# Appeals court sides with California on order to make Uber and Lyft drivers employees



## sasu66 (Sep 7, 2020)

A California appeals court sided with a lower court judge on an August ruling ordering Uber and Lyft to stop classifying drivers as independent contractors.

Uber and Lyft were given 30 days from an expected later ruling to come into compliance with the order. That will effectively require the companies to make drivers employees unless a November ballot measure aimed at codifying their status as independent contractors renders the ruling moot, or a subsequent appeal to the state Supreme Court is successful.

The San Francisco City Attorney's Twitter account lauded the ruling in a tweet.
"We just won a unanimous victory for workers in our case against Uber and Lyft in the Court of Appeals," the office said. "Drivers are employees."

The city attorney, along with those from San Diego and Los Angeles, joined state attorney general Xavier Becerra in suing Uber and Lyft in May. They alleged the companies were misclassifying hundreds of thousands of workers under Assembly Bill 5, the landmark law requiring companies to classify certain categories of gig workers as employees.

A San Francisco judge ruled in August that Uber and Lyft had to stop classifying drivers as independent contractors, but the decision was stayed through Wednesday's appeal, which spelled out the terms of lifting the stay.
"This ruling makes it more urgent than ever for voters to stand with drivers and vote yes on Prop. 22," Lyft spokesman Julie Wood said.
The company said it is considering all of its legal options, including appealing to the state supreme court.
Uber didn't have immediate comment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/22/uber-lyft-ab5/


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

sasu66 said:


> A California appeals court sided with a lower court judge on an August ruling ordering Uber and Lyft to stop classifying drivers as independent contractors.
> 
> Uber and Lyft were given 30 days from an expected later ruling to come into compliance with the order. That will effectively require the companies to make drivers employees unless a November ballot measure aimed at codifying their status as independent contractors renders the ruling moot, or a subsequent appeal to the state Supreme Court is successful.
> 
> ...


So now if proposition 22 passes in November and guessing that won't take effect until January 1st? In that case, do they have to convert over to actual employee status for the last 7/8 weeks of the year and then convert back over January 1st?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Daisey77 said:


> So now if proposition 22 passes in November and guessing that won't take effect until January 1st? In that case, do they have to convert over to actual employee status for the last 7/8 weeks of the year and then convert back over January 1st?


They should back pay drivers as employees until Prop 22 is in effect.

That being said, Prop 22 is going to lose so they'll have to figure out retroactively what they owe drivers.

AB 5 merely codified that drivers are employees. That doesn't mean they weren't employees before.

Gig companies should have to go back three years and figure out how much drivers and the state were underpaid.


----------



## sasu66 (Sep 7, 2020)

Daisey77 said:


> So now if proposition 22 passes in November and guessing that won't take effect until January 1st? In that case, do they have to convert over to actual employee status for the last 7/8 weeks of the year and then convert back over January 1st?


 Good question but i have no answer to that. No immediate changes for at least 30 days. Then they might go to Supreme Court. 
California Attorney General released a statement
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-relea...ts-confirm-uber-and-lyft-are-trying-evade-law


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

You can bet they will drag it on to the Supreme's.


----------



## Asruf (Dec 24, 2019)

Finally,good things happen for Uber/lyft drivers.. Don’t lose your HOPE against those greedy companies...


----------



## Immoralized (Nov 7, 2017)

It a good thing for these rideshare companies that the courts are very slow moving pieces. This can drag on for quite some time. The longest been 60 years. :biggrin:

" Myra Clark Gaines' 19th century fight over an enormous inheritance is still *the longest*-running civil lawsuit in *American* history, taking over 60 years to finally find some kind of resolution. The United States *Supreme Court* called her *case* "the most remarkable in the records."May 17, 2017"


----------



## $chariotsoffiyah (Oct 22, 2020)

I wonder if voters in California will vote to allow these multibillion dollar companies to keep treating their drivers like sharecroppers?


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

observer said:


> They should back pay drivers as employees until Prop 22 is in effect.


I haven't followed the court fight all that much but is back pay part of the court case? That would be a huge hit to Uber and Lyft!

The retro pay just for 2020 alone has to be at near bankruptcy-sized amounts. Sure I won't refuse a back pay check but I don't see that happening. There are drivers out there who sit around for 2 hours refusing to take pings while cherry picking the unicorn rides. Then there are the drivers like me who only get a ping every 2 hours because of the fare multiplier. What about those who run both apps at the same time? Too many variables for anyone to account for.



Immoralized said:


> It a good thing for these rideshare companies that the courts are very slow moving pieces. This can drag on for quite some time. The longest been 60 years. :biggrin:


Oh that's good news. Drivers will get their 2020 backpay in 2080 after Uber and Lyft finally lose all the court battles and California passes AB6, AB7, AB8, AB9, AB10...


----------



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

It all comes down to november. Time to see which way that vote goes.

if not i believe it's possible for prop 22 to be challenged in the California supreme court.


----------



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

observer said:


> Gig companies should have to go back three years and figure out how much drivers and the state were underpaid.


From my understanding, a driver would be considered an employee from the date of 2018 Dynamax ruling date.

