# The parts of AB5 people aren't talking about.



## Sal29 (Jul 27, 2014)

There's good and bad. The great parts are that low life cheapskates paxholes will not be able to afford uber/Lyft, etc.
The bad part is that since paxhole demand will go down, many drivers will have to be fired. Pay will go up a lot for the many drivers that don't get fired though.


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

AB5 is bigger than uber imo. 

Talk to some recent grads. Companies are only bringing them on as contractors. The next recession will be a bloodbath.


----------



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

The contractor loophole needs to end,

And it looks like this is the first step, 


Maybe the first step into oblivion, but...

it's the first step to changing things.


Compared to sub min wage currently paid on uber it has to be an improvement.


----------



## Youburr (Aug 22, 2019)

I don't think they need to fire hecka drivers... just require a class B. It's not that tough and only a fraction will bother going thru any type of medical entrance processing. The test is easy, and has four components. Pee in a cup, pass the multiple choice exam, inspect your vehicle, and drive while voluntarily obeying traffic regulations.


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

Youburr said:


> I don't think they need to fire hecka drivers... just require a class B. It's not that tough and only a fraction will bother going thru any type of medical entrance processing. The test is easy, and has four components. Pee in a cup, pass the multiple choice exam, inspect your vehicle, and drive while voluntarily obeying traffic regulations.


Mandatory drug test will whittle down driver excess numbers fast
and Bonus: result in safer roads✔


----------



## Youburr (Aug 22, 2019)

I expect there will be much urination.
Annually at the doctors office, per DMV code.
In the event of an accusation,
And randomly, at the GLH.


----------



## IthurstwhenIP (Jan 12, 2018)

Unless it is unavoidable, no company will add hourly or contract jobs in Cali. Obviously a lot of jobs need location, but other is toast


----------



## Youburr (Aug 22, 2019)

I had a contractor gig with an NDA for a multinational firm. It was humiliating having to work alongside all the employees, but without their benefits. In the end, when the layoffs happened, I found out they were using contracts for some of their best employees. I can't tell you what I worked on, but I can say that it was a company that completely took advantage of Californians. I think AB5 will be good for a company like that, as it would improve morale to onboard the gig pigs, who are actually 5-star people. I have no idea what U/L will do but it seems like they would need a separate app for Cal drivers.


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

Sal29 said:


> There's good and bad. The great parts are that low life cheapskates paxholes will not be able to afford uber/Lyft, etc.
> The bad part is that since paxhole demand will go down, many drivers will have to be fired. Pay will go up a lot for the many drivers that don't get fired though.


It's talked about a lot in NYC. Rider price has gone sky high and ridership is down.
Same will likely happen in CA.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Taxi2Uber said:


> It's talked about a lot in NYC. Rider price has gone sky high and ridership is down.
> Same will likely happen in CA.


You're right, employers should be able to skirt all employments laws for the sake of low prices.


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> You're right, employers should be able to skirt all employments laws for the sake of low prices.


I have no doubt that's how you read it


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Taxi2Uber said:


> I have no doubt that's how you read it,


You're the guy that just said the only reason they passed AB5 was for the added tax revenue and not to help drivers and you're trying to say that I'm biased ? ??

It should be obvious who cares are drivers here and it's not you.


----------



## nouberipo (Jul 24, 2018)

Sal29 said:


> There's good and bad. The great parts are that low life cheapskates paxholes will not be able to afford uber/Lyft, etc.
> The bad part is that since paxhole demand will go down, many drivers will have to be fired. Pay will go up a lot for the many drivers that don't get fired though.


Just as it should be.



Taxi2Uber said:


> It's talked about a lot in NYC. Rider price has gone sky high and ridership is down.
> Same will likely happen in CA.


Those low rider prices were given on the backs of the drivers! Those people who would be taking the public bus are taking Uber instead because it is nearly as cheap BUT those cheap fares are being supported by drivers making below minimum wage. If you want a service you need to pay for it and the persons providing the service shouldn't be the ones subsidizing the rides.



Cold Fusion said:


> Mandatory drug test will whittle down driver excess numbers fast
> and Bonus: result in safer roads✔


Drug testing in terms of 420 is irrelevant at this point since it is legal in CA. The only relevance is if they are driving while intoxicated or high. Otherwise, on their free time, they are able to smoke up as much as they want.


----------



## DeadEndRoad (Sep 9, 2019)

Arizona being a "Right to work" state, I don't see any changes in the forcible future. But if and when such a change happens I will not be accepting employment status with uber. And I find it hard to believe that riders will be willing to give up uber for public transportation. That would be a major step down for riders who have become accustomed to the convenience of uber. We as drivers are transporting human lives in a safe timely manner vs a CEO who makes millions for giving driver's nothing more than a reach around. And if that doesn't qualify for fair compensation then uber and its investors can burn in hell.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Taxi2Uber said:


> It's talked about a lot in NYC. Rider price has gone sky high and ridership is down.
> Same will likely happen in CA.


That seems likely. I also expect lots of Cali drivers will be posting complaints on this forum once AB5 goes into effect.


----------



## OldBay (Apr 1, 2019)

I've said it before, but being an employee doesn't mean a full time employee. In fact, from a benefit standpoint, they have incentive to have as many PT employees as possible.

It will likely devolve into enforced work shifts. It will look something like how throttling works now, except they will tell you when you are able to accept trips.

This will hurt FT drivers the most. That Ian Richard Markham guy, he's the guy driving 80 hours/week in CA, right? He will log on and be told that because he worked yesterday, he won't be getting any trips today. Maybe he'll finally be able to sort his drug addiction.


----------



## losiglow (Dec 4, 2018)

I hope this doesn't come to Utah. As a part-time, I most certainly _would not_ be in favor. Of course, Utah is so business-friendly and conservative that I don't think a law like this would pass in a million years here.

I'm all about making the man pay a fair wage but Cali tends to shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to legislation that affects businesses. Another reason why so many are moving from Cali to Utah, Texas, Nevada, etc. Which I kind of wish wasn't happening because it's really jamming things up around here.....


----------



## CarpeNoctem (Sep 12, 2018)

"California Gov. Gavin Newsom told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday that he's still engaged in talks with Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies about possible negotiations around the bill. " - CNBC

It is not carved in stone yet. I think we all know what "negotiations" means.

I'm not in CA so it doesn't affect me one way or the other but I do agree that it will increase the cost of rides and if people can only afford bus fare then they should be taking the bus!


----------



## Youburr (Aug 22, 2019)

There also might be a new thing like how an automatic insurance policy lasts for the duration of the ride. There might be a way to have automated employment status per the trips with all the traditional application and tax documentation generated by the servers.


----------



## SeanfromDC (Jan 18, 2019)

Hello folks,

News reporter here. I'm trying to gauge the opinions of rideshare drivers to AB5's likely passage through the Calif. assembly. To start off, I know that reporters aren't always your favorite people. I hung out in this site last year for a story I did on how the federal government furlough affected drivers in the Washington D.C. metro area. You can read that to gain of sense of how I cover gig economy stuff: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...suffering-twice-over-from-government-shutdown

So I'd appreciate any honest thoughts, comments, reactions, insights etc., on the good, the bad and the otherwise of AB5.

I have no axe to grind. I know that the companies can pinch pennies 'till they scream. I know that politicians, even when they think they are doing the right thing, don't necessarily understand the consequences of what they do and the laws they pass. To be clear, I can't make any promises in terms of what I will write -- no journalist could do that -- other than to quote you accurately and in context.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Youburr said:


> I don't think they need to fire hecka drivers... just require a class B. It's not that tough and only a fraction will bother going thru any type of medical entrance processing. The test is easy, and has four components. Pee in a cup, pass the multiple choice exam, inspect your vehicle, and drive while voluntarily obeying traffic regulations.


Have had class D chauffers in my state since late 70's.
Used to need it for company vehicles.

No one here driving Uber has it.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

SeanfromDC said:


> Hello folks,
> 
> News reporter here. I'm trying to gauge the opinions of rideshare drivers to AB5's likely passage through the Calif. assembly. To start off, I know that reporters aren't always your favorite people. I hung out in this site last year for a story I did on how the federal government furlough affected drivers in the Washington D.C. metro area. You can read that to gain of sense of how I cover gig economy stuff: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...suffering-twice-over-from-government-shutdown
> 
> ...


None of us know anything yet. It's all been pure speculation.


----------



## SeanfromDC (Jan 18, 2019)

O-Side Uber said:


> None of us know anything yet. It's all been pure speculation.


 Fair enough. I'm asking simply because you guys are better situated to see the implications of what could happen.


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

SeanfromDC said:


> Hello folks,
> 
> News reporter here. I'm trying to gauge the opinions of rideshare drivers to AB5's likely passage through the Calif. assembly. To start off, I know that reporters aren't always your favorite people. I hung out in this site last year for a story I did on how the federal government furlough affected drivers in the Washington D.C. metro area. You can read that to gain of sense of how I cover gig economy stuff: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...suffering-twice-over-from-government-shutdown
> 
> ...


1. Uber and Lyft brought this upon themselves by cutting fares below the cost to provide those fares and paying drivers poverty wages (below minimum wage).

2. Even when these important issues were brought to their attention, Uber and Lyft did nothing to try to remedy the situation. Their response was to continue to lower the rates and the driver pay.

3. AB 5 stops the rate cuts.

4. AB 5 stops the below minimum wage pay.

5. AB 5 will require Uber and Lyft to properly manage their workers so that the proper number of workers are on the platform to service the customers. There will not be excess drivers sitting around waiting for fares that never come.

As is standard procedure with this type of legislation, there was so much spin from the the opponents claiming all kinds of incredible things would happen if this passes. It was a combination of scare tactics, bullying, blaming and deceit. This was all designed to help Uber and Lyft continue to pay poverty wages while sticking the taxpayers of California with the bills that Uber and Lyft drivers simply can pay. (like food, shelter and medical care)

Uber and Lyft set up a business model that was designed to pay their drivers below minimum wage. That should never have even happened in the first place. It was a bad plan and it was an illegal plan. It took a California Supreme Court decision and the California legislature to force Uber, Lyft and other companies like them to comply with the law. And the weird thing is Uber and Lyft are still fighting this instead of adjusting their business to comply with the law.


----------



## SeanfromDC (Jan 18, 2019)

Bob Reynolds said:


> AB 5 will require Uber and Lyft to properly manage their workers so that the proper number of workers are on the platform to service the customers. There will not be excess drivers sitting around waiting for fares that never come.


