# California contractor law doesn't apply, says Uber



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3498727-california-contractor-law-apply-says-uber*California contractor law doesn't apply, says Uber*
Sep. 11, 2019 5:01 PM ET|About: Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER)|By: Brandy Betz, SA News Editor


Uber (NYSE:UBER) CLO Tony West says the company won't treat contractors as employees under the newly approved California bill.
West says Uber's business is "serving as a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces" and not providing rides, which means drivers aren't a core part of the business and can remain independent when the law goes into effect in January.
West also notes that Uber is "no stranger to legal battles."


----------



## CZ75 (Aug 10, 2018)

Just buying time for robo cars.


----------



## SuperDumped (Sep 6, 2019)

is that why it was originally called ubercab?

is that why they take 50-90% of fares? if its not a cab company all it should take is a connection or finders fee which is generally 10%

why do they care about drivers routes? that should be none of their business if their just a digital marketplace

they can claim all they want, when the governor signs it on jan 1st theyll be fined $1000 per day per driver half of fine goes to driver or they will submit and start paying legal wages and follow regulations per the passed law

they need to start throwing execs in jail i have a feeling theyd rather pay $1000 fine per driver per day than pay drivers legal wages


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Of course they will fight this. and lose.


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Of course they will fight this. and lose.


"_Of course they will fight this. and lose."_

the unbiased objective Uber driver opinion ✔ ??



SuperDumped said:


> is that why it was originally called ubercab?
> 
> is that why they take 50-90% of fares? if its not a cab company all it should take is a connection or finders fee which is generally 10%
> 
> ...


Corporations look 10, 20 years down the road
As far as Uber is concerned Drivers ain't part of their future or business model.

As u guessed, I'm not as smart as u guys, but this could go all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Khosrowshahi & Kalanick will drink Drano be4 giving drivers anything 
........Other than the boot ?


----------



## jeanocelot (Sep 2, 2016)

I guess the idea is that if the company isn't *only* giving out rides, it's not a taxi company. That's pretty good.


----------



## Lessthanminimum (Nov 5, 2017)

Uber will use the courts to try and block implementation. California will start levying heavy fines and penalties daily against Uber. It's going to get ugly and Uber's reputation will take a bigger hit and their stock will tank.


----------



## Uberdriver914 (Jun 15, 2019)

Uber and Lyft will just ultimately say you know what you California you no more Uber/Lyft.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Now drivers need to sue based on the fact that both platforms are taking too much of the fare--if we are independent contractors and they are "technology companies".

We would win that suit walking away. Keep pressing.


----------



## dgates01 (Jun 24, 2018)

"Drivers are not core to our business"

Umm, drivers ARE your only business.


----------



## Uberdriver914 (Jun 15, 2019)

dgates01 said:


> "Drivers are not core to our business"
> 
> Umm, drivers ARE your only business.


Straight up disrespectful

"drivers are not core to our business"

Just like the employees they recently fired worldwide 85% from the usa

I guess they wasn't core to the Uber business.


----------



## Grokit (Sep 8, 2019)

Doesn’t anyone remember what happened in Alaska, Oregon, and Austin, Texas? 

When Uber/Lyft lost the legislative battles over worker status, they left the states/city. They play hardball all over the world and are not going to bend over for California. 

Come Jan 1st 2020, if no settlement has been reached, both Lyft and Uber will cease operations in CA.


----------



## Uber_Yota_916 (May 1, 2017)

Uber doesn’t make the final decision.


----------



## AvisDeene (Jun 7, 2019)

And new RideShare companies will fill the void just like they did when LyUber pulled out of Austin. California will not hurt if LyUber leaves, and no way in hell will LyUber give up on the world's 5th largest economy.


----------



## Lessthanminimum (Nov 5, 2017)

AvisDeene said:


> And new RideShare companies will fill the void just like they did when LyUber pulled out of Austin. California will not hurt if LyUber leaves, and no way in hell will LyUber give up on the world's 5th largest economy.


Bingo! CA is too big for them to just walk away. What will investors think of Uber/Lyft if they walk away from this huge market? It shows weakness to investors/stock holders not strength.


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

Uber and Lyft can claim that AB5 doesn't apply to them. The local district attorneys will get an injunction ordering them to comply. If they don't comply then the local district attorney and the attorney general will go after and seize the personal assets of the Uber and Lyft officers in order to pay the drivers. There will be no mercy. So if the Uber and Lyft corporate officers want to play they will pay personally. 

The more these clowns say they aren't going to comply--the worse it will be for them.


----------



## AvisDeene (Jun 7, 2019)

Bob Reynolds said:


> Uber and Lyft can claim that AB5 doesn't apply to them. The local district attorneys will get an injunction ordering them to comply. If they don't comply then the local district attorney and the attorney general will go after and seize the personal assets of the Uber and Lyft officers in order to pay the drivers. There will be no mercy. So if the Uber and Lyft corporate officers want to play they will pay personally.
> 
> The more these clowns say they aren't going to comply--the worse it will be for them.


I hope it ends up like that, maybe even some jail time for the CEO (doubt it)?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

If anyone anywhere on these boards is aware of a day when Uber thought that any law applied to it, please let me know on what day that occurred.



TwoFiddyMile said:


> Of course they will fight this. and lose.*until they find the right people to pay off*


FIFY



AvisDeene said:


> jail time for the CEO












Let him see how it feels.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

People gone cray cray. Women can say they're men and women can say they're men and be recognised as such. Uberlyft can say it's not affected by the law and it doesn't apply to them. The 21st is going to go down as the century of the bullshitter. 

As already stated, I'm going to claim that I am actually a panda bear that was species misclassified at birth. As an endangered animal I am entitled to free food and lodging for life. Pay up, Donald.


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> https://seekingalpha.com/news/3498727-california-contractor-law-apply-says-uber*California contractor law doesn't apply, says Uber*
> Sep. 11, 2019 5:01 PM ET|About: Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER)|By: Brandy Betz, SA News Editor
> 
> 
> ...


Burn baby burn and I hope those punks go bankrupt enough with the lies enough with the deceit enough of twisting things to suit their way and to screw everyone else, I hope they do put up resistance and I hope they get fined heavily or put in jail , They need to know that they don't get to be exempt and do whatever they want there's laws that need to be followed and they don't deserve to get special treatment



The Gift of Fish said:


> People gone cray cray. Women can say they're men and women can say they're men and be recognised as such. Uberlyft can say it's not affected by the law and it doesn't apply to them. The 21st is going to go down as the century of the bullshitter.
> 
> As already stated, I'm going to claim that I am actually a panda bear that was species misclassified at birth. As an endangered animal I am entitled to free food and lodging for life. Pay up, Donald.


I am a panda too 



Uberdriver914 said:


> Straight up disrespectful
> 
> "drivers are not core to our business"
> 
> ...


Uber has no respect for anyone else the only respect they have is for their own corporate wallets



Uberdriver914 said:


> Uber and Lyft will just ultimately say you know what you California you no more Uber/Lyft.


Good let those punks leave let a better company fill the void



SuperDumped said:


> is that why it was originally called ubercab?
> 
> is that why they take 50-90% of fares? if its not a cab company all it should take is a connection or finders fee which is generally 10%
> 
> ...


 white-collar criminals don't go to jail only blue-collar criminals go to jail white-collar criminals just pay fines with company proceeds it's Why corporate criminals know they could get away with things in this country


----------



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

I'm hoping they do,

My understanding is that the corporate officers can get their assets seized by California for not complying.

So...

Please be that stupid...

Please be that stupid...

Please be that stupid...


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I'm hoping they do,
> 
> My understanding is that the corporate officers can get their assets seized by California for not complying.
> 
> ...


Sure some of them have stashed Some of their nest egg in overseas accounts or trust funds not in their name


----------



## dgates01 (Jun 24, 2018)

Grokit said:


> Doesn't anyone remember what happened in Alaska, Oregon, and Austin, Texas?
> 
> When Uber/Lyft lost the legislative battles over worker status, they left the states/city. They play hardball all over the world and are not going to bend over for California.
> 
> Come Jan 1st 2020, if no settlement has been reached, both Lyft and Uber will cease operations in CA.


Actually, Uber is still in all those states. There are a few more restrictions and Uber rides have become more expensive in some cases, but they are there.


----------



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

Another Uber Driver said:


> If anyone anywhere on these boards is aware of a day when Uber thought that any law applied to it, please let me know on what day that occurred.


Orlando wrote laws _City Ordinances_ specifically to apply to uber/lyft, Got their input into the law, once it came into effect uber/lyft promptly ignored it.