So even if prop 22 passes, that's about 2 1/2 years of back pay.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Fusion_LUser said:


> I haven't followed the court fight all that much but is back pay part of the court case? That would be a huge hit to Uber and Lyft!
> 
> The retro pay just for 2020 alone has to be at near bankruptcy-sized amounts. Sure I won't refuse a back pay check but I don't see that happening. There are drivers out there who sit around for 2 hours refusing to take pings while cherry picking the unicorn rides. Then there are the drivers like me who only get a ping every 2 hours because of the fare multiplier. What about those who run both apps at the same time? Too many variables for anyone to account for.
> 
> ...


I believe that is part of the lawsuits. It will be a hit but U/L have known for years that it was coming and should have planned for it.

If drivers weren't as efficient as they could have been then it's Ubers fault for not treating them as employees in the first place.

Totally Ubers fault AND responsibility.

I think the back pay is one reason that Uber is stretching things out. In California labor claims can only go back three years. Every month that goes by older experienced drivers fall out of the claim period.

It's also the reason Uber prefers newer part time drivers. Their pay out keeps dropping.

I don't really think a big claim will affect Uber much, drivers were paid something, it's just a matter of how much they were underpaid.

The biggest cost will be the mileage reimbursement. In California the employer is responsible for the Full Mileage reimbursement for all miles driven.

Again, it shouldn't affect Uber too much because as an expense Uber will turn around and write it off on their taxes.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

observer said:


> I believe that is part of the lawsuits. It will be a hit but U/L have known for years that it was coming and should have planned for it.
> 
> If drivers weren't as efficient as they could have been then it's Ubers fault for not treating them as employees in the first place.
> 
> ...


Now what happens to the drivers who have claimed it on their taxes over the last couple years and then suddenly get a payout on it from Uber?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> From my understanding, a driver would be considered an employee from the date of 2018 Dynamax ruling date.
> 
> So even if prop 22 passes, that's about 2 1/2 years of back pay.


Labor claims in California can only go back three years. I think drivers could claim they've actually been employees since the first driver was hired.

Dynamex really only clarified who is an employee, it doesn't mean they weren't employees before.



Daisey77 said:


> Now what happens to the drivers who have claimed it on their taxes over the last couple years and then suddenly get a payout on it from Uber?


That is a good question.

I think Uncle Sam is going to want it back. It may be that Uber has to pay that back directly to the govt.

That's why Uber should not have been allowed to claim independent contractor in the first place.

Why are they going after these people,

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2020/10/22/587159.htm
and not Uber?


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

They will tie everything up in the courts until Jan 1 if Prop 22 passes and then ask for a dismissal, if it fails next week they will shut down and comply


observer said:


> Labor claims in California can only go back three years. I think drivers could claim they've actually been employees since the first driver was hired.
> 
> Dynamex really only clarified who is an employee, it doesn't mean they weren't employees before.
> 
> ...


Because they hired these truckers as employees and were suppose to be given w-2s but then they just gave them 1099s. Uber never claimed you were an employee and you knew you were suppose to be an independent contractor, then the state changed the laws and said that Uber now needs to comply. The trucking company misled and lied to workers about there status, hired them and told them they were suppose to be employees. Uber told you their status and the laws changed so now they have to redo the status. If after Uber says your employees and then gives you a 1099 they would be in the same situation as the trucking company


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

NicFit said:


> They will tie everything up in the courts until Jan 1 if Prop 22 passes and then ask for a dismissal, if it fails next week they will shut down and comply
> 
> Because they hired these truckers as employees and were suppose to be given w-2s but then they just gave them 1099s. Uber never claimed you were an employee and you knew you were suppose to be an independent contractor, then the state changed the laws and said that Uber now needs to comply. The trucking company misled and lied to workers about there status, hired them and told them they were suppose to be employees. Uber told you their status and the laws changed so now they have to redo the status. If after Uber says your employees and then gives you a 1099 they would be in the same situation as the trucking company


Uber will never shut down in California. They may shut down for a week or two but they'll be back ASAP.

No, they did not. They MISSCLASSIFIED those drivers as independent contractors instead of employees.

Just like Uber. No difference.

No, the laws NEVER changed, they were clarified. Big difference. Drivers have been employees all along.

Uber doesn't get to decide wether a driver is an employee or IC, matter of fact, neither does the driver.

The worker CANNOT sign away their employee rights.

If that were the case all employers would claim workers were independent contractors.

BTW, the state should do the exact same thing to Dara and other top management.

Walk them out of their offices in handcuffs.

See how long this "Drivers are independent contractors" bullshit lasts.


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

Daisey77 said:


> Now what happens to the drivers who have claimed it on their taxes over the last couple years and then suddenly get a payout on it from Uber?


Drivers are cash-basis taxpayers on the RS earnings, unless they declared accrual method on their first tax return on which they filed RS income, and even then, they didn't have a clear right to receive the disputed earnings before the final court ruling under the "all events" test so they should not have recognized it. Thus, they will recognize the earnings from the judgment as taxable income in the year finally received.

*if* they for some bizarre reason did claim unpaid earnings on past years' tax returns, then nothing happens for tax purposes when they get the payout, because they already recognized the income.

Now, you owe bear some food for that answer. :ninja:


----------



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

observer said:


> Uber doesn't get to decide wether a driver is an employee or IC, matter of fact, neither does the driver.


Obviously some drivers think it's up to Uber!
They think uber is the final authority on how a driver is classified.

The problem is it's not up to the Company to decide the law.

What date did California adopt the borello test!
Drivers would fail even that test.

Borello test was early 2000's and ABC was recognized by 2018.

