# Lyft settles Ca. driver lawsuit over employment status



## toi (Sep 8, 2014)

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...ca-driver-lawsuit-over-employment-status.html

This move by Lyft isnt a full on employment status to its drivers but a half*ss hybrid attempt not to go fully liable for it . Judge still has to approve the settlement.

Uber might be losing some cabin pressure any day now

------

Ride-hailing service Lyft has agreed to settle a proposed class action lawsuit in California by giving drivers additional workplace protections but without classifying them as employees, removing a major threat to its business model.

The settlement agreement, filed late on Tuesday in San Francisco federal court, provides for Lyft to pay $12.25 million, as well as give drivers notice if they are to be deactivated from the platform and other benefits.

Lyft and larger rival Uber face separate lawsuits brought on behalf of drivers who contend they are employees and entitled to reimbursement for expenses including gas and vehicle maintenance. The drivers currently pay those costs themselves.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria would have to approve the deal. A hearing on preliminary approval is currently scheduled for February 18 in San Francisco.

The cases have been closely followed because a determination that the workers are employees instead of contractors could affect the valuations for other startups that rely on large networks of individuals to provide rides, clean houses and other services.

While the deal will involve some costs for Lyft, classifying drivers as employees would have been much more expensive and complicated, said Jan Dawson, chief analyst of Jackdaw Research.

"It looks like Lyft got off fairly lightly here," Dawson said.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, an attorney for the drivers, acknowledged that the settlement does not achieve a reclassification of drivers as employees, but said the benefits are still significant.

Unlike a separate lawsuit against Uber, which has been certified as a class action, Liss-Riordan said Lyft's arbitration agreement with its drivers would have made it difficult for Lyft drivers to similarly sue as a group.

Additionally, Liss-Riordan said her firm receives many more complaints from Uber drivers about issues with their pay, and about being deactivated from the platform.

"We have not been hearing so many concerns from Lyft drivers, which leads us to believe that Lyft is treating its drivers with more respect than Uber is treating its drivers," Liss-Riordan said.

Uber representatives could not immediately be reached for comment. Uber is scheduled for a June trial in San Francisco on whether its drivers are employees or contractors.

As part of the settlement, Lyft has agreed that it can only deactivate drivers for specific reasons, like low passenger ratings. Drivers will be given an opportunity to address those issues before they are deactivated, according to the court filing.

Lyft also agreed to pay the arbitration expenses for any driver who wants to challenge their deactivation or disputes over compensation.

Lyft general counsel Kristin Sverchek said the company is pleased to resolve the lawsuit on terms that "preserve the flexibility of drivers to control when, where, and for how long they drive on the platform."

_Reuters_


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Some more details in this:

*http://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodo...ify-drivers-as?utm_term=.vdbxxna41#.vwbppvd8A*


----------



## toi (Sep 8, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Some more details in this:
> 
> *http://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodo...ify-drivers-as?utm_term=.vdbxxna41#.vwbppvd8A*


Should we expect a similar outcome for Uber you think ? 
This is literally chump change for these companies


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

*Lyft just agreed to pay more than $12 million to settle a driver lawsuit
- here's what that means for its drivers*
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-lyfts-12-million-settlement-means-for-drivers-2016-1?r=UK&IR=T
Business Insider - Jan 27 2016


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

See THIS is the type of results I want from the UBer lawsuits. NOT make us employees, but sure we'll take any money they have to pay back to us lol. But KEEP us as independent contractors, but loosen up the restrictions and add more beneficial rules/regulations


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

but dividing 12 mil over 100,000 drivers sure isn't like winning the lottery. nor does it seem like they will actually pay for what expenses actually were


----------



## Lag Monkey (Feb 6, 2015)

Riders can favorite a driver, and acceptance rate won't matter anymore among other benifits for drivers. To me this sounds like a positive outcome.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Lag Monkey said:


> Riders can favorite a driver, and acceptance rate won't matter anymore among other benifits for drivers. To me this sounds like a positive outcome.


Favorite driver, how long before Uber copies this?


----------



## Lag Monkey (Feb 6, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> Favorite driver, how long before Uber copies this?


It said Lyft would build this feature and release it in the future and that it would somehow benefit drivers


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

*The bullet that Lyft just dodged is still coming for Uber*
*Lyft won't have to reclassify its drivers as employees, but Uber still might*
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/27/10841138/uber-lyft-drivers-settlement-class-action-lawsuit-California
The Verge


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Uber is going to to do the same thing


----------



## toi (Sep 8, 2014)

Lag Monkey said:


> Riders can favorite a driver, and acceptance rate won't matter anymore among other benifits for drivers. To me this sounds like a positive outcome.


this is going to be a good motivator for drivers but given the low low low rates who would wanna drive ??
it would however work with uber black, some clients like the no exchange rides between driver and them.

both lyft and uber have to learn to exist together and stabilize a sustainable price point for their drivers.
i still think both companies are an insurance fraud and with regulations coming in the near future they will not be very different than what they replaced "taxi cabs"
at some point i expect regulators to ask for permanent signs on vehicles seperating them from random civilian cars. ie toplight type devices.


