# Prop 22 Wins!🎆💰🎆



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

Results coming in prop 22 solid lead!


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Will be overturned by CASC.

The only way it will be upheld is if they have strict rules enforced for IC conditions: drivers vote on base rate, deactivation review board, limit on fare taken etc.


----------



## OC-Moe (Oct 6, 2018)

Über and Lyft might have hoodwinked the easily swayed donkeys in California but it cost them a quarter billion and they will have to pay dearly to stop other states from enacting AB5 legislation. this is a Pyrrhic victory.


----------



## Steve appleby (May 30, 2015)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Will be overturned by CASC.
> 
> The only way it will be upheld is if they have strict rules enforced for IC conditions: drivers vote on base rate, deactivation review board, limit on fare taken etc.


Yeah the people spoke buddy suck it. They don't want that shit


----------



## Gigworker (Oct 23, 2019)

Nothing will really change. Drivers will keep their freedom and Uber/Lyft will still have to pay enough to get drivers to work. The long pickups might be worth it, since we get paid starting when we accept the request. When will we get the new Uber/Lyft agreements ?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/sto...-labor-law-wins-big-early-support-11604469037
At least drivers may get some back pay money.

Mark my words, it ain't over yet.


----------



## Wildgoose (Feb 11, 2019)

Sorry for the full time drivers but Prop 22 will help a lot of families who needs extra incomes, students who just want to earn money on their favor times and employees who wants to do this gig as part time.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Steve appleby said:


> Yeah the people spoke buddy suck it. They don't want that shit


The people can't overturn labor laws.


----------



## Youburr (Aug 22, 2019)

The people can overturn laws in Cal. Also, once the people realize they just created a new lower-class of worker due to the expenditures of private corporations, the people will cause the situation to be rectified in the people's favor. Welcome to CA.


----------



## DRider85 (Nov 19, 2016)

Yay!!!!!!



Youburr said:


> The people can overturn laws in Cal. Also, once the people realize they just created a new lower-class of worker due to the expenditures of private corporations, the people will cause the situation to be rectified in the people's favor. Welcome to CA.


Hey, celebrate a win when you can.


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

Looks like Passengers didn't want to pay more for rides..gee who wouldn't have thunk.


----------



## Joe Saltucci (Oct 6, 2020)

dauction said:


> Looks like Passengers didn't want to pay more for rides..gee who wouldn't have thunk.


You nailed it! Anybody really think that they cared about anything else?
That 200 million spent on the p.r blitz was the best investment they ever made. They will make that back in a few months.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

Premarket shows U/L gained over 10% from yesterday's closing. The real big win we're looking for. 
https://uberpeople.net/attachments/mw1104-png.522015/


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

Wildgoose said:


> Sorry for the full time drivers but Prop 22 will help a lot of families who needs extra incomes, students who just want to earn money on their favor times and employees who wants to do this gig as part time.


Most full time drivers pull in above avg $$$, those who don't can be paid extra. Divert some of the pings from drivers that have high avg/hr to the full time drivers. Let the drivers decide if they want to be full time or not, put a cap on the upside.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

OC-Moe said:


> they will have to pay dearly to stop other states from enacting AB5 legislation.


Doubt it, especially after AB5 failure. More would choose to follow the NYC or Seattle model to set rates if they are so inclined to regulate more.


nosurgenodrive said:


> The people can't overturn labor law


Labor law covers employees, not IC.


Youburr said:


> once the people realize they just created a new lower-class of worker


The sad reality is people DGF about that. They want their rides as cheap as possible even if you have to pull them in a rickshaw.


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

Seamus said:


> Doubt it, especially after AB5 failure. More would choose to follow the NYC or Seattle model to set rates if they are so inclined to regulate more.
> 
> Labor law covers employees, not IC.
> 
> The sad reality is people DGF about that. They want their rides as cheap as possible even if you have to pull them in a rickshaw.


Sad reality is:
Warren Buffett "pick a company (or job) with great barriers to entry.
A 3000 dollar used car with 27 tree air fresheners hanging without high school, English skills or nice clothes is not a barrier.
The enemy is really other drivers taking the cheap trip.
Period


----------



## RockemSockem (Sep 1, 2020)

Just what I feared, they had the money to over saturate advertising.
That shit was everywhere.
Not fair, time will squash this.
Battle lost. War will be Won


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

RockemSockem said:


> Just what I feared, they had the money to oversaturate advertising.
> That shit was everywhere.
> Not fair, time will squash this.
> Battle lost. War will Won


&#128514;&#128514;&#128514;
You will never beat supply vs demand 
No free lunch


----------



## Andrew Philip (Jul 20, 2017)

So, YES ON 22 passed with a very solid lead, meaning that us drivers in California will remain independent. So what do you guys overall think about this? The flexibility being kept is nice, although we probably could still be flexible as employees has some have argued. There are pros and cons to this but you guys can weigh in. One big con is this, but I might be wrong: for drivers collecting unemployment, regular UI not PUA (because an Edd auditor got all your earnings info), do those drivers collecting UI need to repay every penny of unemployment now? I wonder. And let's see how badly Uber and Lyft set their rates now that they got their way. What do you feel about this passing?


----------



## UberDerrick (Apr 20, 2019)

Just watch their cut of the fare will go from 25% now to 30%, 35%, or more in the next few weeks.

They tricked you into voting Yes on Prop22!


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

UberDerrick said:


> Uber / Lyft won Prop22.
> 
> Just watch their cut of the fare will go from 25% now to 30%, 35%, or more in the next few weeks.
> 
> They tricked you into voting Yes on Prop22!


