# Anyone in CA. getting min. wage ?



## Jimmy44

I have heard about AB5 and laws being passed in CA. insuring drivers minimum wage. Has any driver actually received hourly payments from Uber ? And are surges for every mile back ?


----------



## SHalester

nothing has officially been put in place. All stuck in the courts.....for years.... WE did get some nice new toys from Uber, but zero was forced on them....yet....


----------



## Jimmy44

SHalester said:


> nothing has officially been put in place. All stuck in the courts.....for years.... WE did get some nice new toys from Uber, but zero was forced on them....yet....


I would gladly settle for old surge and 75% splt. Period end of story.


----------



## Polomarko

Jimmy44 said:


> I have heard about AB5 and laws being passed in CA. insuring drivers minimum wage. Has any driver actually received hourly payments from Uber ? And are surges for every mile back ?


It is time that Law inforcement go into U/L Head Quoters and arrest all management!


----------



## Jimmy44

Polomarko said:


> It is time that Law inforcement go into U/L Head Quoters and arrest all management!


I think U/L should be more generous with there drivers. I do not think that they are breaking the law and feel your suggestion is a bit extreme and probably against the law.


----------



## KK2929

Jimmy44 said:


> I have heard about AB5 and laws being passed in CA. insuring drivers minimum wage. Has any driver actually received hourly payments from Uber ? And are surges for every mile back ?


--------------------
Where have you been ? If a driver is not making minimum wage, they should not be doing Ride Share work. Being an employee is not going to help anything nor is forming a Union, which is many years down the road, if ever. 
As of this date, everything is still the same as it was on Dec. 31, 2019.


----------



## Jimmy44

KK2929 said:


> --------------------
> Where have you been ? If a driver is not making minimum wage, they should not be doing Ride Share work. Being an employee is not going to help anything nor is forming a Union, which is many years down the road, if ever.
> As of this date, everything is still the same as it was on Dec. 31, 2019.


You missed the entire reason for the post. I wanted to find out if anyone had received money. I am not in favor of it.


----------



## XLnoGas

KK2929 said:


> --------------------
> Where have you been ? If a driver is not making minimum wage, they should not be doing Ride Share work. Being an employee is not going to help anything nor is forming a Union, which is many years down the road, if ever.
> As of this date, everything is still the same as it was on Dec. 31, 2019.


Where have you been? Have you never ever had an hour while you were available and made underMinimum wage due to an app bug, gps issue , connection issue, and never receiving a notification from Uber App? There are plenty a dead spots that will not let you know the connection is poor. Uber should be able to notify of this,and if they were forced to pay minimum wage you know 100% they would solve any type of loop holes that would allow a driver to sit around and not receive pings


----------



## Jimmy44

XLnoGas said:


> Where have you been? Have you never ever had an hour while you were available and made underMinimum wage due to an app bug, gps issue , connection issue, and never receiving a notification from Uber App? There are plenty a dead spots that will not let you know the connection is poor. Uber should be able to notify of this,and if they were forced to pay minimum wage you know 100% they would solve any type of loop holes that would allow a driver to sit around and not receive pings





XLnoGas said:


> Where have you been? Have you never ever had an hour while you were available and made underMinimum wage due to an app bug, gps issue , connection issue, and never receiving a notification from Uber App? There are plenty a dead spots that will not let you know the connection is poor. Uber should be able to notify of this,and if they were forced to pay minimum wage you know 100% they would solve any type of loop holes that would allow a driver to sit around and not receive pings


I want most of what you want. The one thing I differ with is saying " if they were forced to pay minimum wage ".


----------



## IR12

KK2929 said:


> --------------------
> Where have you been ? If a driver is not making minimum wage, they should not be doing Ride Share work. Being an employee is not going to help anything nor is forming a Union, which is many years down the road, if ever.
> As of this date, everything is still the same as it was on Dec. 31, 2019.


Newbie discovered UP and has zero sympathy for readers syndrome....


----------



## UberBastid

Jimmy44 said:


> I have heard about AB5 and laws being passed in CA. insuring drivers minimum wage. Has any driver actually received hourly payments from Uber ? And are surges for every mile back ?


Not in my part of N. California ... even the people who work in fast food restaurants get more than min wage. Oh, you mean Uber drivers? They not employees so they don't get 'wages', they work on a commission. Only very mentally handicapped people, or ride-share drivers work for near nothing.
Do you work for less than min wage?
Why?


----------



## Jimmy44

UberBastid said:


> Not in my part of N. California ... even the people who work in fast food restaurants get more than min wage. Oh, you mean Uber drivers? They not employees so they don't get 'wages', they work on a commission. Only very mentally handicapped people, or ride-share drivers work for near nothing.
> Do you work for less than min wage?
> Why?


Really all I wanted to hear is the first part of your first question.

Typo first part of first sentence.


----------



## UberBastid

Jimmy44 said:


> Really all I wanted to hear is the first part of your first question.
> 
> Typo first part of first sentence.


Glad I could partially help.
But, this is a forum ... so someone may just try to engage you in conversation.
Few are willing to be 'questioned'.


----------



## Jimmy44

Just a suggestion try not to use a term like mentally handicapped people as a demeaning comparison to drivers. It offends most people especially those who have friends or loved ones challenged in this way. You lose your credibility and the person's desire to have the conversation you seek.


----------



## UberBastid

Jimmy44 said:


> Just a suggestion try not to use a term like mentally handicapped people as a demeaning comparison to drivers. It offends most people especially those who have friends or loved ones challenged in this way. You lose your credibility and the person's desire to have the conversation you seek.


OK. Good suggestion.
I will revise to say that anyone that will work for nothing is a tard.


----------



## Jimmy44

UberBastid said:


> OK. Good suggestion.
> I will revise to say that anyone that will work for nothing is a tard.


I may as well be talking to a brick wall. Against my will I have you a second chance and you blew it. Fool me twice shame on me


----------



## UberBastid

Jimmy44 said:


> I may as well be talking to a brick wall. Against my will I have you a second chance and you blew it. Fool me twice shame on me


Second chance?
OOOOoooooh Nooooooooo .... and I failed?
*sob*

So, what happens now?


----------



## MuchoMiles

California is a cess pool. Thank Newscum, Pelosi ..... waiting for a living wage is like waiting for Harvey Epstein to go to prison.


----------



## UberBastid

MuchoMiles said:


> California is a cess pool. Thank Newscum, Pelosi ..... waiting for a living wage is like waiting for Harvey Epstein to go to prison.


True statement right there ...
But, I think Epstein will go to prison, mainly because the Socialist bred and raised here will commit cannibalism. They will eat their own - and this guy took advantage of his power (strike) and money (strike) to get laid with someone of the opposite gender (strike). 
If he was gay, or black, or ... really just about _anything_ except an old white guy, he'd prolly get away with it.

Oh, and you can add to your list:
Adam Shiff
Maxine Watters
John Garamendi
Pete Agular
They all hate America and are doing their best to bring it down.


----------



## MuchoMiles

UberBastid said:


> True statement right there ...
> But, I think Epstein will go to prison, mainly because the Socialist bred and raised here will commit cannibalism. They will eat their own - and this guy took advantage of his power (strike) and money (strike) to get laid with someone of the opposite gender (strike).
> If he was gay, or black, or ... really just about _anything_ except an old white guy, he'd prolly get away with it.
> 
> Oh, and you can add to your list:
> Adam Shiff
> Maxine Watters
> John Garamendi
> Pete Agular
> They all hate America and are doing their best to bring it down.


I left 5 years ago.... best thing I ever did for myself.

You are right about "white" out. True blacks, gays & women get away with/murder (daily)...esp in Cali


----------



## UberBastid

I was born and raised here.
I think I am the last normal person in the state.
I just have to shake my head ... sometimes I bite my tongue so hard it bleeds.

I go to the bank and the teller has such a thick accent that I can't understand her. Then when I ask for a manager that I can communicate with, I'm treated like a racist. Why do I have to learn a second language? I am American, and I'm home. 
My boss tells me that when one of my people call in sick, I have to ask what's wrong. I supervise a lot of women ... I'm not gonna do that.
I see people dropping their drawers and crapping in the gutter in San Francisco in broad daylight - and that's ok.

I was born and grew up in Cali. Partied as a young man in San Francisco in the 80's. It used to be one of the most beautiful cities on the planet (and I've seen a lot of em). It smells like piss now. 
I used to say that Los Angeles was the asshole of the state - now it's the asshole of the whole country ... more commonly known as North Mexico. A sanctuary city that is run by gangs.

I have a great job right now that I really like and pays me way more than I'm worth ... so I hang. But if anything happens with that -- I am gone baby gone.


----------



## Jimmy44

Jimmy44 said:


> I may as well be talking to a brick wall. Against my will I have you a second chance and you blew it. Fool me twice shame on me


I mean if I did not know this was an adult forum I would guess


MuchoMiles said:


> California is a cess pool. Thank Newscum, Pelosi ..... waiting for a living wage is like waiting for Harvey Epstein to go to prison.


If I said that people would jump all over me for being a right wing conservative. But coming from a Californian makes it much more convincing. You can add Lorena Gonzales to those two and call them the 3 stooges. You can be thankful for one thing that Bernie Sanders is not your governor. He makes Newscum look like Rush Limbeagh.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn

KK2929 said:


> --------------------
> Where have you been ? If a driver is not making minimum wage, they should not be doing Ride Share work. Being an employee is not going to help anything nor is forming a Union, which is many years down the road, if ever.
> As of this date, everything is still the same as it was on Dec. 31, 2019.


Since most drivers end up negative on their taxes, most drivers aren't making anything, let alone min wage by IRS standards.


----------



## Jimmy44

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Since most drivers end up negative on their taxes, most drivers aren't making anything, let alone min wage by IRS standards.


Yes I agree. I don't see how the IRS can ever classify rideshare as a hobby. It meets every criteria for a money making business except showing profit.


----------



## UberBastid

Jimmy44 said:


> It meets every criteria for a money making business except showing profit.


Read that sentence again, and laugh along _with_ me.
You might consider a career in politics.

But, you're right.


----------



## SharingMyRidres

Minimum wage in San Jose is $15 per hour. I average $20 to $25 per hour before expenses, so I’m guessing I’m at or below minimum wage.


----------



## Jimmy44

Thanks for the information. When you drive for 60 cents a mile and 20 cents a minute most of us will fall into your range. Rideshare for U/L has become a minimum wage job between 14 to 20 dollars an hour.


----------



## uberNewbSD

AB5 and the concept of min wage fails to consider the other side of the coin which is that these side gigs offer tremendous flexibility. Also, with seeing the ride beforehand you can pick and choose where you go.

No one is going to hire someone for 10 - 15 hours a week and let you choose what those hours are. Yet that is exactly what U/L lets you do. They try to balance that market (drivers and riders) by offering Surge and other incentives.

I generally make between $25-30 per hour gross in CA. After accounting for the IRS deductions and taxes it is close to 20 per hour. I only drive at peak times during the mornings. 

This should never be someone's primary source of income.


----------



## Jimmy44

uberNewbSD said:


> AB5 and the concept of min wage fails to consider the other side of the coin which is that these side gigs offer tremendous flexibility. Also, with seeing the ride beforehand you can pick and choose where you go.
> 
> No one is going to hire someone for 10 - 15 hours a week and let you choose what those hours are. Yet that is exactly what U/L lets you do. They try to balance that market (drivers and riders) by offering Surge and other incentives.
> 
> I generally make between $25-30 per hour gross in CA. After accounting for the IRS deductions and taxes it is close to 20 per hour. I only drive at peak times during the mornings.
> 
> This should never be someone's primary source of income.


Exactly ! I have actually resigned myself that this is what rideshare is. Somewhere what you are making give or take a dollar or two. There are no more claims of making 2000 a week and or quiting your main gig to do this full time. The hours are flexible and you have total independence and for the most part it's fun.


----------



## _Tron_

Understand what you're asking jimmy, and your question has been answered.

To add my opinion, although I likely make less than minimum wage, _after _expenses, I make much more than minimum _before_ expenses. Therefore I would reject the idea of being paid minimum wage by U/L, because expenses would likely not be included. Even so-called benefits added to that equation is still a non-starter for me. Too many trade-offs being an employee.

I'll stick with my $200 /day wage. I would however support a well-sponsored strike to improve working conditions.


----------



## Jimmy44

_Tron_ said:


> Understand what you're asking jimmy, and your question has been answered.
> 
> To add my opinion, although I likely make less than minimum wage, _after _expenses, I make much more than minimum _before_ expenses. Therefore I would reject the idea of being paid minimum wage by U/L, because expenses would likely not be included. Even so-called benefits added to that equation is still a non-starter for me. Too many trade-offs being an employee.
> 
> I'll stick with my $200 /day wage. I would however support a well-sponsored strike to improve working conditions.


I am not in favor of being paid minimum wage by U/L. But 90% of drivers are probably there minus or plus a buck or two. For me to make 200 a day I would have to work between 10 or 12 hours. If you are in an area like mine with zero surges that is a reality.