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce (Dec 28, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> but dividing 12 mil over 100,000 drivers sure isn't like winning the lottery. nor does it seem like they will actually pay for what expenses actually were


This is lyft way of getting ahead of the ball. If they settle they are showing a judge that ride share companies are responsible somewhat and can sway the mind of a jury or judge, which can lead to more money uber will have to shell out because they have more drivers. A huge loss or settlement for uber can mean devastating results for uber. Lyft is playing chess.


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> but dividing 12 mil over 100,000 drivers sure isn't like winning the lottery. nor does it seem like they will actually pay for what expenses actually were


So, this means that each driver will get like a whopping $120.00?


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce (Dec 28, 2014)

ABC123DEF said:


> So, this means that each driver will get like a whopping $120.00?


I didn't read the article. Did it say lyft has 100,000 drivers or is that just someone guessed. I didn't think lyft had that many drivers in one state. At least not when this lawsuit was filed.


----------



## Papa (May 14, 2015)

UberBlackPr1nce said:


> This is lyft way of getting ahead of the ball. If they settle they are showing a judge that ride share companies are responsible somewhat and can sway the mind of a jury or judge, which can lead to more money uber will have to shell out because they have more drivers. A huge loss or settlement for uber can mean devastating results for uber. Lyft is playing chess.


Hmmm, has anyone considered that Lyft is in bed with Uber??? Trial Balloon perhaps???

Plaintiff in Cali Case is requesting a bench trial which would mean no jury...

Judge still has to approve the settlement. I haven't analyzed the articles yet, so I look forward to seeing what's up...


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce (Dec 28, 2014)

Papa said:


> Hmmm, has anyone considered that Lyft is in bed with Uber??? Trial Balloon perhaps???
> 
> Plaintiff in Cali Case is requesting a bench trial which would mean no jury...
> 
> Judge still has to approve the settlement. I haven't analyzed the articles yet, so I look forward to seeing what's up...


It won't make sense for them to be in it together. Why would GM give 500 mill to a shell of uber? Uber and lyft is about as close as coke is to pepsi, burger king to mcdonalds. They offer the same product but one is clearly better than the other. I'm hoping lyft is the Victor in this ride share battle and uber just go back to focusing on Uber BLACK


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Lawyer Who Settled With Lyft Vows to Make Uber `Respect' Drivers*
*http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...d-with-lyft-vows-to-make-uber-respect-drivers*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> but dividing 12 mil over 100,000 drivers sure isn't like winning the lottery.


100,000 Lyft Drivers weren't part of the lawsuit.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> Lawyer Who Settled With Lyft Vows to Make Uber `Respect' Drivers
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/lawyer-who-settled-with-lyft-vows-to-make-uber-respect-drivers


"_We have not been hearing so many concerns from Lyft drivers, which leads us to believe that Lyft is treating its drivers with more respect than Uber is treating its drivers_," Liss-Riordan said Wednesday in a statement.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> 100,000 Lyft Drivers weren't part of the lawsuit.


??? The B.I. article reported: "The $12.25 million Lyft has agreed to pay will be shared among California's 100,000 Lyft drivers" - do we know if that's accurate?


----------



## Trebor (Apr 22, 2015)

Lag Monkey said:


> Riders can favorite a driver, and acceptance rate won't matter anymore among other benifits for drivers. To me this sounds like a positive outcome.


Where do you see about the acceptance rating?


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> ??? The B.I. article reported: "The $12.25 million Lyft has agreed to pay will be shared among California's 100,000 Lyft drivers" - do we know if that's accurate?


I'll get more accurate info on this.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*http://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodo...ify-drivers-as?utm_term=.vdbxxna41#.vwbppvd8A*

_In an email to BuzzFeed News, Liss-Riordan calculated that drivers who drove more than 30 hours a week in half of the weeks they spent working on Lyft "should get on average more than about $1,000" each. She said the size of this settlement is around 20% of what she would have expected Lyft drivers to be awarded had she won the case._


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> "The $12.25 million Lyft has agreed to pay will be shared among California's 100,000 Lyft drivers"


The BI article is a rerun of Reuters article by Heather Sommerville & Dan Levine. Both are seasoned correspondents. I trust their reporting.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> The BI article is a rerun of Reuters article by Heather Sommerville & Dan Levine. Both are seasoned correspondents. I trust their reporting.


I don't see where the Reuters article metions anything about the number of drivers the award goes to:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lyft-drivers-settlement-idUSKCN0V50FR


----------



## Older Chauffeur (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> 100,000 Lyft Drivers weren't part of the lawsuit.


The way I read it, the 100,000 refers to Uber drivers in the CA lawsuit; nothing to do with the Lyft settlement. (Except perhaps for those who drive for both?)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Older Chauffeur said:


> The way I read it, the 100,000 refers to Uber drivers in the CA lawsuit; nothing to do with the Lyft settlement. (Except perhaps for those who drive for both?)


? It has everything to do with the settlement - and nothing to do with Uber at all (which is a different case entirely).
It is a settlement of the 'drivers vs LYFT' case.
This is a direct quote from the Business Insider article (link above)...
"The $12.25 million Lyft has agreed to pay will be shared among California's 100,000 Lyft drivers"

chi1cabby - The terms of settlement may inlcude all CA Lyft drivers - even if the law suit did not.


----------



## Older Chauffeur (Oct 16, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> ? It has everything to do with the settlement - and nothing to do with Uber at all (which is a different case entirely).
> It is a settlement of the 'drivers vs LYFT' case.
> This is a direct quote from the Business Insider article (link above)...
> "The $12.25 million Lyft has agreed to pay will be shared among California's 100,000 Lyft drivers"
> ...


