra nice to me, just in case I win...


----------



## observer

EM1 said:


> Agreed. I'm just staying that for some industries, you can't work for the competitor. Since Rideshare is a relatively new industry, who knows since there isn't any precedence. You could flash the Uber sign and then switch them to Lyft if it pays more? Either way its a big Ponzi schem and a sham.


Yupp. Even though this only applies in California you can bet Uber and its investors have sat up and noticed. They will (if they're smart) beef up the independent contractor model in other states in order to prevent this from spreading.

Drivers in other states should be cheering this on as it will benefit them with little risk.



EM1 said:


> Agreed. I'm just staying that for some industries, you can't work for the competitor. Since Rideshare is a relatively new industry, who knows since there isn't any precedence. You could flash the Uber sign and then switch them to Lyft if it pays more? Either way its a big Ponzi schem and a sham.
> 
> Basically, for shitty jobs you can work for competitors, generally speaking...and usually for better paying more professional jobs, you can't. But there's always exceptions and circumstances that permit it.
> 
> Btw I'm buying a Powerball ticket tomorrow. So be extra nice to me, just in case I win...


Ima go across the street and buy one now. When I win I'm not telling ya...


----------



## uberdriverfornow

EM1 said:


> Noncompete clauses refer to when you leave a company, the former employer attempts to prohibit you from working for a competitor. That's unenforceable in California. However, you are mistaken if you believe that for many industries, you can work for a company and its competitor at the same time. You will be fired, and have no recourse. Common sense. Do you think a mortgage broker can work for Quicken Loans and loanDepot at same time? Raytheon and Boeing? Etc.
> 
> 
> Good point Observer, but, lets go back to the life insurance example. Even for unlicensed positions, e.g., customer service, marketing, etc. the current employer will not allow you to work for a competitor. They will fire you and there is no recourse. This is true for many industries.


Obviously im talking about unlicensed professions

unless you think driving for uber takes a professional license

you can work for burger king AND mcdonalds as employees....uber AND lyft as employees etc etc


----------



## EM1

uberdriverfornow said:


> Obviously im talking about unlicensed professions
> 
> unless you think driving for uber takes a professional license


You can't work for many companies and their competitors at the same time. Some you can, but some you cannot. Friggin common sense.



uberdriverfornow said:


> Obviously im talking about unlicensed professions
> 
> unless you think driving for uber takes a professional license
> 
> you can work for burger king AND mcdonalds as employees....uber AND lyft as employees etc etc


You're struggling. I get it. You can't work for customer service in many companies, and work customer service at the competitor. Unlicensed position. Duh. Move along.


----------



## The Entomologist

Fozzie said:


> Still not enough to get me to drive in Orlando.


I've played with the system in orlando and even at lower rates than miami, I have made more money, they have a ton of queues and the trips are massive in comparison, I've gotten trips to orlando and back to miami through multiple accounts and multiple queues.

Try to make 600 dollars in a day on X while ubering.


----------



## OldBay

If they make everyone employees, that doesn't mean ft!

What will happen is they will limit ppls time on app. Health insurance is not required when ppl are working pt.

All these ex taxi drivers want benefits, don't realize they will be limited to 29 hours a week. More than enough drivers to cover demand.

60+ hr weeks and 1500+ will be thing of past.

Nothing says employers can't use all pt employees.


----------



## The Entomologist

OldBay said:


> If they make everyone employees, that doesn't mean ft!
> 
> What will happen is they will limit ppls time on app. Health insurance is not required when ppl are working pt.
> 
> All these ex taxi drivers want benefits, don't realize they will be limited to 29 hours a week. More than enough drivers to cover demand.
> 
> 60+ hr weeks and 1500+ will be thing of past.
> 
> Nothing says employers can't use all pt employees.


At 15 bucks an hour, why rideshare when you can taxi for more?


----------



## The Gift of Fish

There's something that some are missing regarding how much we would get paid as employees - mileage reimbursement for the use of our private vehicles while conducting our employer's business.

If we're going to be employees, we're going to get at least minimum wage, which in SF is $15 per hour.

Now, as employees, the employer is responsible for providing the equipment necessary to do the job. If you get hired to work as an office employee, you don't need to take a desk in and a computer and phone etc etc - the company provides all equipment. If you work as a cashier at a supermarket you don't provide the cash register and credit card machines etc.

Uber will either have to provide us all with vehicles, or pay us to use ours. Uber does not have the capital available to purchase vehicles for all its drivers, so they would have to pay us to provide our own. And the mileage rate that they pay us would be for all miles travelled, not just miles with pax on board.

In a 10 hour shift I do 250 miles on average. If Uber pays the IRS rate of 58 cents per mile, as is customary for employers to pay their staff who use their own vehicles in the course of conducting their employers' business, that would be $145. I would also get at least minimum wage of $15 per hour, which is another $150. Total pay and reimbursement as an employee would be $295 per shift.

I don't know about anyone else, but employment looks pretty damn good to me.



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Employees are entitled to min wage free and clear of _*all*_ *deductions*,
> Wages must be paid free and clear of impermissible deductions -- s_*uch as the costs of operating the vehicle or traveling on the road *_
> 
> For Florida drivers this alone is a huge increase in pay.
> 
> This would be 57.5c per mile plus 14c a minute.
> INCLUDING driving TO YOUR NEXT PICKUP.
> 
> SO the miles/time going to a pickup location would have to be paid as well.
> 
> This is a 4c per mile 6c per minute increase on loaded miles and 57.5c per mile 14.1c per minute increase on unloaded miles driving to pickup locations,
> 
> and 14.1c per minute waiting time at queues or sitting around waiting for a ping.
> 
> YES that's payable to employees.
> If they can't go home to be "ON CALL" they are owed money. Being on Call at work is payable.
> 
> Whether or not it's payable depends on how many calls they get while on call, whether or not they can go home, and how long they have to respond.
> 
> 20 seconds to respond, not making it home, and having 10+ calls while "on call" makes it almost impossible to justify that the "on call" time between fare isn't payable.
> 
> And sitting in the airport queue?
> 
> That's automatically payable to employees.
> 
> So to sum it up...
> 
> Employees-
> 57.5c per all miles including going to pickups
> 14.1c per minute for all time spent away from home (in this context)
> 
> So for 200 miles and 8 hours as an employee you would be ENTITLED TO..
> 
> $115 (untaxable reimbursements)
> $67.68 (taxable pay)
> + Tips (Depending on the state tips MAY (But not necessarily be counted towards your min wage)
> For a total of $182.68 or $22 an HOUR!
> 
> While this might not be an improvement everywhere it's a massive improvement for Orlando. (and you would get paid $8.46 an hour to sit in the airport queue)
> 
> It changes it from less than $10.00 an hour currently, to somewhere in the $22-25 an hour range.
> 
> (and they would more than likely kick people offline if there wasn't enough pings and tell you to go home)


Lol, I just wrote almost exactly the same thing - I hadn't seen your post.


----------



## EM1

observer said:


> Cooking fries at Mcdonalds is very similar to cooking fries at BK. Driving a pax for Uber is the same as driving a pax for Lyft.
> 
> Drivers have no access to customer information. They have no access to *any* confidential information.
> 
> 
> Uber does this all the time.


True that, but you can't be flipping burgers for McDonalds at the very same moment you're flipping burgers for BK. You can't physically be at both places at once. You won't be paid by each for the same hours worked the same day flipping burgers. Its one or the other, your are physically limited. With Rideshare, Uber/Lyft, if its a slow night for Uber, and if you are an employee still guaranteed $15/hr min wage, with your argument, you could still drive Lyft and make $ for driving and/or make minimum wage from Lyft and Uber at the same time. That'd be $30/hr ($15/hr x 2) for each hour worked the same day while being active on both apps. I could go sit out in the desert, where I wont get any ride requests, and collect $15/hr from both companies at the same time? Doesn't make sense and the companies will probably ban it. So, again, nobody can predict whats going to happen but IF drivers are deemed employees, and a minimum hourly wage (and benefits?) are being provided by one or both companies, its unlikely Uber will allow a driver to work for Lyft and vice versa.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

EM1 said:


> True that, but you can't be flipping burgers for McDonalds at the very same moment you're flipping burgers for BK. You can't physically be at both places at once. You won't be paid by each for the same hours worked the same day flipping burgers. Its one or the other, your are physically limited. With Rideshare, Uber/Lyft, if its a slow night for Uber, and if you are an employee still guaranteed $15/hr min wage, with your argument, you could still drive Lyft and make $ for driving and/or make minimum wage from Lyft and Uber at the same time. That'd be $30/hr ($15/hr x 2) for each hour worked the same day while being active on both apps. I could go sit out in the desert, where I wont get any ride requests, and collect $15/hr from both companies at the same time? Doesn't make sense and the companies will probably ban it. So, again, nobody can predict whats going to happen but IF drivers are deemed employees, and a minimum hourly wage (and benefits?) are being provided by one or both companies, its unlikely Uber will allow a driver to work for Lyft and vice versa.


There wouldn't be a need to work for both. Hourly wage plus mileage reimbursement would be pretty good.


----------



## jgiun1

Fozzie said:


> $15 /hr Gross with the stipulation that you can't work multiple apps is a HUGE pay cut. I don't want a MINIMUM wage. I don't want more BS "benefits" like Stride, I want to make my own decisions and work when I want without acceptance/cancel requirements.


I'm good the way it is now....agree with you


----------



## The Gift of Fish

One thing I think a lot of us can agree on is how great it is to see Uber and Lyft squirm over this. The op ed beg-fest that Dara and the Lyft CEO wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle was a hilarious read. "We'll pay the drivers better. We'll give them pensions. We'll stop being @@@holes. PLEASE!".

Yerright.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

uberdriverfornow said:


> NO LAW IN HISTORY PREVENTS ANY EMPLOYEE FROM WORKING FROM ANY OTHER EMPLOYER
> 
> end of story


You need to brush up on your law. There are employee agreements that stipulate everything from how much one can weigh to limitations of extra curricular activities, from the allowance of facial hair to what clothes must be worn, from how to conduct oneself in public to dates of mandatory drug testing.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

So first you say this...


SEAL Team 5 said:


> You need to brush up on your *law.*


Then you immediately follow that up with this gem....


SEAL Team 5 said:


> There are *employment agreements*.


You do realize those are two totally different things ?

Common sense is clearly overrated.


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's called a non compete agreement or clause.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, that a driver would have to sign to agree to
Click to expand...

If you want to drive, you will sign that non-compete clause if it is put in front of you.
You subject yourself to those Uber selfies, right? And those terms and conditions updates? What if you refuse?



Fozzie said:


> Uber or Lyft. I just want one of them to faceplant. The other can consolidate everything and raise prices to profitable levels without trying to conquer "market share" by stealing from drivers.


Definitely!
The winner can raise passengers prices from $1.10 a mile upward toward $2.50 a mile to still undercut taxis.
Oh... the drivers? The rate card would remain mostly the same.You didn't think there is trickle-down economics at play in the rideshare biz, right?


----------



## IR12

uberdriverfornow said:


> better pay, benefits etc etc
> 
> but in the end Uber will likely do everything in their power to not allow us to be employees so instead of us being employees we will get a bunch more stuff and stay IE's


Yikes!


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane

OldBay said:


> If they make everyone employees, that doesn't mean ft!
> What will happen is they will limit ppls time on app. Health insurance is not required when ppl are working pt.
> All these ex taxi drivers want benefits, don't realize they will be limited to 29 hours a week. More than enough drivers to cover demand.
> Nothing says employers can't use all pt employees.


Astute observation... didn't think of that. I could be game for this under a W2 system, but how would autonomy in scheduling be kept the same? Would it be a clock in/clock out system or would minimum hours or times be required?

Employee status without autonomy could really massacre the part-timer and hobbyist ranks.


----------



## EM1

The Gift of Fish said:


> There wouldn't be a need to work for both. Hourly wage plus mileage reimbursement would be pretty good.


Right? I think some FT drivers here may think they can work simultaneously for both as employees.


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane

The Entomologist said:


> At 15 bucks an hour, why rideshare when you can taxi for more?


Tell me what companies allow me to sign up to drive a taxi whenever I'd like to, and I might give it a whirl. Oh, by the way I don't want to pay to use the car for a whole day or week. And I keep an erratic schedule. So that taxi co. better let me just walk in and drive one of their cars for a while and then I'll bring it back when I'm done and they can deduct my hours as a rental bill. Cool?

... by the way, here's how this could function: Some sort of hybrid that grafts ZipCar with a taxi/rideshare company. Unlockable cars available in parking lots that can be driven around by vetted drivers as money-earning taxis whenever you want. Just put the car back in that lot or garage when you're done. No idea how dispatch would work, but taxi cos now have rideshare-like apps, right?...
Uber and Lyft wouldn't do this because they are "technology" companies with no cars. But taxis rent out their cars all the time... and Uber/Lyft have this massive pool of drivers running their cars into the ground and/or are renting cars from "the company store" at big rates, and would prefer not to if other options were available.

On the other hand, man, the abuse capabilities would be potent with this hybrid idea I brought up....
"Oh! I got approved by the Taxi company bro, you just unlock the car with the phone and go drive! Great rates! Yeah I can support my family and all on my account... yeah I got Checo my cousin in on this... I mean yeah he's a sex offender and all, but he can take the daytime hours. Just no schools OK?"


----------



## IR12

Cvi said:


> Uber is doing nothing different, by hiring independent contractors, than what courier companies have been doing for a long time. In fact, Uber's business practices are more amicable to our status as independent contractors than the business practices of courier companies. The only thing is that Uber is more visible. So it has caught the eye of lawmakers.


?...someone's smokin some good sh#t


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Dammit Mazzacane said:


> If you want to drive, you will sign that non-compete clause if it is put in front of you.
> You subject yourself to those Uber selfies, right? And those terms and conditions updates? What if you refuse?


then you simply don't work for that company, it's that simple

but do you really think uber and lyft would require a noncompete clause ? get real....they wouldnt have any drivers, especially since most drivers do so part time

the subject matter of this thread is whether there is a law that prevents you from working for competing companies or if something would automatically kick in just because we are found to be employees...the answer to that is a resounding no


----------



## IR12

Fozzie said:


> Spoken like a true ant, willing to sell their soul for an easy paycheck.
> 
> There is no free ride and if you become an employee you give up your autonomy.
> 
> Go ahead and find a W2 job somewhere, then tell your boss that you will only work from, say, 8 pm to 4 pm , Monday - Fridays, that you want to get paid up to 5 times a day, and that you want to work for their main competitor during business hours.
> 
> I know exactly what they'd tell you.
> 
> View attachment 328656


Preach!!!
??


----------



## EM1

uberdriverfornow said:


> So first you say this...
> 
> Then you immediately follow that up with this gem....
> 
> You do realize those are two totally different things ?
> 
> Common sense is clearly overrated.


You are one seriously confused dude. Employee Agreements are contracts, and subject to contract law, which is civil law (not criminal). Nobody is saying you will go to jail or get a fine from city hall. But if you break an employee contract, you can face civil penalties and be sued by the employer/former employer.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

EM1 said:


> You are one seriously confused dude. Employee Agreements are contracts, and subject to contract law, which is civil law (not criminal). Nobody is saying you will go to jail or get a fine from city hall. But if you break an employee contract, you can face civil penalties and be sued by the employer/former employer.


yes, but first you have to agree to it since it is not a law !


----------



## EM1

uberdriverfornow said:


> yes, but first you have to agree to it since it is not a law !


If you don't agree to it, then you don't get hired. Geezus. Are you for real.


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane

uberdriverfornow said:


> then you simply don't work for that company, it's that simple
> but do you really think uber and lyft would require a noncompete clause ? get real....they wouldnt have any drivers, especially since most drivers do so part time


You mistake that a burgeoning underground could flourish of drivers who "secretly dual app"

A noncompete clause can be used to stifle your main competitor. I think the opportunity is alluring enough for the companies to implement one if the whole scenario changed and rideshare companies are forced to consider drivers as employees.
If you were the boss, wouldn't you?

... as an aside: I swear there could be a scenario involving an insurance mass heart attack while dual-apping.

"Yeah so I got in a car accident while I was driving rideshare..."
"Which app were you using? Did you have a passenger?"
"Oh I was logged into Uber and Lyft. No passengers, I was hoping for a ping."
"Both?"
"Yeah well there was this girl on the sidewalk and... then I hit like a Subaru or something?"
"Goddammit Checo."
"It's OK man I have rideshare gap!"

James River now has a single car crash simultaneously by an Uber driver and a Lyft driver... they're separate policies both active at the same time because of dual-apping.


----------



## EM1

Dammit Mazzacane said:


> You mistake that a burgeoning underground could flourish of drivers who "secretly dual app"
> 
> A noncompete clause can be used to stifle your main competitor. I think the opportunity is alluring enough for the companies to implement one if the whole scenario changed and rideshare companies are forced to consider drivers as employees.
> If you were the boss, wouldn't you?
> 
> ... as an aside: I swear there could be a scenario involving an insurance mass heart attack while dual-apping.
> 
> "Yeah so I got in a car accident while I was driving rideshare..."
> "Which app were you using? Did you have a passenger?"
> "Oh I was logged into Uber and Lyft. No passengers, I was hoping for a ping."
> "Both?"
> "Yeah well there was this girl on the sidewalk and... then I hit like a Subaru or something?"
> "Goddammit Checo."
> "It's OK man I have rideshare gap!"
> 
> James River now has a single car crash simultaneously by an Uber driver and a Lyft driver... they're separate policies both active at the same time because of dual-apping.


That's a great point. Didn't think of the insurance angle. Many scenarios and a pandoras box! I think that dude is trolling on the employee agreement issue. Who knows what will happen but that would make the most sense to do an agreement and prohibit driving for competition if drivers are deemed employees.



Dammit Mazzacane said:


> You mistake that a burgeoning underground could flourish of drivers who "secretly dual app"
> 
> A noncompete clause can be used to stifle your main competitor. I think the opportunity is alluring enough for the companies to implement one if the whole scenario changed and rideshare companies are forced to consider drivers as employees.
> If you were the boss, wouldn't you?
> 
> ... as an aside: I swear there could be a scenario involving an insurance mass heart attack while dual-apping.
> 
> "Yeah so I got in a car accident while I was driving rideshare..."
> "Which app were you using? Did you have a passenger?"
> "Oh I was logged into Uber and Lyft. No passengers, I was hoping for a ping."
> "Both?"
> "Yeah well there was this girl on the sidewalk and... then I hit like a Subaru or something?"
> "Goddammit Checo."
> "It's OK man I have rideshare gap!"
> 
> James River now has a single car crash simultaneously by an Uber driver and a Lyft driver... they're separate policies both active at the same time because of dual-apping.


This got me to thinking too, if the 2 companies Uber & Lyft require a signed employee agreement, and prohibit driving for the competition, then essentially the 2 companies are competing for drivers. So if they are competing for labor, then it could cause the rates (wages) and benefits to increase so they can attract & retain the best drivers. But then again, apparently since neither company is making money, they may just fold altogether.


----------



## Lee239

Fozzie said:


> After the way they treat you as an independent contractor, you want to become a corporate employee?
> 
> *WHY?*


Because employees have rights
they are not treated like disposable trash
Because Uber is against it.
It will benefit you.


----------



## IthurstwhenIP

The costs for Uber and Lyft will go 3x under employee situation. They can’t handle more losses and won’t retain half their volume if they try and raise prices.

I highly doubt they continue.


----------



## Cableguynoe

EM1 said:


> Touche. Independent Agents/Brokers (life insurance, mortgages etc.) CAN and ARE usually appointed with multiple companies. Thats the benefit of being independent. But the noncompete rule applies to Employees. And if you are a W2 employee, for many industries, you cannot work for a competitor. Now maybe you can work for Subway & Jersey Mikes at the same time, but for many industries you cannot and you will be fired if you do. I've seen it. And it makes sense. If you work customer service for insurance company A, you could easily strike a deal to work for insurance company B and steal clients. Just a rudimentary example.


I know a guy that's a police officer and


Fozzie said:


> $15 /hr Gross with the stipulation that you can't work multiple apps is a HUGE pay cut. I don't want a MINIMUM wage. I don't want more BS "benefits" like Stride, I want to make my own decisions and work when I want without acceptance/cancel requirements.


if you're making a set amount that you're satisfied with, and that's a big if, then acceptance/cancel rates become a non issue. 
You think bus drivers give a damn how many people get on their bus?
You just drive because that's what you're paid to do.

And worrying about losing our flexibility is ridiculous. Hundreds of thousands of drivers aren't going to all get individual work schedules with start and end times. 
That's nonsense.


----------



## OldBay

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Employees are entitled to min wage free and clear of _*all*_ *deductions*,
> Wages must be paid free and clear of impermissible deductions -- s_*uch as the costs of operating the vehicle or traveling on the road *_
> 
> For Florida drivers this alone is a huge increase in pay.
> 
> This would be 57.5c per mile plus 14c a minute.
> INCLUDING driving TO YOUR NEXT PICKUP.
> 
> SO the miles/time going to a pickup location would have to be paid as well.
> 
> This is a 4c per mile 6c per minute increase on loaded miles and 57.5c per mile 14.1c per minute increase on unloaded miles driving to pickup locations,
> 
> and 14.1c per minute waiting time at queues or sitting around waiting for a ping.
> 
> YES that's payable to employees.
> If they can't go home to be "ON CALL" they are owed money. Being on Call at work is payable.
> 
> Whether or not it's payable depends on how many calls they get while on call, whether or not they can go home, and how long they have to respond.
> 
> 20 seconds to respond, not making it home, and having 10+ calls while "on call" makes it almost impossible to justify that the "on call" time between fare isn't payable.
> 
> And sitting in the airport queue?
> 
> That's automatically payable to employees.
> 
> So to sum it up...
> 
> Employees-
> 57.5c per all miles including going to pickups
> 14.1c per minute for all time spent away from home (in this context)
> 
> So for 200 miles and 8 hours as an employee you would be ENTITLED TO..
> 
> $115 (untaxable reimbursements)
> $67.68 (taxable pay)
> + Tips (Depending on the state tips MAY (But not necessarily be counted towards your min wage)
> For a total of $182.68 or $22 an HOUR!
> 
> While this might not be an improvement everywhere it's a massive improvement for Orlando. (and you would get paid $8.46 an hour to sit in the airport queue)
> 
> It changes it from less than $10.00 an hour currently, to somewhere in the $22-25 an hour range.
> 
> (and they would more than likely kick people offline if there wasn't enough pings and tell you to go home)


LOL, if as employees we were paid minimum wage plus mileage reimbursement, no driver would take short trips in town.

Maybe it seems great to rural FL, but everywhere else would tank.

Under this system, rural drivers would be paid more than city drivers. It would reverse who gets paid.

I can see why you like it.


----------



## 25rides7daysaweek

Fozzie said:


> After the way they treat you as an independent contractor, you want to become a corporate employee?
> 
> *WHY?*


I suppose if you are stuck in gridlock traffic all the time like I would guess it might be like in New York getting a guarantee of minimum wage might be good. Here in chicago I run both apps take what's better for 12 hours a day and make way more than I could at any job I might get. I'm happy right where I am thank you very much...


----------



## Fozzie

Cableguynoe said:


> if you're making a set amount that you're satisfied with, and that's a big if, then acceptance/cancel rates become a non issue.
> You think bus drivers give a damn how many people get on their bus?
> You just drive because that's what you're paid to do.
> 
> And worrying about losing our flexibility is ridiculous. Hundreds of thousands of drivers aren't going to all get individual work schedules with start and end times.
> That's nonsense.


1 - If you just want minimum compensation, being someone's employee collecting a paycheck twice a month may work for you. 
2 - Bu drivers don't care because they're using someone elses vehicle. If I'm driving my own POV, the number of people in my car IS a relevant issue. 
3 - Losing flexibility could be a real problem. Drivers may not be assigned formal M-F 9-5 schedules, but they could face issues like only being allowed to log in where Uber is short of drivers... say Tues, Wed, Thurs from midnight to 4 am.

For those that drive full time, if you're a W2 employee, you'd also most likely be limited to less than 40 hrs of work per week because You know Uber isn't going to pay overtime. (And forget about surge/primetime/consecutives/weeklies. They won't need to offer those incentives if you're an employee) Do you usually avoid the rush hours downtown? Do you stay away from the stadium gridlock after the game or concert? Don't like to work holidays or weekends? Tough. Uber wants wait times at the dog show to be under 30 seconds, so get in your car and go pick up Fido.

As a W2 employee you're going to make the bare minimum wage that Uber is willing to pay, probably around $15 /hr x 30 hrs a week. ($450 /wk = approx $325 /wk take home after taxes and withholdings. Want health coverage? Cut that in half. Welcome to your pay raise)



Lee239 said:


> Because employees have rights
> they are not treated like disposable trash
> Because Uber is against it.
> It will benefit you.


ROFLMAO. You're in Florida. You realize Florida is an "at will" employment state, meaning you'll have damn near zero protections, right?


----------



## nouberipo

Fozzie said:


> After the way they treat you as an independent contractor, you want to become a corporate employee?
> 
> *WHY?*


Why? Because the rampant disregard for drivers welfare whether it is safety, security, or monetary, Uber hates drivers and consistently shows it through their actions. They have proven time and time again they cannot regulate themselves so the only way to stop the continuous extortion of drivers is for government to step in. Any driver who is crazy enough to sign the petition needs to go back to grade school to learn how to do math....most drivers make below minimum wage according to empirical data so are you going to support the very company who will lower it even more as they stated they will do in their ipo prospectus?


----------



## IthurstwhenIP

@nouberipo . thre words "safety, security, or monetary" all will cost a fortune in California. Safety, as employer Uber will face a non stop litigation by pax and driver. Driving is not safe, and now there are 'deep pockets'. Security- Same, no way to prevent all incidents, but each one will be a multi million judgement for an employer.....and money, well costs will double just for taxes and unemployement. Add minimum wage and expenses of a car and costs are easy 4x.

No way Uber can operate as an employer. It will never happen. Its stock = 0 as employer. Better to close up in Cal and pray for SDC

dont get more wrong I want more money and better treatment. I just think employee is game over


----------



## nouberipo

Fozzie said:


> willing to sell their soul for an easy paycheck.
> 
> There is no free ride and if you become an employee you give up your autonomy.
> 
> Go ahead and find a W2 job somewhere, then tell your boss that you will only work from, say, 8 pm to 4 pm , Monday - Fridays, that you want to get paid up to 5 times a day, and that you want to work for their main competitor during business hours.
> 
> I know exactly what they'd tell you.
> 
> View attachment 328656


propaganda machine is ramping up. Don't make it sound like the only result is black and white. If Uber wanted to it would be able to design a model that has fair reciprocity between the drivers and corporate. Your scare tactics are bs and you know it. If you really believe what you wrote is the only option if Sri


everythingsuber said:


> There's bullshit and theres bullshit. No employer is going to put an employee at risk or danger so I think we can put a line though having to pick up any passenger assigned. Why push that kind of propaganda?
> 
> Now if you cancel on someone there's generally a good reason for it? Do you think Uber is going to fire you and end up being sued?


Maybe they would have to start vetting passengers and god forbid they may even have to actually close passengers accounts who pose a clear and present danger to drivers. TOS may actually have to be enforced. The deck of cards is falling.



IthurstwhenIP said:


> @nouberipo . thre words "safety, security, or monetary" all will cost a fortune in California. Safety, as employer Uber will face a non stop litigation by pax and driver. Driving is not safe, and now there are 'deep pockets'. Security- Same, no way to prevent all incidents, but each one will be a multi million judgement for an employer.....and money, well costs will double just for taxes and unemployement. Add minimum wage and expenses of a car and costs are easy 4x.
> 
> No way Uber can operate as an employer. It will never happen. Its stock = 0 as employer. Better to close up in Cal and pray for SDC
> 
> dont get more wrong I want more money and better treatment. I just think employee is game over


Novel idea....safety and security of drivers. This is a non issue for them now as they don't care but they will care once the narrative is no longer controlled by them but rather by legislatures. The sooner government steps in the better. Uber has made choices of their treatment of drivers and they are now starting to see the ramifications.


----------



## WAHN

LOL, like being labeled as an employee is going to be some sort of Godsend.

You know, because multi-billion dollar corporations are so well-known for treating their employees so well.

Crappy benefits that, if taken, will cost a significant portion of earnings.

Yeah, something needs to be done, but changing to employee status is not the answer.

Is there something somewhere that shows exactly how the whole NYC minimum wage works in a simple way? They aren't considered employees, correct? I'm assuming drivers can't just hang around and decline pings all day and collect their "minimum wage".

I gotta go get me some popcorn and see how things unfold.???


----------



## Lee239

Fozzie said:


> 1 - If you just want minimum compensation, being someone's employee collecting a paycheck twice a month may work for you.
> 2 - Bu drivers don't care because they're using someone elses vehicle. If I'm driving my own POV, the number of people in my car IS a relevant issue.
> 3 - Losing flexibility could be a real problem. Drivers may not be assigned formal M-F 9-5 schedules, but they could face issues like only being allowed to log in where Uber is short of drivers... say Tues, Wed, Thurs from midnight to 4 am.
> 
> For those that drive full time, if you're a W2 employee, you'd also most likely be limited to less than 40 hrs of work per week because You know Uber isn't going to pay overtime. (And forget about surge/primetime/consecutives/weeklies. They won't need to offer those incentives if you're an employee) Do you usually avoid the rush hours downtown? Do you stay away from the stadium gridlock after the game or concert? Don't like to work holidays or weekends? Tough. Uber wants wait times at the dog show to be under 30 seconds, so get in your car and go pick up Fido.
> 
> As a W2 employee you're going to make the bare minimum wage that Uber is willing to pay, probably around $15 /hr x 30 hrs a week. ($450 /wk = approx $325 /wk take home after taxes and withholdings. Want health coverage? Cut that in half. Welcome to your pay raise)
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. You're in Florida. You realize Florida is an "at will" employment state, meaning you'll have damn near zero protections, right?


if you are an employee you have the rights to unemployment and workers comp if you drive for Uber you are a fool who is ruining your car and exposing your driver's license to points and risking accidents that will go on your insurance record. An employee also pays into and gets a matching amount for Medicare and Social Security contributions. You are not an independent contractor you are Uber's slave.


----------



## Fozzie

nouberipo said:


> Why? Because the rampant disregard for drivers welfare whether it is safety, security, or monetary, Uber hates drivers and consistently shows it through their actions. They have proven time and time again they cannot regulate themselves so the only way to stop the continuous extortion of drivers is for government to step in. Any driver who is crazy enough to sign the petition needs to go back to grade school to learn how to do math....most drivers make below minimum wage according to empirical data so are you going to support the very company who will lower it even more as they stated they will do in their ipo prospectus?