I never said Uber was paying us enough, but AB5 would lead to firings, and that could be you.
I switched to GH, but GH is affected just as much, and I haven't been working long enough that they would want
to keep my under AB5, noting that GH pays much better than UE, so I'm happy. Moreover, AB5 means taxes taken
out of every paycheck, which I don't like. I'd rather do my deductions at the end of the year, and zero out my tax liability with the standard deduction. All of that would be gone with AB5. AB5 would mean U and gigs would pay a 'mileage' , but the mileage would only be applied to rides with passengers, or rides with food in car, which is about half of all miles one might drive during a shift, so the 30 per mile would effectively be only 15 cents per mile. With 22, you get a 58 cents per mile deduction for ALL miles incurred in the service of U or GH, etc. Which would you rather have? Do the math. Now, with AB5 one is supposed to get 'benefits' but there is no law that requires a company to provide benefits to employees, except for worker's comp ( there's that) those are negotiated via unions, mostly, and if you think UBer is going to allow a union, I've got a NJ bridge to sell you.

One more thing, AB5 would force U to raise faires close to what Taxis charge, and that means the customer base would shrink, all those who used to take buses who take UBers 'cause they are only slightly more, will go back to takings busses and shuttles

There will be mass firings under AB5, and that could be you. I'm almost 70, and there are no jobs for me, not in this economy.

For me, it is personal, my social security is not enough to live on ( I'd have to move to Mexico).


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

I will continue to offer rides here in the Bay Area at 2.0 to 2.5x. The pax seem to have no problems paying this amount. I would suggest everyone else start to do the same to stay profitable. God Speed All.


----------



## UberDerrick (Apr 20, 2019)

REX HAVOC said:


> I will continue to offer rides here in the Bay Area at 2.0 to 2.5x. The pax seem to have no problems paying this amount. I would suggest everyone else start to do the same to stay profitable. God Speed All.


But now that Uber / Lyft won Prop22, they will remove that feature and you won't be able to set your multiples anymore.

Just watch your app in the next few weeks.


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

Win, Being an employee would have been a nightmare like in Switzerland where 77% of drivers were fired and the rest want to quit. Uber better keep all the new features, ability to see destination. set fares, and they need to raise the rates in certain markets.....


----------



## Galveston (Aug 16, 2019)

Andrew Philip said:


> So, YES ON 22 passed with a very solid lead, meaning that us drivers in California will remain independent. So what do you guys overall think about this? The flexibility being kept is nice, although we probably could still be flexible as employees has some have argued. There are pros and cons to this but you guys can weigh in. One big con is this, but I might be wrong: for drivers collecting unemployment, regular UI not PUA (because an Edd auditor got all your earnings info), do those drivers collecting UI need to repay every penny of unemployment now? I wonder. And let's see how badly Uber and Lyft set their rates now that they got their way. What do you feel about this passing?
> 
> View attachment 522055


Y'all are ****ing idiots for thinking prop 22 is good. The stupidity is astounding.


----------



## Galveston (Aug 16, 2019)

UberDerrick said:


> Uber / Lyft won Prop22.
> 
> Just watch their cut of the fare will go from 25% now to 30%, 35%, or more in the next few weeks.
> 
> They tricked you into voting Yes on Prop22!


Uber drivers are idiots for thinking prop 22 is good


----------



## Filipino858 (Jan 25, 2020)

Oh man and if drivers were determined to be on regular UI instead of PUA by the unemployment agency (EDD), they will have to pay all that back? That question really stuck out to me. I don’t think they will ask for it back but anyone who tries to get regular UI will be denied and only be entitled to PUA, which even then PUA will be gone by late December. Then no one gets anything! Drivers will be screwed in that department.


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

Filipino858 said:


> Oh man and if drivers were determined to be on regular UI instead of PUA by the unemployment agency (EDD), they will have to pay all that back?


From what I understand (I don't live in California so have not kept up on this religiously), Prop 22 doesn't take effect until January 1. So drivers should be considered employees from the time that AB5 took effect up until Prop 22 takes effect.


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

UberDerrick said:


> But now that Uber / Lyft won Prop22, they will remove that feature and you won't be able to set your multiples anymore.
> 
> Just watch your app in the next few weeks.


I don't have it 
I never had it
I just refuse to drive without a minimum $3.75 Surge
More if the pick up is over five minutes away
It's that simple &#129300;

(That's what I need mathematically to come out with 20 odd dollars an hour gross in my specific area)

I refuse to work for less. They can't make you. You have the right to go and get another job making more&#128514;


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

I guess that most people in California believe in slaves and that those slaves must be paid slave wages. What a screwed up place.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

Launchpad McQuack said:


> From what I understand (I don't live in California so have not kept up on this religiously), Prop 22 doesn't take effect until January 1. So drivers should be considered employees from the time that AB5 took effect up until Prop 22 takes effect.


I do think Sacramento is petty and vindictive enough that they will go after Uber and Lyft for not classifying drivers as employee's for 2020.


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

Bob Reynolds said:


> I guess that most people in California believe in slaves and that those slaves must be paid slave wages. What a screwed up place.


They don't realize that cabs had the exact same problem.
Fixed by limiting the number of cabs
And regulating drivers with paying for expensive finger printed fbi checks and expensive licenses.
And they still only make 500 or 600 in a 60 hour week&#128514;
Required by the cab company to work 35 hours during the slow week at 8 an hour to get a cab on the 30 an hour weekend nights ⚠ 
(Unless you pay for the $$$ city medallion, and the extra airport and beach area stamp 
Plus all cabs robbed stabbed and shot.
No free lunch for not having skills


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

dauction said:


> Looks like Passengers didn't want to pay more for rides..gee who wouldn't have thunk.


