# Calif ballot initiative to reverse AB5 -- update



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

*We have exciting news* - the Protect App-Based Drivers & Services Act has officially  qualified for the November ballot!

This is a huge step forward in protecting the rights of drivers like you and me to choose to remain independent contractors while ensuring access to historic new benefits and guarantees.

Our coalition is growing and more than 60,000 drivers have joined in support of our measure. It's no surprise since  71% of drivers said they wanted to be independent contractors, not employees, in a recent poll.

Grandparents, veterans, teachers, firefighters, pastors, retirees, parents, students, cooks, caregivers, actors, construction workers, musicians and more who all drive with app-based platforms when it fits OUR schedule.

Now more than ever, the Protect App-Based Drivers & Services Act underscores the need for flexible work. A recent study found that forcing an employment model would eliminate up to 900,000 app-based jobs. App-based delivery drivers and food delivery services are essential to deliver warm meals, medicine and groceries to families and seniors. Our measure is needed to ensure these services continue to exist and we're one step closer to making sure they do.

We've also launched our  statewide television and digital voter education campaign. Students, parents and other Californians featured in the ads discuss the importance of app-based work for them and for the hundreds of thousands of Californians who choose to drive rideshare or food and grocery delivery.


Share your excitement and make your voice heard today!

*Share on  Twitter







*

Sincerely,
Jim P.
Semi-retired and Rideshare driver
Modesto, CA


----------



## PopcornEater (Apr 26, 2020)

71% of drivers want to use their own vehicle and pay their own insurance? So that in slow days like these times we earn a great income of less than $3/hr!
I can’t wait to vote on this one 😆


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

PopcornEater said:


> 71% of drivers want to use their own vehicle and pay their own insurance?


I'm sorry, u **** AB5 meant RS would provide a vehicle? Cows will fly if that were to occur.


----------



## Illini (Mar 14, 2019)

I'm not in CA, but why can't you have a flexible schedule and be an employee? If the current flexible schedule drivers enjoy works for for U/L right now, why can't it continue?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Illini said:


> why can't it continue?


the assumption being RS companies will allow it? Yeah, I think it would be curtailed along with a lot of drivers going 'bye bye'. Once you are an employee the employer sets the schedule and policies. They order, we do.


----------



## PopcornEater (Apr 26, 2020)

SHalester said:


> I'm sorry, u thought AB5 meant RS would provide a vehicle? Cows will fly if that were to occur.


Hhmm by law if you're an employee, you must be compensated for the use of your personal vehicle..


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

Illini said:


> I'm not in CA, but why can't you have a flexible schedule and be an employee?


You can............provided that it is to the benefit of the employer to allow you to do so or you carry enough weight with the employer to compel them to allow you to do so. Would that be the case with Uber? I am skeptical. My gut is that they would much prefer to tell each driver where and when to drive. The only reason that they do not is because they are trying to walk that line between independent contractors and employees and dictating schedules to drivers would swing them clearly into employee territory. If they get forced into employee territory anyway, my gut tells me that they will either vacate the market entirely or exercise all of the control that employers are entitled to exercise over employees.


----------



## PopcornEater (Apr 26, 2020)

This topic is extremely old and boring now...
In reality Rideshare will not survive having drivers as employees. That’s it.


----------



## Hammerjam55 (Aug 1, 2019)

AB5 has screwed with a bunch of industries that I have been a part of...music, Motion Picture, etc....a a BAD move....needs to go....


----------



## SpinalCabbage (Feb 5, 2020)

I'm am 100% pro AB5. It will result in, hopefully, Uber/Lyft/Etc treating us as true independent contractors rather than employees. As said above, rideshare cannot survive drivers actually becoming employees. Because of AB5 I now can see where I am picking up and where I am dropping off and I can choose to accept or decline. That, and higher pay, is all I ever really wanted.

Just my opinion of course.


----------



## 197438 (Mar 7, 2020)

PopcornEater said:


> 71% of drivers want to use their own vehicle and pay their own insurance? So that in slow days like these times we earn a great income of less than $3/hr!
> I can't wait to vote on this one &#128518;


I've been busier than ever, but Uber/Lyft employees are being fired. Rescind AB5.



SpinalCabbage said:


> I'm am 100% pro AB5. It will result in, hopefully, Uber/Lyft/Etc treating us as true independent contractors rather than employees. As said above, rideshare cannot survive drivers actually becoming employees. Because of AB5 I now can see where I am picking up and where I am dropping off and I can choose to accept or decline. That, and higher pay, is all I ever really wanted.
> 
> Just my opinion of course.


That can all be accomplished with a better law than AB5. In response to AB, Uber/Lyft should terminate agreements with sole proprietors and raise prices for passengers.


----------



## SpinalCabbage (Feb 5, 2020)

EastBayRides said:


> I've been busier than ever, but Uber/Lyft employees are being fired. Rescind AB5.
> 
> 
> That can all be accomplished with a better law than AB5. In response to AB, Uber/Lyft should terminate agreements with sole proprietors and raise prices for passengers.


I have no objection to replacing AB5 with a better law.


----------



## Uberguyken (May 10, 2020)

PopcornEater said:


> 71% of drivers want to use their own vehicle and pay their own insurance? So that in slow days like these times we earn a great income of less than $3/hr!
> I can't wait to vote on this one &#128518;


If your making $3 an HR driving... You don't need to vote you just need to lean how to do Uber profitably or quit driving.. If I wasn't making $20+ on average and often exceeding $30+ I'd be done with it...

It is a job and there is a learning curve.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Illini said:


> I'm not in CA, but why can't you have a flexible schedule and be an employee? If the current flexible schedule drivers enjoy works for for U/L right now, why can't it continue?


The flexible schedule absolutely can continue. There is nothing that says if we become employees we have to be on a set schedule. Of course it'll be up to Uber and Lyft but losing flexibility is the one argument the anti employee folks have. so they have decided to instill it into the driver's head that we will lose your flexibility. Drivers of course panic and don't even bother to think about anything else regarding the issue. It's simply a scare tactic


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

Uberguyken said:


> If your making $3 an HR driving... You don't need to vote you just need to lean how to do Uber profitably or quit driving.. If I wasn't making $20+ on average and often exceeding $30+ I'd be done with it...
> 
> It is a job and there is a learning curve.


I was like you over 3 nights a week and averaged $30 an hour. Uber/Lyft is not to blame if someone is only making $3 an hour! And if that's the best one can do you should thank your lucky stars you even have a job!


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

PopcornEater said:


> you must be compensated for the use of your personal vehicle..


that isn't the same as a vehicle is 'provided' to you as the poster was implying incorrectly. AB5 in no way states that.



PopcornEater said:


> This topic is extremely old and boring now...


...and yet u replied? This thread was on the initiative that will nuke AB5, so it, at least, was and is relevant, yeah?    



Daisey77 said:


> There is nothing that says if we become employees we have to be on a set schedule


that is funny. Really. Yes, AB5 'doesn't' say that. BUT if we in calif (note you aren't here) become employees the employer determines our schedule. Have you ever been an employee for any length of time? You would know that. The employer determines everything. If the employee doesn't like it, they are free to quit.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SpinalCabbage said:


> I have no objection to replacing AB5 with a better law.


Me either, as long as it's a better law for drivers.


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

U/L are way short of drivers at the moment. If drivers were employees, they'd be recalled to work as required. That would be the end of your unemployment benefits. Strange to see drivers at home making $800+ per week through July arguing they'd like to be employees.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Daisey77 said:


> The flexible schedule absolutely can continue. There is nothing that says if we become employees we have to be on a set schedule. Of course it'll be up to Uber and Lyft but losing flexibility is the one argument the anti employee folks have. so they have decided to instill it into the driver's head that we will lose your flexibility. Drivers of course panic and don't even bother to think about anything else regarding the issue. It's simply a scare tactic


A flexible schedule would be a big plus to the TNC that offers it.

If one TNC offered flexibility and the other did not, drivers would flock to the one offering flexibility. If enough drivers stopped using the one without flexibility, it may force that TNC to change its mind.

An offer of flexibility can work both ways.


----------



## DeadHeadDriver (Feb 7, 2020)

Our coalition is growing more than 60,000 drivers have joined in support of our measure. It's no surprise since we are
funded by *Gig Companies.* 


Ms. Broussard is a Realtor (Wait for it.....) _and _*Postmates Driver!* :roflmao:

$8,000 comission fee, $2,000 MLS listing fee, $3.50 Postmates surge+delivery fee
Confirmation your wife's church-friend & local Realtor is clueless as she delivers your Postmates lunch (instead of marketing your Home)? Priceless. :roflmao: :cigar: :roflmao:


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Jon Stoppable said:


> U/L are way short of drivers at the moment. If drivers were employees, they'd be recalled to work as required. That would be the end of your unemployment benefits. Strange to see drivers at home making $800+ per week through July arguing they'd like to be employees.


Not necessarily.

Uber/Lyft would only call back enough drivers to meet demand. As employees U/L would not bring back more drivers than needed because it would have to pay them.


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

observer said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> Uber/Lyft would only call back enough drivers to meet demand. As employees U/L would not bring back more drivers than needed because it would have to pay them.


"As required."