I'm predicting non compliance right up until the point they get locked out of corporate and they have to do an injunction to block the foreign servers from connecting to US ISPs, and siezing of bank accounts.



kevin92009 said:


> Sure some of them have stashed Some of their nest egg in overseas accounts or trust funds not in their name


Some... but not all.

Watching a bulk of their fortune get flushed...

my gosh.. the karma.









This is how uber is going to end, in the bottom of a file box as agents pack up all their %&^&.

The company that springs up to fill their void?

They are the one that i'm banking on working for once these employment laws come into effect. That and cab companies who i would be stunned get exemptions. (they shouldn't get them)


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Orlando wrote laws _City Ordinances_ specifically to apply to uber/lyft, Got their input into the law, once it came into effect uber/lyft promptly ignored it.
> 
> I'm predicting non compliance right up until the point they get locked out of corporate and they have to do an injunction to block the foreign servers from connecting to US ISPs, and siezing of bank accounts.
> 
> ...


 your post reminds me of uber's Ripley program .

https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcr...ubers-tactics-for-thwarting-police-raids/amp/


----------



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

Uberdriver914 said:


> Uber and Lyft will just ultimately say you know what you California you no more Uber/Lyft.


Will they say that to NY, L.A, S.F, Seattle. As other cities and states follow. Will they say that to London, Paris, Munich, Toronto, Vancouver. Ok that very smart since they are already banned in most Asia and Latin America. So what they will take there business to Afghanistan and Iraq, driving Soldiers around or just offer services in Africa. What a great business by a California based company. ???


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

kevin92009 said:


> white-collar criminals don't go to jail only blue-collar criminals go to jail white-collar criminals just pay fines with company proceeds it's Why corporate criminals know they could get away with things in this country


If I was a California District Attorney, I would see any refusal of Uberlyft to comply with the law as a direct and personal criminal (i.e one who breaks the law) challenge by Dara and Logan to myself.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

"The company won't treat contractors as employees" Hahahahaha, what contractors? You mean: "we refuse to pay employees dues", it's okay, bankruptcy is on the next door to the left, what's funny is that they haven't even bothered changing the app to be "contractor friendly", I wonder what could happen to them for challenging the law, maybe it's time their employees start going to jail.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Grokit said:


> Doesn't anyone remember what happened in Alaska, Oregon, and Austin, Texas?
> 
> When Uber/Lyft lost the legislative battles over worker status, they left the states/city. They play hardball all over the world and are not going to bend over for California.
> 
> Come Jan 1st 2020, if no settlement has been reached, both Lyft and Uber will cease operations in CA.


They didn't leave Austin over employee status, they left over fingerprinting. They DIDN'T leave Houston, although Lyft did.

Texas is not worker friendly. Employee status has not been changed anywhere here, despite the clear rules describing contractors vs. employees.

Fingerprinting was to protect the riders. Texas doesn't care about workers.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> https://seekingalpha.com/news/3498727-california-contractor-law-apply-says-uber*California contractor law doesn't apply, says Uber*
> Sep. 11, 2019 5:01 PM ET|About: Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER)|By: Brandy Betz, SA News Editor
> 
> 
> ...


NO LAW APPLIES TO UBER/ LYFT !


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Of course they will fight this. and lose.


Seriously don't people realise Uber doesn't believe that they have any hope of winning this. They pay 10s of millions of dollars a year to legal teams to fight ridiculous battles with nonsensical arguments just to buy time and let their PR department put as much misinformation out there as possible.

They've bitten off more than they can chew here but its not really costing them anything to take a shot unless we can get their shares to tank.

They certainly lose here pretending they are not a cab company but I'm not sure what the exact prossess is here though. When does California start taking action and what form does it take and when does Uber start to feel it?


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

Cold Fusion said:


> the unbiased objective Uber driver opinion ✔ ??


versus .... tomato paste ? ✔

.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

Lessthanminimum said:


> Uber's reputation will take a bigger hit and their stock will tank.


What reputation? The bad one?


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

SuperDumped said:


> is that why it was originally called ubercab?
> 
> is that why they take 50-90% of fares? if its not a cab company all it should take is a connection or finders fee which is generally 10%
> 
> ...


Ubers average take from me is 20%-28%, if they are taking 50%-90% from you all the time



kevin92009 said:


> Burn baby burn and I hope those punks go bankrupt enough with the lies enough with the deceit enough of twisting things to suit their way and to screw everyone else, I hope they do put up resistance and I hope they get fined heavily or put in jail , They need to know that they don't get to be exempt and do whatever they want there's laws that need to be followed and they don't deserve to get special treatment
> 
> 
> I am a panda too :smiles:
> ...


Martha Steward may have a different opinion.


----------



## nonononodrivethru (Mar 25, 2019)

Anybody else notice that Texas passed HB-100 and now they get a shiny new headquarters in Dallas?


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

What's the fine or penalty? It might be like my illegal tint ticket where you just pay the ticket and keep the tint


----------



## soontobeautomated (Apr 4, 2017)

So FUber is just a digital marketplace. In that case, using the same logic, so is Tinder. Except Tinder does not deactivate you if you give a ride that does not meet expectations.


----------



## nonononodrivethru (Mar 25, 2019)

And technically is free for passengers to use and incredibly expensive for drivers to use.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

soontobeautomated said:


> So FUber is just a digital marketplace. In that case, using the same logic, so is Tinder. Except Tinder does not deactivate you if you give a ride that does not meet expectations.


any company that has an app is now just a technology company according to Tony West

so now Mcdonalds is simply just a technology company according to Tony West


----------



## nonononodrivethru (Mar 25, 2019)

It's basically turning the law on its head as a tax shelter.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

California has to step in and shut Uber down if they go this route.

How are they going to say a law doesn't apply to them when it was started to try to stop Uber from stealing from drivers.


----------



## Uberdriver914 (Jun 15, 2019)

Lee239 said:


> California has to step in and shut Uber down if they go this route.
> 
> How are they going to say a law doesn't apply to them when it was started to try to stop Uber from stealing from drivers.


California doesn't have to do anything it's been known already that when Uber loses legislative action they pack up their bags and move on. Uber will leave on their own.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Uberdriver914 said:


> California doesn't have to do anything it's been known already that when Uber loses legislative action they pack up their bags and move on. Uber will leave on their own.


Did they leave now that this new law passed? No, they don't want to leave their biggest US market.


----------



## Uberdriver914 (Jun 15, 2019)

It’s been less than 72 hours and the law doesn’t start until the new year. Uber said when the new year comes along they won’t abide by it. So obviously something will happen after the new year not right now. Uber is very confident that something positive will come from not abiding by the new law come the new year their ******ed. They’ll pack up their bags and leave eventually once they start getting hit with fines per day for disobeying. Uber no like collars around their neck. They’ll run away if they aren’t thrown away by California that is. One or the other is sure to happen.


----------



## Lowestformofwit (Sep 2, 2016)

jeanocelot said:


> I guess the idea is that if the company isn't *only* giving out rides, it's not a taxi company. That's pretty good.


Or is it predominantly a taxi company that also does other things?
Relative percentages of its various income streams would determine the answer to that.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Lowestformofwit said:


> Or is it predominantly a taxi company


Travis Kalanick admitted on record, before the D.C. City Council, that Uber was doing the same thing that the cabs do. This was when there was only Uber Black in Washington, D.C.


----------



## Lowestformofwit (Sep 2, 2016)

He who takes money from another for the provision of services has a contract with the payer.
The services being provided by Uber/Lyft are effectively “taxi services”, which are then delivered by subcontractors (drivers) under a separate subordinate contract.
And they’re still not a “taxi company? FFS!


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Uberdriver914 said:


> California doesn't have to do anything it's been known already that when Uber loses legislative action they pack up their bags and move on. Uber will leave on their own.


They won't leave, they will just make less money, the law doesn't mean they can't operate it means they can't cheat drivers as they have been doing for many years. They are also cheating pax by the way.

They will stay and make less, or have to raise prices and lose riders.

Uber is just a Ponzi scheme and a scam does not say I"m leaving.

They are losing $55 million a day. If this law goes into place they will be losing maybe $65 million a day. Not that much of a difference, it will all come crashing down. Every day thousands of drivers realize it's BS and quit. Eventually they will run out of sucker drivers and have to pay drivers better to keep them.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Lol, they said they will find middle ground by raising fares to the riders and avoid the new law, I say **** that, they are just trying to buy time to come up with another scam, if they haven't changed the app, they have no intention of changing anything, they are just waiting for another loophole.


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

Lowestformofwit said:


> He who takes money from another for the provision of services has a contract with the payer.
> The services being provided by Uber/Lyft are effectively "taxi services", which are then delivered by subcontractors (drivers) under a separate subordinate contract.
> And they're still not a "taxi company? FFS!


