# Calif. Public Utilities Comm. Determines TNC drivers should be classified as employees.



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

CPUC Scoping Memo and Ruling issued 6/9/2020:3:09PM
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M339/K545/339545137.PDF18 Pages

From page #5:
*"Thus, for now, TNC drivers are presumed to be employees and the Commission must ensure that TNCs comply with those requirements that are applicable to the employees of an entity subject to the Commission's jurisdiction"*


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

Uber and Lyft will have to pay State and Fed Unemployment tax .


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

With high turnover, that tax rate may set a new state record.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

It's about time.


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

KevinH said:


> With high turnover, that tax rate may set a new state record.


It will mean less drivers and drivers in the system will have more inconveniences&#129299;


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

nothing stated by the CPUC will have any effect on the various court cases; AB5 is not being implemented anytime soon or any meaniful way. Until said court cases are exhausted and U/L etc mail out W4's to fill out.....


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> nothing stated by the CPUC will have any effect on the various court cases; AB5 is not being implemented anytime soon or any meaniful way. Until said court cases are exhausted and U/L etc mail out W4's to fill out.....


The PUC should pull Uber/Lyfts operating permits if they don't comply. Just like they would do with any other transportation business they regulate.

No need to wait for another court case. Pull it.


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

https://gusto.com/blog/hiring/cost-hire-employee-california


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> The PUC should pull Uber/Lyfts operating permits if they don't comply.


and that too would be locked up in court as U/L etc would not just sit by and allow that. Most likely, why not done yet. Plus come November if the initiative passes, all this won't age well.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> and that too would be locked up in court as U/L etc would not just sit by and allow that. Most likely, why not done yet. Plus come November if the initiative passes, all this won't age well.


Why don't we all just start ignoring laws we don't like?

It's also not up to Uber/Lyft to allow anything.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Why don't we all just start ignoring laws we don't like?


......is it really like that when an injunction is filed and the judge agrees? It's our system of justice, no?

I have no worries. The initiative is going to pass in a landslide and AB5 for RS, will go down in flames as it should.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> ......is it really like that when an injunction is filed and the judge agrees? It's our system of justice, no?
> 
> I have no worries. The initiative is going to pass in a landslide and AB5 for RS, will go down in flames as it should.


We"ll see. I think Uber/Lyft have many surprises coming to them.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

observer said:


> The PUC should pull Uber/Lyfts operating permits if they don't comply. Just like they would do with any other transportation business they regulate.
> 
> No need to wait for another court case. Pull it.


Agreed, of course that process will involve appeals from the TNCs but will move faster than regular courts. On the other hand, if the lawsuit from the State and City Attorneys gets the injunction approved, which should be in the next 30-60 days then it all may come together at the same time. It would seem that the State lawsuit would get a boost before a judge in regards to the injunction because it echoes the CPUC ruling.



SHalester said:


> ......is it really like that when an injunction is filed and the judge agrees? It's our system of justice, no?
> 
> I have no worries. The initiative is going to pass in a landslide and AB5 for RS, will go down in flames as it should.


Are there any poll results about the popularity of the initiative?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

KevinH said:


> Agreed, of course that process will involve appeals from the TNCs but will move faster than regular courts. On the other hand, if the lawsuit from the State and City Attorneys gets the injunction approved, which should be in the next 30-60 days then it all may come together at the same time. It would seem that the State lawsuit would get a boost before a judge in regards to the injunction because it echoes the CPUC ruling.
> 
> 
> Are there any poll results about the popularity of the initiative?


Uber/Lyft have already been allowed to drag their feet far too long.


----------



## Mash Ghasem (Jan 12, 2020)

#IndependentContractorLivesMatter


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

KevinH said:


> Are there any poll results about the popularity of the initiative?


For somebody that supposedly believes that the initiative will pass effortlessly in a landslide, she sure puts a lot of time and effort into promoting it. I liken it to when Uber tells me that I am in a busy area. If I was in a busy area, there would be no need to tell me that I was in a busy area..........because I would be busy.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

California drivers will be very sorry this is happening.
You're giving away your freedoms and assigning them to the new union - the government.
You think you were ants before?
Just wait ... The State of California is your new employer.
Welcome to the machine.


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

Mash Ghasem said:


> #IndependentContractorLivesMatter


BillionairesLivesMatter will get more traction &#128516;


----------



## Mash Ghasem (Jan 12, 2020)

UberBastid said:


> California drivers will be very sorry this is happening.
> You're giving away your freedoms and assigning them to the new union - the government.
> You think you were ants before?
> Just wait ... The State of California is your new employer.
> Welcome to the machine.


