# This is one way Uber and Lyft want to get around making drivers employees



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...or-classification-third-category-tech-policy/*This is one way Uber and Lyft want to get around making drivers employees*
*The ride-hailing companies want to create a third category of workers. 
That's had mixed results in other countries.*
TECHNOLOGY REVIEW by Angela Chen Sep 13, 2019

This week, California passed a bill that would make gig workers-including Uber and Lyft drivers-employees instead of independent contractors. It's a big blow for ride-hailing firms in the state and the start of a long battle.

A spokesperson for Uber has already stated that it won't reclassify its workers because drivers aren't "a core part" of its business. (The new bill, called AB5, clarifies that people are employees if their work is central to the business. Uber's claim is certain to be debated.) Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash have also pledged $90 million to fund a campaign to let residents vote on whether these workers should have a new classification, one that that is neither employee nor independent contractor.

Though not used in the US, this "third category" has been implemented in other countries-and in some cases, the results are a cautionary tale. Here's what that category means for Uber and Lyft drivers and the future of work.

*What is this third category of worker? *
In the US, the exact definition and rights of an "employee" can vary at the state level, but there are only two categories of workers: employees and independent contractors. Other countries, though, have more classifications. The United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, Canada, Italy, and South Korea all have this in-between category, according to Miriam Cherry, an employment law expert at St. Louis University. They have different names, such as "worker" in the UK or "trade" in Spain.

*What's at stake? What can third-category workers get and what don't they get? *
Employees usually receive federal minimum wage and, among other benefits, sick leave, paid vacation time, and Social Security and Medicare contributions. Independent contractors are not entitled to these benefits. In addition, they can't sue for sexual harassment or gender discrimination under federal law because workplace civil rights laws only apply to employees.

There's no hard-and-fast rule for what third-category workers receive. In some countries they receive minimum wage and in others, they don't. In Europe, one issue of contention was vacation, says Cherry. "Unions and workers have really fought for time for people to take a vacation, but employers have complained, and that is one of the things in their third category that is less generous," she says. But the US doesn't have generous vacation leave policies anyway, so ironically, there are fewer rights to lose.

Another big question is whether third-category workers will be allowed to unionize. Federally, independent contractors are not allowed to unionize, but Uber and Lyft have said they would support sectoral bargaining, which would allow drivers industry-wide to bargain collectively. Before the California bill passed, the companies had tried to negotiate by offering a new $21 hourly minimum wage (but only when a passenger is in the car, so time spent finding passengers and driving to pick someone up doesn't count).

Cherry points out that it can be extremely difficult to implement a third category. "You're basically saying they're not going to get as many rights, so then you have to decide what to take away, and all those things are very difficult decisions," she says. "I'd have to say I'm against it, because the devil is in the details."

*How has the third category worked out in other countries? *
The results have been mixed. In the United Kingdom, gig workers in this third category have won minimum wage and paid holidays. But in Italy, many companies simply moved their previously full-time employees into the new category, leaving them with fewer benefits.

For her part, Shona Clarkson, lead organizer with the activist campaign Gig Workers Rising, says the proposals from ride-hailing companies are "a watered-down version of what drivers have been demanding for years" and do not fulfill their other needs. Gig Workers Rising will continue to fight for drivers to be full employees, she says, adding that the $90 million campaign is evidence that "these companies are afraid."


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

The third category is called "serf" or "esne"...


----------



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

The 4th category:
Bend over/grab ankles employee.


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

Drivers are not a core part of Uber's business because Uber's core business is running a Ponzi scheme.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

No chance in hell. All Uber can do is try to stall. They literally have no argument.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

There is no need for a new category. Good news is, now the drivers are becoming employees, they can sue Uber for sexual harassment in the workplace. When my vehicle runs a pool ride with 4 strangers, it's a workplace.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

XPG said:


> No to 3rd category. I want to be an employee. Just as it is. Limit my employment with your competitor if you want to.
> 
> Good news is, now the drivers are becoming employees, they can sue Uber for sexual harassment in the workplace.When my vehicle runs a pool ride with 4 strangers, it's a workplace.