"_Uber/Lyft are effectively "taxi services",_

Uber doesn't offer that "service"
Drivers do. They own the equipment, operate the equipment and bare expense cost, depreciation and any remaining profit.
Uber only supplies the technology to hook-up driver & passenger

If the profits are unsustainable you're free to seek other opportunities

Maybe it's different in your Australian local


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

jeanocelot said:


> I guess the idea is that if the company isn't *only* giving out rides, it's not a taxi company. That's pretty good.


It's totally lame.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I'm hoping they do,
> 
> My understanding is that the corporate officers can get their assets seized by California for not complying.
> 
> ...


The only asset that uber has is all the data they mined

I am not sure of the authorities even know what to do with it lol


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Kodyhead said:


> The only asset that uber has is all the data they mined
> 
> I am not sure of the authorities even know what to do with it lol


And Uber doesn't know what to do with it either. Facebook and Twitter and Google are free, you agree to give them your data, but if you pay for a service and then they use your data that's a different story.


----------



## percy_ardmore (Jun 4, 2019)

Grokit said:


> Doesn't anyone remember what happened in Alaska, Oregon, and Austin, Texas?
> 
> When Uber/Lyft lost the legislative battles over worker status, they left the states/city. They play hardball all over the world and are not going to bend over for California.
> 
> Come Jan 1st 2020, if no settlement has been reached, both Lyft and Uber will cease operations in CA.


Agreed or they'll get a continuance, like every other case.


----------



## Grokit (Sep 8, 2019)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> They didn't leave Austin over employee status, they left over fingerprinting.


My bad. I should have said that they leave if laws are passed against them, which they believe are significantly unfavorable to their business model. Along with finger-printing, the Austin law also included a $1 "tax" on all rides, required information sharing about all their rides, and had about 20 other anti-RS covenants).



dgates01 said:


> Actually, Uber is still in all those states. There are a few more restrictions and Uber rides have become more expensive in some cases, but they are there.


Actually, Uber/Lyft left Alaska, Oregon, and Austin, Texas, but have since returned after legislative bodies in all 3 states caved to public pressure (and their political wrangling), eventually carving out special legal protections for them.

The Austin law was superseded 6 months later by a much more favorable law passed by the Texas state legislature.

Oregon's restrictive state law has since been thwarted by much more favorable laws, passed in individual cities, such as Portland, Eugene, and others.

They left Alaska after a restrictive state law was passed and didn't return until 3 years later, only after the Alaska legislature caved and removed a number of the restrictions.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Grokit said:


> My bad. I should have said that they leave if laws are passed against them, which they believe are significantly unfavorable to their business model. Along with finger-printing, the Austin law also included a $1 "tax" on all rides, required information sharing about all their rides, and had about 20 other anti-RS covenants).
> 
> Actually, Uber/Lyft left Alaska, Oregon, and Austin, Texas, but have since returned after legislative bodies in all 3 states caved to public pressure (and their political wrangling), eventually carving out special legal protections for them.
> 
> ...


Yes, but they never left Houston, which is a big market. They'll leave smaller ones, but that doesn't mean they'll leave a big one. The restrictions in Houston were just as onerous. It was more than 6 months, btw.


----------



## Jack Marrero (Oct 24, 2015)

Uberdriver914 said:


> Uber and Lyft will just ultimately say you know what you California you no more Uber/Lyft.


These companies have their origins and headquarters in California, but it wouldn't surprise me as a lot of companies are moving out of Cali due to many taxes and regulations compared to other major cities.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Jack Marrero said:


> These companies have their origins and headquarters in California, but it wouldn't surprise me as a lot of companies are moving out of Cali due to many taxes and regulations compared to other major cities.


and other companies would take their place


----------



## Grokit (Sep 8, 2019)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Yes, but they never left Houston, which is a big market. They'll leave smaller ones, but that doesn't mean they'll leave a big one. The restrictions in Houston were just as onerous. It was more than 6 months, btw.


I disagree. Uber did not stay in Houston because of its market size; Uber stayed because Houston's politicians buckled under public pressure and gutted their new law. These 2 articles from the Houston Business Journal document my point -

*Uber threatens to leave Houston* 
(if significant changes to the new law aren't made) 04/27/16
"San Francisco-based Uber Technologies Inc. has threatened to halt operations in the city of Houston if the city does not change its ridesharing regulations around new driver signups..."

Then 7 months later, Houston politicians caved..

*City of Houston reaches agreement with Uber *
11/27/16
"The city of Houston and San Francisco-based Uber Technologies Inc. have reached an agreement to keep the transportation company in the city for the foreseeable future..."


----------



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

The Gift of Fish said:


> If I was a California District Attorney, I would see any refusal of Uberlyft to comply with the law as a direct and personal criminal (i.e one who breaks the law) challenge by Dara and Logan to myself.


https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/las...ty-attorney-to-sue-uber-for-labor-violations/*Last-minute AB5 amendment empowers city attorney to sue Uber for labor violations*
_excerpt..._

Perhaps with a nod to San Francisco, the language of AB5's Friday amendment states legal remedies can be sought by the state attorney general or by a city attorney "of a city having a population in excess of 750,000," a clause some political insiders noted is oddly specific.

That's roughly the population of San Francisco, per the last census.

There is precedent for such a specifically tailored clause. California Code section 17204 uses similar phrasing to allow city attorneys to pursue fraudulent businesses. That code was amended in 1992, 2004 and 2008.

_click to read the full artcile from 10 SEPT_




tohunt4me said:


> NO LAW APPLIES TO UBER/ LYFT !





everythingsuber said:


> Seriously don't people realise Uber doesn't believe that they have any hope of winning this. They pay 10s of millions of dollars a year to legal teams to fight ridiculous battles with nonsensical arguments just to buy time and let their PR department put as much misinformation out there as possible.
> 
> They've bitten off more than they can chew here but its not really costing them anything to take a shot unless we can get their shares to tank.
> 
> They certainly lose here pretending they are not a cab company but I'm not sure what the exact prossess is here though. When does California start taking action and what form does it take and when does Uber start to feel it?


We will start legal action one by one already. By Jan 1 2020 the city attorney will be able to start legal and criminal prosecution and start seizure of assets, accounts, and property if payment is not made. It will start driver by driver, case by case, and city attorneys will back us to get payment. Ohhhh ? baby. I think they feel it already, ask them how many billions in stock value they lost in the last 30 days. Hah!



tohunt4me said:


> NO LAW APPLIES TO UBER/ LYFT !


Technology platform my ass! More like a illegal fake taxi dispatcher! Can't wait until the bank account seizures start in 2020. They earned it. ?.



Uberdriver914 said:


> California doesn't have to do anything it's been known already that when Uber loses legislative action they pack up their bags and move on. Uber will leave on their own.


We collectively laughed at that one already!?


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> *Last-minute AB5 amendment empowers city attorney to sue Uber for labor violations*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Damn !
They Serious !


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

Cold Fusion said:


> "_Of course they will fight this. and lose."_
> 
> the unbiased objective Uber driver opinion ✔ ??
> 
> ...


They are in California, they will lose.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Cold Fusion said:


> "_Uber/Lyft are effectively "taxi services",_
> 
> Uber doesn't offer that "service"
> Drivers do. They own the equipment, operate the equipment and bare expense cost, depreciation and any remaining profit.
> ...


Uber is a taxi dispatch service, it's like running a yellow cab company and saying that the dispatcher answering phones and quoting prices and telling the drivers where to go doesn't work there or for the company.


----------



## Lowestformofwit (Sep 2, 2016)

Cold Fusion said:


> "_Uber/Lyft are effectively "taxi services",_
> 
> Uber doesn't offer that "service"
> Drivers do. They own the equipment, operate the equipment and bare expense cost, depreciation and any remaining profit.


Drivers sign an ongoing Agreement (Contract) with each of Uber/Lyft.
Do drivers sign a separate agreement with each pax prior to commencement of the ride?
NO.
Therefore no contract exists between driver and rider.
Can the pax de-activate you from the Uber/Lyft platform?
NO.
Only U/L can do this.
If a pax pukes in your car, do you make a direct claim for the cleaning fee against the pax at the time of the incident?
NO.
Who has the final say on whether any claim you make for damage to your vehicle will be paid or not?
U/L.
Who issues the driver instruction on where the pax is to be picked up, and the payment rate (surge, etc.) applicable to that particular ride?
U/L.
Who initially collects the money for the ride, and determines all additions to, and deductions from, the driver's payout amount from that ride?
U/L.
From the above parameters, it should be manifestly clear that the driver has a contract ONLY with U/L, and not with a pax.
Whether drivers will be determined to be contractors to, or employees of U/L is yet to be ratified, but it is certain that U/L are the initial offerors of "taxi services" to third parties separate to the driver-pax agreement.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Lol, ah good ol "above the law", Uber.