I for one never wanted this. It should be a choice.


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

californians are so dumb theyll vote for ab5 in nov........uber will just leave CA if they give in every state will want their cut


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

SHalester said:


> nothing stated by the CPUC will have any effect on the various court cases; AB5 is not being implemented anytime soon or any meaniful way. Until said court cases are exhausted and U/L etc mail out W4's to fill out.....


 m
Name 1 case they didn't settle out if court ? Fighting states is allot different than fighting a lawyer representing drivers. So far they have lost every hearing. State already said even if their initiative passed it will be challenged. It's inevitable the govt wants the $ they will get it.


----------



## Jst1dreamr (Apr 25, 2019)

dnlbaboof said:


> californians are so dumb theyll vote for ab5 in nov........uber will just leave CA if they give in every state will want their cut


No way Uber/Lyft will leave California, we have the laziest most entitled people in the world living here. Uber/Lyft will calculate the dollars and cents and increase the rates they charge the pax and steal more from the drivers to ease their pain. They know that more money is raked in California than most or maybe any other market. It would make you sick to see how much money is wasted on transportation in California.
I don't care how you look at it but employee or not unionizing is not the answer. I do speak from over 30 years experience in two different unions. Unions only really care about taking a slice of your income.
I don't want to be an Uber employee and I have had my fill of paying unions too so I will just wait to play it as it falls.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Mash Ghasem said:


> I for one never wanted this. It should be a choice.


There is no freedom of choice in California.
Conformity is mandatory, and resistence is futile.


----------



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

if PUC pulls uber's permits they will just continue to operate, that's not hard to guess. It's what uber has done.

The only effect this will have is if uber fails to win their voter thing this fall to get uber exempted from AB5.

However i DO see how they can lose.

If the people fighting against it make a huge deal out of the uber drivers getting unemployment after not paying into it they could spin it in a way that uber can't win. A good PR guy could spin this to show that uber doesn't want to pay the employee tax or pay min wage ect ect ect. The unemployment contributions alone could generate a lot of ill will against uber.

If AB5 IS applied to uber (something i will admit is a huge IF) then the uber is going to have to increase customer cost to cover their increased expenses per hour/minute that their drivers are operating.

However IF uber drivers are held to employee status in California you guys need to know that min wage isn't min wage.

By federal law min wage is min wage *after deductions*. People have successfully sued and won in federal court on this.

The sheer number of miles driven plus californias higher min wage (compared to federal)

On top of that, in california it looks like they can't credit tips towards min wage either.

The true total you would be getting paid would be _*$25+ an hour!*_

Throw taxes and expenses in and each uber driver would need to be bringing in $40+ an hour. ($40 an hour in billings)

I don't think that's reasonable or possible to be honest. I just don't see that as a possible number for each driver to be hitting. I don't think it can be done.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Escoman said:


> Name 1 case they didn't settle out if court ?


none, the court cases are ongoing as of this minute.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

SHalester said:


> and that too would be locked up in court as U/L etc would not just sit by and allow that. Most likely, why not done yet. Plus come November if the initiative passes, all this won't age well.


&#128517;&#128517;&#128517; they will not sit there and allow it?










Because they can ultimately stop the government from pulling their license? I'm not going to lie here, I understand backing up a company and supporting a company but you're idolization of Uber is a little scary. A disciple 
vs an ant? No matter how much any of us like or dislike Uber, most of us are able to put those feelings aside and be realistic about situations, something you're unable to do, it seems. Uber very well may have a god-like complex but I assure you that God like complex can be brought down


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Daisey77 said:


> but you're idolization of Uber is a little scary.


that's your two cents. &#128526;&#128526; I merely stated the obvious. U/L are a business and wouldn't just 'do' nothing. Reason they are fighting in court and reason they are funding the anti-AB5 initiative. The mgmt and board of directors have a fiduciary responsibility. Look it up and get back to us. If that makes me a 'shill', ok if that rocks your boat I'm fine with it.
Proud to be an ant, too. You know, because, well, we all look like ants on the pax app. Oh, stating the obvious again, but felt it was needed.

