# Why A Judge Made Uber Create An Email Address - The Nov 25th agreement has a provision that allows drivers to opt out of the arbitration clause



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

https://jalopnik.com/why-a-judge-made-uber-create-an-email-address-1840342381
On November 25, Uber sent an updated Technology Services Agreement to its drivers through the driver app. Like all terms of service we encounter on the internet, the 27-page, single-spaced agreement flashed across their phones when they opened the app hoping to make some money that day. Drivers couldn't use the app, and therefore drive for Uber, unless they agreed. The app even allows drivers to agree without opening the document at all.

"Nobody reads 30 pages of shit the average human can't understand in the tiniest font in the world," one driver from the Philadelphia market told Jalopnik. "When you're trying to go to work you press 'I agree' and they activate your app."

To be fair, some drivers Jalopnik spoke to did read the entire agreement. But the ones who do often have an even more cynical impression of their relationship with their algorithmic bosses.

"If a driver reads the agreement thoroughly and carefully, it's painfully clear Uber (and Lyft) don't 'have your back' or support drivers," said another driver who requested anonymity out of fear of retaliation from the ridehail companies. "I think most drivers would be stunned if they realized how truly on their own they are out there on the streets in their own cars with total strangers in the back seat."

*Among the many provisions that make this clear is the arbitration provision, which requires drivers to settle disputes with the company in private, closed-door proceedings decided by an arbitrator paid by Uber rather than in court. It also prevents them from joining class-action lawsuits such as over their employment status as independent contractors.*

Not only does the mere presence of an arbitration provision exemplify the control Uber wishes to exert over its so-called "driver-partners," but so does the history of that provision, how it came to be, and what options drivers have to fight it.

*Buried at the bottom of the agreement, there is a provision that allows drivers to opt out of the arbitration clause, giving them the right to sue Uber in court like normal.*

"It's the companies that are trying to go to arbitration because it's to their advantage," Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lawyer who fought Uber for the right to opt out of arbitration, told Jalopnik. "Systematically, it's a system that helps corporate defendants."

Arbitration provisions only work if people agree to them, which is why Uber has made it very easy to agree and very difficult to opt out. In fact, Uber tried to prevent drivers from being able to opt out at all. But, due to Liss-Riordan's efforts, all drivers have to do to opt out is send an email to *[email protected]* from the email address associated with their Uber account and include:

*a statement that makes clear you are opting out of the arbitration provision*
*your name*
*your phone number associated with your Uber account*
*and the city you live*
*It wouldn't hurt to clearly state the email address associated with your Uber account as well, even if the opt-out provision doesn't specifically state that you must*
Alternatively, drivers can use an online tool created by Rideshare Drivers United that walks them through the process. Drivers must do this within 30 days of agreeing to the provision, which gives drivers until December 25, 2019 if they agreed the day the new agreement was distributed.

Three experts Jalopnik spoke to-one law professor and two labor lawyers-made it clear that drivers should absolutely do opt out, with no downside to opting out of the arbitration clause. At the most basic level, drivers can always agree to pursue arbitration later; judges are typically more than happy to remove cases from their docket, and Uber obviously is predisposed to prefer arbitration. So, at the very least, opting out keeps all options on the table at the very least.

Jalopnik sent Uber a list of questions about the arbitration provision, including why the company defaults to making it opt out rather than opt in, and if the company has any stance on what drivers should do. Uber declined to comment. In 2018, Uber's General Counsel Tony West wrote a post saying that Uber would no longer require require mandatory arbitration for sexual assault or sexual harassment claims, but that "arbitration has an important role in the American justice system and includes many benefits for individuals and companies alike."

Not everyone sees it that way. For others, the arbitration clause encapsulates the imbalance of the gig economy in which the cards are stacked against workers from the outset. The arbitration clause, for better or worse, has proven to be a key tool in the gig economy structure to close legal doors, forcing them down a specific, corporate-friendly path that helps maintain their version of the _status quo_.

Uber seems to know this, because it fought hard in court to prevent drivers from being able to opt out at all. Then, it fought again to make is as difficult as possible to do so. Uber even went so far as to argue in open court that creating an email address was too technically difficult for it to implement.

