# Class Action Lawsuit in california moves forward



## Krishna (Sep 4, 2014)

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/242316

This one is over whether drivers are treated like employees, and deserve back compensation. It is a major one which could actually hurt these guys big time. Does anyone know how drivers can join the class action?


----------



## fargonaz (Oct 30, 2014)

They are 'seeking' class action status, don't worry, you'll be informed IF the judge/s decide that a class action is warranted.

The case mentioned by the article sounds seriously deficient and would probably qualify as a 'frivolous' lawsuit, but, I obviously am not a lawyer... duh.


----------



## Krishna (Sep 4, 2014)

FedEx just got dealt a big blow with this very issue, I don't see why it wouldn't apply to Uber and Lyft.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

How many people so far have declared victory on a case that isn't even close to going to trial?


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

i think a big sticking point will be the fact that TNC drivers choose their own hours. has anybody ever been classified an "employee" who got to choose his/her own hours? 

ultimately what the IRS uses to determine employee or contractor status is one main thing ---> how much control does the corporation exert over the worker? 

Uber will argue "our partners select their own hours, they can work whenever and wherever they wish"

I believe this one area could tilt the scales


----------



## Krishna (Sep 4, 2014)

But the comparison is to taxi drivers, who also, for instance when they lease for the week or month, choose their own hours, work whenever and wherever.

But taxi companies can't take a percentage of the fare, because that would make the drivers employees.


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

Krishna said:


> But the comparison is to taxi drivers, who also, for instance when they lease for the week or month, choose their own hours, work whenever and wherever.
> 
> But taxi companies can't take a percentage of the fare, because that would make the drivers employees.


Good point


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

riChElwAy said:


> i think a big sticking point will be the fact that TNC drivers choose their own hours. has anybody ever been classified an "employee" who got to choose his/her own hours?
> 
> ultimately what the IRS uses to determine employee or contractor status is one main thing ---> how much control does the corporation exert over the worker?
> 
> ...


^^^
Even if and when the suit is Certified for a Class Action, don't think that these cases are resolved over night, like on Perry Mason or Law And Order.... they take YEARS, and in my case, a decade. 
When I was with a shuttle company in L.A. I had both of my vehicles with a company that ultimately deemed to be treating its Owner / Operators as employees. 
I don't even know how I got into the Class, but the law firm started sending me paper work, and I was in. 
Ultimately, after the case was resolved and the "employees" got their settlement, I received if I remember correctly, $285.00, which was not even gas for the week that I used for both vehicles. 
I don't even know if I can mention the name of the company, but I'll give a hint with initials, and they're still in business. "PT Shuttle", one of the two largest in L.A., if not the country. 
I really loved the work, being on the road sometimes at two or three in the morning and no later than about 5:AM for runs to LAX. 
Anyway, don't expect to get rich with a settlement from a Class Action. 
If all you want is to "get even", then go for it and join in.... like I said, 'If and when it's Certified', and be prepared to wait for what amounts to grocery money.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

There is a feeding class of lawyers who make their own big bucks by going after large corps, often supposedly in the best interests of whatever 'class' actions they are hitting. The money never amounts to anything. There may be a large settlement from which the lawyers take a huge hack for themselves in some negotiated settlements that mean little to the class in the end, financially.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> There is a feeding class of lawyers who make their own big bucks by going after large corps, often supposedly in the best interests of whatever 'class' actions they are hitting. The money never amounts to anything. There may be a large settlement from which the lawyers take a huge hack for themselves in some negotiated settlements that mean little to the class in the end, financially.


This is gospel. The lawyers make millions. The people involved, not so much.

A woman sued Honda in small claims court over low gas mileage on her Honda civic instead of joining the class action suit. She won close to $10k. Look at the payout in the above case. Less than $300.00.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

UL Driver SF said:


> This is gospel. The lawyers make millions. The people involved, not so much.
> 
> A woman sued Honda in small claims court over low gas mileage on her Honda civic instead of joining the class action suit. She won close to $10k. Look at the payout in the above case. Less than $300.00.


I would, if it mattered, guarantee drivers that if they expect anything out of class action law suits they are pissing and hoping in the wind.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> I would, if it mattered, guarantee drivers that if they expect anything out of class action law suits they are pissing and hoping in the wind.


They might get coffee money.

Now I'm not saying it's a bad idea of it keeps companies in line and is legitimate. But it's not the pay day people think.

But like you said...generalizing here...most of these are nuisance suits


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> I would, if it mattered, guarantee drivers that if they expect anything out of class action law suits they are pissing and hoping in the wind.


^^^
Which reminds me of an old saying:
Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining".


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

Krishna said:


> FedEx just got dealt a big blow with this very issue, I don't see why it wouldn't apply to Uber and Lyft.


Yes they did


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/29/us-lyft-workers-hearing-idUSKBN0L22LL20150129
From the article...
However, Chhabria said California legal precedents "point pretty strongly in the direction" that "people who do the kinds of things that Lyft drivers do here are employees."

The Uber hearing is tomorrow with a different judge. I'm sure Uber has an army of attorneys on this because this will drastically change their business model.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

I've been saying this all along. Uber has way too much control over their drivers to be declared anything but employees.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-pay-drivers-as-employees-challenged-by-judge
From this article...

At a hearing Thursday in San Francisco federal court, U.S. Judge Vince Chhabria pointed to court rulings in California finding that delivery service drivers and other workers employed under similar conditions as Lyft drivers were employees, not contractors.