----------



## SHalester

Jimmy44 said:


> For me to make 200 a day I would have to work between 10 or 12 hours


hard pass. 4 hours max per day between 2 RS gigs.


----------



## Jimmy44

Your saying you make 200 in four hours ? Wherever you are stay there and don't tell a soul.


----------



## SHalester

Jimmy44 said:


> Your saying you make 200 in four hours ?


ahahahahahahahahahaha. Yeah, sure I do. NOT. This is for time, not dollars. A day for me is like half of that, usually. However, I get tired, annoyed, or just don't want to drive I quit for the day. This is NOT my career or something I depend on. Been there, did that. Retired.


----------



## Jimmy44

SHalester said:


> ahahahahahahahahahaha. Yeah, sure I do. NOT. This is for time, not dollars. A day for me is like half of that, usually. However, I get tired, annoyed, or just don't want to drive I quit for the day. This is NOT my career or something I depend on. Been there, did that. Retired.


I hear you totally. I started in 2016 and it was really hard to sign off because the money was so good. Now it does drain you because you don't get that rush of adrenaline that making good money brings. It's way easier to sign off now cause it's such a grind.


----------



## got a p

Jimmy44 said:


> I would gladly settle for old surge and *75% of the passenger fare (ie:the total amount the passenger paid)*. Period end of story.


there fixed your post for you.



uberNewbSD said:


> No one is going to hire someone for 10 - 15 hours a week and let you choose what those hours are.


you sure about that? i had a landscaping deal when i was home for the summer as a teenager and thats EXACTLY the deal i got - minus the arbitrarily picked 10-15 hours a week.


----------



## uberNewbSD

got a p said:


> there fixed your post for you.
> 
> 
> you sure about that? i had a landscaping deal when i was home for the summer as a teenager and thats EXACTLY the deal i got - minus the arbitrarily picked 10-15 hours a week.


That is my exact point.... Landscaping over the summer is one thing where you can be counted for at a certain point of time. However, you weren't able to go to the landscape owner and just get 40 hours if you had a free week and wanted to earn some extra cash. Similarly, you couldn't not show up for 3 weeks and then just get back on the gig.

The flexibility is something that people really need to take into consideration when complaining about the pay. Not to mention that the barrier to entry is SO low. Have a car and have a clean record isn't exactly a high bar to clear.

I average about 30 per hour but that is because I drive between 5-10 hours a week in areas that are very busy. I'm not driving at 11 am on a Thrusday and then complaining that I'm only getting 2 pings an hour.


----------



## DriverMark

Jimmy44 said:


> I have heard about AB5 and laws being passed in CA. insuring drivers minimum wage. Has any driver actually received hourly payments from Uber ? And are surges for every mile back ?


In Utah .... no AB5... did make $40/hr last night... all on X.... Sorry CA ants......


----------



## uberNewbSD

If AB5 goes into effect.... What stops someone from logging on at 2am is a random location and sleeping while earning pay. 

You are going to see Uber have to schedule the drivers which goes against the flexibility of driving all together.


----------



## Jimmy44

uberNewbSD said:


> That is my exact point.... Landscaping over the summer is one thing where you can be counted for at a certain point of time. However, you weren't able to go to the landscape owner and just get 40 hours if you had a free week and wanted to earn some extra cash. Similarly, you couldn't not show up for 3 weeks and then just get back on the gig.
> 
> The flexibility is something that people really need to take into consideration when complaining about the pay. Not to mention that the barrier to entry is SO low. Have a car and have a clean record isn't exactly a high bar to clear.
> 
> I average about 30 per hour but that is because I drive between 5-10 hours a week in areas that are very busy. I'm not driving at 11 am on a Thrusday and then complaining that I'm only getting 2 pings an hour.


I complain but keep turning on the app. full time. I genuinely like it, the flexibility and the feeling of Independence. My complaints are with the app itself ie. the rating system etc. To think that Uber owes us minimum wage and benefits is ridiculous.


----------



## observer

_Tron_ said:


> Understand what you're asking jimmy, and your question has been answered.
> 
> To add my opinion, although I likely make less than minimum wage, _after _expenses, I make much more than minimum _before_ expenses. Therefore I would reject the idea of being paid minimum wage by U/L, because expenses would likely not be included. Even so-called benefits added to that equation is still a non-starter for me. Too many trade-offs being an employee.
> 
> I'll stick with my $200 /day wage. I would however support a well-sponsored strike to improve working conditions.


In California employees must be paid AT LEAST minimum wage PLUS expenses.

You should already be paying for benefits through your income tax. In fact you should be paying your share AND Ubers share.

The only benefits an employee would have over an IC are,

ALL expenses paid. Including full auto insurance while on app.

Three days sick pay per year.

Uber, as an employer, pays its share of taxes. Meaning the driver pays less taxes. Ubers share is around 8-10%. Drivers are paying for this now. Uber should be paying for it.

Overtime for hours worked over 8/40.

Paid break and meal times.

Workers compensation.

Unemployment insurance.

Pay for all hours online.


----------



## supor

I think some people don't know the difference between an employee and independent contractor.

Uber is treating IC's as employees (punishing for not accepting rides, not sharing trip details, no freedom to determine your own rates, etc. ). That's why they are in trouble with AB5.

Do you know what would happened if you were true IC?

You would determine your own rate. For example, I would never wait a driver for free. Especially for $3 rides. We are waiting for them to get out of a bar in the middle of busiest street, risking to get a ticket, 2 minutes for free then 25 cents/minute. Uber pays you 75 cents to wait for 5 minutes. You can't even cancel a ride before 5 minutes. Which is complete waste of my time for a 5-10 minute short ride.

Or I would never drive my car for 15 minutes / 7 miles to pickup a passenger for free. Or any kind of distance.

Imagine the times you spent picking up and waiting for passenger during a day. For Uber, you are not working during those times.

Uber knows that AB5 is their end.

That's why they are doing all those changes.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Jimmy44 said:


> You missed the entire reason for the post. I wanted to find out if anyone had received money. I am not in favor of it.


Waitwhoawhat? You expected members to read and understand the thread they're replying to? In this forum?

&#129315; &#128517; :roflmao:


----------



## Jimmy44

_Tron_ said:


> Understand what you're asking jimmy, and your question has been answered.
> 
> To add my opinion, although I likely make less than minimum wage, _after _expenses, I make much more than minimum _before_ expenses. Therefore I would reject the idea of being paid minimum wage by U/L, because expenses would likely not be included. Even so-called benefits added to that equation is still a non-starter for me. Too many trade-offs being an employee.
> 
> I'll stick with my $200 /day wage. I would however support a well-sponsored strike to improve working conditions.


200 a day is great whatever you are doing keep it up.


observer said:


> In California employees must be paid AT LEAST minimum wage PLUS expenses.
> 
> You should already be paying for benefits through your income tax. In fact you should be paying your share AND Ubers share.
> 
> The only benefits an employee would have over an IC are,
> 
> ALL expenses paid. Including full auto insurance while on app.
> 
> Three days sick pay per year.
> 
> Uber, as an employer, pays its share of taxes. Meaning the driver pays less taxes. Ubers share is around 8-10%. Drivers are paying for this now. Uber should be paying for it.
> 
> Overtime for hours worked over 8/40.
> 
> Paid break and meal times.
> 
> Workers compensation.
> 
> Unemployment insurance.
> 
> Pay for all hours online.


Why would anyone work in a busy area and or take long rides. You would make just as much in a sleepy area where you get few rides a day. You're could stay on line 16 hours with the last 8 being overtime. I would do this all year and make a fortune while basically doing nothing. All my benefits would be taken care of and my car would have few miles on it. Whatever miles I did rack up would be payed by Uber along with the cost of maintenance. Am I the only one who See's the ridiculousness of this ?



The Gift of Fish said:


> Whatwhoawhat? You expected members to read and understand the thread they're replying to? In this forum?
> 
> &#129315; &#128517; :roflmao:


Yes it's like they change the thread so they can give a sarcastic remark. The laughing faces are perfect.


----------



## supor

Jimmy44 said:


> Why would anyone work in a busy area and or take long rides. You would make just as much in a sleepy area where you get few rides a day. You're could stay on line 16 hours with the last 8 being overtime. I would do this all year and make a fortune while basically doing nothing. All my benefits would be taken care of and my car would have few miles on it. Whatever miles I did rack up would be payed by Uber along with the cost of maintenance. Am I the only one who See's the ridiculousness of this ?


If we were employees you would not have the option to refuse rides or the area that you want to work.

There are good and bad sides of being an employee or IC. Like I said. People don't know what being an employee and IC means.


----------



## Jimmy44

supor said:


> If we were employees you would not have the option to refuse rides or the area that you want to work.
> 
> There are good and bad sides of being an employee or IC. Like I said. People don't know what being an employee and IC means.


So basically Uber would no longer be Uber. You would have to take a 3 hour ride one way for minimum wage. Again am I the only one who See's how ridiculous this is ?


----------



## observer

Jimmy44 said:


> 200 a day is great whatever you are doing keep it up.
> 
> Why would anyone work in a busy area and or take long rides. You would make just as much in a sleepy area where you get few rides a day. You're could stay on line 16 hours with the last 8 being overtime. I would do this all year and make a fortune while basically doing nothing. All my benefits would be taken care of and my car would have few miles on it. Whatever miles I did rack up would be payed by Uber along with the cost of maintenance. Am I the only one who See's the ridiculousness of this ?
> 
> 
> Yes it's like they change the thread so they can give a sarcastic remark. The laughing faces are perfect.


"Why would anyone work in a busy area and or take long rides. You would make just as much in a sleepy area where you get few rides a day. You're could stay on line 16 hours with the last 8 being overtime. I would do this all year and make a fortune while basically doing nothing. All my benefits would be taken care of and my car would have few miles on it. Whatever miles I did rack up would be payed by Uber along with the cost of maintenance. Am I the only one who See's the ridiculousness of this ?"

Because being classified an employee doesn't give you immunity from being fired.



Jimmy44 said:


> So basically Uber would no longer be Uber. You would have to take a 3 hour ride one way for minimum wage. Again am I the only one who See's how ridiculous this is ?


If it"s a three hour one way trip you would be paid for six hours PLUS expenses.


----------



## supor

Jimmy44 said:


> So basically Uber would no longer be Uber. You would have to take a 3 hour ride one way for minimum wage. Again am I the only one who See's how ridiculous this is ?


It is not ridiculous.

If you work for 3 hours non stop it means you skipped your break. Which they have to pay you an extra hour (that's the CA law I don't know your states law). Also you don't have to pay anything else. Car payment, insurance, gas, maintanence, ...


----------



## Jimmy44

observer said:


> "Why would anyone work in a busy area and or take long rides. You would make just as much in a sleepy area where you get few rides a day. You're could stay on line 16 hours with the last 8 being overtime. I would do this all year and make a fortune while basically doing nothing. All my benefits would be taken care of and my car would have few miles on it. Whatever miles I did rack up would be payed by Uber along with the cost of maintenance. Am I the only one who See's the ridiculousness of this ?"
> 
> Because being classified an employee doesn't give you immunity from being fired.
> 
> 
> If it"s a three hour one way trip you would be paid for six hours PLUS expenses.


So


observer said:


> "Why would anyone work in a busy area and or take long rides. You would make just as much in a sleepy area where you get few rides a day. You're could stay on line 16 hours with the last 8 being overtime. I would do this all year and make a fortune while basically doing nothing. All my benefits would be taken care of and my car would have few miles on it. Whatever miles I did rack up would be payed by Uber along with the cost of maintenance. Am I the only one who See's the ridiculousness of this ?"
> 
> Because being classified an employee doesn't give you immunity from being fired.
> 
> 
> If it"s a three hour one way trip you would be paid for six hours PLUS expenses.


What if I had a Dr. Appt. ?


----------



## supor

Jimmy44 said:


> What if I had a Dr. Appt. ?


Have you ever worked as an employee in your life?

That's why you have paid sick leave days which means you will still get paid while you are at doctors office.

For example in CA it is 40 hours/year.


----------



## observer

supor said:


> Have you ever worked as an employee in your life?
> 
> That's why you have sick leave days.


Paid sick leave days.


----------



## Jimmy44

supor said:


> It is not ridiculous.
> 
> If you work for 3 hours non stop it means you skipped your break. Which they have to pay you an extra hour (that's the CA law I don't know your states law). Also you don't have to pay anything else. Car payment, insurance, gas, maintanence, ...


So your 3 hours away from home and you get a ping that takes you 3 more hours away that you cannot refuse or you would be fired. Great !


----------



## supor

Jimmy44 said:


> So your 3 hours away from home and you get a ping that takes you 3 more hours away that you cannot refuse or you would be fired. Great !


Are you joking? Do you think that they will give you a 10 hour drive and leave you over there?

OMG...


----------



## observer

Jimmy44 said:


> So your 3 hours away from home and you get a ping that takes you 3 more hours away that you cannot refuse or you would be fired. Great !