This is exactly what Uber used.

As mentioned, this victory is the same as nothing.


----------



## sasu66 (Sep 7, 2020)

Galveston said:


> Uber drivers are idiots for thinking prop 22 is good


That's unfair. Only few UP members supported this scam. Uber and California voters screwed the drivers.


----------



## UberDerrick (Apr 20, 2019)

Bob Reynolds said:


> I guess that most people in California believe in slaves and that those slaves must be paid slave wages. What a screwed up place.


They don't believe in slaves per se - they just mistakenly think that Prop 22 would help drivers.

And since Uber / Lyft spent more on ads, people see their pitch more and so they vote for Prop 22.

Some drivers also think that Prop 22 will help them.

But now that it passes, they will realize their mistake when they see Uber / Lyft take 30%, 35%, 40% or more of the fare, leaving them with not enough to even cover gas and maintenance.

Just like before.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

dauction said:


> Looks like Passengers didn't want to pay more for rides..gee who wouldn't have thunk.


Thanks to spreading scare tactics, confusion and misinformation, they won the day. Some voters understood what they were agreeing to; many did not. The YES campaign will go down as one of dirtiest efforts in US history.

First, rates will likely be going up anyway in order to offset the Prop 22 provisions (assuming that they actually honor what they promised in the proposition.) It wouldn't surprise me if they find a way to wiggle out of those promises. Stay tuned.

And second, you driver's in CA can now kiss goodby the very positive 2020 changes to the CA Uber app that were brought about by the AB5 threat (destination info, price bidding functionality, and right to refuse trips without penalty.) Uber will dump these as soon as possible. It's back to the regular flavored BS. I give that 6 months or less, the, POOF they're just disappeared.

Third, Prop 22 will live forever thanks to the fine print language in it which requires a 7/8 vote in the CA Assembly to overturn it. I hope you like it.

Lastly, expect a flood of other CA companies to jump on the "We're Not Employers" band wagon and petition for similar exclusions. Voters who said YES will eventually realize they just signed up to pay more for their own CA Unemployment Insurance, Worker's Comp, and healthcare, since companies like Uber won't be.

Hopefully other state's lawmakers will learn from this-what not to do.


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

The majority of people have common sense and defeat stupid 

only a few got blinded with free money


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

sasu66 said:


> That's unfair. Only few UP members supported this scam. Uber and California voters screwed the drivers.


This is the whole problem, they used the clients to vote for what was a driver's problem, not sure how the suffrage was given to clients... when the reaction of the public's fear for higher rates pushed this outcome.

Either way, if Trump doesn't win, Biden said he would make AB5 country-wide and prop22 goes kaput, Uber better pray Trump wins.


----------



## losiglow (Dec 4, 2018)

UberDerrick said:


> Just watch their cut of the fare will go from 25% now to 30%, 35%, or more in the next few weeks.
> 
> They tricked you into voting Yes on Prop22!


Heck, it's often more than that already :frown:


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

The Entomologist said:


> if Trump doesn't win, Biden said he would make AB5 country-wide and prop22 goes kaput, Uber better pray Trump wins.


GOP held senate


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

wallae said:


> GOP held senate


We shall see.

And even if Biden doesn't do it, many other states will pull the same thing to patch their deficit, I hope Uber has unlimited money to throw at that per state, do the math... if 200 million just in California got them that outcome, multiply that by the number of states.

And this time we know how they manipulated the voting to get those results.

It's inevitable.


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

The Entomologist said:


> We shall see.
> 
> And even if Biden doesn't do it, many other states will pull the same thing to patch their deficit, I hope Uber has unlimited money to throw at that per state, do the math... if 200 million just in California got them that outcome, multiply that by the number of states.
> 
> ...


Biden has proven over and over he goes with the money


----------



## Gone_in_60_seconds (Jan 21, 2018)

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Results coming in prop 22 solid lead!
> 
> View attachment 521930


Yeah, the part time drivers outvoted the full time drivers. I should have known that this would be the case and the outcome was already decided. Only Part time drivers benefit more based on earnings from being IC than being employees


----------



## sasu66 (Sep 7, 2020)

The Entomologist said:


> Either way, if Trump doesn't win, Biden said he would make AB5 country-wide and prop22 goes kaput, Uber better pray Trump wins.


 If Biden wins corruptions (CPUC, airports) will be exposed. San Diego Mayor has been in love with Uber for a reason.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1296157978312052737


----------



## Wildgoose (Feb 11, 2019)

Andrew Philip said:


> So, YES ON 22 passed with a very solid lead, meaning that us drivers in California will remain independent. So what do you guys overall think about this? The flexibility being kept is nice, although we probably could still be flexible as employees has some have argued. There are pros and cons to this but you guys can weigh in. One big con is this, but I might be wrong: for drivers collecting unemployment, regular UI not PUA (because an Edd auditor got all your earnings info), do those drivers collecting UI need to repay every penny of unemployment now? I wonder. And let's see how badly Uber and Lyft set their rates now that they got their way. What do you feel about this passing?
> 
> View attachment 522055


If Prop 22 failed,
Don't consider other thing. Our interest is earning $$$? Isn't it?
Full time driver means that Driver's earning will be limited. No overtime hour will be granted.
Wages will be same for all drivers for each month. 
Only difference is how many miles a driver has driven. That pay will not be same to each one but closely same in average.
Divers who drive in day time will stuck in traffics that means more expense on gas with low mileage. 
Drivers who drive in night time could save money on gas. No more Uber X only drivers. All drivers will need to drive both of Riders and Foods.
Down rating and accusations will be more than ever. Easier to fire a driver more than ever.
Drivers will need to give full service to riders. Not your car, Your rules anymore. 
........
I can't see why drivers want to be Employees of Uber and Lyft.