Are you a full-time driver or part-time one? This will essentially winnow out part-time drivers, correct? When I covered the situation during the DC furlough I was often told by drivers that part of the problem was the influx of part-timers the shutdown caused (Idle gov't workers driving to make money and/or just do something). You view this as positive even if it means driving becomes a less viable option for part-timers?

Again, no axe to grind. Just seeking clarification.


----------



## OldBay (Apr 1, 2019)

Bob Reynolds said:


> *4. AB 5 stops the below minimum wage pay.*


It is/was only minimum wage when driving in the wrong location/time.

Some drivers have had the expectation that they can drive whenever they want and make peak wages.

The gig is unique in that the more hours you work, the lower your hourly rate will be.

If drivers are making less than minimum wage, its because their market is over saturated and they haven't figured out how to drive for efficiency.

If AB5 passes, drivers will be making the same overall, although the "bad" drivers making minimum wage won't be allowed to drive around the clock. They will be given shifts. The good drivers have already figured out that shifts are a thing.

Uber won't be paying any more. This will just have an averaging effect on all the drivers, minus what uber is required to pay in benefits.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

SeanfromDC said:


> Are you a full-time driver or part-time one? This will essentially winnow out part-time drivers, correct? When I covered the situation during the DC furlough I was often told by drivers that part of the problem was the influx of part-timers the shutdown caused (Idle gov't workers driving to make money and/or just do something). You view this as positive even if it means driving becomes a less viable option for part-timers?
> 
> Again, no axe to grind. Just seeking clarification.


Nobody knows for sure. I'm a part time driver who's hoping I will be given the choice to opt out of being forced to become an employee of Uber. For me the most important factor is the flexibility to work whenever I want.

Having said that I do hope this bill will actually be helpful for the majority of drivers because some of them are really hurting financially.

I suppose this will reduce the incredible churn of drivers.

And of course prices will have to go up for passengers.


----------



## SeanfromDC (Jan 18, 2019)

goneubering said:


> Nobody knows for sure. I'm a part time driver who's hoping I will be given the choice to opt out of being forced to become an employee of Uber. For me the most important factor is the flexibility to work whenever I want.


You prefer to remain part-time, then? If driving was only available as a full-time job, required getting a union card, etc., you'd do something else in that case? Do you have options if you had to find other part-time work?


----------



## mch (Nov 22, 2018)

SeanfromDC said:


> Hello folks,
> 
> News reporter here. I'm trying to gauge the opinions of rideshare drivers to AB5's likely passage through the Calif. assembly. To start off, I know that reporters aren't always your favorite people. I hung out in this site last year for a story I did on how the federal government furlough affected drivers in the Washington D.C. metro area. You can read that to gain of sense of how I cover gig economy stuff: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...suffering-twice-over-from-government-shutdown
> 
> ...


You'll hear alot of people mention "poverty wages" this doesn't apply if you are using Uber as supplemental income and only driving during peak demand hours. It becomes poverty level wages if you extrapolate them out over 50-60 hour work weeks. I have a full time job and can still go out and make $200-$300 after expenses and accounting for taxes driving between 10-20 hours on the weekend in the Philly market. Full time vs part time are almost two completely different jobs in the gig economy. I know you're writing about this bill specifically but I think there's definitely a story there too.

Im not absolving the rideshare companies from blame. From the begining they should have put an hours cap on drivers and not offered all of the promotions and quests that lured people into doing this full time.


----------



## losiglow (Dec 4, 2018)

SeanfromDC said:


> Hello folks,
> 
> News reporter here. I'm trying to gauge the opinions of rideshare drivers to AB5's likely passage through the Calif. assembly. To start off, I know that reporters aren't always your favorite people. I hung out in this site last year for a story I did on how the federal government furlough affected drivers in the Washington D.C. metro area. You can read that to gain of sense of how I cover gig economy stuff: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...suffering-twice-over-from-government-shutdown
> 
> ...


There are lots of opinions on the other AB5 threads. And some of this is repetition. Here are my key takeaways:

A. Uber and Lyft did indeed bring this upon themselves as Bob Reynolds said above. There's no doubt about that in my opinion. They did not adequately address driver concerns.

B. I think if this new bill makes it through, that Uber and Lyft will simply find ways to skirt around it. These have already been mentioned - less hours, laying off lots of drivers, providing the very minimum of benefits (e.g. super high deductible health plants, paltry 401K matches, very low hours of PTO given, etc.). The advantages have been made obvious by those that promote the bill but the disadvantages are like lurking monsters that will only rear their ugly faces when the bill passes and the changes are made.

C. Many part time drivers, and even full time drivers, will be shocked when they get their schedules, finding that they're assigned to hours they don't necessarily want to work. Yes, I'm sure there will be some flexibility, but inevitably, there will be times when drivers would rather not work but will be obligated to do so. Even if they were to pick their own shifts. There will still be things that will come up that as IC's, they could have just turned the app off but are now obligated to work.

D. As a part-time driver, I DO NOT want this to come to my market. I'm not worried however. As I said in a previous post, I live in Utah, which is very business friendly, low regulations and politically conservative. A law like that would be very unlikely to pass in this state anytime soon. If it did, I would likely have to quit driving RS unless I was still able to completely pick and choose my hours at a whim like I do now.


----------



## 25rides7daysaweek (Nov 20, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> You're right, employers should be able to skirt all employments laws for the sake of low prices.


So they can drive around scum
for the same price as a bus
I say if you pay for a bus 
you should be on one...


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

SeanfromDC said:


> You prefer to remain part-time, then? If driving was only available as a full-time job, required getting a union card, etc., you'd do something else in that case? Do you have options if you had to find other part-time work?


Yes. Part-time with flex hours is my strong preference. I enjoy rideshare so it's somewhat ironic that I could be forced out while drivers who seem to hate Uber and Uber's customers will still be driving.


----------



## mch (Nov 22, 2018)

goneubering said:


> Yes. Part-time with flex hours is my strong preference. I enjoy rideshare so it's somewhat ironic that I could be forced out while drivers who seem to hate Uber and Uber's customers will still be driving.


Yes! This!


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

SeanfromDC said:


> Are you a full-time driver or part-time one? This will essentially winnow out part-time drivers, correct? When I covered the situation during the DC furlough I was often told by drivers that part of the problem was the influx of part-timers the shutdown caused (Idle gov't workers driving to make money and/or just do something). You view this as positive even if it means driving becomes a less viable option for part-timers?
> 
> Again, no axe to grind. Just seeking clarification.


I've driven part time and full time so I have an understanding of the different parts of the equation.

No one really knows how this is going to play out in the end as the companies adjust their business.

However it seems to make more sense that Uber and Lyft would prefer part time drivers (under 30 hours per week) in order to avoid the health care costs and the potential overtime costs when a driver goes over 40 hours a week.

I can see a scenerio where a driver works for Uber for 30 hours a week and then works for Lyft for 30 hours a week. This difference will be that the driver can not work for Uber and Lyft at the same time and during the same hours.

Uber and Lyft know how many customers they have in a given location, in a given city at a given time. The drivers do not have this information.

What Lyft and Uber currently do is to allow an unlimited number of (unpaid) drivers to be on the platform and any one time waiting for a fare. There might be 10 fares available and 100 drivers on the platform chasing those fares. So there is a lot of waiting around (unpaid) time.

With AB5, any driver waiting for a fare will be paid at least the minimum wage for the time s/he is waiting and while s/he is driving to pick up the passenger. In addition, the minimum wage paid must be after all driver expenses. So in effect Uber and Lyft will also be paying for the vehicles because the minimum wage law has to be after expenses. Uber and Lyft might argue how much those expenses are, but in the end those expenses must be covered by Uber and Lyft. In 2019, the IRS says it costs .58 cents a mile to operate the average motor vehicle. Unless Uber and Lyft want to fight the IRS then that will most likely be the amount Uber and Lyft will be paying. Drivers on a 10 hour shift are putting 200-300 miles on their vehicle.

When Lyft started, they required drivers to sign up the week prior for shifts for the following week. You didn't have to work the entire shift, but you did have to sign up for certain shifts if you wanted to be allowed onto the platform during that time. This is much like what Instacart does today. The reason for this is to rightsize the number of drivers for the expected business. I do see Uber and Lyft going back to this type of system. If you did not sign up for a shift, you would not be allowed to log onto that shift unless there was extra business available or not enough drivers had showed up for their pre-reserved shift.


----------



## May H. (Mar 20, 2018)

Sal29 said:


> There's good and bad. The great parts are that low life cheapskates paxholes will not be able to afford uber/Lyft, etc.
> The bad part is that since paxhole demand will go down, many drivers will have to be fired. Pay will go up a lot for the many drivers that don't get fired though.


Good, the herd needs to be thinned of mediocre drivers.


----------



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

OldBay said:


> It is/was only minimum wage when driving in the wrong location/time.
> 
> Some drivers have had the expectation that they can drive whenever they want and make peak wages.
> 
> ...


Lyft did a new pay cut here recently in many markets, and it was a deep slashing of rates.

I've said for a long time that the next paycut is coming and I've been right, they see no bottom to the pay, every-time you folks think it can go no lower they cut pay, a bunch of people quit,and new people come and think it's good money.

Unless forced to uber/lyft will continue cutting pay.

It's now to the point that it's impossible to owe anything on your taxes by engaging in this work.

You'll never make min wage without surges and when every other ping is $3.00 and takes 15 minutes.


----------



## KK2929 (Feb 9, 2017)

dirtylee said:


> AB5 is bigger than uber imo.
> 
> Talk to some recent grads. Companies are only bringing them on as contractors. The next recession will be a bloodbath.


--------------------------
Recent grads of what ? College or High School ? The type of company and work would determine if this policy is a concern for the market place.


----------



## OldBay (Apr 1, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I've said for a long time that the next paycut is coming and I've been right, they see no bottom to the pay, every-time you folks think it can go no lower they cut pay, a bunch of people quit,and new people come and think it's good money.


Sadly, that's how free markets work. They will keep lowering pay until they find the bottom.

If you were running a business and you found out that people would do the same job for less, would you pay everyone the higher salary? Why?

When I see a market with higher rates, there must be a reason. Either they haven't gained in-roads and they are trying to expand service, or there are characteristics of that market that necessitate higher pay.