Start thinking about bankruptcy exit strategies like Perdue pharma.


----------



## 2starDriver (Mar 22, 2019)

All these has anything to do with uberblack?



Grokit said:


> Doesn't anyone remember what happened in Alaska, Oregon, and Austin, Texas?
> 
> When Uber/Lyft lost the legislative battles over worker status, they left the states/city. They play hardball all over the world and are not going to bend over for California.
> 
> Come Jan 1st 2020, if no settlement has been reached, both Lyft and Uber will cease operations in CA.


Now they operating in oregon and austin. What has changed?


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

Here's Tony West , A.K.A. Cartman telling the world he can do what he wants.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Of course they will fight this. and lose.


They hope to keep fighting on the state level until they can buy, I mean convince enough legislators in Congress to support an amendment to the FLSA that will benefit the gig companies.



Cold Fusion said:


> "_Of course they will fight this. and lose."_
> the unbiased objective Uber driver opinion ✔ ??


'cept the guy you're talking to, he's a commercial driver, not an Uber driver. But nice way to jump to conclusions.


----------



## SuperDumped (Sep 6, 2019)

they owe every driver least $5 for every ride they've ever given so billions in back pay so theyll fight with their hundreds of millions


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> They hope to keep fighting on the state level until they can buy, I mean convince enough legislators in Congress to support an amendment to the FLSA that will benefit the gig companies.
> 
> 
> 'cept the guy you're talking to, he's a commercial driver, not an Uber driver. But nice way to jump to conclusions.


I was.
I joined the dark side about 5 weeks ago.
No more taxi. Not enough money.
I kept my hack license tho. When Uberlyft die, I may resume if I wish.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

<---- stunned. (though, as long as you keep you license, you're still a hack to me! hehe)



Lowestformofwit said:


> Drivers sign an ongoing Agreement (Contract) with each of Uber/Lyft.
> Do drivers sign a separate agreement with each pax prior to commencement of the ride?
> NO.
> Therefore no contract exists between driver and rider.


Read your contract. It explicitly says you acknowledge a direct business relationship with each rider you accept a ride request from and that Uber acts solely as a "third party payor"

(I'm not arguing that just because they say it, it's legally binding - but no court yet has thrown that out except CA 9th, which got overturned on appeal)


----------



## donurs (May 31, 2015)

The Gift of Fish said:


> People gone cray cray. Women can say they're men and women can say they're men and be recognised as such. Uberlyft can say it's not affected by the law and it doesn't apply to them. The 21st is going to go down as the century of the bullshitter.
> 
> As already stated, I'm going to claim that I am actually a panda bear that was species misclassified at birth. As an endangered animal I am entitled to free food and lodging for life. Pay up, Donald.


Maybe we can we start a "Me Too is a Panda misclassified at birth" movement!!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I'm going to claim that I am actually a panda bear that was species misclassified at birth. As an endangered animal I am entitled to free food and lodging for life. Pay up, Donald.


You expect us to believe that a Chinese Panda is typing... in English?
Pffff!


----------



## Lowestformofwit (Sep 2, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Read your contract. It explicitly says you acknowledge a direct business relationship with each rider you accept a ride request from and that Uber acts solely as a "third party payor"


So a driver can be deactivated by someone who "acts solely as a third party payor"?
Or has unilateral power to determine the nature and/or quantum (if any) of any payout to the driver?
I've read the Agreement and many clauses in it are mutually contradictory.
It needs to be more thoroughly tested at law.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

AvisDeene said:


> And new RideShare companies will fill the void just like they did when LyUber pulled out of Austin. California will not hurt if LyUber leaves, and no way in hell will LyUber give up on the world's 5th largest economy.


Getting a new rideshare company approved for Austin is a lot easier than getting approved for Los Angeles. There are 150+ different municipalities in the LA area that the rideshare company has to get licensed with. Then you have the PUCO to deal with too.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

They aren't leaving CA.

Of their top 5 markets in the WORLD, 2 of them are in CA.

They aren't going anywhere.

What they will do, however, is use the legal system to stall for time. Much cheaper to pay 100 lawyers for a year than to pay 200,000 drivers properly, plus taxes, plus workers comp, etc.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Grokit said:


> Actually, Uber/Lyft left Alaska, Oregon, and Austin, Texas, but have since returned after legislative bodies in all 3 states caved to public pressure*made "arrangements" with Uber and Lyft* (and their political wrangling), eventually carving out special legal protections for them.
> 
> The Austin law was superseded 6 months later by a much more favorable law passed by the Texas state legislature *after the legislators made "arrangements" with Uber and Lyft.*.


FIFY


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

everythingsuber said:


> Seriously don't people realise Uber doesn't believe that they have any hope of winning this. They pay 10s of millions of dollars a year to legal teams to fight ridiculous battles with nonsensical arguments just to buy time and let their PR department put as much misinformation out there as possible.
> 
> They've bitten off more than they can chew here but its not really costing them anything to take a shot unless we can get their shares to tank.
> 
> They certainly lose here pretending they are not a cab company but I'm not sure what the exact prossess is here though. When does California start taking action and what form does it take and when does Uber start to feel it?


i hope their stocks tank


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Eventually, the law will be gutted to the point that it will not apply to Uber and Lyft. Gavin Newsom has stated on record that he is open to "negotiations". The TNCs and Newsom will come to an "understanding" so that "arrangements" can be made. Once the "arrangement" are made, look for *yet ANOTHER* round of pay cuts.


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

Mista T said:


> They aren't leaving CA.
> 
> Of their top 5 markets in the WORLD, 2 of them are in CA.
> 
> ...


disappointing corporate behavior, is their no ethics or honesty anymore ?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

*Q: *


kevin92009 said:


> is their no ethics or honesty anymore ?


*A:* No.


----------



## Lowestformofwit (Sep 2, 2016)

kevin92009 said:


> disappointing corporate behavior, is their no ethics or honesty anymore ?


Look for wilful corporate lawlessness and paid "neutralising" of legislation to become even worse in the future, after these cruds have now established a beachhead for it to swarm ashore.


----------



## tohellwithu (Nov 30, 2014)

I guess Tesla will make a dive in...or buy the Uber...???


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> *Q: *
> 
> *A:* No.


damn , disappointing ?


----------



## OldBay (Apr 1, 2019)

If I was CEO, this is what I'd do.

Go dark in CA. Maybe for a day. Maybe for a month. Blame it on ab5.

Let everyone feel the pain. This would serve as a firewall to other states pulling this shit.



uberdriverfornow said:


> any company that has an app is now just a technology company according to Tony West
> 
> so now Mcdonalds is simply just a technology company according to Tony West


They are just an intermediate between people and hamburgers.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You expect us to believe that a Chinese Panda is typing... in English?
> Pffff!


I'm smarter than the average bear.


----------



## Mole (Mar 9, 2017)

Well I agree with Uber. They are a commerce company and I transport commerce there for iI’m an employee.


----------



## OldBay (Apr 1, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I'm smarter than the average bear.


Pandas aren't bears, they are big rodents.


----------



## TXUbering (May 9, 2018)

Uber's app sucks donkey nuts, thus I don't think they can call themselves a software company.....


----------



## Polomarko (Dec 20, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> https://seekingalpha.com/news/3498727-california-contractor-law-apply-says-uber*California contractor law doesn't apply, says Uber*
> Sep. 11, 2019 5:01 PM ET|About: Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER)|By: Brandy Betz, SA News Editor
> 
> 
> ...


Mr. West it is retirement time!


----------



## Dystopian Algorithm Serf (Aug 12, 2019)

CZ75 said:


> Just buying time for robo cars.


I predict there will NOT be a mass rollout of robo cars within in the next decade. You might get it in a few select areas of very advanced societies (Japan, South Korea and show-areas of Oil Kingdoms). Hell, we haven't even got mass uptake of electric cars! There's too much basic stuff to fix first, with limited budgets and mass degeneracy on the rise.


----------



## Überall (Aug 4, 2019)

Having faith that driverless cars will soon sweep across the nation is pure fantasy. 
Believing that Uber is exempt or doesn't fall under the California Law is pure fantasy. 
Believing that Uber will at some point actually make a profit is pure fantasy. 
Believing what Uber puts into words is pure fantasy. 

Hmm... There seems to be a common thread about the Uber business model ... it's pure fantasy.