Good.
You have an employee mentality.
Now, go put your peach polyester leisure suit on and accept all pool rides, m'kay?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> Good.
> You have an employee mentality.
> Now, go put your peach polyester leisure suit on and accept all pool rides, m'kay?


and get paid AND reimbursed now for EACH ride


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> Good.
> You have an employee mentality.
> Now, go put your peach polyester leisure suit on and accept all pool rides, m'kay?


And you have a troll mentality. A butthurt one.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

AB 5 and the NYC regulations are a lame attempt ...like collecting water with a collander. 

Restore rates to 2015 levels.

Problem fixed.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

XPG said:


> ...now the drivers are becoming employees, they can sue Uber for sexual harassment in the workplace.


that's not how it works (and I hope you know that).

Your car is your workplace - not Uber's. 
Uber has no control over your work environment.
The passengers are not employees of Uber, and
you have control over who you allow into your workplace. 
_Case Dismissed._

Good luck suing your rider for sexual harassment.
Assault? No problem... go for it!


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> AB 5 and the NYC regulations are a lame attempt ...like collecting water with a collander.
> 
> Restore rates to 2015 levels.
> 
> Problem fixed.


And when they voluntarily refuse to restore rates to 2015 levels, then what ?


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> that's not how it works (and I hope you know that).
> 
> Your car is your workplace - not Uber's.


 What if i'm an employee of Uber?


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> And when they voluntarily refuse to restore rates to 2015 levels, then what ?


File a suit against both Uber and Lyft for price fixing.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

XPG said:


> What if i'm an employee of Uber?


Still your car and your environment. Unless, as an employee, you're told you have to accept a particular rider, or every rider...
which will NEVER happen due to the liability. 
Even if they gave you a car to use it wouldn't matter. It's your environment to control.

You can't take a job as a pole dancer in a club and then sue the club because the customers are sexually harassing you.
Assault is a different story.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You can't take a job as a pole dancer in a club and then sue the club because the customers are sexually harassing you.
> Assault is a different story.


 Right, but you review my scenario based on the existing law. I'm trying to forecast possible lawsuit cases once current drivers get full employment rights.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

XPG said:


> Right, but you review my scenario based on the existing law. I'm trying to forecast possible lawsuit cases once current drivers get full employment rights.


if pax can sue Uber for getting assaulted by drivers you can sue Uber for getting assaulted by riders

if Uber has to clean up drivers Uber also has to clean up riders

we would all love to see riders get background checked


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> No chance in hell. All Uber can do is try to stall. They literally have no argument.


That "stall" can go on for years. And those years willl be used to perfect Autonomous cars. I heard on Bloomberg Just TODAY that Californians would be more inclined to trust 
self driving cars if they had their own lane.
and their own lane they shall have

https://calmatters.org/projects/self-driving-cars-california-climate-goals-carbon-free/
_"If properly managed, the coming driverless-car revolution could address other vexing problems as well, said Daniel Sperling, who directs the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis. He cited his sister's poor peripheral vision, which prevents her from driving.

"It could lead to a dramatic improvement in safety, a dramatic improvement for mobility for the elderly, for physically disabled people and for low-income communities," he said. For many, autonomous vehicles will mean emancipation. "_

_ autonomous vehicles will mean
EMANCIPATION_


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Cold Fusion said:


> That "stall" can go on for years. And those years willl be used to perfect Autonomous cars. I heard on Bloomberg Just TODAY that Californians would be more inclined to trust
> self driving cars if they had their own lane.
> and their own lane they shall have
> 
> ...


the law goes into effect January 1st

they can try to stall all they want, but there isn't any stopping this train

and as we've already seen, SDC's will never happen


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> A spokesperson for Uber has already stated that it won't reclassify its workers because drivers aren't "a core part" of its business. (The


This is how ludicrous Uber is, it's like they are using Trumps tricks of lie and deny.

Uber's entire core of business is drivers. That's it without drivers they have nothing and would not make a penny.



XPG said:


> There is no need for a new category. Good news is, now the drivers are becoming employees, they can sue Uber for sexual harassment in the workplace. When my vehicle runs a pool ride with 4 strangers, it's a workplace.


You can't sue your company because a customer sexually harasses you. unless you report it and they force you to keep driving that person. Sexual harassment is when an employee of that company harasses you.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> File a suit against both Uber and Lyft for price fixing.