Uber is hardly the only company that prefers arbitration agreements, but it and other gig economy companies arguably benefit more than others from pushing drivers (and riders) to signing them, because their entire business model is built on a controversial worker classification. The arbitration provision has proven to be a hefty road block to challenging that employment status, a fact perhaps best illustrated by the fact that the lawsuit Liss-Riordan filed in 2013 was settled in March 2019 (only drivers in California and Massachusetts who either drove for Uber before July 2013 when they had no mandatory arbitration clause or who opted out could have a piece of the $20 million settlement).

Industry-threatening legal decisions, like whether drivers are independent contractors, or if surge pricing is illegal, get bogged down in years of litigation merely about whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit. And if the issue is successfully forced to arbitration, which it often is, then whatever the arbitrator rules will not set a legal precedent. Instead, the ruling will not be a matter of public record and apply only to that one driver (although an ongoing arbitration case hopes otherwise).

A 2017 article in the University of Chicago Legal Forum summed it up thusly:



> So far, the results are troubling: while it is too early to say what is happening to drivers who pursue arbitration, it is apparent that IACs [Individual Arbitration Clauses] are impeding the development of answers to questions about drivers' employment status, and significantly reducing the value of workers' claims in litigation.


In other words, the arbitration clauses are working just as intended. *But the more drivers that opt out, the better off they will be.*

"*Arbitration provisions, in my opinion, are the legal instruments responsible for the existence and proliferation of the gig economy in its current state,"* said Veena Dubal, a law professor at UC Hastings who studies the legal implications of the gig economy. "*The provisions have prevented legal judgments on any number of matters-including employment status-thus allowing the companies to continue to operate outside the boundaries of the law."*

It used to be much harder to opt out of the arbitration clause.

On July 15, 2013, Uber sent a "Software License And Online Services Agreement" to all of its drivers through the Uber app. The agreement stipulated, among other terms, that "Uber does not provide transportation services and is not a transportation carrier."

Should an Uber driver have read the entire 15-page agreement over which they could not negotiate and needed to agree to in order to keep earning money, they would have learned that they were waiving their rights to sue Uber in court and agreeing to private mediation, otherwise known as arbitration, to be decided by an arbitrator rather than an appointed judge.

Critically, it also prevented them from suing Uber as a group if the circumstances applied to all drivers, an important mechanism for customers of any business to challenge corporate wrongdoing in court. Uber maintained then, and still maintains today, that drivers are their customers.

"Class actions are the typical private enforcement mechanism to force a company to stop violating the law," Dubal said. "Because enough drivers have not opted out of these arbitration agreements to date, Uber has avoided a class action judgment which would otherwise force it to change how it does business."

To be fair, the 2013 arbitration provision did include an opt out mechanism. All drivers had to do was merely hand-deliver a letter to Uber's General Counsel, whose identity the agreement did not disclose, within 30 days.

If the driver could not hand-deliver a letter, he or she had to send their opt-out in hard copy via overnight mail, and only via overnight mail.

Uber Software License and Online Services Agreement, July 15, 2013Screenshot: O'Connor v. Uber

The irony of this was not lost on Liss-Riordan, who filed a class-action lawsuit against Uber a month later that, among other things, challenged the validity of the arbitration provision.

One of the grounds on which she challenged it was how onerous it was to opt out of. Uber, a company slavishly devoted to the Silicon Valley ethos of technological disruption, refused to acknowledge the existence of the internet in its arbitration opt-out process.

Even more ironically, although the lawsuit Liss-Riordian filed was fundamentally about the drivers' employment status as independent contractors, it was specifically about the lack of tipping functionality within the Uber app. At the time, and for years afterwards, Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick steadfastly refused to include a tipping function on the basis that tipping created too much "friction" for riders.

Yet, when it came to drivers opting out of the arbitration clause, suddenly, friction was not a concern. It was, in fact, preferred.

The first six months of the lawsuit, _O'Connor v. Uber, _dealt solely with the arbitration provision; whether it applied, to whom it applied, and whether Uber had to change it now that the company had been sued.

Three months into the case, the judge, Edward Chen, told the respective parties to negotiate a new arbitration clause to address various problems with the 2013 one. The new one had to make clear much earlier in the document that Uber was the subject of ongoing litigation and the arbitration clause would make drivers unable to join that suit. It would also have to make it easier for drivers to opt out, perhaps using this newfangled invention called the internet.

That didn't go well. Four months later, the two sides said negotiations were "unfruitful" and asked Judge Chen to settle the matter himself. In that ruling, Chen noticed Uber's suggestion made a pretty darn significant change: drivers would no longer be able to opt out at all.