Gnite everybody. &#128587;‍♂


----------



## Jimmy44

supor said:


> Have you ever worked as an employee in your life?
> 
> That's why you have paid sick leave days which means you will still get paid while you are at doctors office.
> 
> For example in CA it is 40 hours/year.


I have worked as an employee that's why I love and want to be an IC with Uber.


----------



## supor

Jimmy44 said:


> I have worked as an employee that's why I love and want to be an IC with Uber.


It looks like you are one of those ignorant people that don't have an idea about the rights they have.

Good luck my friend. I wish the best for you.


----------



## Jimmy44

supor said:


> Are you joking? Do you think that they will give you a 10 hour drive and leave you over there?
> 
> OMG...


I am just replying to the reply that they will fire you if you don't follow there rules.


----------



## observer

supor said:


> Have you ever worked as an employee in your life?
> 
> That's why you have paid sick leave days which means you will still get paid while you are at doctors office.
> 
> For example in CA it is 40 hours/year.


24 hours paid.


----------



## Jimmy44

supor said:


> It looks like you are one of those ignorant people that don't have an idea about the rights they have.
> 
> Good luck my friend. I wish the best for you.


If you can't win an argument always start using insults and name calling.


----------



## supor

Jimmy44 said:


> I am just replying to the reply that they will fire you if you don't follow there rules.


They will fire you if you don't follow your rules as an IC too. 
Firing an employee is 10000 times harder than firing an IC. Never forget that.


observer said:


> 24 hours paid.


Yes I'm sorry  24 hours.


----------



## Jimmy44

observer said:


> 24 hours paid.


Then go to CA. and get a job at Walmart as a breeder. Don't ruin my great IC experience with Uber.


----------



## supor

Jimmy44 said:


> If you can't win an argument always start using insults and name calling.


It is not name calling. You are at least 21 years old since you are an Uber driver an you don't have an idea about your rights.

That is pure ignorance.


----------



## observer

Jimmy44 said:


> I am just replying to the reply that they will fire you if you don't follow there rules.


How long have you been driving for Uber and how many three hour trips have they given you?

How many three hour trips with another three hour trip stacked on top have you had?

Uber could do this now. You don't have to be an employee.


----------



## supor

Jimmy44 said:


> Then go to CA. and get a job at Walmart as a breeder. Don't ruin my great IC experience with Uber.


That is not IC experience. Again. You have to learn lot of things my friend.



observer said:


> How long have you been driving for Uber and how many three hour trips have they given you?
> 
> How many three hour trips with another three hour trip stacked on top have you had?
> 
> Uber could do this now. You don't have to be an employee.


LOL right?

Who is calling Uber for a 3 hour ride. LOL

Also Uber have a limit for 4 hours for a single ride right now. Just to let you guys know.


----------



## Jimmy44

supor said:


> They will fire you if you don't follow your rules as an IC too.
> Firing an employee is 10000 times harder than firing an IC. Never forget that.
> 
> Yes I'm sorry :smiles: 24 hours.


17,000 rides taking any rides I desired and working whenever and wherever I want. IC is great I DON'T want to be an employee.


----------



## observer

supor said:


> They will fire you if you don't follow your rules as an IC too.
> Firing an employee is 10000 times harder than firing an IC. Never forget that.
> 
> Yes I'm sorry :smiles: 24 hours.


Actually no. California is an at will state. You could be fired for no reason at all.


----------



## Jimmy44

observer said:


> How long have you been driving for Uber and how many three hour trips have they given you?
> 
> How many three hour trips with another three hour trip stacked on top have you had?
> 
> Uber could do this now. You don't have to be an employee.


I can turn them down now without being fired.



observer said:


> Actually no. California is an at will state. You could be fired for no reason at all.


My point exactly I don't want any part of being an employee.


----------



## observer

Most companies will give employees written warnings to have proof in case of a lawsuit but they aren't legally required.


----------



## supor

observer said:


> Actually no. California is an at will state. You could be fired for no reason at all.


At will or not noone can fire you without a reason.

Find a good lawyer. You'll be rich. I did it before.

If you are showing the same/similar performance with the others and you are the one that they are firing that is discrimination :smiles:


----------



## observer

Jimmy44 said:


> I can turn them down now without being fired.
> 
> 
> My point exactly I don't want any part of being an employee.


The same can be done to independent contractors. Uber can send you less rides till you voluntarily quit.


----------



## supor

observer said:


> The same can be done to independent contractors. Uber can send you less rides till you voluntarily quit.


Some companies does the same thing with the employees that they want to fire.

Schedule them only for 4 hours every week between 3 am and 7 am.

They will quit.


----------



## observer

supor said:


> At will or not no company can fire you without a reason.
> 
> Find a good lawyer. You'll be rich. I did it before.


Not true.

An employee can be fired for any reason or no reason.

There are certain restrictions like discrimination but not wanting to take a ride or hiding from work is not a reason.


----------



## supor

observer said:


> Not true.
> 
> An employee can be fired for any reason or no reason.
> 
> There are certain restrictions like discrimination but not wanting to take a ride or hiding from work is not a reason.


Yeah they can. If we are talking about the things they can do they can fire you for the color of your skin or your religion too.

The thing I am saying is they will pay for it.


----------



## observer

supor said:


> Some companies does the same thing with the employees that they want to fire.
> 
> Schedule them only for 4 hours every week between 3 am and 7 am.
> 
> They will quit.


Yes but workers whose hours have been substantially reduced can claim unemployment for the reduced hours.



supor said:


> Yeah they can. If we are talking about the things they can do they can fire you for the color of your skin or your religion too.
> 
> The thing I am saying is they will pay for it.


Nope, color of skin and religion are protected classes and are discrimination.


----------



## supor

observer said:


> Yes but workers whose hours have been substantially reduced can claim unemployment for the reduced hours.
> 
> 
> Nope, color of skin and religion are protected classes and are discrimination.


Unemployment tax is already being paid by the employers. That is not an extra cost for an employer. And unemployment payment is not enough for a person to live also for a limited amount of time.


----------



## observer

Yes in a lawsuit where discrimination is proven, the company may lose.



supor said:


> Unemployment tax is already being paid by the employers. That is not an extra cost for an employer. And unemployment payment is not enough for a person to live also for a limited amount of time.


I never said anything about it being an extra cost, just that it could be applied for by the employee.


----------



## supor

observer said:


> Yes but workers whose hours have been substantially reduced can claim unemployment for the reduced hours.
> 
> 
> Nope, color of skin and religion are protected classes and are discrimination.


Something forbidden doesn't mean that someone is not able to do it.

What it means is if they do it they will pay or go to jail for it.


----------



## observer

supor said:


> Something forbidden doesn't mean that someone is not able to do it.
> 
> What it means is if they do it they will pay or go to jail for it.


It doesn't mean they are able to do it either.

The problem is, in a case of discrimination, the employee has to prove discrimination which is not always easy to prove.


----------



## supor

supor said:


> Something forbidden doesn't mean that someone is not able to do it.
> 
> What it means is if they do it they will pay or go to jail for it.





observer said:


> It doesn't mean they are able to do it either.
> 
> The problem is, in a case of discrimination, the employee has to prove discrimination which is not always easy to prove.


Everyone is able to do anything. You control the words that are coming thru your mouth or the actions done by your hands. Not the law. Otherwise there would be no criminals right?

Discrimination is the easist thing to prove :smiles:


----------



## observer

supor said:


> Everyone is able to do anything.
> 
> Discrimination is the easist thing to prove :smiles:


 Ok.

Gnite.


----------



## supor

observer said:


> Ok.
> 
> Gnite.


Ok.

Later.


----------



## Jimmy44

supor said:


> It is not name calling. You are at least 21 years old since you are an Uber driver an you don't have an idea about your rights.
> 
> That is pure ignorance.


Really have you a chance but you just got the big " I " .



observer said:


> Most companies will give employees written warnings to have proof in case of a lawsuit but they aren't legally required.


Can anyone but me see the lunacy of employee proposal. The courts would be backed up with work related issues.



observer said:


> The same can be done to independent contractors. Uber can send you less rides till you voluntarily quit.


17,000 rides taken when and where I want. I will take my chances of being deactivated.


----------



## supor

Jimmy44 said:


> 17,000 rides taken when and where I want. I will take my chances of being deactivated.


When and where you want. LOL.

What do you do first thing you wake up in the morning?

'Today, I will take some drunk people from downtown to 10 minutes away. And then pickup a passenger 5 minutes away and drop him back to downtown.' Is that how Uber works for you? LOL

Uber used to punish people because of their acceptance rate. They still do but behind the curtains.

That is not how being an IC works. I hope you understand that in the future.


----------



## Jon Stoppable

supor said:


> That is not how being an IC works. I hope you understand that in the future


Actually it is. I had a big customer that doubled their usual order, so I told them it would take me twice as long to fill. So they hired somebody else to do it.


----------



## supor

Jon Stoppable said:


> Actually it is. I had a big customer that doubled their usual order, so I told them it would take me twice as long to fill. So they hired somebody else to do it.


I don't think you understood what I'm trying to say my friend. He thinks that he accepts the rides when and whereever he wants.
I tried to explain him he does not and being an IC is not what he thinks.


----------



## uberNewbSD

supor said:


> I think some people don't know the difference between an employee and independent contractor.
> 
> Uber is treating IC's as employees (punishing for not accepting rides, not sharing trip details, no freedom to determine your own rates, etc. ). That's why they are in trouble with AB5.
> 
> Do you know what would happened if you were true IC?
> 
> You would determine your own rate. For example, I would never wait a driver for free. Especially for $3 rides. We are waiting for them to get out of a bar in the middle of busiest street, risking to get a ticket, 2 minutes for free then 25 cents/minute. Uber pays you 75 cents to wait for 5 minutes. You can't even cancel a ride before 5 minutes. Which is complete waste of my time for a 5-10 minute short ride.
> 
> Or I would never drive my car for 15 minutes / 7 miles to pickup a passenger for free. Or any kind of distance.
> 
> Imagine the times you spent picking up and waiting for passenger during a day. For Uber, you are not working during those times.
> 
> Uber knows that AB5 is their end.
> 
> That's why they are doing all those changes.


I agree that the waiting period sucks.

In regards to the acceptance rate.... I can see that both ways. Think if you were an artist and every time I called for a quote for a painting you said "Yeah.... No" Eventually, you would stop calling that artist. That is what Uber is doing to drivers who don't pick up rides.

My experience as an Uber driver has been nothing short of easy money. This is mostly because I see the route. If I didn't there would be no way I would be able to drive the handful of hours a week that I do.

I think many drivers forget how much it sucks to be an actual employee where you deal with a direct boss and scheduling. "Sorry Joe, I need you to drive from 1am - 10am on a Weds night. Oh you need to take your kid to school at 8am?! I think you need to find someone else to do that for you."

The fact that you get to pick your hours and how much you work tilts it very much as an IC in my opinion.


----------



## 2starDriver

Jimmy44 said:


> Really have you a chance but you just got the big " I " .
> 
> 
> Can anyone but me see the lunacy of employee proposal. The courts would be backed up with work related issues.
> 
> 
> 17,000 rides taken when and where I want. I will take my chances of being deactivated.


you live in Sf or La?


----------



## Jimmy44

2starDriver said:


> you live in Sf or La?


CT


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> Because being classified an employee doesn't give you immunity from being fired.


And being an employee means a schedule. Means a supervisor. Means a manager. Means no more pings. You online, you drive what is sent. And please nobody say AB5 doesn't require schedules. As an employee you will have a schedule. Period. Hard stop.


----------



## observer

SHalester said:


> And being an employee means a schedule. Means a supervisor. Means a manager. Means no more pings. You online, you drive what is sent. And please nobody say AB5 doesn't require schedules. As an employee you will have a schedule. Period. Hard stop.


Except most of this is already done anyway. Your supervisor/manager is the algorithm. No more pings will be necessary because your rides will be prescheduled as much as possible. No more sitting around hoping to get a ping.

A schedule isn't required. Will there be schedules, most likely but it would be something required by Uber and not the law.

If Uber values its drivers "flexibility" it can create flexible schedules.

We already know how much Uber values its drivers.


----------



## Jimmy44

SHalester said:


> And being an employee means a schedule. Means a supervisor. Means a manager. Means no more pings. You online, you drive what is sent. And please nobody say AB5 doesn't require schedules. As an employee you will have a schedule. Period. Hard stop.


Exactly everything you say is spot on. I would quit rather then deal with all you mentioned. Ben there done that.


----------



## SHalester

Jimmy44 said:


> . I would quit rather then deal with all you mentioned.


for me it will depend on what comes down the pike. I will only work Uber in the mid-mornings and only for 3 hours M-F. If that remains the same, I'd be ok. They change that, well, out of here. AT least Uber wise. If it means more money, ok I"m down for that. Don't care about benefits, don't need them. Just depends on the details. I don't think we will become employees, but nobody knows for sure We'll see at some point.