You can 't file a suit for price fixing, it's a criminal (not civil offense) - you have to get a prosecutor to do it.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Lee239 said:


> This is how ludicrous Uber is, it's like they are using Trumps tricks of lie and deny.
> 
> Uber's entire core of business is drivers. That's it without drivers they have nothing and would not make a penny.
> 
> ...


Trump?
GTFO of here.

Irrelevant.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> You can 't file a suit for price fixing, it's a criminal (not civil offense) - you have to get a prosecutor to do it.


I know. I wonder if any RICO statutes were violated.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Lee239 said:


> This is how ludicrous Uber is, it's like they are using Trumps tricks of lie and deny.
> Uber's entire core of business is drivers. That's it without drivers they have nothing and would not make a penny.


That's today - but not their ultimate business plan - which is for autonomous cars. Remember, you signed an agreement as a drive that say's you agree to be an independent contractor (yeah, it's meaningless, but still) and Uber has always, 100% and repeatedly said it's a Technology Company, not a transportation company. They will make that case in court - and eventually, a high court of national authority will rule on it.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

Lee239 said:


> You can't sue your company because a customer sexually harasses you


 Ok, what if a female employee sue Uber, based on the business model that puts the employee at risk? Uber is forcing this lady pick up 4 different dudes from the same strip club, because Uber app keeps adding extra drivers on a pool ride without driver's consent.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's today - but not their ultimate business plan - which is for autonomous cars. Remember, you signed an agreement as a drive that say's you agree to be an independent contractor (yeah, it's meaningless, but still) and Uber has always, 100% and repeatedly said it's a Technology Company, not a transportation company. They will make that case in court - and eventually, a high court of national authority will rule on it.


But today they can't replace you with a driverless cars so they do rely on drivers and act as a dispatch service.

What their business plan doesn't matter, they can change it to flying people to Mars and t doesn't mean the only way they can make money now if for drivers to use their own cars and gas to drive people around.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> I know. I wonder if any RICO statutes were violated.


How? In what way has Uber been racketeering? So far, everything they've done has been ruled 'legal' by the courts or settled out of court. Anti-Trust could be an issue - but only if you could prove that Uber and Lyft colluded manipulate the market, which obviously they didn't since they keep lowering fares in order to kill each other.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

XPG said:


> Right, but you review my scenario based on the existing law. I'm trying to forecast possible lawsuit cases once current drivers get full employment rights.


They will not get full employment rights until a case is heard.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

XPG said:


> Ok, what if a female employe sue Uber, based on the business model that puts the employee at risk? Uber is forcing this lady pick up 4 different dudes from the same strip club, because Uber app keeps adding extra drivers on a pool ride without driver's consent.


Uber is not FORCING anyone to pick up anyone.
If they do, then they would be liable - which is why they never will.



Lee239 said:


> But today they can't replace you with a driverless cars so they do rely on drivers and act as a dispatch service.
> 
> What their business plan doesn't matter, they can change it to flying people to Mars and t doesn't mean the only way they can make money now if for drivers to use their own cars and gas to drive people around.


I don't disagree - but so far, most appeals courts do.
I'm not the one you need to convince.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> How? In what way has Uber been racketeering? So far, everything they've done has been ruled 'legal' by the courts or settled out of court. Anti-Trust could be an issue - but only if you could prove that Uber and Lyft colluded manipulate the market, which obviously they didn't since they keep lowering fares in order to kill each other.


They did collude on opposing ab5.

Collectively, they destroyed the industry by cutting each other's throats with drivers supplying the blood.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber is not FORCING anyone to pick up anyone.
> If they do, then they would be liable - which is why they never will.


 What if i'm an employee, and Uber is setting me up for scheduled pool rides from the most undesirable strip club in the hood? My other is option termination formerly know as deactivation.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

XPG said:


> What if i'm an employee, and Uber is setting me up for scheduled pool rides from the most undesirable strip club in the hood? My other is option termination formerly know as deactivation.


You have the option to do the ride or quit. You can quit any job, no one if forced to do work that they don't want to do. If you get there and as you area approaching each person has an AK 47 you have the right to refuse to do the ride if you feel your life is imminently in danger.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

Lee239 said:


> You have the option to do the ride or quit.