Government regulation isn't going to change Uber. It's not going to increase safety, and you're only going to guarantee worse earnings than you already make.

Want to take about math? Show me why drivers who make horrible earnings continue to drive. Why do you drive?

I don't want a company like Uber determining my hours and pay. I don't want a company like Lyft deciding who I must have in my POV. I want the freedom to work as much or as little as I want. I want the freedom to screen the passengers in my vehicle.

I don't want to be an employee, because an employee is nothing more than a corporate pet.


----------



## WAHN

Lee239 said:


> if you drive for Uber you are a fool who is ruining your car and exposing your driver's license to points and risking accidents that will go on your insurance record


Employee status doesn't change that.


Lee239 said:


> An employee also pays into and gets a matching amount for Medicare and Social Security contributions.


Just like I do now as an independent contractor when filing taxes. Personally, I prefer to absorb the FICA hit in exchange for the writeoffs as an IC.


----------



## Lee239

Fozzie is Uber's puppet.



WAHN said:


> Employee status doesn't change that.


The workers comp part sure does.

So you think that you work for crumbs are on call while the app is on, deal with awful people, ruin your car, spend your little money you make on repairs use your own gas and a company worth $90 billion who spends over $30 million to sponsor soccer doesn't owe you anything else, you are a dummy if you think that.

Meanwhile Uber often keeps more than 50% of what they charge for a ride which screws the driver and the pax. They also keep 66% or more on short rides.


----------



## IthurstwhenIP

LALALA Uber is going to suck up all these new costs: safety, security, health, state workers comp, fed wc..... AND Uber is going to pay drivers more and sick days and vacation and overtime and min wage.....

and somehow a company that loses tons of cash today is going to manage this ???

How many pax will pay $5 per mile?

this is game over! Checkmate Cal on Uber. Put them on the grill (cant say I will shed many tears)


----------



## Seamus

NY TLC drivers (nyc) received higher rates and fees so they would theoretically gross $27 per hour and net $17 after expenses. Those that work hard do better, those that put in little effort do less. It is still rates and fees. Key to this working, is a cap on new drivers so the pool of drivers doesn’t become saturated.


----------



## Fozzie

nouberipo said:


> Uber troll...propaganda machine is ramping up. Don't make it sound like the only result is black and white. If Uber wanted to it would be able to design a model that has fair reciprocity between the drivers and corporate. Your scare tactics are bs and you know it. If you really believe what you wrote is the only option if Sri


If someone disagrees with you on a subject, they're obviously a corporate troll, right? LOL Sorry pal, but the world isn't black and white where others aren't allowed to disagree with you.

Am I using scare tactics? Are you scared? Scared is placing your hope in the government to protect you because you're unwilling or unable to stand up for yourself.



Lee239 said:


> if you are an employee you have the rights to unemployment and workers comp if you drive for Uber you are a fool who is ruining your car and exposing your driver's license to points and risking accidents that will go on your insurance record. An employee also pays into and gets a matching amount for Medicare and Social Security contributions. You are not an independent contractor you are Uber's slave.


If you want to be a corporate pet, why did you choose to drive rideshare? If you can't manage to turn a profit, walk away. If you're afraid of points on your license, learn to be a safer driver. If you need to rely on social security in the future, learn to manage your money and attain financial independence. Slavery is relying on those things. Freedom is being able to do it yourself, the way you want.


----------



## Lee239

Fozzie said:


> Am I using scare tactics? Are you scared? Scared is placing your hope in the government to protect you because you're unwilling or unable to stand up for yourself.


What planet do you think you live on where a person can stand up to the government or to a $90 billion corporate criminal enterprise?



Fozzie said:


> If you want to be a corporate pet, why did you choose to drive rideshare? If you can't manage to turn a profit, walk away.


I tried it, I gave it 45 days it was the worst work I have ever done. I lost money after deducting the miles driven, and had to get a new alternator from running having my phone plugged into the charger the whole time as well as my dash cam. So Uber cost men money twice.


----------



## Fozzie

Lee239 said:


> What planet do you think you live on where a person can stand up to the government or to a $90 billion corporate criminal enterprise?
> 
> 
> I tried it, I gave it 45 days it was the worst work I have ever done. I lost money after deducting the miles driven, and had to get a new alternator from running having my phone plugged into the charger the whole time as well as my dash cam. So Uber cost men money twice.


WalMart is hiring. Guaranteed hourly salary. Health benefits. Aren't those the things you want? It's available NOW. Go get it.

Car failures suck and can be expensive, but Uber didn't cause that failure, choosing the wrong brand car, insufficient maintenance, driving the vehicle past it's recommended lifespan are all the fault of the driver.


----------



## Lee239

Fozzie said:


> WalMart is hiring. Guaranteed hourly salary. Health benefits. Go get it.
> 
> Car failures suck and can be expensive, but Uber didn't cause that failure, choosing the wrong brand car, insufficient maintenance, driving the vehicle past it's recommended lifespan are all the fault of the driver.


It's a much better job than Uber, but then again Uber is a gig or a paid hobby something homeless people or drug addicts do to get their fix.

Yes you are surprised when people say you are an Uber Troll.


----------



## Fozzie

Lee239 said:


> It's a much better job than Uber, but then again Uber is a gig or a paid hobby something homeless people or drug addicts do to get their fix.


Working for yourself isn't for everyone, but it does work for some people.

I'm one of those people.

Ubering should never be used as a primary source of income to support yourself and/or your family, but it works ok for those that use it as a side gig for extra cash, etc.

Am I a homeless addict? ROFLMAO. Nice try.


----------



## WAHN

Lee239 said:


> Fozzie is Uber's puppet.
> 
> 
> The workers comp part sure does.
> 
> So you think that you work for crumbs are on call while the app is on, deal with awful people, ruin your car, spend your little money you make on repairs use your own gas and a company worth $90 billion who spends over $30 million to sponsor soccer doesn't owe you anything else, you are a dummy if you think that.
> 
> Meanwhile Uber often keeps more than 50% of what they charge for a ride which screws the driver and the pax. They also keep 66% or more on short rides.


LOL, yeah, workers comp seals the deal.

If I get to the point that your mindset is at regarding rideshare, I wouldn't do it at all. Just like I walked away from a decent salary as a retail store manager. Life's too short to be completely miserable working, no matter what the pay is.

I said earlier something needs to be done. It's just that employment status isn't it, IMO. Something similar to what happened with NYC may be a better option.


Lee239 said:


> I tried it, I gave it 45 days it was the worst work I have ever done. I lost money after deducting the miles driven, and had to get a new alternator from running having my phone plugged into the charger the whole time as well as my dash cam. So Uber cost men money twice.


So you've been here at UP for over two years and only kinda sorta tried driving for 45 days and claim it destroyed your vehicle in that short amount of time? Were you driving my old Renault Alliance?

Doesn't seem like you really have a dog in this fight if that's the case.


----------



## Lee239

Fozzie said:


> Working for yourself isn't for everyone, but it does work for some people.
> 
> I'm one of those people.
> 
> Ubering should never be used as a primary source of income to support yourself and/or your family, but it works ok for those that use it as a side gig for extra cash, etc.
> 
> Am I a homeless addict? ROFLMAO. Nice try.


I didn't say everyone who drives for Uber is a homeless addict. One of the first rides I took as a pax was a lady who said she was driving to save up for her daughters wedding when I asked about the gig and how much she could make, she was a nice women, and I know most people driving for Uber are good people. People who drive for Uber and think they are a great company are just coming up for excuses as to explain their own stupidity.



WAHN said:


> So you've been here at UP for over two years and only kinda sorta tried driving for 45 days and claim it destroyed your vehicle in that short amount of time? Were you driving my old Renault Alliance?
> 
> Doesn't seem like you really have a dog in this fight if that's the case.


I do have a dog in this fight because this site is not only for suckers who support Uber. and yes it was your old car.


----------



## WAHN

Fozzie said:


> Ubering should never be used as a primary source of income to support yourself and/or your family, but it works ok for those that use it as a side gig for extra cash, etc.


I finally get to disagree with you on something in this thread. 

If someone can make it work in the fashion they need, I don't see any reason why not.

IIRC, you work for one of those evil corporations, but I still won't call you a corporate shill/troll for disagreeing with me.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

uberdriverfornow said:


> So first you say this...
> 
> Then you immediately follow that up with this gem....
> 
> You do realize those are two totally different things ?
> 
> Common sense is clearly overrated.


Ever hear of employee contracts which are bound by contractual law? Very common one would be NFL players. Sign very big contracts yet contracts may state no ATV activities, no snow skiing, no contact with management of any other NFL team for any reason, no fraternizing with team cheerleaders at any time, must continually maintain certain weight during entire season etc. I'm sure engineering and IT employees have similar contracts especially with contacting competitive businesses.


----------



## observer

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Ever hear of employee contracts which are bound by contractual law? Very common one would be NFL players. Sign very big contracts yet contracts may state no ATV activities, no snow skiing, no contact with management of any other NFL team for any reason, no fraternizing with team cheerleaders at any time, must continually maintain certain weight during entire season etc. I'm sure engineering and IT employees have similar contracts especially with contacting competitive businesses.


I don't think NFL players would be considered employees. More likely they are independent contractors.

As ICs they negotiate their pay.

Lot of good points brought up here on both sides.

This doesn't just affect Uber/Lyft. A few other industries are also under the gun.

If Uber is allowed a carve out other industries will want the same. I can't see this happening but who knows, money talks.

Politicians love taking money.

Actually NFL players are considered employees in California.

https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Total_and_Partial_Unemployment_TPU_4154.htm


----------



## WAHN

Seamus said:


> NY TLC drivers (nyc) received higher rates and fees so they would theoretically gross $27 per hour and net $17 after expenses. Those that work hard do better, those that put in little effort do less. It is still rates and fees. Key to this working, is a cap on new drivers so the pool of drivers doesn't become saturated.


Thanks.

Just curious as to how that all works with acceptance rates and stuff. Any stipulations or minimums.

I know NYC is a whole different world, but defintely think something similar could be figured out.


----------



## observer

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...ifornia-ab5-misclassify-employees-contractors


----------



## Seamus

WAHN said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Just curious as to how that all works with acceptance rates and stuff. Any stipulations or minimums.
> 
> I know NYC is a whole different world, but defintely think something similar could be figured out.


They are still IC so no requirement for acceptance and no extra demands from U/L. In fact, because of the expense of becoming TLC and the fact that no new can be added it is rare for a deactivation. They are at a much greater risk from the TLC (traffic infractions/points) than from U:L.


----------



## WAHN

Seamus said:


> They are still IC so no requirement for acceptance and no extra demands from U/L. In fact, because of the expense of becoming TLC and the fact that no new can be added it is rare for a deactivation. They are at a much greater risk from the TLC (traffic infractions/points) than from U:L.


So there's really no minimum guaranteed hourly rate unless U/L would have to top off earnings if a driver didn't hit the minimum.

I can't see true minimum guarantees actually working without limitations on AR, cancels, etc.


----------



## Seamus

WAHN said:


> So there's really no minimum guaranteed hourly rate unless U/L would have to top off earnings if a driver didn't hit the minimum.
> 
> I can't see true minimum guarantees actually working without limitations on AR, cancels, etc.


There is no hourly guarantee. If you sit in the park smoking weed and decline every ride you get $0


----------



## ABC123DEF

Dammit Mazzacane said:


> You mistake that a burgeoning underground could flourish of drivers who "secretly dual app"
> 
> A noncompete clause can be used to stifle your main competitor. I think the opportunity is alluring enough for the companies to implement one if the whole scenario changed and rideshare companies are forced to consider drivers as employees.
> If you were the boss, wouldn't you?
> 
> ... as an aside: I swear there could be a scenario involving an insurance mass heart attack while dual-apping.
> 
> "Yeah so I got in a car accident while I was driving rideshare..."
> "Which app were you using? Did you have a passenger?"
> "Oh I was logged into Uber and Lyft. No passengers, I was hoping for a ping."
> "Both?"
> "Yeah well there was this girl on the sidewalk and... then I hit like a Subaru or something?"
> "Goddammit Checo."
> "It's OK man I have rideshare gap!"
> 
> James River now has a single car crash simultaneously by an Uber driver and a Lyft driver... they're separate policies both active at the same time because of dual-apping.


AND if Uber is a technology company and NOT a transportation provider...why in the world is James River's insurance even in the equation in the first place?! -o:



The Gift of Fish said:


> There's something that some are missing regarding how much we would get paid as employees - mileage reimbursement for the use of our private vehicles while conducting our employer's business.
> 
> If we're going to be employees, we're going to get at least minimum wage, which in SF is $15 per hour.
> 
> Now, as employees, the employer is responsible for providing the equipment necessary to do the job. If you get hired to work as an office employee, you don't need to take a desk in and a computer and phone etc etc - the company provides all equipment. If you work as a cashier at a supermarket you don't provide the cash register and credit card machines etc.
> 
> Uber will either have to provide us all with vehicles, or pay us to use ours. Uber does not have the capital available to purchase vehicles for all its drivers, so they would have to pay us to provide our own. And the mileage rate that they pay us would be for all miles travelled, not just miles with pax on board.
> 
> In a 10 hour shift I do 250 miles on average. If Uber pays the IRS rate of 58 cents per mile, as is customary for employers to pay their staff who use their own vehicles in the course of conducting their employers' business, that would be $145. I would also get at least minimum wage of $15 per hour, which is another $150. Total pay and reimbursement as an employee would be $295 per shift.
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but employment looks pretty damn good to me.
> 
> 
> Lol, I just wrote almost exactly the same thing - I hadn't seen your post.


Would Uber then have to admit that it's a TRANSPORTATION company?


----------



## observer

ABC123DEF said:


> AND if Uber is a technology company and NOT a transportation provider...why in the world is James River's insurance even in the equation in the first place?! -o:
> 
> 
> Would Uber then have to admit that it's a TRANSPORTATION company?


They can't be a technology company because then drivers would be able to set rates with passengers. As any true Independent Contractor is able to do.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

observer said:


> I don't think NFL players would be considered employees. More likely they are independent contractors.


Huh? Ever hear of the NFLPA? That's the National Football League Player's Association. That is their union. Every Uber driver should know that unions can only be formed by employees and not independent contractors.

All 4 major professional sport teams athletes in the U.S. (baseball, basketball, football and hockey) are employees. Hell, when George Stienbrenner owned the Yankees he forbid facial hair. When Randy Johnson was traded from the D-backs to the Yankees he had to shave his mustache.

AGAIN, YOU NEED TO BRUSH UP ON YOUR LAW KNOWLEDGE!!!


----------



## observer

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Huh? Ever hear of the NFLPA? That's the National Football League Player's Association. That is their union. Every Uber driver should know that unions can only be formed by employees and not independent contractors.
> 
> All 4 major professional sport teams athletes in the U.S. (baseball, basketball, football and hockey) are employees. Hell, when George Stienbrenner owned the Yankees he forbid facial hair. When Randy Johnson was traded from the D-backs to the Yankees he had to shave his mustache.
> 
> AGAIN, YOU NEED TO BRUSH UP ON YOUR LAW KNOWLEDGE!!!


Did you read the last part of my

post! -o:

Or did you skim and make a ten second assumption on it like you usually do?


----------



## OtherUbersdo

Speak for yourself . I in no way want to be an employee . Not being an employee is one of the few over whelming positives of this gig . If you want to be an employee go get a job .


----------



## SEAL Team 5

observer said:


> Did you read the last part of my
> 
> post! -o:
> 
> Or did you skim and make a ten second assumption on it like you usually do?


I replied to the part of YOUR post which was highlighted in my previous post as you can easily see. Below is an exact quote from YOUR post.

I don't think NFL players would be considered employees. More likely they are independent contractors.


----------



## observer

SEAL Team 5 said:


> I replied to the part of YOUR post which was highlighted in my previous post as you can easily see. Below is an exact quote from YOUR post.
> 
> I don't think NFL players would be considered employees. More likely they are independent contractors.


Ya, but if you read the LAST part of my post I corrected my erroneous statement. :smiles:


----------



## Fozzie

Just curious... how many posters in this thread work as an LLC/S Corp/C Corp? How will your status as an employee affect the status of your business, insurance and liability?


----------



## Bob Reynolds

OldBay said:


> If they make everyone employees, that doesn't mean ft!
> 
> What will happen is they will limit ppls time on app. Health insurance is not required when ppl are working pt.
> 
> All these ex taxi drivers want benefits, don't realize they will be limited to 29 hours a week. More than enough drivers to cover demand.
> 
> 60+ hr weeks and 1500+ will be thing of past.
> 
> Nothing says employers can't use all pt employees.


1. Once the mileage reimbursement and the hourly wage is paid then the pay is going to be pretty good for 29 hours on Lyft OR Uber. You will not need to do both at the same time because you will be making enough on ONE of the platforms. The mileage reimbursement alone is going to be over $100 a shift. That alone is more than most people make right now driving a shift for Uber and Lyft. The hourly wage on an 8 hour shift is also going to be more than $100 a shift. So a driver will be making at least $200 on an 8 hour shift.

2. Once you use up your 29 hours on one platform then you can work 29 hours on the other platform if you so desire.

3. There are only 60 minutes in a hour. You can only provide so many rides (1.45) in 60 minutes.

4. If Uber or Lyft were to implement this type of part time schedule, you still will receive workman's comp insurance, unemployment insurance, wage and hour benefits, Social security contributions and vehicle insurance anytime you are being paid and on the job. These are big deals that you do not have now.

5. They would be able to duck providing health insurance, but they could provide this insurance if they decide to. However they don't provide health insurance now so you aren't losing something that you already have.

Also I need to point out that these "minimum wage rules" are nothing new. Almost every business operating the United States is subject to these very same rules and laws. Lyft and Uber just ignored these rules and laws and just started operating. They then hired powerful people in the Obama administration to get the law makers to look the other way while those same law makers did not understand what was going on here.


----------



## Cableguynoe

Fozzie said:


> Do you usually avoid the rush hours downtown? Do you stay away from the stadium gridlock after the game or concert? Don't like to work holidays or weekends? Tough.


Well I can bring it up to my supervisor right? Because if I'm am employee that means I have a direct supervisor that I can have a one on one with and express my concerns.

lol this is all nonsense talk. Drivers will always be able to drive when they want to because there's enough drivers that all shifts, like now, will be covered voluntarily without having to force anyone.


----------



## Ylinks

It may be a little premature to get all excited about this pending legislation. I'm quite sure California political staffers are working very hard to make sure the final language in this bill accomplishes 3 goals:

1.) This bill can be sold to voters as a tremendous benefit for worker's rights.

2.) When the regulations are written and legal fights are over this bill will not adversely impact their major donors - Uber, Lyft etc.

3.) When the public realizes that this bill accomplishes little of what was promised politicians will be able to avoid responsibility.


----------



## Uber1111uber

U guys are making this way way to complicated. If uber and lyft say its bad for us then it's good for us all they do is lie to drivers like lower rates = more rides = more money. So if uber/lyft dont want us to do it then do it. Very simple


----------



## SEAL Team 5

observer said:


> Ya, but if you read the LAST part of my post I corrected my erroneous statement. :smiles:


That's what the edit button is for.


----------



## Nats121

Fozzie said:


> These companies have no loyalty, and if you're an employee, you'd be MORE disposable than you are right now.


You're getting rediculous now.

There's no freaking way we could be any more disposable than we are now.

No unemployment costs if they get rid of a driver and no comp if a driver gets hurt on the job.

Thus, severing their relationship with drivers for any reason costs them NOTHING.


----------



## kevin92009

Leoncio said:


> Attention Uber drivers, Uber just sent you an email to help them fight the Dinamex case rule which may give drivers the right to normal employees compensation, like minimum wage and vehicle cost assistance. Do not help them, Do not opt in, Uber and Lyft is fighting Sacramento, and they are using the excuse : look, drivers want to be free, independent not employees, this is a lie. Lets not play this game again!
> View attachment 328639


 corporate manipulation at its finest .Remember drivers they are there for their shareholders not for the driver.


----------



## Cableguynoe

SEAL Team 5 said:


> That's what the edit button is for.


Hey, I respect that.

He's a humble man that isn't afraid of others reading his mistakes.

That's a lot more than I can say for other members here


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Fozzie said:


> After the way they treat you as an independent contractor, you want to become a corporate employee?
> 
> *WHY?*


Cause you'd actually have rights when they deactivated you, and could collect unemployment.


----------



## dnlbaboof

cant wait to be an employee, forced hours, cant write off miles, have to pick up 4.2 pool rides!!!!! Awesome!!!!! The government has our backs!!!!



TwoFiddyMile said:


> Cause you'd actually have rights when they deactivated you, and could collect unemployment.


Uber is willing to compromise, you can still be a IC and have more rights when you get deactivated....................


----------



## kevin92009

wicked said:


> Don't support ANYTHING Uber wants you to support. Ever.
> 
> Ask yourself what Uber has done for you where it matters in dollars.
> 
> Nothing. @@@@ them. I will dance on their bankrupt ashes.


 can I join the dance so I'll bring my cowboy boots ?


----------



## Cableguynoe

dnlbaboof said:


> cant wait to be an employee, forced hours, cant write off miles, have to pick up 4.2 pool rides!!!!! Awesome!!!!! The government has our backs!!!!


You can write off miles. 
Who says you can't?
Either that or you submit an expense report to your payroll and get reimbursed.


----------



## Uber1111uber

Also if ur an employee they have to pay you a minimum wage so who cares if u can or cant drive for the competition they are both basically the same awful company. Also they know most drivers drive like 10 hours a week so they will have to just put up a scheduale and people can pick up like 2 hour blocks. They will have to pay you either way rides or no rides. Basically the only thing that will change is drivers getting benefits and protection. Itll be like doordash and grubhub blocks but u will get a fair minimum wage, not the $10 an hour grubhub pays. In the eyes of the government we are already treated as employees and dont have any benefits. Once again if uber and lyft are fighting it then it's good for drivers. Those that dont want to work barclose wont have to bc they will be in a block of hours u wont have to pick up unless u want and I'm guessing they will have to pay more for that time period bc of dealing with the drunks.all these app companies went to far and are now having to pay for it.


----------



## Atavar

uberdriverfornow said:


> NO LAW IN HISTORY PREVENTS ANY EMPLOYEE FROM WORKING FROM ANY OTHER EMPLOYER
> 
> end of story


Completely untrue. Industry is rife with non-competition agreements and clauses. Many industry contracts proscribe employees from accepting employment from competition for a period of time after termination. Many companies have anti_moolighting employment clauses.


----------



## steveK2016

uberdriverfornow said:


> yes, that a driver would have to sign to agree to
> 
> just because we are made employees doesnt mean we automatically are no longer allowed to drive for a different company
> 
> 
> so now Fozzie wants us all to keep getting screwed because he doesnt want to be an employee
> 
> thats a good lil shill, Fozzie


There's not many companies that would allow an employee to work for a direct competitor. It's one thing to have a second job, moonlighting as an Uber driver if you work at XYZ company, but it's another to work for a direct competitor.

They can easily add that to the TOS that you are required to accept to access the app.


----------



## Nats121

To all of the "sky is falling" people in this thread, the only thing these scummy companies understand is LEVERAGE.

Leverage is the reason our pay rates are 1/3 of what they were in 2014. Think about that. With the cost of living HIGHER than it was in 2013 and 2014, our pay rates are 1/3 of what they were then.

Drivers who were being paid $1.70 per mile in 2014 are being paid .55 cents per mile today.

At the same time uber's cut has grown tremendously.

I don't want to be an employee either, but the good news is we don't have to be to get much better pay and treatment.

EMPLOYEE status for drivers poses a grave threat to both companies.

The THREAT of employee status will provide all of the LEVERAGE we need to force these companies into paying much higher rates and treating the drivers with much more respect.

They won't have a choice but to "agree" to it as a compromise. (The same way we've always had to "agree" to all of the changes they've made to our contracts)

That would be sweet revenge.



steveK2016 said:


> There's not many companies that would allow an employee to work for a direct competitor. It's one thing to have a second job, moonlighting as an Uber driver if you work at XYZ company, but it's another to work for a direct competitor.
> 
> They can easily add that to the TOS that you are required to accept to access the app.


Pizza drivers do it all the time.

At one point I was delivering for three competing pizza shops at the same time and the bosses knew about it.

Some customers used all three shops, and it was always good for a laugh (and a nice tip) when regular customers would be surprised to see me wearing a different uniform.


----------



## WAHN

Nats121 said:


> To all of the "sky is falling" people in this thread, the only thing these scummy companies understand is LEVERAGE.
> 
> Leverage is the reason our pay rates are 1/3 of what they were in 2014. Think about that. With the cost of living HIGHER than it was in 2013 and 2014, our pay rates are 1/3 of what they were then.
> 
> Drivers who were being paid $1.70 per mile in 2014 are being paid .55 cents per mile today.
> 
> At the same time uber's cut has grown tremendously.
> 
> I don't want to be an employee either, but the good news is we don't have to be to get much better pay and treatment.
> 
> EMPLOYEE status for drivers poses a grave threat to both companies.
> 
> Their THREAT of employee status will provide all of the LEVERAGE we need to force these companies into paying much higher rates and treating the drivers with much more respect.
> 
> They won't have a choice but to "agree" to it as a compromise. (The same way we've always had to "agree" to all of the changes they've made to our contracts)
> 
> That would be sweet revenge.


I get the leverage angle. 

It's just fun to debate/argue with those who think being an employee would be better, acting as if such a classification won't cost them much of the freedom and flexibility the gig offers.


----------



## Cableguynoe

Funny how easily Uber can make all these problems go away by just raising rates.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

steveK2016 said:


> There's not many companies that would allow an employee to work for a direct competitor. It's one thing to have a second job, moonlighting as an Uber driver if you work at XYZ company, but it's another to work for a direct competitor.
> 
> They can easily add that to the TOS that you are required to accept to access the app.


as i stated before unless you are in a position in the company to steal propietary info, no company is going to care if you work for a competitor, period


----------



## Nats121

Cableguynoe said:


> Funny how easily Uber can make all these problems go away by just raising rates.


Right off the bat I would demand that our NET pay rates be at least 75% of taxi rates in our markets.

Even with uber's cut added to the 75%, fares would be right in line with taxi prices.


----------



## steveK2016

Isn't New York's $27 an hour based on time with pax? So if you only spend 30 minutes of any given hour with pax, you only get paid $13.50 an hour and still have to cover expenses?



uberdriverfornow said:


> as i stated before unless you are in a position in the company to steal propietary info, no company is going to care if you work for a competitor, period


Uber will and if they have the ability to do so, they absolutely will. Why? Because that's less drivers for Lyft which degrades their service...



Nats121 said:


> To all of the "sky is falling" people in this thread, the only thing these scummy companies understand is LEVERAGE.
> 
> Leverage is the reason our pay rates are 1/3 of what they were in 2014. Think about that. With the cost of living HIGHER than it was in 2013 and 2014, our pay rates are 1/3 of what they were then.
> 
> Drivers who were being paid $1.70 per mile in 2014 are being paid .55 cents per mile today.
> 
> At the same time uber's cut has grown tremendously.
> 
> I don't want to be an employee either, but the good news is we don't have to be to get much better pay and treatment.
> 
> EMPLOYEE status for drivers poses a grave threat to both companies.
> 
> The THREAT of employee status will provide all of the LEVERAGE we need to force these companies into paying much higher rates and treating the drivers with much more respect.
> 
> They won't have a choice but to "agree" to it as a compromise. (The same way we've always had to "agree" to all of the changes they've made to our contracts)
> 
> That would be sweet revenge.
> 
> 
> Pizza drivers do it all the time.
> 
> At one point I was delivering for three competing pizza shops at the same time and the bosses knew about it.
> 
> Some customers used all three shops, and it was always good for a laugh (and a nice tip) when regular customers would be surprised to see me wearing a different uniform.


The difference is, if Uber can lock in drivers to just Uber, it significantly affects Lyfts ability to provide service equal to Uber. That's a big play and you can bet your bottom dollar that if Uber is forced to make driver Employees, they'll find any and every angle that'll play to their advantage.


----------



## Nats121

steveK2016 said:


> The difference is, if Uber can lock in drivers to just Uber, it significantly affects Lyfts ability to provide service equal to Uber. That's a big play and you can bet your bottom dollar that if Uber is forced to make driver Employees, they'll find any and every angle that'll play to their advantage.


Even if uber had a monopoly, employee status would represent an existential threat to the company, which is why both companies are joining forces to fight it.


----------



## Amos69

uberdriverfornow said:


> yes, that a driver would have to sign to agree to
> 
> just because we are made employees doesnt mean we automatically are no longer allowed to drive for a different company
> 
> 
> so now Fozzie wants us all to keep getting screwed because he doesnt want to be an employee
> 
> thats a good lil shill, Fozzie


Fozzie is a she, and not a shill. Like me she works in the Seattle market where we have yet to have our rates cut to 60 cents a mile. I also do very well using RS and this week made 1,550 on 4 7-9 hour shifts. I do drive XL and X and have a solid knowledge of my area and the factors that create movement. I am certain both Fozzie and I will be reassessing when the rate cut comes. The New York changes worked out well for drivers there.


----------



## WAHN

Any guess on how many U/L "employees" would have both apps on and be double dipping, lol.

Seems like it would be kinda hard to prevent fraud like that, especially if 100% acceptance rate isn't a condition of employment.


----------



## Nats121

observer said:


> I don't think NFL players would be considered employees. More likely they are independent contractors.


NFL players are not ICs, they're employees.

Negotiating a salary and signing a contract doesn't make someone an IC.

Many many W2 employees sign contracts, including public employees such as teachers.



Fozzie said:


> ROFLMAO. You're in Florida. You realize Florida is an "at will" employment state, meaning you'll have damn near zero protections, right?


At will or not, Florida employees still have the "protections" of Worker's Comp if they get injured on the job, unemployment insurance if they get terminated, and FICA.

ICs get NONE of those things.


----------



## Trafficat

Fozzie said:


> Go ahead and find a W2 job somewhere, then tell your boss that you will only work from, say, 8 pm to 4 pm , Monday - Fridays, that


Those 20 hour days are long, but they'd each have 12 hours of overtime.


----------



## wicked

Non-compete clauses usually apply to highly skilled workers. Usually in R&D. Say an inventory for 3M cannot move over to Avery within a set number of years of employment.

I don't think it applies to us?