Just came back to edit my post after checking a different article (Business Insider.) The first one I read had the attorney referring to 100,000 Uber drivers in CA. She also said the Lyft drivers would get $1000 apiece. Looks like they would only get $125 even if she is doing it pro bono. It's hard to compare articles flipping back and forth on my iPad, so I apologize for getting the pertinent facts wrong.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Older Chauffeur said:


> Just came back to edit my post after checking a different article (Business Insider.) The first one I read had the attorney referring to 100,000 Uber drivers in CA. She also said the Lyft drivers would get $1000 apiece. Looks like they would only get $125 even if she is doing it pro bono. It's hard to compare articles flipping back and forth on my iPad, so I apologize for getting the pertinent facts wrong.


This is first day press... there are going to be typos and errors... 
we'll know more in a few days. And more after the judge reviews the settlement for court approval. 
It's premature to try to guess who will get what... and since the distribution is based on hours driven, it's going to vary by driver anyway.
So... no harm, no foul!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> This is first day press... there are going to be typos and errors...
> we'll know more in a few days. And more after the judge reviews the settlement for court approval.
> It's premature to try to guess who will get what... and since the distribution is based on hours driven, it's going to vary by driver anyway.
> So... no harm, no foul!


And the LA Times reports:
_The financial settlement will be made to an estimated 100,000 Lyft drivers in California. Those who worked less than 50 hours total will receive low payments. The settlement will pay higher amounts to drivers who drive more consistently for Lyft - 30 hours per week or more for at least 50% of the weeks they have driven for Lyft.
_​That appears to indicate that Lyft will provide the court/Lis-Riordan (can't we just call her 'Shannon' - I mean, she's our friend, right?) with all the data they have on drivers and their specific hours - and the court will approve a formula the attorneys use to determine how much each individual driver will receive.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I don't see where the Reuters article metions anything about the number of drivers the award goes to:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lyft-drivers-settlement-idUSKCN0V50FR


Sorry Mike!
The BI article you posted is an original write-up by Maya Kasoff.
Earlier in the day, BI had indeed run the Reuters article. 
Sorry for the mix up.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> Sorry Mike!
> The BI article you posted is an original write-up by Maya Kasoff.
> Earlier in the day, BI had indeed run the Reuters article.
> Sorry for the mix up.


no problem here... there's a lot of press flying around very quickly (and a lot of reporters trying to put their own 'spin' on things...)
it'll be a while before the dust settles from just this storm... and then the tsunami of the Uber suit will come roaring in.

Should be fun to watch! _Note to self: get more popcorn and raisinettes_.
(and, as always - thanks so much for staying on top of the news and posting info here... it's really appreciated - and very helpful)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

From the LA Times article:
"Uber, unlike Lyft, has made clear it wants to fight this battle for the long haul, whereas Lyft was willing to sit down with us and talk and try to figure out a way to resolve the matter," [LisRiordan] said.

The outcome of the class-action lawsuit against Uber will have no effect on the Lyft settlement, Liss-Riordan said, because they are completely separate cases. *The settlement will not serve as precedent in the Uber case, either, because settlements cannot be disclosed to a jury*.​


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

im thinking it should have been more than $12mil to really make a point...


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> im thinking it should have been more than $12mil to really make a point...


I don't think the cash matters much, other than to prove the point that drivers were damaged by the old policies.
What's significant and worth far more than the cash ('_in this reporter's opinion_' hehe) is that Lis-Riordan was able to bring Lyft to the table and work with them to get positive changes made for the future that will benefit all Lyft drivers in the US - and the company overall. GM is smiling right now... and Lyft drivers will have better protections going forward.


----------



## artxxtreme (Jan 15, 2015)

Not 


ABC123DEF said:


> So, this means that each driver will get like a whopping $120.00?


Not really, after court and legal fees (the real winners here), each driver will get about $50 to $80 as a settlement result.


----------



## SECOTIME (Sep 18, 2015)

Omg I would love to see allllll Uber drivers have to wear a dominos pizza style Uber sign on every car.. Lol those pax would get a lesson in humility


----------



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

"...drivers can be deactivated for ratings..." There is NO TRANSPARENCY to prove ratings aren't tampered with by the TMC


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> From the LA Times article:
> "Uber, unlike Lyft, has made clear it wants to fight this battle for the long haul, whereas Lyft was willing to sit down with us and talk and try to figure out a way to resolve the matter," [LisRiordan] said.
> 
> The outcome of the class-action lawsuit against Uber will have no effect on the Lyft settlement, Liss-Riordan said, because they are completely separate cases. *The settlement will not serve as precedent in the Uber case, either, because settlements cannot be disclosed to a jury*.​


The Lyft settlement will have no effect on the Uber lawsuit, but when Uber loses, the ruling will apply to Lyft and probably taxi companies that use the independent contractor model.