 What happened to employee rights? If you are a female employee and are forced to quit your job because of intolerable working conditions, such as dangerous pool rides from strip clubs, you may be able to sue your employer. According to law, you can sue your company if your company has dangerous work conditions, such as adding extra pool riders without rider's consent.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> How? In what way has Uber been racketeering? So far, everything they've done has been ruled 'legal' by the courts or settled out of court. Anti-Trust could be an issue - but only if you could prove that Uber and Lyft colluded manipulate the market, which obviously they didn't since they keep lowering fares in order to kill each other.


Get a load of this.
Complicates matters...

https://uberpeople.net/threads/ubers-matching-algorithm.351609/


----------



## VanGuy (Feb 15, 2019)

I'm all for and have said a couple times there should be a new class of employee. I'm surprised we already had one in Canada. This is the first I'm hearing of it.

There needs to be something to keep a decent pay floor, some benefits would be nice, while allowing the flexibility of the gig environment. Now I need to see if I can find out what they're talking about up here.


----------



## Roadmasta (Aug 4, 2017)

No rights, no benefits, no money and can't sue them. Your a sucker especially if your a diamond driver.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

XPG said:


> What happened to employee rights? If you are a female employee and are forced to quit your job because of intolerable working conditions, such as dangerous pool rides from strip clubs, you may be able to sue your employer. According to law, you can sue your company if your company has dangerous work conditions, such as adding extra pool riders without rider's consent.


Your job is picking up people in strip clubs. If you don't like it work in the morning.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> They did collude on opposing ab5.
> 
> Collectively, they destroyed the industry by cutting each other's throats with drivers supplying the blood.


That's not colluding. (or do you think the state just didn't notice the very public announcement that both companies, not surprisingly, want to defeat AB5 and have committed $90 mil to achieve that goal?)

Anti-Trust laws "protect consumers from predatory business practices". Two companies in the same industry publicly tying to defeat legislation they say will hurt consumers is not an Anti-Trust violation - even if they agree to both fund, say a lobbyist or PR firm to battle the legislation. That's a 'Trade Association' - perfectly normal and legal.



XPG said:


> What if i'm an employee, and Uber is setting me up for scheduled pool rides from the most undesirable strip club in the hood? My other is option termination formerly know as deactivation.


too many hypotheticals. Let me know when it happens - and how you respond when it does... and how they respond to your response.
Then I'll be able to craft an opinion. :smiles:


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

VanGuy said:


> I'm all for and have said a couple times there should be a new class of employee. I'm surprised we already had one in Canada. This is the first I'm hearing of it.
> 
> There needs to be something to keep a decent pay floor, some benefits would be nice, while allowing the flexibility of the gig environment. Now I need to see if I can find out what they're talking about up here.


Nothing in AB5 prevents you from going online when you want. Nothing. End of story.

All that is happening is Uber is blackmailing drivers with the threat of setting schedules if you don't go against AB5. If they needed to set schedules you would be on one already.

Absolutely positively no new employee exploiting category is needed.


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

Lee239 said:


> Your job is picking up people in strip clubs. If you don't like it work in the morning.


What if the strip club is open 24 hours?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Cold Fusion said:


> That "stall" can go on for years. And those years willl be used to perfect Autonomous cars. I heard on Bloomberg Just TODAY that Californians would be more inclined to trust
> self driving cars if they had their own lane.
> and their own lane they shall have
> 
> ...


How will that lane work in a crowded urban area with clubs and bars on every corner and drunk people all in the streets at 2am? I'm in Houston, but it can't be any different in CA.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber is not FORCING anyone to pick up anyone.
> If they do, then they would be liable - which is why they never will.


I disagree. They will deactivate you NOW for canceling. How much more likely will they be to fire you for canceling as an employee?

How is that not interpreted as forcing you to pick pax up? It's the very reason many folks don't work the drunk shift, because they don't want to be in a position of deciding whether to increase their cancel rate or take someone they'd prefer not to.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's today - but not their ultimate business plan - which is for autonomous cars. Remember, you signed an agreement as a drive that say's you agree to be an independent contractor (yeah, it's meaningless, but still) and Uber has always, 100% and repeatedly said it's a Technology Company, not a transportation company. They will make that case in court - and eventually, a high court of national authority will rule on it.