From the ruling:

However, the Licensing Agreement does not comply with the Court's Order in that it does not give any means of opting out. Contrary to the prior Licensing Agreement that gave 30 days to opt out of the arbitration provision (by hand delivery or overnight mail), the New Licensing Agreement allows no opt out. The New Licensing Agreement provides: "IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT (INCLUDING THE ARBITRATION PROVISIONS SET FOR IN SECTION 14.3), YOU WILL NO LONGER HAVE ACCESS TO THE UBER SERVICES AND SOFTWARE."
This was particularly irksome because Uber was now facing a potentially ruinous class action lawsuit, the very same case over which Judge Chen was presiding. Uber was trying to prevent any new drivers from joining that case by giving them an ultimatum: either agree not to join this or any other lawsuit or don't work for us.

On the other side, Chen also had problems with the plaintiff's wording, which he thought made it sound like the lawsuit would likely prevail and included a URL for information on the suit the court didn't control. He directed the parties to craft a new agreement that used Uber's wording but kept the opt out provision and made it less onerous to use it.

A month later, Uber returned to court with an updated proposal. This one did make a concession. It allowed for drivers to opt out via regular U.S. mail, which at least no longer required the notice to be shipped overnight.

Liss-Riordan thought this wasn't good enough. After all, Uber is a "technology company," according to that very same agreement. Why not use, ya know, technology, like email?

Uber replied by saying, technology? What technology?

_None of the electronic opt-out mechanisms proposed by Plaintiffs' counsel currently exist, and all would require Uber to reprogram its systems and create new functionality. This burden is simply unwarranted._

It's worth noting that one of the specific "mechanisms" Liss-Riordan proposed was an email address. As in, Uber would set up an email address, tell drivers what that email address is, and then drivers could email it. But that would be an "unwarranted" burden, according to Uber.

Unsurprisingly, Chen was having none of it. He agreed with Uber that it was perhaps burdensome to allow drivers to opt out directly in the agreement but he rejected the idea that setting up an email account was burdensome. He ruled:

_However, little technology is required simply to provide an email address to which drivers can send an opt out notice...Moreover, given that the notices and Revised Licensing Agreement are sent electronically, it is only fair that drivers be afforded an opportunity to opt out electronically.
For her part, Dubal, the law professor at UC Hastings, thinks Chen got this wrong. She told Jalopnik this line of argument from Uber was "patently absurd... Uber represents itself to be a 'technology' company that is on the leading-edge of advanced AI. They can't create an 'opt out' box in their electronic contract? That's ridiculous."_

In either event, that is how it came to be that Uber created an email address for drivers to opt out of arbitration. A judge had to make them.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

I opted out.


----------



## newDriver81 (May 25, 2017)

Subs


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

wait, I was under the impression that if you hadn't opted out before, opting out now wouldn't make a difference ? It sounds like we have yet another opportunity to opt out with the November 29th agreement ?

at any rate. I just opted out &#128526;


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Here's a link to an email form to opt out.., 
https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber...the-latest-uber-arbitration-provision.366293/


----------



## whatyoutalkinboutwillis (Jul 29, 2017)

done


----------



## TheFakeDeal (Nov 19, 2018)

Thanks bro. I just opted out


----------



## Clothahump (Mar 31, 2018)

Thanks for the info. I opted out.

But I thought Uber's email address was ScrewTheDrivers @ uber.com.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Clothahump said:


> Thanks for the info. I opted out.
> 
> But I thought Uber's email address was ScrewTheDrivers @ uber.com.


You got the corporate insider email creative discussion address, mate!


----------



## Steve appleby (May 30, 2015)

Look I’m going to address the elephant that’s in the room. The fact of the matter is if you don’t want to be an independent contractor, go find another job. It’s as simple as that. People are using this arbitration just simply to get free money. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. If you think that Uber is treating you unfairly go find another job. We have a good economy right now so there’s plenty of other jobs for you to choose from. Drivers will sit there and *****, moan, and complain about how Uber is treating them so horribly. My answer is either suck it up or go find another job. Uber is not going to change.


----------



## troothequalstroll (Oct 12, 2019)

Steve appleby said:


> Look I'm going to address the elephant that's in the room. The fact of the matter is if you don't want to be an independent contractor, go find another job. It's as simple as that. People are using this arbitration just simply to get free money. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. If you think that Uber is treating you unfairly go find another job. We have a good economy right now so there's plenty of other jobs for you to choose from. Drivers will sit there and @@@@@, moan, and complain about how Uber is treating them so horribly. My answer is either suck it up or go find another job. Uber is not going to change.