While the judge said that categorizing employees using historical job descriptions and definitions is "woefully outdated" and doesn't take into account how technology has changed how workers do their jobs, Chhabria told Lyft's lawyers "you stuck your head in the sand" when it comes to how courts in the most populous U.S. state have defined employees.

"Those cases point to the conclusion" that under state law, workers who do the kind of thing that Lyft drivers do here are employees, Chhabria said, adding that he has to follow the law established in earlier cases. He didn't say when he will rule.

TRAVIS IS SHITTING HIS PANTS RIGHT NOW! HAHAHAHA


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

So...no ruling yet. Got it.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

Krishna said:


> http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/242316
> 
> This one is over whether drivers are treated like employees, and deserve back compensation. It is a major one which could actually hurt these guys big time. Does anyone know how drivers can join the class action?


First of all you need to make sure you are opted out of Ubers service agreement which was just changed with rate cuts on


Krishna said:


> http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/242316
> 
> This one is over whether drivers are treated like employees, and deserve back compensation. It is a major one which could actually hurt these guys big time. Does anyone know how drivers can join the class action?





Krishna said:


> http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/242316
> 
> This one is over whether drivers are treated like employees, and deserve back compensation. It is a major one which could actually hurt these guys big time. Does anyone know how drivers can join the class action?


You have to be opted out of Uber's service agreement with the recent rate decreases uber changed the service agreement if your fares were cut in your market. You have til Feb 8th 2015 to opt out. At the end of this article is a opt out icon fill out scan & email. 
http://uberlawsuit.com


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

UL Driver SF said:


> So...no ruling yet. Got it.


Calling David Plouffe


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Keep in mind that even if you only win a small amount of money, the biggest gain will be in future earnings and benefits if classified as employees.

Unemployment insurance, minimum wage, overtime, workers compensation etc....

You have to look at the bigger picture.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

Txchick said:


> First of all you need to make sure you are opted out of Ubers service agreement which was just changed with rate cuts on
> 
> You have to be opted out of Uber's service agreement with the recent rate decreases uber changed the service agreement if your fares were cut in your market. You have til Feb 8th 2015 to opt out. At the end of this article is a opt out icon fill out scan & email.
> http://uberlawsuit.com


You do understand that being part of the lawsuit pretty much means nothing right? If the ruling comes down in favor of the drivers any new benefits gained apply to all who work for them.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

UL Driver SF said:


> You do understand that being part of the lawsuit pretty much means nothing right? If the ruling comes down in favor of the drivers any new benefits gained apply to all who work for them.


I get it! But in case I want to sue Uber on my own or class action I first have to be opted out of their agreement which I did I emailed Uber general council & this law firm.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

Txchick said:


> I get it! But in case I want to sue Uber on my own or class action I first have to be opted out of their agreement which I did I emailed Uber general council & this law firm.


Ahhhh.....I get it.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UL Driver SF said:


> You do understand that being part of the lawsuit pretty much means nothing right? If the ruling comes down in favor of the drivers any new benefits gained apply to all who work for them.


True, but the ones that don't opt out won't recieve any of the money whether it's 2 dollars or a hundred or five thousand.

It also looks better to the judge if the amount of drivers signed up is bigger because it shows more drivers are unhappy with way they are classified.

Besides it costs no money and only a couple minutes of time. Why would you not want to opt out?


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

observer said:


> True, but the ones that don't opt out won't recieve any of the money whether it's 2 dollars or a hundred or five thousand.
> 
> It also looks better to the judge if the amount of drivers signed up is bigger because it shows more drivers are unhappy with way they are classified.
> 
> Besides it costs no money and only a couple minutes of time. Why would you not want to opt out?


Exactly!!


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

observer said:


> True, but the ones that don't opt out won't recieve any of the money whether it's 2 dollars or a hundred or five thousand.
> 
> It also looks better to the judge if the amount of drivers signed up is bigger because it shows more drivers are unhappy with way they are classified.
> 
> Besides it costs no money and only a couple minutes of time. Why would you not want to opt out?


Eh...I could be wrong but the amount of money awarded will most likely be squat. The important money would be the back pay, benefits, and fuel/maitinence. You only get that if we are classified as employees. Then everyone gets it.

I also don't see the benefit of being classified as an employee.

To me, the most important issue is fare rates and getting the city to set a minimum of at least $2 a mile and $6-7 minimum fare. And that's after the $1 safety fee.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UL Driver SF said:


> Eh...I could be wrong but the amount of money awarded will most likely be squat. The important money would be the back pay, benefits, and fuel/maitinence. You only get that if we are classified as employees. Then everyone gets it.
> 
> I also don't see the benefit of being classified as an employee.
> 
> To me, the most important issue is fare rates and getting the city to set a minimum of at least $2 a mile and $6-7 minimum fare. And that's after the $1 safety fee.


Well, there's another benefit, Employees can unionize to bargain for better pay.


----------



## Krishna (Sep 4, 2014)

We hang together, or we hang separately.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

observer said:


> Well, there's another benefit, Employees can unionize to bargain for better pay.


Sure ya can. Doesn't mean that have to give it to you. Remember...there are no shortage of drivers waiting to start. I would also advise you to research fare rates and changes in the taxi environment. Pretty much stagnant.

You might also want to think about what a union is going to charge you. They do nothing for free. I don't need a union to have the city set a minimum rate. Nor do I want a union controlling what I do or make.


----------



## fargonaz (Oct 30, 2014)

Seriously, how often do you interact with other fuber drivers beside here on the forum? It isn't exactly a team sport.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UL Driver SF said:


> Sure ya can. Doesn't mean that have to give it to you. Remember...there are no shortage of drivers waiting to start. I would also advise you to research fare rates and changes in the taxi environment. Pretty much stagnant.
> 
> You might also want to think about what a union is going to charge you. They do nothing for free. I don't need a union to have the city set a minimum rate. Nor do I want a union controlling what I do or make.