Their ultimate business plan as of? They can't say that was their plan when uber started; clearly it wasn't. And you can't decide at some point that you'll change your business plan just so you can say you're not in a business you absolutely appear to be in.

Besides, who cares? It's now that matters. You can't treat your employees a different way from what's legal based on what your business might morph into TOMORROW.


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Nothing in AB5 prevents you from going online when you want. Nothing. End of story.
> 
> All that is happening is Uber is blackmailing drivers with the threat of setting schedules if you don't go against AB5. If they needed to set schedules you would be on one already.
> 
> Absolutely positively no new employee exploiting category is needed.


Uber knows

the majority of drivers Don't want to be employees.
California wants More Employees to Increase ⬆ the state Tax Base
Leaving less take home for drivers
Soon Uber driver employees will need to supplement their Uber take home pay.

What size chicken suit do u wear @uberdriverfornow ?
The good news: u can continue to offer the same customer service level ?


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Cold Fusion said:


> Uber knows
> 
> the majority of drivers Don't want to be employees.
> California wants More Employees to Increase ⬆ the state Tax Base
> ...


Good little boy!
Now you have insulted three people with your Big Bird Poo.

Now, finish your pudding and take a nap.


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

XPG said:


> What happened to employee rights? If you are a female employee and are forced to quit your job because of intolerable working conditions, such as dangerous pool rides from strip clubs, you may be able to sue your employer. According to law, you can sue your company if your company has dangerous work conditions, such as adding extra pool riders without rider's consent.


You're illustrating why most Lawyer don't allow Uber drivers past
Lobby Security



Wolfgang Faust said:


> Good little boy!
> Now you have insulted three people with your Big Bird Poo.
> 
> Now, finish your pudding and take a nap.


You're getting 0rnery Old Timer @Wolfgang Faust 
Time to Change your Depend® Diaper


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

No one is on board for that, not drivers for sure.

Oh oh oh, since we have "employee" and "contractor" already can we call this one "slave"?


----------



## wicked (Sep 24, 2017)

Lee239 said:


> This is how ludicrous Uber is, it's like they are using Trumps tricks of lie and deny.
> 
> Uber's entire core of business is drivers. That's it without drivers they have nothing and would not make a penny.
> 
> ...


Wrong. Businesses have a legal obligation to protect employees from sexual harassment by customers. At least in CA


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

wicked said:


> Wrong. Businesses have a legal obligation to protect employees from sexual harassment by customers. At least in CA


But they can't read minds, the nature of the business is to pick up strangers. If a pax sexually harasses a driver they do need to make sure it doesn't happen to another one but they can't prevent what people do.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Still your car and your environment. Unless, as an employee, you're told you have to accept a particular rider, or every rider...
> which will NEVER happen due to the liability.


Actually he has a point if he's an employee of uber and there isn't one rider not sent by uber and one of them acts up in an illegal fashion uber bears culpability for not vetting its riders. Uber is likely to play the numbers game and bet on something like that happening so infrequently that they can deal with them on a case by case basis and make the problems individually go away and continue to not vet riders.

Where it's really going to get interesting is when more openness is forced on uber for example the ratings system I'm willing to bet minorities consistently receive lower ratings, (and tips), from riders, how much I don't know, but if it's significant, and uber has been taking action based on those ratings that negatively impact minority drivers what level of responsibility do they now have to make that right, and in what form? Ping priority, some form of pay out, coupled with perhaps determining the mean difference and altering minority ratings to account for that?