Lets be honest, this is low skill labor. GPS and smart phones made navigation and payment much easier, and safety much better. What talent cabbies used to have really isn't needed now. I mean, you have *women* driving Uber now! Its that safe! I can't imagine many women lasted long as taxi drivers; they would be abused, harassed, and taken advantage of. This job used to require rough characters who could handle themselves in a physical situation and could handle carrying alot of cash.


----------



## KK2929 (Feb 9, 2017)

SeanfromDC said:


> Hello folks,
> 
> News reporter here. I'm trying to gauge the opinions of rideshare drivers to AB5's likely passage through the Calif. assembly. To start off, I know that reporters aren't always your favorite people. I hung out in this site last year for a story I did on how the federal government furlough affected drivers in the Washington D.C. metro area. You can read that to gain of sense of how I cover gig economy stuff: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...suffering-twice-over-from-government-shutdown
> 
> ...


----------------------------
Hi Sean --
Thank you for giving us a chance to comment on AB5. You are correct about feelings of reporters. Just report the actual facts and do not embellish, all I ask.
I have many concerns about AB5 beginning with the fare rates increasing dramatically , which will cause demand to reduce. If U/L start scheduling work hours, that will be a huge problem for many drivers. At this point, no one knows what will happen.
Here are just a few of my thoughts --
I do not see U/L EVER paying vacation pay, sick pay, retirement packages.
They will keep every ones schedule under 30 hours per week and define them as part time and not entitled to benefits. Also, what is a full time employee with Ride Share ? Is that 40 hours with pax in the car OR 40 hours of logged on time or a set 8 hour day ? Big, no, huge difference.
Both U/L have heavily invested in proposals for the upcoming polls of 2020. Maybe the popular vote will actually determine the outcome of this issue.
I see both companies fighting this decision in court and dragging it on forever.
Neither company is going to allow this to end without a lengthy legal battle. Way too much money involved at this point.
-----------
IMO, what U/L should do is separate the Ride Share business from all other areas of their business. It is a mistake to use the profits of RS to invest and support other areas of research in investment, such as bikes, scooters, trucking & freight, auto-driven cars, etc. All they are doing is cheating RS drivers and wasting money. It is bad enough that they waste million/billions on extravagant salaries, purchases, non-sense investments, operating expenses while they cheat and steal from the drivers. But their attitude is that they have a right to operate inefficiently while drivers are working for pennies and unable to complain for fear of deactivation.
Uber is currently laying off excess fat in several departments, However, they just purchased a huge vacant Post Office building in Chicago for their trucking business. What are they doing with an entire building? The Uber Freight only connects truck drivers with freight deliveries.
I have many more thoughts but most are X-rated !!!! One more observation - Be careful what you ask for.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I drive 20-30 hours a week for Lyft but I have driven full time for both Uber and Lyft. 
One ant in Los Angeles
----------------------------



SeanfromDC said:


> Are you a full-time driver or part-time one? This will essentially winnow out part-time drivers, correct? When I covered the situation during the DC furlough I was often told by drivers that part of the problem was the influx of part-timers the shutdown caused (Idle gov't workers driving to make money and/or just do something). You view this as positive even if it means driving becomes a less viable option for part-timers?
> 
> Again, no axe to grind. Just seeking clarification.


-----------------------------------
I suggest you contact Ride Share Drivers United for stats.
Most drivers in all cities are part time, meaning under 40 hours per week.
When your DC source made that statement, I believe they meant to say that laid off government workers had started driving for U/L to earn money and were driving part time, meaning an excess of part time drivers had flooded the market. I do not believe that part time drivers cause any more problems then just having too many drivers.


----------



## jetcityx (Feb 11, 2015)

Driving for Uber and Lyft in California will now just be another lower paying crap job with limited flexibility. Either way tens of thousands of drivers will be eliminated.


----------



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

OldBay said:


> Sadly, that's how free markets work. They will keep lowering pay until they find the bottom.
> 
> If you were running a business and you found out that people would do the same job for less, would you pay everyone the higher salary? Why?


I wouldn't go below minimum wage...

Frankly i'd do a couple bucks over, and try to actually keep the decent good employees around,

even in Orlando if the best you can do is min wage the best you will get is... well look at uber...


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

Sal29 said:


> There's good and bad. The great parts are that low life cheapskates paxholes will not be able to afford uber/Lyft, etc.
> The bad part is that since paxhole demand will go down, many drivers will have to be fired. Pay will go up a lot for the many drivers that don't get fired though.


Ubers driver churn is 95% plus.

Please explain how you are going to fire drivers before they quit?


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

SeanfromDC said:


> Fair enough. I'm asking simply because you guys are better situated to see the implications of what could happen.


Making drivers employees would to be too costly and undesirable.

What they could do is actually treat us like real independent contractors.

Like the ability to see exactly where the ride is going and exactly how much we will get.
Ending the upfront pricing scams.
Removing the bullshit algorithms.
Unlimited destination filters.
Improving rates. Gas in CA is > $3.50/gallon. Yet they want drivers to drive at 0.60/mi


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

dirtylee said:


> AB5 is bigger than uber imo.
> 
> Talk to some recent grads. Companies are only bringing them on as contractors. The next recession will be a bloodbath.


 companies are abusing the independent contractor model for their own selfish gain


----------



## Misunderstood Pirate (Aug 25, 2017)

Taxi2Uber said:


> It's talked about a lot in NYC. Rider price has gone sky high and ridership is down.
> Same will likely happen in CA.


Good. They can take the bus. We are not a charity


----------



## jeanocelot (Sep 2, 2016)

Sal29 said:


> There's good and bad. The great parts are that low life cheapskates paxholes will not be able to afford uber/Lyft, etc.
> The bad part is that since paxhole demand will go down, many drivers will have to be fired. Pay will go up a lot for the many drivers that don't get fired though.


I learned this in a college economics course.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

OldBay said:


> I've said it before, but being an employee doesn't mean a full time employee. In fact, from a benefit standpoint, they have incentive to have as many PT employees as possible.
> 
> It will likely devolve into enforced work shifts. It will look something like how throttling works now, except they will tell you when you are able to accept trips.
> 
> This will hurt FT drivers the most. That Ian Richard Markham guy, he's the guy driving 80 hours/week in CA, right? He will log on and be told that because he worked yesterday, he won't be getting any trips today. Maybe he'll finally be able to sort his drug addiction.


no incentive whatsoever to having part time drivers over full time drivers, they just will want to try to keep hours under 40 so likely no trips after 39 hours


----------



## jeanocelot (Sep 2, 2016)

DeadEndRoad said:


> Arizona being a "Right to work" state, I don't see any changes in the forcible future. But if and when such a change happens I will not be accepting employment status with uber. And I find it hard to believe that riders will be willing to give up uber for public transportation. That would be a major step down for riders who have become accustomed to the convenience of uber. We as drivers are transporting human lives in a safe timely manner vs a CEO who makes millions for giving driver's nothing more than a reach around. And if that doesn't qualify for fair compensation then uber and its investors can burn in hell.


If the prices go up, pax will recalculate whether it's worth being an owner-operator. I myself have not given up my car because it's old (and thus cheap) and Uber/Lyft is still too expensive; if I total the car, then I will have to make a determination, and at the current rates, I would not get a replacement car. I could only see giving up my still-drivable car if Uber/Lyft get a lot cheaper as driverless cars.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

SeanfromDC said:


> Are you a full-time driver or part-time one? This will essentially winnow out part-time drivers, correct? When I covered the situation during the DC furlough I was often told by drivers that part of the problem was the influx of part-timers the shutdown caused (Idle gov't workers driving to make money and/or just do something). You view this as positive even if it means driving becomes a less viable option for part-timers?
> 
> Again, no axe to grind. Just seeking clarification.


employees get benefits no matter how many hours drivers work...they will likely stop allowing trips after 39 hours to prevent overtime from kicking in



jetcityx said:


> Driving for Uber and Lyft in California will now just be another lower paying crap job with limited flexibility. Either way tens of thousands of drivers will be eliminated.


says the guy making $1.10 a mile in Seattle while drivers in some markets making 35 cents a mile


----------



## DriverMark (Jan 22, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> employees get benefits no matter how many hours drivers work...they will likely stop allowing trips after 39 hours to prevent overtime from kicking in


Or hire part time employees/drivers, not letting them drive over 29 hours. Thus eliminating a lot of required benefits and costs.


----------



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

everythingsuber said:


> Ubers driver churn is 95% plus.
> 
> Please explain how you are going to fire drivers before they quit?


So many talk about leaving at first sight of a schedule. With the turn over added. It only means they would have a severe shortage. Then they would either offer flexibility, or higher wages to cover the gap. Please, everyone, if in C.A claim to leave so they can play the card I'll fire you. Let's see who begs for who.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

DriverMark said:


> Or hire part time employees/drivers, not letting them drive over 29 hours. Thus eliminating a lot of required benefits and costs.


stop talking about this supposed 30 hour ceiling as if it matters if a driver goes over 30 hours in a week

it means nothing, nothing changes when you work 30+ hours

you get full employee state mandated benefits no matter how many hours you work which is why Uber will have to deactivate drivers that dont drive

they won't want to pay benefits for drivers that don't drive


----------



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

Can’t play the fire game, not can, typo, sorry.


----------



## jeanocelot (Sep 2, 2016)

Bob Reynolds said:


> What Lyft and Uber currently do is to allow an unlimited number of (unpaid) drivers to be on the platform and any one time waiting for a fare. There might be 10 fares available and 100 drivers on the platform chasing those fares. So there is a lot of waiting around (unpaid) time.


What Uber/Lyft have done is let everyone who wants to drive at any time be a driver for that time, and set a certain price that has been determined to maximize profit given driver supply and pax demand. Drivers that drive when the price is low are the ones that are choosing to drive for cheap.



Bob Reynolds said:


> With AB5, any driver waiting for a fare will be paid at least the minimum wage for the time s/he is waiting and while s/he is driving to pick up the passenger. In addition, the minimum wage paid must be after all driver expenses. So in effect Uber and Lyft will also be paying for the vehicles because the minimum wage law has to be after expenses. Uber and Lyft might argue how much those expenses are, but in the end those expenses must be covered by Uber and Lyft. In 2019, the IRS says it costs .58 cents a mile to operate the average motor vehicle. Unless Uber and Lyft want to fight the IRS then that will most likely be the amount Uber and Lyft will be paying. Drivers on a 10 hour shift are putting 200-300 miles on their vehicle.