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

Wildgoose said:


> If Prop 22 failed,
> Don't consider other thing. Our interest is earning $$$? Isn't it?
> Full time driver means that Driver's earning will be limited. No overtime hour will be granted.
> Wages will be same for all drivers for each month.
> ...


People with no skills mistakenly thinking government regulation will make a no skill corporation job pay city worker garbage man wages.

The kind of job Boston mothers wanted their no high school kids to get. 500 a week. 2 week vacation Can't get fired &#128514;


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

Freaking out about not being an employee!!! The number 1 complaint of drivers, by far, is lack of workmans comp. I would gladly give up my job, flexibility, ability to reject rides, drive for min wage for workmans comp! How does our society function if drivers dont get workmans comp!!! This is right up there with the greatest injustices of all time Slavery, unnecessary wars and drivers lack of workmans comp!!!!


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Gigworker said:


> Nothing will really change. Drivers will keep their freedom and Uber/Lyft will still have to pay enough to get drivers to work. The long pickups might be worth it, since we get paid starting when we accept the request. When will we get the new Uber/Lyft agreements ?


Agreements? -o: You must be thinking of some other company that honors an agreement.


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

stuber said:


> Agreements? -o: You must be thinking of some other company that honors an agreement.


Refuse to work


----------



## MCR2020 (Oct 23, 2020)

Gone_in_60_seconds said:


> Yeah, the part time drivers outvoted the full time drivers. I should have known that this would be the case and the outcome was already decided. Only Part time drivers benefit more based on earnings from being IC than being employees


i drive full time and i benefit from being an IC. too many suburban moms want to drive part time while their kids are in school. you can't and shouldn't be able to make a living like that, the demand just isn't there. if you want to make real money, you need to give up your nights, weekends, and holidays. you need to get out of podunk, nebraskahoma and into a major city. you might not think that's fair, but bartenders have been living that way for decades and you never hear them complaining.


----------



## arcterus (Oct 31, 2014)

Congratulations California, we now have three tiers of workers. Employees, independent contractors, and legalized slavery for gig transportation workers. Time to bend over all you drivers that didn't read the fine print on this. You'll see.

It's so easy to get most people to vote against their own economic self interest.


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

>>legalized slavery for gig transportation workers

Wow... Whipped? Shackled?

i'm setting up a network of homes heading towards the East Coast to help people like you escape and get away.
We're calling it the "Underground Railroad"
DM us if you need help



arcterus said:


> Congratulations California, we now have three tiers of workers. Employees, independent contractors, and legalized slavery for gig transportation workers. Time to bend over all you drivers that didn't read the fine print on this. You'll see.
> 
> It's so easy to get most people to vote against their own economic self interest.


&#128514;


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

glad it passed, but none of the 'new' things will effect me much. Always made more than minimum wage and not quite sure how the mileage reimbursement will effect the IRS mileage deduction, which is was/is very important to me to clear any income. However, much better than what would have happened if Prop 22 failed. So all n all happy.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Launchpad McQuack said:


> From what I understand (I don't live in California so have not kept up on this religiously), Prop 22 doesn't take effect until January 1. So drivers should be considered employees from the time that AB5 took effect up until Prop 22 takes effect.


That's what I thought too but I read an article yesterday that states it's valid as soon as it's certified which is in a couple weeks.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> That's what I thought too but I read an article yesterday that states it's valid as soon as it's certified which is in a couple weeks.


that would be quite odd. when I researched when new prepositions became effective they were all as of the new year. Where did you see that article?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> that would be quite odd. when I researched when new prepositions became effective they were all as of the new year. Where did you see that article?


That's what I thought as well. I'll try and find the article.

December 16.

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/sto...-labor-law-wins-big-early-support-11604469037


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

cool, thanks. Guess it is really up to Uber to enable. None of the benefits appeal to me and not quite sure I want the mileage reimbursement since it is a fraction of the total IRS allows.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

dnlbaboof said:


> Freaking out about not being an employee!!! The number 1 complaint of drivers, by far, is lack of workmans comp. I would gladly give up my job, flexibility, ability to reject rides, drive for min wage for workmans comp! How does our society function if drivers dont get workmans comp!!! This is right up there with the greatest injustices of all time Slavery, unnecessary wars and drivers lack of workmans comp!!!!


No worries Prop 22 allows for drivers to get "workers comp".

The problem is Uber won't be paying for it. It will be "made available" to drivers.

So drivers can pay for it.



Oscar Levant said:


> I never said Uber was paying us enough, but AB5 would lead to firings, and that could be you.
> I switched to GH, but GH is affected just as much, and I haven't been working long enough that they would want
> to keep my under AB5, noting that GH pays much better than UE, so I'm happy. Moreover, AB5 means taxes taken
> out of every paycheck, which I don't like. I'd rather do my deductions at the end of the year, and zero out my tax liability with the standard deduction. All of that would be gone with AB5. AB5 would mean U and gigs would pay a 'mileage' , but the mileage would only be applied to rides with passengers, or rides with food in car, which is about half of all miles one might drive during a shift, so the 30 per mile would effectively be only 15 cents per mile. With 22, you get a 58 cents per mile deduction for ALL miles incurred in the service of U or GH, etc. Which would you rather have? Do the math. Now, with AB5 one is supposed to get 'benefits' but there is no law that requires a company to provide benefits to employees, except for worker's comp ( there's that) those are negotiated via unions, mostly, and if you think UBer is going to allow a union, I've got a NJ bridge to sell you.
> ...