See that's the thing about drivers being employees uber's not going to be able to continue it's secretive bee-ess. It's going to come under a lot of scrutiny to ensure it is and remains in compliance with relevant employment laws, and to the extent that it doesn't employees will have the ability to seek redress, and if it's egregious probably monetary compensation.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Wonkytonk said:


> Actually he has a point if he's an employee of uber and there isn't one rider not sent by uber and one of them acts up in an illegal fashion uber bears culpability for not vetting its riders. Uber is likely to play the numbers game and bet on something like that happening so infrequently that they can deal with them on a case by case basis and make the problems individually go away and continue to not vet riders.
> 
> Where it's really going to get interesting is when more openness is forced on uber for example the ratings system I'm willing to bet minorities consistently receive lower ratings, (and tips), from riders, how much I don't know, but if it's significant, and uber has been taking action based on those ratings that negatively impact minority drivers what level of responsibility do they now have to make that right, and in what form? Ping priority, some form of pay out, coupled with perhaps determining the mean difference and altering minority ratings to account for that?
> 
> See that's the thing about drivers being employees uber's not going to be able to continue it's secretive bee-ess. It's going to come under a lot of scrutiny to ensure it is and remains in compliance with relevant employment laws, and to the extent that it doesn't employees will have the ability to seek redress, and if it's egregious probably monetary compensation.


I don't think so.
Your car, your environment - you control your work environment.

Have you ever heard of a restaurant being held legally liable for servers of 'color' earning less in tips that white servers?
Find that case and I'll buy into what you're selling.
.



Cold Fusion said:


> Uber knows the majority of drivers Don't want to be employees.


No - that's what Uber says what 'drivers' want.
Drivers are a very diverse group of people who do not all want the same thing from Uber.


> California wants More Employees to Increase the state Tax Base


*Nonsense. *
The state may want more tax COMPLIANCE but if independent contractors pay taxes on the earnings as required by law, then turning some or even all ICs into employees is a wash for the state but *a GAIN for the employees, who benefit from their employer paying the EMPLOYER share of payroll taxes. That's a MINIMUM 7.5% gain for employees.* (Not to mention mandatory heal Insurance participation)
.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> too many hypotheticals. Let me know when it happens - and how you respond when it does... and how they respond to your response.
> Then I'll be able to craft an opinion. :smiles:


 Uber have more than 200.000 drivers in California, one of them has sued Uber as soon as California legislators voted AB5. My hypothetical scenario might not happen, but i expect to see similar lawsuits. Mostly based on manipulative app tactics. Pool rides will be a major problem for Uber.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> How will that lane work in a crowded urban area with clubs and bars on every corner and drunk people all in the streets at 2am? I'm in Houston, but it can't be any different in CA.
> 
> 
> I disagree. They will deactivate you NOW for canceling. How much more likely will they be to fire you for canceling as an employee?
> ...


All good stuff for discussion - just not sure it's anything more than hypotheticals about what will be under new rules and policies and laws that have yet to be established. But I can't think of any judge who wold not rule an employee has the right to protect them self... well, except Supreme Court Justicel Gorsuch, who dissented and wrote that the company which fired one its truck drivers who had abandoned the company's disabled vehicle while in freezing temperatures in order to save his own life was in it's rights to fire him for that action... Oh, and one more that might side with Uber and corporate America: Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh who dissented in a decision that found Sea World knew about the dangers of working with its killer whale when the wale killed one of the company's employees.

Gorsuch Case
Kavanaugh Case



XPG said:


> Uber have more than 200.000 drivers in California, one of them has sued Uber as soon as California legislators voted AB5. My hypothetical scenario might not happen, but i expect to see similar lawsuits. Mostly based on manipulative app tactics. Pool rides will be a major problem for Uber.


I don't see the connection to the discussion.


----------



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

Wolfgang Faust said:


> AB 5 and the NYC regulations are a lame attempt ...like collecting water with a collander.
> 
> Restore rates to 2015 levels.
> 
> Problem fixed.


Who is listening to you! If they wanted to do that it would be done already, rated will go down until you run in the negative and you don't have a collective to go bargain. Who you bargaining with ROHIT? That's why the state stepped in.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> All good stuff for discussion - just not sure it's anything more than hypotheticals about what will be under new rules and policies and laws that have yet to be established. But I can't think of any judge who wold not rule an employee has the right to protect them self... well, except Supreme Court Justicel Gorsuch, who dissented and wrote that the company which fired one its truck drivers who had abandoned the company's disabled vehicle while in freezing temperatures in order to save his own life was in it's rights to fire him for that action... Oh, and one more that might side with Uber and corporate America: Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh who dissented in a decision that found Sea World knew about the dangers of working with its killer whale when the wale killed one of the company's employees.
> 
> Gorsuch Case
> Kavanaugh Case
> ...