96% DO by criminal design shill. Laws exist Uber breaks everyone ever written and only changes when forced

They use their cash flow from human trafficking, labor law violations, wage theft, & hundreds of other illegal activity to bribe everyone that matters & drag it through the courts, claiming their not a transportation company but a technology company but email is to much technology is an travesty like everything else they do on a daily basis trying to trick idiots and desperate into working for free, imagine if the 4% who do succeed this Ponzi scam didn't whine & complain? For 4+ years 90+% of what Uber sends my phone is fraud & an attempt to human traffic me, I have the option to play the app like a game unfortunately theres actual humans that are servicing those requests which are ILLEGAL & can't be agreed to but self preservation is brogrammed into the app till they fail BY DESIGN

It's not about treating labor "unfairly" it's about treating them in violation of the law, i.e. ILLEGALLY


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Steve appleby said:


> People are using this arbitration just simply to get free money.


Could you please explain how rideshare drivers could get free money using arbitration to their advantage?


----------



## Steve appleby (May 30, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> Could you please explain how rideshare drivers could get free money using arbitration?


So what happens is that drivers will take Uber to court, go through arbitration, and they'll get a settlement check in the mail. But it depends on your state. People will go through arbitration because they feel like Uber "owes them something". The thing that pisses me off about this is that people don't wanna work and will take every opportunity to get free money without working for it. It's America. Americans are lazy. Here's a link to the arbitration payment thread

https://uberpeople.net/threads/has-anyone-received-an-uber-arbitration-settlement-payment.345494/


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Steve appleby said:


> people don't wanna work and will take every opportunity to get free money without working for it.


Again, could you please explain *how* rideshare drivers could get free money using arbitration to their advantage?


----------



## Steve appleby (May 30, 2015)

But the sad part about it is in my opinion it's not even worth going to arbitration because then you gotta hire a lawyer (unless you know what you're doing) to me arbitration is a big waste of time and money for only a little chunk of change.



jocker12 said:


> Again, could you please explain *how* rideshare drivers could get free money using arbitration to their advantage?


How? By hiring a good lawyer! That's how lol.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Steve appleby said:


> But the sad part about it is in my opinion it's not even worth going to arbitration because then you gotta hire a lawyer (unless you know what you're doing) to me arbitration is a big waste of time and money for only a little chunk of change.
> 
> 
> How? By hiring a good lawyer! That's how lol.


To do what?


----------



## Steve appleby (May 30, 2015)

troothequalstroll said:


> 96% DO by criminal design shill. Laws exist Uber breaks everyone ever written and only changes when forced
> 
> They use their cash flow from human trafficking, labor law violations, wage theft, & hundreds of other illegal activity to bribe everyone that matters & drag it through the courts, claiming their not a transportation company but a technology company but email is to much technology is an travesty like everything else they do on a daily basis trying to trick idiots and desperate into working for free, imagine if the 4% who do succeed this Ponzi scam didn't whine & complain? For 4+ years 90+% of what Uber sends my phone is fraud & an attempt to human traffic me, I have the option to play the app like a game unfortunately theres actual humans that are servicing those requests which are ILLEGAL & can't be agreed to but self preservation is brogrammed into the app till they fail BY DESIGN
> 
> It's not about treating labor "unfairly" it's about treating them in violation of the law, i.e. ILLEGALLY


Well sorry bud, it's America. It's you ain't cheatin, you AINT TRYING!! &#128514;


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Steve appleby said:


> Well sorry bud, it's America. It's you ain't cheatin, you AINT TRYING!! &#128514;


Try what?

You probably didn't carefully read the main post on the thread you linked above.


KevinH said:


> *Uber was offering* so many cents per mile (forgot if it was 11 or 39) to settle classification arbitration claims


----------



## Steve appleby (May 30, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> Try what?
> 
> You probably didn't carefully read the main post on the thread you linked above.


Fact of the matter is you can sit there and say all the mean and nasty things about Uber but at the end of the day Uber does not care about you. You're just a number that's all you are.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Steve appleby said:


> Fact of the matter is you can sit there and say all the mean and nasty things about Uber but at the end of the day Uber does not care about you. You're just a number that's all you are.