----------



## 2starDriver

supor said:


> I don't think you understood what I'm trying to say my friend. He thinks that he accepts the rides when and whereever he wants.
> I tried to explain him he does not and being an IC is not what he thinks.


What type of IC relationship you desire with UBER ? Around 5 requests at the same time like catalog to choose from lol ? You sound like you havent seen the days we picking up any requests blindfolded.


----------



## Jimmy44

observer said:


> Except most of this is already done anyway. Your supervisor/manager is the algorithm. No more pings will be necessary because your rides will be prescheduled as much as possible. No more sitting around hoping to get a ping.
> 
> A schedule isn't required. Will there be schedules, most likely but it would be something required by Uber and not the law.
> 
> If Uber values its drivers "flexibility" it can create flexible schedules.
> 
> We already know how much Uber values its drivers.


I mean no disrespect but the logistics of what your proposing are impossible.


----------



## observer

Jimmy44 said:


> I mean no disrespect but the logistics of what your proposing are impossible.


In what way?


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Jimmy44 said:


> Can anyone but me see the lunacy of employee proposal.


In CA it's not a proposal.

I went to the Lyft hub to ask when Lyft was going to stop ignoring AB5. The drone behind the desk told me that Lyft was "still working with legislators to see what kind of arrangement can be reached".

This guy was in Fantasy Land. "No", I said. "There is no arrangement to be reached" - the negotiation stage is long over and AB5 is now law. I illustrated this to the drone with an example. If I get caught speeding, I won't go before the judge and see what agreement we can hammer out between us - see if we can reach an understanding. Speeding is against the law and there is no negotiation - if I speed then I go before a judge and I get given whatever resolution the judge decides upon.

I then asked again when Lyft was going to comply with the law. The drone replied that he did not have a date for that.


----------



## Mash Ghasem

Jimmy44 said:


> *Anyone in CA. getting min. wage ?*


I don't know about others in CA, but I'm getting minimal wage...
(not to be confused with minimum wage!)


----------



## Jimmy44

2starDriver said:


> What type of IC relationship you desire with UBER ? Around 5 requests at the same time like catalog to choose from lol ? You sound like you havent seen the days we picking up any requests blindfolded.


I'm having a


observer said:


> In what way?


It would take days to do that. You would have to treat every employee totally different. Uber means different things to every driver in the world. Just think about what that would entail ?



The Gift of Fish said:


> In CA it's not a proposal.
> 
> I went to the Lyft hub to ask when Lyft was going to stop ignoring AB5. The drone behind the desk told me that Lyft was "still working with legislators to see what kind of arrangement can be reached".
> 
> This guy was in Fantasy Land. "No", I said. "There is no arrangement to be reached" - the negotiation stage is long over and AB5 is now law. I illustrated this to the drone with an example. If I get caught speeding, I won't go before the judge and see what agreement we can hammer out between us - see if we can reach an understanding. Speeding is against the law and there is no negotiation - if I speed then I go before a judge and I get given whatever resolution the judge decides upon.
> 
> I then asked again when Lyft was going to comply with the law. The drone replied that he did not have a date for that.


Ever think that you might be the drone ? I thought he was very kind to you.


----------



## supor

2starDriver said:


> What type of IC relationship you desire with UBER ? Around 5 requests at the same time like catalog to choose from lol ? You sound like you havent seen the days we picking up any requests blindfolded.


Being an IC brings you some rights. Like accepting any job you want, determining your own rates, cleaning fees, ...

Those are not desires. Any IC's right. I hope you guys get that one day. Since then, keep thinking that working anytime you want means being an IC.


----------



## UberLyfterNumber1

Minimum Wage?

Isn't that where you drive 12 to 15 miles for a 3 dollar ride.

The wage is like NEGATIVE 2 bucks per hour.

Your contribution to society? While you live under a freeway overpass on the money you actually net?

Signed,
King Ant


----------



## Jimmy44

UberLyfterNumber1 said:


> Minimum Wage?
> 
> Isn't that where you drive 12 to 15 miles for a 3 dollar ride.
> 
> The wage is like NEGATIVE 2 bucks per hour.
> 
> Your contribution to society? While you live under a freeway overpass on the money you actually net?
> 
> Signed,
> King Ant


Please don't take this as being unsympathetic but just give it some thought. What type of gun did Uber use when they put it up to your head and said turn on our app and drive ?


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Jimmy44 said:


> Ever think that you might be the drone ? I thought he was very kind to you.


Oh, the drone was very kind. But that's not the point, and I didn't go to the Lyft hub for kindness. No, drone in this context means the automatons at the hubs and "green light centres" who are programmed to simply repeat the company line on whatever policy they are questioned over.


----------



## Jimmy44

The Gift of Fish said:


> Oh, the drone was very kind. But that's not the point, and I didn't go to the Lyft hub for kindness. No, drone in this context means the automatons at the hubs and "green light centres" who are programmed to simply repeat the company line on whatever policy they are questioned over.


I thought he answered you in a polite and truthful way. He said they were still discussing the issue and no date had been set. He was not commenting either way. I think he handled your questions fine.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Jimmy44 said:


> I thought he answered you in a polite and truthful way. He said they were still discussing the issue and no date had been set. He was not commenting either way. I think he handled your questions fine.


No, the information he gave was incorrect and untrue - the discussion window for rideshare companies to negotiate with legislators and the governor closed in 2019, and the new law codifying us as employees came into effect on January 1 this year.


----------



## Jimmy44

The Gift of Fish said:


> No, the information he gave was incorrect and untrue - the discussion window for rideshare companies to negotiate with legislators and the governor closed in 2019, and the new law codifying us as employees came into effect on January 1 this year.


What have you gotten since you became an employee ?


----------



## SHalester

Jimmy44 said:


> What have you gotten since you became an employee ?


that's the key fact. nothing directly from AB5. All locked in courts. No W4 has been sent to any Calif driver. No benefits have started to accrue. Essentially, no direct change since 1/1 at all.
We do have what Uber gave calif due to AB5. No AR, full info ping. Those I'll keep. The fantasy that we in calif are employees, is just that, a fantasy. Also a fantasy that once the courts are done and if they force Uber to make us employees, big surprise is they won't make every single driver an employee.....bam!


----------



## uberNewbSD

The Gift of Fish said:


> No, the information he gave was incorrect and untrue - the discussion window for rideshare companies to negotiate with legislators and the governor closed in 2019, and the new law codifying us as employees came into effect on January 1 this year.


So you are upset with some "drone" as you called is who makes on average of 18 per hour which is less that what most drivers make. AND they don't get to set their own schedule.

Like @Jimmy44 implied. No one is forced to drive for Uber or Lyft. You made the choice to put that sticker in the window and turn on the app.

Obviously the bill was complete crap which is why they keep having to carve out exemption after exemption (see truck drivers, accountants, doctors, etc).

The last poll I saw on here actually was NOT in favor of AB5 due to the freedom that driving today gives.


----------



## Jimmy44

SHalester said:


> that's the key fact. nothing directly from AB5. All locked in courts. No W4 has been sent to any Calif driver. No benefits have started to accrue. Essentially, no direct change since 1/1 at all.
> We do have what Uber gave calif due to AB5. No AR, full info ping. Those I'll keep. The fantasy that we in calif are employees, is just that, a fantasy. Also a fantasy that once the courts are done and if they force Uber to make us employees, big surprise is they won't make every single driver an employee.....bam!


Exactly ! I could not agree with you more. The Uber/Lyft we know would no longer exist.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

uberNewbSD said:


> So you are upset with some "drone" as you called is who makes on average of 18 per hour which is less that what most drivers make. AND they don't get to set their own schedule.


At no point did I say that I was upset with the drone. I'm not interested in how much they make nor I am I interested in their schedules.


> Like @Jimmy44 implied. No one is forced to drive for Uber or Lyft. You made the choice to put that sticker in the window and turn on the app.


That is correct - nobody is forced to drive for Uber or Lyft. I would have thought that was obvious and didn't need to be stated. I'm not sure what your point is, or what you are trying to add to the discussion &#129335;‍♂. I don't see anything of substance yet!


> Obviously the bill was complete crap which is why they keep having to carve out exemption after exemption (see truck drivers, accountants, doctors, etc).


"Complete crap" is not descriptive enough to make any comment on any complaint you may have about AB5.


> The last poll I saw on here actually was NOT in favor of AB5 due to the freedom that driving today gives.


That's wonderful! But it's not relevant to my post about Lyft ignoring AB5



Jimmy44 said:


> What have you gotten since you became an employee ?


Man, this is painful! It's like how I imagine remedial English class would be. It's not hard to understand what has been written, surely. Evidently for some it is. So.... in summary, I went to Lyft's hub to ask when they are going to stop ignoring AB5. This is because Lyft has chosen not to implement any of requirements of AB5 and have not given drivers any of the benefits or wages that employees are entitled to.

And for the even more challenged members of this forum, it cannot be deduced from what I have written whether I am in favour of AB5 or not in favour of it.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Jimmy44 said:


> I think U/L should be more generous with there drivers. I do not think that they are breaking the law and feel your suggestion is a bit extreme and probably against the law.


They've been arrested in France before...


----------



## Jimmy44

uberNewbSD said:


> So you are upset with some "drone" as you called is who makes on average of 18 per hour which is less that what most drivers make. AND they don't get to set their own schedule.
> 
> Like @Jimmy44 implied. No one is forced to drive for Uber or Lyft. You made the choice to put that sticker in the window and turn on the app.
> 
> Obviously the bill was complete crap which is why they keep having to carve out exemption after exemption (see truck drivers, accountants, doctors, etc).
> 
> The last poll I saw on here actually was NOT in favor of AB5 due to the freedom that driving today gives.


Well said I could not agree more. I thought that


Fuzzyelvis said:


> They've been arrested in France before...


Who was arrested and for what ? Are they still in custody and what were the fines ?



The Gift of Fish said:


> At no point did I say that I was upset with the drone. I'm not interested in how much they make nor I am I interested in their schedules.
> That is correct - nobody is forced to drive for Uber or Lyft. I would have thought that was obvious and didn't need to be stated. I'm not sure what your point is, or what you are trying to add to the discussion &#129335;‍♂. I don't see anything of substance yet!
> "Complete crap" is not descriptive enough to make any comment on any complaint you may have about AB5.
> That's wonderful! But it's not relevant to my post about Lyft ignoring AB5
> 
> 
> Man, this is painful! It's like how I imagine remedial English class would be. It's not hard to understand what has been written, surely. Evidently for some it is. So.... in summary, I went to Lyft's hub to ask when they are going to stop ignoring AB5. This is because Lyft has chosen not to implement any of requirements of AB5 and have not given drivers any of the benefits or wages that employees are entitled to.
> 
> And for the even more challenged members of this forum, it cannot be deduced from what I have written whether I am in favour of AB5 or not in favour of it.


I gave him every chance but I simply cannot deal with him anymore. Bye Bye !


----------



## observer

https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/04/uber-driver-reclassified-as-employee-in-france/amp/


----------



## supor

"The court says that self-employed persons should be able to do three things — manage their clients themselves, set prices and choose how to execute a task. Uber failed to comply with those three criteria."

I don't know what else to say..


----------



## Jimmy44

observer said:


> https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/04/uber-driver-reclassified-as-employee-in-france/amp/


It doesn't surprise me that CA and France are reacting like this. Please post when and if financial compensation is rendered. Personally I don't think this guy has a chance.


----------



## uberNewbSD

supor said:


> "The court says that self-employed persons should be able to do three things - manage their clients themselves, set prices and choose how to execute a task. Uber failed to comply with those three criteria."
> 
> I don't know what else to say..


This is some BS..... Think of Uber as a lead generation site for drivers.

1) Lets says a CPA who referrers his clients to an estate attorney... but then that CPA got back feedback from his clients that the estate attorney wasn't very good and rude. He is going to stop referring clients to them. Much how a Uber will stop sending your rides if you do a poor job.

2) You can take the ride or not. Uber is putting out there the market rate for the ride and you can choose to take it or not.

3) Driving is a fairly straight forward task and I'm not sure how you would choose to do it differently. Play whatever music you want but the client can give feedback. Drive an alternative route if you think it is better. Give water and candy if that is the type of driver you want to be.

The thing that gets me is that no one is forcing anyone to turn on the app and put the sticker on the car. For many drivers, this is a few hours a week thing that is done for extra cash. There are very few other jobs out there where I get to choose my hours 100% of the time.


----------



## Jimmy44

uberNewbSD said:


> This is some BS..... Think of Uber as a lead generation site for drivers.
> 
> 1) Lets says a CPA who referrers his clients to an estate attorney... but then that CPA got back feedback from his clients that the estate attorney wasn't very good and rude. He is going to stop referring clients to them. Much how a Uber will stop sending your rides if you do a poor job.
> 
> 2) You can take the ride or not. Uber is putting out there the market rate for the ride and you can choose to take it or not.
> 
> 3) Driving is a fairly straight forward task and I'm not sure how you would choose to do it differently. Play whatever music you want but the client can give feedback. Drive an alternative route if you think it is better. Give water and candy if that is the type of driver you want to be.
> 
> The thing that gets me is that no one is forcing anyone to turn on the app and put the sticker on the car. For many drivers, this is a few hours a week thing that is done for extra cash. There are very few other jobs out there where I get to choose my hours 100% of the time.