So under state law in C.A, a driver became a employee the day they signed up.

Neither the driver nor Uber can disregard the law and create its own Labor code.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Best case scenario will be that drivers get to determine minimum rate, regulate deactivations, be able to build their own network of pax, and brokers fees will be capped. These are the only ways we are truly IC. A third party brought in to handle the financials is also crucial to monitor tip stealing and to regulate fares.


----------



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

observer said:


> I believe that is part of the lawsuits. It will be a hit but U/L have known for years that it was coming and should have planned for it.
> 
> If drivers weren't as efficient as they could have been then it's Ubers fault for not treating them as employees in the first place.
> 
> ...


Federal standard requires full mileage reimbursement as well. Not on top of min wage but at least min wage after all deductible expenses.

And Uber has to be profitable for them to write it off right?



nosurgenodrive said:


> Best case scenario will be that drivers get to determine minimum rate, regulate deactivations, be able to build their own network of pax, and brokers fees will be capped. These are the only ways we are truly IC. A third party brought in to handle the financials is also crucial to monitor tip stealing and to regulate fares.


Uber can charge the customer whatever they want under ab5.

The driver just has to get pay+ mileage + benifits+ overtime.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Federal standard requires full mileage reimbursement as well. Not on top of min wage but at least min wage after all deductible expenses.
> 
> And Uber has to be profitable for them to write it off right?
> 
> ...


Uber just has to send less money to their overseas tax havens.


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

observer said:


> Uber will never shut down in California. They may shut down for a week or two but they'll be back ASAP.
> 
> No, they did not. They MISSCLASSIFIED those drivers as independent contractors instead of employees.
> 
> ...


Uber has followed the law regarding independent contractors since it had started. It was allowed and there was no law against it. The state knew and if it was illegal then they would of shut Uber down. Then AB5 was finally done so Uber and the rest of anyone in California with independent contractors have to change to follow the *new law* that is now in place. There was no law on whether or not anyone could be an employee or an independent contractor. Because Uber deliver drivers were independent contractors then until AB5 was created they were following the law. The trucking company you mention hired those people, told them they were employees and then came tax time they decided to give them a 1099. You can't say your employee then hide the change because it will save money, they lied and said the truckers were employees, Uber never lied or misdirected, they said from the start you are an independent contractor, we are not offering you employee status. After that then they made a law and now Uber has to follow it if Prop 22 fails, or they will get shut down. Open declarations and lying are two different things. The misclassification was only made into law with AB5 and now they are in court over it. If the judge determines that they are misclassified they will give Uber the chance to fix it because they never mislead that they were suppose to be employees. If you can't see the difference then I don't know what to tell you

Trucking company said driver was employees and gave 1099 - illegal

Uber said driver was independent contractor - legal until AB5 determined it was misclassified and now will be illegal to continue unless Prop 22 is passed making exemption

Now if the trucking company had said during the hiring that the drivers were to be independent contractors from the start then they'd be doing the same thing as Uber right now without the fraud charges. They would of had been given the opportunity to be able to comply with AB5 or get shut down, but this isn't what the trucking company did. They pulled a fast one, saying your an employee and then realized they could save money by giving them 1099's. They were never suppose to be independent contractors. They were treated like employees ie work schedules, bosses and all those other wage slave crap but then given 1099s


----------



## Jo3030 (Jan 2, 2016)

Me to Uber and Lyft : 

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

NicFit said:


> Uber has followed the law regarding independent contractors since it had started. It was allowed and there was no law against it. The state knew and if it was illegal then they would of shut Uber down. Then AB5 was finally done so Uber and the rest of anyone in California with independent contractors have to change to follow the *new law* that is now in place. There was no law on whether or not anyone could be an employee or an independent contractor. Because Uber deliver drivers were independent contractors then until AB5 was created they were following the law. The trucking company you mention hired those people, told them they were employees and then came tax time they decided to give them a 1099. You can't say your employee then hide the change because it will save money, they lied and said the truckers were employees, Uber never lied or misdirected, they said from the start you are an independent contractor, we are not offering you employee status. After that then they made a law and now Uber has to follow it if Prop 22 fails, or they will get shut down. Open declarations and lying are two different things. The misclassification was only made into law with AB5 and now they are in court over it. If the judge determines that they are misclassified they will give Uber the chance to fix it because they never mislead that they were suppose to be employees. If you can't see the difference then I don't know what to tell you
> 
> Trucking company said driver was employees and gave 1099 - illegal
> 
> ...


Let me give you a simple one sentence reply.

Uber doesn't get to decide to classify drivers as independent contractors.



Jon Stoppable said:


> Drivers are cash-basis taxpayers on the RS earnings, unless they declared accrual method on their first tax return on which they filed RS income, and even then, they didn't have a clear right to receive the disputed earnings before the final court ruling under the "all events" test so they should not have recognized it. Thus, they will recognize the earnings from the judgment as taxable income in the year finally received.
> 
> *if* they for some bizarre reason did claim unpaid earnings on past years' tax returns, then nothing happens for tax purposes when they get the payout, because they already recognized the income.
> 
> Now, you owe bear some food for that answer. :ninja:


&#127828;&#127839;&#127866; hope you like beer, looked for a soda to make it a combo but couldn't find any.


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

observer said:


> Let me give you a simple one sentence reply.
> 
> Uber doesn't get to decide to classify drivers as independent contractors.