----------



## Amos69

wicked said:


> Non-compete clauses usually apply to highly skilled workers. Usually in R&D. Say an inventory for 3M cannot move over to Avery within a set number of years of employment.
> 
> I don't think it applies to us?


It absolutely can apply to workers on any level. Restaurant Managers often have to sign NCC's. My wife owns an insurance company, every one of her employees sign an NCC. 5 years to not work for another insurance agency.


----------



## nosurgenodrive

Fozzie said:


> They sure could prevent you from working for "the competition" if you become an employee. One app. Work when they say to work. Work where they want you to work. Pickup ALL riders assigned with no cancellations.
> 
> 
> You have "health" benefits... through Stride. Representation? Driver Advisory Council 2.0
> 
> BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR


You can work for Chilis and Applebees at the same time. Calm down.


----------



## Fozzie

nosurgenodrive said:


> You can work for Chilis and Applebees at the same time. Calm down.


If you want a W2 job, why don't you just go there?

Chili's Career Website

Applebee's Online Application


----------



## nosurgenodrive

I'm explaining to you the law with an analogy. You're welcome.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

ABC123DEF said:


> Would Uber then have to admit that it's a TRANSPORTATION company?


The great thing about this is that the Dynamex rule decides this for them - what Uber chooses to claim it is will now be irrelevant as far as we're concerned.

It reminds be of an old joke from back in the 90s when there was an outbreak of CJD (mad cow disease) in livestock back in Europe:

Cow 1- "Have you heard about this mad cow disease?"
Cow 2 - "Doesn't affect me, mate"
Cow 1 - "Why not?"
Cow 2 - "I'm a helicopter"


----------



## Fozzie

nosurgenodrive said:


> I'm explaining to you the law with an analogy. You're welcome.


Waiting tables as different restaurants at different times isn't competing.

Working two competing apps simultaneously, making you frequently unable to perform your job duties is a whole different animal.


----------



## nosurgenodrive

Fozzie said:


> Waiting tables as different restaurants at different times isn't competing.
> 
> Working two competing apps simultaneously, making you frequently unable to perform your job duties is a whole different animal.


5 hours lyft 10 hours uber. Hysteria seems to be your driving force. I see why you drive. You likely get fired from every other position.


----------



## Uber1111uber

Well uber just like we all "asked for it" with flat surge and getting paid more for time while they deduct distance. "You (Uber) " asked for this. Just think guys uber and lyft are joining forces to fight this thing. It is the best thing for drivers yet.


----------



## Yard dog

No thanks. Don't want no one telling what time to start and stop. What time breaks are. Where to drive. Etc. Etc. Etc. If it was forced on me, no less than $30. an hour, 8 hrs shifts, new car, gas expense. Paid vacations. Premium health insurance. Yearly raises. Unlimited overtime. And, oh yeah, food expense. Quarterly bonuses. Clothing expense. Housing expense. Just saying. ??


----------



## Fozzie

nosurgenodrive said:


> 5 hours lyft 10 hours uber. Hysteria seems to be your driving force. I see why you drive. You likely get fired from every other position.


Yeah, you caught me... slackin' ass Fozzie! ROFLMAO


----------



## Yard dog

And, oh yeah. Forgot to add. Down time expense. (Like to read while waiting for a ping). Paid sick day's. Paid mental health day's. De-stress pay (alcohol, weed, *****s, etc.) If most of those demands are met, than I might think about it. Otherwise! I.C. I'll stick with.


----------



## observer

SEAL Team 5 said:


> That's what the edit button is for.


I don't like editing out comments I've made. I'd rather add another post, which I did.

Unfortunately the system merges individual posts together if they are posted within a certain time frame.



Amos69 said:


> Fozzie is a she, and not a shill. Like me she works in the Seattle market where we have yet to have our rates cut to 60 cents a mile. I also do very well using RS and this week made 1,550 on 4 7-9 hour shifts. I do drive XL and X and have a solid knowledge of my area and the factors that create movement. I am certain both Fozzie and I will be reassessing when the rate cut comes. The New York changes worked out well for drivers there.


Ok, that explains a lot.

Seattle actually started a lot of this and Uber hasn't lowered rates there precisely because of the unionization threat.

Not everyone is lucky enough to be in a market where Uber has to watch itself because legislators are watching.

Like I said, that explains a lot.



Amos69 said:


> It absolutely can apply to workers on any level. Restaurant Managers often have to sign NCC's. My wife owns an insurance company, every one of her employees sign an NCC. 5 years to not work for another insurance agency.


As I stated earlier, this law is for California and noncompetes are unenforceable here.

Employees have more protections here than some other states.



wicked said:


> Non-compete clauses usually apply to highly skilled workers. Usually in R&D. Say an inventory for 3M cannot move over to Avery within a set number of years of employment.
> 
> I don't think it applies to us?


Do you think Uber has its engineers and Csuite execs sign noncompetes?

How many of them have jumped ship to Lyft and other direct competitors or to start their own companies?

Noncompetes are unenforceable.

In California.



Amos69 said:


> It absolutely can apply to workers on any level. Restaurant Managers often have to sign NCC's. My wife owns an insurance company, every one of her employees sign an NCC. 5 years to not work for another insurance agency.


If your wifes business is in Seattle or WA state she needs to reassess her use of noncompetes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ge...s-law-restricting-non-compete-agreements/amp/


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Uber1111uber said:


> Well uber just like we all "asked for it" with flat surge and getting paid more for time while they deduct distance. "You (Uber) " asked for this. Just think guys uber and lyft are joining forces to fight this thing. It is the best thing for drivers yet.


Lol, yeah.

"We drivers have received many reports from Uber employees that IC contracts are hard for you to implement fairly. We and the courts have heard your concerns and we'll simplify this for you by reclassifying as employees. If there's anything else you need, please reach out again."


----------



## wicked

WRONG:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58af1626e4b0e5fdf6196f04/amp
In CA the non compete terminates with your employment.

It would be hilarious if Uber held interviews for all former contractors after the conversion. I would pay to sit with the interviewer.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Yard dog said:


> no less than $30. an hour, 8 hrs shifts, new car, gas expense. Paid vacations. Premium health insurance. Yearly raises. Unlimited overtime. And, oh yeah, food expense. Quarterly bonuses. Clothing expense. Housing expense. Just saying. ??


Hell, you just described all the benefits of AOC's New Green Deal when you don't want to work.


----------



## wicked

Yes... A company BMW with full maintenance included!


----------



## observer

http://www.capradio.org/articles/20...p-independent-contractors-critics-arent-sold/


----------



## MiamiKid

Leoncio said:


> Attention Uber drivers, Uber just sent you an email to help them fight the Dinamex case rule which may give drivers the right to normal employees compensation, like minimum wage and vehicle cost assistance. Do not help them, Do not opt in, Uber and Lyft is fighting Sacramento, and they are using the excuse : look, drivers want to be free, independent not employees, this is a lie. Lets not play this game again!
> View attachment 328639


Sign the petition. Support free enterprise and jobs!


----------



## TomH

It would not be an issue if Uber and Lyft treated drivers well. I do not want to be an employee. I just want to earn a decent income driving.


----------



## VictorD




----------



## Kyanar

uberdriverfornow said:


> yes, that a driver would have to sign to agree to
> 
> just because we are made employees doesnt mean we automatically are no longer allowed to drive for a different company


You do realise if you're reclassified as an employee, Uber will simply deactivate you until you sign a new employment agreement, that will absolutely include clauses preventing you being on any other rideshare app while driving for Uber? Lyft will most definitely do the same. But wait, there's more. They'll also stop giving you a popup to accept or cancel jobs because you're an employee, they'll simply direct you to the next pax. And no more cleaning fees either - they'll sign contracts with cheap car cleaners and tell you that you must take the car to the designated cleaner during business hours to be cleaned. Be careful what you wish for.

There's a lot wrong with the way drivers are treated, but fighting to be classified as an employee is absolutely _the wrong fight_. So long as you're a contractor, Uber is vulnerable to far more attacks - if people stopped banging on about being an employee and looked at other aspects of the relationship.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Kyanar said:


> You do realise if you're reclassified as an employee, Uber will simply deactivate you until you sign a new employment agreement, that will absolutely include clauses preventing you being on any other rideshare app while driving for Uber?


who the hell cares when we are making a decent living with vehicle reimbursements, unemployment insurance, union benefits with the right to file grievances for wrongful termination, free health care in cities like San Francisco, FMLA etc etc

the only reason we currently have to work more than one app is because you can't currently make enough money running one app


----------



## Kyanar

uberdriverfornow said:


> who the hell cares when we are making a decent living with vehicle reimbursements, unemployment insurance, union benefits with the right to file grievances for wrongful termination, free health care in cities like San Francisco, FMLA etc etc
> 
> the only reason we currently have to work more than one app is because you can't currently make enough money running one app


Yeah, you don't get it. Your obsession with being made an employee (which most of us _do not want_) blinds you to the significantly greater downsides of that over simply fixing the issues with the existing model. Which, incidentally, this lunacy gives drivers leverage to try and push...


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Kyanar said:


> Yeah, you don't get it. Your obsession with being made an employee (which most of us _do not want_) blinds you to the significantly greater downsides of that over simply fixing the issues with the existing model. Which, incidentally, this lunacy gives drivers leverage to try and push...


no driver wants to be an employee but that's the only way to stop getting screwed or, at the very least, get Uber and Lyft to make concessions in exchange for us staying as independent contractors

but you're free to keep thinking the magic fairy is going to force Uber and Lyft to stop screwing us over without the help of this bill


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn

uberdriverfornow said:


> but you're free to keep thinking the magic fairy is going to force Uber and Lyft to stop screwing us over without the help of this bill


That's only going to happen when they are forced to, and they will be kicking and screaming all the way (like what is happening now with this bill)


----------



## The Gift of Fish

TomH said:


> It would not be an issue if Uber and Lyft treated drivers well. I do not want to be an employee. I just want to earn a decent income driving.


Exactly. Uberlyft brought this on itself. If drivers were still getting $1.50 per mile and were still on an 80/20 split with the company then fewer drivers would be pushing for this. But Uberlyft had to get greedy by slashing rates, backing out of the 80/20 agreement and going to upfront pricing, taking 40/50/60%+ of the fares, removing multiplier surge etc etc.

Hopefully now they're going to get reamed. You reap what you sow.


----------



## wicked

What you're missing is that as an employer going to get compensated for the miles driving to a pickup plus hourly rate! yes you lose some freedom but at least you get freaking paid for everything you do.

Let's say a passenger takes you to Pleasanton. Now you get to drive wherever Uber tells you to PAID. let's say Uber's algorithm sent you to Pleasanton at the end of your 8 hour shift. Great now you're entitled to overtime!

I used to worry about getting reclassified as an employee, until Uber and Lyft demonstrated to me that they can't be trusted to manage a contractor labor force.

By failing to self regulate they've begged for regulation.

When is Uber is responsible financially for all of your time they will waste the less of it!

how we feel about being independent contractors versus employees is almost irrelevant. Under the law you either are or you aren't an employee.

Finally as an employee Uber and Lyft will be forced to protect you from passengers who discriminate based on any characteristic protected under federal or state law. 

As of late I'm so pissed off at Hoover and Lyft I don't see a downside to being reclassified as an employee.


----------



## Null

observer said:


> Noncompetes are unenforceable in California.


This is not entirely accurate.

Non-compete agreements are almost unilaterally unenforceable if they prevent FUTURE employment.

Non-competes that preclude CONCURRENT employment ARE enforceable in California. Meaning, it is possible to prevent an employee from working for a direct competitor. However, this isn't a requirement. Many bartenders/servers work for more than one establishment under different ownership. I don't think even if we were formally considered employees U/L would use this option. U/L want drivers to pick up passengers and limiting the labor pool isn't in their interest.


----------



## Nats121

Amos69 said:


> It absolutely can apply to workers on any level. Restaurant Managers often have to sign NCC's. My wife owns an insurance company, every one of her employees sign an NCC. 5 years to not work for another insurance agency.


Signing NCCs is one thing. Getting a court to enforce it is another.

The more restrictive the NCC is, the less likely it would stand up in court.

5 years is unreasonable and most likely unenforceable.



Fozzie said:


> If you want a W2 job, why don't you just go there?
> 
> Chili's Career Website
> 
> Applebee's Online Application


All this disingenuous talk from uber and lyft about losing the freedom to work for more than one company is nothing less than a THREAT masquerading as a PSA.

There's NOTHING in the bill that prevents a W2 from working for more than one rideshare company.

If drivers were to be barred from doing it, it would be because uber and lyft barred it.

Both companies are perfectly free to tell the drivers they can work for as many rideshare companies as they want.

This is yet another in a long line of dishonest behavior from these scumbag companies.



dnlbaboof said:


> cant write off miles,


Employees are allowed mileage deductions.


steveK2016 said:


> They can easily add that to the TOS that you are required to accept to access the app.


Correct, they could, but to do so would show how disingenuous they're being now.

They're "warning" drivers of the loss of freedom of being able to work for more than one company if the bill passes, and they're clearly implying that the bill would be the cause of it, which is the typical cynical and dishonest behavior we've come to know and love from these POS companies.

The truth is there's nothing in the bill that bans drivers from working for more than one company.

If a ban were to be put in place, it would be because U/L required it.



steveK2016 said:


> Isn't New York's $27 an hour based on time with pax? So if you only spend 30 minutes of any given hour with pax, you only get paid $13.50 an hour and still have to cover expenses?


I don't know the ins and outs of the NYC law, but in most cases, less time with the pax means lower expenses.

Anyway, the driver cap that's been put in place makes it more likely drivers will have pax in their cars.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Nats121 said:


> They're "warning" drivers of the loss of freedom


Yes, there is nothing in the classification as employees that requires freedom to be given up in the form of fixed shifts, for example. Uberlyft is trying to establish this as a given, but it is not.


----------



## Nats121

Kyanar said:


> There's a lot wrong with the way drivers are treated, but fighting to be classified as an employee is absolutely _the wrong fight_. So long as you're a contractor, Uber is vulnerable to far more attacks - if people stopped banging on about being an employee and looked at other aspects of the relationship.


The FIGHT is what we need to scare those bastards into offering concessions.

Both companies have made it clear they have no intention of paying drivers a decent wage. The threat of this law passing is causing them to have second thoughts about that.



The Gift of Fish said:


> Yes, there is nothing in the classification as employees that requires freedom to be given up in the form of fixed shifts, for example. Uberlyft is trying to establish this as a given, but it is not.


You're responding to a post I started but didn't finish. It's one of those annoying quirks this website has.

My point was the whether or not drivers can work for more than one company is totally up to uber and lyft, NOT the law.

U/L are deliberately misleading drivers into thinking the law itself would ban it.

Typical U/L dishonesty at work.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Both companies already committed in their IPO manifestos to reduce driver compensation in their efforts to achieve profitability. Now that the shit has hit the fan with Dynamex they now claim that they will increase driver pay. Which is it? Duplicitous swines.


----------



## WAHN

The Gift of Fish said:


> Yes, there is nothing in the classification as employees that requires freedom to be given up in the form of fixed shifts, for example. Uberlyft is trying to establish this as a given, but it is not.


Require, no, but common sense tells you it will, or at least it should tell you that.

If U/L have to pay you for every minute you're on the clock, you'll need to work where and when they need you, not necessarily just the hours you want when you want and where you want.

Significant freedom and flexibility will probably be lost.

But at least some would now be able to say "I got me a real job".


----------



## wicked

If they are paying mileage and hourly rate you will get screwed less. They won't jerk you around because it will cost them way too much.

They may be willing to send an IC on a 30min pickup. Will they take that loss on an employee? Mileage + Wage Time?


----------



## MiamiKid

Fozzie said:


> $15 /hr Gross with the stipulation that you can't work multiple apps is a HUGE pay cut. I don't want a MINIMUM wage. I don't want more BS "benefits" like Stride, I want to make my own decisions and work when I want without acceptance/cancel requirements.


Well stated.


----------



## Nats121

Fozzie said:


> Ubering should never be used as a primary source of income to support yourself and/or your family, but it works ok for those that use it as a side gig for extra cash, etc.


You can wag your finger all you want, but for hundreds of thousands of drivers this job IS their primary source of income.


----------



## wicked

MiamiKid said:


> Well stated.


Wrong. California is not seeking to establish a wage floor like NYC, they are seeking to establish you as an employee. Anyone know how that is going in London?


----------



## MiamiKid

Leoncio said:


> Attention Uber drivers, Uber just sent you an email to help them fight the Dinamex case rule which may give drivers the right to normal employees compensation, like minimum wage and vehicle cost assistance. Do not help them, Do not opt in, Uber and Lyft is fighting Sacramento, and they are using the excuse : look, drivers want to be free, independent not employees, this is a lie. Lets not play this game again!
> View attachment 328639


Don't believe I'll receive this, here in Georgia, where we still have sensible government and politicians.

However, thanks very much for the heads up. Now, will know, immediately, what this is and to opt in, sign ASAP!


----------



## WAHN

wicked said:


> If they are paying mileage and hourly rate you will get screwed less. They won't jerk you around because it will cost them way too much.
> 
> They may be willing to send an IC on a 30min pickup. Will they take that loss on an employee? Mileage + Wage Time?


Are there areas of your town you choose not to work in now?

Probably won't be an option.

Certain times you prefer to drive? Those may no longer be available.

Some drivers choose to work 50-60 hours. Probably not allowed.


----------



## wicked

It's not the doomsday scenario they are painting. No driver should be working 50-60 hours anyway. The government is there to protect people from themselves.

I will drive whenever if I get paid. Hell I will even work 10a-2p if that's what they want.

As for avoiding certain areas.... Prices will go up. -Resolved

The way I see it: prices rise, volume decreases, hourly pay to make up for it all, less wear and tear on the car.

Private hire cars were never supposed to be for everyone. You want the wealthy, tipping passengers.


----------



## MiamiKid

Nats121 said:


> You can wag your finger all you want, but for hundreds of thousands of drivers this job IS their primary source of income.


That's, 100% their problem. Totally. Have ZERO sympathy for those drivers. Why? Because by now they should know Uber does not work, at all, as a full time, sole source of income.

And the more I see these whining drivers complaining about something that they should now know, the less sympathy I have.

Yet, these lazy drivers continue on.

Yep, you guessed it! Am a, well paid, Uber shill. Stop by the Hub, sometime, for further explanation. They can explain the business model for you.

I figured all this out in less than a week, driving rideshare.


----------



## steveK2016

Nats121 said:


> Signing NCCs is one thing. Getting a court to enforce it is another.
> 
> The more restrictive the NCC is, the less likely it would stand up in court.
> 
> 5 years is unreasonable and most likely unenforceable.
> 
> 
> All this disingenuous talk from uber and lyft about losing the freedom to work for more than one company is nothing less than a THREAT masquerading as a PSA.
> 
> There's NOTHING in the bill that prevents a W2 from working for more than one rideshare company.
> 
> If drivers were to be barred from doing it, it would be because uber and lyft barred it.
> 
> Both companies are perfectly free to tell the drivers they can work for as many rideshare companies as they want.
> 
> This is yet another in a long line of dishonest behavior from these scumbag companies.
> 
> 
> Employees are allowed mileage deductions.
> 
> Correct, they could, but to do so would show how disingenuous they're being now.
> 
> They're "warning" drivers of the loss of freedom of being able to work for more than one company if the bill passes, and they're clearly implying that the bill would be the cause of it, which is the typical cynical and dishonest behavior we've come to know and love from these POS companies.
> 
> The truth is there's nothing in the bill that bans drivers from working for more than one company.
> 
> If a ban were to be put in place, it would be because U/L required it.
> 
> 
> I don't know the ins and outs of the NYC law, but in most cases, less time with the pax means lower expenses.
> 
> Anyway, the driver cap that's been put in place makes it more likely drivers will have pax in their cars.


Less freedom can also be a threat by Uber. 29 hours max to stay part time with minimal benefits, at the very least they'll max at 40 to prevent overtime pay. None compete with Lyft. Uber already tried that but had to drop it because were not employees so you think they'll forget that for when we do become employees? I doubt it.

Drivers see $27 an hour and flock back to driver causing an over saturation whereas you are unable to stay full for more then 30 min in any given hour.

No more surges, no more single digit acceptance rates. No more separation from X and Pool. No more declining Pool.


----------



## MiamiKid

steveK2016 said:


> Less freedom can also be a threat by Uber. 29 hours max to stay part time with minimal benefits, at the very least they'll max at 40 to prevent overtime pay. None compete with Lyft. Uber already tried that but had to drop it because were not employees so you think they'll forget that for when we do become employees? I doubt it.
> 
> Drivers see $27 an hour and flock back to driver causing an over saturation whereas you are unable to stay full for more then 30 min in any given hour.
> 
> No more surges, no more single digit acceptance rates. No more separation from X and Pool. No more declining Pool.


Spot on.


----------



## wicked

You guys are wrong with your assumptions that the rates would not increase. More money for less volume is the best thing that could ever happen to a Rideshare driver. 

Don't delude yourself into thinking that more miles = more money. Just like lower rates = higher earnings right?


----------



## Nats121

MiamiKid said:


> That's, 100% their problem. Totally. Have ZERO sympathy for those drivers. Why? Because by now they should know Uber does not work, at all, as a full time, sole source of income.


The vast majority of rideshare drivers are Third World immigrants, many of them have limited skills and English proficiency.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

WAHN said:


> Require, no, but common sense tells you it will, or at least it should tell you that.


I don't see that it does. The Europeans have successfully operated flexitime programmes for decades, allowing flexible work schedules for employees. Are you saying that the companies that operate these programmes lack common sense? Or that the employees that enjoy the flexible work schedules offered by flexitime lack common sense?


----------



## wicked

Nats121 said:


> The vast majority of rideshare drivers are Third World immigrants, many of them have limited skills and English proficiency.


Thus they deserve to be exploited? I don't respect a company stealing candy from a baby. It's just sad.


----------



## MiamiKid

Nats121 said:


> The vast majority of rideshare drivers are Third World immigrants, many of them have limited skills and English proficiency.


No sympathy there either. Learn to adapt to American culture or it's going to be very difficult here. They'll work long, hard hours regardless of the industry they're in.

And of course, as another option, they can always go back where they came from.



The Gift of Fish said:


> I don't see that it does. The Europeans have successfully operated flexitime programmes for decades, allowing flexible work schedules for employees. Are you saying that the companies that operate these programmes lack common sense? Or that the employees that enjoy the flexible work schedules offered by flexitime lack common sense? Rather, I think it's more a case of you lacking the ability to see other ways of doing things.


This is America. Uber does not have to adopt a European style business model.

Free market economics all the way.


----------



## Nats121

steveK2016 said:


> Less freedom can also be a threat by Uber. 29 hours max to stay part time with minimal benefits, at the very least they'll max at 40 to prevent overtime pay. None compete with Lyft. Uber already tried that but had to drop it because were not employees so you think they'll forget that for when we do become employees? I doubt it.
> 
> Drivers see $27 an hour and flock back to driver causing an over saturation whereas you are unable to stay full for more then 30 min in any given hour.
> 
> No more surges, no more single digit acceptance rates. No more separation from X and Pool. No more declining Pool.


I've stated on many occasions since I joined this website that I don't want to be an employee.

I've also said on many occasions that employee status will result in massive layoffs and work hour restrictions.

But I've always said that we don't need employee status to get decent pay and treatment, just the THREAT of it occurring is enough to force real change.

Employee status is such an existential threat to U/L that if it looks like it will happen, both companies will offer concessions to prevent it from happening.

And lo and behold, both companies suddenly are willing to talk, the same ones who insisted that drivers were well paid. As recently as a week or two ago, Zimmer claimed the lyft drivers average $20 per hour. Sure they do Johnny.


----------



## MiamiKid

wicked said:


> Thus they deserve to be exploited? I don't respect a company stealing candy from a baby. It's just sad.


Exploited? Really?

Okay, maybe I do support that. Would like to see these types, of drivers, weeded out of the system anyway.

I utilize Uber, also, as rider and get tired of the lower educated, scraggly type drivers. They bring us all down.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

MiamiKid said:


> This is America. Uber does not have to adopt a European style business model.


Agreed - Uber is not obligated to adopt any particular business model - they would be free to choose a rigid, fixed shift model for their employee drivers, or keep the current flexible, non-rigid work arrangement.

Which proves my point that for Uber to imply that having drivers classified as employees would force them to implement rigid inflexible shifts is incorrect. As you say, this is America and they are free to make that choice.


----------



## WAHN

wicked said:


> It's not the doomsday scenario they are painting. No driver should be working 50-60 hours anyway. The government is there to protect people from themselves.


Who's painting a doomsday scenario?

Who are you to dictate how much anybody should be working? What, you think that nobody doing this part time has a full time job? Same difference.



wicked said:


> I will drive whenever if I get paid. Hell I will even work 10a-2p if that's what they want.


As an employee, definitely a possibility. I like knowing that I can drive whenever as it is now.



wicked said:


> As for avoiding certain areas.... Prices will go up. -Resolved


Your opinion is noted.



wicked said:


> The way I see it: prices rise, volume decreases, hourly pay to make up for it all, less wear and tear on the car.


And lots of displaced part time drivers lose their secondary income and have to find an alternative job, most that won't have anywhere near the flexibility.



wicked said:


> Private hire cars were never supposed to be for everyone. You want the wealthy, tipping passengers.


Okay, then Uber can just go back to it's original black car model.

Must be what you drive.


----------



## Nats121

MiamiKid said:


> I utilize Uber, also, as rider and get tired of the lower educated, scraggly type drivers. They bring us all down.


You can thank both companies and their garbage pay rates for that.

In 2013-14, when the pay rates were TRIPLE what they are now, lots of professionals were driving rideshare.

After the disastrous rate cuts of 2014-15, most American drivers quit and were replaced by poor immigrants and standards were lowered.



wicked said:


> Thus they deserve to be exploited? I don't respect a company stealing candy from a baby. It's just sad.


No one deserves to be exploited, which is why I want to see these companies pay the drivers a decent wage and treat them with respect.

If they refuse, they deserve to go out of business, and if that happened, I'd cheer their demise.

They deserve to go out of business anyway for being the scumbag companies that they are.


----------



## WAHN

The Gift of Fish said:


> I don't see that it does. The Europeans have successfully operated flexitime programmes for decades, allowing flexible work schedules for employees. Are you saying that the companies that operate these programmes lack common sense? Or that the employees that enjoy the flexible work schedules offered by flexitime lack common sense?


I'm not saying there will be zero flexibility, just significantly less.

There are companies that do flex-time here in the U.S. as well, but not every worker and probably not as much in jobs that are more time sensitive with peak/off-peak times when certain numbers are needed. Scheduled shifts would make the most sense from a business aspect if employees are on the clock.

We're all just speculating and tossing opinions out. I have mine, you have yours.


----------



## Nats121

WAHN said:


> Who are you to dictate how much anybody should be working?


The amount of hours people choose to work is none of my business, so long as they don't endanger others.

Operating dangerous equipment including vehicles when exhausted endangers others, and thus IS my and the public's business.

That's the reason truckers are restricted in the number of hours they can work.


----------



## WAHN

Nats121 said:


> The amount of hours people choose to work is none of my business, so long as they don't endanger others.
> 
> Operating dangerous equipment including vehicles when exhausted endangers others, and thus IS my and the public's business.
> 
> That's the reason truckers are restricted in the number of hours they can work.


50-60 hours falls within those guidelines. You miss the point.

People buried in bills on the edge of a mental breakdown driving part time just to survive probably shouldn't be doing it either. How are you going to stop that?


----------



## Nats121

WAHN said:


> 50-60 hours falls within those guidelines. You miss the point.
> 
> People buried in bills on the edge of a mental breakdown driving part time just to survive probably shouldn't be doing it either. How are you going to stop that?


I don't agree at all with your comment that govt should protect people from themselves if you mean by force. It should only protect people from others.

I really want to stay on the topic of the California bill.

If it passes, uber and lyft will have no choice but to offer concessions including much higher pay rates and better treatment of the drivers as a compromise alternative to employee status.

If that happens, ALL the drivers will benefit, including the guy on the edge of a mental breakdown.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

WAHN said:


> We're all just speculating and tossing opinions out. I have mine, you have yours.


Correct, that is the way discussion forums work.



> I'm not saying there will be zero flexibility, just significantly less.


Maybe so; however my point was that Uber will decide this of its own free will; it is not being dictated by the move to employee classification.


----------



## steveK2016

wicked said:


> You guys are wrong with your assumptions that the rates would not increase. More money for less volume is the best thing that could ever happen to a Rideshare driver.
> 
> Don't delude yourself into thinking that more miles = more money. Just like lower rates = higher earnings right?


Except youre wrong. Unless I read it incorrectly, the hourly in NYC is based on time with pax. So unless youve got a pax with you, you arent earning anything. I remember at the low times, especially summer slow downs, almost half of an hour is sitting empty. Surges is what helped break the downtime costs. If theres no more incentives and no more surges, $27 may sound good on paper, youre really only making $13.50 an hour. Still less expenses as smarter people then us determkned that was enough to cover expenses.

Now apply that model to a smaller city. $17 an hour? Sounds good on paper too, until youre only rolling 30 minutes of an hour with a pax. $8.50 an hour minus expenses.

Capped at 29 hours a week to avoid giving you health insurance.

Many of You would be begging for the old ways in a heart beat. You'll be begging for flat surges!


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

TomH said:


> It would not be an issue if Uber and Lyft treated drivers well. I do not want to be an employee. I just want to earn a decent income driving.


Will never happen. That's why there are taxi rate laws. When you leave it up to the Free Market, this is the end result.



MiamiKid said:


> Exploited? Really?
> 
> Okay, maybe I do support that. Would like to see these types, of drivers, weeded out of the system anyway.
> 
> I utilize Uber, also, as rider and get tired of the lower educated, scraggly type drivers. They bring us all down.


You get what you pay for.


----------



## WAHN

Nats121 said:


> I don't agree at all with your comment that govt should protect people from themselves if you mean by force. It should only protect people from others.


It wasn't me that said that. 


steveK2016 said:


> the hourly in NYC is based on time with pax.


It's not an employee-employer setup, so not the same thing.

Wish I could fast forward time to see how this plays out.


----------



## MiamiKid

The Gift of Fish said:


> Agreed - Uber is not obligated to adopt any particular business model - they would be free to choose a rigid, fixed shift model for their employee drivers, or keep the current flexible, non-rigid work arrangement.
> 
> Which proves my point that for Uber to imply that having drivers classified as employees would force them to implement rigid inflexible shifts is incorrect. As you say, this is America and they are free to make that choice.


Agree and disagree. Agree that they would not be forced to any kind of rigid structure, in the event of drivers becoming classified as employees.