----------



## Workforfood (May 12, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> https://seekingalpha.com/news/3498727-california-contractor-law-apply-says-uber*California contractor law doesn't apply, says Uber*
> Sep. 11, 2019 5:01 PM ET|About: Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER)|By: Brandy Betz, SA News Editor
> 
> 
> ...


That is funny. Show the numbers$! California will toast them like chestnuts. They're located as a business in California. If they were smart they would immediately increase time and mileage rates to pre 2015 and say this is what you will not have with the new law.
Lyft's position should be the same. Stating that drivers would have to work shifts is way beyond their ability to manage. To say that they drivers could only work for one company may really be putting them in the losers seat driver organization will kill them. What they need to do is get focussed on the facts. The ? is made by the drivers in the USA. AUTONOMOUs cars, international drivers, flying bs, trucking etc are just bleeders that have created their future demise. Get rid of the bs immediately. Did you read this your highness CEO of Uber. Al of it . Right now and save Uber. Not just 240 useless pieces of driftwood.in marketing, but all of the other programs outside of Auto rideshare. Snip snap . My immediately double all rideshare rates. And go back to maybe 30%of fares. Get rid of pool.
This will increase ridership and still stifle taxis 
Treat drivers as real partners and together we'll both be successful.


----------



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

Another Uber Driver said:


> Eventually, the law will be gutted to the point that it will not apply to Uber and Lyft. Gavin Newsom has stated on record that he is open to "negotiations". The TNCs and Newsom will come to an "understanding" so that "arrangements" can be made. Once the "arrangement" are made, look for *yet ANOTHER* round of pay cuts.


Haha, Gavin said in his session with them. "Get the labor Unions blessing". That was his negotiation. Meaning any third category would have union backing with ability to bargain and strike, Or nothing. I can't find the news source off hand, but I can search for it if you want.


----------



## Dystopian Algorithm Serf (Aug 12, 2019)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> https://seekingalpha.com/news/3498727-california-contractor-law-apply-says-uber*California contractor law doesn't apply, says Uber*
> Sep. 11, 2019 5:01 PM ET|About: Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER)|By: Brandy Betz, SA News Editor
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, if one squints very hard, all those food and people delivery operations disappear from view and you are left with just uber's "technology" business.


----------



## El Janitor (Feb 22, 2016)

So what would Uber look like as an employee? What changes would be made to the vehicles we drive? How would Uber determine our wages? Last time I checked minim wage in Los Angeles is $13.25 -$14.25/ hr. ( I_ know it varies depending on the average cost of living in every geographical location in the USA_) However things like healthcare benefits only apply to employees who work 40 hours or more per week. Past few jobs I had were 20 hrs a week maybe 30 tops, depending on my employers need. [That way you never get health benefits] Many people I know also can't find a 40 an hour a week job. Who here has ever worked 2 jobs? So you still don't get benefits even if your total hours at work are 40 or more at two separate jobs, even if you are a W2 employee. Not to mention trying to find two employers who not only are unwilling to schedule you near 40 hours a week, let alone not complain aggressively at you because your hours at one employer make it difficult to schedule you at their place of employment.

Now if an employer hires two employees to work a 40 hour week with no overtime and splits that between two employees John and Jack, then Business Owner Carl ( and most likely the board members if applicable) still get(s) to legally avoid having to offer his/ their employees benefits, or pay anyone overtime. This makes Carl happy ( _it makes any possible board members ecstatic_) as he / they eat(s) his/ their steak and lobster dinner(s), while his / their employees often split ramen noodle packets with their family of four for dinner regularly.

So if Uber (Job A) was one of your jobs, as an employee you can guarantee that you will be assigned an area and a shift. Failure to clock in and accept fares will probably get you fired. So if you can't work your shifts, because you need to go work at slave town ( Job B) for your other job, you'll have to quit one job and hope that you find another. GOOD LUCK! Not to mention as I said before how there will most likely be changes to vehicle inspections, possibly repairs ( things possibly like: All employees will have their vehicles serviced at these certified Uber repair stations period. ) Don't think Uber doesn't know how to change their business strategy to continue to serve them much better then it may serve it's employees. Don't think any corporation or large company can't figure out how to keep you in your place while you work for them.

Here's a hint at how long, possibly longer that this strategy has been a model of corporate structure.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

The Gift of Fish said:


> People gone cray cray. Women can say they're men and women can say they're men and be recognised as such. Uberlyft can say it's not affected by the law and it doesn't apply to them. The 21st is going to go down as the century of the bullshitter.
> 
> As already stated, I'm going to claim that I am actually a panda bear that was species misclassified at birth. As an endangered animal I am entitled to free food and lodging for life. Pay up, Donald.


LOL

I'm happy to see one poster has thought of a rational solution!!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

El Janitor said:


> So what would Uber look like as an employee? What changes would be made to the vehicles we drive? How would Uber determine our wages? Last time I checked minim wage in Los Angeles is $13.25 -$14.25/ hr. ( I_ know it varies depending on the average cost of living in every geographical location in the USA_) However things like healthcare benefits only apply to employees who work 40 hours or more per week. Past few jobs I had were 20 hrs a week maybe 30 tops, depending on my employers need. [That way you never get health benefits] Many people I know also can't find a 40 an hour a week job. Who here has ever worked 2 jobs? So you still don't get benefits even if your total hours at work are 40 or more at two separate jobs, even if you are a W2 employee. Not to mention trying to find two employers who not only are unwilling to schedule you near 40 hours a week, let alone not complain aggressively at you because your hours at one employer make it difficult to schedule you at their place of employment.
> 
> Now if an employer hires two employees to work a 40 hour week with no overtime and splits that between two employees John and Jack, then Business Owner Carl ( and most likely the board members if applicable) still get(s) to legally avoid having to offer his/ their employees benefits, or pay anyone overtime. This makes Carl happy ( _it makes any possible board members ecstatic_) as he / they eat(s) his/ their steak and lobster dinner(s), while his / their employees often split ramen noodle packets with their family of four for dinner regularly.
> 
> ...


WARNING- EVERYTHING IN THE ABOVE POST IS MADE UP, OR INCORRECT. BELIEVE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

OldBay said:


> If I was CEO, this is what I'd do.
> 
> Go dark in CA. Maybe for a day. Maybe for a month. Blame it on ab5.
> 
> ...


Would blow up in their face.
1. Only Uber customers would miss them.
2. 97% of the population would turn on them.
3. The sudden easing of traffic congestion would have everyone thinking less Ubers should happen more often.

Still like to see Uber do it though.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

everythingsuber said:


> Would blow up in their face.
> 1. Only Uber customers would miss them.
> 2. 97% of the population would turn on them.
> 3. The sudden easing of traffic congestion would have everyone thinking less Ubers should happen more often.
> ...


And Lyft would THRIVE!


----------



## El Janitor (Feb 22, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> WARNING- EVERYTHING IN THE ABOVE POST IS MADE UP, OR INCORRECT. BELIEVE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK :smiles:


I'm so glad to know that you're enjoying your steak and lobster.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Grokit said:


> I disagree. Uber did not stay in Houston because of its market size; Uber stayed because Houston's politicians buckled under public pressure and gutted their new law. These 2 articles from the Houston Business Journal document my point -
> 
> *Uber threatens to leave Houston*
> (if significant changes to the new law aren't made) 04/27/16
> ...


The Texas legislature gutted it. Not Houston.

The Houston law went into effect in I think November 2014. Uber stayed. Lyft left. It wasn't until about 2.5 years later that the legislature passed a bill invalidating local control that anything changed. Until then I still had to have a city license, fingerprinting, medical exam, drug test, city vehicle inspection, etc. done annually to drive in Houston.

As soon as the legislature changed things Lyft came back to Houston. Both companies went back to Austin.

There's no explanation for Uber staying during that time yet leaving Austin other than the market was too big to lose.



uberdriverfornow said:


> and other companies would take their place


That's what happened in Austin.


----------



## Sal29 (Jul 27, 2014)

Grokit said:


> Doesn't anyone remember what happened in Alaska, Oregon, and Austin, Texas?
> 
> When Uber/Lyft lost the legislative battles over worker status, they left the states/city. They play hardball all over the world and are not going to bend over for California.
> 
> Come Jan 1st 2020, if no settlement has been reached, both Lyft and Uber will cease operations in CA.


LMFAO, California has 40 MILLION PEOPLE and many other states follow California's laws, rules and regulations(look at all the CARB states that followed California).
Uber, Lyft, etc would lose a TREMENDOUS amount of money by leaving California.
In a few years, 20 or 25 states could have laws similar to AB5.