"the mileage would only be applied to rides with passengers, or rides with food in car, which is about half of all miles one might drive during a shift, so the 30 per mile would effectively be only 15 cents per mile. With 22, you get a 58 cents per mile deduction for ALL miles incurred in the service of U or GH, etc. Which would you rather have? Do the math."

Reread what you wrote.

It's completely backwards.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> With 22, you get a 58 cents per mile deduction for ALL miles


but not if we are getting a specific mileage reimb from Uber et al, right? IRS would take a dim look on deducting something we are reimbursed for......And no doubt Uber et al will label it clear as mileage reimbursement.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> but not if we are getting a specific mileage reimb from Uber et al, right? IRS would take a dim look on deducting something we are reimbursed for......And no doubt Uber et al will label it clear as mileage reimbursement.


Not only that but Prop 22 only allows for .30 per mile while on a ping. All other miles will be lost unless the feds somehow allow it. No more driving to/from home while on the mileage clock. No more miles while repositioning to a better location.

It's going to be a nightmare come tax time.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Andrew Philip said:


> ...What do you feel about this passing?


Ask me in a year.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> It's going to be a nightmare come tax time.


yeah, I agree. I never understood why only .30 cents per mile and not the full IRS amount? I depend on that deduction to NOT add taxable income to our total. Last thing I need to is to be bumped into a higher bucket due to RS income. Aiming for loss is kinda my thing.

Just so happy won't be an employee, assuming I was 'hired'. i retired from having a boss.....


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

nosurgenodrive said:


> The people can't overturn labor laws.


In California, voters can overturn labor laws through the proposition process.

Prop. 22 was all about exempting gig app drivers from the horrors of AB5, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor

The people, including those with no skin in the game, did in fact overturn labor laws.


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

the 30 cents a mile is not a reimbursement, its part of the fare, so its just income the 58 cents a mile should still be there.


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

Gone_in_60_seconds said:


> Yeah, the part time drivers outvoted the full time drivers. I should have known that this would be the case and the outcome was already decided. Only Part time drivers benefit more based on earnings from being IC than being employees


I am a full time driver and voted yes on prop. 22.

I voted against the probability of part time, minimum wage employee status with non-compete clauses;
an algorithm determing my hours and territory; 
and the real possibility of being fired for cause for not completing every assigned task.

In other words, a typical low end W2 job.

I have decades of experience hiring minimum wage employees. Even when we offered full time employment, overtime was not offered, PTO was three days per year, no holiday pay and medical insurance was offered at $600 per month. Employees fired for cause, such as not completing assigned tasks, are ineligible to receive unemployment benefits.

Why would any sane driver vote to be an employee of these malicious gig app companies?


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Judge and Jury said:


> In California, voters can overturn labor laws through the proposition process.
> 
> Prop. 22 was all about exempting gig app drivers from the horrors of AB5, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor
> 
> The people, including those with no skin in the game, did in fact overturn labor laws.


When State Propositions go against the law, the State Supreme Court tends to overturn those propositions. Legal battles for IC rights are far from over.


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

nosurgenodrive said:


> When State Propositions go against the law, the State Supreme Court tends to overturn those propositions. Legal battles for IC rights are far from over.


Maybe in Arizona, not so much in California.

By the way, propositions create new laws. Old laws are superseded.

Agreed, battle for IC rights are far from over.

For example; the trucking industry. Battles over driver status have occurred long before the gig app economy was ever imagined.

Truckers were freed from the horrors of AB5 by a court decision. Other industries were spared by amendments to AB5 or by new legislation.

Only possible court challenge I foresee is the 7/8 requirement. However, the balance of the law would remain in effect.


----------



## DudeUbering (Sep 21, 2017)

OC-Moe said:


> Über and Lyft might have hoodwinked the easily swayed donkeys in California but it cost them a quarter billion and they will have to pay dearly to stop other states from enacting AB5 legislation. this is a Pyrrhic victory.


Pyrrhic victory .. never thought I would ever see the word Pyrrhic in a sentence


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

DudeUbering said:


> Pyrrhic victory .. never thought I would ever see the word Pyrrhic in a sentence


Snicker.

You wrote it twice in the same sentence.

Shame on you.


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Will be overturned by CASC.
> 
> The only way it will be upheld is if they have strict rules enforced for IC conditions: drivers vote on base rate, deactivation review board, limit on fare taken etc.


Why would Uber spend $200 million if they though the CASC would over rue the law? It doesn't make sense. They must believe that this won't happen.


----------



## Steve appleby (May 30, 2015)

If the courts can overturn a ballot question what’s the point of putting it on the ballot?


----------



## OC-Moe (Oct 6, 2018)

Steve appleby said:


> If the courts can overturn a ballot question what's the point of putting it on the ballot?


it has to be something illegal/unconstitutional for the courts to void a citizen approved law


----------



## i9f3479f3h (May 29, 2019)

Great, I'll just navigate to the part of the app that allows me to set my own prices as stated under independent contractor laws. Hmmm, can't find it, maybe it's in settings?



nosurgenodrive said:


> When State Propositions go against the law, the State Supreme Court tends to overturn those propositions. Legal battles for IC rights are far from over.


They are very obviously not adhering to independent contractor laws...but they have been for years without issue.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

The battle returns to making them adhere to IC standards then, this includes financial oversight and city ordinances on base rates.

Additionally, if the state of CA decides it wants that tax revenue, the courts will give them the eventual power to overturn Prop 22.



i9f3479f3h said:


> Great, I'll just navigate to the part of the app that allows me to set my own prices as stated under independent contractor laws. Hmmm, can't find it, maybe it's in settings?
> 
> 
> They are very obviously not adhering to independent contractor laws...but they have been for years without issue.