However, in reality and knowing Uber, they almost certainly, would implement way more control. In fact, they're "pushing the envelope" with that now. But no, they would not have to do that.

Where I disagree, is that Uber is wrong to imply such. As a staunch free market individual, I support Uber's, absolute, right to "the this up" however they choose. Lord knows I operate my business this way.



Nats121 said:


> You can thank both companies and their garbage pay rates for that.
> 
> In 2013-14, when the pay rates were TRIPLE what they are now, lots of professionals were driving rideshare.
> 
> After the disastrous rate cuts of 2014-15, most American drivers quit and were replaced by poor immigrants and standards were lowered.
> 
> 
> No one deserves to be exploited, which is why I want to see these companies pay the drivers a decent wage and treat them with respect.
> 
> If they refuse, they deserve to go out of business, and if that happened, I'd cheer their demise.
> 
> They deserve to go out of business anyway for being the scumbag companies that they are.


Looks like we're going to seriously disagree.

As a staunch Free Market Capitalist, will continue supporting Uber 100%. And yes, to the extreme.

If you want to call us scum bags, have at it. Just strengthens my resolve. Could care less what whining drivers think.

This's becoming some great entertainment. ??



WAHN said:


> It wasn't me that said that. :smiles:
> 
> It's not an employee-employer setup, so not the same thing.
> 
> Wish I could fast forward time to see how this plays out. :biggrin:


Love the Free Market System! ???????


----------



## Fozzie

Nats121 said:


> All this disingenuous talk from uber and lyft about losing the freedom to work for more than one company is nothing less than a THREAT masquerading as a PSA.
> 
> There's NOTHING in the bill that prevents a W2 from working for more than one rideshare company.
> 
> If drivers were to be barred from doing it, it would be because uber and lyft barred it.
> 
> Both companies are perfectly free to tell the drivers they can work for as many rideshare companies as they want.
> 
> This is yet another in a long line of dishonest behavior from these scumbag companies.


Nothing in the bill prevents a W2 driver from working for more than one rideshare company, however considering that they've both hinted such in their messages to drivers, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that such policies would be implemented if this becomes law.

They're not going to turtle up and play nice, they're going to get more nasty and find new ways to manipulate the revised system.

If this happens and they have to offer benefits, etc., and if laws limit drivers to 40 hrs a week on the road, do you really think they'll be ok with you dedicating 20 hrs of that time to driving for the competition and cutting the number of hours you can work for them? Further, if you're going to have to split your time like that and be part time at two separate companies, you'll most likely forfeit any benefits you may have received by the passage of this bill. Anyone who works more than 32-36 hrs a week should be fighting this, because this will limit your total earnings potential.

Benefits? Stride "health," a HSA, (which you can already do if structured properly) HMO coverage with premiums that eat 80% of your earnings, (before tax withholding) or no coverage because you don't drive enough to qualify for benefits as a "full time" employee.


----------



## MiamiKid

Fozzie said:


> Nothing in the bill prevents a W2 driver from working for more than one rideshare company, however considering that they've both hinted such in their messages to drivers, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that such policies would be implemented if this becomes law.
> 
> They're not going to turtle up and play nice, they're going to get more nasty and find new ways to manipulate the revised system.
> 
> If this happens and they have to offer benefits, etc., and if laws limit drivers to 40 hrs a week on the road, do you really think they'll be ok with you dedicating 20 hrs of that time to driving for the competition and cutting the number of hours you can work for them? Further, if you're going to have to split your time like that and be part time at two separate companies, you'll most likely forfeit any benefits you may have received by the passage of this bill. Anyone who works more than 32-36 hrs a week should be fighting this, because this will limit your total earnings potential.
> 
> Benefits? Stride "health," a HSA, (which you can already do if structured properly) HMO coverage with premiums that eat 80% of your earnings, (before tax withholding) or no coverage because you don't drive enough to qualify for benefits as a "full time" employee.


Strongly agree.


----------



## ABC123DEF

steveK2016 said:


> Less freedom can also be a threat by Uber. 29 hours max to stay part time with minimal benefits, at the very least they'll max at 40 to prevent overtime pay. None compete with Lyft. Uber already tried that but had to drop it because were not employees so you think they'll forget that for when we do become employees? I doubt it.
> 
> Drivers see $27 an hour and flock back to driver causing an over saturation whereas you are unable to stay full for more then 30 min in any given hour.
> 
> No more surges, no more single digit acceptance rates. No more separation from X and Pool. No more declining Pool.


However, *if* that were the case, drivers would make they money that they need to make and then log the eff off that app. I don't think that there would be a boatload of drivers constantly logged into the platform. Most people believe in work/life balance because life is so short. It doesn't matter if you live a day or a hundred years. You'd better enjoy life while you're here!



wicked said:


> Thus they deserve to be exploited? I don't respect a company stealing candy from a baby. It's just sad.


From I gathered, I don't think that's the point that he was trying to make.


----------



## steveK2016

ABC123DEF said:


> However, *if* that were the case, drivers would make they money that they need to make and then log the eff off that app. I don't think that there would be a boatload of drivers constantly logged into the platform. Most people believe in work/life balance because life is so short. It doesn't matter if you live a day or a hundred years. You'd better enjoy life while you're here!
> 
> 
> From I gathered, I don't think that's the point that he was trying to make.


Hard to enjoy life when youre falling behind on your bills. I think being an employee with hurt the full time drivers bottom line for those that would grind 60 hours a week, will now be only allowed 29 hours a week to prevent full time benefits. You think that's not going to hurt their ability to pay their bills? Yea right, enjoy life while eating ramen noodles breakfast lunch and dinner? If you think Uber wouldnt do that, where have you been all these years? If they had the drivers interest at heart, we wouldnt even be having this conversation.

I dont blame them either. Its just business.


----------



## Fozzie

ABC123DEF said:


> However, *if* that were the case, drivers would make they money that they need to make and then log the eff off that app. I don't think that there would be a boatload of drivers constantly logged into the platform. Most people believe in work/life balance because life is so short. It doesn't matter if you live a day or a hundred years. You'd better enjoy life while you're here!


1. Do you really think that Uber will raise pay to the point that drivers make more than they do working 80 hr work weeks? I doubt drivers will even scratch their way back to the earnings they made 6 months ago, much less turn a larger profit while working fewer hours, having witholdings taken from their earnings, giving up instant pay, and having the total number of hours they can work capped.

2. If drivers believe in work/home balance, why do so many put in 60+ hrs a week driving? Some of us relish the time offline, (I work 3-6 hr days 3 or 4 days a week, and I refuse to work nights/weekends/holidays) but we're the exception, not the general rule. I understand that the overwhelming majority of drivers don't have the financial resources to take more personal time off, but that's just another reason to be wary of the "benefits" of potential changes.


----------



## ABC123DEF

Fozzie said:


> 1. Do you really think that Uber will raise pay to the point that drivers make more than they do working 80 hr work weeks? I doubt drivers will even scratch their way back to the earnings they made 6 months ago, much less turn a larger profit while working fewer hours, having witholdings taken from their earnings, giving up instant pay, and having the total number of hours they can work capped.
> 
> 2. If drivers believe in work/home balance, why do so many put in 60+ hrs a week driving? Some of us relish the time offline, (I work 3-6 hr days 3 or 4 days a week, and I refuse to work nights/weekends/holidays) but we're the exception, not the general rule. I understand that the overwhelming majority of drivers don't have the financial resources to take more personal time off, but that's just another reason to be wary of the "benefits" of potential changes.


1. I honestly doubt it. After all the drastic pay cuts and changes in procedures ("180 Days of Spare Change" anyone?) Uber will always do only what benefits Uber. One can only hope.

2. They put those hours in because they have to. Many are stuck where they are - even though may are trying to escape.



steveK2016 said:


> Hard to enjoy life when youre falling behind on your bills. I think being an employee with hurt the full time drivers bottom line for those that would grind 60 hours a week, will now be only allowed 29 hours a week to prevent full time benefits. You think that's not going to hurt their ability to pay their bills? Yea right, enjoy life while eating ramen noodles breakfast lunch and dinner? If you think Uber wouldnt do that, where have you been all these years? If they had the drivers interest at heart, we wouldnt even be having this conversation.
> 
> I dont blame them either. Its just business.


I started in 2014. I've been around the block a few times.


----------



## BiggerDog

You will gross twice as much if this passes as is.


----------



## donny donowitz

Leoncio said:


> Thats also part of the benefits, they are going to have to cut in the flooding of drivers, if they deactivate you, they'll have to pay unemployment, disability if you get injured while driving, also please note the wages in NY is about 27 an hour. As a seasoned driver with over 24000 rides with Uber and Lift under my belt, I think this is our best chance to finally get some benefits. If you are a driver you should know what I am talking about.


If drivers are ever deemed employees, and UBER has to pay them with benefits, then ridesharing is OVER. 
UBER/LYFT and all the others will disappear into thin air, and you can keep your beacon as a momento.
Rideshare industry is a scheme that can never make a profit. They dont make a profit now, they wont make a profit in the future, and that's with drivers as independent contractors.


----------



## MiamiKid

donny donowitz said:


> If drivers are ever deemed employees, and UBER has to pay them with benefits, then ridesharing is OVER.
> UBER/LYFT and all the others will disappear into thin air, and you can keep your beacon as a momento.
> Rideshare industry is a scheme that can never make a profit. They dont make a profit now, they wont make a profit in the future, and that's with drivers as independent contractors.


End game here is driverless cars.  Guessing it will happen at some point.


----------



## doyousensehumor

@Fozzie is spot on this. I couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Bob Reynolds

donny donowitz said:


> If drivers are ever deemed employees, and UBER has to pay them with benefits, then ridesharing is OVER.
> UBER/LYFT and all the others will disappear into thin air, and you can keep your beacon as a momento.
> Rideshare industry is a scheme that can never make a profit. They dont make a profit now, they wont make a profit in the future, and that's with drivers as independent contractors.


If Uber and Lyft can't manage their business and make money, by following the rules that everyone else has to follow, then they need to immediately shut down and take their billions and go home now before they burn those billions into pennies. There will be others to take their place.


----------



## donny donowitz

Bob Reynolds said:


> If Uber and Lyft can't manage their business and make money, by following the rules that everyone else has to follow, then they need to immediately shut down and take their billions and go home now before they burn those billions into pennies. There will be others to take their place.





MiamiKid said:


> End game here is driverless cars. Guessing it will happen at some point.


The end of the game is nearing for ridesharing. If they cant turn a profit using cheaper human labor, using cars owned and driven to the ground at the cheap laborer's expense, then There is no way they can profit from using AV's which are WAY more expensive.


----------



## nouberipo

Fozzie said:


> Nothing in the bill prevents a W2 driver from working for more than one rideshare company, however considering that they've both hinted such in their messages to drivers, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that such policies would be implemented if this becomes law.
> 
> They're not going to turtle up and play nice, they're going to get more nasty and find new ways to manipulate the revised system.
> 
> If this happens and they have to offer benefits, etc., and if laws limit drivers to 40 hrs a week on the road, do you really think they'll be ok with you dedicating 20 hrs of that time to driving for the competition and cutting the number of hours you can work for them? Further, if you're going to have to split your time like that and be part time at two separate companies, you'll most likely forfeit any benefits you may have received by the passage of this bill. Anyone who works more than 32-36 hrs a week should be fighting this, because this will limit your total earnings potential.
> 
> Benefits? Stride "health," a HSA, (which you can already do if structured properly) HMO coverage with premiums that eat 80% of your earnings, (before tax withholding) or no coverage because you don't drive enough to qualify for benefits as a "full time" employee.


Bottom line is they are now very much under the microscope. Yes, they will find more and more ways to manipulate drivers but with regulators at their doorstep and drivers tired of being exploited there are going to have to be some real changes. While Uber and Lyft have had all of the power until now, I see this as one sign that the unregulated power to exploit and denegrate drivers is decreasing. Who said the strike didn't work? I think it got the attention of regulators and contributed to the dialogue that was already on-going.

Lyft and Uber have choices they can make in how they treat their drivers/employees. There are many variations they can come up with that will benefit drivers and the company. Look at the number of variations of tricks/decreasing rates/manipulation they have pulled thus far and use to this day. To think that once drivers are considered employees that there are only certain outcomes is to again insult the intelligence of many drivers.

Don't sign the petition. If anything, write to the legislatures your real story and how Lyft and Uber have crossed so many ethical, moral, and legal boundaries through the years that it is about time that regulators are catching up to them.



donny donowitz said:


> The end of the game is nearing for ridesharing. If they cant turn a profit using cheaper human labor, using cars owned and driven to the ground at the cheap laborer's expense, then There is no way they can profit from using AV's which are WAY more expensive.


it is their own fault for thinking their model of driver exploitation would work indefinitely. Their decreasing of rates to under minimum wage and taking away surges was maybe a last straw for some. They have exploited drivers to the point where if this is let go what is going to stop other gig economy companies from following the same exploitive model? Their party is over and I hope that everyone who invested in these companies loses everything they have and then some.


----------



## MiamiKid

nouberipo said:


> Bottom line is they are now very much under the microscope. Yes, they will find more and more ways to manipulate drivers but with regulators at their doorstep and drivers tired of being exploited there are going to have to be some real changes. While Uber and Lyft have had all of the power until now, I see this as one sign that the unregulated power to exploit and denegrate drivers is decreasing. Who said the strike didn't work? I think it got the attention of regulators and contributed to the dialogue that was already on-going.
> 
> Lyft and Uber have choices they can make in how they treat their drivers/employees. There are many variations they can come up with that will benefit drivers and the company. Look at the number of variations of tricks/decreasing rates/manipulation they have pulled thus far and use to this day. To think that once drivers are considered employees that there are only certain outcomes is to again insult the intelligence of many drivers.
> 
> Don't sign the petition. If anything, write to the legislatures your real story and how Lyft and Uber have crossed so many ethical, moral, and legal boundaries through the years that it is about time that regulators are catching up to them.
> 
> 
> it is their own fault for thinking their model of driver exploitation would work indefinitely. Their decreasing of rates to under minimum wage and taking away surges was maybe a last straw for some. They have exploited drivers to the point where if this is let go what is going to stop other gig economy companies from following the same exploitive model? Their party is over and I hope that everyone who invested in these companies loses everything they have and then some.


In Georgia, will, probably, not see the petition.

However, if it did show up, would sign in a "New York second".

My two cents



donny donowitz said:


> The end of the game is nearing for ridesharing. If they cant turn a profit using cheaper human labor, using cars owned and driven to the ground at the cheap laborer's expense, then There is no way they can profit from using AV's which are WAY more expensive.


Nope, willing to bet Uber's here to stay. ??


----------



## donny donowitz

MiamiKid said:


> In Georgia, will, probably, not see the petition.
> 
> However, if it did show up, would sign in a "New York second".
> 
> My two cents
> 
> 
> Nope, willing to bet Uber's here to stay. ??


If they keep their present business model, I bet you they won't.


----------



## observer

I keep reading this a lot.

Driving Uber full time is not profitable only driving part time is profitable.

If you aren't making money full time, you aren't making money part time either.


----------



## MiamiKid

donny donowitz said:


> If they keep their present business model, I bet you they won't.


We'll see. However, know their model will not stay, exactly, the same.

Won't bother me one way or the other. My money's made. Just having fun, at this point.

Will probably invest a tad into some options. Play money.



observer said:


> I keep reading this a lot.
> 
> Driving Uber full time is not profitable only driving part time is profitable.
> 
> If you aren't making money full time, you aren't making money part time either.


Beg to differ. Nobody is going to tell me if I'm making, or losing, money. Have an excellent CPA for that kind of advice.


----------



## observer

MiamiKid said:


> We'll see. However, know their model will not stay, exactly, the same.
> 
> Won't bother me one way or the other. My money's made. Just having fun, at this point.
> 
> Will probably invest a tad into some options. Play money.
> 
> 
> Beg to differ. Nobody is going to tell me if I'm making, or losing, money. Have an excellent CPA for that kind of advice.


You are probably doing TNC to offset your other income. Doing TNC by itself is probably not profitable for the vast majority of drivers.

You are the exception not the rule.


----------



## MiamiKid

observer said:


> You are probably doing TNC to offset your other income. Doing TNC by itself is probably not profitable for the vast majority of drivers.
> 
> You are the exception not the rule.


Yes, exactly correct. It is, purely, supplemental/extra money.

The reason I'm so adamant, is that I really believe these folks should move on if it's not working. Keep their app up and running in case things change; but, realize that it's unrealistic as a fulltime, sole income vehicle.

It is now very apparent that Uber is terrible as a fulltime gig. So, now that it's out in the open, why keep doing it? I've tried multiple jobs, and business ventures, that don't work out. Cannot imagine, for a second, that I'd keep doing it. And particularly not complaining, non stop.

Also, utilize Uber, as a rider, several times a week. Have great conversations with most of them. And tip generously along with five ☆ as well.

Can tell you that 95% of the drivers, I talk to, are either part time or supplemental income. I understand this forum is not this makeup.

Of course, this is Atlanta, and can't speak for elsewhere. But, take Uber, as a passenger, a few times. Great experience.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## UberXking

The Entomologist said:


> They can't function with employment rules, no one would work for them after destroying their vehicles taking every ride at 10-15 bucks an hour, the point of this is to make a MASSIVE change for Uber/Lyft or let them die quietly as another company does contracting "right".
> 
> Either way, companies are lined up to take over for them, just like people are lined up to take your driving job, no body is irreplaceable.


Now your thinking! First we all get reimbursed the 55 cents per mile ( federal stipulated cost ) of driving our vehicle. Then add our hourly wage logged on + nights, weekends, holidays and overtime.


----------



## observer

UberXking said:


> Now your thinking! First we all get reimbursed the 55 cents per mile ( federal stipulated cost ) of driving our vehicle. Then add our hourly wage logged on + nights, weekends, holidays and overtime.


No extra pay for nights or weekends in CA. Holiday and vacation pay are also not required.

Three days sick pay per year is a requirement.

BTW, you wouldn't necessarily get the 55 cents from Uber. They only need to pay for costs, which may be less. You may be able to recoup the difference on your taxes though I'm not sure.


----------



## IthurstwhenIP

California's priorities will be:
1. Union membership
2. Disability funding source
3. Healthcare funding source
4. Income taxes not sheltered by deductions


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

MiamiKid said:


> We'll see. However, know their model will not stay, exactly, the same.
> 
> Won't bother me one way or the other. My money's made. Just having fun, at this point.
> 
> Will probably invest a tad into some options. Play money.
> 
> 
> Beg to differ. Nobody is going to tell me if I'm making, or losing, money. Have an excellent CPA for that kind of advice.


If you can't perform your own P&L chart you aren't cut out for self employment.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

steveK2016 said:


> Except youre wrong. Unless I read it incorrectly, the hourly in NYC is based on time with pax. So unless youve got a pax with you, you arent earning anything. I remember at the low times, especially summer slow downs, almost half of an hour is sitting empty. Surges is what helped break the downtime costs. If theres no more incentives and no more surges, $27 may sound good on paper, youre really only making $13.50 an hour. Still less expenses as smarter people then us determkned that was enough to cover expenses.
> 
> Now apply that model to a smaller city. $17 an hour? Sounds good on paper too, until youre only rolling 30 minutes of an hour with a pax. $8.50 an hour minus expenses.
> 
> Capped at 29 hours a week to avoid giving you health insurance.
> 
> Many of You would be begging for the old ways in a heart beat. You'll be begging for flat surges!


since drivers are capped in NYC that means more requests to go around to existing drivers so less chance of downtime


----------



## observer

uberdriverfornow said:


> since drivers are capped in NYC that means more requests to go around to existing drivers so less chance of downtime


If Uber is required to hire drivers as employees there will be more work for those that stay.

Uber will not hire more drivers than it needs because now they will have to pay them.


----------



## UberProphet?

steveK2016 said:


> Unless I read it incorrectly, the hourly in NYC is based on time with pax. So unless youve got a pax with you, you arent earning anything.


You read it incorrectly! You must be paid enough in the time you have a passenger in the car so that you make $27 over the entire hour.

So if you have a passenger for 30 minutes in an hour, you must make $27 in that half hour to gross $27 in the hour in order for uber to be compliant. (The TLC uses Uber data to monitor that 90% of drivers will achieve the $27 minimum per hour.)

Compliance is measured over the fleet not the individual driver. (Some drivers can be less than $27 per hour as long as 90% of the drivers make at least $27 per hour. Obviously some drivers will make more. In fact, most drivers will make more.)


----------



## uberdriverfornow

observer said:


> If Uber is required to hire drivers as employees there will be more work for those that stay.
> 
> Uber will not hire more drivers than it needs because now they will have to pay them.


there are way more benefits with this bill than not with this bill

in the end, the uber and lyft shills and those brainwashed by uber and lyft's scare tactics that this bill will take away your ability to go online when you want, unfortunately, it's the only way to force uber and lyft to play nice with drivers

to do nothing would not help anything and everything would stay crappy


----------



## MiamiKid

TwoFiddyMile said:


> If you can't perform your own P&L chart you aren't cut out for self employment.


Seriously? Have multiple investments that I utilize a CPA for. Most, at my level, do.

No, would not need a CPA for just Uber.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

MiamiKid said:


> Where I disagree, is that Uber is wrong to imply such. As a staunch free market individual, I support Uber's, absolute, right to "the this up" however they choose.


I'm not sure what "the this up" means, but, from what I can make of your response, it seems that you're saying that Uber is not wrong to falsely claim that their hand would be forced to remove freedoms from drivers by the employee classification.

In my opinion, trying to deceive people with false claims isn't a matter of free market vs. planned economies - it's a simple matter of ethics, or lack of.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

The Gift of Fish said:


> I'm not sure what "the this up" means, but, from what I can make of your response, you're saying that Uber is not wrong to falsely claim that their hand would be forced to remove freedoms from drivers by the employee classification.
> 
> In my opinion, trying to deceive people with false claims isn't a matter of free market vs. planned economies - it's a simple matter of ethics, or lack of.


these guys just want to believe with all their heart that uber and lyft will do it

as i tried to tell them earlier in this thread....this bill doesn't force it at all

and there is no reason to believe they will


----------



## tmart

Leoncio said:


> Thats also part of the benefits, they are going to have to cut in the flooding of drivers, if they deactivate you, they'll have to pay unemployment, disability if you get injured while driving, also please note the wages in NY is about 27 an hour. As a seasoned driver with over 24000 rides with Uber and Lift under my belt, I think this is our best chance to finally get some benefits. If you are a driver you should know what I am talking about.


I can just hear it now talking to the unemployment judge sir this passenger made a false accusation against me their friend passed wind in my backseat and the jerk gave me a one-star rating for a smelly car and I was dectivated !!! ?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

MiamiKid said:


> Seriously? Have multiple investments that I utilize a CPA for. Most, at my level, do.
> 
> No, would not need a CPA for just Uber.


Backpedaling. You said you needed a CPA to inform you whether you were turning a profit. Foolishly, we believe you.


----------



## MiamiKid

The Gift of Fish said:


> I'm not sure what "the this up" means, but, from what I can make of your response, it seems that you're saying that Uber is not wrong to falsely claim that their hand would be forced to remove freedoms from drivers by the employee classification.
> 
> In my opinion, trying to deceive people with false claims isn't a matter of free market vs. planned economies - it's a simple matter of ethics, or lack of.


Meant to say "Tee it up".

But, you're correct, have no problem with Uber's presentation, argument on this. So, to confirm what I've already said, absolutely yes.

Call it what you wish. Taking Uber's side here.

And, of course, we all know the solution for unsatisfied drivers.



TwoFiddyMile said:


> Backpedaling. You said you needed a CPA to inform you whether you were turning a profit. Foolishly, we believe you.


Happen to know darn good well whether I'm turning a profit or not.

Which, by the way, is none of your business.


----------



## steveK2016

uberdriverfornow said:


> since drivers are capped in NYC that means more requests to go around to existing drivers so less chance of downtime


How's that going to work for you in "No" with no driver cap?



The Gift of Fish said:


> I'm not sure what "the this up" means, but, from what I can make of your response, it seems that you're saying that Uber is not wrong to falsely claim that their hand would be forced to remove freedoms from drivers by the employee classification.
> 
> In my opinion, trying to deceive people with false claims isn't a matter of free market vs. planned economies - it's a simple matter of ethics, or lack of.


Their hands would be forced. Make you an employee, must keep you under 29 hours so you're only part-time with no benefits. Want an hourly wage, so now you must work the hours Uber deems you necessary. Now that you're an employee, no more working for their direct competition, including DoorDash and PostMates (Uber Eats)


----------



## The Gift of Fish

MiamiKid said:


> Meant to say "Tee it up".
> 
> But, you're correct, have no problem with Uber's presentation, argument on this. So, to confirm what I've already said, absolutely yes.


Very interesting.

Is there a limit to the kind of false statements that are acceptable for a company to make in "teeing up" their discussions? Let's say that you invest in a company based on profit projection statements made by the directors that they knew were false. The false scenario painted by the directors does not materialise, the company goes to the wall and you lose your whole investment.

The directors could say, like you, that they were simply "teeing up" their investment pitch, and that they are justified in this because they operate in a free market economy.

Would you say that this would also be acceptable behaviour?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

steveK2016 said:


> How's that going to work for you in "No" with no driver cap?
> 
> 
> Their hands would be forced. Make you an employee, must keep you under 29 hours so you're only part-time with no benefits. Want an hourly wage, so now you must work the hours Uber deems you necessary. Now that you're an employee, no more working for their direct competition, including DoorDash and PostMates (Uber Eats)


lol as has been shown already, this law does not mandate that you can not work for a competitor...no way, no how


----------



## The Gift of Fish

steveK2016 said:


> Their hands would be forced.


No. There is nothing in Assembly Bill 71 that states that employers are forced to implement rigid shift start and end times or that shifts must take place on certain days. The full text can be found here:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB71
It may well be the case that Uberlyft's business in California does become non-viable if they are forced to pay for employee benefits, just like every other employer does. I would not see that as California forcing anything, but rather as a failure in their business model to be competitive and to be viable on a level playing field.

"We can't survive unless we get special dispensation to not compensate our workers like everyone else has to". Ok... then maybe you shouldn't survive.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

steveK2016 said:


> How's that going to work for you in "No" with no driver cap?
> 
> 
> Their hands would be forced. Make you an employee, must keep you under 29 hours so you're only part-time with no benefits. Want an hourly wage, so now you must work the hours Uber deems you necessary. Now that you're an employee, no more working for their direct competition, including DoorDash and PostMates (Uber Eats)


and it's only a matter of time til CA also caps drivers


----------



## observer

Nice sleight of hand but,



observer said:


> You are probably doing TNC to offset your other income.


Is not the same as



MiamiKid said:


> Yes, exactly correct. It is, purely, supplemental/extra money.


I said you were doing Uber _*at a loss*_ to offset income from other sources not that it was supplemental income to you.

The more you "lose" doing Uber the more other income you keep.

Apparently you were the one not "listening", I'd hate to think that you were purposely misleading.


----------



## MiamiKid

The Gift of Fish said:


> Very interesting.
> 
> Is there a limit to the kind of false statements that are acceptable for a company to make in "teeing up" their discussions? Let's say that you invest in a company based on profit projection statements made by the directors that they knew were false. The false scenario painted by the directors does not materialise, the company goes to the wall and you lose your whole investment.
> 
> The directors could say, like you, that they were simply "teeing up" their investment pitch, and that they are justified in this because they operate in a free market economy.
> 
> Would you say that this would also be acceptable behaviour?


Do not agree with what you're saying. Period.

However most, business people I know, would make a similar argument. Know I sure would.

Not going to answer your hypothetical. All I'm saying is, I'm in total, 100% agreement, with Uber on this. End of conversation.

Why are so obsessed with my opinion, on this, anyway. In case you wondering, I conduct business this way.

Don't like it?



uberdriverfornow said:


> lol as has been shown already, this law does not mandate that you can not work for a competitor...no way, no how


Wow! Do you not know, any company can require an employee to not work for a competitor?

With Uber 100%!


----------



## The Gift of Fish

MiamiKid said:


> Do not agree with what you're saying. Period.
> 
> However most, business people I know, would make a similar argument. Know I sure would.
> 
> Not going to answer your hypothetical. All I'm saying is, I'm in total, 100% agreement, with Uber on this. End of conversation.
> 
> Why are so obsessed with my opinion, on this, anyway. In case you wondering, I conduct business this way.
> 
> Don't like it?


I wouldn't call it an obsession; more of a discussion. I'm interested in psychology - everyone's different and I find it interesting to try to understand the motivations and beliefs of people who have contrasting ethics & belief systems to my own.

It wasn't my intention to treat you as a subject for examination; I was just curious.


----------



## MiamiKid

observer said:


> Nice sleight of hand but,
> 
> Is not the same as
> 
> I said you were doing Uber _*at a loss*_ to offset income from other sources not that it was supplemental income to you.
> 
> The more you "lose" doing Uber the more other income you keep.
> 
> Apparently you were the one not "listening", I'd hate to think that you were purposely misleading.


Not sure what you're trying to say? So, will repeat.

Uber works as supplemental income, for me, very well. Also, understand it works poorly as a fulltime gig.

No, I do not utilize Uber, as a tax shelter, to offset other income.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

MiamiKid said:


> Do not agree with what you're saying. Period.
> 
> However most, business people I know, would make a similar argument. Know I sure would.
> 
> Not going to answer your hypothetical. All I'm saying is, I'm in total, 100% agreement, with Uber on this. End of conversation.
> 
> Why are so obsessed with my opinion, on this, anyway. In case you wondering, I conduct business this way.
> 
> Don't like it?
> 
> 
> Wow! Do you not know, any company can require an employee to not work for a competitor?
> 
> With Uber 100%!


the question isn't whether an employer can, the question is whether this law mandates it, which it doesn't


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane

ABC123DEF said:


> AND if Uber is a technology company and NOT a transportation provider...why in the world is James River's insurance even in the equation in the first place?! -o:


Good point! The insurance co. is a third party in these equations.
The only counterpoint I could come up with is that the insurance co. may demand no dual-apping. If so, the insurance co.'s risk is that Uber and Lyft couldn't establish a non-compete clause in an IC contract to meet that barrier and the insurance co. loses the rideshare co.'s business.


----------



## steveK2016

The Gift of Fish said:


> No. There is nothing in Assembly Bill 71 that states that employers are forced to implement rigid shift start and end times or that shifts must take place on certain days. The full text can be found here:
> 
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB71
> It may well be the case that Uberlyft's business in California does become non-viable if they are forced to pay for employee benefits, just like every other employer does. I would not see that as California forcing anything, but rather as a failure in their business model to be competitive and to be viable on a level playing field.
> 
> "We can't survive unless we get special dispensation to not compensate our workers like everyone else has to". Ok... then maybe you shouldn't survive.