How has not unionizing or drivers sticking together worked out for you so far?

Fighting Uber alone is useless.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

observer said:


> How has not unionizing or drivers sticking together worked out for you so far?
> 
> Fighting Uber alone is useless.


The city may set a minimum rate, like they are trying to do in Florida, but that doesn't mean Uber has to pay you more money.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

observer said:


> The city may set a minimum rate, like they are trying to do in Florida, but that doesn't mean Uber has to pay you more money.


And just because you have a union doesn't meat they have to pay you more either.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UL Driver SF said:


> And just because you have a union doesn't meat they have to pay you more either.


Union jobs always pay better than nonunion.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/pros-cons-union-jobs-1.aspx

Do a google search for union pay versus nonunion pay. There's a 200 dllr per week difference, plus benefits, plus job security.

I haven't been in a union since '84 but even then the pay was higher than it is now. My dad was making 10 bucks an hour in 1977, that still isn't minimum wage in California, almost 40 years later.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

observer said:


> Union jobs always pay better than nonunion.
> 
> http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/pros-cons-union-jobs-1.aspx
> 
> ...


I received far more for carpentry work than the same workers doing the same work 40 years later.

Testimony to labor reality in the U.S.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

I'm sure a union will never happen. Uber will have this tied up in court for 5 years. Then it will take a few years to organize a union. Driverless cars will be here by then.

If there is resolution sooner, the biggest benefits of being an employee in Cali are minimum wage, overtime for working more than 8 hours in a day and the fact Uber will have to reimburse car expenses. 

Minimum wage PLUS 35 cents per mile will at least double what you are making now for UberX. Then as an added bonus, Uber pays workers comp, unemployment, healthcare and contribute to social security.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

observer said:


> Union jobs always pay better than nonunion.
> 
> http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/pros-cons-union-jobs-1.aspx
> 
> ...


As a reference point for 10 dllrs per hour in 1977,

I worked a 9th grade summer job in 1979 at California State University Long Beach making minimum wage at 3.10 per hour.

At 9 dllrs per hour now, that would be like my dad making almost $29.00 per hour today.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

observer said:


> As a reference point for 10 dllrs per hour in 1977,
> 
> I worked a 9th grade summer job in 1979 at California State University Long Beach making minimum wage at 3.10 per hour.
> 
> At 9 dllrs per hour now, that would be like my dad making almost $29.00 per hour today.


That is exactly why our economy is failing...wage stagnation.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

I am anxiously waiting to hear what the Judge says today about the Uber case. And/or waiting to see if the judge has been bought yet...


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Txchick said:


> That is exactly why our economy is failing...wage stagnation.


The economy is failing for everyone except a tiny percentage of the US population.

I think it's because,

1) Politicians are easily bought. They are ALWAYS raising funds for their next campaign.

2) 401Ks have raised billions and billions of dollars that companies did not have access to a couple decades ago. The middle class has effectively been giving investors their retirement savings to be used in consolidating companies that in turn eliminate hundreds of thousands of decent paying middle class jobs.

3) The average American has no backbone. Bows down to their bosses and politicians. Likes to whine, moan and complain about how unfair they are being treated, yet they don't do anything to change their situation.

Americans need to vote, we need to stand up for ourselves, to unite with each other. We have let ourselves be divided and silenced.

We no longer need to wait for elections every two years. We need to have our voices heard, if not on TV and Radio, on Facebook and Twitter and other social media.

We need to change the way things are going here in the US, our kids deserve better.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

observer said:


> Union jobs always pay better than nonunion.
> 
> http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/pros-cons-union-jobs-1.aspx
> 
> ...


Not In my experience. In every job I have had I always made more than Union employees and had better benefits.

I've never needed a union to protect me because I am always a better employee than most.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> I am anxiously waiting to hear what the Judge says today about the Uber case. And/or waiting to see if the judge has been bought yet...


So if he doesn't decide your way he has been bought. Got it.


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

UL Driver SF said:


> So if he doesn't decide your way he has been bought. Got it.


Calling David Plouffe


----------



## pengduck (Sep 26, 2014)

riChElwAy said:


> i think a big sticking point will be the fact that TNC drivers choose their own hours. has anybody ever been classified an "employee" who got to choose his/her own hours?
> 
> ultimately what the IRS uses to determine employee or contractor status is one main thing ---> how much control does the corporation exert over the worker?
> 
> ...


I strongly disagree! First we have no control over pricing. We are there only way of making income. They decide if we get paid for a cancellation or not. They decide if a pax gets a fare reduction. They decide if and when to deactivate us. They state that tipping is not necessary, yet if you read the legal stuff on the website or riders' app there is a disclaimer to this. So how do they not maintain control over everything but our hours. Let's not forget how they manipulate us all the time with guarantees. Yes we are employees!!!!!


----------



## pengduck (Sep 26, 2014)

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> Even if and when the suit is Certified for a Class Action, don't think that these cases are resolved over night, like on Perry Mason or Law And Order.... they take YEARS, and in my case, a decade.
> When I was with a shuttle company in L.A. I had both of my vehicles with a company that ultimately deemed to be treating its Owner / Operators as employees.
> I don't even know how I got into the Class, but the law firm started sending me paper work, and I was in.
> ...