Could not agree with you more. It's crystal clear to me and most members who responded. Uber feels the same way that's why they are laughing and ignoring the law.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

uberNewbSD said:


> 1) Lets says a CPA who referrers his clients to an estate attorney... but then that CPA got back feedback from his clients that the estate attorney wasn't very good and rude. He is going to stop referring clients to them. Much how a Uber will stop sending your rides if you do a poor job.


Correct, Uber can deactivate any driver at any time for any reason, or no reason. This does not contradict the findings of the French court. If anything, it validates them.


> 2) You can take the ride or not. Uber is putting out there the market rate for the ride and you can choose to take it or not.


No, Uber is advertising their rate for the ride. The point made by the court is that drivers have no access to a market rate; only to Uber's.


> The thing that gets me is that no one is forcing anyone to turn on the app and put the sticker on the car.


The "you are free to take it or leave it" argument is one of the most trite in such discussions, showing a child-like naiveté. The reason it is a valueless argument is because its premise (people have free will to take any action they choose, therefore all consequences of that action are permissible) is clearly wrong.

There was a case a few years ago (the Rotenburg Cannibal) where a person advertised for a person to go to his home to be murdered and then eaten. A guy responded and went to the cannibal's house. He agreed on videotape to be killed, and was promptly murdered. The cannibal's defence was that nobody held a gun to the victim's head - he had made a verbal contract to be murdered and submitted to the murder willingly. And the murderer was correct - he had not held a gun to the victim's head or forced him in any way.

However, the reason this "nobody held a gun to your head" fallacy falls over is that the rules and laws that are in place to protect people do not apply only when people have been forced into the act in question. The law overrides all, including any any contracts entered into willingly. The murderer was duly convicted of murder and given life.

Another example: I could sign a contract to work at Burger King for $5 per hour. Min wage is $12 per hour. In an industrial tribunal in which I sued for being underpaid, Burger King could unwisely try the "nobody held a gun to his head" defence. However, they would lose; the minimum wage law requires employees to be paid minimum wage.

In the USA Uber has made a habit of, and gets away with, sifting through the laws and picking and choosing the ones it likes, and ignoring the ones it doesn't like. However, other countries don't operate in this way. The law is the law, and French law says that in order to be classed as an independent contractor, the worker must be able to set their own prices, among other requirements. If Uber doesn't like the way the French laws operate then Uber, as you say, doesn't have to be in those countries. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads!


> 3) Driving is a fairly straight forward task and I'm not sure how you would choose to do it differently. Play whatever music you want but the client can give feedback. Drive an alternative route if you think it is better. Give water and candy if that is the type of driver you want to be.


There is nothing in the article to indicate that playing music, route choice or water & sweets were a factor in the court's decision.


> For many drivers, this is a few hours a week thing that is done for extra cash. There are very few other jobs out there where I get to choose my hours 100% of the time.


Choosing one's hours is neither indicative for or against employee status. Many companies in more advanced countries use flexitime, allowing employees to work when they like.


----------



## observer

Jimmy44 said:


> It doesn't surprise me that CA and France are reacting like this. Please post when and if financial compensation is rendered. Personally I don't think this guy has a chance.


A chance at what?

The highest court in France agrees with him.

Uber has no where else to appeal.

That's it. The end.


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> That's it. The end.


Nope. No judge has ordered Uber to do anything yet in calif. and if one believes all approximately 200k drivers will be made employees, they r nuts.

it's over, the end when u fill out a w4. Years off, at best.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Jimmy44 said:


> Uber feels the same way that's why they are laughing


I see no evidence that Uber is laughing. What I do see is a lot of evidence that Uber is very concerned about their workers being classed as employees. They said so, in their S-1 filing before their IPO:

_If, as a result of legislation or judicial decisions, we are required to classify Drivers as employees (or as workers or quasi-employees where those statuses exist), we would incur significant additional expenses for compensating Drivers, potentially including expenses associated with the application of wage and hour laws (including minimum wage, overtime, and meal and rest period requirements), employee benefits, social security contributions, taxes, and penalties. Further, any such reclassification would require us to fundamentally change our business model, and consequently have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition_.

Doesn't look much like laughing to me! No, Uber is _very_ concerned about this, and rightly so.

Uber, like anyone else, may choose to obey or disobey the law, for any reason, disregarding the consequences. I am quite sure they are disobeying these laws because they do not agree with them. That's their choice. Regardless of this, their only hope of survival is that their streak of ignoring laws and getting away with it will last. I personally would not bet on that, but nobody knows. It's a wait-and-see!


----------



## observer

SHalester said:


> Nope. No judge has ordered Uber to do anything yet in calif. and if one believes all approximately 200k drivers will be made employees, they r nuts.
> 
> it's over, the end when u fill out a w4. Years off, at best.


I was talking about the employee in France.

It's just a matter of time before drivers start filling out W-4s here.



SHalester said:


> Nope. No judge has ordered Uber to do anything yet in calif. and if one believes all approximately 200k drivers will be made employees, they r nuts.
> 
> it's over, the end when u fill out a w4. Years off, at best.


I don't think anyone has ever said Uber will hire all drivers as employees, on the contrary Uber will cut back on drivers because now they will have to pay them and keep them working.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

observer said:


> I don't think anyone has ever said Uber will hire all drivers as employees, on the contrary Uber will cut back on drivers because now they will have to pay them and keep them working.


If CA enforces AB5 I think Uberlyft will go for the zero hour contract model, as popularised in the UK and other Commonwealth countries. It's an employment contract but, as the name says, guarantees no hours to the employee. It's used by employers who require workers on an "as and when needed" basis. It would be easy to implement - Uber could offer 2 hour blocks of work in their app and, because there would be many more drivers available than blocks available, they'd have little trouble in filling them.


----------



## Jimmy44

observer said:


> A chance at what?
> 
> The highest court in France agrees with him.
> 
> Uber has no where else to appeal.
> 
> That's it. The end.


Please contact this thread when any form of hourly wage is paid by Uber.



observer said:


> I was talking about the employee in France.
> 
> It's just a matter of time before drivers start filling out W-4s here.
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone has ever said Uber will hire all drivers as employees, on the contrary Uber will cut back on drivers because now they will have to pay them and keep them working.


It would no longer be Uber as we know it. It would be more like or just like a taxi service. If people don't think that the Uber lawyer's are not already scheming up ways to take advantage of this there naive.


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> I was talking about the employee in France.


I got that; but sounded like you meant here too, which was odd? So u meant JUST France. Got it. My bad. 
And I doubt anytime soon will we be sent W4s. Not this year, for sure. And not everyone. Will be a great purge n many many other changes. Changes few will enjoy. And boy will they cry about them. Careful what U wish for has meaning here.


----------



## observer

The Gift of Fish said:


> If CA enforces AB5 I think Uberlyft will go for the zero hour contract model, as popularised in the UK and other Commonwealth countries. It's an employment contract but, as the name says, guarantees no hours to the employee. It's used by employers who require workers on an "as and when needed" basis. It would be easy to implement - Uber could offer 2 hour blocks of work in their app and, because there would be many more drivers available than blocks available, they'd have little trouble in filling them.


Maybe but it doesn't make sense for Uber to hire 4 employees to work an 8 hour shift when they can do the same shift with one employee. They just have to get better at scheduling.

To do only two hour blocks Uber would have to hire 400,000 employees to do the same work they could do with 100,000 employees.

What I think Uber will do is give drivers 3 eight hour shifts and one 5 hour shift to remain under the 30 hr per week part time limit.

During times of unexpected higher demand, Uber could put out a surge to attract drivers for a couple hours.


----------



## Jimmy44

SHalester said:


> I got that; but sounded like you meant here too, which was odd? So u meant JUST France. Got it. My bad.
> And I doubt anytime soon will we be sent W4s. Not this year, for sure. And not everyone. Will be a great purge n many many other changes. Changes few will enjoy. And boy will they cry about them. Careful what U wish for has meaning here.


You would have to apply for a job not just sign up to use an app. If you were anything less then a diamond driver I would be worried.


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> What I think Uber will do is give drivers 3 eight hour shifts and one 5 hour shift to remain under the 30 hr per week part time limit.


And no part-timers? That won't work here. PTers don't want 8 hour shifts.


----------



## observer

Jimmy44 said:


> Please contact this thread when any form of hourly wage is paid by Uber.
> 
> 
> It would no longer be Uber as we know it. It would be more like or just like a taxi service. If people don't think that the Uber lawyer's are not already scheming up ways to take advantage of this there naive.


I sure will.

Uber is and always has been a taxi service.

Uber has good lawyers and money. So does the government and the government makes the laws.



SHalester said:


> And no part-timers? That won't work here. PTers don't want 8 hour shifts.


"During times of unexpected higher demand, Uber could put out a surge to attract drivers for a couple hours."


----------



## Jimmy44

observer said:


> Maybe but it doesn't make sense for Uber to hire 4 employees to work an 8 hour shift when they can do the same shift with one employee. They just have to get better at scheduling.
> 
> To do only two hour blocks Uber would have to hire 400,000 employees to do the same work they could do with 100,000 employees.
> 
> What I think Uber will do is give drivers 3 eight hour shifts and one 5 hour shift to remain under the 30 hr per week part time limit.
> 
> During times of unexpected higher demand, Uber could put out a surge to attract drivers for a couple hours.


I agree Uber as we know it would be gone. I work a lot of hours because I like it. If Uber told me my shifts were 10 pm to 6 am I would be done.


----------



## observer

Here's the thing most drivers don't understand.

Uber doesn't care what drivers want or don't want. Uber WILL ALWAYS do what is best for Uber.


----------



## Jimmy44

SHalester said:


> And no part-timers? That won't work here. PTers don't want 8 hour shifts.


Of course not.



observer said:


> Here's the thing most drivers don't understand.
> 
> Uber doesn't care what drivers want or don't want. Uber WILL ALWAYS do what is best for Uber.


Very true.


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> During times of unexpected higher demand, Uber could put out a surge to attract drivers for a couple hours."


U must mean multipliers? I want my 10a-1pm M-F shift, or forget about it. 2nd gig already engaged. Zero chance working 8 hour shift or being 'on call'. Buh bye Uber if so. Still, wild speculation for balance n accuracy.


----------



## observer

SHalester said:


> I got that; but sounded like you meant here too, which was odd? So u meant JUST France. Got it. My bad.
> And I doubt anytime soon will we be sent W4s. Not this year, for sure. And not everyone. Will be a great purge n many many other changes. Changes few will enjoy. And boy will they cry about them. Careful what U wish for has meaning here.


It seems pretty clear to me that I was talking about the employee in France.



observer said:


> A chance at what?
> 
> The highest court in France agrees with him.
> 
> Uber has no where else to appeal.
> 
> That's it. The end.


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> Uber doesn't care what drivers want or don't want. Uber WILL ALWAYS do what is best for Uber.


Uh, maybe the 20 n 30 somethings don't get that. Those who retired from long careers, do! Uber is a corporation; it is not in biz to make drivers happy. Although, wouldn't hurt if they did make drivers happy. They in business to return to investors. Period. In that, they have failed so far.....Amazon failed for years too, btw. Now look.....

Uber will not totally screw up their largest market. Maybe just a bit..... anyway, no worries. No court had said boo yet. And the virus a much bigger threat to RS right this moment.


----------



## observer

SHalester said:


> U must mean multipliers? I want my 10a-1pm M-F shift, or forget about it. 2nd gig already engaged. Zero chance working 8 hour shift or being 'on call'. Buh bye Uber if so. Still, wild speculation for balance n accuracy.


Every law affects some people more than others but laws are made for the greater good of the _majority _of people.



SHalester said:


> Uh, maybe the 20 n 30 somethings don't get that. Those who retired from long careers, do! Uber is a corporation; it is not in biz to make drivers happy. Although, wouldn't hurt if they did make drivers happy. They in business to return to investors. Period. In that, they have failed so far.....Amazon failed for years too, btw. Now look.....
> 
> Uber will not totally screw up their largest market. Maybe just a bit..... anyway, no worries. No court had said boo yet. And the virus a much bigger threat to RS right this moment.


I agree, especially with large investor backed corporations.

There are still some large family owned businesses where the owners care about their employees. But every day they are getting scarcer and scarcer.

Corporations are almost solely for the benefit of its investors.