I know you're not this dense. If you want to be full employees with benefits, they can simply force you to log off after 29 hours to maintain you as a part time employee. No law is going to force them to do that, it's the fact that the law is making you an employee that forces Ubers hand to adopt policy that you will not benefit from.


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane

Seamus said:


> There is no hourly guarantee. If you sit in the park smoking weed and decline every ride you get $0


If you work at Jack in the Box and sit in the kitchen freezer smoking weed in between drive-through orders there is an hourly guarantee of minimum wage.  By the way, I'm pretty sure the guys at the drive-through today were completely baked.


----------



## steveK2016

uberdriverfornow said:


> the question isn't whether an employer can, the question is whether this law mandates it, which it doesn't


Who cares what the law doesn't or doesn't mandate? Maybe you are that dense. If the law forces you to be treated like an employee, the byproduct will be that you will be treated like an employee by an employer looking to give you as little as possible. They already wanted to force drivers to only drive for Uber but that was shut down because Drivers are not employees. You really think they need a law to tell them to bring that back if they can't avoid you being an employee?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

steveK2016 said:


> I know you're not this dense. If you want to be full employees with benefits, they can simply force you to log off after 29 hours to maintain you as a part time employee. No law is going to force them to do that, it's the fact that the law is making you an employee that forces Ubers hand to adopt policy that you will not benefit from.


i love how you keep advocating for hypothetical ways that this law can screw you instead of looking at how it automatically benefits you

it's like you just want it to be bad


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane

dnlbaboof said:


> (sarcasm) cant wait to be an employee, forced hours, ... have to pick up 4.2 pool rides!!!!!............


These are valid concerns.


----------



## MiamiKid

uberdriverfornow said:


> i love how you keep advocating for hypothetical ways that this law can screw you instead of looking at how it automatically benefits you
> 
> it's like you just want it to be bad


Seriously? Done arguing with folks with your attitude. Many of us, have darn good reasons why we don't want benefits or to be treated as employees.

You don't seem to get that. So, am going to be 100% opposed. Happen to reside, in Georgia, where it's not happening! ??????


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane

Kyanar said:


> You do realise if you're reclassified as an employee, .... They'll also stop giving you a popup to accept or cancel jobs because you're an employee, they'll simply direct you to the next pax.


It's almost like being a full-time package courier using your own vehicle, with some gas money on top for the mileage. Except you're dealing with people and ratings won't be able to be used to decline passengers.



wicked said:


> What you're missing is that as an employer going to get compensated for the miles driving to a pickup plus hourly rate! yes you lose some freedom but at least you get freaking paid for everything you do.
> Let's say Uber's algorithm sent you to Pleasanton at the end of your 8 hour shift. Great now you're entitled to overtime!


Yeah but that only works for people who have full operating free time. Employee status could massacre the part-timer and hobbyist ranks, which coincidentally make up a goodly amount of the driver pool. "I do Uber Eats while my kid's in school! Isn't that neat!?"



donny donowitz said:


> If drivers are ever deemed employees, and UBER has to pay them with benefits, then ridesharing is OVER.
> UBER/LYFT and all the others will disappear into thin air, and you can keep your beacon as a momento.
> Rideshare industry is a scheme that can never make a profit. They dont make a profit now, they wont make a profit in the future, and that's with drivers as independent contractors.


Rideshare wouldn't be over, but the model might have to drastically morph to evade employment laws.
One example might be that Tryp thing.
Before I start, don't get distracted by Tryp the company, I'm talking about Tryp the model. The model is that you're paying money for access to a dispatch system with passengers.
Imagine if Uber and Lyft flipped the model. They could claim significantly that their drivers are paying for access to a dispatch pool and then it's all up to the driver fully independently "they doin't work for us, they pay us for our dataset!", VERSUS the current system where Uber and Lyft are operating as the dispatch pool and set the rates for driving the passengers.
The ASSET is selling data from the Uber/Lyft passenger pool. And the two companies have way larger passenger pools than Tryp can ever muster.
In Sidecar (a straggler platform that closed up shop) you had leeway to set your own price to drive people.

ONE OTHER THOUGHT:
You've heard of the California secession movement, right?
If employment passes in CA, TNCs could simply form California-only companies separate from the main organization body. The employment law won't spread nationally, and anything thinking like this is pipe dreams because it involves *politicians*.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

MiamiKid said:


> Seriously? Done arguing with folks with your attitude. Many of us, have darn good reasons why we don't want benefits or to be treated as employees.
> 
> You don't seem to get that. So, am going to be 100% opposed. Happen to reside, in Georgia, where it's not happening! ??????


even if you can think of something legitimately bad about this bill, the countless good things about this bill outweigh the bad by a landslide



Dammit Mazzacane said:


> Rideshare wouldn't be over, but the model might have to drastically morph to evade employment laws.
> One example might be that Tryp thing.
> 
> Imagine if Uber and Lyft flipped the model. They could claim significantly that their drivers are paying for access to a dispatch pool and then it's all up to the driver fully independently "they doin't work for us, they pay us for our dataset!", .


ya well, thats the way it used to be, with uber and lyft only taking 20% after calculating time and distance for the ride

but uber and lyft wanted to get greedy and do stupid shit

it's possible they do go back to that model or a new company emerges that does a legitimate TRYP concept for a change



Dammit Mazzacane said:


> If you work at Jack in the Box and sit in the kitchen freezer smoking weed in between drive-through orders there is an hourly guarantee of minimum wage. :wink: By the way, I'm pretty sure the guys at the drive-through today were completely baked.


ya but eventually they get fired


----------



## The Gift of Fish

steveK2016 said:


> I know you're not this dense. If you want to be full employees with benefits, they can simply force you to log off after 29 hours to maintain you as a part time employee. No law is going to force them to do that, it's the fact that the law is making you an employee that forces Ubers hand to adopt policy that you will not benefit from.


No, as already stated, AB71 does not specify how companies should or must organize their employees' shift patterns, much less force anything with respect to it.


----------



## MiamiKid

uberdriverfornow said:


> even if you can think of something legitimately bad about this bill, the countless good things about this bill outweigh the bad by a landslide
> 
> 
> ya well, thats the way it used to be, with uber and lyft only taking 20% after calculating time and distance for the ride
> 
> but uber and lyft wanted to get greedy and do stupid shit
> 
> it's possible they do go back to that model or a new company emerges that does a legitimate TRYP concept for a change
> 
> 
> ya but eventually they get fired


In Georgia; so, doesn't really matter and not happening here.

But, regardless would still not support this bill.

With Uber all the way! ?


----------



## Uber1111uber

So if I'm forced to only drive for 1 app company they will prolly do away with that awesome $3 for 3 consecutive trip bonus ?
Anyway on a serious note does any have a link to the actual bill proposed?


----------



## Fozzie

Uber1111uber said:


> So if I'm forced to only drive for 1 app company they will prolly do away with that awesome $3 for 3 consecutive trip bonus ?
> Anyway on a serious note does any have a link to the actual bill proposed?







__





Bill Text - AB-5 Worker status: employees and independent contractors.






leginfo.legislature.ca.gov


----------



## IthurstwhenIP

Fozzie said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Text - AB-5 Worker status: employees and independent contractors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leginfo.legislature.ca.gov


People should actual state opinions and make recommendations first before diving in and reading the thing


----------



## wicked

I love when people from out of California comment on what we need. It's apples and oranges. Cost of living is incredibly different. 

What works for you in GA sure as hell doesn't work for California drivers.

Everything is more expensive here. Rent, food, gas, mechanics, your rideshare, cost of doing business.

With what we have left over after our federal tax donations to states like GA we have a strong government.


----------



## steveK2016

uberdriverfornow said:


> i love how you keep advocating for hypothetical ways that this law can screw you instead of looking at how it automatically benefits you
> 
> it's like you just want it to be bad


Youve seen what uber has done over the years and youd give then the benefit of the doubt that they wouldnt do everything in their power to make as much of the new reality lean in their favor?




uberdriverfornow said:


> uber and lyft wanted to get greedy and *do stupid shit*


Yet somehow You believe that trend wouldnt continue? Lol


----------



## observer

Lets keep it civil in here.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

steveK2016 said:


> Youve seen what uber has done over the years and youd give then the benefit of the doubt that they wouldnt do everything in their power to make as much of the new reality lean in their favor?


if drivers were making a good wage and had good benefits and job security against being deactivated for no reason drivers wouldn't care any less even if tnc companies did try to get them to sign a noncompete agreement

hel, they could write it into the law and I wouldnt care

you're missing the big picture and only being able to work for one company is small potatoes


----------



## MiamiKid

uberdriverfornow said:


> if drivers were making a good wage and had good benefits and job security against being deactivated for no reason drivers wouldn't care any less even if tnc companies did try to get them to sign a noncompete agreement
> 
> hell they could write it into the law and I wouldnt care
> 
> you're missing the big picture and only being able to work for one company is small potatoes


We all want to be independent contractors. That is what makes Uber such a perfect business model.

Works great here in Georgia. ?????????


----------



## uberdriverfornow

MiamiKid said:


> We all want to be independent contractors. That is what makes Uber such a perfect business model.
> 
> Works great here in Georgia. ?????????


unfortunately you can't have it both ways....as independent contractors you get screwed...as employees you get guaranteed pay and benefits


----------



## MiamiKid

uberdriverfornow said:


> unfortunately you can't have it both ways....as independent contractors you get screwed...as employees you get guaranteed pay and benefits


Nope, love the independent contractor status. Do not need benefits.

Government needs to keep hands off business. Empower the work force!

Proven concept.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

observer said:


> Lets keep it civil in here.


Agreed. Some members of this forum believe that insult is a substitute for having something worthwhile to say. It is not.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

MiamiKid said:


> Nope, love the independent contractor status. Do not need benefits.
> 
> Government needs to keep hands off business. Empower the work force!
> 
> Proven concept.


ya, well, all the other drivers say otherwise


----------



## MiamiKid

uberdriverfornow said:


> ya, well, all the other drivers say otherwise


?


----------



## nouberipo

MiamiKid said:


> We all want to be independent contractors. That is what makes Uber such a perfect business model.
> 
> Works great here in Georgia. ?????????


Please don't state "all" as that is not the case and the same goes for the statement that it works in Georgia.....show us the empirical data that you are referring to in terms of the entire state of Georgia rideshare driver pool thinking it "works great".


----------



## MiamiKid

nouberipo said:


> Please don't state "all" as that is not the case and the same goes for the statement that it works in Georgia.....show us the empirical data that you are referring to in terms of the entire state of Georgia rideshare driver pool thinking it "works great".


My figures show 90% satisfaction here in Georgia.

Will continue stating "all", because 9 out 10, in Georgia, want it that way.

And they should want it, that way, in all states. However, know we have a few "out there" states, if ya know what I mean.

My two cents


----------



## The Gift of Fish

This country is so big and diverse that what's good for one place may not be good on the opposite side.

Who knows, maybe pseudo IC works there?The only thing I know about Georgia, to be honest, is that Deliverance was filmed there.


----------



## Ishurue

you think being employee is gona help ? lmao

say by law employers only have to give benefits to FULL TIME Employees, Full time = 30 hrs a week

LYft/UBER will do this 

max hrs per week , 29 . Force you to sign non compete clause . 

As Employees , they pay you minimum wage, plus bare minimum for car costs . 


Fight for Higher Fares , Rates , Saturation, Forced Gratuity .


----------



## BiggerDog

You are going to make double the money in Gross and actually make NET profit.

Others will just lease a car from a TCP and use the application like it use to be.

Uber was adjudicated to be a TCP, April 24th, of last year by unanimous decision at the CPUC.


----------



## ABC123DEF

BiggerDog said:


> You are going to make double the money in Gross and actually make NET profit.
> 
> Others will just lease a car from a TCP and use the application like it use to be.
> 
> Uber was adjudicated to be a TCP, April 24th, of last year by unanimous decision at the CPUC.


Very interesting.


----------



## UberSnitch

Leoncio said:


> Attention Uber drivers, Uber just sent you an email to help them fight the Dinamex case rule which may give drivers the right to normal employees compensation, like minimum wage and vehicle cost assistance. Do not help them, Do not opt in, Uber and Lyft is fighting Sacramento, and they are using the excuse : look, drivers want to be free, independent not employees, this is a lie. Lets not play this game again!
> View attachment 328639


It is the hope of U/L that drivers stay split on this subject.

Uber has a plan for the CA issue and is ready to spin the wheel. Lyft on the other hand is still looking for a solid game plan.


----------



## Listentoreality

All the legal professional drivers are LAUGHING at all your gripes. You are unlicensed TAXI drivers who make 60% LESS than legal drivers. You’re rates BEFORE expenses are about $1.00-$1.75 per mile. If you drive Uber/Lyft full time you are delusional at the rate. Even worse if you drive part time. Geico doesn’t cover rideshare. All State doesn’t cover rideshare. State Farm’s lame add on policy would never hold up in court. You have no standing in the eyes of the law. 50,000 drivers in San Fransisco alone! The new airport rideshare pickup in SFO was a nightmare. People waited hours while taxis and black cars were just waiting in line perfectly organized. Why? The simple reason is because Uber/Lyft are on a race to the bottom in price. Nobody would use it if they raised there prices to market level. It’s all subsidies. You have to have a limit on vehicles. Not everybody in the world gets a personal chauffeur. Uber and Lyft are slowly dying and they’re taking mass transit down with it. Wake up people.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn

wicked said:


> You guys are wrong with your assumptions that the rates would not increase. More money for less volume is the best thing that could ever happen to a Rideshare driver.
> 
> Don't delude yourself into thinking that more miles = more money. Just like lower rates = higher earnings right?


Very good point



The Gift of Fish said:


> Correct, that is the way discussion forums work.
> 
> Maybe so; however my point was that Uber will decide this of its own free will; it is not being dictated by the move to employee classification.


Lol.. if left to make its own choice Uber will choose to pay its drivers as little as possible, 48c a mile is the record low hit by Uber.

Employee classification comes with protections. By my estimation, Orlando X drivers are making $6-12 under minimum wage factoring in deductible expenses. Should be about $17 an hour here, not $10-12.

(The guys in the airport queue make even less)


----------



## wicked

observer said:


> Lets keep it civil in here.


But then I wouldn't be... WICKED.

Noted.


----------



## steveK2016

Ishurue said:


> Forced Gratuity .


Oxymoron


----------



## Nats121

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> 48c a mile is the record low hit by Uber.


You're too high...

In January 2016, uber cut the per mile rate in Detroit to an unbelievable 24 cents per mile for 80% drivers and 22.5 cents per mile for 75% drivers.

Predictably, it backfired on uber. Surges went thru the roof and after 3 months uber was forced to raise the rates.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

MiamiKid said:


> In Georgia; so, doesn't really matter and not happening here.
> 
> But, regardless would still not support this bill.
> 
> With Uber all the way! ?


Since you're low level Uber Corporate, of course!


----------



## Ssgcraig

uberdriverfornow said:


> better pay, benefits etc etc
> 
> but in the end Uber will likely do everything in their power to not allow us to be employees so instead of us being employees we will get a bunch more stuff and stay IE's


I do not want to be an employee. But lets say that you do, better pay and benefits for those that qualify. Meaning, those with a 4 year degree, CDL endorsements, etc will qualify. If you are still an under skilled employee, what makes you think you would qualify for more money? Actually, those without degree's or CDL endorsements will get a pay decrease. I other words, careful what you wish for.


----------



## MiamiKid

Ssgcraig said:


> I do not want to be an employee. But lets say that you do, better pay and benefits for those that qualify. Meaning, those with a 4 year degree, CDL endorsements, etc will qualify. If you are still an under skilled employee, what makes you think you would qualify for more money? Actually, those without degree's or CDL endorsements will get a pay decrease. I other words, careful what you wish for.


Watching this, play out from Georgia, where I don't have a thing to worry about.

Pure entertainment. Going to enjoy, seeing what happens to these whiners, if this socialist bill passes.

Just really feel sorry for the true business types who don't deserve this. Those who respect and appreciate their independent contractor status.

They do not deserve the repercussions from this special interest legislation.


----------



## Thepeoplewearent

Fozzie said:


> After the way they treat you as an independent contractor, you want to become a corporate employee?
> 
> *WHY?*


Because working at Walmart is an economically wiser decision then working for Uber.

Because laws and practices.

Because duh.



MiamiKid said:


> Watching this, play out from Georgia, where I don't have a thing to worry about.
> 
> Pure entertainment. Going to enjoy, seeing what happens to these whiners, if this socialist bill passes.
> 
> Just really feel sorry for the true business types who don't deserve this. Those who respect and appreciate their independent contractor status.
> 
> They do not deserve the repercussions from this special interest legislation.


Sitting in Georgia. Thinking in Georgia. About only Georgia. World View A.F. buddy.


----------



## MiamiKid

Fozzie said:


> After the way they treat you as an independent contractor, you want to become a corporate employee?
> 
> *WHY?*


Strongly agree


----------



## BobMarley

uberdriverfornow said:


> they can't stipulate we can't work separate apps unless we sign some sort of agreement and we arent in a position to reveal any secrets of the companies to begin with
> 
> that is a non issue


Yes they can. If you are an employee they can stipulate whatever they want. Like you can't simultaneously work for a competitor. Shit, in most states they can stipulate that you don't work for anyone else on a W-2.


----------



## MiamiKid

BobMarley said:


> Yes they can. If you are an employee than can stipulate whatever they want. Like you can't simultaneously work for a competitor. Shit, in most states they can stipulate that you don't work for anyone else on a W-2.


Spot on


----------



## The Gift of Fish

MiamiKid said:


> Just really feel sorry for the true business types who don't deserve this. Those who respect and appreciate their independent contractor status.


That someone would make a comment like this shows just how effective Uberlyft's propaganda has been. Uberlyft's independent contractor drivers are independent contractors in name only. If the agreement was one of true IC, not of employee-disguised-as-IC then this legislation probably would never have happened. It took the abuse of the relative freedom from government intervention in business-to-business transactions to kick-start interest from politicians. Again, Uberlyft only has itself to blame.

To put it in other words, government has a relatively hands-off approach when it comes to regulating how businesses transact with other businesses. However, government has a very hands-on approach when it comes to regulating how businesses deal with their employees. It's not all for philanthropic reasons; it's about money. If companies do not want to pay for their workers' health care and retirement benefits, and are allowed to pay their workers so little that they cannot afford health care or retirement benefits then it is the state that becomes responsible for paying these. Clearly, the states do not want to do that - they feel that the companies that utilise these workers should be paying these costs instead.

This is where this all comes from, rather than any concern from the state for the wellbeing of workers. It could be argued that making drivers employees and transferring the burden back onto the companies themselves it is not socialist. It could be argued that it is a capitalist policy to trim back the responsibility of the state to provide. In any case, the call by the state for Uberlyft to step up its game in this regard has been answered by Dara and by Logan Green in their Op Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, in which they plead with California that they will indeed assume these burdens by offering these benefits so that, effectively, the state does not end up having to.

We'll see if California buys it. What's certain is that Uberlyft has no intention of moving their business model back closer to a true IC setup. What's also certain is, as mentioned above, they brought this on themselves.


----------



## MiamiKid

The Gift of Fish said:


> That someone would make a comment like this shows just how effective Uberlyft's propaganda has been. Uberlyft's independent contractor drivers are independent contractors in name only. If the agreement was one of true IC, not of employee-disguised-as-IC then this legislation probably would never have happened. It took the abuse of the relative freedom from government intervention in business-to-business transactions to kick-start interest from politicians. Again, Uberlyft only has itself to blame.
> 
> To put it in other words, government has a relatively hands-off approach when it comes to regulating how businesses transact with other businesses. However, government has a very hands-on approach when it comes to regulating how businesses deal with their employees. It's not all for philanthropic reasons; it's about money. If companies do not want to pay for their workers' health care and retirement benefits, and are allowed to pay their workers so little that they cannot afford health care or retirement benefits then it is the state that becomes responsible for paying these. Clearly, the states do not want to do that - they feel that the companies that utilise these workers should be paying these costs instead.
> 
> This is where this all comes from, rather than any concern from the state for the wellbeing of workers. It could be argued that making drivers employees and transferring the burden back onto the companies themselves it is not socialist. It could be argued that it is a capitalist policy to trim back the responsibility of the state to provide. In any case, the call by the state for Uberlyft to step up its game in this regard has been answered by Dara and by Logan Green in their Op Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, in which they plead with California that they will indeed assume these burdens by offering these benefits so that, effectively, the state does not end up having to.
> 
> We'll see if California buys it. What's certain is that Uberlyft has no intention of moving their business model back closer to a true IC setup. What's also certain is, as mentioned above, they brought this on themselves.


?


----------



## Fozzie

Thepeoplewearent said:


> Because working at Walmart is an economically wiser decision then working for Uber.


This morning I went out for 7 hrs, and cashed out $248. Yeah, I did use $18 in gas, but show me what WalMart pays that.


----------



## Ishurue

steveK2016 said:


> Oxymoron


they do it at hotels .


----------



## steveK2016

Ishurue said:


> they do it at hotels .


A forced gratuity is a service fee. Theres no such thing as a forced gratuity. If it's mandatory to receive services, its a service fee. Go ahead and mention large parties at restaurants too. Still not a gratuity. If its mandatory, its a service fee.


----------



## Thepeoplewearent

Fozzie said:


> This morning I went out for 7 hrs, and cashed out $248. Yeah, I did use $18 in gas, but show me what WalMart pays that.


Just analyze your expense and compare the opportunity costs. It's literally high school econ.


----------



## MiamiKid

Thepeoplewearent said:


> Just analyze your expense and compare the opportunity costs. It's literally high school econ.


Guessing Fozzie can do that on his own.

Numbers look great to me. If he says it works for him; then, it works. Period.


----------



## Thepeoplewearent

MiamiKid said:


> Guessing Fozzie can do that on his own.
> 
> Numbers look great to me. If he says it works for him; then, it works. Period.


Oh yeah. Mathematically sound statement there.


----------



## Fozzie

Thepeoplewearent said:


> Just analyze your expense and compare the opportunity costs. It's literally high school econ.


ROFLMAO

*Lyft*
$248 (gross) - $18 (gas) - $8.70 (depreciation) - $25 (prorated car payment) = approx *$196* take home

*Walmart*
$14.25 /hr x 7 hrs = $99.75 - $30 (30% taxes/withholdings) = approx *$69.75* take home


----------



## observer

The Gift of Fish said:


> It's not all for philanthropic reasons; it's about money. If companies do not want to pay for their workers' health care and retirement benefits, and are allowed to pay their workers so little that they cannot afford health care or retirement benefits then it is the state that becomes responsible for paying these. Clearly, the states do not want to do that - they feel that the companies that utilise these workers should be paying these costs instead.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...ifornia-ab5-misclassify-employees-contractors
"As employees, gig workers would have a safety net for the first time ever. The changes from the bill would also benefit the state of California, which estimates that it loses $7 billion in tax revenue each year from companies that misclassify employees."

"In 2017, a long-awaited report was published by the Government Accountability Office, analyzing government efforts to combat tax fraud. The report summarized findings from an IRS audit of 15.7 million tax returnsfrom 2008 to 2010. It turns out that about 3 million of those returns involved misclassification, adding up to about $44.3 billion in unpaid federal taxes that were later adjusted."

Just want to point out these figures are for 2008-2010 which was before Uber/Lyft.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Something that the pro-Uber are not taking into account is the constant pay slippage on Uber. When I started I got paid $1.50 per mile. It's been chipped away piecemeal over the years down to $0.72 per mile, just less than half. Driver incentives are now non-material in my market - my most recent offer was a quarter for each ride - 10 bucks if I did 40 rides.

The decline in pay will continue on Uber for their "IC" workers. Anyone who thinks that the reductions have now stopped is naive. As Dara confirmed in his company's S-1:










You may be happy with your earnings now, but how much more in terms of cuts are you willing to hand over to Uber? Another 10% of your gross? Another 20%? 30%? This is not a rhetorical question. How much more money are you willing to give up?


----------



## Dome

Fozzie said:


> $15 /hr Gross with the stipulation that you can't work multiple apps is a HUGE pay cut. I don't want a MINIMUM wage. I don't want more BS "benefits" like Stride, I want to make my own decisions and work when I want without acceptance/cancel requirements.


Not being negative but the only way you'll get that is if you get your own customers, cause Uber will always have some sort of requirements. Their claim that drivers decide when they want to work which makes them independent contractors is ridiculous. Independent Contractors can negotiate the terms of their work, drivers can't.


----------



## Fozzie

The Gift of Fish said:


> Something that the pro-Uber are not taking into account is the constant pay slippage on Uber. When I started I got paid $1.50 per mile. It's been chipped away piecemeal over the years down to $0.72 per mile, just less than half. Driver incentives are now non-material in my market - my most recent offer was a quarter for each ride - 10 bucks if I did 40 rides.
> 
> The decline in pay will continue on Uber for their "IC" workers. Anyone who thinks that the reductions have now stopped is naive. As Dara confirmed in his company's S-1:
> 
> View attachment 329290
> 
> 
> You may be happy with your earnings now, but how much more in terms of cuts are you willing to hand over to Uber? Another 10% of your gross? Another 20%? 30%? This is not a rhetorical question. How much more money are you willing to give up?


All this would do is set an artificial minimum wage floor.

Who wants to work for that?

The solution isn't setting a minimum wage, it's fighting to set fair pay. Uber and Lyft are on the defensive. Now is the time to pursue negotiation rather than painting yourself into a corner on pay issues.


----------



## UberProphet?

Fozzie said:


> ROFLMAO
> 
> *Lyft*
> $248 (gross) - $18 (gas) - $8.70 (depreciation) - $25 (prorated car payment) = approx *$196* take home
> 
> *Walmart*
> $14.25 /hr x 7 hrs = $99.75 - $30 (30% taxes/withholdings) = approx *$69.75* take home


Tampa Bay
$111.6 (gross) - $14 (gas) - $8.70 (depreciation) - $25 (prorated car payment) = approx $64.00 take away

Walmart
$11.00/hr X 7 hrs = $77.00 - $7.00 (10% tax/withholdings) = $70.00 take away

( not take home because can't afford a home on Ewwber Tampa Bay rates)


----------



## Fozzie

Dome said:


> Their claim that drivers decide when they want to work which makes them independent contractors is ridiculous. Independent Contractors can negotiate the terms of their work, drivers can't.


Who decides when you work? Is it Uber, or is it you? As an independent contractor, if you're not happy with Uber you can work for Lyft of other service operating in your area.


----------



## MiamiKid

The Gift of Fish said:


> Something that the pro-Uber are not taking into account is the constant pay slippage on Uber. When I started I got paid $1.50 per mile. It's been chipped away piecemeal over the years down to $0.72 per mile, just less than half. Driver incentives are now non-material in my market - my most recent offer was a quarter for each ride - 10 bucks if I did 40 rides.
> 
> The decline in pay will continue on Uber for their "IC" workers. Anyone who thinks that the reductions have now stopped is naive. As Dara confirmed in his company's S-1:
> 
> View attachment 329290
> 
> 
> You may be happy with your earnings now, but how much more in terms of cuts are you willing to hand over to Uber? Another 10% of your gross? Another 20%? 30%? This is not a rhetorical question. How much more money are you willing to give up?


Wait until see what government intervention does.

Already laughing. ?

In Georgia and won't happen here. Have fun.


----------



## Fozzie

UberProphet? said:


> Tampa Bay
> $111.6 (gross) - $14 (gas) - $8.70 (depreciation) - $25 (prorated car payment) = approx $64.00 take away
> 
> Walmart
> $11.00/hr X 7 hrs = $77.00 - $7.00 (10% tax/withholdings) = $70.00 take away
> 
> ( not take home because can't afford a home on Ewwber Tampa Bay rates)


Yep. Now you can understand why I don't work in Florida.


----------



## observer

Fozzie said:


> This morning I went out for 7 hrs, and cashed out $248. Yeah, I did use $18 in gas, but show me what WalMart pays that.


Just curious on how you were able to get such a good amount. Are you the exception or is this normal in your market? What is your per mile rate?


----------



## Fozzie

We're still at $1.11 /mile + $0.1875 /min


----------



## observer

Fozzie said:


> We're still at $1.11 /mile + $0.1875 /min


It's 60 cents in LA.

Would your figures still be good enough for you at 60 cents?


----------



## UberProphet?

Fozzie said:


> We're still at $1.11 /mile + $0.1875 /min


Tampa Bay still at $.65/mile + $.08/min and far fewer rides per hour/shift


----------



## observer

Rates in Seattle are artificially high because Uber is deathly afraid of the city and state regulating them.

I don't think drivers in LA would be complaining if they got 1.11 per mile.


----------



## MiamiKid

The Gift of Fish said:


> Something that the pro-Uber are not taking into account is the constant pay slippage on Uber. When I started I got paid $1.50 per mile. It's been chipped away piecemeal over the years down to $0.72 per mile, just less than half. Driver incentives are now non-material in my market - my most recent offer was a quarter for each ride - 10 bucks if I did 40 rides.
> 
> The decline in pay will continue on Uber for their "IC" workers. Anyone who thinks that the reductions have now stopped is naive. As Dara confirmed in his company's S-1:
> 
> View attachment 329290
> 
> 
> You may be happy with your earnings now, but how much more in terms of cuts are you willing to hand over to Uber? Another 10% of your gross? Another 20%? 30%? This is not a rhetorical question. How much more money are you willing to give up?


Many, on this forum, forget most drivers are either part time, supplemental or both.

It's my overall situation that counts. The complete analysis would change, dramatically, if I was sole income, fulltime. 
Huge!

Will, also, say the whiners are terrible at getting their message across.

Worst salespeople I've ever seen. However, they're doing a great job of turning us against their entire effort.

Keep up your good work.


----------



## observer

I think the rate is also higher in SF.


----------



## Fozzie

observer said:


> It's 60 cents in LA.
> 
> Would your figures still be good enough for you at 60 cents?


60 cents a mile would cause me to walk away from rideshare and return to semi-retirement.

I don't condone the way Uber and Lyft treat drivers, but I don't believe that this is going to make things better for drivers. Quite to the contrary, I think it'll make things worse.