Actually Uber did decide, they made the model of how it works but then California law makers said they can't do it that way so they put an exemption on the ballot, California law makers don't really care, they are tired of the lawsuits from the entitled whiney people who think that Uber should be something that it isn't and the state wants taxes off of the drivers. So that's why they made Prop 22 so the PEOPLE can decide once and for all how Uber should work. That's how democracy works, once the people have spoken then that will be how it works, the people will be the final say in this issue, what ever you and me thinks will be moot after the results of Prop 22, if it passes we drivers are independent contractors, if it fails we drivers are employees, end of story


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

NicFit said:


> Actually Uber did decide, they made the model of how it works but then California said they can't do it that way so they put an exemption on the ballot, California doesn't really care, they are tired of the lawsuits from the entitled whiney people who think that Uber should be something that it isn't and the state wants taxes off of the drivers. So that's why they made Prop 22 so the PEOPLE can decide once and for all how Uber should work. That's how democracy works, once the people have spoken then that will be how it works, the people will be the final say in this issue, what ever you and me thinks will be moot after the results of Prop 22, if it passes we drivers are independent contractors, if it fails we drivers are employees, end of story


Uber does not get to decide wether drivers are independent contractors.

That's why they have lost lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.

California is on them (took them long enough) now as is New York and Illinois. Other states will start clamping down on them soon.

It's just a matter of time before Gig companies are regulated nationwide, even if Prop 22 passes.


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

observer said:


> Uber does not get to decide wether drivers are independent contractors.
> 
> That's why they have lost lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.
> 
> ...


This may be the case, it may have to be addressed nationally but if Prop 22 passes then that's a huge sign that the people want it to remain independent contractors as California is one of Uber's biggest markets. Just because some people want it to be something else but the votes say this is the way then that's the way it will be. I don't think it will really end with Prop 22, this is kinda like the weed laws, some people think it should be illegal still but it still hasn't been dealt with on a federal level. It's going to take at least 10-20 years for this entire issue to be settled once and for all


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

NicFit said:


> This may be the case, it may have to be addressed nationally but if Prop 22 passes then that's a huge sign that the people want it to remain independent contractors as California is one of Uber's biggest markets. Just because some people want it to be something else but the votes say this is the way then that's the way it will be. I don't think it will really end with Prop 22, this is kinda like the weed laws, some people think it should be illegal still but it still hasn't been dealt with on a federal level. It's going to take at least 10-20 years for this entire issue to be settled once and for all


Or it could show that if you throw enough money at an issue you can twist the law to your benefit.

Gig companies aren't spending 200 million dollars to protect drivers interests. They are spending 200 million dollars to protect their own interests.

I agree, Prop 22 is just another step in the regulation of gig companies. I do think it will happen in 3-4 years at the very most six.

This issue has been dragged out far too long.


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

observer said:


> Or it could show that if you throw enough money at an issue you can twist the law to your benefit.
> 
> Gig companies aren't spending 200 million dollars to protect drivers interests. They are spending 200 million dollars to protect their own interests.
> 
> ...


Hahaha 3-4 years, maybe six? You have no idea how long stuff like this takes, AB5 has been in the works since 2005. 10-20 years minimum if it ever gets to the federal level. If Prop 22 passes then the federal government may take even longer to step in since people want drivers to stay independent contractors. You want to be an employee then go do something else then quit and find something else. Uber will remain independent contractors for quite the long while since Prop 22 will most likely pass


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

NicFit said:


> Hahaha 3-4 years, maybe six? You have no idea how long stuff like this takes, AB5 has been in the works since 2005. 10-20 years minimum if it ever gets to the federal level. If Prop 22 passes then the federal government may take even longer to step in since people want drivers to stay independent contractors. You want to be an employee then go do something else then quit and find something else. Uber will remain independent contractors for quite the long while since Prop 22 will most likely pass


Not likely.

The House of Representatives already passed an AB5 like bill. If Biden wins and the Senate flips it will likely be brought up again sooner than later.


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

observer said:


> Not likely.
> 
> The House of Representatives already passed an AB5 like bill. If Biden wins and the Senate flips it will likely be brought up again sooner than later.


They don't like presidential politics on this site but I don't think your scenario will be easily done. Covid has first priority and most everything else has been pushed back at least a year or two. The Dems would have to control for several years to get the national laws changed as I wouldn't think it would be a high priority and if Prop 22 passes they will have to reassess if people even want Uber to be employees and how hard would they fight to change national laws. I expect the Supreme Court would get involved at one point and that's a decade at least, with Prop 22 passing it'll be a huge fight that will take decades to figure out and by then I doubt I'll care as I will have moved on from rideshare more then likely


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

So I read that the court has 61 days to hand it back down to the other jurisdiction. Once it gets handed back down to the lower level, it takes effect 30 days after. So if that time limit is maxed out at 91 days that puts us at the end of January. Well past the elections and the first of the year, but if they somehow get it handed back down in 2 weeks , it would take effect the beginning of December. I don't know what all that means in relation to proposition 22 and stuff but that's just the timeline oh, for what it's worth LOL



Jon Stoppable said:


> Drivers are cash-basis taxpayers on the RS earnings, unless they declared accrual method on their first tax return on which they filed RS income, and even then, they didn't have a clear right to receive the disputed earnings before the final court ruling under the "all events" test so they should not have recognized it. Thus, they will recognize the earnings from the judgment as taxable income in the year finally received.
> 
> *if LOL
> y for some bizarre reason did claim unpaid earnings on past years' tax returns, then nothing happens for tax purposes when they get the payout, because they already recognized the income.
> ...