Point is, there is at least one CA RS driver sitting on their duff right now on the UI cheese that would be forced back to work or lose their benes.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

Jon Stoppable said:


> U/L are way short of drivers at the moment. If drivers were employees, they'd be recalled to work as required. That would be the end of your unemployment benefits. Strange to see drivers at home making $800+ per week through July arguing they'd like to be employees.


I got a text from Lyft yesterday saying there is a demand for drivers and to go online.... I didn't and even if wanted to I can my car is still in the body shop... I did open the Lyft app and saw only 4 ants on the screen. Normally this will be full with at least 8 ants.

There are days when I look to see how many ants are out there and I only see 1 or 2 in my area then you have to scroll out 15+ miles to see more.


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

observer said:


> A flexible schedule would be a big plus to the TNC that offers it.


And if that ends up being the case, then they will. I am skeptical, though. That only works if there are not enough drivers to meet the needs of both companies. If that were the case, though, most of these problems would fix themselves because Uber and Lyft would have to compete against each other for drivers. As it stands, though, there are more than enough drivers (outside of the pandemic issues) to meet the needs of both companies, and drivers have shown time and time again that they are collectively (I'm not talking about individuals) unwilling to walk away, no matter how poorly the TNCs treat them. So yeah, if one offered flexible scheduling and the other didn't, the drivers might _want_ to drive for the flexible one, but they are only going to be able to take so many and the others will go to the one that doesn't.

Can you think of any job (that is employer/employee based) in which the employees are allowed to work whenever they feel like it for as long a time or as short a time as they feel like? I can't. But if a company offered that, wouldn't the employees flock to them?


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

Fusion_LUser said:


> There are days when I look to see how many ants are out there and I only see 1 or 2 in my area then you have to scroll out 15+ miles to see more.


Yup. Bear has been driving for the last two weeks. Nonstop pings, they come as fast as bear can reject them. This is driving weekday afternoons.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Jon Stoppable said:


> "As required."
> 
> Point is, there is at least one CA RS driver sitting on their duff right now on the UI cheese that would be forced back to work or lose their benes.


"As required" with pay.

I have no problem with Uber requiring workers to drive if they are getting paid.

Unemployment is for those who are willing to work and have a job to go to.

Sitting around at home because you make more than working? That isn't someone who is willing to work.



Launchpad McQuack said:


> And if that ends up being the case, then they will. I am skeptical, though. That only works if there are not enough drivers to meet the needs of both companies. If that were the case, though, most of these problems would fix themselves because Uber and Lyft would have to compete against each other for drivers. As it stands, though, there are more than enough drivers (outside of the pandemic issues) to meet the needs of both companies, and drivers have shown time and time again that they are collectively (I'm not talking about individuals) unwilling to walk away, no matter how poorly the TNCs treat them. So yeah, if one offered flexible scheduling and the other didn't, the drivers might _want_ to drive for the flexible one, but they are only going to be able to take so many and the others will go to the one that doesn't.
> 
> Can you think of any job (that is employer/employee based) in which the employees are allowed to work whenever they feel like it for as long a time or as short a time as they feel like? I can't. But if a company offered that, wouldn't the employees flock to them?


Good points.

I think that's partly because there is no true flexibility. Even now drivers work when work is available not when they want to work.

It just so happens now that work is *sometimes* available when a driver wants to work.

I think this flexibility thing is a bunch of croc. In the end Uber will always do whats best for Uber.


----------



## Lute Byrt (Feb 20, 2020)

Support AB5!


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

observer said:


> Unemployment is for those who are willing to work and have a job to go to.
> 
> Sitting around at home because you make more than working? That isn't someone who is willing to work.


Bear agrees, and yet all of a sudden there are a lot of drivers that are not willing to work. Bear is working.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Jon Stoppable said:


> Bear agrees, and yet all of a sudden there are a lot of drivers that are not willing to work. Bear is working.


Me too.

I actually started working after the PUA was announced. Sitting around the house gets old.

What are drivers going to do when it ends and the money stops?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> What are drivers going to do when it ends and the money stops?


....go back online? Or was that a trick question?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> ....go back online? Or was that a trick question?


Yea, half a million drivers (or whatever the number) going back on line at the same time.

That's going to work out great.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> hat's going to work out great.


Spread over how many states? When SAH goes away certainly drivers will go online and there will be an increase in ride requests. Some of us don't need the extra risk, so we will wait.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> Spread over how many states? When SAH goes away certainly drivers will go online and there will be an increase in ride requests. Some of us don't need the extra risk, so we will wait.


I think it will be a long time before people feel comfortable riding in Ubers, trains and airplanes. Probly this time next year and that's if there isn't a second wave of the virus.

It'll be interesting to see how things work out.


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

PopcornEater said:


> 71% of drivers want to use their own vehicle and pay their own insurance? So that in slow days like these times we earn a great income of less than $3/hr!
> I can't wait to vote on this one &#128518;


Sounds like you are


PopcornEater said:


> 71% of drivers want to use their own vehicle and pay their own insurance? So that in slow days like these times we earn a great income of less than $3/hr!
> I can't wait to vote on this one &#128518;


Three dollars an hour? Your joking right? You sound like the driver on TV complaining about pay and benefits while sitting in a northern California airport lot for 10 hours a day. All businesses are affected by cycles. Close down your business, declare bankruptcy or try to soldier on. Up to you.



Illini said:


> I'm not in CA, but why can't you have a flexible schedule and be an employee? If the current flexible schedule drivers enjoy works for for U/L right now, why can't it continue?


Flexible schedules may still be available. However, everyone's hours will be limited to part time status to avoid paying for full time employees benefits.



Illini said:


> I'm not in CA, but why can't you have a flexible schedule and be an employee? If the current flexible schedule drivers enjoy works for for U/L right now, why can't it continue?


Flexible schedules may still be available. However, everyone's hours will be limited to part time status to avoid paying for full time employees benefits.


Daisey77 said:


> The flexible schedule absolutely can continue. There is nothing that says if we become employees we have to be on a set schedule. Of course it'll be up to Uber and Lyft but losing flexibility is the one argument the anti employee folks have. so they have decided to instill it into the driver's head that we will lose your flexibility. Drivers of course panic and don't even bother to think about anything else regarding the issue. It's simply a scare tactic


Full time driver or part time? There will not be any full time drivers if drivers become employees due to the cost of benefits for full time employees.


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

SHalester said:


> *We have exciting news* - the Protect App-Based Drivers & Services Act has officially  qualified for the November ballot!
> 
> This is a huge step forward in protecting the rights of drivers like you and me to choose to remain independent contractors while ensuring access to historic new benefits and guarantees.
> 
> ...


Sure and why don't you hand your unemployment and pua back. Anything These companies want is bad for drivers. Once the heat settles Uber will take it all back cut driver fares and laugh at how dumb you all were


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)




----------



## Amos69 (May 17, 2019)

PopcornEater said:


> 71% of drivers want to use their own vehicle and pay their own insurance? So that in slow days like these times we earn a great income of less than $3/hr!
> I can't wait to vote on this one &#128518;


Your post means less than most Dumpster farts.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

SHalester said:


> that is funny. Really. Yes, AB5 'doesn't' say that. BUT if we in calif (note you aren't here) become employees the employer determines our schedule. Have you ever been an employee for any length of time? You would know that. The employer determines everything. If the employee doesn't like it, they are free to quit


Why yes I have been an employee. A nurse actually. A nurse for 16 but have been an employee for 23 years. What you're missing is this job works because of the flexibility. How many drivers do you know would still drive if they didn't have the flexibility at the rates as low as they are? Almost none. Flexibility is in number one reason why drivers continue driving. If they have no drivers willing to work for them, they would have no drivers to schedule shifts for. I don't see this job working without flexibility regardless of our employees status


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

observer said:


> I think it will be a long time before people feel comfortable riding in Ubers, trains and airplanes.


I think it's actually planes, trains, and Ubermobiles.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

SHalester said:


> *We have exciting news* - the Protect App-Based Drivers & Services Act has officially  qualified for the November ballot!
> 
> This is a huge step forward in protecting the rights of drivers like you and me to choose to remain independent contractors while ensuring access to historic new benefits and guarantees.
> 
> ...


Speaking of spin. Who is funding this bullshit?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

SHalester said:


> Once you are an employee the employer sets the schedule and policies. They order, we do.


As it is, F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* are setting everything _except_ the schedules. There has been some back door schedule setting in the past in both California and New York City in that once a certain number of drivers have logged ON, the application would not admit any more. In short, little, if anything, changes.



PopcornEater said:


> Rideshare will not survive having drivers as employees.


..................and the complaint is__________________________________________________________?



EastBayRides said:


> Uber/Lyft should terminate agreements with sole proprietors and raise prices for passengers.


They have been raising prices for passengers. The difference is that they are not giving the driver anything.



SHalester said:


> The employer determines everything


As it is, the contractee is determining almost everything. In fact, it is _dictating_ almost everything.



DeadHeadDriver said:


> Our coalition is growing more than 60,000 drivers have joined in support of our measure. It's no surprise since we are funded by *Gig Companies.*


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



observer said:


> Sitting around the house gets old.


It does. This is one reason, of several, why I do drive, still. I am, however, getting to spend more time on my bicycle than I used to.



observer said:


> What are drivers going to do when it ends and the money stops?