That's where drivers get the leverage to sue. Being an IC and being treated as an employee is still a misclassification.


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

observer said:


> Not only that but Prop 22 only allows for .30 per mile while on a ping. All other miles will be lost unless the feds somehow allow it. No more driving to/from home while on the mileage clock. No more miles while repositioning to a better location.
> 
> It's going to be a nightmare come tax time.


Bear does not think so. Bear would count and deduct bear's total miles at the federal mileage rate, same as always. The only question is whether U/L will include the reimbursement on the 1099. Bear would have to read up (bear can't read) on whether or not they were required to--for an employee, they would not W-2 that reimbursement, so long as it was paid under an accountable plan where substantiation was made by the employer to the employee. Contrary to popular belief, that does not have to be at the federal mileage rate; an employer (under federal law, crazy CA law may vary) can reimburse at any lesser rate they please, and since employees can't deduct unreimbursed employee expenses anymore, tough cookie! (bear hearts cookies)

For an IC, bear recalls that the payors aren't supposed to exclude anything from the 1099, and the ICs are responsible for claiming all their deductions. But it's been a while since bear took that exam, and bear's brain grows slow and dim with age. Bear is very old for a bear! Anyway, as long as it's clear what U/L puts on the 1099, drivers just have to act accordingly and either claim the full mileage deduction if it's in the 1099, or the unreimbursed portion of the mileage deduction if U/L excludes the reimbursement.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Jon Stoppable said:


> Bear does not think so. Bear would count and deduct bear's total miles at the federal mileage rate, same as always. The only question is whether U/L will include the reimbursement on the 1099. Bear would have to read up (bear can't read) on whether or not they were required to--for an employee, they would not W-2 that reimbursement, so long as it was paid under an accountable plan where substantiation was made by the employer to the employee. Contrary to popular belief, that does not have to be at the federal mileage rate; an employer (under federal law, crazy CA law may vary) can reimburse at any lesser rate they please, and since employees can't deduct unreimbursed employee expenses anymore, tough cookie! (bear hearts cookies)
> 
> For an IC, bear recalls that the payors aren't supposed to exclude anything from the 1099, and the ICs are responsible for claiming all their deductions. But it's been a while since bear took that exam, and bear's brain grows slow and dim with age. Bear is very old for a bear! Anyway, as long as it's clear what U/L puts on the 1099, drivers just have to act accordingly and either claim the full mileage deduction if it's in the 1099, or the unreimbursed portion of the mileage deduction if U/L excludes the reimbursement.


I'm thinking that if this were the case, drivers would have to keep track of two separate logs?


----------



## jeanocelot (Sep 2, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> I'm almost 70, and there are no jobs for me, not in this economy.
> 
> For me, it is personal, my social security is not enough to live on ( I'd have to move to Mexico).


Why not go live in some old West economically depressed town? Houses there are super cheap, and you can still access Medicare. I remember talking to a ski bum in northern Idaho that bought 3 old buildings (each separated by only a brick wall) in Wallace, ID (I believe) for only $30K and was going to fix it up for a great pad.


----------



## Samman (Aug 10, 2019)

Dear California, Uber will always win. Time to quite and become hedge fund managers


----------



## Da Ub (Oct 29, 2016)

Be care what you wished for because come Jan 1st, Ya’ll are screwed. 
in the meantime, get that plan B ready cause your going to need it


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

stuber said:


> Thanks to spreading scare tactics, confusion and misinformation, they won the day. Some voters understood what they were agreeing to; many did not. The YES campaign will go down as one of dirtiest efforts in US history.
> 
> First, rates will likely be going up anyway in order to offset the Prop 22 provisions (assuming that they actually honor what they promised in the proposition.) It wouldn't surprise me if they find a way to wiggle out of those promises. Stay tuned.
> 
> ...


Citizens voted for it not law makers fault. Most people don't drive uber, they don't care.


----------



## Driving With A Purpose (Jul 28, 2020)

Glad that CA has voted to keep drivers as IC instead of employees. Yes, I give up some benefits. I can live with that. I don't want to be forced to work OT as an employee could be told to do. Also, I don't want to be told to take MY CAR and work those dreadfully slow days mid-week, when I want to watch a ballgame, etc.

P.S. I don't live in CA, but that is how I feel.


----------



## 195045 (Feb 2, 2020)

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Results coming in prop 22 solid lead!
> 
> View attachment 521930


Very bad for the drivers Uber succeed with bribery again soon they will have another bunch of law suit .. .


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

Uber and Lyft have a long history. Look at Ubers history and you can predict the future. Whatever California drivers gained (in setting their own surge etc.etc.) will remain intact just long enough for any appeals or scrutiny to die down. Then, it will be a slow gradual bleed to roll back any gains to drivers that they promised.

They are too smart to be blatant about it, but eventually you will be given "further enhancements" that will be in reality a piece of old moldy hamburger out of the garbage made to look like a Sirloin steak.


----------



## fraqtl (Aug 27, 2016)

OC-Moe said:


> Über and Lyft might have hoodwinked the easily swayed donkeys in California but it cost them a quarter billion and they will have to pay dearly to stop other states from enacting AB5 legislation. this is a Pyrrhic victory.


It does set a precedent though and those are fairly important.



Gigworker said:


> since we get paid starting when we accept the request


God, I wish we had that here.


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

observer said:


> I'm thinking that if this were the case, drivers would have to keep track of two separate logs?