Agreed. Uber/Lyft cannot possibly proffer that the federal mileage rate is too high; if they think it is too high, they should supply their own cars for the drivers to drive. (This could very well happen.)



Bob Reynolds said:


> When Lyft started, they required drivers to sign up the week prior for shifts for the following week. You didn't have to work the entire shift, but you did have to sign up for certain shifts if you wanted to be allowed onto the platform during that time. This is much like what Instacart does today. The reason for this is to rightsize the number of drivers for the expected business. I do see Uber and Lyft going back to this type of system. If you did not sign up for a shift, you would not be allowed to log onto that shift unless there was extra business available or not enough drivers had showed up for their pre-reserved shift.


They will balance this out in some way. I forsee a lot of just-in-time scheduling, in which a driver has to make himself available, but might not get called in. Oh, and driving to the first fare and from the last fare will be totally uncompensated as that would be up to the driver to "commute". They will simply have a lot of folks driving a little bit every week, and ask their high-performers to do extra shifts as needed.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

A lot of people in this thread thinking that minimum wage is maximum wage. lol

If you bust ass you get maximum wage. If you're lazy you get minimum wage until fired for not making money.



I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> So many talk about leaving at first sight of a schedule. With the turn over added. It only means they would have a severe shortage. Then they would either offer flexibility, or higher wages to cover the gap. Please, everyone, if in C.A claim to leave so they can play the card I'll fire you. Let's see who begs for who.


there are no schedules now so there will be no schedules after implementation


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> stop talking about this supposed 30 hour ceiling as if it matters if a driver goes over 30 hours in a week
> 
> it means nothing, nothing changes when you work 30+ hours
> 
> ...


I'm not so sure about that. I've heard even big companies try to keep some of their employees under 30 hours per week precisely to avoid paying for their health care.


----------



## OldBay (Apr 1, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> employees get benefits no matter how many hours drivers work...they will likely stop allowing trips after 39 hours to prevent overtime from kicking in


Not true. At least not in my state. They only must furnish FT employees with health benefits.


----------



## uberinland (Jul 17, 2015)

Thank you for reaching out for comments.

On balance, I would prefer that this change not occur. Like another poster above, I welcome reform of the wage structure, but not this change.

Unlike many drivers here, my personal circumstances are a nearly perfect fit for the system as-is. I am a more-than-full-time driver in the non-affluent exurbs. Trips tend to be long, so I make enough but also have enough miles to bring my taxable income to zero, or as low as I need it for best tax advantage. I qualify for and use Medi-Cal, for which I am thankful because I have a complicated and expensive medical situation. I also travel a lot, so flexibility means more to me than dollars. I definitely worry that this law will mess up the good thing I’ve got going.


----------



## jetcityx (Feb 11, 2015)

says the guy making $1.10 a mile in Seattle while drivers in some markets making 35 cents a mile
[/QUOTE]
$1.18 I make $1.18 a mile in Seattle. What is happening in California is relevant to all drivers no matter how much their market pays. Would never drive for less but would not want to be an employee either.

It's all really irrelevant speculation how much $ drivers will be able to earn in once there is an agreement between the state and rideshare. One thing I am quite positive about is Uber and Lyft will never operate in California with their drivers classified as employees, the math just doesn't work. Too expensive and too much liability, and their business model just doesn't work in that way.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

CarpeNoctem said:


> "California Gov. Gavin Newsom told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday that he's still engaged in talks with Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies about possible negotiations around the bill. " - CNBC
> 
> It is not carved in stone yet. I think we all know what "negotiations" means.


'Negotiations' mean that Gov "Any Twosome" Newsom will issue 'exemptions' to companies who are 'worthy'.
'Worthy' means 'company is willing to pledge millions to the Governors re-election campaign.'

That's the way a socialist state works.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Cold Fusion said:


> Mandatory drug test will whittle down driver excess numbers fast
> and Bonus: result in safer roads✔


We had to do all of that in Houston for a while and although there were probably fewer drivers than otherwise, it did not cut them down anywhere near as much as you would think.



OldBay said:


> It is/was only minimum wage when driving in the wrong location/time.
> 
> Some drivers have had the expectation that they can drive whenever they want and make peak wages.
> 
> ...


There are plenty of markets where it doesn't matter how "good" or "efficient" you are you simply cannot make decent money after expenses.

I'm sick of people saying that drivers who don't make money are simply not doing this right. I'm sure plenty are not, but it's a mistake to think that everyone could make money if they just knew what they were doing. I started with Uber 5 years ago and I know damn well that it is impossible to make even minimum wage in many markets these days regardless of how well you know the area, when and where you work, and how long you've been doing this.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

@SeanfromDC I am a part time driver in RDU, driving for last 5 years. I believe that the companies have put forth a false dialog that being an employee means you have to work certain hours or shifts. That's an implementation detail that's their call. What's essential is that they reduce the number of drivers because currently they onboard way too many folks to cover their churn. I personally think it's a good thing overall, hopefully will provide a little more stability to workers. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss.


----------



## rkozy (Apr 5, 2019)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> There are plenty of markets where it doesn't matter how "good" or "efficient" you are you simply cannot make decent money after expenses.


That's why this gig shouldn't be regarded as a serious career. Once the RoboCars are deployed (and they eventually will be deployed) human drivers are completely irrelevant in every market.

Uber and Lyft have stated that their business model hinges largely on autonomous vehicles. If you are stupid enough to ignore their plainly-stated intentions, and stubbornly insist that such a company is a place to grow your career, you are probably incapable of working most any job that requires critical thinking skills.

This is a part-time gig in a field that is going to evolve (or perhaps devolve) rapidly into the world of robotic labor. No legislation can possibly stop that.


----------



## Molongo (Aug 11, 2018)

SeanfromDC said:


> Hello folks,
> 
> News reporter here. I'm trying to gauge the opinions of rideshare drivers to AB5's likely passage through the Calif. assembly. To start off, I know that reporters aren't always your favorite people. I hung out in this site last year for a story I did on how the federal government furlough affected drivers in the Washington D.C. metro area. You can read that to gain of sense of how I cover gig economy stuff: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...suffering-twice-over-from-government-shutdown
> 
> ...


Uber/Lyft would like to promote this gig as a side hustle. But, there exist an elephant in the room, those are the drivers that use their rental program. Full timers are the reliable bread and butter earners. And, they will drive up to 80 hours, if that's what it takes to hit the ~90 ride promotions.

These rental drivers are the easiest to manipulate. And both Uber/Lyft enjoy manipulating drivers.

Like most have mentioned, they brought this legislation amongst themselves.


----------



## polar2017 (Jul 1, 2017)

Taxi2Uber said:


> It's talked about a lot in NYC. Rider price has gone sky high and ridership is down.
> Same will likely happen in CA.


Wait hold up.
I thought lower rates = increased rides = increased earnings.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

polar2017 said:


> Wait hold up.
> I thought lower rates = increased rides = increased earnings.


That's only true when Kalanick is CEO.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Cold Fusion said:


> Mandatory drug test will whittle down driver excess numbers fast


......to read half the posts on these boards, reefer is a regular habit............those people will be gonesville................



goneubering said:


> I expect lots of Cali drivers will be posting complaints on this forum once AB5 goes into effect.


Sleep is a wonderful thing: it allows some people to complain only sixteen hours per day instead of all twenty four,



OldBay said:


> from a benefit standpoint, they have incentive to have as many PT employees as possible.


Employers have been doing that for years. It would not surprise me if these two did that.



CarpeNoctem said:


> "California Gov. Gavin Newsom told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday that he's still engaged in talks with Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies about possible negotiations around the bill. " - CNBC
> 
> I think we all know what "negotiations" means.


"Negotiations" to make "arrangements" similar to those that allowed the TNCs to go into business in violation of existing law in the first place.



Bob Reynolds said:


> 1. Uber and Lyft brought this upon themselves by cutting fares below the cost to provide those fares and paying drivers poverty wages (below minimum wage).
> 
> 2. Even when these important issues were brought to their attention, Uber and Lyft did nothing to try to remedy the situation. Their response was to continue to lower the rates and the driver pay.


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

Had Uber and Lyft actually listened to the drivers and to anyone who knows anything about this business, they would not be up against this, now. The only attention that either paid to the drivers was to catalogue the complaints so that they could be used as spin for more pay cuts. Lyft's recent round of pay cuts is a textbook illustration of this,



goneubering said:


> And of course prices will have to go up for passengers.


Capitalism 101: The consumer bears the cost of doing business. The TNCs will not acknowledge that.



losiglow said:


> A. Uber and Lyft did indeed bring this upon themselves as Bob Reynolds said above. There's no doubt about that in my opinion. They did not adequately address*totally blew off* driver concerns. {b]They did, however, put them onto the proverbial back burner so that they could twist them and use them as spin for pay cuts.[/b]


FIFY



losiglow said:


> B. I think if this new bill makes it through, that Uber and Lyft will simply find ways to skirt around it.


There never has been a day when Uber or Lyft believed that any law applied to them.



losiglow said:


> C. Many part time drivers, and even full time drivers, will be* shocked when they get their schedules, finding that they're assigned to hours they don't necessarily want to work.*


.......................good point and worthy of consideration.................



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> try to actually keep the decent good employees around,


You are dealing with Uber and Lyft, here. They never have made any effort to retain their better drivers.



dirtylee said:


> What they could do is actually treat us like real independent contractors.
> 
> Like the ability to see exactly where the ride is going and exactly how much we will get.
> Ending the upfront pricing scams.
> ...


In 1979, gasolene in California was what? .....................eighty five cents the gallon? Sixty cents the mile is a 1979 cab rate.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

OldBay said:


> This job used to require rough characters who could handle themselves in a physical situation and could handle carrying alot of cash.


Very well said, and you're right that this is no longer the case.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

SeanfromDC said:


> Hello folks,
> 
> News reporter here. I'm trying to gauge the opinions of rideshare drivers to AB5's likely passage through the Calif. assembly. To start off, I know that reporters aren't always your favorite people. I hung out in this site last year for a story I did on how the federal government furlough affected drivers in the Washington D.C. metro area. You can read that to gain of sense of how I cover gig economy stuff: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...suffering-twice-over-from-government-shutdown
> 
> ...


Am a driver, in Georgia, the past four years. Although it will never pass here, and not affect me, am strongly against this bill. They're killing the number one advantage of Uber, flexibility and the independent contractor status.