----------



## Archie8616 (Oct 13, 2015)

Hmmmm, I like the outcome. I used to be a truck driver, and have driven all 48 states plus Canada. Was a Car Hauler as well. I loved the pay, but I was never home, and the money well, I never saw it really. But it was a way to support my family. I discovered Uber, and it totally changed my life. I am now home and drive my own hours. But just like I've discovered, there are its draw backs. I think I will switch sides for a bit. I always stuck with one Broker, and driving for Uber was just like the Brokers I drove for when I was out on the road. To stay in line and not have someone post their referral code, can someone that does drive for Lyft & send me a PM with such? I think I would like to try out Lyft. I'll for sure be following this Court case that is going on with Uber though.....anyhow, thank you in advance..."Archie"  

ps...also, this is a small way in which I can still "Strike" against Uber, but yet still continue driving and bring food to the table. Switching "Brokers" isn't that hard....Truck drivers do this all the time. 

pps...my alias "Archie" is not even close to what my real name is...just thought I mention in case someone thinks that it would lead to Uber finding out or trying to find out who I am.


----------



## negeorgia (Feb 1, 2015)

I think Uber is fine with drivers driving both platforms, makes the IC label more legit.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

This supposed settlement is a complete and total joke!!!

It looks like a payoff, and a small one at that. So what if you get to know you're about to be deactivated!! This settles nothing. We don't get classified as employees which is critical to ensuring that rates stop falling AND you can actually earn a living doing Lyft. Why are people applauding this joke of a settlement ? Where EXACTLY are the protections and rights being praised in the article ?? I'm on mobile so I cant go into more detail shredding this joke of a settlement.

How much money are the lead plaintiffs and attorneys getting because they must be getting something substantial to be agreeing to accept this joke.

All Lyft did here was get rid of this lawsuit WITHOUT giving up anything.

These effing attorneys better not roll over on this Uber lawsuit too !!!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> The Lyft settlement will have no effect on the Uber lawsuit, but when Uber loses, the ruling will apply to Lyft and probably taxi companies that use the independent contractor model.


Now that would depend on the ruling, wouldn't it.  Courts have been known to make very narrow decisions. Still, it's all conjecture at this point. 
(My own suspicion is that the Uber political machine - along with others, like Lyft - is already working (very rightly, imo) to get Congress to amend the FLSA in order to create a new worker classification the IRS and DoL can use for gig workers.)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

negeorgia said:


> I think Uber is fine with drivers driving both platforms, makes the IC label more legit.


Yup... and they can (and do) put 'incentives' in place which effectively make it next to impossible to drive both during the same time period and still meet the requirements for the incentive... and Lyft does the same thing.


----------



## KMANDERSON (Jul 19, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> See THIS is the type of results I want from the UBer lawsuits. NOT make us employees, but sure we'll take any money they have to pay back to us lol. But KEEP us as independent contractors, but loosen up the restrictions and add more beneficial rules/regulations


I would like for uber our lyft to show us where the riders our headed.We are only sub contractors if we get to decide what rides we want to pick up without it affecting you getting deactivated.A decline button should be added


----------



## ShortBusDriver (Jan 6, 2015)

observer said:


> The Lyft settlement will have no effect on the Uber lawsuit, but when Uber loses, the ruling will apply to Lyft and probably taxi companies that use the independent contractor model.


UberTaxi reset.


----------



## SmokeyJonez (Jan 9, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> but dividing 12 mil over 100,000 drivers sure isn't like winning the lottery. nor does it seem like they will actually pay for what expenses actually were


how do you know there are 100,000 Lyft drivers in California? the article doesn't list how many drivers would be benefitted from this..


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

SmokeyJonez said:


> how do you know there are 100,000 Lyft drivers in California? the article doesn't list how many drivers would be benefitted from this..


So you think I just pulled that number out of thin air? Did you even read this topic or the article before you responded? Smh


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

KMANDERSON said:


> I would like for uber our lyft to show us where the riders our headed.We are only sub contractors if we get to decide what rides we want to pick up without it affecting you getting deactivated.A decline button should be added


That is for sure!!


----------



## SmokeyJonez (Jan 9, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> So you think I just pulled that number out of thin air? Did you even read this topic or the article before you responded? Smh


yes, I read the very first article in this post and I didn't see anything about the number of Lyft drivers in CA, as I stated in my original post


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

SmokeyJonez said:


> yes, I read the very first article in this post and I didn't see anything about the number of Lyft drivers in CA, as I stated in my original post


so you MISSED in this topic where people QUOTED the statement from the article saying 100,000 drivers??????? see post #22


----------



## SmokeyJonez (Jan 9, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> so you MISSED in this topic where people QUOTED the statement from the article saying 100,000 drivers???????


yes, I must have missed it, I only scanned over the article for the number and did not see it,,


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

SmokeyJonez said:


> yes, I must have missed it, I only scanned over the article for the number and did not see it,,


post #22


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

And puts them a step closer


Lag Monkey said:


> Riders can favorite a driver, and acceptance rate won't matter anymore among other benifits for drivers. To me this sounds like a positive outcome.


And a step closer to being just another cab company with an app.


----------



## Leo. (Dec 27, 2015)

Not sure but lyft copied SideCar, SC did it since 2011


Bart McCoy said:


> Favorite driver, how long before Uber copies this?


----------



## Leo. (Dec 27, 2015)

KMANDERSON said:


> I would like for uber our lyft to show us where the riders our headed.We are only sub contractors if we get to decide what rides we want to pick up without it affecting you getting deactivated.A decline button should be added


SideCar did it first, It was like that since 2011


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

observer said:


> The Lyft settlement will have no effect on the Uber lawsuit, but when Uber loses, the ruling will apply to Lyft and probably taxi companies that use the independent contractor model.