First you don't join the suit. You wait to see if we are classified as employees. Then you file a complaint with the federal labor commission to receive the actual money you are owed. Thus no lawyer takes your money.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

riChElwAy said:


> i think a big sticking point will be the fact that TNC drivers choose their own hours. has anybody ever been classified an "employee" who got to choose his/her own hours?
> 
> ultimately what the IRS uses to determine employee or contractor status is one main thing ---> how much control does the corporation exert over the worker?
> 
> ...


I would consider the structured guarantee periods that UBER sets out as very clear direction from an employer to an employee of when and how to work.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

pengduck said:


> I strongly disagree! First we have no control over pricing. We are there only way of making income. They decide if we get paid for a cancellation or not. They decide if a pax gets a fare reduction. They decide if and when to deactivate us. They state that tipping is not necessary, yet if you read the legal stuff on the website or riders' app there is a disclaimer to this. So how do they not maintain control over everything but our hours. Let's not forget how they manipulate us all the time with guarantees. Yes we are employees!!!!!


That's the definition of a employee by the courts.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UL Driver SF said:


> Not In my experience. In every job I have had I always made more than Union employees and had better benefits.
> 
> I've never needed a union to protect me because I am always a better employee than most.


I was never a really big union guy, I was only in a union job for about a year, then quit that job. I moved in and out of the country for a couple years to try new experiences.

I do remember that the pay and benefits were good. But I've never been influenced very much by money.

I prefer a job that challenges me and teaches me new ideas, ways of getting things done and allows me to grow and help others grow to their full potential.

The company I was at before, allowed me all this and more, I loved working long hours. I started as a driver, within four years I moved into sales and management then I moved up to middle management in charge of over 300 employees. It was a good family owned company. Unions at that time were never a threat because the company paid well, had good benefits and the owners were very accessible.

Today not so much, corporate owned, pay raises stopped 8 years ago, benefits eliminated, long term employees laid off etc... Lots of discontented unhappy employees. Unhappy employees equal more accidents, more lawsuits, less productivity and more open to union representation.

I see you are in SF, I am sure you a friend or family member had contact with this company at that time. We were the most hated company in SF, but one of the most necessary companies at the same time.

Unions are becoming more and more needed because companies have become too greedy and powerful.

You are correct, not everyone needs to be represented by a union but they do keep companies a little bit more equitable.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

Sydney Uber said:


> I would consider the structured guarantee periods that UBER sets out as very clear direction from an employer to an employee of when and how to work.


but that's "opt in"


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

observer said:


> I was never a really big union guy, I was only in a union job for about a year, then quit that job. I moved in and out of the country for a couple years to try new experiences.
> 
> I do remember that the pay and benefits were good. But I've never been very influenced by money.
> 
> ...


Tell ha what....you want a good Union story? Here it is....

I did some work at the Moscone center in SF. I got to meet the union guy running things there. That guy was on the ball. ALL his guys were working. ALL knew what to do and how to do it. If they didn't know something they asked and picked up on it quickly. I think all belonged to the stage hand Union? Don't know their exact technical name.

And tools.....that's where things got interesting.

Something's I don't give a shit about. I will hack the to pieces and weld up stuff just to experiment. These guys had custom made a few tools that made the job much easier. I even adapted them to what I did. Very impressive. All quite nice guys.

Every time I went there to do stuff I contacted that guy. Everything went smoothly.

I belonged to a union once. One that has no competition.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UL Driver SF said:


> Tell ha what....you want a good Union story? Here it is....
> 
> I did some work at the Moscone center in SF. I got to meet the union guy running things there. That guy was on the ball. ALL his guys were working. ALL knew what to do and how to do it. If they didn't know something they asked and picked up on it quickly. I think all belonged to the stage hand Union? Don't know their exact technical name.
> 
> ...


Yea, we had a couple good guys like that too, they could build anything.

We ordered a few big pieces of machinery, really big equipment that had to be brought in from Iowa on two low boys and assembled here. The damn things would break after a few months of constant use.

Our guys would fix them and the manufacturer would fly their engineers to our yards to see how our guys fixed them. Then they would incorporate our "fixes" into their new designs.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

observer said:


> Yea, we had a couple good guys like that too, they could build anything.
> 
> We ordered a few big pieces of machinery, really big equipment that had to be brought in from Iowa on two low boys and assembled here. The damn things would break after a few months of constant use.
> 
> Our guys would fix them and the manufacturer would fly their engineers to our yards to see how our guys fixed them. Then they would incorporate our "fixes" into their new designs.


That's how it usually happens. Some of the best engineering is ******* engineering.


----------



## SDUberdriver (Nov 11, 2014)

Krishna said:


> But the comparison is to taxi drivers, who also, for instance when they lease for the week or month, choose their own hours, work whenever and wherever.
> 
> But taxi companies can't take a percentage of the fare, because that would make the drivers employees.


_Also taxi companies own their vehicles._


----------



## StephenJBlue (Sep 23, 2014)

SDUberdriver said:


> _Also taxi companies own their vehicles._


Many taxi companies do not own their vehicles. Lots of drivers own their cars but drive under the companies medallion or permit.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

observer said:


> I was never a really big union guy, I was only in a union job for about a year, then quit that job. I moved in and out of the country for a couple years to try new experiences.
> 
> I do remember that the pay and benefits were good. But I've never been very influenced by money.
> 
> ...


Want to know where unions lost their relevancy? When they became exactly what you accuse big business of. Greedy. That was the down hill slide. They are an endangered species today and easily worked around. Unions are no longer for the workers. Just take a look at what the reps earn and those above them.

No thanks.


----------



## SDUberdriver (Nov 11, 2014)

StephenJBlue said:


> Many taxi companies do not own their vehicles. Lots of drivers own their cars but drive under the companies medallion or permit.