Rideshare income has always been purely supplemental, extra income for me. Contrary to what some are saying, it is not meant to be a fulltime, sole source of income for most folks. And was never presented that way.

Uber has been, by far, the BEST supplemental income vehicle I've ever had. Have paid off multiple loans, netting lifetime residual income.

Moreover, utlize Uber, as a rider, and can confirm 90%, of drivers, prefer independent contractor status.

Thanks for your listening.


----------



## Don'tchasethesurge (Dec 27, 2016)

MiamiKid said:


> Am a driver, in Georgia, the past four years. Although it will never pass here, and not affect me, am strongly against this bill. They're killing the number one advantage of Uber, flexibility and the independent contractor status.
> 
> Rideshare income has always been purely supplemental, extra income for me. Contrary to what some are saying, it is not meant to be a fulltime, sole source of income for most folks. And was never presented that way.
> 
> ...


Yea we all like flexibility but that 90% is bs when most drivers don't know or understand how much they make. I am rider too and baffle the amount of drivers who don't know know how much they make. I was on lyft with a driver who still thought we were on percentage base split. Uber\lyft need to raise per mile in other states so no talk of this goes through. If the mileage was higher no driver would it been complaining


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

MiamiKid said:


> Moreover, utlize Uber, as a rider, and can confirm 90%, of drivers, prefer independent contractor status.


That 90% number may be regional.
If you go to San Francisco and interview a hundred Uber drivers 90% of them will opt for all the freebies and the gov't 'protections' and 'giveaways'. If they believed that by being an employee they'd be making $20 an hour, get two weeks off paid vacation a year, a month family leave, health plan and dental care ... they'd be all for it.
IF you go to Dallas or St Louis and asked 100 drivers the same question, they'd probably opt for freedom. Freedom of choice as to where and when they work. what rides they take, etc.

It's the difference as to where they were raised, educated. The social norm of their environment.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> It's the difference as to where they were raised, educated


Wut? I'm in SF area and want FREEDOM to be online when I want, for how long and where. Period. Has more to do with if driving is a full time 'I must Make a living' vs a part-time doing it as spare or supplemental income.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

UberBastid said:


> That 90% number may be regional.
> If you go to San Francisco and interview a hundred Uber drivers 90% of them will opt for all the freebies and the gov't 'protections' and 'giveaways'. If they believed that by being an employee they'd be making $20 an hour, get two weeks off paid vacation a year, a month family leave, health plan and dental care ... they'd be all for it.
> IF you go to Dallas or St Louis and asked 100 drivers the same question, they'd probably opt for freedom. Freedom of choice as to where and when they work. what rides they take, etc.
> 
> It's the difference as to where they were raised, educated. The social norm of their environment.


Can, definitely, see there's going to be a regional split on this. Also, a splir


Don'tchasethesurge said:


> Yea we all like flexibility but that 90% is bs when most drivers don't know or understand how much they make. I am rider too and baffle the amount of drivers who don't know know how much they make. I was on lyft with a driver who still thought we were on percentage base split. Uber\lyft need to raise per mile in other states so no talk of this goes through. If the mileage was higher no driver would it been complaining


Maybe many do not know what they're making; but, rest assured my financial results, from rideshare, are validated.

But, will stress again, cannot conceive how it works fulltime, sole source of income. At least it would not for me. Mine's 100% supplemental. Meaning, I don't rely on Uber for any expenses. Zero.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

dirtylee said:


> AB5 is bigger than uber imo.
> 
> Talk to some recent grads. Companies are only bringing them on as contractors. The next recession will be a bloodbath.


In reality those grads are nothing more than misclassified employees.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> Wut? I'm in SF area and want FREEDOM to be online when I want, for how long and where. Period. Has more to do with if driving is a full time 'I must Make a living' vs a part-time doing it as spare or supplemental income.


I always opt for 'freedom' too.

Then, you must be very much against AB5, as it restricts your FREEDOM to make a CHOICE to either do a gig job or not ... right?

You LIKE what our President is doing right now in regards to the economy? 
You actually DISLIKE living in human waste and not being able to walk down a sidewalk because of legally sanctioned campers?
You would rejoice in the freedom to make a choice NOT to have health insurance if you didn't want it?
Not wear a helmet on a motorcycle? Not wear a seat belt in a car?
You believe that I should have the freedom to carry a handgun to be able to defend myself and/or my family?

You too lean towards the 'freedom' choice?
You are one rare San Franciscan.
I thought I was the last sane one to leave 'the city'.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

OldBay said:


> Not true. At least not in my state. They only must furnish FT employees with health benefits.


Are you saying all of the laws in your state apply to California as well ?


SeanfromDC said:


> Hello folks,
> 
> News reporter here. I'm trying to gauge the opinions of rideshare drivers to AB5's likely passage through the Calif. assembly. To start off, I know that reporters aren't always your favorite people. I hung out in this site last year for a story I did on how the federal government furlough affected drivers in the Washington D.C. metro area. You can read that to gain of sense of how I cover gig economy stuff: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...suffering-twice-over-from-government-shutdown
> 
> ...


If Uber and Lyft needed to push schedules on drivers then drivers would already be on schedules. The whole "flexibility wil go away" nonsense coming from Uber and Lyft is nothing but blackmail and a scare tactic to try to get drivers to rail against AB5.

AB5 does not take away drivers flexibility in any way, shape, or form.

I would love for you to be the first reporter in history to report this in an article.



SHalester said:


> Wut? I'm in SF area and want FREEDOM to be online when I want, for how long and where. Period. Has more to do with if driving is a full time 'I must Make a living' vs a part-time doing it as spare or supplemental income.


And you still have it. AB5 does not, in any way, take away that ability.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Employees could have the same freedom. Uber wouldn't have to pay drivers for being online, just as employers don't have to pay employees for being on call. But as soon as an on call employee is given a job, they need to be paid at least minimum wage, and reimbursed for all mileage (including the time and mileage to the pickup location). So Uber could have just as many drivers online as now, and allow drivers to go on and offline at will. 

The downside is Uber could go back to the days of punishing drivers for not accepting jobs. They stopped because they were sued for doing that to independent contractors. But as employees they have every right to do that. 

Basically the mileage rate would be $0.58 per mile for miles to the pickup and to the drop off. The the time rate would be whatever the minimum wage per hour is in your state (or city) divided by 60, and would be paid for minutes to the pickup and to the drop off. Miles driven while not on a job would be paid $0.00 and time online while not on a job would be paid $0.00.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

UberHammer said:


> Employees could have the same freedom. Uber wouldn't have to pay drivers for being online, just as employers don't have to pay employees for being on call. But as soon as an on call employee is given a job, they need to be paid at least minimum wage, and reimbursed for all mileage (including the time and mileage to the pickup location). So Uber could have just as many drivers online as now, and allow drivers to go on and offline at will.
> 
> The downside is Uber could go back to the days of punishing drivers for not accepting jobs. They stopped because they were sued for doing that to independent contractors. But as employees they have every right to do that.
> 
> Basically the mileage rate would be $0.58 per mile for miles to the pickup and to the drop off. The the time rate would be whatever the minimum wage per hour is in your state (or city) divided by 60, and would be paid for minutes to the pickup and to the drop off. Miles driven while not on a job would be paid $0.00 and time online while not on a job would be paid $0.00.


Drivers wouldn't need to worry about not accepting jobs since getting reimbursed now means there aren't any unprofitable jobs anymore.

it's a win-win for both drivers and riders.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Drivers wouldn't need to worry about not accepting jobs since getting reimbursed now means there aren't any unprofitable jobs anymore.
> 
> it's a win-win for both drivers and riders.


True. But there are other reasons to decline jobs. Uber could punish for those reasons now.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

UberHammer said:


> True. But there are other reasons to decline jobs. Uber could punish for those reasons now.


there are already valid reasons to decline


----------



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

Don'tchasethesurge said:


> Yea we all like flexibility but that 90% is bs when most drivers don't know or understand how much they make. I am rider too and baffle the amount of drivers who don't know know how much they make. I was on lyft with a driver who still thought we were on percentage base split. Uber\lyft need to raise per mile in other states so no talk of this goes through. If the mileage was higher no driver would it been complaining


Very good points. One puddle hole, or rock at my windshield and my yearly income takes major hits. Most drivers say ohh look at the screen shot I make XYZ. They know about an expense called gas. That's about the most they understand. Once they go to a real accountant and he explains " So you have a hobby driving around for a net loss, what do you want from me, taxes are for people who make money with their time. Not People with a side hobby."



UberHammer said:


> Uber wouldn't have to pay drivers for being online,


If employees, under AB5, being online is not considered clocked in?
Can you please show us any article, source, academic AB5 review that can support this.
Did Uber say I don't have to pay for logged in hours because we have a deal with the governor. Is there an exemption in labor code or something I can read or look into?
Does the SF city attorney accept this?
*Last-minute AB5 amendment empowers city attorney to sue Uber for labor violations*


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> there are already valid reasons to decline


Not if you are an employee ...


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

UberBastid said:


> Not if you are an employee ...


lol yeah Uber is really going to tell drivers to wait 36 hours for a pax to show up

get real


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Are you saying all of the laws in your state apply to California as well ?
> 
> If Uber and Lyft needed to push schedules on drivers then drivers would already be on schedules. The whole "flexibility wil go away" nonsense coming from Uber and Lyft is nothing but blackmail and a scare tactic to try to get drivers to rail against AB5.
> 
> ...


AB5 = COMMUNISM 
COMMUNISM = EVIL

Stamp it out and those who support it.

MAGA 
?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> And you still have it. AB5 does not, in any way, take away that ability


Geez, going round in circles here. Yes, AB5 wouldn't, but Uber WOULD once you/us become employees. Do you really believe we become employees and nothing else changes?
have you EVER been an employee? Had you, you would know you can't come and go as you please. Work hours you please, leave when you want; do only the items YOU want to do. sheesh. Left THAT world.



uberdriverfornow said:


> there are already valid reasons to decline


As an employee there would be no more 'accepting'. You would get and you would do. No choice.



UberBastid said:


> You are one rare San Franciscan


Er, um, ah I live in the Bay Area, but not SF, thankyouverymuch.
Yes, I want exactly what I have now. Yes, I'm not 'for' AB5, but do seem to like the compromise Uber put forward. FREEDOM to work the days, the hours and place. AB5 would blow most of those up. I firmly place myself in the part-time, just spare income column. I realize others do this as their only income. THEY would have a different opinion for sure.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> If employees, under AB5, being online is not considered clocked in?