I do not know what they will do, but, I do know what I will do: return to driving more. Congress has authorised PUA through 31 July, but, the District of Columbia is shutting off the thing 25 July. It will make its state minimum available through October, but the distribution of the Federal funds ends 25 July. That period is generally a slow time for this market, as Congress is on its Summer Recess, but, the Congressional Schedule might change in response to COVID-19. I am wondering if it might affect the Congressional Schedule for years to come.



SHalester said:


> ...go back online?


I am still working, so, for me, it will be back ON LINE more.



Judge and Jury said:


> everyone's hours will be limited to part time status to avoid paying for full time employees benefits. everyone's hours will be limited to part time status to avoid paying for full time employees benefits. There will not be any full time drivers if drivers become employees due to the cost of benefits for full time employees.


It is likely that this will be the initial response if AB-5 holds. I do not live in California. I do not want to become an employee, either. Despite that, experience dictates to me that this is the way to push F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* to stop cutting our pay and to pay us properly. I hope that AB-5 holds only because of its potential to become a model for regulation of these TNCs everywhere. F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* brought this on themselves through their policies of systematic mistreatment of their contractors. Thus far, while F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* hjave succeeded in buying politicians, they have failed to buy plebiscites.



Escoman said:


> Anything These companies want is bad for drivers.


One thing on which the survival of the TNCs depends is the systematic mistreatment of contractors.



Daisey77 said:


> How many drivers do you know would still drive if they didn't have the flexibility at the rates as low as they are?


This is worthy of consideration. The only time that I drive TNC is when I am sure that there will be no customers for the cab. I can make the TNC work pay, but, I have advantages that your average TNC driver does not. Despite that, in order to make it pay, I must do things that I would rather not. If they take away the flexibility and pay Wally World wages, why would I tear up my car on their schedule for Wally World wages? I can go work at Wally World on Wally World's schedule for those wages and not tear up my car. In fact, as there is a Wally World up the street from me, I can leave my car at home and ride the METRObus, walk or ride my bicycle.



Bob Reynolds said:


> Speaking of spin. Who is funding this bullshit?


............F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* at the very least. I do not know how much, if anything, VIA and the lesser players are kicking in.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

BTW, Uber is touting its "flexibility" right now.

Flexiibility is not guaranteed.

It can take that "flexibility" away this moment or at any time in the future it pleases.

Even right after the election, no matter if it wins or loses.


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

Escoman said:


> Sure and why don't you hand your unemployment and pua back. Anything These companies want is bad for drivers. Once the heat settles Uber will take it all back cut driver fares and laugh at how dumb you all were


Uber is almost certainly throttling back surge in my market. Pax are reporting wait times at 20-30min or more, but surge is uneven and never more than $4. This is in the middle of a weekday afternoon. The algo is trying to serve the longest-waiting pax irrespective of distance, so 20+ min pings are common. There is nothing they are doing that is pro-driver, it's all pax relations, trying not to gouge them on surge but instead undersupplying drivers due to lack of surge.

At least drivers have the option not to work in those conditions. With drivers as employees, Uber would say suck it up, this is your shift, surge or no surge, hit 85% AR or you don't work.


----------



## Lute Byrt (Feb 20, 2020)

Jon Stoppable said:


> Uber is almost certainly throttling back surge in my market. Pax are reporting wait times at 20-30min or more, but surge is uneven and never more than $4. This is in the middle of a weekday afternoon. The algo is trying to serve the longest-waiting pax irrespective of distance, so 20+ min pings are common. There is nothing they are doing that is pro-driver, it's all pax relations, trying not to gouge them on surge but instead undersupplying drivers due to lack of surge.
> 
> At least drivers have the option not to work in those conditions. With drivers as employees, Uber would say suck it up, this is your shift, surge or no surge, hit 85% AR or you don't work.


Hourly pay would kick in....


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

Jon Stoppable said:


> With drivers as employees, Uber would say suck it up, this is your shift, surge or no surge, hit 85% AR or you don't work.


With drivers as employees, I seriously doubt that there will be any such thing as AR. They're not going to send you pings and give you the option of accepting or rejecting them. They're going to send you instructions on where to drive, who to pick up, where to take them, etc.


----------



## Lute Byrt (Feb 20, 2020)

Launchpad McQuack said:


> With drivers as employees, I seriously doubt that there will be any such thing as AR. They're not going to send you pings and give you the option of accepting or rejecting them. They're going to send you instructions on where to drive, who to pick up, where to take them, etc.


No, you will do the job or be fired...there will be a little flexibility, but not that much...In general, AB 5 is a good thing...


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Lute Byrt said:


> Hourly pay would kick in....


Yupp, Uber would have to pay to have drivers sit around. No way that would happen.

Uber would have to bring less drivers online. As drivers are forced to get jobs elsewhere there would be less drivers for Uber to tap.

As there are less drivers, Uber would have to raise rates and/or bring back surge.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Another Uber Driver said:


> As it is, F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* are setting everything _except_ the schedules


nope. I decide where I'm going to work. I decide when I'll go online/offline. I decide which days. I decide which times. I can accept or decline pings as I wish. 
As an employee all of the above and much more goes bye bye. It's called being an employee for a reason....... And how about being supervised? Needing to hit goals (or else)? How about performance reviews? Ride alongs? Yah, being an employee is all honey and rainbows.    



Launchpad McQuack said:


> They're not going to send you pings and give you the option of accepting or rejecting them.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That!


----------



## Lute Byrt (Feb 20, 2020)

and pay drivers more to be able to still have an attractive job that people would be interested in...


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> As there are less drivers, Uber would have to raise rates and/or bring back surge.


you must mean currently and not if calif drivers become employees. Should we achieve that, the multiplier will be gone as well. Uber will sends us pings, but the won't be pings, they will be dispatch orders.


----------



## Lute Byrt (Feb 20, 2020)

SHalester, calm down you are already getting paid by Uber and Lyft to support AB5! Your scare tactics do not work on this forum! Just saying....


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Bob Reynolds said:


> Who is funding this bullshit?


is that a trick question? RS and gigs like doordash.

Paid for by Protect App-Based Drivers and Services, a coalition of on-demand drivers and network companies, small businesses, community groups and public safety organizations. Committee Major Funding from Lyft, Uber Technologies, and DoorDash.


----------



## Lute Byrt (Feb 20, 2020)

Clearly bias....


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Escoman said:


> Once the heat settles Uber will take it all back cut driver fares and laugh at how dumb you all were


very very doubtful. But an opinion, I guess.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> you must mean currently and not if calif drivers become employees. Should we achieve that, the multiplier will be gone as well. Uber will sends us pings, but the won't be pings, they will be dispatch orders.


No, if drivers started to get other jobs because there wasn't enough uber jobs, that would decrease the amount of drivers Uber could call upon.

The less drivers available, the more Uber would have to incentivize drivers that are still working, or hire new drivers.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> The less drivers available, the more Uber would have to incentivize drivers that are still working


pretty sure the problem will be too may uber drivers in calif knocking on the door vs too little. IF we, in calif, become employees. Factor in working longer hours and RS will be able to throttle who is working and who is 'available'. Look at NY and all the complaints about they can't get online. Would be much worse in calif if employee status is bestowed upon us. 
But you are right a bunch of current drivers would not be willing to be employees at all and would 'quit'. That leaves door open for the never ending new drivers......


----------



## Lute Byrt (Feb 20, 2020)

SHalester said:


> pretty sure the problem will be too may uber drivers in calif knocking on the door vs too little. IF we, in calif, become employees. Factor in working longer hours and RS will be able to throttle who is working and who is 'available'. Look at NY and all the complaints about they can't get online. Would be much worse in calif if employee status is bestowed upon us.
> But you are right a bunch of current drivers would not be willing to be employees at all and would 'quit'. That leaves door open for the never ending new drivers......


Sorry they do not need you that much, maybe you are too big of a fan of Uber for Uber's liking...


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

There's already at least one major gig company scheduling drivers and no one has brought them up.

No "flexibility" there at all. Either you want to work their hours needed or you don't work at all.


----------



## Lute Byrt (Feb 20, 2020)

It is not that major, but are you discussing Alto (soon to be defunct)?...


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Lute Byrt said:


> It is not that major, but are you discussing Alto (soon to be defunct)?...


Amazon.

It offers a schedule of blocks of time that they need drivers. Drivers either agree to work those blocks or they don't work.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

^^^ And if you do not accept a delivery block ( or go / get online,) in less than a milli second you are done for the day.

Then they should kick you offline for your 10 minute break, 30 min lunch, and another 10 min after, all in 8 hrs. Now ! what about over time. Employers use after 40hrs. Will you be done for the week after logging 40 hrs online ?

Amazon has a cap on hrs worked in a week.

Seems to me the only recourse "As an Employee" is a Union. That way after 8hrs you should get time and half that. Perhaps they could agree on a 1.5 surge after 8hrs. Yep it's pipe dream Meep Meep !!!.....


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> here's already at least one major gig company scheduling drivers and no one has brought them up.


or complained yet. 

My 2nd gig, HopSkipDrive, is passively scheduled. In the AM you can pick rides up to 8am and in the PM you pick those beginning around 2:30pm. School hours. The advantage is you pick in advance and can select recurring rides that fit your schedule.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

As employees, wouldn't they have to reimburse mileage on top of pay? How would employees status affect our out of pocket car maintenance expenses? Would they have to pay for those or give us some sort of allowance?