There are two key rulings from the NLRB regarding classifying taxi drivers as employees:
NLRB vs Friendly Cab 2008
Long Version: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1089838.html
Short Version: http://www.kmtg.com/node/1334

NLRB vs AAA Transportation/Yellow Cab 11/2015
Short Version: http://onlabor.org/2015/12/14/nlrb-...ers-employees-and-uber-drivers-could-be-next/
Long Version: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/28-RC-106979

The common thread is that the cab companies had contracts where they had to guarantee that a cab would show up, so the drivers could not turn down work. Also in common was the thread that the drivers could not cultivate their own clientele, perhaps by passing out their cell number.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider (Nov 28, 2015)

artxxtreme said:


> Not
> 
> Not really, after court and legal fees (the real winners here), each driver will get about $50 to $80 as a settlement result.


The plaintiffs' attorneys typically get between 33% to 50%, depending on cases.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

KevinH said:


> There are two key rulings from the NLRB regarding classifying taxi drivers as employees:
> NLRB vs Friendly Cab 2008
> Long Version: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1089838.html
> Short Version: http://www.kmtg.com/node/1334
> ...


Very interesting reads. As I have stated in other posts. Taxi drivers and Uber drivers have more in common than they do differences.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider (Nov 28, 2015)

Agreed. Both drive for a living. Both work very hard at their job. Both even share similar educational and economic backgrounds. Even down to culture, way of speaking, interaction, attire, personal habits and hygiene standards, etc.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

I noticed that one of the settlement stipulations is the Lyft would pay the arbitration costs. In some of Shannon's other efforts, she has mounted a massive number of arbitration actions, and in one instance the employer conceded a class action conversion because of the arbitration costs. I wonder if this is Shannon's plan B? Does anyone know the differences in the arbitration agreements between the two companies? I thought that both suits had won rulings that found the arbitration clauses as unconscionable.


----------



## Driver Zero (Dec 18, 2015)

UberBlackPr1nce said:


> It won't make sense for them to be in it together.


Really? That's naive. There are plenty of examples throughout history of competitors in business colluding to benefit themselves. 
This wouldn't be an exception. The comparison between the two is similar to Microsoft and Apple back in the old days. Remember how M$ bailed out Apple when they weren't doing so good? 
You don't think Uber would prop up Lyft to avoid an Anti-trust lawsuit or or God forbid, a RICO act indictment?



UberBlackPr1nce said:


> Why would GM give 500 mill to a shell of uber?


Because either GM see a future where their self-driving vehicle becomes a reality and on the road in every major city, (or someone sold that idea to them) and when they have the approval to go, they already have the platform to launch it on.



UberBlackPr1nce said:


> They offer the same product but one is clearly better than the other.


We'll it's not that clear really and that's a bad analogy because all of those multi-nationals you mentioned have been in business for a long time, have attracted millions of devoted followers and offer different customer 'experiences'. Lyft isn't even in that ballpark yet.


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce (Dec 28, 2014)

Driver Zero said:


> Really? That's naive. There are plenty of examples throughout history of competitors in business colluding to benefit themselves.
> This wouldn't be an exception. The comparison between the two is similar to Microsoft and Apple back in the old days. Remember how M$ bailed out Apple when they weren't doing so good?
> You don't think Uber would prop up Lyft to avoid an Anti-trust lawsuit or or God forbid, a RICO act indictment?
> 
> ...


Okay.. I'll leave all the deep thinking to you... you seem to have it all thought out.


----------



## Driver Zero (Dec 18, 2015)

You're welcome. Happy to do the critical thinking for others when required.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider (Nov 28, 2015)

Very funny.


----------



## uberlift (Sep 16, 2015)

.


----------



## OldsmarUber (Nov 6, 2015)

After lawyer fees each driver receives 1.13 each.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider (Nov 28, 2015)

OldsmarUber said:


> After lawyer fees each driver receives 1.13 each.


Right.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> The BI article is a rerun of Reuters article by Heather Sommerville & Dan Levine. Both are seasoned correspondents. I trust their reporting.


POST # 26/chi1cabby: You mean as
Opposed to Breathlessly-
Eager-to-Please-Travis and Verified
JournoFellatrix Maya Kosoff ?

Be sure to SMILE for the "Money Shot"!
Bison Chortling !


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

SECOTIME said:


> Omg I would love to see allllll Uber drivers have to wear a dominos pizza style Uber sign on every car.. Lol those pax would get a lesson in humility


POST # 39/SECOTIME: Please...if I can
just add a SLIGHT
VARIATION that would prompt THAT
Oh-so-Overdue-Conversation between
Clueless PAX and Long-Suffering Drivers.
Roof-mounted sign reads:

.....Ask your Driver why we're called.....
..........................#[F]Uber..............................


----------



## IHmechanic (Jan 2, 2016)

observer said:


> Very interesting reads. As I have stated in other posts. Taxi drivers and Uber drivers have more in common than they do differences.


I think there are significant differences. For example, Über doesn't restrict us from using our car for other purposes, doesn't have SOPs for driving/drop-offs, doesn't make us put ads on our cars, doesn't control who gets airport privileges, doesn't have a dress code, allows us to drive for other platforms, etc. Now I see why Lyft agreed to develop a favorite driver feature and be more lenient before kicking drivers off. These further distinguish us from the taxi drivers in the NLRB cases.