----------



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

Überall said:


> Having faith that driverless cars will soon sweep across the nation is pure fantasy.
> Believing that Uber is exempt or doesn't fall under the California Law is pure fantasy.
> Believing that Uber will at some point actually make a profit is pure fantasy.
> Believing what Uber puts into words is pure fantasy.
> ...


They got kicked out of fantasy land because the emperor of fantasy land instituted a policy where all businesses must accept cash credit or Golden Shmucks.

Travis met before the council of fantasy creatures 3 years ago and spouted his typical BS.

The council said that his business model was imaginary, in the bad way.


----------



## Grokit (Sep 8, 2019)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> The Texas legislature gutted it. Not Houston.
> 
> The Houston law went into effect in I think November 2014. Uber stayed. Lyft left. It wasn't until about 2.5 years later that the legislature passed a bill invalidating local control that anything changed. Until then I still had to have a city license, fingerprinting, medical exam, drug test, city vehicle inspection, etc. done annually to drive in Houston.
> 
> ...


OMG! We wasted a lot of time because I trusted you. You said the Houston law was just as bad as the Austin law. Wrong!

The Houston law didn't come anywhere close to putting as much financial burdens on Uber/Lyft as the Austin law did. All the Houston law did was put a lot of burdens on the Houston RS *drivers*. Nothing in the Houston law, aside from the increased cost to find/retain drivers, put any financial burdens on Uber and Lyft. Uber didn't care about what you and the other Houston drivers had to go through because the law wasn't having much of impact on its financials.

In contrast, the Austin law was pretty much written by the taxi companies to attack Uber/Lyft's business model with a $1 tax on all rides and exhaustive information sharing about Uber's rides and patrons, which would have gone right into the hands of the taxi companies, via public information requests. (In addition to a number of other anti-RS statutes and all of the finger printing and other requirements drivers would have to pass.)

Let's please stop wasting time on this digression. If you can't show us how the Houston law attacked Uber's business model, as AB5 does, then there is nothing further to discuss.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

Uberdriver914 said:


> Straight up disrespectful
> 
> "drivers are not core to our business"
> 
> ...


"Guess they wasn't"? Nice English. ?


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Uber can say whatever they want but this law was created for them and because of them.


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

OldBay said:


> If I was CEO, this is what I'd do.
> 
> Go dark in CA. Maybe for a day. Maybe for a month. Blame it on ab5.
> 
> ...


let's all start lying , it tony can do it so should we


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> The Texas legislature gutted it. Not Houston. As soon as the legislature changed things Lyft came back to Houston. Both companies went back to Austin.


Austin's law was upheld by plebiscite. This was a plebiscite that Uber and Lyft demanded, and got. They tried to buy it and could not.

The State Legislature trampled the expressed will of the people. The Republicans control the Texas Legislature. The Republicans accuse the Democrats of ignoring the will of the people, but, the Republicans did just that. Someone had to have paid someone something somewhere. Texas politics is every bit as crooked as politics in New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Louisiana , Florida, Michigan and Illinois.


----------



## Steve appleby (May 30, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> WARNING- EVERYTHING IN THE ABOVE POST IS MADE UP, OR INCORRECT. BELIEVE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK :smiles:


No he's pretty much right bud. Especially on the healthcare part.


----------



## Rockocubs (Jul 31, 2017)

So any California Drivers looked at what it goin to cost you in Taxes vs now?


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

OldBay said:


> Pandas aren't bears, they are big rodents.


Now you're getting it! Yes, bears are rodents, men are women, women are men, Uber isn't a taxi firm etc. You can be a helicopter if you like. ChoppaChoppaChoppaChoppa.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Rockocubs said:


> So any California Drivers looked at what it goin to cost you in Taxes vs now?


instead of writing off mileage we would get reimbursed for expenses and mileage from Uber and Lyft


----------



## everydayimubering (Aug 5, 2017)

dgates01 said:


> "Drivers are not core to our business"
> 
> Umm, drivers ARE your only business.


Until and unless you can came up with the introduction of driver-less vehicles. Which, in reality, could happen within the next 2-3 years.


----------



## SuperDumped (Sep 6, 2019)

everydayimubering said:


> Until and unless you can came up with the introduction of driver-less vehicles. Which, in reality, could happen within the next 2-3 years.


not anyones whose ever drivens reality

and in what world will it be cheaper to use a 50+K robot with ALL costs vs paying grandpa simpson, apu, otto $3-4 gross minimum fares & 1970s wages in their 5K or less hooptys with zero costs?


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

There's Uber, the driving division, which we consider to be the core business.

There's Uber Eats, which also requires drivers, but in a slightly different structure.

There's Uber freight, which does not require us. Different drivers, perhaps, but not us.

There's Jump bikes, which do not require drivers.

There's the scooters, which do not require drivers.

There's numerous divisions which mostly involve R&D at this point (no drivers). Think Uber helicopter, Self driving cars, Uber boat, and other currently unknown projects.

So saying that they are more than just a company that drives people from A to B is true. HOWEVER.....

A good 95% of their _REVENUE_ (I'm guesstimating on that %) comes from either Uber or UberEats. Which means that drivers are CRITICAL to their "core" business. In fact, in their earnings releases, they even categorize revenue from Uber and Eats together under the heading of "*core contribution*".


----------



## everydayimubering (Aug 5, 2017)

Uber is desperately trying to stand by a lame argument that "we're a software company - but we're not in the transportation business", and I am surprised why the lawyers and judges can't seem to see through the absurdity of their claim.

Who screens, filters, signs up, activates, monitors their performance & ratings and deactivates the drivers?
Who conducts background checks on drivers and their driving track records?
Who insures every vehicle is inspected and certified every year?
Who fights citations and secures release of vehicles seized for violations of city/state laws governing the transportation of paying passengers?
Who manages the database of the inventory of vehicles used to transport Uber riders?
Who manages collection of fares, payments and disbursements?
Who provides tax data for calculation of taxable income and deduction to all drivers?
Who resolves any issues, claims and accusations between riders and drivers?
Also, who settles insurance claims when accidents occur during trips?

Knowing that the answer to all of the above questions is UBER, what more remains to be asked in order to prove that the company is indeed in the business of transportation?

If Uber was selling its App. or charging a monthly/weekly fee to anybody wanting to download and use their App. and using it to hail rides or to offer rides, and to send periodically send out software updates - then, and only then can Uber be considered a software company and nothing more.


----------



## Grokit (Sep 8, 2019)

Uberdriver914 said:


> California doesn't have to do anything it's been known already that when Uber loses legislative action they pack up their bags and move on. Uber will leave on their own.





I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> We collectively laughed at that one already!?


Really? You think Uber won't leave or at least severely curtail their operations if AB5 gets signed into law?

Then why has Governor Newsom started saying that it "is in the best interest of the state to stay at the bargaining table" ?

Shrewd people aren't willing to negotiate if they think they are going to get everything they want. Sounds like your governor was not one of the people who "collectively laughed at that one already."


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

It's not a contractor law, it's an employee law.


----------



## donurs (May 31, 2015)

dgates01 said:


> "Drivers are not core to our business"
> 
> Umm, drivers ARE your only business.


Will Uber even exist without drivers being the core of their business?
(Do not respond with the SDC argument as that is something that is years off, if at all)


----------



## simont23 (Jul 24, 2019)

He is lying. That is Uber's business model.


----------



## Uber1111uber (Oct 21, 2017)

If they wernt worried y did they try to pay $90 million to avoid this instead of trying to exempt themselves after the bill. Sounds like they know they are guilty. They did this to themselves, they have been around like 10 years and everything was fine til they kept lowering pay and kept lowering til people had enough and the govt had to finally step in. This "technology " bs has to stop already they arnt fooling anyone anymore. Just bc they dont own the cars doesnt mean they arnt a technology company. U call uber to get a ride so a ride company u are. U are what u sell or service u provide.


----------



## MyJessicaLS430 (May 29, 2018)

I am not from the States and this is something that I do not understand.

Uber has been claiming its business as a technology platform. According to my understanding, such platform is only entitled to receive a fixed percentage of each successful business transaction as ''commission fee' which is agreed upon between the agency and contractor. Some examples include online auctions and travel agencies. Sellers are notified about the commission fees during account registration. Likewise, a travel agency cannot withhold a booking fee exceeding the pre-determined percentage. Such act constitutes a violation of the partner contract and thus, the other party can exercise its right to initiate legal actions. How about Uber? They take whatever as pleased from every fare ranging from 40% to 80%. We, drivers have never acknowledged such unethical business behaviour. This phenomenon exacerbates during surge. Customers pay a surge fare calculated by the previous multiplier model while only a few dollars are transferred to the drivers most of time. Yes, there is occasional surge adjustment but this is only offered at their discretion.