If I ever get Kavanaugh as a pax, I'm going to cancel en route, kick him out and file that a drunk guy grabbed my junk, then send the Lyft complain to my local media.??


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Who is listening to you! If they wanted to do that it would be done already, rated will go down until you run in the negative and you don't have a collective to go bargain. Who you bargaining with ROHIT? That's why the state stepped in.
> 
> 
> If I ever get Kavanaugh as a pax, I'm going to cancel en route, kick him out and file that a drunk guy grabbed my junk, then send the Lyft complain to my local media.??


Maybe you'll get Mary Pete as a passenger. He'll toss your salad and make you very happy.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I don't see the connection to the discussion.


 Being classified as an employee will give Uber drivers more rights. If customers are able to sue Uber for manipulative app design that puts the public at risk, employees can sue Uber for the same reason. And they will..


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I don't think so.
> Your car, your environment - you control your work environment.
> 
> Have you ever heard of a restaurant being held legally liable for servers of 'color' earning less in tips that white servers?
> ...


The form of redress at least for drivers doesn't have to be directly with the courts. For example EEOC complaints in the scenario I was discussing above comes immediatly to mind. Really no matter what Uber is in for some rough water ahead unless it pulls it's figurative head out of it's backside.



XPG said:


> Being classified as an employee will give Uber drivers more rights. If customers are able to sue Uber for manipulative app design that puts the public at risk, employees can sue Uber for the same reason. And they will..


For example Uber knows that the ratings system puts unreasonable pressure on drivers to do illegal 'stuff' on the road to avoid the extortion of riders demanding illegal activity, not wanting to wear seatbelts where it's required by law, illegal u-turns, driving down a one way street the wrong way because a rider says doing it legally would take too long etc. These are all things I've been down rated for for refusing to allow, and uber is well aware that downrating is happening daily and pressuring drivers to capitulate.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> For example Uber knows that the ratings system puts unreasonable pressure on drivers to do illegal 'stuff' on the road to avoid the extortion of riders demanding illegal activity, not wanting to wear seatbelts where it's required by law, illegal u-turns, driving down a one way street the wrong way because a rider says doing it legally would take too long etc. These are all things I've been down rated for for refusing to allow, and uber is well aware that downrating is happening daily and pressuring drivers to capitulate.


 And you'll have every right to sue your employer based on the discrimination. Let's say, you are a black server at X restaurant. You can sue your employer, if you believe you earn less tips than white servers.

You can look at the Campus Johnson's case -Johnson v. Red Rooster- for discrimination against black bartenders. Campus Johnson was an employee at Red Rooster, where he was the only male black bartender out of 10 most of the time. He claims that not only is there "a plain hostility to black bartenders" - based solely on the fact that there was a minority of black male bartenders - but that the restaurant also "routinely" stole employee tips, according to a suit.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Have you ever heard of a restaurant being held legally liable for servers of 'color' earning less in tips that white servers?
> Find that case and I'll buy into what you're selling.


 Tips are one result from rider to driver with a negative impact, but let's not miss the other part the part where lower rider ratings against minority drivers and uber taking negative actions against drivers for those lower ratings like lower ping priority which would have a direct monetary impact on those minority drivers.

That would be actionable against Uber, and I believe they are currently doing that.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

XPG said:


> And you'll have every right to sue your employer based on the discrimination. Let's say, you are a black server at X restaurant. You can sue your employer, if you believe you earn less tips than white servers.
> 
> You can look at the Campus Johnson's case -Johnson v. Red Rooster- for discrimination against black bartenders. Campus Johnson was an employee at Red Rooster, where he was the only male black bartender out of 10 most of the time. He claims that not only is there "a plain hostility to black bartenders" - based solely on the fact that there was a minority of black male bartenders - but that the restaurant also "routinely" stole employee tips, according to a suit.


 when you go to court against Uber using that same claim, I will be watching for the results. It's not comprable in any way:

In the case cited, the employer is completely in control of the work environment. That is not the case in an Uber drivers car.

In the case cited, the complainant was the only employee that was a minority. That is also not the case with Uber.