Hey, have a nice day, ok?¿


----------



## Uberbrent (Mar 22, 2016)

If it all goes against Uber, the company will never have to worry about paying unemployment benefits. Think about it...there was nothing preventing you (as an employee) from driving - no unemployment benefits. If you quit Uber - no unemployment benefits. Anyone ever hear of Uber laying off drivers? No unemployment benefits. Uber terminates agreements with drivers with cause (myriad of reasons) - no unemployment benefits.


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

Jst1dreamr said:


> No way Uber/Lyft will leave California, we have the laziest most entitled people in the world living here. Uber/Lyft will calculate the dollars and cents and increase the rates they charge the pax and steal more from the drivers to ease their pain. They know that more money is raked in California than most or maybe any other market. It would make you sick to see how much money is wasted on transportation in California.
> I don't care how you look at it but employee or not unionizing is not the answer. I do speak from over 30 years experience in two different unions. Unions only really care about taking a slice of your income.
> I don't want to be an Uber employee and I have had my fill of paying unions too so I will just wait to play it as it falls.


Ca is one of their biggest markets They said they were leaving New York and never did . They will just raise the booking fees and screw drivers as always


----------



## SRGuy (May 17, 2016)

SHalester said:


> and that too would be locked up in court as U/L etc would not just sit by and allow that.


Perhaps you didn't read the CPUC ruling. uber and Lyft can be fined and shut down for non-compliance after July 1st. As you may recall, uber threatened to keep terrorizing the streets of San Francisco with their unlicensed "autonomous vehicles" in late 2017 . The state doubled down, DMV ordered the CHP to impound their vehicles and cite the operators after 1 week of uber's shenanigans - and uber pulled all of their vehicles off the streets.



SHalester said:


> ......is it really like that when an injunction is filed and the judge agrees? It's our system of justice, no?
> 
> I have no worries. The initiative is going to pass in a landslide and AB5 for RS, will go down in flames as it should.


The initiative will be be challenged in court if it passes. uber etc don't have infinite amounts of cash. The walls are closing in as many other states also chase down these fraudsters and it's just a matter of time before they declare bankruptcy.


----------



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

SRGuy said:


> Perhaps you didn't read the CPUC ruling. uber and Lyft can be fined and shut down for non-compliance after July 1st. As you may recall, uber threatened to keep terrorizing the streets of San Francisco with their unlicensed "autonomous vehicles" in late 2017 . The state doubled down, DMV ordered the CHP to impound their vehicles and cite the operators after 1 week of uber's shenanigans - and uber pulled all of their vehicles off the streets.
> 
> 
> The initiative will be be challenged in court if it passes. uber etc don't have infinite amounts of cash. The walls are closing in as many other states also chase down these fraudsters and it's just a matter of time before they declare bankruptcy.


The back taxes could bankrupt both of them before long.

Uber owed like 600 million in NJ alone. (NJ believed that uber owed the taxes, so they do)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/14/...emanded that,contractors and not as employees.

SO bankrupting them off back taxes and back unemployment isn't a fantasy, it's inevitible.

Maybe the companies that spring up Austin Style to fill the void will treat us better,

I'm fully intending to continue driving part time for the 89 year old taxi company that has concessions at Disney world and universal studios, and has discounted night-shift cabs.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

SRGuy said:


> Perhaps you didn't read the CPUC ruling.


We shall see what happens. U/L will appeal directly and then launch even more court case(s). As I stated neither company will 'take it up their arse' wo reacting.

And come Nov, won't matter anyway. So delay is a good tactic to use, yeah?


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

SHalester said:


> And come Nov, won't matter anyway. So delay is a good tactic to use, yeah?


Not necessarily. Even if the referendum passes in November, the presently existing law (without the referendum) was still in force from January to November (or whenever the referendum goes into effect, if it isn't immediately). So the result of the court cases on the existing law would still have an effect, it just wouldn't be a continuously ongoing effect. It would only affect the time period from January to November.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Launchpad McQuack said:


> It would only affect the time period from January to November.


maybe, maybe not. That law is in front a judge(s) and they ain't ruled yet. A few variables at play here. For the moment, no RS driver in calif is an employee. when we get a W4, then we are employees. It really is that simple.


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

SHalester said:


> That law is in front a judge(s) and they ain't ruled yet.


For as much as you complain about people not reading what you wrote, you do a pretty lousy job of it yourself. The sentence right before the one that you quoted said....



Launchpad McQuack said:


> So *the result of the court cases* on the existing law would still have an effect, it just wouldn't be a continuously ongoing effect. It would only affect the time period from January to November.