_Not here. _


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Having worked Union for several years I would not want one for this. However for the full timers and ones trying to make a leaving at this perhaps. By the time this were to happen I'll done with this.

A short story, the last contact they did away with all Senority Rights. Which in turn I was Laid-off after 34 years. But I just retired anyway cause I had the time too. The severance package made it ok cause they paid me until about mid July this year. This is also because it is a Plant wide shut down. So eventually everyone is going to be laid-off. So in a way its better to get out first as the severance package gets smaller and smaller as August approaches. So as an Uber Employee, don't EVER let them take away your Senority Rights away!!!

And since there will not be a Union I would expect massive lay-offs unless the lawerys write / get that in the settlement, That NO current or active Employee shall be lay-off as a result of, blah blah blah....

So I don't need to make a living at this. But I'm going to opt out.

As an "Empolyee" as defined by the IRS, I would think Uber may have a lot of mininum wage back pay to pay out per actual hrs worked.
I'm pretty much with observer on what he said earlier.


----------



## MikeB (Dec 2, 2014)

*Uber and Lyft may have to treat their drivers as employees, judge says*
http://www.latimes.com/business/tec...t-independent-contractors-20150130-story.html


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

Hopefully, for the drivers sake, these federal judges dont succumb to corrupt backroom politics before they rule!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-30/uber-drivers-may-have-employee-status-judge-says

From the article...
He (the judge in the Uber case) noted that Uber sets the rates by which drivers are paid, screens them. The company wouldn't make money without them and can terminate them, the judge said.

"I do think drivers are serving Uber," Chen said. "If all you were doing is selling an app you could sell it at an app store, but Uber does a little more than that, doesn't it?"

Robert Hendricks, an attorney for Uber, said Uber is an intellectual property company, not a transportation business. Drivers don't serve the company because Uber assumes no obligation to provide rides that come in through the app. Drivers are customers of the company, he argued.

"So the logo of being 'everyone's private driver' has no bearing?" Chen asked, referring to a company slogan.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

I show that slogan (everyone's private driver) to any passenger that refers to Uber as a technology company. I remind them that the slogan doesn't say "Everyone's private driver app", its says they are the driver. Big difference and a foolish cocky mistake by Uber.


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Hopefully, for the drivers sake, these federal judges dont succumb to corrupt backroom politics before they rule!


How many times has this been seen before. Uber with their backs against the door. Only a hail mary pass will save them.

Maybe it's luck...


----------



## Krishna (Sep 4, 2014)

StephenJBlue said:


> Many taxi companies do not own their vehicles. Lots of drivers own their cars but drive under the companies medallion or permit.


Here in Arizona, you just write "taxi" on the side of your car and you're pretty much good to go.

Oh yeah, and you're supposed to get commercial insurance.


----------



## pengduck (Sep 26, 2014)

riChElwAy said:


> but that's "opt in"


They are not always opt in ie: the guarantees with the price cuts. They use money the one thing they take away from us to manipulate our actions based on the same money!


----------



## pengduck (Sep 26, 2014)

SDUberdriver said:


> _Also taxi companies own their vehicles._


Does the company not accept and route the rides? Do you not think that for 1 minute they do no not take part of the "lease" as a kickback for providing these trips? If so I will sell you some Florida swamp land that I don't own!


----------



## pengduck (Sep 26, 2014)

Had a pax last night an she and I were discussing this. She said the fact that we are 1099s is BS.


----------



## SDUberdriver (Nov 11, 2014)

pengduck said:


> Does the company not accept and route the rides? Do you not think that for 1 minute they do no not take part of the "lease" as a kickback for providing these trips? If so I will sell you some Florida swamp land that I don't own!


_I would rather buy ocean front property in Arizona._


----------



## Krishna (Sep 4, 2014)

SDUberdriver said:


> _I would rather buy ocean front property in Arizona._


We're just waiting for a good earthquake!


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Krishna said:


> We're just waiting for a good earthquake!


If they are fracking in AZ you may get your wish!


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Hopefully, for the drivers sake, these federal judges dont succumb to corrupt backroom politics before they rule!
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-30/uber-drivers-may-have-employee-status-judge-says
> 
> ...


The last two paragraphs piss me off.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

UL Driver SF said:


> The last two paragraphs piss me off.


Why is that?


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

pengduck said:


> First you don't join the suit. You wait to see if we are classified as employees. Then you file a complaint with the federal labor commission to receive the actual money you are owed. Thus no lawyer takes your money.


And you think that the Feds are actually gonna get you some money? 
No lawyer is going to get your money.... Very true, but neither are you.


----------



## mofouber (Jan 17, 2015)

fargonaz said:


> They are 'seeking' class action status, don't worry, you'll be informed IF the judge/s decide that a class action is warranted.
> 
> The case mentioned by the article sounds seriously deficient and would probably qualify as a 'frivolous' lawsuit, but, I obviously am not a lawyer... duh.


Obviously !!! And evidently will fit also.


----------



## LADriver (Aug 28, 2014)

Krishna said:


> http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/242316
> 
> This one is over whether drivers are treated like employees, and deserve back compensation. It is a major one which could actually hurt these guys big time. Does anyone know how drivers can join the class action?


If you are driving for UBER in any way, you are already part of the "class". When the case goes forward, usually to a settlement stage after several years, you'll get an OPT-OUT letter. This gives you an opportunity to stay in the class and receive an agreed to settlement amount. Or, you can OPT-OUT of the Class Action Lawsuit and preserve your right to sue UBER on your own and get your own settlement. This is a very basic class action lawsuit formula that has forced limousine services to pay chauffeurs as hourly employees instead of the traditional (and illegal) per job basis. I've been through 3 of these with 3 limo companies.