SHalester said:


> nope. I decide where I'm going to work. I decide when I'll go online/offline. I decide which days. I decide which times. I can accept or decline pings as I wish.
> As an employee all of the above and much more goes bye bye. It's called being an employee for a reason....... And how about being supervised? Needing to hit goals (or else)? How about performance reviews? Ride alongs? Yah, being an employee is all honey and rainbows.


Sort of. Don't think for a second their algorithm doesn't learn repetitive patterns or behavior. You may get a choose all of those things. However, best believe if they don't want you driving a certain time or certain places, they will make sure you don't. That being the worst case scenario . On a lesser extreme, they may give you shit runs to discourage you. Don't think they already have control over these things


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

california is a hot mess, most of the corona deaths are in nursing homes, 40 deaths in SF and theyve locked down the whole city. I would think if ab5 passes uber will leave as if they give in every state will want the same. 

California headed for a massive depression due to deranged democrats like newsome, hes closed businesses and wants to drive uber out of the state

This is because at the end of the day he will still have a job, he doesnt care about your job. now he wants money from trump as if hes some victim.......um you didnt have to close every store!


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Daisey77 said:


> Don't think they already have control over these things


I'm sorry I don't buy the unproven theories on this forum about what the algo does or doesn't do. What you post is simply wild wild speculation. Plus, if drivers in calif were employee the algo would do nothing but assign jobs. That is what most don't even fathom. As an employee you do what you are told or assigned and that is that. Your choice is to do it or get fired. Period.

And as employees they would be required to pay us for mileage; the same exact rate you use mileage as a deduction. Except as an employee if you are paid for mileage you can't turn around and deduct it.


----------



## May H. (Mar 20, 2018)

This is horrible news!
I’m definitely voting no.
We need protection and benefits just like every other worker in California. You corporate shill!


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

May H. said:


> We need protection and benefits just like every other worker in California. You corporate shill!


yeah yeah. Sounds like somebody else who has never had a W2 job and no idea what is involved. It won't be all sugar and rainbows. Wanna bet it passes with a huge margin?


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

SHalester said:


> Except as an employee if you are paid for mileage you can't turn around and deduct it.


As an employee, if you are reimbursed for mileage then the amount that you are reimbursed is not included as income on your W2, so there is no need to deduct it.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

SHalester said:


> nope. I decide where I'm going to work. I decide when I'll go online/offline. I decide which days. I decide which times. I can accept or decline pings as I wish.
> As an employee all of the above and much more goes bye bye. It's called being an employee for a reason....... And how about being supervised? Needing to hit goals (or else)? How about performance reviews? Ride alongs?


Yup. "Where", "when" are "scheduling" items. I did state:



Another Uber Driver said:


> As it is, F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* are setting everything _except_ the schedules.


They dictate for what I will work. If I were an "independent contractor" I would be dictating for what I work.
They dictate the equipment that I bring. If I were an "independent contractor" , I would be bringing any equipment that could do the job.
They dictate my comportment when transporting a rider. If I were an "independent contractor" it would be between me and the rider how I conducted myself while transporting the rider.

There are "performance reviews". You would be, perhaps, familiar with the Star System whereby drunk passengers can downrate you because you will not let them eat that loaded burrito in the car?

It is this same star system that allows cheapskate riders to downrate you because you will not schlepp three carts worth of groceries up three flights of staris for no tip.

Then we have the false reports for being under the influence of something. This is actually a triple definition of an "employee" because not only is it a "performance review", but it gives ride to disciplinary action and you are deprived of any means of defending yourself against such false accusations.

We can add to this false reports for other types of misconduct where the "independent contractor" is not believed but the wailing customer is. This used to happen all the time when I was an employee.

Do not try to tell me that Uber and Lyft do not dictate to me. When they stop dictating to me, I will be truly an "independent contractor" instead of an "independent contractor" when it benefits them and an "employee" when _that_ benefits them.,


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Launchpad McQuack said:


> As an employee, if you are reimbursed for mileage then the amount that you are reimbursed is not included as income on your W2, so there is no need to deduct it.


Correct but if the employer counts it as as mileage compensation, then that is required to be taxed and goes on your W-2.


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

AB5 actually HELPS drivers. So of course Uber and Lyft are against it. As are either misinformed or moronic drivers.


----------



## 197438 (Mar 7, 2020)

observer said:


> I think it will be a long time before people feel comfortable riding in Ubers, trains and airplanes. Probly this time next year and that's if there isn't a second wave of the virus.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how things work out.


Someone locked up at home should not be speaking for the outside world. Pax were waiting 20+ minutes for rides this weekend. High demand, few drivers. I was declining and canceling at will, and earned 20% more per hour than I did in February when we were still getting promotions. The gov't didn't send anyone a car to go with that $1200 check, and people still need to get to where they are going. Airport was surge pricing all weekend, and airport drop-offs accounted for about 1/3 of my weekend income (I don't do airport pickups, but it would have been tempting if Uber had sent me a valid placard).


----------



## ChillinLA (May 19, 2020)

What’s not discussed is representation and ADVOCACY. If you don’t have a voice your rights are always taken away. Uber, Lyft, DD, IC, etc would always abuse you if given the opportunity as It is in the nature of all gig companies to maximize profit at any cost to drivers. The only steps ever taken by Fubar/gryft that were good for drivers were taken BECAUSE of AB5. Voting NO this Nov means having a collective voice although you may lose a few hours. Finding balance means there’s always a trade off.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

EastBayRides said:


> Someone locked up at home should not be speaking for the outside world. Pax were waiting 20+ minutes for rides this weekend. High demand, few drivers. I was declining and canceling at will, and earned 20% more per hour than I did in February when we were still getting promotions. The gov't didn't send anyone a car to go with that $1200 check, and people still need to get to where they are going. Airport was surge pricing all weekend, and airport drop-offs accounted for about 1/3 of my weekend income (I don't do airport pickups, but it would have been tempting if Uber had sent me a valid placard).


I don't know who you think is locked up at home, I've been working all along. I never left the "outside world".

*"High demand, few drivers" *your words.

Yes, there may be some demand now but there are also less drivers.

The question is, will demand increase when the thousands and thousands of drivers go back to work?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

SHalester said:


> *We have exciting news* - Share your excitement and make your voice heard today!


The last time that Uber sent me any "exciting" news, it was to announce a pay cut. Thus, if I see anything described as "exciting news" from anything even remotely connected to Uber (never mind something directly sponsored by Uber), I would tend to view it with a jaundiced eye, at best.



Nats121 said:


> You gotta love the Doordash kangaroo court which accuses a driver of violating a rule or rules (so much for being your own boss), declares the driver guilty, fires him/her, and states that no appeal whatsoever will be allowed.
> One of the little problems is what happens if the driver happens to be not-guilty? Doordash doesn't give a shit about that part. That's what happened to me. I was falsely accused of unassigning lots of orders the last night I worked (I unassigned ZERO orders that night), and got the same basic email you got.


Kangaroo courts reek of an employer/employee relationship.


----------



## LYFTLIFENYC (Jun 2, 2019)

DONT BE STUPID YAH HAVE SOMETHING GOOD HERE IN CALIFORNIA DONT LET THESE COMPANIES FOOL YOU INTO GIVING AWAY WHAT YOU FOUGHT HARD FOR 

-BLESSINGS FROM NYC

IF UBER SUPPORTS IT THAT MEANS ITS NOT GOOD FOR YOU THE DRIVER


----------



## Mole (Mar 9, 2017)

Even if they pass this in November it will be deemed unconstitutional. The courts will chew it up and spit it out. California wants it tax money and being that they are broke they will fight this forever.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Launchpad McQuack said:


> reimbursed is not included as income on your W2


correct; a reimbursed expense is not income.



Daisey77 said:


> then that is required to be taxed and goes on your W-2.


nope. If you are an employee and you submit a mileage request you are paid via the AP dept, not HR. The amount is not included on a W2.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Mole said:


> Even if they pass this in November it will be deemed unconstitutional. The courts will chew it up and spit it out. California wants it tax money and being that they are broke they will fight this forever.


The way I see it, the law was clearly written to include drivers.

The state should be pressing the PUC to suspend Ubers license.


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

SHalester said:


> nope. If you are an employee and you submit a mileage request you are paid via the AP dept, not HR


That really depends on the internal process of the company. Plenty of companies reimburse through the payroll system. That mere fact of course doesn't make reimbursements taxable.

Also if anyone thinks U/L is gonna reimburse at the federal mileage rate for X, good luck with that. Bear predicts no more than $0.20/mile as a standard rate or the employee would have to substantiate a higher rate with receipts. And then get fired for being too expensive.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Do not try to tell me that Uber and Lyft do not dictate to me


thread is about being an employee. If that is to happen, you will be dictated to whether you like it or not. YOU being Calif drivers. And if your hackles go up and you refuse; BAM you are fired. That is how it works when you are an employee. My entire point from months before AB5 passed was being an employee doesn't mean money will start falling from the sky, or suddenly there will be solid gold benefits. It won't be cookies and milk. 
With that said I'll take what Uber has done due to AB5; they made me happy and almost eliminated the complaints I had. Pretty sure many calif drivers would agree; full info pings and no AR, rock.    