----------



## observer

MiamiKid said:


> Many, on this forum, forget most drivers are either part time, supplemental or both.
> 
> It's my overall situation that counts. The complete analysis would change, dramatically, if I was sole income, fulltime.
> Huge!
> 
> Will, also, say the whiners are terrible at getting their message across.
> 
> Worst salespeople I've ever seen. However, they're doing a great job of turning us against their entire effort.
> 
> Keep up your good work.


If drivers can't make money fulltime they aren't making money part time either.

Come on a smart investor/landlord/propertymanager/uber driver like you knows that better than the rest of us.


----------



## UberProphet?

Fozzie said:


> 60 cents a mile would cause me to walk away from rideshare and return to semi-retirement.
> 
> I don't condone the way Uber and Lyft treat drivers....


Yes you do. By continuing to work for/with them, you tacitly approve.

And by saying you would quit if they treated you the same way they treat 90% of their drivers, you are tacitly admitting that you understand what they are doing is wrong.


----------



## Fozzie

UberProphet? said:


> Yes you do. By continuing to work for/with them, you tacitly approve.
> 
> And by saying you would quit if they treated you the same way they treat 90% of their drivers, you are tacitly admitting that you understand what they are doing is wrong.


Yes, the way they treat drivers IS wrong. That said, making drivers employees isn't going to make things better, and, in fact, I believe that it'll make things worse than they already are. Guaranteeing minimum wage isn't the answer.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

MiamiKid said:


> Many, on this forum, forget most drivers are either part time, supplemental or both.
> 
> It's my overall situation that counts. The complete analysis would change, dramatically, if I was sole income, fulltime.
> Huge!
> 
> Will, also, say the whiners are terrible at getting their message across.
> 
> Worst salespeople I've ever seen. However, they're doing a great job of turning us against their entire effort.
> 
> Keep up your good work.


The question remains - how much more of your share of revenue are you willing to give to Uber? Not a hard question to answer.


----------



## nosurgenodrive

Fozzie is in one of the only cities where the rates make sense. However, Uber and Lyft are not offering those rates nationwide, which is why we are in this position in the first place.

Don't listen to Fozzie. He lacks perspective.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

observer said:


> If drivers can't make money fulltime they aren't making money part time either.
> 
> Come on a smart investor/landlord/propertymanager/uber driver like you knows that better than the rest of us.


It could be that there is only a limited number of cherry-picked hours in his market during which rideshare is viable economically?


----------



## observer

nosurgenodrive said:


> Fozzie is in one of the only cities where the rates make sense. However, Uber and Lyft are not offering those rates nationwide, which is why we are in this position in the first place.
> 
> Don't listen to Fozzie. He lacks perspective.


I don't agree with this statement.

Everyones opinion is valid.

If Uber can pay 1.11 per mile in Seattle they damn well can pay 1.11 in Los Angeles.


----------



## UberProphet?

Fozzie said:


> Guaranteeing minimum wage isn't the answer.


What then do you think the answer is? (apologies to the grammar teachers)


----------



## observer

The problem is going to be that if they can get away with paying 60 cents in LA they will eventually pay 60 cents in Seattle. 

It's just a matter of time.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Fozzie said:


> We're still at $1.11 /mile + $0.1875 /min
> 
> View attachment 329292


That makes a big difference. I was on the same rates in SF, but for half a cent more on the time component. The "rebalanced rates" pay cut along with the flat rate surge pay cut were the most brutal by far in SF. Prior to these it was easy to hit my benchmark of $30/hr gross. $35 to $40 gross was achievable on good days. Now, hitting $30/hr gross is out of reach here.

So now I would happily settle for $15 per hour, plus all my car expenses and insurance paid, plus health benefits, vacation pay, retirement contribution, unemployment benefit etc etc. All that together is _easily_ going to match the current $25/hr gross in this market.

If I Uber still paid me even what they paid me one year, or two pay cuts, ago then I would not want to become an employee. But they don't.


----------



## nosurgenodrive

observer said:


> I don't agree with this statement.
> 
> Everyones opinion is valid.
> 
> If Uber can pay 1.11 per mile in Seattle they damn well can pay 1.11 in Los Angeles.


That's my point. He doesn't get it. He is in the greener pastures . . . or the rates that rideshare should be at for it to be tenable as independent contractors.


----------



## observer

The Gift of Fish said:


> That makes a big difference. I was on the same rates in SF, but for half a cent more on the time component. The "rebalanced rates" pay cut along with the flat rate surge pay cut were the most brutal by far in SF. Prior to these it was easy to hit my benchmark of $30/hr gross. $35 to $40 gross was achievable on good days. Now, hitting $30/hr gross is out of reach here.
> 
> So now I would happily settle for $15 per hour, plus all my car expenses and insurance paid, plus health benefits, vacation pay, retirement contribution, unemployment benefit etc etc. All that together is _easily_ going to match the current $25/hr gross in this market.


No vacation pay in CA.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

observer said:


> No vacation pay in CA.


Commies.

??


----------



## MiamiKid

observer said:


> If drivers can't make money fulltime they aren't making money part time either.
> 
> Come on a smart investor/landlord/propertymanager/uber driver like you knows that better than the rest of us.


The model changes huge between fulltime, supplemental and part time. I can live very well, on my income, outside of Uber. No, cannot imagine if I had rent, car payment, food, healthcare and evto pay for after I received my net from Uber.

My condo, auto and multiple properties are paid for. My income is residual. Meaning it comes in, automatically, without much effort.

Every dime I make, with Uber, is extra. Also, I track what I earn per hour and mile on a consistent basis.

Very similar to what it was in 2015. Things have changed and I've changed my schedule and routine, as well.

But, will state again, you, nobody knows my personal, financial situation except for me.

So, as long as people are telling me whether I'm making, or losing money, I'm going to push back.

Finally, the absolute, best part about Uber, from my perspective, is the complete independence I have.

Thus, I remain, adamantly, opposed to becoming an employee. But, it will not happen in Georgia.


The Gift of Fish said:


> The question remains - how much more of your share of revenue are you willing to give to Uber? Not a hard question to answer.


Doesn't really matter. It's all extra and fun, money, for me.

Pays the Country Club dues.


----------



## observer

nosurgenodrive said:


> That's my point. He doesn't get it. He is in the greener pastures . . . or the rates that rideshare should be at for it to be tenable as independent contractors.


Exactly.

We wouldn't know she was in greener pastures if she didn't offer her opinion. She also wouldn't know the situation in other places.

That is why this is a forum where all opinions are accepted, even ones we don't agree with, to learn from each others experiences.



The Gift of Fish said:


> Commies.
> 
> ??


You did miss three paid sick days...


----------



## nosurgenodrive

observer said:


> Exactly.
> 
> We wouldn't know she was in greener pastures if she didn't offer her opinion. She also wouldn't know the situation in other places.
> 
> That is why this is a forum where all opinions are accepted, even ones we don't agree with, to learn from each others experiences.


The point is that you shouldn't listen to her. Because she ivalidates herself with a lack of perspective and a lack of sympathy for people in other cities with other rates. All is okay in her world, so she doesn't care about other Uber/Lyft peons in other markets.

So, hall monitor, get over yourself.


----------



## Fozzie

nosurgenodrive said:


> Fozzie is in one of the only cities where the rates make sense. However, Uber and Lyft are not offering those rates nationwide, which is why we are in this position in the first place.
> 
> Don't listen to Fozzie. He lacks perspective.


The only thing I don't understand is why people continue to drive rideshare when their local rates are so damn low. As long as you work for those wages, Uber and Lyft have won.

That said, having lived in more than a dozen states, I understand the dynamic differences between regions, and that there is no one size fits all fix to this problem. Yeah, I make more per mile here, but that's what it takes to get people to drive here due to cost of housing, fuel, etc. Someone living in Orlando has much lower living costs, and that needs to be considered when setting rates.

Choosing to be an employee working for minimum wage isn't going to make your life any better than going out and applying for a job at McDonalds.


----------



## observer

nosurgenodrive said:


> The point is that you shouldn't listen to her. Because she ivalidates herself with a lack of perspective and a lack of sympathy for people in other cities with other rates. All is okay in her world, so she doesn't care about other Uber/Lyft peons in other markets.
> 
> So, hall monitor, get over yourself.


Mmhmm yea.

I have to rethink my opinion on allowing others opinions now. You made me have to reconsider.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

observer said:


> Exactly.
> 
> We wouldn't know she was in greener pastures if she didn't offer her opinion. She also wouldn't know the situation in other places.
> 
> That is why this is a forum where all opinions are accepted, even ones we don't agree with, to learn from each others experiences.
> 
> 
> You did miss three paid sick days...


I remember now I saw the bit about holiday pay in Dara's begging piece in the Chronicle:










He didn't say how much time off, though.


----------



## nosurgenodrive

observer said:


> Mmhmm yea.
> 
> I have to rethink my opinion on allowing others opinions now. You made me have to reconsider.


Her opinion is there, just don't pay attention to it due to its lack of perspective. Stop projecting things into my threads that aren't there.



Fozzie said:


> The only thing I don't understand is why people continue to drive rideshare when their local rates are so damn low. As long as you work for those wages, Uber and Lyft have won.
> 
> That said, having lived in more than a dozen states, I understand the dynamic differences between regions, and that there is no one size fits all fix to this problem. Yeah, I make more per mile here, but that's what it takes to get people to drive here due to cost of housing, fuel, etc. Someone living in Orlando has much lower living costs, and that needs to be considered when setting rates.
> 
> Choosing to be an employee working for minimum wage isn't going to make your life any better than going out and applying for a job at McDonalds.


LA and Seattle are pretty equal in cost of living.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Fozzie said:


> Yeah, I make more per mile here, but that's what it takes to get people to drive here due to cost of housing, fuel, etc. Someone living in Orlando has much lower living costs, and that needs to be considered when setting rates.


True, but my living costs haven't decreased 50% correspondingly in California since the pay cuts started.


----------



## observer

Fozzie said:


> The only thing I don't understand is why people continue to drive rideshare when their local rates are so damn low. As long as you work for those wages, Uber and Lyft have won.
> 
> That said, having lived in more than a dozen states, I understand the dynamic differences between regions, and that there is no one size fits all fix to this problem. Yeah, I make more per mile here, but that's what it takes to get people to drive here due to cost of housing, fuel, etc. Someone living in Orlando has much lower living costs, and that needs to be considered when setting rates.
> 
> Choosing to be an employee working for minimum wage isn't going to make your life any better than going out and applying for a job at McDonalds.


The biggest factor by far is that Seattle started to regulate Uber. Uber is afraid to lower rates there because they know they are under a microscope.


----------



## nosurgenodrive

The Gift of Fish said:


> True, but my living costs haven't decreased 50% correspondingly in California since the pay cuts started.


Exactly. Cost of living in Phoenix is roughly 20% lower than in Seattle, but quickly rising. Besides, these things are relative to a number of factors.



observer said:


> The biggest factor by far is that Seattle started to regulate Uber. Uber is afraid to lower rates there because they know they are under a microscope.


Ding ding ding.

So, Seattle should be a model for the rates rideshare should be at. Hence, Fozzie's lack of perspective for other drivers wanting to force Uber and Lyft's hand.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

MiamiKid said:


> Doesn't really matter. It's all extra and fun, money, for me.
> 
> Pays the Country Club dues.


There certainly are hobbyist or "fun money" drivers in rideshare who would work without the pay mattering. The raison d'etre for the legislation is, however, the broad base of drivers who use their incomes to support themselves and their families.


----------



## nosurgenodrive

If Uber and Lyft want us to remain independent contractors, they should make Seattle's rates a nationwide policy.

In Phoenix, our drop rate is 30 cents. That's insulting. Uber and Lyft are expanding their profits at the expense of the drivers.


----------



## ABC123DEF

Fozzie said:


> This morning I went out for 7 hrs, and cashed out $248. Yeah, I did use $18 in gas, but show me what WalMart pays that.


What market are you in?


----------



## nosurgenodrive

ABC123DEF said:


> What market are you in?


She's in Seattle.


----------



## ABC123DEF

nosurgenodrive said:


> She's in Seattle.


Ahhhhh....OK.


----------



## MiamiKid

The Gift of Fish said:


> There certainly are hobbyist or "fun money" drivers in rideshare who would work without the pay mattering. The raison d'etre for the legislation is, however, the broad base of drivers who use their incomes to support themselves and their families.


And it's also very, very obvious, at this point, that Uber does not work well as a fulltime gig. In fact, impossible.

Those who realize this; but, continue to drive amaze me. Have never seen this in a lifetime.

Once you know something doesn't work, you move on. Have never head of an occupation that doesn't work that way.

I utilize Uber, also, as a rider and the vast majority, of drivers, are part time or supplemental. Period.

Don't believe me? Google it.


----------



## UberProphet?

MiamiKid said:


> And it's also very, very obvious, at this point, that Uber does not work well as a fulltime gig. In fact, impossible.


Without full time drivers the Ewwber model would collapse.


----------



## vkandaharv

MiamiKid said:


> the vast majority, of drivers, are part time or supplemental. Period.
> 
> Don't believe me? Google it.


I didn't believe you. I googled it.

"For many drivers, driving is their full-time, primary work. 2 out of 3 ride-hailing drivers in Los Angeles rely on driving as their main source of income. 1 in 2 drivers say that driving is their only job. " https://www.labor.ucla.edu/publication/more-than-a-gig/

I still don't believe you.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

MiamiKid said:


> And it's also very, very obvious, at this point, that Uber does not work well as a fulltime gig. In fact, impossible.


Which brings us back, full circle, to why California is introducing legislation.


MiamiKid said:


> Once you know something doesn't work, you move on. Have never head of an occupation that doesn't work that way.


I have. Many, in fact, throughout modern history. If all workers had said, "this doesn't work; I'll move on" then the worker protections that are enjoyed today (child labour prohibition, racial/gender equality in the workplace legislation, the National Labor Relations Act etc etc etc etc) would not exist.


----------



## MiamiKid

UberProphet? said:


> Without full time drivers the Ewwber model would collapse.


Nope



vkandaharv said:


> I didn't believe you. I googled it.
> 
> "For many drivers, driving is their full-time, primary work. 2 out of 3 ride-hailing drivers in Los Angeles rely on driving as their main source of income. 1 in 2 drivers say that driving is their only job. " https://www.labor.ucla.edu/publication/more-than-a-gig/
> 
> I still don't believe you.


The figure is 80% part time. Also, can validate from my own personal/corporate experience.

So, you're very wrong. Period.



The Gift of Fish said:


> Which brings us back, full circle, to why California is introducing legislation.
> 
> I have. Many, in fact, throughout modern history. If all workers had said, "this doesn't work; I'll move on" then the worker protections that are enjoyed today (child labour prohibition, racial/gender equality in the workplace legislation, the National Labor Relations Act etc etc etc etc) would not exist.


So you keep working at something that doesn't work? If so, these complaining drivers do not deserve benefits or higher pay.

Down with this bill!

Support Uber 100% over drivers!!!!


----------



## Fozzie

MiamiKid said:


> The figure is 80% part time. Also, can validate from my own personal/corporate experience.
> 
> So, you're very wrong. Period.


Disagree. I think approx 80% of Uber drivers are part time, and 20% are dedicated full time drivers. The same stats are generally true on Lyft. (the 20% full timers are probably Lyft ExpressDrive and are prohibited from using the car to drive on Uber)

Of the other 80%, many are part time on Uber, (10-30 hrs /wk) and part time on Lyft. (10-30 hrs per week) They're only part time on each platform, but they're driving 40+ hours.


----------



## observer

Fozzie said:


> Disagree. I think approx 80% of Uber drivers are part time, and 20% are dedicated full time drivers. The same stats are generally true on Lyft. (the 20% full timers are probably Lyft ExpressDrive and are prohibited from using the car to drive on Uber)
> 
> Of the other 80%, many are part time on Uber, (10-30 hrs /wk) and part time on Lyft. (10-30 hrs per week) They're only part time on each platform, but they're driving 40+ hours.


That makes a lot of sense.

Now, what happens if Uber locks up drivers as employees and they can't work for Lyft at the same time?


----------



## Fozzie

observer said:


> That makes a lot of sense.
> 
> Now, what happens if Uber locks up drivers as employees and they can't work for Lyft at the same time?


Then drivers will have a decision to make, and rideshare companies will have to compete for "loyal" ants rather than just carpet bombing for anyone with a car and a heartbeat.


----------



## observer

Fozzie said:


> Then drivers will have a decision to make, and rideshare companies will have to compete for "loyal" ants rather than just carpet bombing for anyone with a car and a heartbeat.


As my esteemed friend @nosurgenodrive says,

Ding Ding Ding Ding!


----------



## The Gift of Fish

MiamiKid said:


> So you keep working at something that doesn't work?


Your words, not mine. I am still working Uberlyft and can still_ just about_ make ends meet, but to be honest the pay cuts have reached the point for me that I have started to look for another office job. If the employee legislation does not kick in then it would be unwise for me to still be doing this when the next round of pay cuts happens, whenever that might be. They would be the final nail in the coffin for this gig for me.


> If so, these complaining drivers do not deserve benefits or higher pay.


There's nothing wrong with complaining. And I think that employees do deserve certain minimums and protections from exploitation in a first world economy. The employment statute books are full of evidence that this is, democratically, a majority belief.


----------



## observer

And my other esteemed friend @MiamiKid gets his true wish..

A real CAPITALIST system.

Where Uber and Lyft have to compete for drivers.

Raising driver pay to what the true market demands.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

observer said:


> That makes a lot of sense.
> 
> Now, what happens if Uber locks up drivers as employees and they can't work for Lyft at the same time?


I think it's pretty standard practice for employers to be able to demand that their employees do not work for anyone else when they are on the company clock. I don't see this as a problem. Assuming that 80% of drivers currently work for both companies, and the remaining 20% are split among Lyft and Uber and that of the 80%, half of drivers will go to Uber and half to Lyft after employee classification, that would mean that instantly each service would have 45% of its drivers become unavailable to them. Having each company instantly lose access to 45% of its driver workforce will be _great_ news for us.


----------



## MiamiKid

observer said:


> And my other esteemed friend @MiamiKid gets his true wish..
> 
> A real CAPITALIST system.
> 
> Where Uber and Lyft have to compete for drivers.
> 
> Raising driver pay to what the true market demands.


We will see what happens. Am here, in Georgia, watching CA as entertainment. So, really don't care.

It will be amusing to see how this plays out, if the bill passes. Of course, won't affect me, here in Georgia.

But, know many folks are relocating, to the South, because of legislation like this. In droves.


----------



## observer

MiamiKid said:


> We will see what happens. Am here, in Georgia, watching CA as entertainment. So, really don't care.
> 
> It will be amusing to see how this plays out, if the bill passes. Of course, won't affect me, here in Georgia.
> 
> But, know many folks are relocating, to the South, because of legislation like this. In droves.


Of course you care, half the posts in the last 3-4 pages are yours. :smiles:

This, as I stated earlier, may affect you and drivers in other states in that Uber will be trying to contain this from spreading and may increase pay/benefits to keep drivers independent contractors.

Yupp, there are many folks relocating to the south. It's part of the secret plan to liberalize and turn Georgia blue.

One relocatee at a time. :wink:


----------



## UberProphet?

MiamiKid said:


> Nope


20% of 1,000,000 drive full time 60 hours a week or 12,000,000 hours

800,000 drivers drive part time 10 hours a week or 8,000,000 hours a week

which one is bigger?

Again, Ewwber would collapse without full time drivers.


----------



## MiamiKid

observer said:


> Of course you care, half the posts in the last 3-4 pages are yours. :smiles:
> 
> This, as I stated earlier, may affect you and drivers in other states in that Uber will be trying to contain this from spreading and may increase pay/benefits to keep drivers independent contractors.
> 
> Yupp, there are many folks relocating to the south. It's part of the secret plan to liberalize and turn Georgia blue.
> 
> One relocatee at a time. :wink:


Turn Georgia blue? Now I'm concerned! ?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

BobMarley said:


> Yes they can. If you are an employee they can stipulate whatever they want. Like you can't simultaneously work for a competitor. Shit, in most states they can stipulate that you don't work for anyone else on a W-2.


lol ?

what part of my post did you not understand ?



> unless we sign some sort of agreement


keep up


----------



## vkandaharv

MiamiKid said:


> Nope
> 
> 
> The figure is 80% part time. Also, can validate from my own personal/corporate experience.
> 
> So, you're very wrong. Period.


Skepticism is appropriate when the only source provided is personal experience, especially when a different source contradicts, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Nats121

As I stated in a previous post, the bedrock core of the rideshare business is the Mon-Fri commuters, most of whom are being driven by FULL TIME drivers.

There are fewer full time drivers than part timers, but the full timers provide a disproportionate number of trips, especially commuters.

Uber and lyft would be out of business in less than 24 hours without the full timers.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

observer said:


> If drivers can't make money fulltime they aren't making money part time either.
> 
> Come on a smart investor/landlord/propertymanager/uber driver like you knows that better than the rest of us.


lol fozzie is only happy because she makes almost twice as much as people in the rest of the country

it's no wonder now...if she was making 60 cents a mile like everyone else she would be singing a different tune


----------



## Fozzie

nosurgenodrive said:


> If Uber and Lyft want us to remain independent contractors, they should make Seattle's rates a nationwide policy.
> 
> In Phoenix, our drop rate is 30 cents. That's insulting. Uber and Lyft are expanding their profits at the expense of the drivers.


It's insulting, but you still ****ing drive, don't you? If you don't agree with the pay offered, go out and get a job that pays what you want to be paid. Anything less is just ****ing whining.

If you want our rates, move your ass here and buy a $800,000 median priced home.


----------



## Lissetti

What @Fozzie says is true. Seattle has probably the highest rideshare rates in the country. I can easily make $1000+ a week on one app and under 35 hours. Seattle also has the highest minimum wage in the country at $16.00 an hour. Our cost of living is more closer to San Francisco than anyone with all the giant StartUps that came from here and who currently have their HQ's here. (Amazon, Microsoft, Nintendo, Bungie, Expedia, Starbucks, and Costco) We have other tech giants such as Facebook, Uber, Zuilly, 3 Google campuses, and the T-Mobile HQ campus to name a few.

Seattle is also the test market for most of Uber's "bright" ideas. Lets not forget The Teen Rider Platform which they forced on us and had we not went to the media, it would have went nationwide.

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/uber-...en-rider-program-call-additional-protections/
It's also true the city of Seattle has Uber and Lyft under a microscope.

https://sccinsight.com/2019/01/15/uber-collective-bargaining-lawsuit-inches-forward/
If the collective bargaining succeeds and Uber loses, this also will go nationwide. Uber wants us drivers to help them fight the city of Seattle. That....is why we Ants are their best friends right now.


----------



## BobMarley

Fozzie said:


> It's insulting, but you still @@@@ing drive, don't you? If you don't agree with the pay offered, go out and get a job that pays what you want to be paid. Anything less is just @@@@ing whining.
> 
> If you want our rates, move your ass here and buy a $800,000 median priced home.


Indeed, there is lots of BS with the way Uber does business, but I have no idea why anyone thinks a corporation should pay the same rates for contractors in every area they operate. Sure I get less here in ABQ, but my house cost around $130 sq/foot in a slightly better than average neighborhood.


----------



## observer

BobMarley said:


> Indeed, there is lots of BS with the way Uber does business, but I have no idea why anyone thinks a corporation should pay the same rates for contractors in every area they operate. Sure I get less here in ABQ, but my house cost around $130 sq/foot in a slightly better than average neighborhood.


AB5 is about Uber paying drivers at _*at least *_the minimum wage plus expenses in California.

Just like every other company in California does *now.*

There's nothing special about Uber.


----------



## BobMarley

observer said:


> AB5 is about Uber paying drivers at _*at least *_the minimum wage plus expenses in California.
> 
> Just like every other company in California does *now.*
> 
> There's nothing special about Uber.


"If Uber and Lyft want us to remain independent contractors, they should make Seattle's rates a nationwide policy. "

? I was responding to a complaint that Uber doesn't pay everyone the same rate in the country. I already make more than New Mexico minimum wage doing rideshare, like 40% more (thats like saying I make 40% more than jackshit though lol).


----------



## observer

BobMarley said:


> "If Uber and Lyft want us to remain independent contractors, they should make Seattle's rates a nationwide policy. "
> 
> ? I was responding to a complaint that Uber doesn't pay everyone the same rate in the country. I already make more than New Mexico minimum wage doing rideshare, like 40% more (thats like saying I make 40% more than jackshit though lol).


Ahhh gotcha. Yea a nationwide rate isn't feasible.


----------



## nosurgenodrive

Fozzie said:


> It's insulting, but you still @@@@ing drive, don't you? If you don't agree with the pay offered, go out and get a job that pays what you want to be paid. Anything less is just @@@@ing whining.
> 
> If you want our rates, move your ass here and buy a $800,000 median priced home.


My name should make it clear to you that, no, I don't drive for base fare.



observer said:


> Ahhh gotcha. Yea a nationwide rate isn't feasible.


A nationwide basefare minimum IS feasible.


----------



## observer

nosurgenodrive said:


> My name should make it clear to you that, no, I don't drive for base fare.
> 
> 
> A nationwide basefare minimum IS feasible.


Will never happen.

We don't even have a nationwide minimum wage.

Minimum wage ranges from around three bux up to 15 bux.


----------



## BobMarley

observer said:


> Will never happen.
> 
> We don't even have a nationwide minimum wage.
> 
> Minimum wage ranges from around three bux up to 15 bux.


Yeah we do. Federal minimum wage is $7.50/hour, though there are some exceptions most notable for tipped employees (but what they make plus tips must equal $7.50). Several states have no minimum wage, so that is the de facto one there.


----------



## nosurgenodrive

observer said:


> Will never happen.
> 
> We don't even have a nationwide minimum wage.
> 
> Minimum wage ranges from around three bux up to 15 bux.


The power of courts is more influential than you realize. Courts are already pushing for destination information to be mandatory. Courts also protect us from being deactivated for not having a high acceptance rate.

A minimum base fare and driver feedback as independent contractors for base rates and drop rates will likely be one to two years down the road.


----------



## observer

BobMarley said:


> Yeah we do. Federal minimum wage is $7.50/hour, though there are some exceptions most notable for tipped employees (but what they make plus tips must equal $7.50). Several states have no minimum wage, so that is the de facto one there.


That's what I meant. I think the minimum wage for servers was 2.75, it may have gone up. Tips are voluntary and shouldn't be counted in my opinion.

I think four states have no minimum.

Georgia has a state minimum of 5.15, not sure how they get away with that.









Seattle is up to 16 bux an hour.

What I meant was there is no level minimum wage. The federal minimum is not really used in places where expenses are higher which actually reinforces my statement that a national minimum wage isn't feasible.



nosurgenodrive said:


> The power of courts is more influential than you realize. Courts are already pushing for destination information to be mandatory. Courts also protect us from being deactivated for not having a high acceptance rate.
> 
> A minimum base fare and driver feedback as independent contractors for base rates and drop rates will likely be one to two years down the road.


Maybe but I doubt it.

Every state has a different minimum wage. Cities and counties within those states have different minimum wages.

Unless Congress raises the federal minimum wage to the highest state minimum wage there cannot be a national base fare.

People in states with higher minimum wage would revolt if the MW were lowered.

I don't see a national base fare as feasible.


----------



## nouberipo

Ishurue said:


> you think being employee is gona help ? lmao
> 
> say by law employers only have to give benefits to FULL TIME Employees, Full time = 30 hrs a week
> 
> LYft/UBER will do this
> 
> max hrs per week , 29 . Force you to sign non compete clause .
> 
> As Employees , they pay you minimum wage, plus bare minimum for car costs .
> 
> Fight for Higher Fares , Rates , Saturation, Forced Gratuity .





Nats121 said:


> As I stated in a previous post, the bedrock core of the rideshare business is the Mon-Fri commuters, most of whom are being driven by FULL TIME drivers.
> 
> There are fewer full time drivers than part timers, but the full timers provide a disproportionate number of trips, especially commuters.
> 
> Uber and lyft would be out of business in less than 24 hours without the full timers.


Although I would like to agree with you as I have zero respect for or trust of Uber/Lyft, the number of full time drivers/part time drivers cannot be determined without empirical evidence (statistics) which would only come from Uber/Lyft who will not supply them as that would be too transparent. Again, I wish I could agree with you but conjecture will get us nowhere. Empirical facts/figures about the rideshares are very difficult to find for a reason.



vkandaharv said:


> I didn't believe you. I googled it.
> 
> "For many drivers, driving is their full-time, primary work. 2 out of 3 ride-hailing drivers in Los Angeles rely on driving as their main source of income. 1 in 2 drivers say that driving is their only job. " https://www.labor.ucla.edu/publication/more-than-a-gig/
> 
> I still don't believe you.


First of all this is not a peer-reviewed scientific report but rather one that was likely done by a bunch of graduates or undergraduates. Second, the methodology on how they obtained the numbers if fully absent. They don't even show the most basic number.....the sample size. What, did they talk to 2, 20, 200, 2000 drivers and how exactly were they representative of the LA drivers? As an academic for most of my life I can tell you that this sort of trash reporting is exactly why empirical truth is difficult to comeby nowadays. Anyone who relies on this report to substantiate an argument without knowing the methodology is perpetuating misinformation. I do not refute that many drivers do this full-time but how many is only known by Uber/Lyft who as we all know will not give out the information or will give out false information to meet their needs. Truth is irrelevant to Uber/Lyft and is a reflection of the government under which it operates.


----------



## Nats121

nouberipo said:


> Although I would like to agree with you as I have zero respect for or trust of Uber/Lyft, the number of full time drivers/part time drivers cannot be determined without empirical evidence (statistics) which would only come from Uber/Lyft who will not supply them as that would be too transparent. Again, I wish I could agree with you but conjecture will get us nowhere. Empirical facts/figures about the rideshares are very difficult to find for a reason.


I don't remember what article I read it from, but recently both companies acknowledged that their full time drivers do a vastly disproportionate number of the total rides.

Also, if you read between the lines of both companies' claims that most of their drivers are working 10-20 hours per week, you'll see there's no way all those millions of commuters are being transported without the full timers.


----------



## nouberipo

Fozzie said:


> The only thing I don't understand is why people continue to drive rideshare when their local rates are so damn low. As long as you work for those wages, Uber and Lyft have won.
> 
> That said, having lived in more than a dozen states, I understand the dynamic differences between regions, and that there is no one size fits all fix to this problem. Yeah, I make more per mile here, but that's what it takes to get people to drive here due to cost of housing, fuel, etc. Someone living in Orlando has much lower living costs, and that needs to be considered when setting rates.
> 
> Choosing to be an employee working for minimum wage isn't going to make your life any better than going out and applying for a job at McDonalds.