----------



## LADriver (Aug 28, 2014)

riChElwAy said:


> i think a big sticking point will be the fact that TNC drivers choose their own hours. has anybody ever been classified an "employee" who got to choose his/her own hours?
> 
> ultimately what the IRS uses to determine employee or contractor status is one main thing ---> how much control does the corporation exert over the worker?
> 
> ...


Money is more important than time. The question will be "How much control does the corporation exert over the worker's income and wages" UBER sets the rates and the payroll. When I worked for large limo services, I was "asked" what shift did I want to work, morning or evening. I always preferred to drive at night. I was an employee that got to choose my shift hours.


----------



## LADriver (Aug 28, 2014)

Krishna said:


> But the comparison is to taxi drivers, who also, for instance when they lease for the week or month, choose their own hours, work whenever and wherever.
> 
> But taxi companies can't take a percentage of the fare, because that would make the drivers employees.


Cab drivers are exempt from labor law in California. That's why they can NEVER be classified as employees.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

LADriver said:


> If you are driving for UBER in any way, you are already part of the "class". When the case goes forward, usually to a settlement stage after several years, you'll get an OPT-OUT letter. This gives you an opportunity to stay in the class and receive an agreed to settlement amount. Or, you can OPT-OUT of the Class Action Lawsuit and preserve your right to sue UBER on your own and get your own settlement. This is a very basic class action lawsuit formula that has forced limousine services to pay chauffeurs as hourly employees instead of the traditional (and illegal) per job basis. I've been through 3 of these with 3 limo companies.


This may not be true, I believe Uber has drivers sign a clause in the agreement where drivers can not join a class action lawsuit against Uber. They must opt out of clause within 30 days of signing the clause. @chi1cabby could educate us better on this statement.


----------



## fargonaz (Oct 30, 2014)

LADriver said:


> Cab drivers are exempt from labor law in California. That's why they can NEVER be classified as employees.


Why are they exempt?


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

LADriver said:


> If you are driving for UBER in any way, you are already part of the "class". When the case goes forward, usually to a settlement stage after several years, you'll get an OPT-OUT letter. This gives you an opportunity to stay in the class and receive an agreed to settlement amount. Or, you can OPT-OUT of the Class Action Lawsuit and preserve your right to sue UBER on your own and get your own settlement. This is a very basic class action lawsuit formula that has forced limousine services to pay chauffeurs as hourly employees instead of the traditional (and illegal) per job basis. I've been through 3 of these with 3 limo companies.





observer said:


> This may not be true, I believe Uber has drivers sign a clause in the agreement where drivers can not join a class action lawsuit against Uber. They must opt out of clause within 30 days of signing the clause. @chi1cabby could educate us better on this statement.


I'm afraid I can't offer any legal guidance on the confusion over Binding Arbitration Clause in the Partnership Agreement, and drivers being part of A Class in a Class Action Lawsuit at a later date. 
It would be great if anyone could invite a Labor Law or a Class Action Attorney to offer some advice to forum members.


----------



## LADriver (Aug 28, 2014)

observer said:


> This may not be true, I believe Uber has drivers sign a clause in the agreement where drivers can not join a class action lawsuit against Uber. They must opt out of clause within 30 days of signing the clause. @chi1cabby could educate us better on this statement.


Been there. Done that. A very large national limousine service claimed that their chauffeurs signed that any dispute would only go to binding arbitration. The courts told them to take their clause and shove it. The limo service settled their class action, paid back wages and had to put their chauffeurs on the clock to pay for the entire shift including waiting time. These limo lawsuits are very well documented (See: Empire-CLS, Music Express, Diva, BLS, etc.)


----------



## SDUberdriver (Nov 11, 2014)

LADriver said:


> Been there. Done that. A very large national limousine service claimed that their chauffeurs signed that any dispute would only go to binding arbitration. The courts told them to take their clause and shove it. The limo service settled their class action, paid back wages and had to put their chauffeurs on the clock to pay for the entire shift including waiting time. These limo lawsuits are very well documented (See: Empire-CLS, Music Express, Diva, BLS, etc.)


_Presidential in San Diego, La Jolla Transportation . This was back in 1997._


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

observer said:


> This may not be true, I believe Uber has drivers sign a clause in the agreement where drivers can not join a class action lawsuit against Uber. They must opt out of clause within 30 days of signing the clause. @chi1cabby could educate us better on this statement.


The part about New Drivers having 30 Days to Opt-out is true. 
Drivers that were made to agree to the Updated Partnership Agreement in order to Log On to the Driver App have until Feb 8th or 9th to Opt-out. But this right to Opt-out in the future is being taken away by new language in the Agreement.

*Drivers' Last Chance To Opt-out of Binding Arbitration*
*https://uberpeople.net/threads/drivers-last-chance-to-opt-out-of-binding-arbitration.11099/*


----------



## LADriver (Aug 28, 2014)

fargonaz said:


> Why are they exempt?


Because in Cab-Land, the financials are different than in Employer-Employee land. An employee is paid for his/her TIME regardless of what they do. Labor law guides how this time is managed and compensated (8 hour workday, over-time, mandatory 10-minute breaks and 1 hour lunches, etc.) Whereas, cab drivers are basically leasing their own business and their time is their own. It's as clear as mud in California's Labor Code.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

LADriver said:


> Been there. Done that. A very large national limousine service claimed that their chauffeurs signed that any dispute would only go to binding arbitration. The courts told them to take their clause and shove it. The limo service settled their class action, paid back wages and had to put their chauffeurs on the clock to pay for the entire shift including waiting time. These limo lawsuits are very well documented (See: Empire-CLS, Music Express, Diva, BLS, etc.)