Jon Stoppable said:


> hat really depends on the internal process of the company.


you are right. BUT any decently sized corporation would split those duties. A super small company, well, maybe they don't even HAVE an HR dept but one person with many hats. 
Bottom line mileage reimbursements for employees is not income.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Jon Stoppable said:


> That really depends on the internal process of the company. Plenty of companies reimburse through the payroll system. That mere fact of course doesn't make reimbursements taxable.
> 
> Also if anyone thinks U/L is gonna reimburse at the federal mileage rate for X, good luck with that. Bear predicts no more than $0.20/mile as a standard rate or the employee would have to substantiate a higher rate with receipts. And then get fired for being too expensive.


20 cents is not going to happen, it's too low. The feds set it at 57 for a reason.

Uber is not going to set up thousands of people to track and verify millions and millions and millions of receipts.

It's much easier for Uber to pay out the .57 cents a mile and write it off on their own expenses.



SHalester said:


> thread is about being an employee. If that is to happen, you will be dictated to whether you like it or not. YOU being Calif drivers. And if your hackles go up and you refuse; BAM you are fired. That is how it works when you are an employee. My entire point from months before AB5 passed was being an employee doesn't mean money will start falling from the sky, or suddenly there will be solid gold benefits. It won't be cookies and milk.
> With that said I'll take what Uber has done due to AB5; they made me happy and almost eliminated the complaints I had. Pretty sure many calif drivers would agree; full info pings and no AR, rock.
> 
> 
> ...


You are correct, mileage reimbursement is not taxable income. It's an expense being reimbursed by the employer.

I always got a payroll check and a separate expense check.


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

SHalester said:


> you are right. BUT any decently sized corporation would split those duties. A super small company, well, maybe they don't even HAVE an HR dept but one person with many hats.
> Bottom line mileage reimbursements for employees is not income.


In bear's experience, this does not vary by size of company. In fact, a small company that uses an outside payroll processor might be more likely to cut reimbursements through AP if they don't send that info in a timely manner to their processor. Or instead, employees probably prefer to get reimbursements via direct deposit, so if a company is not set up to do that through AP, they can use the payroll processor to provide that function. Just depends on how that company is used to working.

A medium-sized company might use the same tracking system and department to process timesheets and expense reports (which can be the same report). For example, in a consulting company, these are closely related functions as both pieces need to feed into the billing system. Whether or not they use an outside payroll processor (which many still do), they need to capture the job cost info on both time and expenses, and it's unlikely the payroll processor would be handling that level of detail. Instead, the company would export the summary info (time and expense) to the processor and the employee would get both via payroll direct deposit.

There are dozens of variations of this theme ...

Bear's point is that function is not germane to your argument at all. Substantiated employee reimbursements are not taxable as a matter of federal tax law, period. It has nothing to do with how the business processes the payments--provided that they ensure that said reimbursements are indeed substantiated, which is universally true except at businesses that suck at accounting in general.



observer said:


> 20 cents is not going to happen, it's too low. The feds set it at 57 for a reason.
> 
> Uber is not going to set up thousands of people to track and verify millions and millions and millions of receipts.
> 
> It's much easier for Uber to pay out the .57 cents a mile and write it off on their own expenses.


The feds set it there because it includes the costs of owning a typical new car ($$$), including 100% depreciation, over the first five years of ownership. That should not represent the typical cost of operation for a RS driver, and U/L will make sure that is so.

Most older-Prius drivers would be happy with $0.20 as their actual expenses are much lower. U/L is not going to give away an additional $0.37/mile out of the kindness of their hearts. Their algo will be programmed to only schedule expensive drivers during periods of maximum demand. The rest of the time will belong to the hybrids.

They don't need thousands of emps to do that, just some software and the fact that most drivers will suck at submitting receipts (especially once they figure out that their actual expenses aren't much higher) and will happily take the $0.20 they get. I don't expect it would cost U/L more than a couple of cents per mile in administrative costs to do that.

Of course as employees, drivers will no longer be able to deduct the federal mileage rate, or the difference between that rate and U/L's reimbursement rate, because unreimbursed employee business expenses are no longer deductible under federal law. So be prepared to lose the tax benefit on that spread.

Don't say bear didn't warn you ...


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Jon Stoppable said:


> Bear's point is that function is not germane to your argument at all.


sorry, **** I made that point? :whistling: Gotta say, tho, in my 30+ experience at one corporation and dealing with many others the HR dept did not waste time processing expense reports; the AP dept did that. We are talking > 100 employees, perhaps that is the main difference?

But, yes, again, mileage and expense reimbursements are not taxable events. So, we agree. Next.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Jon Stoppable said:


> In bear's experience, this does not vary by size of company. In fact, a small company that uses an outside payroll processor might be more likely to cut reimbursements through AP if they don't send that info in a timely manner to their processor. Or instead, employees probably prefer to get reimbursements via direct deposit, so if a company is not set up to do that through AP, they can use the payroll processor to provide that function. Just depends on how that company is used to working.
> 
> A medium-sized company might use the same tracking system and department to process timesheets and expense reports (which can be the same report). For example, in a consulting company, these are closely related functions as both pieces need to feed into the billing system. Whether or not they use an outside payroll processor (which many still do), they need to capture the job cost info on both time and expenses, and it's unlikely the payroll processor would be handling that level of detail. Instead, the company would export the summary info (time and expense) to the processor and the employee would get both via payroll direct deposit.
> 
> ...


Then Uber will stop hiring those with new cars and customers will complain. The quality of cars will plummet. Uber will have to go back to paying more for newer, nicer cars and less for X cars. Like it did before.

Uber can't have its cake and eat it too (although, so far it has been).

The Feds may have taken away the mileage rate from federal taxes but that doesn't preclude California enforcing the payment of expenses by employers.


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

SHalester said:


> sorry, thought I made that point? :whistling: Gotta say, tho, in my 30+ experience at one corporation and dealing with many others the HR dept did not waste time processing expense reports; the AP dept did that. We are talking > 100 employees, perhaps that is the main difference?


Bear had many years of experience advising hundreds of clients on tax law and accounting systems. Each client generally had a couple of bodies that processed expense reports. It doesn't really matter where they were in the org chart. Almost always somewhere under the CFO; maybe payroll, maybe AP. Payroll is only weakly an HR function; HR sets salaries and benefits but really don't want to mess around with details because that is actual work, so not too many payroll departments would report to the VP of HR, or as they are annoyingly called now, "Chief People Officers"  Most often they are under the CFO (usually far down!)

Bear's point is, if you make a weak point in support of an otherwise strong argument, some ninny (like bear) will pick on that point in an attempt to weaken your argument, even though your argument is otherwise demonstrably true. That's annoying, so don't make that argument and save yourself the grief.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Weak point? OK, in my experience the HR/payroll dept does NOT have enough bodies to worry about expense reports. The AP dept, which can have many bodes, does. A tiny company with a few employee, your results may differ. In a large corp with hundreds of employees, across many states the roles are clearly defined and yes all under the CFO and or controller. 
And now I wasted 1/50 over a non-point. perfect.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> Weak point? OK, in my experience the HR/payroll dept does NOT have enough bodies to worry about expense reports. The AP dept, which can have many bodes, does. A tiny company with a few employee, your results may differ. In a large corp with hundreds of employees, across many states the roles are clearly defined and yes all under the CFO and or controller.
> And now I wasted 1/50 over a non-point. perfect.


In our case (almost a thousand employees) expense reports were a function of the accounting department since they got our COD receipts and company credit card bills.

Payroll did strictly payroll.


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

Bear's first job out of school was at one of the largest accounting firms in world (at the time). Expense reimbursement was through the payroll system, which was also the time & expense tracking system, which directly fed into the billing system. Bear's next job was at a telco for which employee expenses were not a factor for the vast majority of employees (which ranged from 600-3,000 over bear's tenure). There expenses were reimbursed through AP. Bear later worked in the accounting department of an AMLAW 100 firm (300 attorneys), which although vastly smaller than the accounting firm, worked the same way.

Bear has had Fortune 500 clients as well as sole proprietors with a handful of employees, and every size in between. There is no rule for how their expense reimbursement function worked. It really makes no difference, it was whatever worked for that business.

This is your argument:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/62
Nothing else matters.

More here:

https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2020/feb/employee-expenses-accountable-plan.html
Note that under federal tax law, as mentioned in that article, mileage reimbursements can be actual or per diem. The standard mileage rate is for the convenience of the employer--and employee, but it's the employer that has the option of whether or not to use that rate.


----------



## mods1964 (Jan 18, 2017)

The Indian ride share app ola employs there drivers, they guarantee a minimum wage after expenses (Ave family saloon car) for drivers, if you should you not make it above minimum wage in any particular week average they make up the difference, if you earn more however much above minimum wage you will not be penalised,, how it works, Ola take 17% commission, you need to have an 80% accept rate on offered rides, if you are sitting in a quiet area for more than 1 hour without a ride offer, you will be expected to move to a busy zone, (usually pre determined areas of city centres, and airports ect) if you decide not to move, or your acceptance is less than 80% ola commission rate will still remain at 17% on all rides but without guarantee of min wage!, Ola recruitment is balanced enough rides to cover the amount of drivers,,, this system works well for drivers and ola acoss Europe, there is no reason uber can not adopt it across the USA


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

SHalester said:


> If that is to happen, you will be dictated to whether you like it or not.