 I'm not quite sure how I feel about this but I cannot deny props were props is due and the bear deserves props because I don't know what the hell you just said. Not even a little bit. Absolutely no clue. how the hell is a bear smarter than me? LOL

Unfortunately due to the pandemic, I don't have extra lunch money. Perhaps if the drivers get a payout from this ruling, I might be able to get bear lunch. However, perhaps a cookie will suffice?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

NicFit said:


> They don't like presidential politics on this site but I don't think your scenario will be easily done. Covid has first priority and most everything else has been pushed back at least a year or two. The Dems would have to control for several years to get the national laws changed as I wouldn't think it would be a high priority and if Prop 22 passes they will have to reassess if people even want Uber to be employees and how hard would they fight to change national laws. I expect the Supreme Court would get involved at one point and that's a decade at least, with Prop 22 passing it'll be a huge fight that will take decades to figure out and by then I doubt I'll care as I will have moved on from rideshare more then likely


https://joebiden.com/empowerworkers/#























Time will tell.

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/pro-act-labor-reform-workers-need-deserve/?session=1&session=1


----------



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

Uber shouldn’t be able to pay so little that the drivers don’t owe any taxes at all and the government has to foot the bill for unemployment health insurance ect for Full time workers.


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

observer said:


> https://joebiden.com/empowerworkers/#
> View attachment 518194
> View attachment 518195
> View attachment 518196
> ...


Yea, one more reason not to vote for them, I don't think there's as many misclassified workers as they are claiming to be, they want more people to contribute to their socialist programs. Democrats don't what you to make money, they want you to contribute to their programs so everyone can make your money. It's part of their control, Dems want to micromanage everything in your life. Who are these people to decide what I should be doing? What gives them the right to decide that I'm misclassified? I find this to be a violation of my rights, I should get to choose to be an independent contractor if I want provided that the means are there to do so. Maybe they should give independent contractors more benefits rather then cutting their pay and forcing them into wage slavery. This approach of denying rights instead of fixing them is atrocious. There's ways to fix the independent contractors without just outright denying them the right to work as an independent contractor, do yourself a favor and Vote Yes on Prop 22 and Vote for Trump



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Uber shouldn't be able to pay so little that the drivers don't owe any taxes at all and the government has to foot the bill for unemployment health insurance ect for Full time workers.


I owe taxes every year, if I hustled all year I could make six figures, but it's exhausting. If you can't make good money doing rideshare your not in the right area


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

Daisey77 said:


> Absolutely no clue. how the hell is a bear smarter than me? LOL


So after bear killed and ate the family with the minivan, bear found some books inside the van. Bear can't read, but bear has watched humans using smartphones so bear used the dead human's paw to unlock the phone and change the password. Next bear used the phone to take photos of the books and a text to voice app.

It turns out human was studying for the CPA exam, so bear learned the books so bear could be a CPA too. Sadly, it turns out the even though bear passed the exam, bears are not allowed to be CPAs. So bear turned to RS instead.

But bear sometimes remembers what bear had learned.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

NicFit said:


> Who are these people to decide what I should be doing? What gives them the right to decide that I'm misclassified? I find this to be a violation of my rights, I should get to choose to be an independent contractor if I want provided that the means are there to do so.


Wooooow! A violation of your rights? &#128517;&#128517; please tell me what rights of yours were violated . I'll be waiting.

Those people who have the right to decide if you're misclassified are people citizens have voted into office, to enforce the laws that us citizens voted on. You seem to forget that this has went through multiple courts. Courts are simply enforcing the laws! You're directing your anger at the wrong folks. You literally sound like a child throwing a temper tantrum when they were told no.

Perhaps you should take your own advice. Aren't you always telling people if they're unhappy with this job, go find another one?


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

Daisey77 said:


> Wooooow! A violation of your rights? &#128517;&#128517; please tell me what rights of yours were violated . I'll be waiting.
> 
> Those people who have the right to decide if you're misclassified are people citizens have voted into office, to enforce the laws that us citizens voted on. You seem to forget that this has went through multiple courts. Courts are simply enforcing the laws! You're directing your anger at the wrong folks. You literally sound like a child throwing a temper tantrum when they were told no.
> 
> Perhaps you should take your own advice. Aren't you always telling people if they're unhappy with this job, go find another one?


And if they try to make me an employee that's what I'll do. I will never work as a wage slave like some socialist ever again

Why can't I choose to be an independent contractor? And I didn't vote for most of these people in California, others did but I voted against them as I don't think they had my best interests in mind. I don't like this system and would rather vote on every individual law they make since half the time they make these laws and people don't like them and it ends up getting repealed in the votes anyway


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

Asruf said:


> Finally,good things happen for Uber/lyft drivers.. Don't lose your HOPE against those greedy companies...