Here is one article, I found on arbitration agreements.

http://www.shrm.org/templatestools/hrqa/pages/californiamanadatoryarbitration.aspx

Cleared up some questions for me, back in August 2014, I was given an employee agreement to sign. I read agreement, and decided not to sign it.

Included in agreement was a clause where I would not work for a competitor, customer, or any company detrimental to business interests of my employer for two years after I quit or was discharged. 
There was a mandatory arbitration clause and a clause preventing me from joining class action lawsuit.

Three hundred fifty employees signed it. I told them I was not signing it. They kept pressuring me to sign but I kept saying, no. Finally, I sent them a text message saying it was not in my best interests to sign and I would not sign.

I am still working at company.


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

LADriver said:


> Cab drivers are exempt from labor law in California. That's why they can NEVER be classified as employees.


As for the class action lawsuits. California Cab companies are not immune from them. Personal experience.

In this day and age anyone or a company can be sued for most anything. The Courts encourage it. That's how they collect fee's.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Why is that?


Two reasons...and strangely enough for opposite reasons....

The first comment is reasonable enough when looked at just as it sits. They are right ... Uber is under no obligation to provide rides. Just like the police in general have no obligation to protect you. Sometimes it just can't be achieved. Ok...I'm good with that. However...

It is a public statement that confuses the issue when it is applied to drivers. We all know what they expect drivers to do. To accept every ride possible. Deactivation or suspension as a result of not achieving a certain level of this is a possibility. Where as I get this to a minor extent it still blatantly goes against its own statement. If we, as they have now stated the customers of Uber, then it basically means we are purchasing our access to Ubers distribution of of ride requests. If that is the case then deactivating or sanctioning drivers for choosing which rides to purchase is not only misleading but patently, and provably false. It also places all responsibility of customer service on the drivers while removing the main elements of the control over that service. An example would be a 20 min, 17 mile ride request. Possibly unreasonable yet counted against your average. Then a customer being dissatisfied about the wait time and/or lack of availability of the service. ( I have examples of both should anyone need them )

As for the last statement....this just makes a joke out of the judge overseeing the issue. A slogan doesn't define the over all basis of a company in every aspect or form. I asked 20 people what they took away from the slogan....Uber, everyone's private driver. 18 of the 20 said that the drivers could be hired to be your private driver. When asked who is Uber? The 18 responded...the drivers. No scientific selection process here but everyone asked was over 25 and the lowest educated was a BA degree. The highest were a few Doctorates. So that may skew things a bit.

I personally believe a judge trying to make an issue of this is misleading and not relevant. Better to not confuse the issue with something that in reality has no impact on the case other than to take a shot at someone. This, in my opinion makes the judge look silly in this context. How the actual exchange went in court could change my mind.

That's it.


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

observer said:


> Here is one article, I found on arbitration agreements.
> 
> http://www.shrm.org/templatestools/hrqa/pages/californiamanadatoryarbitration.aspx
> 
> ...


Yea...a buddy of mine was presented with one of those. He said the words prior restraint and then requested, in writing, the reason for such a document singed by the people who were requesting its implementation.

They never brought it up again.

Me knowing him and knowing he didn't just pull this out of his ass....I asked...so, where did you come up with this? He answered in all seriousness.....

Uh...I saw it in a movie once.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

Just_in said:


> As for the class action lawsuits. California Cab companies are not immune from them. Personal experience.
> 
> In this day and age anyone or a company can be sued for most anything. The Courts encourage it. That's how they collect fee's.


Fact is...application of laws change with evidence introduced under different circumstances. Similar industries can have the same law applied differently due to circumstances. Or not. But once decided it gives insight and information that can be used to modify future laws or general thinking that may or may not be presently known.

So,e would say that is an excesize in over thinking. Other would say it's looking a head to try and deal with the ever changing landscape of technology.

A good example would be the hot topic of automated vehicles as it applies to California. Specifically how it could be applied to assist in reducing DUI accidents. In California an automated vehicle currently be required to have a driver override capability built into the system. Becuase a key factor in a DUI is control over a vehicle that eliminates, by legal requirement, the use of an automated vehicle as an effective tool in the reduction of DUI accidents.

This doesn't even bring into the question of liability with regard to supplying a drunk person with a vehicle with which to drive with.

Want an extreme case? A 12 yr old gets into an accident driving an automated vehicle....


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UL Driver SF said:


> Yea...a buddy of mine was presented with one of those. He said the words prior restraint and then requested, in writing, the reason for such a document singed by the people who were requesting its implementation.
> 
> They never brought it up again.
> 
> ...


Hahahaaaa, that was a good one. But it is true, you can learn from the darndest places if you keep an open mind.

Where I work, I might go into the office once or twice a month if that, so a lot of communication is on the phone or by text. That is good for me because by texting them, I have WRITTEN proof I declined to sign agreement. If I would have spoken to them in person or on phone I would have no proof. If they fired me for any reason I would not be able to prove that my not signing agreement might have been the reason. They could deny asking me to sign or deny pressuring me to sign.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UL Driver SF said:


> Two reasons...and strangely enough for opposite reasons....
> 
> The first comment is reasonable enough when looked at just as it sits. They are right ... Uber is under no obligation to provide rides. Just like the police in general have no obligation to protect you. Sometimes it just can't be achieved. Ok...I'm good with that. However...
> 
> ...