Eventually, we are going to get to the point where this thing has gone through the courts, all appeals are exhausted, and there is a final ruling. That ruling is going to apply to the time period from January to November regardless of what happens with the referendum in November.......because the referendum doesn't go into effect until it passes. Right now, the existing law is the ruling law. The court cases are just hashing out what the existing law means.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Launchpad McQuack said:


> you do a pretty lousy job of it yourself


You seem so confused, not sure I can unwind your issue?

Yeah, explain to us how the judge will make it retroactive to Jan? How would that work? Oh, a bunch of clueless drivers saying they worked OT? 
You do realize when you have a real W2 job there is withholdings? Imagine how drivers would react to a 'catch up' of the taxes and such they didn't pay from Jan to whenever? Hum. Ooops. Not to mention all the other logistics of 'trying' to make it retro active.

And again, won't matter come Nov and after.

Next.


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

SHalester said:


> You seem so confused, not sure I can unwind your issue?


I'm not sure what I'm confused about or what there is to unwind. There is a law in place right now. Uber is either in compliance with that law or not in compliance with that law. That is being decided in the courts right now. There is a referendum to be voted on in November. That referendum could potentially change the law if it passes. Even if it does pass, it does not change the law from January to November, so the court's ruling on the matter will still apply to that time period.



SHalester said:


> Yeah, explain to us how the judge will make it retroactive to Jan? How would that work?


I don't need to explain how it will work. That is what the courts will decide.



SHalester said:


> Oh, a bunch of clueless drivers saying they worked OT?


I'm guessing Uber has records of when each driver was working. The courts could request those records be made available. Of course, Uber will probably "lose" them or claim to not have them. I mean, why would a company that is in the data business keep data records? I don't know how they will handle it. Uber created this mess for themselves by deciding that they were not going to comply with the law that was put in the place for the specific purpose of addressing their operating practices.



SHalester said:


> Imagine how drivers would react to a 'catch up' of the taxes and such they didn't pay from Jan to whenever? Hum. Ooops. Not to mention all the other logistics of 'trying' to make it retro active.


I'm sure drivers wouldn't mind if the withholdings came out of additional wages, mileage reimbursements, etc. that are legally required to be provided to employees.

I don't know how this is going to play out, but it is possible that Uber has royally screwed themselves. It is possible that they will be forced to bear the costs of having drivers as employees from January to November without exercising any of the control over drivers that they would have been able to as an employer. I think it would have been smarter for them to immediately start treating drivers as employees in January, change their operating practices in California accordingly, and then let the backlash from drivers who find that it is not all peaches and cream being an employee and riders who are being charged higher fares drive the change in the law that they want.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

The Dynamex decision that established the "ABC" test was issued April 30th, 2018 by the California Supreme Court and that court denied a petition for rehearing to challenge whether it would be effective retroactively (before 5/30/2020).

Since then, lower federal and state courts have ruled that it should be applied retroactively. One court asked the state Supreme Court to specifically validate whether it should be applied retroactively and in November of last year, the court agreed to hear arguments. Of note, rulings that do not explicitly prohibit retroactive application are generally held to apply retroactively.

California regulatory agencies have broad powers to enforce applicable laws and in the case of the CPUC, those powers include the ability to set rules for the utilities they are charged with regulating to promote safety, transparency and fair costs. Regardless of Dynamex or AB5 the CPUC now sees that the independent contractor classification of TNC drivers is an impediment to safety, transparency and fair costs. It can set rules about supervision, training, reporting and pricing which, if they were followed, would in the end invalidate the IC classification even under pre-Dynamex (Borello) California standards, as well as IRS standards.

In the past the CPUC has forcibly shut down companies that have had their operating permits revoked by having their phones shut off, etc. The DMV's actions with Uber which were cited earlier in this thread are an example of such regulatory authority.

One important component of AB5 is the inclusion of injunctive powers.It allows the court to grant immediate relief to the plaintiff even before the issue is fully argued before the court. Take a look at the City Of San Diego vs Instacart where the court granted the AB5 permitted injunction but left room for an appeal from Instacart. That was early February and 4 months later, I don't believe Instacart's appeal has yet been heard. The joint suit by California's Attorney General and the City Attorneys from SF, LA and San Diego include a request for an injunction, and that has a chance of shortening the litigation. 