There is nothing in AB5 requiring a company to pay employees for being on call.



> Can you please show us any article, source, academic AB5 review that can support this.


You're asking me to prove it's not in there. That's like asking me to prove god doesn't exist. If you think AB5 requires Uber to pay a driver for being on line, then show us where in AB5 it says that.

There are federal standards that could result in an employee being entitled to being paid for being on call, but Uber could easily avoid triggering those standards by operating exactly how it does now. See: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/do-you-get-paid-for-being-on-call-2060048



> Did Uber say I don't have to pay for logged in hours because we have a deal with the governor.


Uber doesn't have to say anything regarding this, because again AB5 doesn't require it.



> Is there an exemption in labor code or something I can read or look into?


The article I linked to above has a link to the Fair Labor Standards Act which defines the federal standards of whether an employee gets paid or not for being on call.



> Does the SF city attorney accept this?


Since AB5 doesn't require being paid for being on call, I don't even know if the city attorney even has an opinion on it.

Being paid for being online seems to be an assumption a lot of people are making.


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

Logging into the app and waiting for fares is not the same as being on call. Once you are logged in you are on the job and should be paid even if there are no fares

McDonald's pays their employees when they are clocked it. They don't wait until a customer orders a hamburger to call them in and start paying them.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Bob Reynolds said:


> Logging into the app and waiting for fares is not the same as being on call. Once you are logged in you are on the job and should be paid even if there are no fares
> 
> McDonald's pays their employees when they are clocked it. *They don't wait until a customer orders a hamburger to call them in and start paying them.*


Of course McDonalds doesn't do that, because their customers would suffer. McDonalds needs the employee at the workplace before the order is placed. Even if McDonalds made the employee show up at the workplace, but just be "on call", McDonalds would still have to pay them for being on call. The Fair Labor Standards Act establishes that when employees make themselves available in their actual office or workplace for on-call assignments, employers must pay them for the time they spend there.

As I said earlier, Uber could easily avoid triggering those FLSA standards by operating exactly how it does now. If I as a driver can go online at random, while I'm taking a dump at home, watching my kid play t-ball, and watching Netflix, as well as be online with Lyft, Grubhub, Doordash, and Postmates, as well as go offline at any moment, then none of the standards have been triggered, and Uber doesn't have to pay me a dime for being online. BUT... if Uber limits me, such as having me on a schedule, where I MUST be online (can't go online and offline randomly), can't work for other gig apps, MUST be in a specific area, etc, etc.... THEN Uber has triggered the standards and the employee is entitled to pay for being online (even with no rides).

So the question is, if Uber does end up complying with AB5, will they exercise their employer right to limit what drivers can and can't do, which would force Uber to pay drivers for being online, or will they keep the status quo, and not have to pay drivers for being online?


----------



## Polomarko (Dec 20, 2016)

losiglow said:


> I hope this doesn't come to Utah. As a part-time, I most certainly _would not_ be in favor. Of course, Utah is so business-friendly and conservative that I don't think a law like this would pass in a million years here.
> 
> I'm all about making the man pay a fair wage but Cali tends to shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to legislation that affects businesses. Another reason why so many are moving from Cali to Utah, Texas, Nevada, etc. Which I kind of wish wasn't happening because it's really jamming things up around here.....


People moving out from California, because they are so low payed that can't afford to live there! So many people became homless because of U/L manipulation.


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> Of course McDonalds doesn't do that, because their customers would suffer. McDonalds needs the employee at the workplace before the order is placed. Even if McDonalds made the employee show up at the workplace, but just be "on call", McDonalds would still have to pay them for being on call. The Fair Labor Standards Act establishes that when employees make themselves available in their actual office or workplace for on-call assignments, employers must pay them for the time they spend there.
> 
> As I said earlier, Uber could easily avoid triggering those FLSA standards by operating exactly how it does now. If I as a driver can go online at random, while I'm taking a dump at home, watching my kid play t-ball, and watching Netflix, as well as be online with Lyft, Grubhub, Doordash, and Postmates, as well as go offline at any moment, then none of the standards have been triggered, and Uber doesn't have to pay me a dime for being online. BUT... if Uber limits me, such as having me on a schedule, where I MUST be online (can't go online and offline randomly), can't work for other gig apps, MUST be in a specific area, etc, etc.... THEN Uber has triggered the standards and the employee is entitled to pay for being online (even with no rides).
> 
> So the question is, if Uber does end up complying with AB5, will they exercise their employer right to limit what drivers can and can't do, which would force Uber to pay drivers for being online, or will they keep the status quo, and not have to pay drivers for being online?


1. Where in the Fair Labor Standards Act does it talk about "employees make themselves available in their actual office or workplace for on-call assignments"?

2. If a McDonald's employee is taking a dump, watching Netflix at work or texting his friends while at work, McDonalds still must pay that employee. So the fact that you are doing something else while you are clocked in, at work, makes absolutely no difference in regards to pay. Your employer may take a dim view of you doing these things, but he still must pay you and you might be fired if you keep doing these types of things.

3. Uber might direct to you drive to a certain area where there are fares while you are logged in. They will pay you for this and they will pay mileage for every mile your drive. (probably at the IRS rate)

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

The way that I see this happening if that you will sign up for your shifts (of probably 8-10 hours) about a week in advance as long as there are slots available. You can then log in and out of those pre-reserved shifts at anytime during those 8-10 hours. Uber will pay you for the time you are logged in and they will pay you for the miles you drive during the time you are logged in. You will not need to work all of those 8-10 hours. Uber will be happy if you log out when the business is slow of you want to do something else. That way they don't need to pay you.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Youburr said:


> I don't think they need to fire hecka drivers... just require a class B. It's not that tough and only a fraction will bother going thru any type of medical entrance processing. The test is easy, and has four components. Pee in a cup, pass the multiple choice exam, inspect your vehicle, and drive while voluntarily obeying traffic regulations.


A class B license in CA is a license to drive a bobtail truck over 26,000 pounds.

Nothing to do at all with driving a for hire taxi uber/lyft.





UberBastid said:


> That 90% number may be regional.
> If you go to San Francisco and interview a hundred Uber drivers 90% of them will opt for all the freebies and the gov't 'protections' and 'giveaways'. If they believed that by being an employee they'd be making $20 an hour, get two weeks off paid vacation a year, a month family leave, health plan and dental care ... they'd be all for it.
> IF you go to Dallas or St Louis and asked 100 drivers the same question, they'd probably opt for freedom. Freedom of choice as to where and when they work. what rides they take, etc.
> 
> It's the difference as to where they were raised, educated. The social norm of their environment.


Vacation time in California is optional for employers.
Family leave of six weeks is paid by the employee, not the employer.


----------



## doggerel (Apr 23, 2017)

Nothing is going to change. 
Except for those in California. 
Just secede and be done with it, you spineless idiots.
They are literally trained victims. Victims on demand. 
Walk on your own two feet already. 
Stop looking elsewhere (toward gubment or white man or rich man) to solve your problems.
Take some responsibility for your lives and grow a pair.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Bob Reynolds said:


> 1. Where in the Fair Labor Standards Act does it talk about "employees make themselves available in their actual office or workplace for on-call assignments"?


Read the "on-call time" section from the Department of Labor website here: https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs22.pdf



> 2. If a McDonald's employee is taking a dump, watching Netflix at work or texting his friends while at work, McDonalds still must pay that employee. So the fact that you are doing something else while you are clocked in, *at work*, makes absolutely no difference in regards to pay. Your employer may take a dim view of you doing these things, but he still must pay you and you might be fired if you keep doing these types of things.


The bolded "at work" in your post is why McDonalds must pay them. If the worker has the freedom to be anywhere, do anything (including being on-call for competitors), and login and logout at will, then the employer is not obligated to pay them for being on call.



> 3. Uber might direct to you drive to a certain area where there are fares while you are logged in. They will pay you for this and they will pay mileage for every mile your drive. (probably at the IRS rate)


Correct. If Uber has requirements for drivers for being online, like where they have to be, what they can and can't do, or when they must be online or can't be online, then Uber has triggered a FLSA standard that would require Uber to pay the drivers for being online.



> ---------------------------------
> 
> The way that I see this happening if that you will sign up for your shifts (of probably 8-10 hours) about a week in advance as long as there are slots available. You can then log in and out of those pre-reserved shifts at anytime during those 8-10 hours. Uber will pay you for the time you are logged in and they will pay you for the miles you drive during the time you are logged in. You will not need to work all of those 8-10 hours. Uber will be happy if you log out when the business is slow of you want to do something else. That way they don't need to pay you.


If Uber starts using a schedule, that could trigger a FLSA standard, and require Uber to pay drivers for being online. But if it's optional for the driver to actually be online for their schedule, it probably wouldn't.

What it comes down to is if Uber keeps the status quo, AB5 won't require Uber to pay drivers for being online now that drivers are employees. Uber would have to exercise their right to restrict and/or require their employees in some way or another before Uber would have to pay drivers for being online.


----------



## Youburr (Aug 22, 2019)

observer said:


> A class B license in CA is a license to drive a bobtail truck over 26,000 pounds.
> 
> Nothing to do at all with driving a for hire taxi uber/lyft.


That's just one of the types of vehicles a class b can drive. It's not what class B is about. I've driven commercially in autos and 15 packs and I always had a class B.


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> Read the "on-call time" section from the Department of Labor website here: https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs22.pdf
> 
> The bolded "at work" in your post is why McDonalds must pay them. If the worker has the freedom to be anywhere, do anything (including being on-call for competitors), and login and logout at will, then the employer is not obligated to pay them for being on call.
> 
> ...


From your recommendation, I have looked up your information and here is what I have found:

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

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

Travel Time: The principles which apply in determining whether time spent in travel is compensable time depends upon the kind of travel involved.

Travel That is All in a Day's Work: Time spent by an employee in travel as part of their principal activity, such as travel from job site to job site during the workday, is work time and must be counted as hours worked.

Typical Problems
Problems arise when employers fail to recognize and count certain hours worked as compensable hours. For example, an employee who remains at his/her desk while eating lunch and regularly answers the telephone and refers callers is working. This time must be counted and paid as compensable hours worked because the employee has not been completely relieved from duty.

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


It would appear from the USDOL that a Uber driver is much like a fireman that has been engaged to work while waiting for an alarm (or ride) if they have logged into the app and are ready willing and able to pick up a rider or respond to a fire. They also must be paid as they travel back and forth to the fire (or to pick up a rider).