This is the case, as it is. "Agree to these addenda or you do not work". That is tantamount to Uber and Lyft's dictating to drivers.

[QUOTE="SHalester, post: 6255038, member: 184424" YOU being Calif drivers. And if your hackles go up and you refuse; BAM you are fired.[/QUOTE]

It already is that way nationwide.

[QUOTE="SHalester, post: 6255038, member: 184424" being an employee doesn't mean money will start falling from the sky, or suddenly there will be solid gold benefits. It won't be cookies and milk.[/QUOTE]

I do not believe that it ever would. I do not want to be an employee, either. I have stated more than once the only real benefit that could come from this. You mention something along those lines _infra_:

[QUOTE="SHalester, post: 6255038, member: 184424" I'll take what Uber has done due to AB5; they made me happy and almost eliminated the complaints I had. Pretty sure many calif drivers would agree; full info pings and no AR, [/QUOTE]

If they implemented nationwide what they have done in California, that would go far. At least I would know what to accept or decline. The money question would remain outstanding. The benefit that I see to it is that it will force the TNCs to treat us better. Uber and Lyft brought AB-5 on themselves.


----------



## Hopindrew (Jan 30, 2019)

Hammerjam55 said:


> AB5 has screwed with a bunch of industries that I have been a part of...music, Motion Picture, etc....a a BAD move....needs to go....


It's not ab5 that screwed with the industries you mentioned, it's Uber and Lyft's fault for bringing ab5 on. Sometimes you just have to look at things from a different angle.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

SHalester said:


> *We have exciting news* - the Protect App-Based Drivers & Services Act has officially  qualified for the November ballot!
> 
> This is a huge step forward in protecting the rights of drivers like you and me to choose to remain independent contractors while ensuring access to historic new benefits and guarantees.
> 
> ...


Very interesting. As they say "Follow the money".

*
Committee Major Funding from Lyft, Uber Technologies, and DoorDash.*


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Hammerjam55 said:


> AB5 has screwed with a bunch of industries that I have been a part of...music, Motion Picture, etc....a a BAD move....needs to go....


What you're really saying is that because those industries can't pass the ABC independent contractor test the law needs to go.

Maybe those "screwed" industries ought to be treating their workers like actual ICs and then they won't have to worry about AB5.



Daisey77 said:


> The flexible schedule absolutely can continue. There is nothing that says if we become employees we have to be on a set schedule. Of course it'll be up to Uber and Lyft but losing flexibility is the one argument the anti employee folks have. so they have decided to instill it into the driver's head that we will lose your flexibility. Drivers of course panic and don't even bother to think about anything else regarding the issue. It's simply a scare tactic


Maybe new companies that stick to the basics of transport and don't get involved with SDCs, flying cars and foreign adventures can possibly do it but not Uber and Lyft.

Their business model, their future plans, and their valuation that is banking on those plans requires lots of UNPAID labor 24/7, which is not possible with employees.



Judge and Jury said:


> Full time driver or part time? There will not be any full time drivers if drivers become employees due to the cost of benefits for full time employees.


There's no way Uber could operate at anything remotely close to their current business level with only part timers.

Their entire business and future plans have been built on reliability and convenience, both of which would go up in smoke without a reliable supply of full time drivers.

The bedrock core of their entire business (Mon-Fri commutes) is dominated by full time drivers.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> With that said I'll take what Uber has done due to AB5; they made me happy and almost eliminated the complaints I had. Pretty sure many calif drivers would agree; full info pings and no AR, rock.


Covid-19 has saved Uber a fortune in higher payroll costs in CA.

Were it not for Covid, there's a good chance that CA drivers would be getting higher pay rates and/or incentives due to the increase of cherrypicking that would have been taking place since January.

As I've said on previous occasions, a sizable number of ants (probably most) if given the opportunity to cherrypick their rides will do so.

Years of having destinations hidden from them has cost drivers at least 20 BILLION dollars in lost earnings. Think about that.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

SHalester said:


> My entire point from months before AB5 passed was being an employee doesn't mean money will start falling from the sky, or suddenly there will be solid gold benefits. It won't be cookies and milk.
> With that said I'll take what Uber has done due to AB5; they made me happy and almost eliminated the complaints I had


We don't think money is going to be falling for this guy. LoL You're missing the whole point&#129318; that's not why we're going for employee status. Most of us don't want to be employees. However, Uber and Lyft have backed us into a corner. Now we're stuck fighting for something we don't necessarily want just so we can have a voice. All of those complaints of yours that have been eliminated, you do realize how temporary that could be right. They can take those away at any given second and trust me , the minute they don't have to provide those they won't . The only reason those are being provided now is to shut you drivers up. If you're happy, you tend forget why you were fighting for employee status. by you being happy they're hoping you'll vote in their favor. Now employee status will make sure your complaints stay eliminated


----------



## LYFTLIFENYC (Jun 2, 2019)

VOTE NO!


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Daisey77 said:


> We don't think money is going to be falling for this guy. LoL


*Falling from the sky*


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Daisey77 said:


> You're missing the whole point


you, from Denver, you are missing the point. :wink: I've read the messages here since pre AB5 was passed. I know all ends of the opinions. I know, here in calif, few drivers want to be employees. The ones that do, tend to be full time drivers who can't find other work and want RS to 'act' like a W2 job with benefits. They talk about protections (there won't be a union, so no protection) they talk about sick leave, PTO and higher fares/wages. Of those how many have EVER been an employee? None, for any length of time is my guess.

the flip side of the above 'wants' is freedoms RS enjoy now would be mostly gone. That is a clear fact. And if anybody believes no control would be in place is quite confused and doesn't get it and is missing the point.

So, for those who do have a job or have had a job, they know what it would/could be like if RS was forced to implement AB5. Those who haven't, ever, would be completely clueless.

Your mileage in Denver may vary.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

SHalester said:


> you, from Denver, you are missing the point. :wink: I've read the messages here since pre AB5 was passed. I know all ends of the opinions. I know, here in calif, few drivers want to be employees. The ones that do, tend to be full time drivers who can't find other work and want RS to 'act' like a W2 job with benefits. They talk about protections (there won't be a union, so no protection) they talk about sick leave, PTO and higher fares/wages. Of those how many have EVER been an employee? None, for any length of time is my guess.
> 
> the flip side of the above 'wants' is freedoms RS enjoy now would be mostly gone. That is a clear fact. And if anybody believes no control would be in place is quite confused and doesn't get it and is missing the point.
> 
> ...


You sure like to make a lot of assumptions. You're quick to bag on all the other drivers, almost as if you're not a driver yourself? If you are a driver you're no better than the rest of us. You're still just a driver, just like the rest of us. For some reason you have in your mind that us drivers have never held down a real job but yet you claim you have? If that is in fact true then you know the nonsense you're spitting out. Blah blah blah blah blah that's all we hear ... after all, none of us drivers know anything about anything &#128580;


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Daisey77 said:


> ou sure like to make a lot of assumptions.


ah, er, um, ahem: this forum is all about 'wild speculation'. At least assumptions can be based on reality and experience, yeah? -o:
Yup, I'm a part time driver. Got me there. I do RS mostly for the time. Got me again. I've worked since I was 10 and now retired from a full time career. Guilty as charged. It's not a claim, it is fact. Not something you can provide a screen shot, huh? Upload 31 years worth of W2's? OH, sorry I only keep the last 8 years or so. Oh, I did get a nice crystal name plaque at 25yrs. Most of the info would have to be blanked, so not sure that would work. So believe or not. They do say ignorance is bliss.
And yes, many who post here haven't had a long career...yet. Many have had careers and now are retired. Some, still have a job and do RS as it was intended; a side gig. Some are going to school still and do RS as it was intended; part time. And there are some who do RS full time because it is, for whatever valid reason, their sole source of income. No doubt more sub groups I forgot to mention.

Only nonsense is from somebody jumping up and down about a calif only issue (so far) and doing so from Denver. So, one wonders just who is sputtering drivel? You should speak for yourself; nobody is in your pocket; you can only speak for only yourself. It is something one does when they can't provide an opinion; suddenly they speak for many. Next.:thumbup:


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

SHalester said:


> ...few drivers want to be employees. The ones that do, tend to be full time drivers who can't find other work and want RS to 'act' like a W2 job with benefits.





SHalester said:


> You should speak for yourself; nobody is in your pocket; you can only speak for only yourself. It is something one does when they can't provide an opinion; suddenly they speak for many.


Maybe try taking your own advice? You don't seem to hesitate when it comes to speaking for the drivers that want to be employees.


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

SHalester said:


> Upload 31 years worth of W2's?


You could post a copy of your Social Security statement; it will show your lifetime earnings record by year.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

SHalester said:


> *We have exciting news* - the Protect App-Based Drivers & Services Act has officially  qualified for the November ballot!
> 
> This is a huge step forward in protecting the rights of drivers like you and me to choose to remain independent contractors while ensuring access to historic new benefits and guarantees.
> 
> ...


Was this a paid ad?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

goneubering said:


> Was this a paid ad?


for here, or how I originally received it? Just an email from a list I'm on.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

SHalester said:


> for here, or how I originally received it? Just an email from a list I'm on.