----------



## IHmechanic (Jan 2, 2016)

OMG!! Please do not make us employees! I don't want to sacrifice the flexibility. Next think you know, we'll be unionized, rates will sky-rocket to pay for the benefits or they'll limit hours to only 30 per week to stay under the Obamacare mandates. We'll no longer be price competitive with the taxis, business will dry up, and Über will just be another cab company. If that's what you want, go work for the cab companies.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

negeorgia said:


> I think Uber is fine with drivers driving both platforms, makes the IC label more legit.


POST #:43/negeorgia: Au Contraire, mon
frere! Perhaps you haven't
Frequented California SubForums as I
have in the Past.

About the time that Your Membership
started, #[F]Uber began, in LA/OC and
then SanDiego a tiered Software Licen-
sing Fee that REDUCED the fee from
30% to 25% to 20% at the PerWeek levels
of 15/30/30+ OR 20/40/40+ Rides for those Pilots who had On-Boarded after a CertainDate.

Does anyone know if those Tiered Schemes
are STILL in Effect ? Did it ever go into
Effect outside of California ?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

IHmechanic said:


> OMG!! Please do not make us employees! I don't want to sacrifice the flexibility. Next think you know, we'll be unionized, rates will sky-rocket to pay for the benefits or they'll limit hours to only 30 per week to stay under the f'cking Obamacare mandates. We'll no longer be price competitive with the taxis, business will dry up, and Über will just be another cab company. If that's what you want, go work for the cab companies.


You mean the flexibility to be paid below minimum wage ? You mean the flexibility for them to cut our commission below poverty level ? You're referring to that kind of flexibility ?

Without being employees we won't be able to unionize which will mean we will have no leverage whatsoever.

Is it correct to assume you're an Uber shill ?


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> You mean the flexibility to be paid below minimum wage ? You mean the flexibility for them to cut our commission below poverty level ? You're referring to that kind of flexibility ?
> 
> Without being employees we won't be able to unionize which will mean we will have no leverage whatsoever.
> 
> Is it correct to assume you're an Uber shill ?


Seems like we shouldn't need to be employees to have the same basic rights of employees to organize.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider (Nov 28, 2015)

DriverX said:


> Seems like we shouldn't need to be employees to have the same basic rights of employees to organize.


The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the law of the land.


----------



## JustStef (May 2, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> You mean the flexibility to be paid below minimum wage ? You mean the flexibility for them to cut our commission below poverty level ? You're referring to that kind of flexibility ?
> 
> Without being employees we won't be able to unionize which will mean we will have no leverage whatsoever.
> 
> Is it correct to assume you're an Uber shill ?


That or he's stupid.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

DriverX said:


> Seems like we shouldn't need to be employees to have the same basic rights of employees to organize.


We dont have the same worker protections when considered ic's. Its critical to be found as employees first.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

People don't seem to really understand how important unions are to employees. Yes, there are many companies where you are treated fairly and expected to be treated fairly over many years of the company's relations to where you don't really need to be unionized but clearly this is one company and industry that it is imperative to have a union representating you or you are going to get screwed. Unions give you great benefits, pay, and protections against unfair terminations.

Yes, you have to pay union dues but that's the price of making sure you have a great paying job.

Unions really are great, it's just they've taken a beating in public relations blitzes by Republicans over the years as if they are bad. They aren't. I've never had a union job where I had bad pay or benefits.

We are not independent contractors, we are employees. Uber has complete control over everything we do except for the fact that we set our own hours. That doesn't mean we are independent contractors.


----------



## negeorgia (Feb 1, 2015)

Please don't make me an employee.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

negeorgia said:


> Please don't make me an employee.


Translation: All I care about is not having a set work schedule, I don't care if they pay me below minimum wage, can fire me at will for no reason at all, don't have to pay any of my costs of driving that I bear the sole responsibility for, don't have to pay for my unemployment insurance for when they fire me at will for no reason at all, nor the many other reasons that being an employee has benefits over being classified as an independent contractor. p.s. Yes, I know that even though I'm an employee that doesn't prevent them from allowing me to work when I want, but for some reason I think that it won't allow me to.


----------



## negeorgia (Feb 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Translation: All I care about is not having a set work schedule, I don't care if they pay me below minimum wage, can fire me at will for no reason at all, don't have to pay any of my costs of driving that I bear the sole responsibility for, don't have to pay for my unemployment insurance for when they fire me at will for no reason at all, nor the many other reasons that being an employee has benefits over being classified as an independent contractor. p.s. Yes, I know that even though I'm an employee that doesn't prevent them from allowing me to work when I want, but for some reason I think that it won't allow me to.


Please don't make me an employee. All I care about is a cheap way to run up tons of deductable business miles so the uber earnings are not taken by gunpoint by a bloated and overspending government that does not actually care about it's citizens. Science textbooks are written by a political agenda and the truth takes a back seat to that agenda. See recapitulation theory for an example.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider (Nov 28, 2015)

It would have been better for Uber if it has been more informative on the downsides of UberDriving rather than emphasizing on the upsides of it when recruiting drivers. For example, "A small percentage of drivers may earn up to $90K a year but most drivers don't. In fact many drivers barely earn minimum wages after car expenses. Fare rates may drop significantly at any time which may cause drivers' earnings to drop further." This will avoid drivers who can't read well or can't think from signing up. No companies want stupid people to work for them unless the company are very poor. Only poor companies need to screw stupid people. If a company is already rich, they want to avoid any and all stupid people because stupid means irrational, and you can never predict what irrational people will do because their actions are not guided by reasons.