----------



## uberNewbSD

The Gift of Fish said:


> Correct, Uber can deactivate any driver at any time for any reason, or no reason. This does not contradict the findings of the French court. If anything, it validates them.
> No, Uber is advertising their rate for the ride. The point made by the court is that drivers have no access to a market rate; only to Uber's.
> 
> The "you are free to take it or leave it" argument is one of the most trite in such discussions, showing a child-like naiveté. The reason it is a valueless argument is because its premise (people have free will to take any action they choose, therefore all consequences of that action are permissible) is clearly wrong.
> 
> There was a case a few years ago (the Rotenburg Cannibal) where a person advertised for a person to go to his home to be murdered and then eaten. A guy responded and went to the cannibal's house. He agreed on videotape to be killed, and was promptly murdered. The cannibal's defence was that nobody held a gun to the victim's head - he had made a verbal contract to be murdered and submitted to the murder willingly. And the murderer was correct - he had not held a gun to the victim's head or forced him in any way.
> 
> However, the reason this "nobody held a gun to your head" fallacy falls over is that the rules and laws that are in place to protect people do not apply only when people have been forced into the act in question. The law overrides all, including any any contracts entered into willingly. The murderer was duly convicted of murder and given life.
> 
> Another example: I could sign a contract to work at Burger King for $5 per hour. Min wage is $12 per hour. In an industrial tribunal in which I sued for being underpaid, Burger King could unwisely try the "nobody held a gun to his head" defence. However, they would lose; the minimum wage law requires employees to be paid minimum wage.
> 
> In the USA Uber has made a habit of, and gets away with, sifting through the laws and picking and choosing the ones it likes, and ignoring the ones it doesn't like. However, other countries don't operate in this way. The law is the law, and French law says that in order to be classed as an independent contractor, the worker must be able to set their own prices, among other requirements. If Uber doesn't like the way the French laws operate then Uber, as you say, doesn't have to be in those countries. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads!
> There is nothing in the article to indicate that playing music, route choice or water & sweets were a factor in the court's decision.
> Choosing one's hours is neither indicative for or against employee status. Many companies in more advanced countries use flexitime, allowing employees to work when they like.


You are comparing murder to choosing to drive for Uber.... That is a pretty big stretch. My point is that there are hundreds of thousands of drivers who do not want AB5 nor to be employees. We enjoy our freedom and the flexibility U/L provides us. To us, we are 100% independent. If Uber chooses tomorrow to deactivate me.... That is their choice and so be it. I might be a bit upset but overall I wouldn't loose any sleep over it. Your point about "the law is the law".... Yeah Jim Crow laws were in effect until 1965. Women's rights.... You get the point. My point is that the Legal system is almost always 10-15 years behind.

The "market rate" that you describe is no different than if I needed my yard mowed and put an ad in the newspaper/craigslist saying I am willing to pay someone $20 for it and the first person who calls gets the gig. That is how I (not the courts) view Uber. They put a ping out there saying $10 bucks to drive person X to spot Y and you get the choice to accept that gig.

Our stance on min wage is a bit different... There is a reason you are seeing automation take over retail and in markets. It is partly due to min wage increasing and making it more cost effective to put in a automated check out. If you have ever had to hire someone, you know that is it way too expensive and is the last thing that employers want to do.

The French (and by extension the EU) are a bit upset that US tech has dominated their countries and need to push back.

To your point which I agree with is that the French can do whatever they want in their country. My overall point is that AB5 was written and championed by a small fraction of drivers.


----------



## Jimmy44

Could not agree more. Governor Newson and assembly woman Gonzales wrote and passed it along with a party majority vote.


----------



## observer

Jimmy44 said:


> Could not agree more. Governor Newson and assembly woman Gonzales wrote and passed it along with a party majority vote.


Newsom really didn't agree with AB5. He signed on when he saw the majority of the assembly and senate were going to approve it.

If he would have vetoed, his veto would have been overridden.

He's cozier with Silicon Valley than with regular people.

Gonzalez on the other hand was a union organizer I believe. I'll have to check.


----------



## Jimmy44

observer said:


> Newsom really didn't agree with AB5. He signed on when he saw the majority of the assembly and senate were going to approve it.
> 
> If he would have vetoed, his veto would have been overridden.
> 
> He's cozier with Silicon Valley than with regular people.


Gonzalez was pandering to her voting b


observer said:


> Newsom really didn't agree with AB5. He signed on when he saw the majority of the assembly and senate were going to approve it.
> 
> If he would have vetoed, his veto would have been overridden.
> 
> He's cozier with Silicon Valley than with regular people.
> 
> Gonzalez on the other hand was a union organizer I believe. I'll have to check.


D
She wrote the bill



Jimmy44 said:


> Gonzalez was pandering to her voting b
> 
> D
> She wrote the bill


She does not hide the fact that she will take an


observer said:


> Newsom really didn't agree with AB5. He signed on when he saw the majority of the assembly and senate were going to approve it.
> 
> If he would have vetoed, his veto would have been overridden.
> 
> He's cozier with Silicon Valley than with regular people.
> 
> Gonzalez on the other hand was a union organizer I believe. I'll have to check.


She was after votes.


----------



## observer

Jimmy44 said:


> Gonzalez was pandering to her voting b
> 
> D
> She wrote the bill


Yea, I know she did but you wrote that Newsom AND Gonzalez wrote the bill. That isn't true.

Gonzalez wrote the bill.

2/3 of the assembly approved it.

2/3 of the senate approved it.

Newsom saw he was going to be overriden if he vetoed the bill and decided to sign it.



Jimmy44 said:


> Gonzalez was pandering to her voting b
> 
> D
> She wrote the bill
> 
> 
> She does not hide the fact that she will take an
> 
> She was after votes.


I don't think she needs many votes, she's won both her last elections by 70+% besides all politicians are after votes. That's what they do.

75% actually.


----------



## Jimmy44

observer said:


> Yea, I know she did but you wrote that Newsom AND Gonzalez wrote the bill. That isn't true.
> 
> Gonzalez wrote the bill.
> 
> 2/3 of the assembly approved it.
> 
> 2/3 of the senate approved it.
> 
> Newsom saw he was going to be overriden if he vetoed the bill and decided to sign it.


I find that a little hard to believe the wG


observer said:


> Yea, I know she did but you wrote that Newsom AND Gonzalez wrote the bill. That isn't true.
> 
> Gonzalez wrote the bill.
> 
> 2/3 of the assembly approved it.
> 
> 2/3 of the senate approved it.
> 
> Newsom saw he was going to be overriden if he vetoed the bill and decided to sign it.
> 
> 
> I don't think she needs many votes, she's won both her last elections by 70+% besides all politicians are after votes. That's what they do.
> 
> 75% actually.


She wrote it based on a few Uber rides she had. I listoned to an interview of her. I never saw anyone so misinformed or unaware


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> Corporations are almost solely for the benefit of its investors.


almost? for profit are completely. No other reason. Directors get removed; execs get fired when it doesn't happen. uber no different.


----------



## observer

SHalester said:


> almost? for profit are completely. No other reason. Directors get removed; execs get fired when it doesn't happen. uber no different.


There are some corporations that take care of and value their employees.

They ALL say they do but in reality few do.


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> There are some corporations that take care and value their employees.


hahahahaha. Wanna know why? Happy employees are more productive. More productive means more revenue. More revenue means.....well you get the idea. 
With Uber we ain't even employees. We are VENDORS. We get paid via the accounts payable dept. Lower than low. Of course, it wouldn't hurt if Uber tried a bit, every now and again. Me? I don't care. As long as I get enough to suck up time, that's all I need. They made me happy with full info pings; I'd certainly NEVER see that with Pro as Pro is a goal that I could never reach....ever....so getting the best of Pro for free; no now that made me happy.


----------



## observer

Jimmy44 said:


> I find that a little hard to believe the wG
> 
> She wrote it based on a few Uber rides she had. I listoned to an interview of her. I never saw anyone so misinformed or unaware


It passed the California Senate 29-11.

It passed the California Assembly 56-15.

Even if she heard it originally from a few Uber drivers, the majority of the California legislature agreed something had to be done.


----------



## DriverMark

observer said:


> There are some corporations that take care of and value their employees.
> 
> They ALL say they do but in reality few do.





SHalester said:


> hahahahaha. Wanna know why? Happy employees are more productive. More productive means more revenue. More revenue means.....well you get the idea.


I'm lucky to work for a company that values their employees. And for exactly the reason @SHalester mentions. I'm in an industry that takes time to learn the nuances. It's complicated. You just can't replace someone with 10-20 years experience with someone off the street that has never been in the industry. I've been here 6 years and everyday I'm learning something new. Anyway, as a result they take care of the employee. Just got my annual bonus figures and raise info today. Yup, taken care of........ If you work for a company that pisses on you, set goals, learn new things, and find something better. Took me a very long time to get to where I am. Didn't happen overnight.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

uberNewbSD said:


> You are comparing murder to choosing to drive for Uber.... That is a pretty big stretch.


The analogy stands; it illustrates the principle that just because someone agrees to enter a contract willingly, it does not mean that the contract is legal or will hold up in court. However, if you don't like that analogy, I included the (less extreme) additional one related to the invalidity of an employee agreeing in contract to work for less than minimum wage.


> My point is that there are hundreds of thousands of drivers who do not want AB5 nor to be employees.


Yes, however that is a separate point, unrelated to the article above being referenced.


> We enjoy our freedom and the flexibility U/L provides us.


There is no requirement in AB5, or apparently the French court decision, for Uberlyft to curtail either freedom or flexibility.


> To us, we are 100% independent.


That's great! everyone gets their opinion on how independent they feel. Courts, however, are disagreeing with this construct with increasing momentum.


> If Uber chooses tomorrow to deactivate me.... That is their choice and so be it. I might be a bit upset but overall I wouldn't loose any sleep over it. Your point about "the law is the law".... Yeah Jim Crow laws were in effect until 1965. Women's rights.... You get the point. My point is that the Legal system is almost always 10-15 years behind.


Yes, laws can be changed. And people can choose to obey them or not. If I was in 1930s 'Murca I doubt that I would either have agreed with nor obeyed the Prohibition laws for example. I would have had a drink now and again, and if caught by the police I would have had to accept whatever punishment the law dictated. Employment laws may be wrong / misguided / out of date / Jim Crow / etc / etc and that's all well and good, as well as being irrelevant to the fact that Uber may be required to comply with them.


> The "market rate" that you describe is no different than if I needed my yard mowed and put an ad in the newspaper/craigslist saying I am willing to pay someone $20 for it and the first person who calls gets the gig. That is how I (not the courts) view Uber. They put a ping out there saying $10 bucks to drive person X to spot Y and you get the choice to accept that gig.


In that case Uber should not tout itself as a marketplace that only serves to connect buyer and seller. If it sets the price then it is a principal.


> Our stance on min wage is a bit different... There is a reason you are seeing automation take over retail and in markets. It is partly due to min wage increasing and making it more cost effective to put in a automated check out. If you have ever had to hire someone, you know that is it way too expensive and is the last thing that employers want to do.


No, I don't differ on this. It is clearly cheaper to automate where possible. In my old job I used to design software that automated the jobs of accountants, saving client companies large amounts in salaries. However, automation is not relevant to AB5 or employee vs IC debate.


> The French (and by extension the EU) are a bit upset that US tech has dominated their countries and need to push back.


The French and the EU are a bit upset with the US for a great many reasons.


> To your point which I agree with is that the French can do whatever they want in their country. My overall point is that AB5 was written and championed by a small fraction of drivers.


It was championed by politicians who did not listen to any protests from drivers. They did not pass the law for drivers; they passed it for the State of California's benefit, so that it would not have to pick up the tab for welfare / Medi-cal / food stamps etc for drivers - lawmakers believed that Uberlyft as employers should be picking up these tabs for their workers, not the state.


----------



## observer

SHalester said:


> hahahahaha. Wanna know why? Happy employees are more productive. More productive means more revenue. More revenue means.....well you get the idea.
> With Uber we ain't even employees. We are VENDORS. We get paid via the accounts payable dept. Lower than low. Of course, it wouldn't hurt if Uber tried a bit, every now and again. Me? I don't care. As long as I get enough to suck up time, that's all I need. They made me happy with full info pings; I'd certainly NEVER see that with Pro as Pro is a goal that I could never reach....ever....so getting the best of Pro for free; no now that made me happy.


A good company is attentive to the needs of its workers.


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> good company is attentive to the needs of its workers.


We ain't even workers to Uber. We are vendors.


----------



## observer

DriverMark said:


> I'm lucky to work for a company that values their employees. And for exactly the reason @SHalester mentions. I'm in an industry that takes time to learn the nuances. It's complicated. You just can't replace someone with 10-20 years experience with someone off the street that has never been in the industry. I've been here 6 years and everyday I'm learning something new. Anyway, as a result they take care of the employee. Just got my annual bonus figures and raise info today. Yup, taken care of........ If you work for a company that pisses on you, set goals, learn new things, and find something better. Took me a very long time to get to where I am. Didn't happen overnight.


The company I worked at was a fairly large family owned business. Worked there for 23 years and never once had to ask for a raise. Then they were bought out by a very large corporation and things went down hill very quickly.



SHalester said:


> We ain't even workers to Uber. We are vendors.


We had almost a thousand employees and a couple hundred true independent contractors.