I think you would be very hard-pressed to be able to make a case that Uber deliberately employs or hires fewer minorities then white folk in the US. lol



I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> If I ever get Kavanaugh as a pax, I'm going to cancel en route, kick him out and file that a drunk guy grabbed my junk, then send the Lyft complain to my local media.??


I wouldn't do that unless you would like to end up like Christine Ford Blazey.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> when you go to court against Uber using that same claim, I will be watching for the results.


 I have no plans to sue Uber, but i'll be watching upcoming employee v Uber lawsuits.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> For example Uber knows that the ratings system puts unreasonable pressure on drivers to do illegal 'stuff' on the road to avoid the extortion of riders demanding illegal activity, not wanting to wear seatbelts where it's required by law, illegal u-turns, driving down a one way street the wrong way because a rider says doing it legally would take too long etc. These are all things I've been down rated for for refusing to allow, and uber is well aware that downrating is happening daily and pressuring drivers to capitulate.


Stop worrying about ratings. After giving over 4,000 rides I've never had a passenger tell me to do anything illegal.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

goneubering said:


> Stop worrying about ratings. After giving over 4,000 rides I've never had a passenger tell me to do anything illegal.


And so of course because it doesn't happen to you it never happens to any driver is that the line of reasoning?

Considering I have them do it daily with idiotic complaints about having to put on their seatbelts, requests for illegal u-turns, driving down a street the wrong way, speeding etc, followed by down rating, which again I'll remind I track by specific star rating, and overall, and by day, and the down ratings allways correspond with a refusal to acquiece to their illegal damands, so I'll be sure to give your advice the due consideration it deserves in your market and follow mine in my market. But hey, thanks for the input.


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

Uber's Guber said:


> The 4th category:
> Bend over/grab ankles employee.


 but what if you have a bad back from sitting in the car for 60 hours a week ?


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> And so of course because it doesn't happen to you it never happens to any driver is that the line of reasoning?
> 
> Considering I have them do it daily with idiotic complaints about having to put on their seatbelts, requests for illegal u-turns, driving down a street the wrong way, speeding etc, followed by down rating, which again I'll remind I track by specific star rating, and overall, and by day, and the down ratings allways correspond with a refusal to acquiece to their illegal damands, so I'll be sure to give your advice the due consideration it deserves in your market and follow mine in my market. But hey, thanks for the input.


It sounds like quite a stretch to me to be experiencing such daily trouble but since you drive in Out And About apparently your complaints are totally valid.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

goneubering said:


> It sounds like quite a stretch to me to be experiencing such daily trouble but since you drive in Out And About apparently your complaints are totally valid.


So because you drive where you drive no where else ever has any pax ever requested their drivers either do illegal 'stuff' or allow them to do illegal 'stuff'. Because if your answer to that is, well, obviously some must have, then the argument becomes instantly an argument of degree, and doesn't it fall under the realm of possibility that the degree might perhaps change from market to market might it not?

My original response to you earlier was a bit of hyperbole to be sure, but it happens enough to be a real source of concern. I had one local two days ago that casually asked if seatbelts were required and without missing a beat I replied yes. I could see in the rear view mirror he resented it by the way he was yanking on the seatbelt to put it on, and reviewing the camera footage for archiving he was seething the entire trip but trying to hide it. He rated me 1 star. Seatbelt whiners are usually four star raters. As incidentally so are some pax who don't like cameras in cars but don't mention it during the ride. I frequently see pax staring into the camera trying to either determine what it is, or if it's on as I'm archiving the daily ride footage.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Wonkytonk said:


> My original response to you earlier was a bit of hyperbole to be sure,
> 
> but it happens enough to be a real source of concern. I had one local two days ago that casually asked if seatbelts were required and without missing a beat I replied yes. I could see in the rear view mirror he resented it by the way he was yanking on the seatbelt to put it on, and reviewing the camera footage for archiving he was seething the entire trip but trying to hide it. He rated me 1 star. Seatbelt whiners are usually four star raters. As incidentally so are some pax who don't like cameras in cars but don't mention it during the ride. I frequently see pax staring into the camera trying to either determine what it is, or if it's on as I'm archiving the daily ride footage.


No worries. Some of the complaints I read here seem highly exaggerated or fictional. In this case I shouldn't have said anything.


----------