Here is another angle on your comments, If drivers are customers of Uber, and purchasing access to the ride requests. Wouldn't that mean that Uber is the independent contractor and drivers should be sending UBER a 1099?


----------



## UL Driver SF (Aug 29, 2014)

observer said:


> Here is another angle on your comments, If drivers are customers of Uber, and purchasing access to the ride requests. Wouldn't that mean that Uber is the independent contractor and drivers should be sending UBER a 1099?


Don't know. I know they are collecting the money and doing the accounting.

i will even add this....if we are just purchasing access to the distribution of ride requests then who should get to set the price?


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-pay-drivers-as-employees-challenged-by-judge
> From this article...
> 
> At a hearing Thursday in San Francisco federal court, U.S. Judge Vince Chhabria pointed to court rulings in California finding that delivery service drivers and other workers employed under similar conditions as Lyft drivers were employees, not contractors.
> ...


POST # 17 / @UberBlackDriverLA : ♤♡♢♧
Yeah, and the inbred-inbed VC minions
suck it down and call it Nectar of the
#FUBER God.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Txchick said:


> I get it! But in case I want to sue Uber on my own or class action I first have to be opted out of their agreement which I did I emailed Uber general council & this law firm.


POST # 23 / @Txchick: ♤♡♢♧ No moss
growing under her feet, no sir!
You go, girl!


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

*Uber Drops Morgan, Adds Gibson*
*http://www.therecorder.com/id=12027...n?mcode=1202723405278&slreturn=20150314002113*


----------



## MikeB (Dec 2, 2014)

arto71 said:


> *Uber Drops Morgan, Adds Gibson*
> *http://www.therecorder.com/id=12027...n?mcode=1202723405278&slreturn=20150314002113*


Look buddy, posting a link to a news article in some online publication that won't let you read it unless you sign up for it is .... umm ... not kosher.


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

MikeB said:


> Look buddy, posting a link to a news article in some online publication that won't let you read it unless you sign up for it is .... umm ... not kosher.


Not sure why you're having an issue with the link but I just tried it works fine .
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Boutrous
Diego M. Radzinschi

SAN FRANCISCO - Uber Technologies Inc. has retained new counsel in its fight over whether the company's drivers are employees or independent contractors.

Lawyers with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher have replaced Uber's prior team from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, according to a Monday filing in the Northern District of California.

The swap comes a month after Uber lost its bid for summary judgment before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen.

Plaintiffs argue Uber denied drivers proper wages and reimbursements for driving expenses by misclassifying them as contractors. Shannon Liss-Riordan of Boston-based firm Licthen & Liss-Riordan represents plaintiffs. Uber has argued it is simply an app that matches independent drivers and customers in need of a ride-the drivers don't work for Uber.

Uber's new legal team includes Gibson Dunn partners Joshua Lipshutz in San Francisco, and Theodore Boutrous Jr., Debra Wong Yang, Marcellus McRae and Theane Evangelis in Los Angeles.

Gibson Dunn also represents Uber in a case brought by a Delhi woman who says she was raped by an Uber driver while using the app. The plaintiff sued Uber for negligence and fraud in the Northern District of California.

Uber, a frequent litigation target, has amassed a long and diverse list of outside counsel. Littler Mendelson is defending Uber against allegations that the company discriminated against blind passengers, Irell & Manella and Clarence Dyer & Cohen are fighting two sets of claims targeting Uber's driver background checks, and Fenwick & West represents Uber in a suit challenging the company's $4 surcharge for some trips to and from San Francisco International Airport.

Contact the reporter at [email protected].

Read more: http://www.therecorder.com/id=12027...g-Uber-Drops-Morgan-Adds-Gibson#ixzz3XIBA2imV


----------



## My Cabby (Dec 2, 2014)

A point about Taxis
Here taxi drivers are really independent drivers because they pay lease weekly and daily TO the Cab companies. Cab companies encourages drivers to build their own fleet and one can buy as many cabs as they want. Once you own two vehicles and split shift drivers you drive for profit only. Some drivers own over 10 vehicles of different models. Cab companies here encourage drivers to build their own personal clientele and a driver can reject any call without consequences, work anywhere and anytime within the licensed area. Most cab companies are self insured and here commercial insurance is part of the fee which is included in the lease and is about $14 per week.

The drivers can use their own credit card processors or pay the cab company 6% for that service. The cab companies pay work comp out of the weekly lease which is required by Colorado law. The state sets the fare at $2.50 to get in and approximately $2.50 mile charged by the tenth of a mile and .40 cents a mile wait time. Front Range is .50 per extra passenger and on the Western Slope it's $1 extra pax which really ads up and helps with cleaning expense and extra gas for the extra load. The fares were set by the state to insure the drivers have a "livable wage." And most important, they encourage the customers to pay tips which when I was driving cabs consisted about 1/4 of my weekly net profit.

I think the key here is the driver's "company" collects the money for THEIR own customer fares and pays the cab company for advertising, marketing, dispatch and maintenance for cab vehicle rental.

My average sales for MY cab business was $1.500 per week working 5 - 10 to 14 hour days. Net profit counting tips was $800 to $1,000 per week. Doing that for 5 years allowed me to buy the car service I have now.

Now there is talk about getting more women drivers. What woman driver, men drivers too, would work for less than livable wage?


----------



## hangarcat (Nov 2, 2014)

Krishna said:


> But the comparison is to taxi drivers, who also, for instance when they lease for the week or month, choose their own hours, work whenever and wherever.
> 
> But taxi companies can't take a percentage of the fare, because that would make the drivers employees.


Taxi drivers are self employed contractors.


----------