Probably not, bear would hope that U/L would report the amount of excluded reimbursed mileage in that event.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Youburr said:


> The people can overturn laws in Cal. Also, once the people realize they just created a new lower-class of worker due to the expenditures of private corporations, the people will cause the situation to be rectified in the people's favor. Welcome to CA.


Oh, that depends my friend.
If the 1% elite allow us to change laws we can ... but, if it's not for our own good; well, they know what's best for us.

We've passed laws before that were overturned by the 9th Circus Court.
It's happened more than once.

Our votes here are simply advisory.


----------



## Ylinks (Apr 22, 2019)

wallae said:


> People with no skills mistakenly thinking government regulation will make a no skill corporation job pay city worker garbage man wages.
> 
> The kind of job Boston mothers wanted their no high school kids to get. 500 a week. 2 week vacation Can't get fired &#128514;


In Philadelphia (and many other cities) Union Garbage Collectors make $100K with OT.


----------



## Slim Shady (Feb 4, 2018)

UberBastid said:


> Oh, that depends my friend.
> If the 1% elite allow us to change laws we can ... but, if it's not for our own good; well, they know what's best for us.
> 
> We've passed laws before that were overturned by the 9th Circus Court.
> ...


The damage is done. Prop 22 has passed. The chances of that happening is slim to none.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

dnlbaboof said:


> The number 1 complaint of drivers, by far, is lack of workmans comp.


I've never heard one driver complain about this.


----------



## 195045 (Feb 2, 2020)

Driving With A Purpose said:


> Glad that CA has voted to keep drivers as IC instead of employees. Yes, I give up some benefits. I can live with that. I don't want to be forced to work OT as an employee could be told to do. Also, I don't want to be told to take MY CAR and work those dreadfully slow days mid-week, when I want to watch a ballgame, etc.
> 
> P.S. I don't live in CA, but that is how I feel.


Then when you are going to grow older you are going to watch your balls game in homeless shelter ..AB5 it was in workers favor now this company will exploring workers as usually they do


----------



## RideshareDog (Feb 25, 2019)

Did you guys lose the ability to see the details of the ride before accepting yet?


----------



## Da Ub (Oct 29, 2016)

Boca Ratman said:


> I've never heard one driver complain about this.


The number 1 complaint has always been pay (or lack of pay ) when they are cutting the rates saying it's going to give you more rides. 
you should not have to be available on the apps for 75 hours during the week to make a poverty wage


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

Da Ub said:


> The number 1 complaint has a
> you should not have to be available on the apps for 75 hours during the week to make a poverty wage


Correct 
You should go sell your skill to a higher bidder


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

wallae said:


> Correct
> You should go sell your skill to a higher bidder


or obtain skills that demand higher wages

It's not hard to do these days.
There are lots of 'trade schools' that teach very marketable skills such as HVAC, plumbing, auto and diesel* engine repair, and a hundred specialty nursing certificates.

* Had a diesel repair guy out to the job last week for routine maintenance of our generator.
He is self employed. He tells me the only advertising he does is a website and a google listing and is as busy as he wants to be. He says if he gets too busy he just raises his rates till things slow down - refuses to hire help. His wife runs 'the office'. 
His bill shows his time is charged at $90 per hour ... INCLUDING one way travel time of one hour minimum.
He's a young guy too ... smart guy.
Took an 18 month curriculum at the community college while he ... GUESS WHAT? Drove for Uber/Lyft.

Yup.


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

UberBastid said:


> or obtain skills that demand higher wages
> 
> It's not hard to do these days.
> There are lots of 'trade schools' that each very marketable skills such as HVAC, plumbing, and a hundred specialty nursing certificates.


So I decided my career was going to be operating a lemonade stand.

Then this little creepy girl next door opens one and sells her lemonade less than mine!

What I would like is a law so she can't sell cheaper than me..

oh... and another law saying nobody else can open one because I was not making enough before she opened hers

Maybe another law saying that everyone has to buy lemonade from me

(Please don't tell me a lemonade stand is not a career.
It's all I want to do it's all I know how to do)


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

wallae said:


> So I decided my career was going to be operating a lemonade stand.
> 
> Then this little creepy girl next door opens one and sells her lemonade less than mine!
> 
> ...


Well, you picked it.
{It's a free country} It used to be a free country, and in a free country you are free to starve if that's what you wanna do (I don't think lemons will sustain life).


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

UberBastid said:


> Well, you picked it.
> It's a free country and you are free to starve if that's what you wanna do (I don't think lemons will sustain life).


I'm going to unionize 
That will fix it


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

Still devastated about the lack of workmans comp. I would work a shift for min wage accept every 4.1 pool 40 miles from my house, trim the driver pool by 77% lose all my destination filters for 13 dollars an hour and for workmans comp. Workmans comp is the #1 concern of drivers, and our voices were failed to be heard this election.


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

>>>Still devastated about the lack of workmans comp.
Would you like some lemonade?
I can’t seem to sell all of mine😂


----------



## 195045 (Feb 2, 2020)

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> Results coming in prop 22 solid lead!
> 
> View attachment 521930


They tricky the vote big time fraud &#128512;&#128512;&#128512; soon Supreme Court will be in top of User head then the Dara terrorist will go to prison .. &#128512;&#128512;&#128512; Sauth Arabia start to dictate US labor law Shame to California legislators because they know all the stories ..