----------



## negeorgia (Feb 1, 2015)

ClevelandUberRider said:


> It would have been better for Uber if it has been more informative on the downsides of UberDriving rather than emphasizing on the upsides of it when recruiting drivers. For example, "A small percentage of drivers may earn up to $90K a year but most drivers don't. In fact many drivers barely earn minimum wages after car expenses. Fare rates may drop significantly at any time which may cause drivers' earnings to drop further." This will avoid drivers who can't read well or can't think from signing up. No companies want stupid people to work for them unless the company are very poor. Only poor companies need to screw stupid people. If a company is already rich, they want to avoid any and all stupid people because stupid means irrational, and you can never predict what irrational people will do because their actions are not guided by reasons.


Unfortunately, lots of folks think 'Your results may vary' doesn't apply to them.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider (Nov 28, 2015)

negeorgia said:


> Unfortunately, lots of folks think 'Your results may vary' doesn't apply to them.


By hiding behind a coterie of highly paid attorneys and walking closely along the edges of the letter of the law in recruitment advertising rather than staying comfortably inside the spirit of the law on this, Uber is now faced with a lot of disgruntled, irrational, desperate, emotionally distraught drivers.

Knowing that no sane and rich companies want to associate with such people under any circumstances and knowing that the only reason you end up with them today is due to your past mistake in driver recruitment advertising, what do you do as a company?

You try to get rid of them. For example, by lowering rates to ridiculously low levels with the hope that most of these angry drivers will quit. Bear in mind that ceteris paribus, all else equal, the more angry a driver is, the more likely he/she is going to quit.


----------



## negeorgia (Feb 1, 2015)

ClevelandUberRider said:


> By hiding behind a coterie of highly paid attorneys and walking closely along the edges of the letter of the law in recruitment advertising rather than staying comfortably inside the spirit of the law on this, Uber is now faced with a lot of disgruntled, irrational, desperate, emotionally distraught drivers.
> 
> Knowing that no sane and rich companies want to associate with such people under any circumstances and knowing that the only reason you end up with them today is due to your past mistake in driver recruitment advertising, what do you do as a company?
> 
> You try to get rid of them. For example, by lowering rates to ridiculously low levels with the hope that most of these angry drivers will quit. Bear in mind that ceteris paribus, all else equal, the more angry a driver is, the more likely he/she is going to quit.


The most desperate of drivers stay, that can erode the quality of the product. In my market, 4 cancel fees have a higher payout than 6 completed non-surge minimum trips. That is strange logic, so who knows what the next step is.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider (Nov 28, 2015)

negeorgia said:


> The most desperate of drivers stay, that can erode the quality of the product. In my market, 4 cancel fees have a higher payout than 6 completed non-surge minimum trips. That is strange logic, so who knows what the next step is.


Maybe what you see among drivers is different. From drivers' posts here it seems like the ones who have other good paying jobs (i.e., the non-desperate ones) are significantly cutting down their hours and either only drive a trip or two a month to keep active or drive only during surges. And some angry ones said they have quit (maybe they are lying).

If a driver is not angry, but just thinks the fares are too low, they won't let their emotions take over and quit. They will keep active to wait for opportunities to drive and make money (surges, or future fare increase, etc.)


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

ClevelandUberRider said:


> By hiding behind a coterie of highly paid attorneys and walking closely along the edges of the letter of the law in recruitment advertising rather than staying comfortably inside the spirit of the law on this, Uber is now faced with a lot of disgruntled, irrational, desperate, emotionally distraught drivers.
> 
> Knowing that no sane and rich companies want to associate with such people under any circumstances and knowing that the only reason you end up with them today is due to your past mistake in driver recruitment advertising, what do you do as a company?
> 
> You try to get rid of them. For example, by lowering rates to ridiculously low levels with the hope that most of these angry drivers will quit. Bear in mind that ceteris paribus, all else equal, the more angry a driver is, the more likely he/she is going to quit.


Keep in mind they are lowering rates so low that even the SRF can't keep up to enable them to earn any kind of profit so yeah they are still making money with lower rates, but not nearly as much as if they just kept the rates higher so there must be an agenda that has nothing to do with the profit. The only agenda that makes sense is that they are solely trying to put the taxis(ie, competition) out of business. Keep in mind, thus far it doesn't appear Uber has ever turned a profit. That makes no sense unless there is another agenda.

Once the taxis are out of business they are free to raise the rates due to lack of competition.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

They are using all the investory money to pay all the new driver bonus'. It's kinda like a pyramid scheme and we all know what happens in the end when no profit is actually being made.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider (Nov 28, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Keep in mind they are lowering rates so low that even the SRF can't keep up to enable them to earn any kind of profit so yeah they are still making money with lower rates, but not nearly as much as if they just kept the rates higher so there must be an agenda that has nothing to do with the profit. The only agenda that makes sense is that they are solely trying to put the taxis(ie, competition) out of business. Keep in mind, thus far it doesn't appear Uber has ever turned a profit. That makes no sense unless there is another agenda.
> 
> Once the taxis are out of business they are free to raise the rates due to lack of competition.