However in any case, even if an employee were on call and then was sent to pick up a rider they must then log in to accept that ride. Once they are logged in, they can't then be logged out to wait for the next call (unless it is a split shift that requires additional pay) and not be paid for the wait time unless it is the last ride of the day and they are then off duty.

A driver would not be required to punch in and out unless it would be considered a split shift. The law requires that when a transportation worker works a split shift that s/he would receive an additional hour of pay when s/he punches in and out and in again. If Uber had driver's log out between calls (which they would not be able to do), they would have to pay an additional one hour's pay each time they log back in. So a driver could have 1.45 riders per hour and log out two times an hour. They would then have to received 2 hours pay plus the pay for the rides they provided during that hour. That would be at least triple time and maybe more.

The reason all of these laws are in place, and have been in place for decades, is because all of this nonsense has been tried before. It's nothing new and it is not innovative. It is simply operating a business illegally by not paying workers as per the existing wage and hour laws which Uber and Lyft have been subject to the whole time.

Uber says they are not a taxi company. That's too bad for them, because taxi drivers are exempt from overtime in California under the Wage 9 directive. However taxi drivers are not exempt from the wage and hour laws.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Bob Reynolds said:


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


A fireman is completely different than an Uber driver. The fireman MUST be at the firestation while waiting. The fireman CANNOT be on call for another business while waiting. The fireman CANNOT freely stop waiting and start waiting. Because of these limitations on what he can and cannot do, he is engaged to wait, and must be paid.

The Uber driver doesn't have to be anywhere. He can be anywhere. The Uber driver can be on call for another business while waiting (Lyft, Doordash, Postmates, etc....). The Uber driver can freely stop waiting and start waiting. Because the Uber drive is not limited, the driver is waiting to be engaged, and is not entitled to be paid until engaged.

Again, this assumes Uber keeps operating with the status quo, and doesn't add any requirements now that drivers are employees. If they add requirements, like a schedule where the driver is required to be online (can't login and logout at will), or set limitations like where the driver must be located, or not allow them to be online with other gig apps, then the driver is engaged to wait, and must be paid.



> However in any case, even if an employee were on call and then was sent to pick up a rider they must then log in to accept that ride. Once they are logged in, they can't then be logged out to wait for the next call (unless it is a split shift that requires additional pay) and not be paid for the wait time unless it is the last ride of the day and they are then off duty.


When a driver is online, they are on call. When a ride is assigned to them, then their jobs starts and the job ends when the rider is dropped off. After they dropoff the pax, they are still online, but not being paid at that point until their next job starts. Being online is waiting to be engaged (unless Uber changes how they operate now that drivers are employees).



> A driver would not be required to punch in and out unless it would be considered a split shift. The law requires that when a transportation worker works a split shift that s/he would receive an additional hour of pay when s/he punches in and out and in again. If Uber had driver's log out between calls (which they would not be able to do), they would have to pay an additional one hour's pay each time they log back in. So a driver could have 1.45 riders per hour and log out two times an hour. They would then have to received 2 hours pay plus the pay for the rides they provided during that hour. That would be at least triple time and maybe more.


Drivers can choose on their own volition when to logout and back in again. Uber isn't requiring them to logout after a job ends. If Uber did change how they function in one way or another, that required them to pay drivers while being online (they are now engaged to wait), then everything you said above is true and applicable. But since drivers have the option of logging in and out, and are not being paid while in call (waiting to be engaged), it's not applicable.



> The reason all of these laws are in place, and have been in place for decades, is because all of this nonsense has been tried before. It's nothing new and it is not innovative. It is simply operating a business illegally by not paying workers as per the existing wage and hour laws which Uber and Lyft have been subject to the whole time.


What is defined as a work hour is what the FLSA link I showed defines. If Uber changes, which results in drivers being entitle to be paid while being online, then yes, you are correct that Uber can't try all that nonsense with the drivers work hours. But if Uber doesn't change, then being online is not defined as being a work hour, and the driver is deciding when to be online and offline, not Uber.



> Uber says they are not a taxi company. That's too bad for them, because taxi drivers are exempt from overtime in California under the Wage 9 directive. However taxi drivers are not exempt from the wage and hour laws.


I agree they are not exempt from wage and hour laws. If Uber doesn't change how they operate, then being online is NOT a work hour.


----------



## chitownXdriver (Dec 24, 2014)

Cold Fusion said:


> Mandatory drug test will whittle down driver excess numbers fast
> and Bonus: result in safer roads✔


I would agree but marijuana should be exempt, if it's not then just like in sports they have random drug testing they should do random alcohol testing on drivers where they track drivers down at random times and take a sample of their blood and if any level of alcohol is found the driver is automatically deactivated for good and if driver refuses to submit blood they are automatically deactivated for good as well. I really don't understand why people have a problem with anyone smoking some pot which will soon be federally legal in their free time, it's no different than having a few drinks in your free time


----------



## touberornottouber (Aug 12, 2016)

Sal29 said:


> There's good and bad. The great parts are that low life cheapskates paxholes will not be able to afford uber/Lyft, etc.
> The bad part is that since paxhole demand will go down, many drivers will have to be fired. Pay will go up a lot for the many drivers that don't get fired though.


Look, even as they were talking about AB5 Lyft was cutting pay to drivers across the nation to 35 cents a mile. These companies aren't being ethical. Something need(s/ed) to be done. I don't think AB5 is perfect (I'd rather just see a requirement that drivers get no less than 70% of what the customer pays) but these companies brought this on themselves.

Just months ago we also had a pretty big strike. That was a warning shot. The companies (Lyft in particular) didn't pay any attention to it and are continually cutting pay. They basically flipped us all off and told us to drop dead.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

rkozy said:


> That's why this gig shouldn't be regarded as a serious career. Once the RoboCars are deployed (and they eventually will be deployed) human drivers are completely irrelevant in every market.
> 
> Uber and Lyft have stated that their business model hinges largely on autonomous vehicles. If you are stupid enough to ignore their plainly-stated intentions, and stubbornly insist that such a company is a place to grow your career, you are probably incapable of working most any job that requires critical thinking skills.
> 
> This is a part-time gig in a field that is going to evolve (or perhaps devolve) rapidly into the world of robotic labor. No legislation can possibly stop that.


It doesn't matter if it's a "career" or a "job" or a part time "gig". It should pay decently. Otherwise it's exploitation.

Yeah, good luck at 2am outside the bars with those "autonomous" vehicles. Half of this board will be dead or retired by the time they're even close to doing what a driver does during drunk time.



UberHammer said:


> There is nothing in AB5 requiring a company to pay employees for being on call.
> 
> You're asking me to prove it's not in there. That's like asking me to prove god doesn't exist. If you think AB5 requires Uber to pay a driver for being on line, then show us where in AB5 it says that.
> 
> ...


You missed this nugget:
"In general, when employees are exempt employees paid by salary, employers are not required to pay them for being available."

That implies non exempt generally must be paid. Do you think uber will put us on salary?


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> You missed this nugget:
> "In general, when employees are exempt employees paid by salary, employers are not required to pay them for being available."
> 
> That implies non exempt generally must be paid. Do you think uber will put us on salary?


All that is saying is that exempt employees are not entitled to additional pay for being on call.

That does not mean all employees who don't get paid for being on call are exempt employees.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> It doesn't matter if it's a "career" or a "job" or a part time "gig". It should pay decently. Otherwise it's exploitation.
> 
> Yeah, good luck at 2am outside the bars with those "autonomous" vehicles. Half of this board will be dead or retired by the time they're even close to doing what a driver does during drunk time.
> 
> ...


In CA exempt employees must be paid a minimum of 1 1/2 the minimum wage. In Ubers case that would be 18 bux an hour plus expenses.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

If these companies have to pay us just for being logged on, I imagine we will have to start driving to the areas it suggests or it will log us off . If that’s not in place, scammy drivers will find ways to go park in areas that don’t get pings so they can get paid for whacking off. 

Drivers are partly to blame for some of the lameness from U/L. All the fake damage and cleaning reports made it near impossible to claim them legitimate ones now. Drivers will scam this employee thing.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

SeanfromDC said:


> Hello folks,
> 
> News reporter here. I'm trying to gauge the opinions of rideshare drivers to AB5's likely passage through the Calif. assembly. To start off, I know that reporters aren't always your favorite people. I hung out in this site last year for a story I did on how the federal government furlough affected drivers in the Washington D.C. metro area. You can read that to gain of sense of how I cover gig economy stuff: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...suffering-twice-over-from-government-shutdown
> 
> ...


When will your article on AB5 be printed?


----------



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

https://www.employmentlawfirms.com/resources/employment/on-call-time-are-you-entitled-be-paid.htm
It looks like whether or not your paid for on call time is done on s case by case basis.

Being required to respond in seconds and immediately drop what your doing makes on time pay payable.

Having many many Incidents come in you need to go work for also helps the argument of paid on call time.

It would be payable if... you are at an airport queue, or fifo queue.

Your getting so many pings that it's reasonable to assume you can't do anything.

It's probobly not if you are waiting at home and nothing is coming in.

Supporting details.
Having very little time to respond and do what your called to do.
Rules such as no drinking while on call

Evidence against


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> https://www.employmentlawfirms.com/resources/employment/on-call-time-are-you-entitled-be-paid.htm
> It looks like whether or not your paid for on call time is done on s case by case basis.
> 
> Being required to respond in seconds and immediately drop what your doing makes on time pay payable.
> ...


Exactly!

If Uber starts enforcing requirements, like a required acceptance rate, or requiring the driver to click "decline" instead of just letting it time out, it could trigger the FLSA standards and entitle the employee to be paid, as they are engaged to wait. But as long as Uber keeps the status quo (drivers are not required to maintain an acceptance rate nor click the decline button) then the employee is free to do whatever they want to do, and are waiting to be engaged.

As for the airport queue, if Uber requires a driver to go there, instead of just leaving the airport, then the driver would be entitled to be paid for their wait time. But again, if Uber is not requiring drivers to be in a specific location, then Uber is not engaging the driver to wait. The driver is free to go anywhere they want.

You do have a good point about no drinking while being on call. That could be enough to trigger a FLSA standard. But I'd have to see a precedence where that alone has triggered it before.


----------



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

nouberipo said:


> Drug testing in terms of 420 is irrelevant at this point since it is legal in CA. The only relevance is if they are driving while intoxicated or high. Otherwise, on their free time, they are able to smoke up as much as they want.