Good things 
30 hour week
Being sent to area like Watts 
Unable to decline rides
They will limit drivers so you will drive like mad&#128514;&#128514;
Oh happy day


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Well I can see why the whole Boss thing didn't work out so well for you. &#129318;‍♀ sorry, I gotta ask . . . how old are you exactly? I'm just curious



NicFit said:


> And if they try to make me an employee that's what I'll do. I will never work as a wage slave like some socialist ever again


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

Daisey77 said:


> Well I can see why the whole Boss thing didn't work out so well for you. &#129318;‍♀ sorry, I gotta ask . . . how old are you exactly? I'm just curious
> 
> View attachment 518338


I'm 42. You were never here in the first place, why the hell does that mean? trying to say bye to me is dumb. Your just some out is state ant that can't figure out that their area is in the boonies so they want Uber to pay for the time they have to wait because there isn't enough rides. If they required Uber to make you an employee they probably will shut the area down permanently as it won't be profitable so keep wanting that employee status, Uber will be saying that Bye Bye to you and your area.

You want to know why I will never work as an employee again, back in 2001 I got an award for being the top technician, I earned the company $45k for the quarter which blew the other repair shops out of the water, think the rest made $10-20k. You know what I got paid, $500 a week or about $6500 for that period. I quit shortly after doing the math, you tell me who got taken advantage of for being an employee. Why didn't I get more of that money? I even bought all my tools, all they provided was the leads. Sound familiar? Now with Uber I take home 75% of anything I make for them, if I had been setup like Uber I would of made $33750. That's $27250 that the company pocket extra just because I was an employee. Think about that


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

its over prop 22 is close they are winning according to polls 46-42 but you need a 50% majority.....so rideshare is done in Ca. Thank the nutjob democrats, overnight 1 million jobs could be lost.


----------



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

dnlbaboof said:


> its over prop 22 is close they are winning according to polls 46-42 but you need a 50% majority.....so rideshare is done in Ca. Thank the nutjob democrats, overnight 1 million jobs could be lost.


Do you really think lyft is going to throw away 11% of their global business by pulling out of California?

Yeah I'm guessing California is 11% of their global business.

11% of the US population is in California. But we have to throw Canada in to their numbers as well and that's another 10% of population over the just the uS numbers. BUT a large portion of the US population is out in the boonies and a large portion of Americans will never hire a car in their lives. So that 10% that's in California, in all those large cities... my guess is that it amounts to 10% of Lyfts global business, if i had to guess (which is all i can do without classified insider information)

Lyft is now a publically traded company, if lyfts numbers significantly fall over NOT EVEN TRYING to make it work in California the investors are going to have a total *****fit. People could lose their jobs over pulling out of California without even trying.

All of the above makes me suspect that Lyft will try to stick it out in California, it's not one city, it's a LOT of cities.

If lyft sticks it out, uber is going to try sticking it out.

Why am i talking about Lyft? Because a smaller percentage of uber's global business is in California and those lying bastards can cover up the loss easier and hide it from their investors easier.

But if lyft stays uber is going to stay.

Now what does that mean?

That uber and lyft are going to continue to operate and they are going to make adjustments to stay.

The other option is that a new company is going to pop up and fill the void, how long did it take something to pop up in Austin?

Not very long.

I doubt ridesharing will vanish, the companies might but someone will come in to fill the void more quickly than we think.

But some of the _customers_ might get their service priced out of existence. Because whether or not uber and lyft stay customer price will have to raise.


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

Uber could stay they could be even more profitable with the employee model, by not giving 75% of rides fee to drivers, they could pay drivers 13 an hour plus mileage hire them for 30 hours to avoid health care and raise the rate to taxi rates of 4$ per mile pocketing about 75% instead of 25%, so basically with this new law corrupt politicians benefit, uber benefits and drivers are screwed.


----------



## Jst1dreamr (Apr 25, 2019)

dnlbaboof said:


> its over prop 22 is close they are winning according to polls 46-42 but you need a 50% majority.....so rideshare is done in Ca. Thank the nutjob democrats, overnight 1 million jobs could be lost.


Well first technically 50% is not a majority and either way the vote goes uber is not leaving California despite their threats. The may however (unlikely) stop for a few days maybe even a week or two but they have likely already prepared for the possibility that they weren't able to buy the election and just have to change their systems out.
Second there is not 1 million drivers on the apps in California even if it seems like it now days.
Third and finally it is not over, the election is not until Nov 3 and you are just creating undue stress on yourself at this point
Now for you point that the democrats are a bunch nut jobs. You got that one right.


----------



## sasu66 (Sep 7, 2020)

dnlbaboof said:


> Uber could stay they could be even more profitable with the employee model, by not giving 75% of rides fee to drivers, they could pay drivers 13 an hour plus mileage hire them for 30 hours to avoid health care and raise the rate to taxi rates of 4$ per mile pocketing about 75% instead of 25%, so basically with this new law corrupt politicians benefit, uber benefits and drivers are screwed.


 Nah, it doesn't work like that but nice try. If Uber raise the rate to taxi rates, then other rideshare apps do the same thing and compete with Uber on fair terms. Speaking of corrupt politicians, Prop 22 campaign -funded by Saudi Government- gave $2 million to the Republican Party. Also, Moscow Mitch's wife who happens to be Secretary of Transportation and major Uber fan pocketed $350,000 PPP loan for her family business. Try again.


----------



## Paul Vincent (Jan 15, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> lyft is going to throw away 11% of their global business


Lyft isn't even global, US and some parts of Canada only. California is a big chunk of their income.



sasu66 said:


> Moscow Mitch's wife


She's dining on turtle soup.



NicFit said:


> Now with Uber I take home 75% of anything I make for them


You do realize that under prop 22 the 75% take ends, up front pricing returns and you will be paid by minutes/ miles and incentives.