By definition, independent contractors have full autonomy to make business decisions. How about us? We can never set our rates. We do not even have a clue where a potential customer is going to. Do not tell me about Uber Po, Uber. This only gives the direction of a trip and having access to such information requires drivers to follow a set of ridiculous rules. This has already in breach of the right that an independent contractor should have. How can Uber get away from this since establishment??

Second, how can a corporation be above law? Their law consultants seem to be optimistic that all the legal consequences associated with the Assembly Bill will not apply. Is this just a bluff? or indeed they may have a trumph card to corner around the bill? By January, Uber will be subject to hefty fines should they fail to comply. Isn't willful incompliance to court orders punishable by more severe penalties?

Apparently Uber can pay fines to buy time to appeal the bill (if this is even possible?). This leaves to the question - How long can this sustain ? Do they even have the financial capacity to do so?


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

MyJessicaLS430 said:


> I am not from the States and this is something that I do not understand.
> 
> Uber has been claiming its business as a technology platform. According to my understanding, such platform is only entitled to receive a fixed percentage of for each successful business as ''commission fee' which is agreed upon between the agency and contractor. Some examples include online auctions and travel agencies. Sellers are notified about the commission fees during account registration. Likewise, a travel agency cannot withhold a booking fee exceeding the pre-determined percentage. Such act constitutes a violation of the partner contract and thus, the other party can exercise its right to initiate legal actions. How about Uber? They take whatever as pleased from every fare ranging from 40% to 80%. We, drivers have never acknowledged such unethical business behaviour. This phenomenon exacerbates during surge. Customers pay a surge fare calculated by the previous multiplier model while only a few dollars are transferred to the drivers most of time. Yes, there is occasional surge adjustment but this is only offered at their discretion.
> 
> ...


 their time will come, you can't break the law forever, eventually the money will run out that allows them to pay the best lawyers, best lobbyists, pay to support politicians and to break the law in the first place .


----------



## Polomarko (Dec 20, 2016)

El Janitor said:


> So what would Uber look like as an employee? What changes would be made to the vehicles we drive? How would Uber determine our wages? Last time I checked minim wage in Los Angeles is $13.25 -$14.25/ hr. ( I_ know it varies depending on the average cost of living in every geographical location in the USA_) However things like healthcare benefits only apply to employees who work 40 hours or more per week. Past few jobs I had were 20 hrs a week maybe 30 tops, depending on my employers need. [That way you never get health benefits] Many people I know also can't find a 40 an hour a week job. Who here has ever worked 2 jobs? So you still don't get benefits even if your total hours at work are 40 or more at two separate jobs, even if you are a W2 employee. Not to mention trying to find two employers who not only are unwilling to schedule you near 40 hours a week, let alone not complain aggressively at you because your hours at one employer make it difficult to schedule you at their place of employment.
> 
> Now if an employer hires two employees to work a 40 hour week with no overtime and splits that between two employees John and Jack, then Business Owner Carl ( and most likely the board members if applicable) still get(s) to legally avoid having to offer his/ their employees benefits, or pay anyone overtime. This makes Carl happy ( _it makes any possible board members ecstatic_) as he / they eat(s) his/ their steak and lobster dinner(s), while his / their employees often split ramen noodle packets with their family of four for dinner regularly.
> 
> ...


I am sorry you are totally wrong. Uber needs us as we need Uber. So, will be no schedule shift. Uber will be obliged to pay driver every single ride min. wage. For example 1/2 ride Uber must pay 50% hourly min wage plus mileage for car depreciation. If driver work 40 hours a week Uber will pay driver benefit. Of course U will play a game not letting you work 40 hours. But if they need you because of drivers shortages they will pay you. Of course U will control drivers more like, drug test, acceptance rate, quality of car and so on. AB5 is definitely big plus for drivers.Driver will establish Union.
And remember drivers are core of Uber business.


----------



## Grokit (Sep 8, 2019)

Sal29 said:


> LMFAO, California has 40 MILLION PEOPLE and many other states follow California's laws, rules and regulations(look at all the CARB states that followed California).
> Uber, Lyft, etc would lose a TREMENDOUS amount of money by leaving California.
> In a few years, 20 or 25 states could have laws similar to AB5.


You say California has 40 million people? So what! China has 2 Billion and Uber pulled out of that market. Market size only matters when a business has the potential to make a profit in it.

The big question is - can Uber become profitable in California under AB5?

Given that Uber hasn't turned a dime of profit in the last TEN years and is currently taking a beating in New York City under a ordinance kind of similar to AB5 (but much less onerous) it seems very unlikely that they will ever become profitable under AB5.

But, for the sake of discussion, let's assume you're right - AB5 passes and TNCs stick around. A lot of people on here seem to think AB5 will somehow transform the California RS marketplace, bringing back the days when drivers made easy money for minimal work.

Uh.. remember that part about Uber never making a dime in profits? The venture capitalists were happy to subsidize your earnings, but the new stock holders don't want to continue to do so and certainly not at a higher percentage.

Anyone who believes the 'AB5 means easy-money' BS needs a reality check - all you have to do is read through UberPeople's 'New York City' forum to learn how De Blasio's TLC (Taxi and Limousine Commission) has destroyed the RideShare industry. Assuming U/L stick around after AB5 passes, here is just a tidbit of what RS drivers in California will soon be experiencing:

You wanna work when you wanna work? Forget it! NYC drivers have to pull shifts now.
You wanna decline low-profit rides to maximize your earnings? Forget it! NYC drivers with an AR below 90% on any single day within the last 30 days can be kicked off and locked out of the system at any time by the TNC.
You want to decline "problem customers" with low ratings? Forget it! The NYC drivers now have to deal with caps on how long they can go without a passenger in their car.
Once the RS drivers in the rest of the country wise up to all of the BS that you guys in NYC and California have brought down on yourselves, everyone else will try to run away from this catastrophe as fast as they can.


----------



## atthehop (Jul 24, 2015)

kevin92009 said:


> Burn baby burn and I hope those punks go bankrupt enough with the lies enough with the deceit enough of twisting things to suit their way and to screw everyone else, I hope they do put up resistance and I hope they get fined heavily or put in jail , They need to know that they don't get to be exempt and do whatever they want there's laws that need to be followed and they don't deserve to get special treatment
> 
> 
> I am a panda too
> ...


True, seen my CEO walk away with tens of millions of dollars after forcing lower management to make the numbers go his way and after he was fired another venture capitalist group hired him as the CEO of one of their major corporations.


----------



## Polomarko (Dec 20, 2016)

CZ75 said:


> Just buying time for robo cars.


Robo cars will never come. At least in your life time. If you are U/L driver imagine robo car on Van Ness avenue SF



TwoFiddyMile said:


> Of course they will fight this. and lose.


This time they must implement and fight in the Court Room. Will they it is a big question. Tony West will go and on others person will think twice. To be or not to be?????????


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

MyJessicaLS430 said:


> Apparently Uber can pay fines to buy time to appeal the bill (if this is even possible?). This leaves to the question - How long can this sustain ? Do they even have the financial capacity to do so?


That's where Uber excels:

https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-13-2014/bjCa2H.gif


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

The Entomologist said:


> That's where Uber excels:
> 
> https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-13-2014/bjCa2H.gif


People and companies with money are always in a better position to break the law


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

All Ponzi Schemes and Trump always say laws don't apply to them.


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

Lee239 said:


> All Ponzi Schemes and Trump always say laws don't apply to them.


can the law not apply to me too ??


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

Grokit said:


> Doesn't anyone remember what happened in Alaska, Oregon, and Austin, Texas?
> 
> When Uber/Lyft lost the legislative battles over worker status, they left the states/city. They play hardball all over the world and are not going to bend over for California.
> 
> Come Jan 1st 2020, if no settlement has been reached, both Lyft and Uber will cease operations in CA.


They can cease operations everywhere for all I care.



Cold Fusion said:


> "_Uber/Lyft are effectively "taxi services",_
> 
> Uber doesn't offer that "service"
> Drivers do. They own the equipment, operate the equipment and bare expense cost, depreciation and any remaining profit.
> ...


Yes, the non-taxi company that gets to set rates for so-called "independent contractors". Nothing but an app here. Move along now. -o:


----------



## RusDqD (Aug 8, 2019)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> West says Uber's business is "serving as a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces" and not providing rides, which means drivers aren't a core part of the business and can remain independent when the law goes into effect in January.