The owners were good people and took care of all of us. Unfortunately, the owner sold due to his age but good for him. He got out at the right time and has been able to enjoy his retirement.


----------



## uberNewbSD

The Gift of Fish said:


> It was championed by politicians who did not listen to any protests from drivers. They did not pass the law for drivers; they passed it for the State of California's benefit, so that it would not have to pick up the tab for welfare / Medi-cal / food stamps etc for drivers - lawmakers believed that Uberlyft as employers should be picking up these tabs for their workers, not the state.


Of the entire post this is the most ignorant part.... . As if Uber paid their drivers min wage that they would no longer be in poverty. I wound contend that more people are not in poverty because they can add a handful of hours a day/week that works with their schedule. It is by far the best second job out there. Look at Walmart, Target, etc and see what percentage of their workers are over 25K per year.

Since we have gone back and forth on this a bit.... What changes would you like to see Uber make?

There seem to be 2 options.

1) Drivers become employees and everyone gets min wage since it is basically a low-skill job. With that Uber gets the ability to set your schedule and tell you where you are driving that day.
2) Something close to the current system where you can decline rides and choose when you go online.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

SHalester said:


> We ain't even workers to Uber. We are vendors.


Nope! Uber says that _it_ is the vendor, and drivers are its customers:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u...ecs-blessing-of-its-business-model-2017-10-25
_In the U.S., Uber has asserted that its drivers are self-employed. In fact, it's gone one step further: The ride-share company believes it is merely the go-between drivers and riders and argues that drivers are independent contractors and, therefore, the company's actual customers. The company told MarketWatch that the Securities and Exchange Commission has signed off on this business model. _

Don't worry, though - in this topsy-turvy world of spin it's hard to keep track of who's who, which way is up/down etc etc. It's no wonder you're confused!


----------



## Jimmy44

SHalester said:


> almost? for profit are completely. No other reason. Directors get removed; execs get fired when it doesn't happen. uber no different.





observer said:


> A good company is attentive to the needs of its workers.


We actually pay Uber. Uber gets to decide how much we pay them. This business model is upside down. There has never been one like it.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

uberNewbSD said:


> Of the entire post this is the most ignorant part.... .


I will be sure to forward this immediately to my complaints department.


> As if Uber paid their drivers min wage that they would no longer be in poverty.


Nobody has said that - you're reading things in to posts that are not there. The purpose of AB5 was to not solely to guarantee drivers minumum wage - its purpose is to make drivers employees, of which minimum wage requirement is just a small part. The full range of employee benefits, in addition to minimum wage are:

- Unemployment
- Workers' Comp
- Employer pays their share of social security contributions
- Overtime pay
- Paid sick leave
- 30 minute paid break after 5 hours' work

So, unenlightened one; it's not just minimum wage, as you suggest.


> I wound contend that more people are not in poverty because they can add a handful of hours a day/week that works with their schedule.


Good for you.


> Since we have gone back and forth on this a bit.... What changes would you like to see Uber make?


I think that they should comply with the law. If they don't like it then they can go to Sacramento and lobby for the law to be changed.


> There seem to be 2 options.
> 1) Drivers become employees and everyone gets min wage since it is basically a low-skill job. With that Uber gets the ability to set your schedule and tell you where you are driving that day.
> 2) Something close to the current system where you can decline rides and choose when you go online.


I see three options

1) Uber complies with the law
2) Uber ignores the law and gets away with it
3) AB5 is repealed

As I said, I don't know which will happen. Nobody does.


----------



## uberNewbSD

The Gift of Fish said:


> I think that they should comply with the law. If they don't like it then they can go to Sacramento and lobby for the law to be changed.
> I see three options
> 
> 1) Uber complies with the law
> 2) Uber ignores the law and gets away with it
> 3) AB5 is repealed
> 
> As I said, I don't know which will happen. Nobody does.


My question was going past the law but the steps after that. You want the benefits of a regular employment you are going to get the headache of it as well.

Let's say Mr. Fish replaces Dara Khosrowshahi tomorrow.... What changes do you make? Do you make all drivers W-2 employees and set schedules? Would you get rid of the dismiss button on the ping request? Would you allow drivers to take a break in the middle of their shift?

I haven't researched this but how were taxi's structured 20 years ago? Were they independent or w-2?


----------



## Jimmy44

uberNewbSD said:


> Of the entire post this is the most ignorant part.... . As if Uber paid their drivers min wage that they would no longer be in poverty. I wound contend that more people are not in poverty because they can add a handful of hours a day/week that works with their schedule. It is by far the best second job out there. Look at Walmart, Target, etc and see what percentage of their workers are over 25K per year.
> 
> Since we have gone back and forth on this a bit.... What changes would you like to see Uber make?
> 
> There seem to be 2 options.
> 
> 1) Drivers become employees and everyone gets min wage since it is basically a low-skill job. With that Uber gets the ability to set your schedule and tell you where you are driving that day.
> 2) Something close to the current system where you can decline rides and choose when you go online.


I agree we have beaten this to death but only because it's interesting and it effects us. If I can't decide when and where to drive I am transitioning out. At this point I would take a 75% split.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

observer said:


> The company I worked at was a fairly large family owned business. Worked there for 23 years and never once had to ask for a raise. Then they were bought out by a very large corporation and things went down hill very quickly.
> 
> 
> We had almost a thousand employees and a couple hundred true independent contractors.
> 
> The owners were good people and took care of all of us. Unfortunately, the owner sold due to his age but good for him. He got out at the right time and has been able to enjoy his retirement.


A guy I knew worked for a small family-run business. He was a screw-up when it came to money and he got kicked out of his rented place for not paying the rent (spent his rent money on gifts for his new girlfriend &#129318;‍♂). Anyway, his bosses found out he was sleeping in his car, so they paid for a hotel for him until he could find somewhere else to live. Absolutely no way ABC Corp would do that for any employee.


----------



## Jimmy44

uberNewbSD said:


> My question was going past the law but the steps after that. You want the benefits of a regular employment you are going to get the headache of it as well.
> 
> Let's say Mr. Fish replaces Dara Khosrowshahi tomorrow.... What changes do you make? Do you make all drivers W-2 employees and set schedules? Would you get rid of the dismiss button on the ping request? Would you allow drivers to take a break in the middle of their shift?
> 
> I haven't researched this but how were taxi's structured 20 years ago? Were they independent or w-2?


You are preaching to the choir my friend. Great points and we could easily come up with hundreds more.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

uberNewbSD said:


> You want the benefits of a regular employment you are going to get the headache of it as well.


I have not divulged my personal position on AB5. However, I do believe that companies do not have the right to disobey laws that they don't like. I believe that the way forward would be to try to have the law changed, if that's what Uber wants.

I realise that's a non-answer, though. My own thoughts on this are that, AB5 or no AB5, Uber is no longer a viable income source. I'm transitioning out of driving for them; since they started deprioritising I have driven very, very little. At this point I just turn the app on if I'm going somewhere and if the app will let me use a destination filter.


> Let's say Mr. Fish replaces Dara Khosrowshahi tomorrow.... What changes do you make?


I would never work at Uber HQ. If by some freak accident I hit my head, woke up with no conscience and _also_ became the CEO of Uber the next day, then I would quit, dump my shares and retire to the Caribbean. Running Uber would not be a headache I would want to waste any of my time on, especially with millions / billions in the bank.


> I haven't researched this but how were taxi's structured 20 years ago? Were they independent or w-2?


Your guess is as good as mine; I've never been a taxi driver



Jimmy44 said:


> She wrote it based on a few Uber rides she had. I listoned to an interview of her. I never saw anyone so misinformed or unaware


You're still relatively new to UP.net. Give it time.


----------



## observer

The Gift of Fish said:


> I will be sure to forward this immediately to my complaints department.
> Nobody has said that - you're reading things in to posts that are not there. The purpose of AB5 was to not solely to guarantee drivers minumum wage - its purpose is to make drivers employees, of which minimum wage requirement is just a small part. The full range of employee benefits, in addition to minimum wage are:
> 
> - Unemployment
> - Workers' Comp
> - Employer pays their share of social security contributions
> - Overtime pay
> - Paid sick leave
> - 30 minute paid break after 5 hours' work
> 
> So, unenlightened one; it's not just minimum wage, as you suggest.
> Good for you.
> I think that they should comply with the law. If they don't like it then they can go to Sacramento and lobby for the law to be changed.
> I see three options
> 
> 1) Uber complies with the law
> 2) Uber ignores the law and gets away with it
> 3) AB5 is repealed
> 
> As I said, I don't know which will happen. Nobody does.


Actually it's unpaid, employees do get two paid 10 minute breaks per day but the 30 minute is off the clock unless the employee agrees and works through it. Then an hours time must be paid.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

observer said:


> Actually it's unpaid, employees do get two paid 10 minute breaks per day but the 30 minute is off the clock unless the employee agrees and works through it. Then an hours time must be paid.


With deprioritisation I get 50 minutes' unpaid break each hour, so at least Uber is in compliance with something!


----------



## observer

The Gift of Fish said:


> With deprioritisation I get 50 minutes' unpaid break each hour, so at least Uber is in compliance with something!


Here's the thing though, drivers that worked more than six hours without a lunch period would be entitled to an hours worth of pay for each day they had no lunch break and worked six hours.

That's because they worked through the required lunch period and had no agreement with Uber.


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> unless the employee agrees


nope, not in calif. an employee can not skip a meal break. No no bad puppy if a business is allowing their employees to do so.


----------



## observer

DriverMark said:


> I'm lucky to work for a company that values their employees. And for exactly the reason @SHalester mentions. I'm in an industry that takes time to learn the nuances. It's complicated. You just can't replace someone with 10-20 years experience with someone off the street that has never been in the industry. I've been here 6 years and everyday I'm learning something new. Anyway, as a result they take care of the employee. Just got my annual bonus figures and raise info today. Yup, taken care of........ If you work for a company that pisses on you, set goals, learn new things, and find something better. Took me a very long time to get to where I am. Didn't happen overnight.


As I've stated elsewhere in the forum, I got paid really well and it wasn't for my good looks.

Many jobs have these nuances that take years to develop.



SHalester said:


> nope, not in calif. an employee can not skip a meal break. No no bad puppy if a business is allowing their employees to do so.


Yes they can as long as there is an agreement between the employer and the employee. It must however be paid for.


----------



## SHalester

observer said:


> between the employer and the employee


nope. Labor law. Ask any payroll manager in calif. The business can be fined for such behavior. An employee can work through lunch to get off early, but can not skip and keep working a full shift. Doesn't matter, tho. It's not an uber thing because we are not employees. No OT, no lunch, no breaks.

AND, btw I see a lot of notes mentioning OT. OT is not worked wo prior approval from supervisors/managers. It isn't a 'free' will decision.


----------



## observer

I actually went to court on a couple of cases in/around 2005 where several employees claimed they hadn't taken the ten minute breaks. I fired these employees for coming in to work late, leaving early and some for theft. Both cases involved groups of 5-6 employees.

One of the constant problems with employees was them complaining about their breaks. So, I developed a time schedule where it dictated who and when each employee took their lunch and ten minute breaks and days off. I then had every employee sign the schedule.

When the groups of employees sued us at the DIR, I wound up going to defend the company.

I showed the judge the schedules, he asked them if those were their signatures. They said, yes. He said OK, I'll send you my decision in the mail.

In his decision, he said that employers were not required to force employees to take breaks only to have them available. If we had denied the employees their breaks, that was different but we never denied them their breaks.

He threw out their claims.

In 2012 this actually became a law in California, so I may have had a little to do with it. :smiles:



SHalester said:


> nope. Labor law. Ask any payroll manager in calif. The business can be fined for such behavior. An employee can work through lunch to get off early, but can not skip and keep working a full shift. Doesn't matter, tho. It's not an uber thing because we are not employees. No OT, no lunch, no breaks.
> 
> AND, btw I see a lot of notes mentioning OT. OT is not worked wo prior approval from supervisors/managers. It isn't a 'free' will decision.


Nope, sorry you're wrong. An employee can work during lunch but must be paid for it. If an employee works the eight hours they must be paid for the lunch but they can work all day with no lunch as long as there is an agreement between the employer and employee.

If an employee is working less than six hours yes no lunch period is necessary.


https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_MealPeriods.htm
"Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during his or her thirty minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered an "on duty" meal period that is counted as hours worked which must be compensated at the employee's regular rate of pay. An "on duty" meal period shall be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the employer and employee an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to. The written agreement must state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time. IWC Orders 1 -15, Section 11, Order 16, Section 10. The test of whether the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty is an objective one. An employer and employee may not agree to an on-duty meal period unless, based on objective criteria, any employee would be prevented from being relieved of all duty based on the necessary job duties. Some examples of jobs that fit this category are a sole worker in a coffee kiosk, a sole worker in an all-night convenience store, and a security guard stationed alone at a remote site.

If the employer requires the employee to remain at the work site or facility during the meal period, the meal period must be paid. This is true even where the employee is relieved of all work duties during the meal period. _Bono Enterprises, In. v. Bradshaw_ (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 968."