The larger question is why companies can operate in this country exploiting workers at wages under minimum wage while the workers pay employee and employer taxes AND use their personal resources. This should not be allowed and that is why regulators will be regulating. If Uber/Lyft get away with it what will stop other companies from following the same exploitation model


----------



## Polomarko

Everyone who thinks that in Ca he make money with U/L is not right..
There is no way that driver in Ca after expenses can make even minimum wages. 401 , Social security benefits, health care, pay vacation, pay holidays, sick days all of these with U/L are just driver dreams. I been driving part time for U/L for four years.
So, It is not essential are we going to be U/L employee or not. Fundamental question is how this companies are going to compensate driver,
How much drivers are going to be paid after all car expenses? So, If you think that you are independent contractor please google it to fined out what real independent contractor charge per hour in Ca. $125 is a min. charge. So, U/L driver are just people manipulated with this two companies.It is time to regulate this businesses.


----------



## vkandaharv

nouberipo said:


> Although I would like to agree with you as I have zero respect for or trust of Uber/Lyft, the number of full time drivers/part time drivers cannot be determined without empirical evidence (statistics) which would only come from Uber/Lyft who will not supply them as that would be too transparent. Again, I wish I could agree with you but conjecture will get us nowhere. Empirical facts/figures about the rideshares are very difficult to find for a reason.
> 
> 
> First of all this is not a peer-reviewed scientific report but rather one that was likely done by a bunch of graduates or undergraduates. Second, the methodology on how they obtained the numbers if fully absent. They don't even show the most basic number.....the sample size. What, did they talk to 2, 20, 200, 2000 drivers and how exactly were they representative of the LA drivers? As an academic for most of my life I can tell you that this sort of trash reporting is exactly why empirical truth is difficult to comeby nowadays. Anyone who relies on this report to substantiate an argument without knowing the methodology is perpetuating misinformation. I do not refute that many drivers do this full-time but how many is only known by Uber/Lyft who as we all know will not give out the information or will give out false information to meet their needs. Truth is irrelevant to Uber/Lyft and is a reflection of the government under which it operates.


Did you look at page 47 of https://www.labor.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Final-Report.-UCLA-More-than-a-Gig.pdf


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Lissetti said:


> What @Fozzie says is true. Seattle has probably the highest rideshare rates in the country. I can easily make $1000+ a week on one app and under 35 hours. Seattle also has the highest minimum wage in the country at $16.00 an hour. Our cost of living is more closer to San Francisco than anyone with all the giant StartUps that came from here and who currently have their HQ's here. (Amazon, Microsoft, Nintendo, Bungie, Expedia, Starbucks, and Costco) We have other tech giants such as Facebook, Uber, Zuilly, 3 Google campuses, and the T-Mobile HQ campus to name a few.
> 
> Seattle is also the test market for most of Uber's "bright" ideas. Lets not forget The Teen Rider Platform which they forced on us and had we not went to the media, it would have went nationwide.
> 
> https://www.geekwire.com/2017/uber-...en-rider-program-call-additional-protections/
> It's also true the city of Seattle has Uber and Lyft under a microscope.
> 
> https://sccinsight.com/2019/01/15/uber-collective-bargaining-lawsuit-inches-forward/
> If the collective bargaining succeeds and Uber loses, this also will go nationwide. Uber wants us drivers to help them fight the city of Seattle. That....is why we Ants are their best friends right now.


the reason shes making $1.10 an hour is because uber is under the threat of employee-sation in seattle with that law they passed over there that is making its way through the courts...which is basically what is now happening in california...forcing uber to play nice


----------



## Lissetti

uberdriverfornow said:


> the reason shes making $1.10 an hour is because uber is under the threat of employee-sation in seattle with that law they passed over there that is making its way through the courts...which is basically what is now happening in california...forcing uber to play nice


I am also a Seattle driver. Haven't worked much since I got a day job, but yeah....we have it good for now. Respect from Uber, or at least the closest thing you can call respect, through fear and intimidation from the city ordinance issue.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Lissetti said:


> I am also a Seattle driver. Haven't worked much since I got a day job, but yeah....we have it good for now. Respect from Uber, or at least the closest thing you can call respect, through fear and intimidation from the city ordinance issue.
> 
> View attachment 329526
> 
> 
> View attachment 329528


yep, and if seattle wasn't forcing uber to play nice through the threat of laws you guys would be making peanuts just like the rest of the country

im glad atleast you get it


----------



## observer

One other thing I just realized.

This doesn't only affect Uber drivers.

It affects Amazon, Doordash, Grubbhub and other delivery companies that steal drivers tips to use as pay.

As employees companies won't be able to do this anymore. 

Tips 100% belong to employees.


----------



## Lissetti

uberdriverfornow said:


> yep, and if seattle wasn't forcing uber to play nice through the threat of laws you guys would be making peanuts just like the rest of the country


We were the very last ones in the country to lose our Surge multipliers I believe? We lost ours February 15 2019, right in the middle of a record snowfall which shut down Seattle for a week. All (smart) X drivers were snowed in. We had already lost our Lyft Prime Time in fall of 2018.

(Me)









...And it was an XL wonderland with the city a constant dark red with Surge multipliers. The XL drivers were bringing home over $400. a day, then one morning we all woke up and Poof!!...... Flat surge every where. Yeah, go out and drive in this for an extra $3.50..

(Seattle has hills like SF and doesn't clear its streets.)


----------



## got a p

i remember predicting all this would happen if uber didn't go back to 75% cut, and reverse the recent pay cuts that put us at a pathetic $.60/mile. i was posting that legislators would get involved after the so called "failed" strikes began pre-ipo.

i do recall mentioning that legislators would be akin to union reps since it is near impossible to unionize as rideshare drivers.

i do recall mentioning all this would happen if uber didnt reverse course on pay cuts, mainly on the % it takes bc it can't be an arbitrary number. if it is truly 25% then the argument could be made that we know, to a certain extent, how much we will make before each contact (ride) is accepted.

i also recall telling the uber trolls to let their corporate overlords know that this was almost an inevitability, as they tried in vain to convince UP community that strikes would be useless, along with some our own knuckledragging pessimists :woot: . they were just as effective as i thought they would be.

strikes>bad press> liberal legislators looking to score brownie points.

did they listen?...nope. now karma is coming for you. toldja we weren't going to subsidize your automation endeavors through our pay cuts. you just wouldn't listen would you? you greedy bastards, lol.


----------



## Shadow1A

Leoncio said:


> It is people like yourself who are ruining a great Part time independent contract Gig; Uber and lyft were not designed to be a full time career if it is your full time career then you should look elswhere for employment.
> Attention Uber drivers, Uber just sent you an email to help them fight the Dinamex case rule which may give drivers the right to normal employees compensation, like minimum wage and vehicle cost assistance. Do not help them, Do not opt in, Uber and Lyft is fighting Sacramento, and they are using the excuse : look, drivers want to be free, independent not employees, this is a lie. Lets not play this game again
> View attachment 328639


----------



## Fozzie

Hmmm... several posts deleted.


----------



## observer

Fozzie said:


> Hmmm... several posts deleted.


Probly another thread. I don't remember any posts being deleted in this thread.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn

Lissetti said:


> I am also a Seattle driver. Haven't worked much since I got a day job, but yeah....we have it good for now. Respect from Uber, or at least the closest thing you can call respect, through fear and intimidation from the city ordinance issue.
> 
> View attachment 329526
> 
> 
> View attachment 329528


That trip (same time/distance) pays about $12-13 in Orlandoish. Plus a 1.6 surge would put it at about $20.

61 trips would pay out about $300 here... total, and take just as long.


----------



## Nats121

observer said:


> Ahhh gotcha. Yea a nationwide rate isn't feasible.


I believe that our pay rates should be tied to the taxi rates of our home markets

Our NET pay rates AFTER uber's "cut" should be at least 75% of local taxi rates OR at least 75% of what the pax is charged, whichever is GREATER.

It's all well and good to say drivers should be paid 75-80% of what pax are charged, but what happens on rides that are discounted? What happens if uber decides to cut fares? Either of those scenarios would leave the drivers with empty pockets.

That's why I say we need the protection of getting at least 75% of local taxi rates.


----------



## nouberipo

Lissetti said:


> I am also a Seattle driver. Haven't worked much since I got a day job, but yeah....we have it good for now. Respect from Uber, or at least the closest thing you can call respect, through fear and intimidation from the city ordinance issue.
> 
> View attachment 329526
> 
> 
> View attachment 329528


Um that screenshot is from 2018.....one of the busy weeks before Christmas....and is based on your platinum status.....and includes a surge which in our market is no longer applicable. In other words, this example is very irrelevant to the present day conversation and reality of driver pay.


----------



## Lissetti

nouberipo said:


> Um that screenshot is from 2018.....one of the busy weeks before Christmas....and is based on your platinum status.....and includes a surge which in our market is no longer applicable. In other words, this example is very irrelevant to the present day conversation and reality of driver pay.


I haven't driven much more than a couple of days since then. I have a day job now so it's one of the last full weeks I worked for rideshare. Regardless the base rates are the same and were I to go out and work a full week now, I would earn very close to the same because I worked weekday mornings most. That surge ride must have been an event which I usually avoid due to the very common 1 mile rides to just outside the surge zone. Base rates are still the same now though. Platinum status earned me $20.00 bucks....

Here you go though, found one from the very last full week I did. One app, deadest part of the year.


----------



## Wonkytonk

Fozzie said:


> These companies have no loyalty, and if you're an employee, you'd be MORE disposable than you are right now. Uber and Lyft fill the streets with drivers paying NO benefits. If they start offering them, ants will line up for miles, begging for such the most mindless job in the world.


I thi k, if passed into law, one of the very first things they'll do is severely limit the number of drivers on the road to limit their financial obligations and then they'll play with rate increases until they they have it set and then start adding more drivers as they become more comfortable with numbers.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Wonkytonk said:


> I thi k, if passed into law, one of the very first things they'll do is severely limit the number of drivers on the road to limit their financial obligations and then they'll play with rate increases until they they have it set and then start adding more drivers as they become more comfortable with numbers.


Well, that would be the normal way to set metrics 4 profit versus loss. Uber has never done anything normal and has never made a profit.


----------



## Fozzie

Wonkytonk said:


> I thi k, if passed into law, one of the very first things they'll do is severely limit the number of drivers on the road to limit their financial obligations and then they'll play with rate increases until they they have it set and then start adding more drivers as they become more comfortable with numbers.


The process would be complicated.

They'd immediately need to set a "salary" for drivers, and open up hiring. (Existing drivers would most likely also lose access to the platform in California, since continuing to do business would be prohibited under law)

Applicants would need to go through the entire hiring process, education/experience vetting, Checkr "background check" and signing of a non-compete agreement (Yeah, I know they won't be binding in CA, but I guarantee they'll make signing one a requirement, since 99% of applicant ants WILL comply without challenging its validity) Those not agreeing wouldn't be hired. I'd also expect that they'd tighten the vehicle requirements significantly. The fight will be on for the long term drivers, because nobody is gong to want the unproven summertime-only ant anymore.

I'd expect an immediate reduction in the number of rideshare driver by at least 75%. Some will go to the opposite company, some won't meet the new vehicle requirements. and the teachers/students who drive during the summer would be culled from the herd because neither company will want temp workers anymore.

Uber and Lyft will both probably raise their rates to just below taxi levels. They'll finally have justification for raising rates, while blaming it all on greedy DRIVERS. This would also be a warning to other states/municipalities that may be considering the same type of legislation. Many CA riders will still pay higher rates, and the money loser short trip riders would be back on the bus where they belong.

CA drivers will finally be paid a guaranteed $12.00 + benefits, (probably Stride, LOL) and be dedicated slaves to one company at a time.

I may not like this legislation, but it will be entertaining to watch the reactions of the Pro-Employee ants once all this goes down.


----------



## UberProphet?

Fozzie said:


> The process would be complicated.
> 
> They'd immediately need to set a "salary" for drivers, and open up hiring. (Existing drivers would most likely also lose access to the platform in California, since continuing to do business would be prohibited under law)
> 
> Applicants would need to go through the entire hiring process, education/experience vetting, Checkr "background check" and signing of a non-compete agreement (Yeah, I know they won't be binding in CA, but I guarantee they'll make signing one a requirement, since 99% of applicant ants WILL comply without challenging its validity) Those not agreeing wouldn't be hired. I'd also expect that they'd tighten the vehicle requirements significantly. The fight will be on for the long term drivers, because nobody is gong to want the unproven summertime-only ant anymore.
> 
> I'd expect an immediate reduction in the number of rideshare driver by at least 75%. Some will go to the opposite company, some won't meet the new vehicle requirements. and the teachers/students who drive during the summer would be culled from the herd because neither company will want temp workers anymore.
> 
> Uber and Lyft will both probably raise their rates to just below taxi levels. They'll finally have justification for raising rates, while blaming it all on greedy DRIVERS. This would also be a warning to other states/municipalities that may be considering the same type of legislation. Many CA riders will still pay higher rates, and the money loser short trip riders would be back on the bus where they belong.
> 
> CA drivers will finally be paid a guaranteed $12.00 + benefits, (probably Stride, LOL) and be dedicated slaves to one company at a time.
> 
> I may not like this legislation, but it will be entertaining to watch the reactions of the Pro-Employee ants once all this goes down.


I appreciate that you didn't want to scare people and thus did not mention the *public shamings, floggings,and ritual executions* that will be mandated if drivers gain employee status.


----------



## Fozzie

UberProphet? said:


> I appreciate that you didn't want to scare people and thus did not mention the *public shamings, floggings,and ritual executions* that will be mandated if drivers gain employee status.


No scare tactics, just preparation for California's upcoming dose of reality.

Public shaming = Displaying a Lyft Amp or Uber Beacon; 
Floggings - Floggings will only occur if you don't clean your car to Uber specifications;
Ritual execution = Working full time, then receiving a $126 paycheck for a two week pay period; (after deductions/healthcare/union dues)


----------



## UberProphet?

Fozzie said:


> ......Working full time, then receiving a $126 paycheck for a two week pay period; (after deductions/healthcare/union dues)


As Ronald Reagan once said "There you go again"


----------



## Fozzie

UberProphet? said:


> As Ronald Reagan once said "There you go again"


I know, right!

I should be the one with the word "Prophet" in her name!


----------



## BiggerDog

https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...i1xdFN2Zk9nQ1p6MjFMaE9QeTk2QTE5aU4&psid=9Uusq


----------



## Wonkytonk

Fozzie said:


> The process would be complicated.
> 
> They'd immediately need to set a "salary" for drivers, and open up hiring. (Existing drivers would most likely also lose access to the platform in California, since continuing to do business would be prohibited under law)
> 
> Applicants would need to go through the entire hiring process, education/experience vetting, Checkr "background check" and signing of a non-compete agreement (Yeah, I know they won't be binding in CA, but I guarantee they'll make signing one a requirement, since 99% of applicant ants WILL comply without challenging its validity) Those not agreeing wouldn't be hired. I'd also expect that they'd tighten the vehicle requirements significantly. The fight will be on for the long term drivers, because nobody is gong to want the unproven summertime-only ant anymore.
> 
> I'd expect an immediate reduction in the number of rideshare driver by at least 75%. Some will go to the opposite company, some won't meet the new vehicle requirements. and the teachers/students who drive during the summer would be culled from the herd because neither company will want temp workers anymore.
> 
> Uber and Lyft will both probably raise their rates to just below taxi levels. They'll finally have justification for raising rates, while blaming it all on greedy DRIVERS. This would also be a warning to other states/municipalities that may be considering the same type of legislation. Many CA riders will still pay higher rates, and the money loser short trip riders would be back on the bus where they belong.
> 
> CA drivers will finally be paid a guaranteed $12.00 + benefits, (probably Stride, LOL) and be dedicated slaves to one company at a time.
> 
> I may not like this legislation, but it will be entertaining to watch the reactions of the Pro-Employee ants once all this goes down.


That's a fair breakdown. I think maybe your estimate of the numbers is high, and I'm not sure they'll stick with full time drivers only simply because there won't be enough. They'll not want to leave that much money on the table. I'm conflicted here because I think part timers are a large part of the problem with the rates uber charges riders, and driver pay, because part timers are in it for pocket money so they seem more willing to accept whatever uber decides to give them.


----------



## observer

BiggerDog said:


> https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...i1xdFN2Zk9nQ1p6MjFMaE9QeTk2QTE5aU4&psid=9Uusq


Since it can be applied retroactively Uber will have to go back and recalculate all payments made to make sure at least minimum wage and costs were paid.

Drivers could be getting serious checks.


----------



## Wonkytonk

observer said:


> Since it can be applied retroactively Uber will have to go back and recalculate all payments made to make sure at least minimum wage and costs were paid.
> 
> Drivers could be getting serious checks.


I've been thinking about that. I mean that's got to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. If they pay it it opens that up for other states to demand the same for their drivers. They can't do that without trying to extract even more from drivers from other states, or dipping heavily into their IPO money, but then at some point they will most likely become liable for back wages for those drivers as well.

I don't see how uber survives this long term, and I expect they'll file as many lawsuits as they can at it.


----------



## observer

Wonkytonk said:


> I've been thinking about that. I mean that's got to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. If they pay it it opens that up for other states to demand the same for their drivers. They can't do that without trying to extract even more from drivers from other states, or dipping heavily into their IPO money, but then at some point they will most likely become liable for back wages for those drivers as well.
> 
> I don't see how uber survives this long term, and I expect they'll file as many lawsuits as they can at it.


I think this is the real reason Uber/Lyft is fighting this tooth and nail.

The costs will be astronomical.


----------



## BiggerDog

observer said:


> Since it can be applied retroactively Uber will have to go back and recalculate all payments made to make sure at least minimum wage and costs were paid.
> 
> Drivers could be getting serious checks.


I have posted this a few times.
You are the first to mention that clarity.
You are Correct.


----------



## observer

On top of paying back pay, they'll owe Social Security, Unemployment, state taxes, federal taxes, workers compensation, disability, meal breaks not taken etc..

Mealbreaks alone is one hours pay per day worked for previous three years.


----------



## The Entomologist

I wonder if drivers deactivated for exercising their contractor rights (cherry picking) will also get a piece of their pie.

Oh man, if there is a God, now is the time to show his existence.


----------



## observer

Imagine if Didi, Ola and Taxify were to come in right now and start off with a clean slate.

Uber and Lyft already made all the mistakes.


----------



## The Entomologist

observer said:


> Imagine if Didi, Ola and Taxify were to come in right now and start off with a clean slate.
> 
> Uber and Lyft already made all the mistakes.


Not only mistakes, they abused the fact the government was turning an eye on them, most of us warned them a long time ago, I started seeing signs of this when news came to this website for info and lawyers/politicians started making posts/perusing through them, they thought they were untouchable but eventually, people who are obsessed with the law make companies like Uber a Lyft an example for everyone.


----------



## The Entomologist

I'm also wondering how car depreciation and value will be handled after this passes, since people will be employees and it's up to the mighty employers to run with costs.


----------



## BiggerDog

You should try an run Escalades and Mercedes 550s on Uber Math.

It will be interesting.


----------



## observer

The Entomologist said:


> I'm also wondering how car depreciation and value will be handled after this passes, since people will be employees and it's up to the mighty employers to run with costs.


Hard to tell. Uber would have to pay minimum wage plus costs.

This could mean Uber pays for ALL mileage while on app at the Federal reimbursement rate or somehow pay only true costs which is legal in California.

It would be too hard for Uber to track true costs for every employee and vehicle so I would think they would pay the Fed rate, then deduct that as an expense on their taxes.

This is how I got paid at a company where I used my vehicle to make deliveries full time. I recieved one payroll check and a separate check for mileage.


----------



## The Entomologist

observer said:


> Hard to tell. Uber would have to pay minimum wage plus costs.
> 
> This could mean Uber pays for ALL mileage while on app at the Federal reimbursement rate or somehow pay only true costs which is legal in California.
> 
> It would be too hard for Uber to track true costs for every employee and vehicle so I would think they would pay the Fed rate, then deduct that as an expense on their taxes.
> 
> This is how I got paid at a company where I used my vehicle to make deliveries full time. I recieved one payroll check and a separate check for mileage.


I see...

I can't imagine this would be cheaper to them in any way... a full revamp of the app with bids and the ability to see destinations would be waaayyyy cheaper but it could in fact destroy them due to the fact no more bus riders will use Uber or Lyft.

They better choose their poison wisely.


----------



## observer

The Entomologist said:


> I see...
> 
> I can't imagine this would be cheaper to them in any way... a full revamp of the app with bids and the ability to see destinations would be waaayyyy cheaper but it could in fact destroy them due to the fact no more bus riders will use Uber or Lyft.
> 
> They better choose their poison wisely.


If Uber is paying 60 cents a mile from Pax location to destination. They will drop that down to 55 cents per mile so drivers will lose 5 cents.

But.

Drivers will pick up 55 cents on all dead miles which should more than make up the 5 cent loss.

Hourly pay would be on top of mileage.


----------



## EM1

uberdriverfornow said:


> as i stated before unless you are in a position in the company to steal propietary info, no company is going to care if you work for a competitor, period


As stated before, no company is going to pay you an hourly rate while you work for another company, period. Common sense.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

EM1 said:


> As stated before, no company is going to pay you an hourly rate while you work for another company


that's common sense

which is why they'll find a way to ensure they don't

it'll all be figured out


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Rejected pings will start out with forced logouts and eventually lead to deactivation.

I treated my driver's like a cross between ICs and employees. When they became unwilling to be logged in a certain minimum shift id change their contract to a pure prepaid lease. AKA firing them (forcing them to resign


----------



## observer

https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...Subsidiary-Hires-Drivers-Employees-California


----------



## uberdriverfornow

observer said:


> https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...Subsidiary-Hires-Drivers-Employees-California


i dont know anything about deliv....anyone out there work for them and can give an opinion on them ?


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn

If it's applied retroactively...

Uber/lyft are done, an executor would be selected and all their assets would be sold and split among the drivers based on how many miles they drove and they would both just be done.

They would be so far in the hole that the hole would be deeper than all the money they ever collected in their entire history, (by my estimation)

Just think of all the drivers who lost money on their taxes in the last 3 years...

Well all of those drivers would not only get their pay bumped up to zero, but also get pay for all the hours they worked...

So if you had $20,000 in revenue with 21,000 in costs for a $-1000 hole...

(assuming $20,000 in 2333 hours)

SO +$1,000 on being short on expenses,
+16,914 (min wage for 2333 hours.)

With uber taking $8,000 on 28,000 in revenue


ON ONE DRIVER in my example uber Is $17,914 in the hole when they only collected $6,000 for themselves in the first place.


----------



## The Entomologist

Did they buy the right person yet?


----------



## AvisDeene

It would be nice for these companies to crash and burn and get replaced with something better. What would be better is if all drivers were able to stand together and just turn off the apps for a full week and make them lose money. I doubt that will ever happen.


----------



## IthurstwhenIP

AvisDeene said:


> It would be nice for these companies to crash and burn and get replaced with something better. What would be better is if all drivers were able to stand together and just turn off the apps for a full week and make them lose money. I doubt that will ever happen.


Wonder if any alternative will arise that thinks for a sec about the customer


----------



## observer

IthurstwhenIP said:


> Wonder if any alternative will arise that thinks for a sec about the customer


Ola just opened a research facility in Northern California, I'm sure Didi isn't too far behind.

Whoever starts now will be coming in with a clean slate with drivers, regulations and passengers.


----------



## 49matrix

Leoncio said:


> Attention Uber drivers, Uber just sent you an email to help them fight the Dinamex case rule which may give drivers the right to normal employees compensation, like minimum wage and vehicle cost assistance. Do not help them, Do not opt in, Uber and Lyft is fighting Sacramento, and they are using the excuse : look, drivers want to be free, independent not employees, this is a lie. Lets not play this game again!
> View attachment 328639


You may perceive it as a "lie" but I do not want to be an employee of Uber or Lyft. Being an independent contractor, to me, is more preferable. If Uber took on all of it's drivers the cost to them would be astronomical and guess who's going to be subsidizing those costs, the drivers. If you think your compensation is insufficient now becoming an employee will give you a whole new range of things to ***** about.


----------



## observer

I wonder if this,

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uber-upfront-destinations?utm_medium=applenews&utm_source=applenews
Has anything to do with Dynamex.


----------



## UberNorthDfw

Does anyone think if this is forced on UberLyft that they would just stop doing business in California, move their headquarters to somewhere like Dallas that's low-tax and carry on?


----------



## everythingsuber

UberNorthDfw said:


> Does anyone think if this is forced on UberLyft that they would just stop doing business in California, move their headquarters to somewhere like Dallas that's low-tax and carry on?


Not for one second.
Ubers share price would go though the floor.
Another company would move in before Uber switched the light off on the way out.
Uber has no choice but to play along and get used to it.


----------



## observer

everythingsuber said:


> Not for one second.
> Ubers share price would go though the floor.
> Another company would move in before Uber switched the light off on the way out.
> Uber has no choice but to play along and get used to it.


There are already competitors to Uber and others are setting up shop as we speak. Competitors with the same investors as Uber.

The difference is they won't have the huge debts to drivers. Uber likely owes millions and millions of dollars in back pay not only to current drivers but to past drivers that have quit driving.


----------



## kevin92009

Yard dog said:


> No thanks. Don't want no one telling what time to start and stop. What time breaks are. Where to drive. Etc. Etc. Etc. If it was forced on me, no less than $30. an hour, 8 hrs shifts, new car, gas expense. Paid vacations. Premium health insurance. Yearly raises. Unlimited overtime. And, oh yeah, food expense. Quarterly bonuses. Clothing expense. Housing expense. Just saying. ??


i'm for ab5 , they will have to reimburse us for mileage on top of wages and they won't be able to keep cutting rates because people will go else where , i use to say give uber and lyft a chance but they keep burning their bridges over and over .


----------



## uberdriverfornow

if they woulda pushed the lawsuit through instead of sitting on it, a lot of drivers would be against ab5


----------



## seandex

Hey good news!!

Uber/Lyft will pay you minimum wage! Plus the gas! And! The car insurance! (Only covers working hours).
They will assign you 8 hours a day.

The locally hired commander will call you and schedule your driving time, and interviews over the phone and grade your level between A+, A, B, C, D. 
If you have a speaking problem, you will be graded as E. E will lose your driving privilege right away.

Please note that you need to be careful to choose your 8-hour timeshift, it will be hard to change the schedule once you submit because of high demanding of job applications are currently pending.

We are currently not accepting part-time applications.

Please listen carefully and follow everything the commander says over the phone. Also if you are experiencing a hard time with the local commander, please contact us, one of our representative's will be counseling your problem, or you can also choose the city differently as we have the local commanders every town!

Beware that if you are late twice. You will be suspended and lose the privilege to re-apply. 
Please don't be late, and please think again and again how you lost your job in the past. 

Please enjoy our new Minimum wage + Gas 
if you would like to stay as you are please stfu and get that three dollars. 
We will be paying you the salary, and its the rule you must comply with the necessary regulations.

Thank you for reading!


----------



## everythingsuber

seandex said:


> Hey good news!!
> 
> Uber/Lyft will pay you minimum wage! Plus the gas! And! The car insurance! (Only covers working hours).
> They will assign you 8 hours a day.
> 
> The locally hired commander will call you and schedule your driving time, and interviews over the phone and grade your level between A+, A, B, C, D.
> If you have a speaking problem, you will be graded as E. E will lose your driving privilege right away.
> 
> Please note that you need to be careful to choose your 8-hour timeshift, it will be hard to change the schedule once you submit because of high demanding of job applications are currently pending.
> 
> We are currently not accepting part-time applications.
> 
> Please listen carefully and follow everything the commander says over the phone. Also if you are experiencing a hard time with the local commander, please contact us, one of our representative's will be counseling your problem, or you can also choose the city differently as we have the local commanders every town!
> 
> Beware that if you are late twice. You will be suspended and lose the privilege to re-apply.
> Please don't be late, and please think again and again how you lost your job in the past.
> 
> Please enjoy our new Minimum wage + Gas
> if you would like to stay as you are please stfu and get that three dollars.
> We will be paying you the salary, and its the rule you must comply with the necessary regulations.
> 
> Thank you for reading!


Travis you have too much spare time on your hands.


----------



## seandex

everythingsuber said:


> Travis you have too much spare time on your hands.


So I regret that already.


----------



## Abraxas79

Corporate Employee? Hardly. More like a serf that wants to be released from the Manor. Whoever heard of an "Independent Contractor" who has no control over the rates he charges, the job he does, or even who he does the job for?


----------



## Elephant

seandex said:


> Hey good news!!
> 
> Uber/Lyft will pay you minimum wage! Plus the gas! And! The car insurance! (Only covers working hours).
> They will assign you 8 hours a day.
> 
> The locally hired commander will call you and schedule your driving time, and interviews over the phone and grade your level between A+, A, B, C, D.
> If you have a speaking problem, you will be graded as E. E will lose your driving privilege right away.
> 
> Please note that you need to be careful to choose your 8-hour timeshift, it will be hard to change the schedule once you submit because of high demanding of job applications are currently pending.
> 
> We are currently not accepting part-time applications.
> 
> Please listen carefully and follow everything the commander says over the phone. Also if you are experiencing a hard time with the local commander, please contact us, one of our representative's will be counseling your problem, or you can also choose the city differently as we have the local commanders every town!
> 
> Beware that if you are late twice. You will be suspended and lose the privilege to re-apply.
> Please don't be late, and please think again and again how you lost your job in the past.
> 
> Please enjoy our new Minimum wage + Gas
> if you would like to stay as you are please stfu and get that three dollars.
> We will be paying you the salary, and its the rule you must comply with the necessary regulations.
> 
> Thank you for reading!


Employers are required by law to provide restrooms for their workers.
If we become Uber employee, can we use restroom in 1455 market st? 
If uber don't let us to use restroom can we file class action lawsuit?


----------



## The Entomologist

I don't understand, uber prefers to buy unions, politicians and pay lawyers than simply change the app to avoid AB5, that goes to show they would rather **** you than do something for you, even if it means their end, which it will.


----------



## observer

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.la...ontractors-20190705-story.html?outputType=amp


----------



## observer

everythingsuber said:


> Not for one second.
> Ubers share price would go though the floor.
> Another company would move in before Uber switched the light off on the way out.
> Uber has no choice but to play along and get used to it.


I just had a thought, what if Didi

https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/08/didi-us-research-lab/,

And/or Ola,

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/13/tech/ola-san-francisco-technology-center/index.html
Came out publicly soon and said they supported AB5?