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

sasu66 said:


> Good question but i have no answer to that. No immediate changes for at least 30 days. Then they might go to Supreme Court.
> California Attorney General released a statement
> https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-relea...ts-confirm-uber-and-lyft-are-trying-evade-law


Prop 22 if passed its retroactive and makes all the court rulings moot. If it fails they have 30 days from the ruling to comply or appeal. My money is on appeal delay the inevitable and hope to make a deal with the state


----------



## sasu66 (Sep 7, 2020)

Escoman said:


> Prop 22 if passed its retroactive and makes all the court rulings moot. If it fails they have 30 days from the ruling to comply or appeal. My money is on appeal delay the inevitable and hope to make a deal with the state


 What is the timeline on appeal delay?


----------



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

dnlbaboof said:


> Uber could stay they could be even more profitable with the employee model, by not giving 75% of rides fee to drivers, they could pay drivers 13 an hour plus mileage hire them for 30 hours to avoid health care and raise the rate to taxi rates of 4$ per mile pocketing about 75% instead of 25%, so basically with this new law corrupt politicians benefit, uber benefits and drivers are screwed.


Mileage would come to $10+ an hour by my figuring, and they have to include tips on top of that.

30 hours is roughly....

13 X $30
260 X .57
+ tips

$390
+ 148.20
+$5 (tips)

So 30 hours would be $543,

or 18 an hour.

OK, OK i was just joking about only $5.00 in tips on $543, it could easily be another $100.

On $1,100 in uber fares i'd expect somewhere in the range of $100 in tips. Because that's what they would need in fares off you, $1,100 or so in order to pay you $550

So 30 hours on Uber for $650 or so and another 30 hours on lyft for another $650 or so. Then 10 hours on DD. That's less miles but the same $13 an hour and probably better tips. So probobly close to $200 for 10 hours on DD.

That's $1,500....

The upside to working for 5 different companies is you'll be able to max out your 30 hours on 3 different companies.


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

Paul Vincent said:


> Lyft isn't even global, US and some parts of Canada only. California is a big chunk of their income.
> 
> 
> She's dining on turtle soup.
> ...


No they won't end the 75/25% cut it's part of their transparency for independent contractors


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

sasu66 said:


> What is the timeline on appeal delay?


30 days to file then however long to get on the court calendar if they agree to hear it


----------



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

dnlbaboof said:


> the nutjob democrats, overnight 1 million jobs could be lost.


What Job?

I haven't taken a ride since March 15.

Many of us moved on and collected UI and have no serious plan to return to ride share as is.

Uber/Lyft lover 5% of their workforce on any given month. That's why they need to constantly recruit.

6 months of covid, based of historical data that's 30% workforce reduction.

Half of drivers are laid off anyways, taxi, Lemo, rideshare is down 50%.

However you want to play it. There is work for maybe 1/2 of us due to covid.

People are also moving away from major cities and buying personal cars.

Want to blame Dems, cool with me. But that's because of corona Life, no bar, club, concert, tourist, etc.

By the end of 2020, U/L will have lost at least 75% of there workforce purely on historical turnover rates. That means people left!

Nobody lost a damn job by AB5 because most drivers left already.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Daisey77 said:


> So now if proposition 22 passes in November and guessing that won't take effect until January 1st? In that case, do they have to convert over to actual employee status for the last 7/8 weeks of the year and then convert back over January 1st?


Technically, yes, but realistically no. If prop 22 passes and Uber doesn't treat drivers like employees in the last few weeks of the year, the government isn't going to try and force them to comply most likely because by the time they get a court hearing rolling, they will no longer have the ability to allege non-compliance with the law because it will have already changed.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

dnlbaboof said:


> Uber could stay they could be even more profitable with the employee model, by not giving 75% of rides fee to drivers, they could pay drivers 13 an hour plus mileage hire them for 30 hours to avoid health care and raise the rate to taxi rates of 4$ per mile pocketing about 75% instead of 25%, so basically with this new law corrupt politicians benefit, uber benefits and drivers are screwed.


You're overlooking the fact that as employees, Uber has to pay the drivers $15 per hour (the majority of CA population) to sit idle, which is extremely costly. They also have to pay unemployment, Comp, and FICA as well.

$4 per mile is higher than taxi rates.


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> What Job?
> 
> I haven't taken a ride since March 15.
> 
> ...


You are wrong the turnover rate is 9t%quarterly and they are running out of people dumb enough to sign up


----------



## sasu66 (Sep 7, 2020)

Uber stock is currently down to $33. Any predictions for November 4th?


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

sasu66 said:


> Uber stock is currently down to $33. Any predictions for November 4th?


It's on the fence may go either way


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

Asruf said:


> Finally,good things happen for Uber/lyft drivers.. Don't lose your HOPE against those greedy companies...


Yes but it only costs them more $ in penalties the state will assess .


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

dnlbaboof said:


> its over prop 22 is close they are winning according to polls 46-42 but you need a 50% majority.....so rideshare is done in Ca. Thank the nutjob democrats, overnight 1 million jobs could be lost.


I hope 22 fails


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

Escoman said:


> I hope 22 fails


Why?

Are you looking forward to being a part time, minimum wage employee, whose schedule and area of operations are determined by an algorithm?

Who in their right mind would want to be an actual employee of these despicable gig app companies?