----------



## supor

SHalester said:


> nope, not in calif. an employee can not skip a meal break. No no bad puppy if a business is allowing their employees to do so.


*Meal Breaks: *

Employees who work more than five (5) hours in a day are entitled to a thirty (30) minute meal break. However, an employee may agree to waive that meal break if s/he will not work more than six (6) hours in the day.

In addition, employees who are working more than ten (10) hours in a day must also be given a second thirty (30) minute meal break.

But the employee may waive this second meal break if:

His/her workday will be no longer than twelve (12) hours; and S/he did not waive the first meal break

*Rest Breaks:*

Rest breaks/rest periods are also required under California labor regulations.

The length of required rest periods must be at least ten (10) minutes for each four (4) hours, or substantial fraction thereof, that the employee will work in the day.

These rest breaks must be counted as time worked and must be paid time. They must also be in the middle of the employee's work period, to the extent that this is a practicable.

But rest periods are not required for employees who work less than three and a half (3 1/2) hours in a day.

*Can my employer require me to work or be "on-call" during my meal or rest break?*

Generally speaking, employers may NOT require employees to continue working or remain "on-call" during meal or rest breaks.

Therefore, if your employer asks that you work while eating during a meal period, or remain on call during a rest period, this is legally equivalent to denying you your meal or rest break.

However, employers are not required to ensure that you do no work during your meal or rest break. In other words, if you voluntarily choose to work during a break, your employer is not responsible for that.

In addition, so-called "on duty" meal periods, where employees must work through their meal breaks, are permitted only if:

The nature of the work prevents the employee from being relieved of all duty (for example, if s/he is a security guard and is the only person on duty); and
The employee agrees in writing to stay on duty during meal periods. The employee is allowed to revoke this agreement in writing at any time.

Source: https://www.shouselaw.com/employment/breaks.html


----------



## observer

SHalester said:


> nope. Labor law. Ask any payroll manager in calif. The business can be fined for such behavior. An employee can work through lunch to get off early, but can not skip and keep working a full shift. Doesn't matter, tho. It's not an uber thing because we are not employees. No OT, no lunch, no breaks.
> 
> AND, btw I see a lot of notes mentioning OT. OT is not worked wo prior approval from supervisors/managers. It isn't a 'free' will decision.


No, OT is not a free will decision but employees that don't clock out and do go beyond the regular hours must be paid for the OT.

An employee can be reprimanded and fired for not clocking out but they must be paid.

No one but the employee can alter a time card since it's a legal document.


----------



## supor

SHalester said:


> nope. Labor law. Ask any payroll manager in calif. The business can be fined for such behavior. An employee can work through lunch to get off early, but can not skip and keep working a full shift. Doesn't matter, tho. It's not an uber thing because we are not employees. No OT, no lunch, no breaks.
> 
> AND, btw I see a lot of notes mentioning OT. OT is not worked wo prior approval from supervisors/managers. It isn't a 'free' will decision.


So please ask that payroll manager if you are a doctor and in the middle of an organ transplant surgery and the patient is bleeding to death. And it is time for you to take your rest/meal break. 
Or you are a cop chasing a criminal or just stopped a car violating a red light.
What would you have to do?


----------



## SHalester

supor said:


> if you are a doctor


Did u know most docs in a hospital aren't employees? <gulp> 
anyway, office workers etc. salaried or hourly, btw.


----------



## Jimmy44

observer said:


> Actually it's unpaid, employees do get two paid 10 minute breaks per day but the 30 minute is off the clock unless the employee agrees and works through it. Then an hours time must be paid.


Sounds to much like real job. I'd rather keep things as they are IC. Work to get higher split % and other monetary rewards.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

Jimmy44 said:


> I'd rather keep things as they are IC.


That's the thing, though. In California we're not IC. We're employees, by the new law.

Drivers aren't IC in any other part of the States, either. You're not an IC simply because Uber says so. Uber has also said:

- Uber drivers earn $74,000 per year
- Lower rates = higher earnings
- Drivers don't understand multiplier surge and asked for it to be replaced with flat rate surge

None of these claims by Uber are true. All lies.

If becoming true independent contractors were an option then it would be an interesting one. But that's not on the table.


----------



## supor

SHalester said:


> Did u know most docs in a hospital aren't employees? <gulp>
> anyway, office workers etc. salaried or hourly, btw.


My question is not still answered:
What about the ones that are employees?


----------



## uberNewbSD

The Gift of Fish said:


> That's the thing, though. In California we're not IC. We're employees, by the new law.
> 
> Drivers aren't IC in any other part of the States, either. You're not an IC simply because Uber says so. Uber has also said:
> 
> - Uber drivers earn $74,000 per year
> - Lower rates = higher earnings
> - Drivers don't understand multiplier surge and asked for it to be replaced with flat rate surge
> 
> None of these claims by Uber are true. All lies.
> 
> If becoming true independent contractors were an option then it would be an interesting one. But that's not on the table.


1) I'm sure there are drivers making 74K per year. It probably isn't common and requires working most of the peak times but it is very much possible.
2) Yeah that is true as it is in every company not just Uber. I think at this point lowering rates isn't impactful to demand if anything I would think they could raise rates a bit
3) The surge versus flat rate is always going to upset one set of drivers over another. 1.5X on a $3 fare is still garbage but a $5 flat rate bonus on top of the $3 fare is not bad at all. I would drive min fares for 8 bucks all day. Other the other hand getting a multiplier on 10+ ride is always nice. I think that the best solution is to just raise the min fare to 6 bucks and charge the rider 8.

For anyone that thinks that RS is a tough gig, I really suggest that they go apply to McDonalds or work in a kitchen for 8 hours. It is significantly harder and don't get to pick your hours.

While AB5 is law, how it applies is still to be debated through the court system.

Here is the 3 prong test for AB5

The worker is free to perform services without the control or direction of the company.
The worker is performing work tasks that are outside the usual course of the company's business activities.
The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
1. Is the tough one but not an impossible argument. You get to offer as much or little of your services as you like. The behavior aspect of the IRS test is the hardest to over come. Again, if you make the argument that Uber is a lead generating site and they are sending referrals to their best contractors then they are in compliance with this prong.

2 is easy..... Uber is a tech company that provides a platform to drivers and users to establish rides. Much how the NYSE brings buyers and sellers together. When there is a mismatch in pricing it increases and you get surge.

3. is easy as well since most rides (over 75%) are done via U/L it is safe to say that it is an established trade.

In this regard, they are complying with AB5


----------



## SHalester

uberNewbSD said:


> Uber is a tech company that provides a platform to drivers


yeah, nope. Take drivers out of the equation and Uber has nothing left. All their revenue streams go bye bye. So, nope. :coolio:


----------



## uberNewbSD

SHalester said:


> yeah, nope. Take drivers out of the equation and Uber has nothing left. All their revenue streams go bye bye. So, nope. :coolio:


Amazon gets 70% for their revenue from being a market place yet no one is saying that those who sell on there are employees. Take the sellers off ebay? What about club soccer coaches? Youtube without content creators? Square without small businesses.


----------



## Jimmy44

uberNewbSD said:


> 1) I'm sure there are drivers making 74K per year. It probably isn't common and requires working most of the peak times but it is very much possible.
> 2) Yeah that is true as it is in every company not just Uber. I think at this point lowering rates isn't impactful to demand if anything I would think they could raise rates a bit
> 3) The surge versus flat rate is always going to upset one set of drivers over another. 1.5X on a $3 fare is still garbage but a $5 flat rate bonus on top of the $3 fare is not bad at all. I would drive min fares for 8 bucks all day. Other the other hand getting a multiplier on 10+ ride is always nice. I think that the best solution is to just raise the min fare to 6 bucks and charge the rider 8.
> 
> For anyone that thinks that RS is a tough gig, I really suggest that they go apply to McDonalds or work in a kitchen for 8 hours. It is significantly harder and don't get to pick your hours.
> 
> While AB5 is law, how it applies is still to be debated through the court system.
> 
> Here is the 3 prong test for AB5
> 
> The worker is free to perform services without the control or direction of the company.
> The worker is performing work tasks that are outside the usual course of the company's business activities.
> The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
> 1. Is the tough one but not an impossible argument. You get to offer as much or little of your services as you like. The behavior aspect of the IRS test is the hardest to over come. Again, if you make the argument that Uber is a lead generating site and they are sending referrals to their best contractors then they are in compliance with this prong.
> 
> 2 is easy..... Uber is a tech company that provides a platform to drivers and users to establish rides. Much how the NYSE brings buyers and sellers together. When there is a mismatch in pricing it increases and you get surge.
> 
> 3. is easy as well since most rides (over 75%) are done via U/L it is safe to say that it is an established trade.
> 
> In this regard, they are complying with AB5


I think Uber is so unique it's hard to apply 3 rules that were in existence before the gig economy. There are simply to many


uberNewbSD said:


> 1) I'm sure there are drivers making 74K per year. It probably isn't common and requires working most of the peak times but it is very much possible.
> 2) Yeah that is true as it is in every company not just Uber. I think at this point lowering rates isn't impactful to demand if anything I would think they could raise rates a bit
> 3) The surge versus flat rate is always going to upset one set of drivers over another. 1.5X on a $3 fare is still garbage but a $5 flat rate bonus on top of the $3 fare is not bad at all. I would drive min fares for 8 bucks all day. Other the other hand getting a multiplier on 10+ ride is always nice. I think that the best solution is to just raise the min fare to 6 bucks and charge the rider 8.
> 
> For anyone that thinks that RS is a tough gig, I really suggest that they go apply to McDonalds or work in a kitchen for 8 hours. It is significantly harder and don't get to pick your hours.
> 
> While AB5 is law, how it applies is still to be debated through the court system.
> 
> Here is the 3 prong test for AB5
> 
> The worker is free to perform services without the control or direction of the company.
> The worker is performing work tasks that are outside the usual course of the company's business activities.
> The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
> 1. Is the tough one but not an impossible argument. You get to offer as much or little of your services as you like. The behavior aspect of the IRS test is the hardest to over come. Again, if you make the argument that Uber is a lead generating site and they are sending referrals to their best contractors then they are in compliance with this prong.
> 
> 2 is easy..... Uber is a tech company that provides a platform to drivers and users to establish rides. Much how the NYSE brings buyers and sellers together. When there is a mismatch in pricing it increases and you get surge.
> 
> 3. is easy as well since most rides (over 75%) are done via U/L it is safe to say that it is an established trade.
> 
> In this regard, they are complying with AB5


It's hard to use 3 rules that existed before Uber as a litmus test. It's so unique and there are hundreds of


uberNewbSD said:


> Amazon gets 70% for their revenue from being a market place yet no one is saying that those who sell on there are employees. Take the sellers off ebay? What about club soccer coaches? Youtube without content creators? Square without small businesses.


It's clear they are picking on Uber.



uberNewbSD said:


> Amazon gets 70% for their revenue from being a market place yet no one is saying that those who sell on there are employees. Take the sellers off ebay? What about club soccer coaches? Youtube without content creators? Square without small businesses.


They are excluding painters, artists, writers etc. I think paper boys should be employee's as well. If you took this to supreme Court it would get crushed.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

uberNewbSD said:


> 1) I'm sure there are drivers making 74K per year. It probably isn't common and requires working most of the peak times but it is very much possible.
> 2) Yeah that is true as it is in every company not just Uber. I think at this point lowering rates isn't impactful to demand if anything I would think they could raise rates a bit
> 3) The surge versus flat rate is always going to upset one set of drivers over another. 1.5X on a $3 fare is still garbage but a $5 flat rate bonus on top of the $3 fare is not bad at all. I would drive min fares for 8 bucks all day. Other the other hand getting a multiplier on 10+ ride is always nice. I think that the best solution is to just raise the min fare to 6 bucks and charge the rider 8.
> 
> For anyone that thinks that RS is a tough gig, I really suggest that they go apply to McDonalds or work in a kitchen for 8 hours. It is significantly harder and don't get to pick your hours.
> 
> While AB5 is law, how it applies is still to be debated through the court system.
> 
> Here is the 3 prong test for AB5
> 
> The worker is free to perform services without the control or direction of the company.
> The worker is performing work tasks that are outside the usual course of the company's business activities.
> The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
> 1. Is the tough one but not an impossible argument. You get to offer as much or little of your services as you like. The behavior aspect of the IRS test is the hardest to over come. Again, if you make the argument that Uber is a lead generating site and they are sending referrals to their best contractors then they are in compliance with this prong.
> 
> 2 is easy..... Uber is a tech company that provides a platform to drivers and users to establish rides. Much how the NYSE brings buyers and sellers together. When there is a mismatch in pricing it increases and you get surge.
> 
> 3. is easy as well since most rides (over 75%) are done via U/L it is safe to say that it is an established trade.
> 
> In this regard, they are complying with AB5


All of the claims you make have been made many, many times before in this forum and have been countered many, many times before. There's no point in doing yet another lap of the merry-go-round.


----------