Again please, try what?


----------



## troothequalstroll (Oct 12, 2019)

No one thinks Uber cares they just want them to obey the law geez, I shop at Walmart, Sam's club, Amazon, use Android devices others use apple, bank at Wells Fargo, bank of America, once owned a Ford all these companies violate the law and are criminal organizations, if you want to dig deeper they use slaves overseas so there's some hypocrisy in us all but I can only concern myself with laws over here & if those companies were paying $3 orvlessyan hour, making people work off the clock, robbing & stealing from senior citizens & immigrants millions of times per day violating basic labor laws they would be padlocked and shut down or regulated, meanwhile Uber Lyft just bribing everyone dragging it through courts and has the audacity to even show .60 per mile on receipts with blatant lies and fraud in writing

This isn't a football game it's only funny to a sociopath it's also not cheating it's blatant human trafficking hence them being forced to make these changes and show the details before trip

Exploiting dumb or desperate people just cuz you can is disgusting, there's levels to this most criminals have codes lol they don't go stealing Granny's purse, or corky from life goes on ATM card, they're on the same level as rapists, pedofiles, & murderers. So laugh all you want tis your right but people actually died so labor wouldn't be treated like this being paid with "free" snacks, stars, points, badges, "rewards/bonuses", coupons this is all ILLEGAL & being done in broad daylight


----------



## Steve appleby (May 30, 2015)

troothequalstroll said:


> No one thinks Uber cares they just want them to obey the law geez, I shop at Walmart, Sam's club, Amazon, use Android devices others use apple, bank at Wells Fargo, bank of America, once owned a Ford all these companies violate the law and are criminal organizations, if you want to dig deeper they use slaves overseas so there's some hypocrisy in us all but I can only concern myself with laws over here & if those companies were paying $3 orvlessyan hour, making people work off the clock, robbing & stealing from senior citizens & immigrants millions of times per day violating basic labor laws they would be padlocked and shut down or regulated, meanwhile Uber Lyft just bribing everyone dragging it through courts and has the audacity to even show .60 per mile on receipts with blatant lies and fraud in writing
> 
> This isn't a football game it's only funny to a sociopath it's also not cheating it's blatant human trafficking hence them being forced to make these changes and show the details before trip
> 
> Exploiting dumb or desperate people just cuz you can is disgusting, there's levels to this most criminals have codes lol they don't go stealing Granny's purse, or corky from life goes on ATM card, they're on the same level as rapists, pedofiles, & murderers. So laugh all you want tis your right but people actually died so labor wouldn't be treated like this being paid with "free" snacks, stars, points, badges, "rewards/bonuses", coupons this is all ILLEGAL & being done in broad daylight


Well the only thing I have to Say to that is tough shit sweetheart. I just get the notion that you're mad because you think that you're entitled to things and you're throwing a tantrum because you didn't get your way. You going to go and sue all those companies just because you don't like the way they're treating people? This is the way the world works. Your just a pawn on a very big chessboard. Deal with it.

Having been on this thread for a couple years I've seen a lot of crybabies cry about how they're getting screwed by the system. What These crybabies fail to realize is that the world doesn't revolve around them. Just because you can't pay your bills and you have a shitty life doesn't give you the license to make life hell for everyone else. What is the saddest thing about Americans is that they have a nasty little habit of blaming everybody else but themselves for their problems. It's not Uber's fault that drivers are sleeping in their cars, it's not Uber's fault that you're not getting paid enough, it's not Uber's fault that you have kids that you can't feed because you have no money. Maybe you can grow some intestinal fortitude and go out and get a second job or maybe get some education to improve your way of life. So getting back to the original argument if you don't like working for Uber, go get another job.

Here's a tissue so you can wipe away all your tears. Boo hoo.


----------



## Erin C Banning (Jul 3, 2018)

Opted out.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Steve appleby said:


> You going to go and sue all those companies just because you don't like the way they're treating people?


Who told you that? The corporations altered the laws in the first place to allow them to get away with their exploitation, so we only need to change them back.

Remember how capitalism, in order to work, is competition in order to achieve a win-win situation between the company, its workers and its clients. Any different exploiting models are already running in China and North Korea.


----------



## Steve appleby (May 30, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> Who told you that? The corporations altered the laws in the first place to allow them to get away with their exploitation, so we only need to change them back.
> 
> Remember how capitalism, in order to work, is competition in order to achieve a win-win situation between the company, its workers and its clients. Any different exploiting models are already running in China and North Korea.