----------



## Escoman (Jun 28, 2016)

Judge and Jury said:


> Why?
> 
> Are you looking forward to being a part time, minimum wage employee, whose schedule and area of operations are determined by an algorithm?
> 
> Who in their right mind would want to be an actual employee of these despicable gig app companies?


Well if you actually read 22 you become a slave with no recourse you can't sue can't collective bargain are guaranteed $5 64 hour and the benefits well so many loopholes they are going to weasel out of them. Plus you get .30 Mile vs .57 no pay while waiting for rides. They did not spend $200,000,000 to benefit you. Nothing in Ab5 deals with hours worked or shifts it's all Uber lies and screw tactics enjoy your $5.64 sucks.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

.....AND YET, no matter what the court has decided, nobody in calif has filled out a W4 and no payroll checks have been cut.

huh. So no difference.....yet....and if Prop 22 passes, U/L and others just run the clock out until Jan 1st 2021. 

and just in case Prop 22 fizzles, I've got my resume all ready to 'apply' at Uber. hahahahahahahaha, I crack myself up.


----------



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

SHalester said:


> .....AND YET, no matter what the court has decided, nobody in calif has filled out a W4 and no payroll checks have been cut.
> 
> huh. So no difference.....yet....and if Prop 22 passes, U/L and others just run the clock out until Jan 1st 2021.
> 
> and just in case Prop 22 fizzles, I've got my resume all ready to 'apply' at Uber. hahahahahahahaha, I crack myself up.


It won't be a resume it will be an online application.

And frankly I'm too afraid of what's going to happen to risk shorting Uber,lyft and GrubHub today.

It's not as sure of a thing as shorting their stock before financials are posted.


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

Escoman said:


> Well if you actually read 22 you become a slave with no recourse you can't sue can't collective bargain are guaranteed $5 64 hour and the benefits well so many loopholes they are going to weasel out of them. Plus you get .30 Mile vs .57 no pay while waiting for rides. They did not spend $200,000,000 to benefit you. Nothing in Ab5 deals with hours worked or shifts it's all Uber lies and screw tactics enjoy your $5.64 sucks.


Read prop. 22. Also, AB5 and the Dynamex decision.

Decided modified contractor status utilizing numerous apps on my own schedule as a contractor was preferable to;

part time, minimum wage status as an employee
with non-compete clauses of the malicious gig app companies with algorithms deciding my scheduled hours and territory.

Collective bargaining? Why would I want to be lumped in with bottom of the barrel contractors who can't figure out how to be profitable?


----------



## Marcelo Lean (Dec 27, 2019)

sasu66 said:


> A California appeals court sided with a lower court judge on an August ruling ordering Uber and Lyft to stop classifying drivers as independent contractors.
> 
> Uber and Lyft were given 30 days from an expected later ruling to come into compliance with the order. That will effectively require the companies to make drivers employees unless a November ballot measure aimed at codifying their status as independent contractors renders the ruling moot, or a subsequent appeal to the state Supreme Court is successful.
> 
> ...


Right,so now THEY call the shots,surreal is it not?...THANKS to the seven millions plus cheap people who didn't want to lose their cheap ride subsidized by the moron on the wheel!!!...congrats hope you get the same...


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Prop. 22, the gig worker exemption for Uber and Lyft, is ruled unconstitutional


Proposition 22, which exempts gig work companies like Uber and Lyft from treating drivers...




www.sfchronicle.com


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

observer said:


> Prop. 22, the gig worker exemption for Uber and Lyft, is ruled unconstitutional
> 
> 
> Proposition 22, which exempts gig work companies like Uber and Lyft from treating drivers...
> ...



I was just about to post this









Judge: California ride-hailing law is unconstitutional


LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge Friday struck down a California ballot measure that exempted Uber and other app-based ride-hailing and delivery services from a state law requiring drivers to be classifi…



kdvr.com


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

" Uber said it planned to appeal, setting up a fight that could likely end up in the California Supreme Court "

I'll bet the Supreme's will send it back to the lower court. 

Soooo 30 days to Appeal ?


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

LEL.


----------



## Taxi2Rideshare (May 17, 2018)

Judge and Jury said:


> Read prop. 22. Also, AB5 and the Dynamex decision.
> 
> Decided modified contractor status utilizing numerous apps on my own schedule as a contractor was preferable to;
> 
> ...


That's how the pro-Uber crowd wants to spin this. In reality, it's about forcing Uber's hand and getting pro-driver concessions.

Since its rise to the top, Uber hasn't conceded much on the wages issue. It's about getting Uber back to the table.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Taxi2Rideshare said:


> That's how the pro-Uber crowd wants to spin this. In reality, it's about forcing Uber's hand and getting pro-driver concessions.
> 
> Since its rise to the top, Uber hasn't conceded much on the wages issue. It's about getting Uber back to the table.


I doubt they'll do that, they will burn it all to the ground before they change the app to a real contractors tool, this is because all these years of us "being employees" will be retroactive pay of sorts.


----------



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

There's always the possibility that the feds will drop the hammer on uber/lyft and declare the drivers all employees and close up the IC loophole.

All it takes is legislation

Afterall a great deal of these driver's arn't paying taxes. That's another loophole they could close. If drivers suddenly had to pay 1/2 of their profit out in taxes uber driving suddenly makes a lot less sense.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

In a related story:



https://news.yahoo.com/california-1st-set-quota-limits-001800892.html


----------