Additionally that suit asks for penalties and restitution for the workers. State penalties for misclassification can range between $5,000 and $15,000 per worker and between $5,000 and $25,000 if the employer knowingly misclassified the worker.Restitution for things like minimum wage, expenses and overtime can extend up to 3 years back

The November referendum is certainly not a done deal. In the last few years we have seen other popular movements about pay and equality for individuals.
Nationwide series of teacher strikes for better pay.
The $15/hr movement
The Occupy Wall Street movement
The Me Too movement
The Black Lives Matter movement.
Political Strikes in Hong Kong, South America and Eastern Europe that have generated changes in the power structure.
Some of these social justice movements have gone worldwide and I believe they represent a growing antagonism towards large financial and political institutions. It does not help the referendum that it is initiated and funded by the very companies that stand to take in $Billions from its passage. 

California Governor Gavin Newsom has revamped the CPUC since coming into the office by making several appointments of board members with strong regulatory and management backgrounds. Their actions since have been very progressive and have targeted specific problems with the current TNC structure. No one is willing to speculate what action the CPUC will take after July 1, but it will certainly not ignore Uber/Lyft's challenges.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

KevinH said:


> The Dynamex decision that established the "ABC" test was issued April 30th, 2018 by the California Supreme Court and that court denied a petition for rehearing to challenge whether it would be effective retroactively (before 5/30/2020).
> 
> Since then, lower federal and state courts have ruled that it should be applied retroactively. One court asked the state Supreme Court to specifically validate whether it should be applied retroactively and in November of last year, the court agreed to hear arguments. Of note, rulings that do not explicitly prohibit retroactive application are generally held to apply retroactively.
> 
> ...


Newsom also, set aside something like 25 million dollars to enforce AB 5.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

observer said:


> Newsom also, set aside something like 25 million dollars to enforce AB 5.


That's not nearly enough.
That will only cover lawyers and staff salaries, and overhead for a year or two.

He will establish a "department" and have a big budget to feed it, and give all his friends great jobs.

Welcome to the machine.


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

KevinH said:


> The Dynamex decision that established the "ABC" test was issued April 30th, 2018 by the California Supreme Court and that court denied a petition for rehearing to challenge whether it would be effective retroactively (before 5/30/2020).
> 
> Since then, lower federal and state courts have ruled that it should be applied retroactively. One court asked the state Supreme Court to specifically validate whether it should be applied retroactively and in November of last year, the court agreed to hear arguments. Of note, rulings that do not explicitly prohibit retroactive application are generally held to apply retroactively.
> 
> ...


And that's why I tolerate Gryft playing the long game put in hours and days and hope for the retroactive pay.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberBastid said:


> That's not nearly enough.
> That will only cover lawyers and staff salaries, and overhead for a year or two.
> 
> He will establish a "department" and have a big budget to feed it, and give all his friends great jobs.
> ...


It's actually only 20 million split up between three existing agencies.

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/newsoms-ca-budget-includes-20-million-for-ab-5-enforcement/


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

observer said:


> It's actually only 20 million split up between three existing agencies.
> 
> https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/newsoms-ca-budget-includes-20-million-for-ab-5-enforcement/


Yea, still won't last.
This is A PROBLEM that deserves an entire dept, or czar.
California Department of Ride Share and Delivery Services

The CDRSDS will require a small fee, for anyone who does RS or delivery. You'll get a small tag to put in the windshield next to the UBER or LYFT badge.
Don't worry, the first year or two the 'fee' will be minimal; the first year or two.

Trust me, I've lived her a looooong time.
The play book hasn't changed.
It's easy to predict.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberBastid said:


> Yea, still won't last.
> This is A PROBLEM that deserves an entire dept, or czar.
> California Department of Ride Share and Delivery Services
> 
> ...


Wait until we each get chipped. It's just a matter of time.




Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> The back taxes could bankrupt both of them before long.
> 
> Uber owed like 600 million in NJ alone. (NJ believed that uber owed the taxes, so they do)
> 
> ...


Back taxes are on a rolling three year schedule.

The longer it stretches out and the less drivers they have, the less they will pay out.

I think they will start dropping drivers by the thousands and blame the pandemic. Then settle up in 4-5 years.

Actually, let me clarify that, for an employee it's on a rolling three year.

It may not be for the state to recoup back taxes.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

observer said:


> Wait until we each get chipped. It's just a matter of time.
> 
> 
> Back taxes are on a rolling three year schedule.
> ...


It is a rolling 3 years but become fixed from the time of the complaint. So probably the State suit fixes it going back 3 years from May 5th when it was filed.


----------