Well if you want to go and play captain America and save the day you go right ahead. (Slow clap) if you want to fight corporations and change back the laws good luck with that buddy. Just remember all the those corporations have way more money and legal muscle then you do. Well unfortunately that's the way the world works. This isn't Burger King, you can't have it your way.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Steve appleby said:


> if you want to fight corporations and change back the laws good luck with that buddy.


Where do you think AB5 is coming from?

If you like to give advice, you should be equally relaxed when taking it, so if people that are not happy with Uber should stop driving (according to you), you should try to sacrifice a minute (or more) and read a little (according to me).
"_For decades, we've turned to Silicon Valley to show us the future of American endeavor. Optimism flowed from the Bay Area's evangelists but also from Washington. "In the new economy, human invention increasingly makes physical resources obsolete," President Ronald Reagan said in a 1988 speech that heralded the promise of the computer chip. In the '80s and '90s, Democrats such as Al Gore made up a new generation of liberals-named "Atari Democrats," after the early video-game company-who believed computer technology would provide opportunity on the scale of the New Deal. The internet age was hailed as a third industrial revolution-a spur for individual ingenuity and an engine of employment.

*On these counts, it has not delivered.* To the contrary, the digital age has coincided with a* slump in America's economic dynamism*. The tech sector's innovations have made a handful of people quite rich, but *it has failed to create enough middle-class jobs to offset the decline of the country's manufacturing base*, or to help solve the country's most pressing problems: deteriorating infrastructure, climate change, low growth, rising economic inequality. Tech companies that operate in the physical world, such as Lyft and DoorDash, offer greater convenience, but they hardly represent the kind of transformation that Reagan and Gore had in mind. These failures-perhaps more than the toxicity of the web-underlie the meanness and radicalism of our era.

Decades from now, historians will likely look back on the beginning of the 21st century as a period when *the smartest minds in the world's richest country sank their talent, time, and capital into a narrow band of human endeavor-digital technology. *Their efforts have given us frictionless access to media, information, consumer goods, and chauffeurs. But software has hardly remade the physical world. We were promised an industrial revolution. What we got was a revolution in consumer convenience."_
from
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/wheres-my-flying-car/603025/


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

What's basically happening is that businesses are announcing the firing of the independent contractor positions so that AB5 gets bad publicity while telling the IE's they can apply for employee positions. 

AB5 is doing its job, getting businesses to hire the IE's as employees which will prevent the businesses from exploiting the IE's anymore.

The headlines always say "IE's lost their jobs" without highlighting that the workers are being moved to employee status now.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> What's basically happening is that businesses are announcing the firing of the independent contractor positions so that AB5 gets bad publicity while telling the IE's they can apply for employee positions.
> 
> AB5 is doing its job, getting businesses to hire the IE's as employees which will prevent the businesses from exploiting the IE's anymore.
> 
> The headlines always say "IE's lost their jobs" without highlighting that the workers are being moved to employee status now.


I see something close to that - workers are being offered FT and/or PT positions.

"Freelance writers in California are grappling with rejection letters - and decisions by sites like SB Nation to drop about 200 contractors - as part of the fallout from Assembly Bill 5, which requires companies like Uber, Lyft and Doordash to treat their gig workers as employees. 
Ness said SB Nation, which is part of Vox Media, will open full-time and part-time positions for contractors to apply to, and it asked the contractors to continue to write without pay as "our new Community insiders." 
from
https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/california-contractor-law-sb-nation-vox-media


----------



## troothequalstroll (Oct 12, 2019)

Lol write without pay do it for the community sounds familiar


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

jocker12 said:


> I see something close to that - workers are being offered FT and/or PT positions.
> 
> "Freelance writers in California are grappling with rejection letters - and decisions by sites like SB Nation to drop about 200 contractors - as part of the fallout from Assembly Bill 5, which requires companies like Uber, Lyft and Doordash to treat their gig workers as employees.
> Ness said SB Nation, which is part of Vox Media, will open full-time and part-time positions for contractors to apply to, and it asked the contractors to continue to write without pay as "our new Community insiders."
> ...


lol @ "fallout"

200 IE writers being given employee status while millions of rideshare drivers among many many industries are finally given what they shoulda been given 9 years ago and somehow 200 workers finally being given employee status is "fallout" lol

hilarious


----------