I do not trust people that benefit from me and from using my car for providing this ride share taxi service.
Drivers are core part of their business and riders are core consumers.
As expected they fall in hypocrisy and substitution of concepts delusioning others.
It is obvious and 100% clear as a day that they provide ride-share taxi service matching riders and drivers using full of discrimination algorithm.

If it was digital marketplace Uber and Lyft would get only fixed commission from fares and not significant part.
End consumer would have more opportunities than selecting type of rides (shared-uberx-comfort-lux), destinations-pickups spots.
Rider would have ability to:
1. Select particular driver.
2. Set price cap that he is ready to pay according to real market situation that depends on availability of drivers, distance of pickup, distance of requested ride and its duration.

Driver would have the ability to:
1. Decline and cancel ride requests without penalties accepting the only ones they satisfied with.
2. Set price level of trips that he wants to drive for.
3. Set distance radius that he wants to keep inside or get out of it.

Ride request in digital FREE marketplace would look like Token Ring with floating price depending on real-time conditions (demand and driver supply).
Every round trip if it was not accepted it would go higher next round.
That is why it is hard for rider to get U/L if he is requesting from dead zone or if all drivers around are busy and ping goes to drivers 10-20 miles away.

As for now Uber and Lyft are unable to provide enough flexibility to consumers and fair fares system to core part business providers - drivers.
Instead they are interested in keeping status quo. The only thing they can do is charging riders more and paying drivers less treating them as employees taking advantage of using their cars without ant amortisation.
As for now I see that they are not interested in fair system and are not able to evolve.
So if they vanish I would not mind to drive for any Fuber Gyft that will come after if they will provide flexible and fair opportunities for both parties.
Goodbye Uber/Lyft! Hello Fuber Gyft!


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

Polomarko said:


> I am sorry you are totally wrong. Uber needs us as we need Uber. So, will be no schedule shift. Uber will be obliged to pay driver every single ride min. wage. For example 1/2 ride Uber must pay 50% hourly min wage plus mileage for car depreciation. If driver work 40 hours a week Uber will pay driver benefit. Of course U will play a game not letting you work 40 hours. But if they need you because of drivers shortages they will pay you. Of course U will control drivers more like, drug test, acceptance rate, quality of car and so on. AB5 is definitely big plus for drivers.Driver will establish Union.
> And remember drivers are core of Uber business.


Yes. Exactly. Drivers need Uber just like people in a bad relationship need an abusive spouse. -o:


----------



## uberfoulup (Aug 22, 2019)

Well if uber drivers are not traditional employess, they damn sure aren't traditional "contractors" either. Uber and Lyft have a take or leave it system. Not many contractors have ever worked like that. A contract means you know how much you are to be paid in advance so that you can make a choice. And that includes a set time period for making a set amount of dollars. This all makes drivers ghost workers. Anyway, with Lyft and their new pay scale, I no longer log onto their app. Did you get their new survey about the changes in pay scale? It's as if they already didn't know that the drivers hate it. If uber follows lyft with the same pay scale, I expect to see more people asking for donations on street corners, with signs that say "former ride share driver". After all, the only power that we have over the corporations is DONT PLAY THEIR GAME.


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

uberfoulup said:


> Well if uber drivers are not traditional employess, they damn sure aren't traditional "contractors" either. Uber and Lyft have a take or leave it system. Not many contractors have ever worked like that. A contract means you know how much you are to be paid in advance so that you can make a choice. And that includes a set time period for making a set amount of dollars. This all makes drivers ghost workers. Anyway, with Lyft and their new pay scale, I no longer log onto their app. Did you get their new survey about the changes in pay scale? It's as if they already didn't know that the drivers hate it. If uber follows lyft with the same pay scale, I expect to see more people asking for donations on street corners, with signs that say "former ride share driver". After all, the only power that we have over the corporations is DONT PLAY THEIR GAME.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

ABC123DEF said:


> Yes. Exactly. Drivers need Uber just like people in a bad relationship need an abusive spouse. -o:


Drivers don't need Uber. They can drive for anyone, as long as they earn their fair share.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Lee239 said:


> All Ponzi Schemes and Trump always say laws don't apply to them.


Did Trump cause your hemmerhoids, too? Are you sure it's not the Noxema jar shoved up there, sweetie?


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

The Entomologist said:


> Lol, ah good ol "above the law", Uber.
> 
> Start thinking about bankruptcy exit strategies like Perdue pharma.


I thought that was their business plan


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

XPG said:


> Drivers don't need Uber. They can drive for anyone, as long as they earn their fair share.


Err...did I imply that they did?


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

ABC123DEF said:


> Err...did I imply that they did?


Nope all good.


----------



## mikes424 (May 22, 2016)

Grokit said:


> Doesn't anyone remember what happened in Alaska, Oregon, and Austin, Texas?
> 
> When Uber/Lyft lost the legislative battles over worker status, they left the states/city. They play hardball all over the world and are not going to bend over for California.
> 
> Come Jan 1st 2020, if no settlement has been reached, both Lyft and Uber will cease operations in CA.


I don't thonk Uber/Lyft will cease operations Jan 1, 2020.

Their arguments, at least on the surface, seem to have a point. Their lawyers can keep it in court for years and have a restraining order in place to keep AB 5 from being activated during that time.


----------



## Howie428Uber (Mar 4, 2016)

It's ironic that Uber/Lyft have stabbed their own legal argument in the foot with their greed. If they had left the system as it originally was with them acting as a technology-based agent for a transaction between the passenger and driver then they might be able to win this argument. 

An actor's agent for example is not in the core business of acting. However, if the actors' agencies decided to strike a deal with the studios to get paid to provide actors, and then went out and recruited the actors separately, then their core business would be providing actors. Providing actors is different to representing actors.

I guess that they could try returning to a purely agency based model. They'd need to give drivers full information and get rid of any overlap or cross-payment between the transactions. Each trip would be a stand alone transaction with its own contract in which Uber/Lyft is only an agent.


----------



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

mikes424 said:


> I don't thonk Uber/Lyft will cease operations Jan 1, 2020.
> 
> Their arguments, at least on the surface, seem to have a point. Their lawyers can keep it in court for years and have a restraining order in place to keep AB 5 from being activated during that time.


Whaaaaaat! Restraining order! You can't just walk up to a state Law and say here is some money, I'm filing a restraining order against the state law! WTF. If they don't reclassify or provide full trip info before accepting, as well as collective bargaining over rates. Then under the law they are at breach of labor law. Any filed arbitration case will be ruled on by existing law, not a restraining order. So basically, every arbitration case will follow with a settlement to the driver under C.A law. ???

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/05/08/525873.htm


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Howie428Uber said:


> It's ironic that Uber/Lyft have stabbed their own legal argument in the foot with their greed. If they had left the system as it originally was with them acting as a technology-based agent for a transaction between the passenger and driver then they might be able to win this argument.
> 
> An actor's agent for example is not in the core business of acting. However, if the actors' agencies decided to strike a deal with the studios to get paid to provide actors, and then went out and recruited the actors separately, then their core business would be providing actors. Providing actors is different to representing actors.
> 
> I guess that they could try returning to a purely agency based model. They'd need to give drivers full information and get rid of any overlap or cross-payment between the transactions. Each trip would be a stand alone transaction with its own contract in which Uber/Lyft is only an agent.


Great analogy.


----------



## mikes424 (May 22, 2016)

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Whaaaaaat! Restraining order! You can't just walk up to a state Law and say here is some money, I'm filing a restraining order against the state law! WTF. If they don't reclassify or provide full trip info before accepting, as well as collective bargaining over rates. Then under the law they are at breach of labor law. Any filed arbitration case will be ruled on by existing law, not a restraining order. So basically, every arbitration case will follow with a settlement to the driver under C.A law. ???
> 
> https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/05/08/525873.htm


It is not the law that would be contested. It is whether or not the drivers would still be classified as independent contractors or not.


----------



## Tampa Bay Hauler (May 2, 2019)

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Whaaaaaat! Restraining order! You can't just walk up to a state Law and say here is some money, I'm filing a restraining order against the state law! WTF. If they don't reclassify or provide full trip info before accepting, as well as collective bargaining over rates. Then under the law they are at breach of labor law. Any filed arbitration case will be ruled on by existing law, not a restraining order. So basically, every arbitration case will follow with a settlement to the driver under C.A law. ???
> 
> https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/05/08/525873.htm


 It may not be called a restraining order but you can sue a legislative body. This stuff goes on in court all of the time. I remember a case where some members of the U.S. House sued the U.S.house over a law they thought was unconstitutional. They won in the Supreme Court. We have separation of powers. A governing body can pass a law but that doesn't mean it will become or remain law. This is going to be a long term battle. Rideshare drivers will have time to finish school or learn a trade before this is over.


----------