Wrong. Marijuana is a Class 1 illegal substance. If drug testing is required for any transportation job, states cannot ignore DOT guidelines or federal law.


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

do you think this would have even happened in the first place if they hadn't cut rates and changed surge? do you think ab5 would even be a thing if they simply took 20 or 25% like they initially had set out to do?

i don't think so. i think you would just have a lot of happy drivers and pax.

they have a department that follows this forum and others like it, as well as any internet news about their company. they send out trolls like they are a troll farm when shit gets real. they saw that strikes were going to happen and they are not stupid. they knew that even if they were small, if they caught the attention of liberal lawmakers, which cali is the epicenter of, the politicians would jump on it if for nothing else just to score political brownie points. so they sent the trolls out in force, on this forum they were a dime a dozen. posting stuff like if you take part in the protest you will get less requests...like wtf??

they knew it would be bad for them but they didnt budge, like if they conceded to any driver demands it would be a sign of weakness.

they had seen the warnings and didn't heed them, now they will be in a worse position than if they didnt pour their potential profits (revenue) into automated cars and simply kept the pay rates and surge where they were. hard to feel bad for them, everyone wants to be the next jeff bezos. these guys would scrap a potentially excellent _profit making_ company just to go out like beta max.


----------



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

UberHammer said:


> You do have a good point about no drinking while being on call. That could be enough to trigger a FLSA standard. But I'd have to see a precedence where that alone has triggered it before.


Apparently it's on a case by case basis...

But 99% of the time... I'm not waiting long enough between pings for being "on call" to be anything close to the reality of the situation.

_cannot use the time effectively for his own purposes is working while ‛on-call.

THIS_ is waiting for pings in a nutshell.

How often do you have to turn around and not go into the gas station to pee because you just got a ping?

That's a quintessential example of _"Cannot use the time effectively for his own purposes"_.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> It doesn't matter if it's a "career" or a "job" or a part time "gig". It should pay decently. Otherwise it's exploitation.
> 
> Yeah, good luck at 2am outside the bars with those "autonomous" vehicles. Half of this board will be dead or retired by the time they're even close to doing what a driver does during drunk time.
> 
> ...





observer said:


> In CA exempt employees must be paid a minimum of 1 1/2 the minimum wage. In Ubers case that would be 18 bux an hour plus expenses.


I made a mistake.

The actual minimum wage for an exempt employee is TWO times the minimum wage or in this case 24 bux an hour.

That is for an exempt employee working forty hours a week.


----------



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

SHalester said:


> Geez, going round in circles here. Yes, AB5 wouldn't, but Uber WOULD once you/us become employees. Do you really believe we become employees and nothing else changes?
> have you EVER been an employee? Had you, you would know you can't come and go as you please. Work hours you please, leave when you want; do only the items YOU want to do. sheesh. Left THAT world.
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for being against AB5 without anger and hate for the ones with different view. For me nobody is asking me. I feel like it's a state labor law that is being set based on past court rulings. It's more a legal precedence set by judges and lawmakers and I don't see how I can be for or against it if a ruling in the courts already was made. Dynamax 2018. But I do like to see Uber squeezed.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Apparently it's on a case by case basis...
> 
> But 99% of the time... I'm not waiting long enough between pings for being "on call" to be anything close to the reality of the situation.
> 
> ...


And it's a red herring. Because if getting too many pings entitles an employee to be paid for being on call, then Uber is going to require that employee to have a high acceptance rate, or else the employee would sit there rejecting all those pings because they are getting paid anyway.


----------



## wicked (Sep 24, 2017)

AB5 should actually be a blessing for Uber and Lyft. They will BOTH be forced to raise prices to pay a fair wage. The scumbags who exploit us by taking a ride and not tipping will be priced out. Perfect.


----------



## IthurstwhenIP (Jan 12, 2018)

They will try in court. That fails they fold. No way they redo the app the algo the business model.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

IthurstwhenIP said:


> They will try in court. That fails they fold. No way they redo the app the algo the business model.


They're NOT folding.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

O-Side Uber said:


> ...so they can get paid for whacking off.


That is the dream, isn't it?


----------



## RaleighUber (Dec 4, 2016)

Sal29 said:


> There's good and bad. The great parts are that low life cheapskates paxholes will not be able to afford uber/Lyft, etc.
> The bad part is that since paxhole demand will go down, many drivers will have to be fired. Pay will go up a lot for the many drivers that don't get fired though.


It's all a red herring. The day the bill was passed Uber said it would have no affect on them and drivers would remain contractors. To be an employee a person must directly contribute to the company's main business, and drivers do not contribute directly to Uber's main business, which they said was "serving as a technology platform for several different types of digital platforms."


----------



## Sal29 (Jul 27, 2014)

RaleighUber said:


> It's all a red herring. The day the bill was passed Uber said it would have no affect on them and drivers would remain contractors. To be an employee a person must directly contribute to the company's main business, and drivers do not contribute directly to Uber's main business, which they said was "serving as a technology platform for several different types of digital platforms."


The law was specifically written with the help of an army of lawyers so Uber and Lyft would lose in court. Uber and Lyft can fight it all they want but they only have 3 choices.
Pay drivers a lot more money, leave California and the 20+ other states that will pass similar laws, or break the law and have their board of directors and executives all end up in prison for decades.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Sal29 said:


> The law was specifically written with the help of an army of lawyers so Uber and Lyft would lose in court. Uber and Lyft can fight it all they want but they only have 3 choices.
> Pay drivers a lot more money, leave California and the 20+ other states that will pass similar laws, or break the law and have their board of directors and executives all end up in prison for decades.


Come on Sal.
You haven't lived in Cali long, have you?
That's not the way things work here in Socialist Utopia.

The Party (Gov Newsom) will negotiate with Uber as to the amt of donation they will make to the governors re-election campaign, then the law will be amended to exempt Uber. The whole thing will fall out of the news and we'll forget about it. About ten or twelve months from now there will be a very short two paragraph news release that the law has been 'adjusted' and that it will go into effect soon. 
Done.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Sal29 said:


> The law was specifically written with the help of an army of lawyers so Uber and Lyft would lose in court.


i hate to break it to you but uber and lyft has a lot more money to hire a lot scarier lawyers.

AB5 is good though because any opposition makes uber/lyft have to rework their current model.

trick is not to put so much pressure they come out swinging.

just enough that they rethink the current shiety practices.


----------



## RaleighUber (Dec 4, 2016)

Sal29 said:


> they only have 3 choices.
> Pay drivers a lot more money, leave California and the 20+ other states that will pass similar laws, or break the law and have their board of directors and executives all end up in prison for decades.


Ha! You are a comedian. You think Gavin Newsome's Attorney General is a better lawyer than the avalanche of attorney's Fuber has? And seriously, you think "executives" and directors" will "end up in prison for decades?" Drama much? If a company violates labor law, it allows the state or the violated employee to sue for damages and pay related to the violation. No employee goes to jail, even if they refuse to pay them anything.


----------



## Sal29 (Jul 27, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> i hate to break it to you but uber and lyft has a lot more money to hire a lot scarier lawyers.


ROTFLMFAO, NO AND NO
https://markets.businessinsider.com...onomy-16-mind-blowing-facts-2019-4-1028142608


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Sal29 said:


> ROTFLMFAO, NO AND NO
> https://markets.businessinsider.com...onomy-16-mind-blowing-facts-2019-4-1028142608


how does this relate to??

is the state of california going to reroute its sources to back this bill?


----------



## Sal29 (Jul 27, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> how does this relate to??
> 
> is the state of california going to reroute its sources to back this bill?


You insinuated that Uber and Lyft have a lot more money to throw around than California which is laughable.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Sal29 said:


> You insinuated that Uber and Lyft have a lot more money to throw around than California which is laughable.


uhh no i didn't.

i said they had more money to throw on an issue like this then the state of california would.

you really think the state of CA will throw

"Uber, Lyft and DoorDash each put $30 million toward funding a 2020 ballot initiative that would enable them to keep their drivers as independent contractors."

90mil, more then that to keep that initiative off the ballot?


----------



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

UberHammer said:


> And it's a red herring. Because if getting too many pings entitles an employee to be paid for being on call, then Uber is going to require that employee to have a high acceptance rate, or else the employee would sit there rejecting all those pings because they are getting paid anyway.


I personally don't think that if your being paid as an employee that you should have the right to refuse anything, especially if your getting paid "sitting idle pay"

But when a ping from 10 miles 20 minutes away comes in i will sure as heck accept it for the $8.00 i'd get for just driving to the pickup. And if i had been waiting 15 minute that's another $2.00.

It could come to over $10.00 before i even start the engine with that passenger.

And if it's a hood rat going 2 blocks?

I don't really care.

My "Wait time" starts back up and if a ping comes back in where i just was well oh well... that;s another $10.00 to go back.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I personally don't think that if your being paid as an employee that you should have the right to refuse anything, especially if your getting paid "sitting idle pay"
> 
> But when a ping from 10 miles 20 minutes away comes in i will sure as heck accept it for the $8.00 i'd get for just driving to the pickup. And if i had been waiting 15 minute that's another $2.00.
> 
> ...


Hence the entire point that if Uber continues allowing drivers to decline trips, the drivers are waiting to be engaged and not engaged to wait... and as such not entitled to be paid for being online.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

UberHammer said:


> Hence the entire point that if Uber continues allowing drivers to decline trips, the drivers are waiting to be engaged and not engaged to wait... and as such not entitled to be paid for being online.


And then, by extension ... if Uber treats us like the employees we want to be and they are forced to pay for 'wait time'; then we must take all trips or face 'disciplinary action'. You can't fault the boss for asking you to do the job he is paying you to do.
You always have the right to quit.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

UberBastid said:


> And then, by extension ... if Uber treats us like the employees we want to be and they are forced to pay for 'wait time'; then we must take all trips or face 'disciplinary action'. You can't fault the boss for asking you to do the job he is paying you to do.
> You always have the right to quit.


Exactly. If Uber is required to pay us for being online, I can't even imagine how poorly drivers would be treated by Uber then. I don't know why in the hell any driver would want that.

If Uber doesn't want to pay drivers for being online, then they have to tread really, really, REALLY carefully to not trigger an FLSA standard that would cause them to have to pay drivers to be online. Uber having to tread carefully with drivers would result in drivers having a lot of freedom, perhaps as much as they have now as contractors.


----------