Right there, in your last sentence, you have just answered your own question(s). The reason almost all companies exist is to maximize their profits. It doesn't have to be this year's profit (like Amazon's first several years, Uber overall has been losing money because of the huge spending to open new markets), but their expected future profits "discounted" back to today (for those without college Finance background, to avoid unnecessary confusion, just consider "discounted" as "computed back to today's equivalent dollars"). Say a father offers his son either a $10 today or $500 two years from now. Assuming the father is credible (will deliver on his promise), what is the son's profit-maximizing "corporate" decision? Of course choosing the $500. By driving out Lyft and other cab companies, like you said, Uber can then raise prices like a monopoly. That, is just an attempt at profit-maximization. ("Attempt" is the operative word here, as not all attempts will be successful.)


----------



## negeorgia (Feb 1, 2015)

I guess I labeled myself as in the 'most desperate'. Actually, I remain a driver to see what happens next. 100,000 business miles, blown motor, or faulty transmission. If you have no income, you have no taxes; Uber is a great way to have no income.


----------



## ClevelandUberRider (Nov 28, 2015)

negeorgia said:


> I guess I labeled myself as in the 'most desperate'. Actually, I remain a driver to see what happens next. 100,000 business miles, blown motor, or faulty transmission. If you have no income, you have no taxes; Uber is a great way to have no income.


Hang in there and be strong.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Translation: All I care about is not having a set work schedule, I don't care if they pay me below minimum wage, can fire me at will for no reason at all, don't have to pay any of my costs of driving that I bear the sole responsibility for, don't have to pay for my unemployment insurance for when they fire me at will for no reason at all, nor the many other reasons that being an employee has benefits over being classified as an independent contractor. p.s. Yes, I know that even though I'm an employee that doesn't prevent them from allowing me to work when I want, but for some reason I think that it won't allow me to.


Of course they won't allow you to work whenever because as an employee you will be told where and when to work. California is already a "right to work" state which essentially means that even as an employee unless you are in a union you can be fired at any time for any reason by your employer. Obama care is as good as any health care uber would be giving us and controlling my own taxes is a better deal than having uber take it off the top.

Unionizing should not be limited to employees, perhaps a strong trade association would be a good starting place. If drivers would actually join it. Anyway it appears drivers are already protesting by not driving or running the minimums and thats the best way to hurt uber right now. Demand was high last weekend and fewer cars were available because drivers are actually avoiding trips now that the rate cut makes it impossible to make a profit hustling. It's more profitable to suck the minimum guarantees and let uber subsidize us for a change. I had pax tell me they have to wait to get a driver and then wait longer for them to arrive. THey are also telling me that many more drivers are screening so keep it up uberpeople our tactics are being felt.


----------



## negeorgia (Feb 1, 2015)

ClevelandUberRider said:


> Hang in there and be strong.


Lol, shifting from baby step 3 to 4... I am finally in the things will get better someday that I said in my 20's and 30's.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Keep in mind they are lowering rates so low that even the SRF can't keep up to enable them to earn any kind of profit so yeah they are still making money with lower rates, but not nearly as much as if they just kept the rates higher so there must be an agenda that has nothing to do with the profit. The only agenda that makes sense is that they are solely trying to put the taxis(ie, competition) out of business. Keep in mind, thus far it doesn't appear Uber has ever turned a profit. That makes no sense unless there is another agenda.
> 
> Once the taxis are out of business they are free to raise the rates due to lack of competition.


Or it's a tactic to figure out what the lowest hourly rate they can pay a driver is once they are forced to make us employees. Funny because what they should be learning is that they will go out of business if they actually had to pay drivers a living wage to drive at their low rates. DUH I guess thats why cabs are 3x the price. The plan that somehow they can skirt minimum wage and subsidize themselves on the backs of the drivers is pretty obvious and their own guaranteed minimums proves it. Uber has unwittingly created a new classification of worker by declaring us to be hobbyists or not actually driving to make money but more as a way to "meet people" and "have fun," which is obviously complete BS and has no legality. We aren't considered by Uber, the politicians or the pax as working people doing a job. It's more like we are just their personal buddy that's gonna come pick them up and take them wherever they want because its a nice thing to do and hey it's the "sharing" economy....

Educate your pax on the situation and don't pretend to be doing this sh*t job because it's fun and you don't need the money. no one drives uber because it's fun.


----------



## negeorgia (Feb 1, 2015)

I find educating the pax to tedious and pointless. I am either driving people to low paying jobs or the young drunk crowd home or Uber ride of shame.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Lyft settlement with drivers still in play as judge asks questions*
*http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N15Q2LX*


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

chi1cabby said:


> *Lyft settlement with drivers still in play as judge asks questions*
> *http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N15Q2LX*


It looks like this judge actually is very smart. This lawsuit is a sellout, exactly what I said on page two or three of this thread. The lawyers ought to be ashamed of themselves for taking whatever payout Lyft gave them to bribe them into trying to push this bs settlement on the drivers that doesn't benefit them in any way, shape, or form and doesn't even entitle them to being classified as employees which is exactly what the lawsuit is even about originally.

God bless this judge. I hope he doesn't cave.


----------