They would immediately get the attention of every TNC driver in California and at the same time cost Uber and Lyft hundreds of millions of dollars.

And, come out the good guys in public opinion.


----------



## The Entomologist

observer said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.la...ontractors-20190705-story.html?outputType=amp


Lol, that guy has been visiting this site.


----------



## observer

http://archive.boston.com/yourcampu...ad_us_labor_departments_wage_and_hour_di.html
By Matt Rocheleau, Town Correspondent
President Obama has nominated Boston University professor and Harvard University researcher David Weil to lead the Wage and Hour Division of the US Department of Labor.

(David Weil)
David Weil
Weil was one of 29 nominations Obama announced to fill key administration positions. The nominations require US Senate confirmation.
â€œI am grateful that these talented and dedicated individuals have agreed to take on these important roles and devote their talents to serving the American people,â€ the President said in a statement. â€œI look forward to working with them in the coming months and years.â€
If confirmed, Weil would take a leave of absence from his BU faculty position, said university spokesman Richard Taffe.
As administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Weil would oversee employees across the country who are charged with enforcing labor-standard and worker-protection laws, including minimum wage, overtime pay and child labor protection laws.
The position has been vacant during Obamaâ€™s entire presidency. He has nominated two others since taking the Oval Office. In 2009, the first nominee withdrew herself from contention amid opposition from Republicans. In 2011, Obama withdrew his second pick for the job, also due to Republican opposition.
During the vacancy, the duties of administrator have been covered by the divisionâ€™s deputy administrator.
Weil, an expert in labor market policy and industrial and labor relations policy, has advised the Wage and Hour Division as well as other government agencies and workplace agencies in other countries.
A management school professor of markets, public policy, and law and an Everett W. Lord Distinguished Faculty Scholar, he has taught at BU since 1992 and has won several distinguished awards for teaching and research, according to the university.
Since 2002, he has researched for and co-directed the Transparency Policy Project at Harvard Universityâ€™s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He has also been a research fellow at Harvard Law Schoolâ€™s Labor and Worklife Program since 1987, BU officials said.
The author of five books, Weil earned a bachelorâ€™s degree in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University; a masterâ€™s in public policy from Harvardâ€™s John F. Kennedy School, and a doctorate in public policy from Harvardâ€™s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.
_Matt Rocheleau can be reached at [email protected]. Looking for more coverage of area colleges and universities? Go to our Your Campus page_


----------



## Netwerkjim

Fozzie said:


> Spoken like a true ant, willing to sell their soul for an easy paycheck.
> 
> There is no free ride and if you become an employee you give up your autonomy.
> 
> Go ahead and find a W2 job somewhere, then tell your boss that you will only work from, say, 8 pm to 4 pm , Monday - Fridays, that you want to get paid up to 5 times a day, and that you want to work for their main competitor during business hours.
> 
> I know exactly what they'd tell you.
> 
> View attachment 328656


Some people just don't use their brains. Just because Uber or Lyft was forced to make their Driver's employee's doesn't mean you won't be able to work when you want. 
There is no rule or law that says if you're an employee, you have to now start working shifts, that's nonsense.
It's also a scare tactic being used by Uber and Lyft to try and get you to help them continue to exploit you so that you will continue to pay their largest cost of running their corporation, the operations cost. Paying for the 46 cents per mile plus insurance and Cellphone cost cleaning cost, all in all about 30% and the largest cost for them to do visit, which they have been scamming you into paying for them, while at the same time telling you how to do your job, keeping unfair and uncontrollable by you really, rating system. And changing how much you are paid without your negotiations or agreement other than take it or leave it, knowing that most of you have thousands invested in your car, and just can't quit if you don't like how much you are paid, something they know and are counting on.

Make no mistake about it, Uber and Lyft don't give a Rat Ass about you. 
They setup their business to exploit you and BS the Government for as long as they can, hoping to get their Driverless cars on the road ASAP, which the second they get these cars, your all fired! 
You will become a one of the millions that will lose their jobs to AI.
With the majority never having a job the rest of your life's.
As the number of humans get replaced by AI Robots, the only thing you will be able to hope For, is that the Government had not yet become a totally Fascist, Oligarchy, and they pay you enough each month to eat and have a roof over your head and but nothing more and no American dream, it's been replaced with the American nightmare!
So just remember, it's real simple, repeat after me, Uber and Lyft are not your friend. Uber and Lyft are in business to exploit you and make as much money off of your backs and Basing you into paying for their operating expenses.
When Uber or Lyft tells you that the boogie man it going to hurt you if you don't do as they say or vote as they tell you to vote, it really means, someone is trying to help you and make them stop exploiting you and whatever they want you to do, you do the opposite.
Because they will never, never ever, ever have your backs.
They are your enemy and as long as you know this, you can be better prepared when one day without warning or explaination you go to put your App off of Stand by, ready to accept another rider, and after an hour without any calls you thinks something is up. Then 2 days later after emails and calls to Driver support being told they don't know what's wrong with your App? Then finally when they are sick of the 30 emails and calls, 2 days later, you will get an email from them simply stating your services are no longer needed and to refer to the Terms of Service if you need and explaination. And without even the guts to tell you why, suddenly you no longer have a job and all the money you spent on the damn Prius can't be recouped because now you have 120,000 miles on a car that's 2 years old and is worth only 25 % of what it normally would be worth if it was only 2 years old.
And of course nobody in their right mind is going to buy a 2 year old car with 120k miles on it.

So my final piece of advice is to keep track of any and all miles you drive from the first ride of the day until you drop off the last ride of the day. And remember to track your mile even when you have the Drivers App off or on stand by, which is more miles than the miles driven only when a riders I'd in your car. Make sure you track all of your expenses, car washing, phone. You name it.
Then Everytime you sit for an hour or more at the Airport stand by lot waiting to be called to pick up and your rider goes 3 miles to their Hotel near the Airport and you make $3.85 for that hour you waited and drove and all of the hours on weekends when you drove from 4pm until 3am then went 20 miles away from the Airport hoping to get calls staring about 4am to take a rider to the Airport. But didn't get any calls. Those days when you worked 12-15 hours in 24 hours and didn't make at least overtime pay, or after 12 hours double time pay. 
If you do all this keeping as accurate of records as you can, when the day come by surprise and you are deactivated. You will be able to first file for Unemployment benefits by claiming missclassification then filing a claim with the Labor Commission for Wage theft and expenses from missclassification, and in less than a year get your severance pay from them. In my case with penalties added by the Labor Commissioner and interest over $60k Lyft will be paying me very soon.
This is the only way you will ever get back what they are stealing from you.
Be Safe out there and Don't worry about being an employee.


----------



## peteyvavs

First off this bill is not about making drivers employees, this bill is designed to protect IC from the irrational abuses by Uber and lyft. It insures that drivers are adequately compensated for their time and use of their vehicles.
There are so many rumors going around about AB 5 by shills to get drivers to reject this bill. This bill protects drivers from unjustified deactivations, lack of choice seeing how far the pax’s destination and unilateral changes of compensation without recourse by the drivers.


----------



## Fozzie

peteyvavs said:


> First off this bill is not about making drivers employees, this bill is designed to protect IC from the irrational abuses by Uber and lyft. It insures that drivers are adequately compensated for their time and use of their vehicles.
> There are so many rumors going around about AB 5 by shills to get drivers to reject this bill. This bill protects drivers from unjustified deactivations, lack of choice seeing how far the pax's destination and unilateral changes of compensation without recourse by the drivers.


"a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an* employee *unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied..."


----------



## peteyvavs

Fozzie said:


> "a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an* employee *unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied..."


Not necessarily, I was an IC for courier companies and had a guaranteed rate, was able to negotiate better rates and had my own hours, so yes you can be protected from abuses such as deactivation without recourse and unilateral price reductions. I know of people in the medical field who are IC and still enjoy benefits.
You to have to be an employee to be treated fairly and have options for recourse when abused.


----------



## Fozzie

peteyvavs said:


> Not necessarily, I was an IC for courier companies and had a guaranteed rate, was able to negotiate better rates and had my own hours, so yes you can be protected from abuses such as deactivation without recourse and unilateral price reductions. I know of people in the medical field who are IC and still enjoy benefits.
> You to have to be an employee to be treated fairly and have options for recourse when abused.


*That was a direct quote from the AB5 bill.* (I tried to post the entire revised copy of the bill, but UP.Net limits us to 20k characters)

*THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:*

*SECTION 1.*
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903.

(b) In its decision, the Court cited the harm to misclassified workers who lose significant workplace protections, the unfairness to employers who must compete with companies that misclassify, and the loss to the state of needed revenue from companies that use misclassification to avoid obligations such as payment of payroll taxes, payment of premiums for workers' compensation, Social Security, unemployment, and disability insurance.

(c) The misclassification of workers as independent contractors has been a significant factor in the erosion of the middle class and the rise in income inequality.

(d) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to include provisions that would codify the decision of the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, and would clarify the decision's application in state law.

*SEC. 2.*
_Section 7500.2 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:_

*7500.2.*
(a) A repossession agency means and includes any person who, for any consideration whatsoever, engages in business or accepts employment to locate or recover collateral, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, including, but not limited to, collateral registered under the provisions of the Vehicle Code which is subject to a security agreement, except for any person registered pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 7506).

(b) A repossession agency licensed pursuant to this chapter shall only transact business with another person or entity as an independent contractor._ To ensure that this requirement is met, both of the following shall be satisfied:

(1) The repossession agency shall be free from the control and direction of the hiring person or entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.

(2) The work that the repossession agency performs shall be outside the usual course of the hiring person or entity's business._

(c) A repossession agency shall not allow a person or entity other than the qualified certificate holder, as provided in Section 7505.1, or the owner or officer of the repossession agency, to manage the day-to-day operations, operate, control, or transact business covered by this act, except as provided in Section 7503.3.

*SEC. 2.SEC. 3.*
Section 2750.3 is added to the Labor Code, to read:

*2750.3.*
(a) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, where another definition or specification for the term "employee" is not provided, _Except where a statutory exemption from employment status or an exemption from a particular obligation related to employment applies or where a statutory grant of employment status or a particular right related to employment applies, for purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, _and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.

(2) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business.

(3) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

(b) This section and the holding in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903,_ 903 (Dynamex),_ do not apply to the following occupations as defined below, and instead, for these occupations only, the employment relationship shall be governed by the test adopted by the California Supreme Court in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341_ (S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc.),_ or Business and Professions Code Section 10032(b)_ Section 7500.2 of, or subdivision (b) of Section 10032 of, the Business and Professions Code,_ as set forth in paragraph_ paragraphs_ (5)_ and (7)_ below.

(1) A person or organization who is licensed by the Department of Insurance pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1621), Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1760), or Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 1831) of Part 2 of Division 1 of the Insurance Code.

(2) A physician and surgeon licensed by the State of California pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) of the Business and Professions Code, performing professional or medical services provided to or by a health care entity, including an entity organized as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or professional corporation as defined in Section 13401 of the Corporations Code.

(3) A securities broker-dealer or investment adviser or their agents and representatives that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or licensed by the State of California under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 25210) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 25230) of Division 1 of Part 3 of Title 4 of the Corporations Code.

(4) A direct sales salesperson as described in Section 650 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, so long as the conditions for exclusion from employment under that section are met.

(5) A real estate licensee licensed by the State of California pursuant to Division 4 (commencing with Section 10000) of the Business and Professions Code shall have their relationship governed by Business and Professions Code Section 10032(b)._ subdivision (b) of Section 10032 of the Business and Professions Code._ If that section is not applicable_ applicable,_ then classification shall be governed as follows: (1) for purposes of unemployment insurance byUnemployment Insurance Code Section 650;_ Section 650 of the Unemployment Insurance Code;_ (2) for purposes of workers compensation by Section 3200 and following_ following; and_ (3) for all other purposes in the Labor Code by the test adopted by the California Supreme Court in the case of S.G._ S. G._ Borello and Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. The statutorily imposed duties of a responsible broker under Business and Professions Code Section 10015.1_ of the Business and Professions Code_ are not factors under the Borello test.

(6) (A)A worker providing hairstyling or barbering services who has a booth rental permit and_ services, an electrologist, an esthetician, or worker providing natural hair braiding, who_ is free from direction or control both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact. For purposes of this subparagraph, "free from direction or control" includes, but is not limited to, the worker meets all of the following criteria:

(i)

_(A)_ Sets their own rates for services performed._ performed, provided the rate is equal to or greater than two times the minimum wages for hours worked and is paid directly by their clients._

(ii)

_(B)_ Sets their own hours of work._ work and has sole discretion to decide which clients from who they will provide services._

(iii)

_(C)_ Has their own book of business or clients._ and schedules their own appointments.

(D) Uses their own funds to purchase requisite supplies used in connection with providing services.

(E) Maintains their own business license in connection with the services offered to clients._

(B)The State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology shall promulgate regulations no later than July 1, 2021, for the development of a booth renter permit and a reasonable biennial fee not to exceed fifty dollars ($50), which may be included as an addendum to the initial and biennial license renewal application. Booth renters shall post a notice of their booth renter permit for consumers to view. The board shall share the list and contact information of all booth renters with any state agency that requests the list, for purposes of assuring compliance with this section.

(C)The permit requirement set forth in subparagraph (B) shall not become operative until six months after the State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology finalizes regulations as required under this section in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). Until that date, the employment relationship between a hiring entity and a worker who meets all the criteria in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), except for the permit requirement of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, shall be governed by the test adopted by the California Supreme Court in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341.

(D)For the purposes of this paragraph:

(i)"Hairstyling" is any combination of the following practices:

(I)Arranging, dressing, curling, waving, machineless permanent waving, permanent waving, cleansing, cutting, shampooing, relaxing, singeing, bleaching, tinting, coloring, straightening, dyeing, applying hair tonics to, beautifying, or otherwise treating by any means, the hair of any person.

(II)The provision of natural hair braiding services together with any of the services and procedures described in subclause (I).

(ii)"Barbering shall have the same meaning as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 7316 of the Business and Profession Code.

_(7) A repossession agency licensed pursuant to Section 7500.2 of the Business and Professions Code.

(8) The relationship between a business entity and an individual performing work pursuant to contract with another business entity to provide services to the contracting business, if the contracting business entity demonstrates that all the following criteria are satisfied:

(A) The service provider is free from the control and direction of the contracting business entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.

(B) The service provider is providing services to the contracting business rather than to customers of the contracting business.

(C) The contract with the service provider is in writing.

(D) If the work is performed in a jurisdiction that requires the service provider to have a business license or business tax registration, the service provider has the required business license or business tax registration.

(E) The service provider maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contracting business.

(F) The service provider is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

(G) The service provider actually contracts with other businesses to provide the same or similar services and maintains a clientele without restrictions from the hiring entity._


----------



## observer

Fozzie said:


> *That was a direct quote from the AB5 bill.* (I tried to post the entire revised copy of the bill, but UP.Net limits us to 20k characters)
> 
> *THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:*
> 
> *SECTION 1.*
> The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
> 
> (a) On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903.
> 
> (b) In its decision, the Court cited the harm to misclassified workers who lose significant workplace protections, the unfairness to employers who must compete with companies that misclassify, and the loss to the state of needed revenue from companies that use misclassification to avoid obligations such as payment of payroll taxes, payment of premiums for workers' compensation, Social Security, unemployment, and disability insurance.
> 
> (c) The misclassification of workers as independent contractors has been a significant factor in the erosion of the middle class and the rise in income inequality.
> 
> (d) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to include provisions that would codify the decision of the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, and would clarify the decision's application in state law.
> 
> *SEC. 2.*
> _Section 7500.2 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:_
> 
> *7500.2.*
> (a) A repossession agency means and includes any person who, for any consideration whatsoever, engages in business or accepts employment to locate or recover collateral, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, including, but not limited to, collateral registered under the provisions of the Vehicle Code which is subject to a security agreement, except for any person registered pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 7506).
> 
> (b) A repossession agency licensed pursuant to this chapter shall only transact business with another person or entity as an independent contractor._ To ensure that this requirement is met, both of the following shall be satisfied:
> 
> (1) The repossession agency shall be free from the control and direction of the hiring person or entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
> 
> (2) The work that the repossession agency performs shall be outside the usual course of the hiring person or entity's business._
> 
> (c) A repossession agency shall not allow a person or entity other than the qualified certificate holder, as provided in Section 7505.1, or the owner or officer of the repossession agency, to manage the day-to-day operations, operate, control, or transact business covered by this act, except as provided in Section 7503.3.
> 
> *SEC. 2.SEC. 3.*
> Section 2750.3 is added to the Labor Code, to read:
> 
> *2750.3.*
> (a) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, where another definition or specification for the term "employee" is not provided, _Except where a statutory exemption from employment status or an exemption from a particular obligation related to employment applies or where a statutory grant of employment status or a particular right related to employment applies, for purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, _and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied:
> 
> (1) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
> 
> (2) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business.
> 
> (3) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
> 
> (b) This section and the holding in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903,_ 903 (Dynamex),_ do not apply to the following occupations as defined below, and instead, for these occupations only, the employment relationship shall be governed by the test adopted by the California Supreme Court in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341_ (S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc.),_ or Business and Professions Code Section 10032(b)_ Section 7500.2 of, or subdivision (b) of Section 10032 of, the Business and Professions Code,_ as set forth in paragraph_ paragraphs_ (5)_ and (7)_ below.
> 
> (1) A person or organization who is licensed by the Department of Insurance pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1621), Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1760), or Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 1831) of Part 2 of Division 1 of the Insurance Code.
> 
> (2) A physician and surgeon licensed by the State of California pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) of the Business and Professions Code, performing professional or medical services provided to or by a health care entity, including an entity organized as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or professional corporation as defined in Section 13401 of the Corporations Code.
> 
> (3) A securities broker-dealer or investment adviser or their agents and representatives that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or licensed by the State of California under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 25210) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 25230) of Division 1 of Part 3 of Title 4 of the Corporations Code.
> 
> (4) A direct sales salesperson as described in Section 650 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, so long as the conditions for exclusion from employment under that section are met.
> 
> (5) A real estate licensee licensed by the State of California pursuant to Division 4 (commencing with Section 10000) of the Business and Professions Code shall have their relationship governed by Business and Professions Code Section 10032(b)._ subdivision (b) of Section 10032 of the Business and Professions Code._ If that section is not applicable_ applicable,_ then classification shall be governed as follows: (1) for purposes of unemployment insurance byUnemployment Insurance Code Section 650;_ Section 650 of the Unemployment Insurance Code;_ (2) for purposes of workers compensation by Section 3200 and following_ following; and_ (3) for all other purposes in the Labor Code by the test adopted by the California Supreme Court in the case of S.G._ S. G._ Borello and Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. The statutorily imposed duties of a responsible broker under Business and Professions Code Section 10015.1_ of the Business and Professions Code_ are not factors under the Borello test.
> 
> (6) (A)A worker providing hairstyling or barbering services who has a booth rental permit and_ services, an electrologist, an esthetician, or worker providing natural hair braiding, who_ is free from direction or control both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact. For purposes of this subparagraph, "free from direction or control" includes, but is not limited to, the worker meets all of the following criteria:
> 
> (i)
> 
> _(A)_ Sets their own rates for services performed._ performed, provided the rate is equal to or greater than two times the minimum wages for hours worked and is paid directly by their clients._
> 
> (ii)
> 
> _(B)_ Sets their own hours of work._ work and has sole discretion to decide which clients from who they will provide services._
> 
> (iii)
> 
> _(C)_ Has their own book of business or clients._ and schedules their own appointments.
> 
> (D) Uses their own funds to purchase requisite supplies used in connection with providing services.
> 
> (E) Maintains their own business license in connection with the services offered to clients._
> 
> (B)The State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology shall promulgate regulations no later than July 1, 2021, for the development of a booth renter permit and a reasonable biennial fee not to exceed fifty dollars ($50), which may be included as an addendum to the initial and biennial license renewal application. Booth renters shall post a notice of their booth renter permit for consumers to view. The board shall share the list and contact information of all booth renters with any state agency that requests the list, for purposes of assuring compliance with this section.
> 
> (C)The permit requirement set forth in subparagraph (B) shall not become operative until six months after the State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology finalizes regulations as required under this section in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). Until that date, the employment relationship between a hiring entity and a worker who meets all the criteria in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), except for the permit requirement of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, shall be governed by the test adopted by the California Supreme Court in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341.
> 
> (D)For the purposes of this paragraph:
> 
> (i)"Hairstyling" is any combination of the following practices:
> 
> (I)Arranging, dressing, curling, waving, machineless permanent waving, permanent waving, cleansing, cutting, shampooing, relaxing, singeing, bleaching, tinting, coloring, straightening, dyeing, applying hair tonics to, beautifying, or otherwise treating by any means, the hair of any person.
> 
> (II)The provision of natural hair braiding services together with any of the services and procedures described in subclause (I).
> 
> (ii)"Barbering shall have the same meaning as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 7316 of the Business and Profession Code.
> 
> _(7) A repossession agency licensed pursuant to Section 7500.2 of the Business and Professions Code.
> 
> (8) The relationship between a business entity and an individual performing work pursuant to contract with another business entity to provide services to the contracting business, if the contracting business entity demonstrates that all the following criteria are satisfied:
> 
> (A) The service provider is free from the control and direction of the contracting business entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
> 
> (B) The service provider is providing services to the contracting business rather than to customers of the contracting business.
> 
> (C) The contract with the service provider is in writing.
> 
> (D) If the work is performed in a jurisdiction that requires the service provider to have a business license or business tax registration, the service provider has the required business license or business tax registration.
> 
> (E) The service provider maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contracting business.
> 
> (F) The service provider is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
> 
> (G) The service provider actually contracts with other businesses to provide the same or similar services and maintains a clientele without restrictions from the hiring entity._


I tried finding your previous post in AB5 but couldn't find it in versions I found.


----------



## Fozzie

_(H) The service provider advertises and holds itself out to the public as available to provide the same or similar services.

(I) The service provider has no other financial relationships with the contracting business.

(J) The service provider can negotiate its own rates, provided that the rate is equal to or greater than two times the minimum wage for hours worked.

(K) The service provider can set its own hours and location of work.

(L) The service provider is not performing the type of work for which a license from the Contractor's State License Board is required, pursuant to Section 7000 and following of the Business and Professions Code._

(c) (1) This section and the holding in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, do not apply to a contract for professional service and instead the employment relationship shall be governed by the test adopted by the California Supreme Court in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341,_ Inc.,_ if the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following factors are satisfied:

(A) The individual maintains a business location, which may include the individual's residence, that is separate from the hiring entity.

(B) If work is performed more than six months after the effective date of this section, the individual has a business license, in addition to any required professional licenses or permits for the individual to practice in their profession.

(C) The individual has the ability to use their own employees in the completion of the work, where reasonable, and has the authority to hire and fire other persons who assist in providing the services. Nothing in this section requires an individual to hire an employee.

(D) The individual has the ability to engage in other contracts for services than with the hiring entity.

(E) Both the individual and the hiring entity have the ability to negotiate compensation for the services performed.

(F) Outside of project completion dates and reasonable business hours, the individual has the ability to set their own hours.

(G) For services that do not reasonably have to be performed at a specific location, the individual can determine where to perform the services under the contract.

(H) The individual is customarily engaged in the same type of work performed under the contract with another hiring entity or holds themselves out to other potential customers as available to perform the same type of work.

(I) The individual customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment in the performance of the services.

(2) For purposes of this subdivision:

(A) An "individual" includes an individual providing services through a sole proprietorship or other business entity.

(B) (i) "Professional services" means services that either:_ meet any of the following:_

(I) Require an active license from the State of California and involve the practice of one of the following recognized professions: law, dentistry, architecture, engineering,_ podiatrists, veterinarian, private investigation,_ or accounting.

(II) Require possession of an advanced degree that customarily involves a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study in the field of marketing or the administration of human resources from an accredited university, college, or professional school, as distinguished from a general academic education.

_(III) Work that is performed by a freelance writer who does not provide content to any one publication more than 25 times per year, if that person actually sets all of the following:

(ia) Hours.

(ib) Locations.

(ic) Rate of pay for work provided, except that rate shall be equal to or greater than two times the minimum wage for hours worked.

(IV) Fine artists, professional grant writers, and graphic designers if that person actually sets the hours, locations, and rates of pay for work provided._

(ii) "Professional services" does not include professionals engaged in the fields of health care and medicine.

_(d) This section and the holding in Dynamex do not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontract in the construction industry, and instead the employment relationship shall be governed by the test adopted by the California Supreme Court in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc., if the contractor demonstrates that all the following criteria are satisfied:

(1) The individual is free from the control and direction of the contractor in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.

(2) The subcontract is in writing.

(3) The subcontractor is licensed by the Contractors State License Board and the work is within the scope of that license.

(4) If the work is performed in a jurisdiction that requires the subcontractor to have a business license or business tax registration, the subcontractor has the required business license or business tax registration.

(5) The subcontractor maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contractor.

(6) The subcontractor has the authority to hire and to fire other persons to provide or to assist in providing the services.

(7) The subcontractor assumes financial responsibility for errors or omissions in labor or services as evidenced by insurance, performance bonds, or warranties relating to the labor or services being provided.

(8) The subcontractor is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed._

(d)

_(e)_ The addition of this section to the Labor Code by this act does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law with regard to violations of the Labor Code relating to wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission.

*SEC. 4.*
_Section 3351 of the Labor Code is amended to read:_

*3351.*
"Employee" means every person in the service of an employer under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, and includes:

(a) Aliens and minors.

(b) All elected and appointed paid public officers.

(c) All officers and members of boards of directors of quasi-public or private corporations while rendering actual service for the corporations for pay. An officer or member of a board of directors may elect to be excluded from coverage in accordance with paragraph (16), (18), or (19) of subdivision (a) of Section 3352.

(d) Except as provided in paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 3352, any person employed by the owner or occupant of a residential dwelling whose duties are incidental to the ownership, maintenance, or use of the dwelling, including the care and supervision of children, or whose duties are personal and not in the course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of the owner or occupant.

(e) All persons incarcerated in a state penal or correctional institution while engaged in assigned work or employment as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 10021 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, or engaged in work performed under contract.

(f) All working members of a partnership or limited liability company receiving wages irrespective of profits from the partnership or limited liability company. A general partner of a partnership or a managing member of a limited liability company may elect to be excluded from coverage in accordance with paragraph (17) of subdivision (a) of Section 3352.

(g) A person who holds the power to revoke a trust, with respect to shares of a private corporation held in trust or general partnership or limited liability company interests held in trust. To the extent that this person is deemed to be an employee described in subdivision (c) or (f), as applicable, the person may also elect to be excluded from coverage as described in subdivision (c) or (f), as applicable, if that person otherwise meets the criteria for exclusion, as described in Section 3352.

(h)This section shall become operative on July 1, 2018.

_(h) It is the intent of the Legislature to amend the law to address workers' compensation and the holding in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903._

*SEC. 5.*
_Section 621.5 of the Unemployment Insurance Code is amended to read:_

*621.5.*
(a) "Employee" also means any individual who is an employee, pursuant to Section 2750.5 of the Labor Code, of a person who holds a valid state contractor's license pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.

(b) When subdivision (a) does not apply, "employee" shall also mean_ means_ any individual who is an employee, pursuant to Section 2750.5 of the Labor Code, of a person who is required to obtain a valid state contractor's license pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.

_(c) "Employee" also means any individual who is an employee pursuant to Section 2750.3 of the Labor Code._

*SEC. 3.SEC. 6.*
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.


----------



## observer

Basically what that statement is saying is that unless a worker meets one of the following exemptions that are listed, workers are employees and it is up to employers to prove otherwise.

That's why Uber and Lyft want drivers to be included in the bill.


----------



## jeanocelot

uberdriverfornow said:


> better pay, benefits etc etc
> 
> but in the end Uber will likely do everything in their power to not allow us to be employees so instead of us being employees we will get a bunch more stuff and stay IE's


If Uber were acting as a rational organization, it being forced to treat its "vendors" as employees would simply adjust the pay scale so that there would be the same net compensation. However, Uber is not a rational organization as its business model - as currently configured - does not work, but is only tolerated until driverless cars come about, at which time its business model will work. Thus, treating its "vendors" as employees would help its employees since the minimum level of compensation that would need to be offered would work out to be a better deal than for most "vendors", with Uber simply taking even more losses. Of course, it would be great while it lasts, but it could also cause the whole house of cards crashing down.

Something else to think about it is if Uber has to treat its drivers as employees, there will be a lot more chickensh!t rules to deal with, and as well probably a demand that its employees pledge to hustle on some type of schedule. And you can bet your sweet bippy that there will be quotas of business to reach, with termination being being the result of anyone not making quota. It will be like an Amazon warehouse on wheels.



everythingsuber said:


> There's bullshit and theres bullshit. No employer is going to put an employee at risk or danger so I think we can put a line though having to pick up any passenger assigned. Why push that kind of propaganda?
> 
> Now if you cancel on someone there's generally a good reason for it? Do you think Uber is going to fire you and end up being sued?


Uber will keep a meticulous record of each employee's performance, and anyone whose performance drops below whatever the stated level is will be fired without cause for not meeting the requirements.


----------



## charmer37

nouberipo said:


> Why? Because the rampant disregard for drivers welfare whether it is safety, security, or monetary, Uber hates drivers and consistently shows it through their actions. They have proven time and time again they cannot regulate themselves so the only way to stop the continuous extortion of drivers is for government to step in. Any driver who is crazy enough to sign the petition needs to go back to grade school to learn how to do math....most drivers make below minimum wage according to empirical data so are you going to support the very company who will lower it even more as they stated they will do in their ipo prospectus?


Some markets pay better than others but Uber and Lyft will never do the right thing for drivers, From the 2 years i was a driver U/L steadily decreased wages and add crappy new services drivers never wanted.


----------



## tohunt4me

Leoncio said:


> Thats also part of the benefits, they are going to have to cut in the flooding of drivers, if they deactivate you, they'll have to pay unemployment, disability if you get injured while driving, also please note the wages in NY is about 27 an hour. As a seasoned driver with over 24000 rides with Uber and Lift under my belt, I think this is our best chance to finally get some benefits. If you are a driver you should know what I am talking about.


Or only allow 30 hours of driving a week . . .

You dont pay " Unemployment" to part time workers.


----------



## observer

tohunt4me said:


> Or only allow 30 hours of driving a week . . .
> 
> You dont pay " Unemployment" to part time workers.


Not necessarily true in CA. Your Unemployment benefits would be reduced from the maximum but you would get something.

Also if your hours are reduced from working full time you can apply for partial unemployment while still working.


----------