Yes. I was wondering if Uber and Lyft and the other companies paid for the post as UP customers.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

goneubering said:


> I was wondering if Uber and Lyft and the other companies paid for the post as UP customers.


nope. Just did it on my own. OH, and it was moved from where I originally posted it in PAY. OH well.


----------



## Lute Byrt (Feb 20, 2020)

Support AB5!


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

Daisey77 said:


> Why yes I have been an employee. A nurse actually. A nurse for 16 but have been an employee for 23 years. What you're missing is this job works because of the flexibility. How many drivers do you know would still drive if they didn't have the flexibility at the rates as low as they are? Almost none. Flexibility is in number one reason why drivers continue driving. If they have no drivers willing to work for them, they would have no drivers to schedule shifts for. I don't see this job working without flexibility regardless of our employees status


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

@Escoman - ?? ^^^^
I think you forgot to add your comment or reply LOL


----------



## Lute Byrt (Feb 20, 2020)

SHalester said:


> for here, or how I originally received it? Just an email from a list I'm on.


"Grindr" email listing is what I am guessing...


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

Launchpad McQuack said:


> Maybe try taking your own advice? You don't seem to hesitate when it comes to speaking for the drivers that want to be employees.


Employee is the only way Uber will stop putting 12 drivers per square block. Oversaturtion cists them nothing. Look at the positive changes that happened since AB5 only in CA. How fast will those dissapear once the threat is gone ! Notice today Uber Donates $1,000,000 to 2 organization s yet wouldn't even pay drivers 2 weeks they promised who got sick without political pressure. Without AB 5 you are legalized slave labor.


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

Escoman said:


> Employee is the only way Uber will stop putting 12 drivers per square block. Oversaturtion cists them nothing. Look at the positive changes that happened since AB5 only in CA. How fast will those dissapear once the threat is gone ! Notice today Uber Donates $1,000,000 to 2 organization s yet wouldn't even pay drivers 2 weeks they promised who got sick without political pressure. Without AB 5 you are legalized slave labor.


Yeah, all that sounds great. However, let your imagination run free.
How do you think working for Uber as a part time, minimum wage employee will actually work out? 
Have you spent time thinking about the actual consequences? What if you are one of the drivers cut because of over saturation? Will I be reading in this forum in the future that you were unfairly deactivated?


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Judge and Jury said:


> Yeah, all that sounds great. However, let your imagination run free.
> How do you think working for Uber as a part time, minimum wage employee will actually work out?
> Have you spent time thinking about the actual consequences? What if you are one of the drivers cut because of over saturation? Will I be reading in this forum in the future that you were unfairly deactivated?


Fired. Technically at that point you would be unfairly fired. Then again you'd be entitled to unemployment if they unfairly fired you and Uber would be actually paying into it at this point instead of government covering it for them. Much better than being unfairly deactivated. Being unfairly deactivated you have no recourse and no chance of compensation


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

As employee I have appeal rights and there are better gigs anyway culling the herd needs to happen.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

an 'at will' employee can be fired for any reason...mostly...

*California* is an at-*will* state, which implies that at *any* moment of jobs with or without *reason* an employer *can* terminate you for *any reason*. This means that if your employer doesn't like your personality if you run out of work, think you're lazy or just don't want staff anymore, they *can fire* you at *any* moment


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

observer said:


> View attachment 466206


Exactly. It's zero sum game. From each fare either Uberlyft gets more and we get less, or Uberlyft gets less and we get more. It's an "us and them" situation.

Uberlyft created this by continually hacking away at and taking more of our revenue for itself. I still think that both companies should be allowed to fail and we await the rideshare 2.0 companies that will be sure to fill the gap.


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

SHalester said:


> an 'at will' employee can be fired for any reason...mostly...
> 
> *California* is an at-*will* state, which implies that at *any* moment of jobs with or without *reason* an employer *can* terminate you for *any reason*. This means that if your employer doesn't like your personality if you run out of work, think you're lazy or just don't want staff anymore, they *can fire* you at *any* moment


Lol what is the difference ? A rider says you are under influence bam instant time out a second says it you are deactivated. No judge no recourse no ability to appeal . Rider says you threatened them you are de activated no recourse. Uber can de activated at any time for no reason. No lawyer will help you no government either. You get your last earnings and good luck.Employee can appeal to labor board collect unemployment . There is no benefit to I.C. as employee you are guaranteed hourly plus expenses. No more cherry picking no more driving around to find a hot spot. You will likely net $20 hour not gross less expenses. Plus you put into social security so if your injured or sick you get paid something. You now have all the risk and no benefit. Slow day who cares I will play on my phone and collect wages. Slow day ic and you lose $.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Escoman said:


> Lol what is the difference ?


um, er, ah: vs an 'unfair firing'. There is no such thing in Calif, which is what I was responding to. The big exception, of course, is if a union is involved. BUT that ain't happening here or anytime soon.


----------



## JaredJ (Aug 7, 2015)

goneubering said:


> Was this a paid ad?


Of course. Ridesharea are spending tens of millions to get this proposition passed.


----------



## Hammerjam55 (Aug 1, 2019)

I don't know if anyone has seen/posted this or not, so I am going to pots it here. I am TOTALLY Opposed to AB5....an acquaintance of mine, Ari Herstand, has also been opposed, and has been working to stop/change this bill, mostly on behalf of the Music community. This video is a report on what he has done, and also provides a little more info to consider....


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

This musician, that hires other musicians, to play in different club venues is actually an employer and he should have been complying with the existing law all along. He just needs to budget $250 per musician per night instead of $200 and do what is required of all employers. It doesn't matter if he does not like it. He has been required to do it all along. (Even prior to the passage of AB5)


----------



## Lute Byrt (Feb 20, 2020)

Support AB 5 seems to be the idea here...


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel
"Stossel's style combines reporting and commentary. It reflects a libertarian political philosophy and views on economics which are largely supportive of the free market.[2]"

Why am I not surprised.


----------



## NotYetADriver (Oct 28, 2014)

The problem with California Ballots and citizen initiatives........

The California government NEVER heeds or respects them. Regardless of how many may vote for it.
Nearly every Proposition that Californians have voted for overwhelmingly have been set aside.
The government simply does not care what The People of California decide.

This has been true in California for a long time now. The government of California is going to do what it wants to do matter what.
it's actually very much like a Communist state.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

It won't matter if it passes or not.
California doesn't care what a majority of it's citizens want.
They'll put it on the ballot, and if it passes ... well, we don't know whats good for us. Gov 'Any-Twosome' Newsom will decide that. The election will be set aside by the 9th Circus because it is 'unconstitutional'.


----------



## Hammerjam55 (Aug 1, 2019)

Bob Reynolds said:


> This musician, that hires other musicians, to play in different club venues is actually an employer and he should have been complying with the existing law all along. He just needs to budget $250 per musician per night instead of $200 and do what is required of all employers. It doesn't matter if he does not like it. He has been required to do it all along. (Even prior to the passage of AB5)


sorry, not that simple. It's not just the Music industry. The industry I spent most of my career in, Motion Picture/Television, is made up of mostly freelancers, ICs, etc. The overhead and complexity of making them employees has created some serious discussions among some companies about leaving California. This bill was aimed at Lyft/Uber, funded by Unions (who always want a piece of anything anyone is doing) but the impact would actually be felt more profoundly by other industries. Lorena Gonzales has clearly been spending some serious bed time with the unions. It's a complicated issue, but making everyone employees is NOT the answer.


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

Hammerjam55 said:


> sorry, not that simple. It's not just the Music industry. The industry I spent most of my career in, Motion Picture/Television, is made up of mostly freelancers, ICs, etc. The overhead and complexity of making them employees has created some serious discussions among some companies about leaving California. This bill was aimed at Lyft/Uber, funded by Unions (who always want a piece of anything anyone is doing) but the impact would actually be felt more profoundly by other industries. Lorena Gonzales has clearly been spending some serious bed time with the unions. It's a complicated issue, but making everyone employees is NOT the answer.


The industry that I spent most of my career in is also the Motion Picture and Television industry. We almost always had a payroll service and we were W2 employees with the proper deductions and benefits being paid. In fact SAG/AFTRA require that these amounts be paid. I will assure you that the majority of the Motion Picture and Television industry works this way because the industry does follow the law.


----------



## Lute Byrt (Feb 20, 2020)

Great Story! Thanks for sharing...


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

Lute Byrt said:


> Support AB 5 seems to be the idea here...


Best thing to ever happen to IC.'s That had to be most abused loophole ever.



UberBastid said:


> It won't matter if it passes or not.
> California doesn't care what a majority of it's citizens want.
> They'll put it on the ballot, and if it passes ... well, we don't know whats good for us. Gov 'Any-Twosome' Newsom will decide that. The election will be set aside by the 9th Circus because it is 'unconstitutional'.


Now that is funny. Prop 13 us alive and well the outrageous prison reforms are. .Most proposition are crafted by people wanting to circumvent laws and don't meet the constitutional challenge. Gov Brown had words changed on Gas tax repeal.to make it look like yes was no and no was yes. Ca is democrat super majority as such They are enabled and blessed by enough voters to do whatever they want without recourse.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

UberBastid said:


> It won't matter if it passes or not.
> California doesn't care what a majority of it's citizens want.
> They'll put it on the ballot, and if it passes ... well, we don't know whats good for us. Gov 'Any-Twosome' Newsom will decide that. The election will be set aside by the 9th Circus because it is 'unconstitutional'.





Escoman said:


> Now that is funny. Prop 13 us alive and well the outrageous prison reforms are. .Most proposition are crafted by people wanting to circumvent laws and don't meet the constitutional challenge. Gov Brown had words changed on Gas tax repeal.to make it look like yes was no and no was yes. Ca is democrat super majority as such They are enabled and blessed by enough voters to do whatever they want without recourse.


Well, I didn't say that EVERY thing that The People vote for is overturned.
They keep the ones that meet their socialist agenda - dismiss the stuff that's just not good for us.

And, don't get me started on Prop 13.
I was there when it happened - I know the back story, the whole story.

Prior to 1975 people were losing their homes to property taxes.
As values soared, old folks couldn't make the tax payments even though the house was paid off.
So, Jarvis and Ghan got together and came up with an idea ... and it was a good idea, but it has consequences that they didn't consider and are bad and have _never_ been addressed.
They set the 'base value' as the original purchase price and capped raises at 1% per year. 
So, your taxes only went up if you sold and bought a new house.
Good idea, right? Well ...

Problem? When was the last time Chevron Corp sold their processing plant in Richmond. Never. They have a lower tax base than the young couple that just bought their new home in the same town. 
At the time I argued that it would be better to increase the Homeowners Exemption from $7000 to a much bigger number ... say, $100,000.
So, if you owned a million dollar home you'd pay taxes on $900,000 in value.
If you owned a $100,000 home, you don't pay taxes.
It could be adjusted yearly based on median home prices in that county.
And Chevron will pay a FAIR tax.


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

UberBastid said:


> Well, I didn't say that EVERY thing that The People vote for is overturned.
> They keep the ones that meet their socialist agenda - dismiss the stuff that's just not good for us.
> 
> And, don't get me started on Prop 13.
> ...


I am a realtor the county is doing just fine. Every time a property sells they get a nice raise. My office just sold a property first time on market over 40 years. Assessment went from $60k to $1,100,000. If you compare how much tax revenue before prop 13 to now the Govt is way ahead. All they need to do is cut wasteful spending.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Escoman said:


> If you compare how much tax revenue before prop 13 to now the Govt is way ahead


I know a few hundred school superindentants that would disagree with that statement..........

According to the most recent available information, In 2015-16, *California ranked* 41st among all states in *spending per* K-12 student after adjusting for differences in the cost of living in each state


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Escoman said:


> I am a realtor the county is doing just fine. Every time a property sells they get a nice raise. My office just sold a property first time on market over 40 years. Assessment went from $60k to $1,100,000. If you compare how much tax revenue before prop 13 to now the Govt is way ahead. All they need to do is cut wasteful spending.


I'm not talking about income.
I'm talking about equity.

Why should Chevron Corp be paying taxes on a 1970 value because they haven't sold their property - and that nice young couple struggling to live has to pay taxes based on a 2019 value?
That's not equitable.
And that's what the State Board of EQUALIZATION is supposed to oversee.


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

SHalester said:


> I know a few hundred school superindentants that would disagree with that statement..........
> 
> According to the most recent available information, In 2015-16, *California ranked* 41st among all states in *spending per* K-12 student after adjusting for differences in the cost of living in each state


How many multi billion dollar bknds to fix schools do we need ? Do you know with the money in those bonds We could have replaced every school in the state yet every 4 years they ask for even more. The problem isn't how much money it's how much is wasted. We have too much administration there are like 9 admins to 1 teacher.


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

Hammerjam55 said:


> I don't know if anyone has seen/posted this or not, so I am going to pots it here. I am TOTALLY Opposed to AB5....an acquaintance of mine, Ari Herstand, has also been opposed, and has been working to stop/change this bill, mostly on behalf of the Music community. This video is a report on what he has done, and also provides a little more info to consider....


This ballot has nothing to do with the music industry and ab5 will still be law after the ballot. This ballot is just so uber can be exempt from ab5. Ab5 will stand while the democrats govern California. A long time.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Exactly. It's zero sum game. From each fare either Uberlyft gets more and we get less, or Uberlyft gets less and we get more. It's an "us and them" situation.
> 
> Uberlyft created this by continually hacking away at and taking more of our revenue for itself. I still think that both companies should be allowed to fail and we await the rideshare 2.0 companies that will be sure to fill the gap.


I had to read through 6 pages of this crap to get to the only intelligent post in the thread.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Escoman said:


> The problem isn't how much money it's how much is wasted.


ok, your school district sucks. OR you have no kids school aged. Or both. Or you don't know history. Or all 3. Hard to say which. Naive and totally out of contact, certainly. 
Money wasted; what a schmuck.


----------



## May H. (Mar 20, 2018)

SHalester said:


> yeah yeah. Sounds like somebody else who has never had a W2 job and no idea what is involved. It won't be all sugar and rainbows. Wanna bet it passes with a huge margin?


Haha that's a dumbass assumption. I worked w2 jobs for nearly 30 years! The only way this will pass is because of $110 Uber/Lyft/Doordash is paying to launch a lying disinformation campaign. If you vote Yes you're an IDIOT because you're voting against your own best interest.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

May H. said:


> If you vote Yes you're an IDIOT because you're voting against your own best interest.


excuse me? How do you know that? Are you the few who believe becoming an employee is100% ice cream and candy? With no downsides at all? Do tell us your version of how it would work out. We await.


----------



## Lute Byrt (Feb 20, 2020)

We are all discussing the same thing, increase pay towards drivers, give health insurance benefits accordingly, allow full compensation for all expenses (including depreciation), sick pay, overtime, and holiday bonus pay. If this ever happens then I guess it might work. So far I have yet to see Uber and Lyft make good on any of this! I believe bankruptcy will happen for both of these companies first!

Personally, I just want our cities nationwide to do a better job of public transportation...


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

May H. said:


> Haha that's a dumbass assumption. I worked w2 jobs for nearly 30 years! The only way this will pass is because of $110 Uber/Lyft/Doordash is paying to launch a lying disinformation campaign. If you vote Yes you're an IDIOT because you're voting against your own best interest.


Spoken like a true blue California Socialist.
"You're and idiot because you are voting for freedom and personal responsibility."


----------



## Lute Byrt (Feb 20, 2020)

Either way it is CA, so it only make cents there...


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks (Aug 5, 2019)

*UBER AND LYFT MAKE US SICK*

CALIFORNIA UNIONS AND WORKERS ARE FIGHTING BACK
SAY NO ON PROP 22 TAKE THE PLEDGE


HOME
 
NEWS
 
TAKE ACTION
 
RESOURCES
*WHEN UBER AND LYFT
BREAK THE LAW IT HURTS US ALL

WHAT IS PROP 22?*
Uber, Lyft, Instacart and Doordash wrote Proposition 22 to create a special exemption for themselves from California law that requires app-based companies to provide basic protections to their workers. Now they're spending more than $100 million on Prop 22 to boost their profits by denying their drivers' right to a minimum wage, paid sick leave and safety protections.
LEARN MORE
*BREAKING THE LAW*
Uber and Lyft think they're above the law. By ignoring laws on employee benefits and protections they're putting millions of Californians in danger.
LEARN MORE
*ELIMINATING UNION JOBS*
"Gig" companies are working to pit workers against each other so they can kill union jobs and drive down wages for everyone. LEARN MORE
*SHIFTS THE BURDEN TO TAXPAYERS*
When big gig companies like Uber and Lyft misclassify their employees as
"contractors" it robs those workers of unemployment insurance and
workers compensation protection. That leaves taxpayers on the hook. LEARN MORE
*CHEATING WORKERS*
These big gig companies don't give their workers paid time off or paid sick leave. Even during the pandemic if they want to pay their rent, they have to drive and expose even more Californians to Coronavirus. LEARN MORE
*BANKRUPTING CALIFORNIA*
When Uber and Lyft break the law to cheat their workers, they cheat all Californians as well. Their illegal misclassification scheme is a way to evade millions in taxes that state and local governments desperately need. LEARN MORE

*Share this:*

*WORKERS' STORIES*
UBER AND LYFT DRIVERS ARE FIGHTING BACK AGAINST GIG GREED.
CLICK HERE

*WORKERS STANDING TOGETHER*
*LEARN*
The truth about Prop 22 and the assault on union workers
*FIGHT*
To expose the truth about Uber and Lyft's agenda
*CONNECT*
With other workers fighting against gig greed










*UBER AND LYFT MAKE US SICK*


HOME
 
NEWS
 
TAKE ACTION
 
RESOURCES

*JOIN US*
Follow us on *Facebook,* *Instagram *and *Twitter* to connect with other workers fighting to expose the truth about Uber and Lyft's agenda.
And learn more about how Uber and Lyft are taking California for a ride and join the coalition at *Slam the Brakes*.

https://slamthebrakes.org/
https://sickofgiggreed.com/


----------



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

do you want 48c a mile 8c a minute rates?

$3.00 per delivery?

That's what this ballot initiative will get you.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Lute Byrt said:


> Either way it is CA, so it only make cents there...


Yep. 72 per mile and 30 per minute.


----------