----------



## Youburr (Aug 22, 2019)

"We're absolutely thrilled with this outcome that lets us legally recognize drivers as a crucial aspect of an automobile's operation," said Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, confirming that the new legislation would give workers the same basic rights and protections as any other vehicle components such as the muffler or brake pad. "This brings us one step closer to a brighter future where workers will have the freedom to spend a few hours filling in as part of a car's steering system before going to a second gig working as a shopping basket for Instacart and a third gig as a forklift for Amazon."

https://www.theonion.com/passed-california-ballot-measure-allows-uber-lyft-to-c-1845576241


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Jon Stoppable said:


> Bear would count and deduct bear's total miles at the federal mileage rate, same as always.


nope. IRS frowns on deductions that are reimbursed. plus, keep in mind, U/L et al will certainly detail on the 1099 file they send to the IRS there was a mileage reimbursement total. No way around that.

Which brings me back to why just 30 cents reimbursement and not the entire amount? And will the 30 cents slide up and down as the IRS mileage amount does annually? Guess questions for 2022.


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

SHalester said:


> nope. IRS frowns on deductions that are reimbursed. plus, keep in mind, U/L et al will certainly detail on the 1099 file they send to the IRS there was a mileage reimbursement total. No way around that.


Read bear's post again and don't quote bear out of context. Remember that bear passed the CPA exam on bear's first try, even though bear later found out that bears aren't allowed to be CPAs.

Also, bear looks adorable in a green visor and shirt and tie (bear does not wear pants).


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Jon Stoppable said:


> Remember that bear passed the CPA exam on bear's first try,


yeah, I read all that. I don't believe 70% of what is posted here and once didn't you say you took the test because you happened to be available and took it cold? Huh, maybe another Bear said that; so hard to keep track of back stories here.

But for tone, balance and accuracy just wanted it out there IRS will not tolerate a deduction that isn't. It's kinda their thing. There is zero possibility one will be able to take the full mileage deduction for 2021 for any single mile that was reimbursed, at any level. Period.

The open question is which miles will be reimbursed and how IRS will want us to document. Trust me, the IRS will get a file that has the details from U/L et al.


----------



## wallae (Jun 11, 2018)

SHalester said:


> yeah, I read all that. I don't believe 70% of what is posted here and once didn't you say you took the test because you happened to be available and took it cold? Huh, maybe another Bear said that; so hard to keep track of back stories here.
> 
> But for tone, balance and accuracy just wanted it out there IRS will not tolerate a deduction that isn't. It's kinda their thing. There is zero possibility one will be able to take the full mileage deduction for 2021 for any single mile that was reimbursed, at any level. Period.
> 
> The open question is which miles will be reimbursed and how IRS will want us to document. Trust me, the IRS will get a file that has the details from U/L et al.


Bear was also in a band
Bear not afraid of irs


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

SHalester said:


> But for tone, balance and accuracy just wanted it out there IRS will not tolerate a deduction that isn't. It's kinda their thing. There is zero possibility one will be able to take the full mileage deduction for 2021 for any single mile that was reimbursed, at any level. Period.
> 
> The open question is which miles will be reimbursed and how IRS will want us to document. Trust me, the IRS will get a file that has the details from U/L et al.


Read bear's post again and explain how what bear said *in the entirety* is inconsistent with what you wrote above.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Jon Stoppable said:


> Bear would count and deduct bear's total miles at the federal mileage rate, same as always


maybe you can explain, in context, that stmt? Which is exactly what I was responding to and wanted to make sure nobody else went with one could do the mileage IRS deduct in Calif exactly as before (well for 2021).

Sentence before and after did nothing, in my mind, to reduce that stmt. And if I misuderstood the direction you were trying to go, that's on me. But pretty sure a reasonable reader(s) would maybe make their own decisions.

And to repeat IRS will not allow the full deduct if we are reimbursed of ANY amount of miles at any rate; at best would be the net of the 2.

TBA.


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

SHalester said:


> maybe you can explain, in context, that stmt? Which is exactly what I was responding to and wanted to make sure nobody else went with one could do the mileage IRS deduct in Calif exactly as before (well for 2021).
> 
> Sentence before and after did nothing, in my mind, to reduce that stmt. And if I misuderstood the direction you were trying to go, that's on me. But pretty sure a reasonable reader(s) would maybe make their own decisions.


Bear's last paragraph from that post:

_Anyway, as long as it's clear what U/L puts on the 1099, drivers just have to act accordingly and either claim the full mileage deduction if it's in the 1099, or the unreimbursed portion of the mileage deduction if U/L excludes the reimbursement._


----------



## Jon Stoppable (Dec 11, 2019)

Jon Stoppable said:


> Bear's last paragraph from that post:
> 
> _Anyway, as long as it's clear what U/L puts on the 1099, drivers just have to act accordingly and either claim the full mileage deduction if it's in the 1099, or the unreimbursed portion of the mileage deduction if U/L excludes the reimbursement._


Having some time now, bear will consider this issue at length. First, bear asks, why should this proposed $0.30 "reimbursement" be any different from the existing mileage rate that U/L pay, simply because it applies to more (but not all) of the tax-deductible) miles a RS driver has? U/L pay some amount over the standard mileage rate for pax miles now, and 1099 all of that amount. They could presumably treat the amount up to the standard rate as substantiated, since they have all of the necessary info to substantiate on the driver's behalf. But they don't. That leads bear to suspect they wouldn't want to change that approach.

Bear continues to address the issue from a normative perspective: under the law and IRS guidance, what should U/L do? According to the 1099 instructions, that is apparently clear as mud:

https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1099msc#idm140364727413952
_"*Exceptions.*

Some payments do not have to be reported on Form 1099-NEC, although they may be taxable to the recipient. Payments for which a Form 1099-NEC is not required include all of the following. 
_

_Business travel allowances paid to employees (may be reportable on Form W-2)."_
That instruction is not quite on point, because ICs aren't employees, so a 1099 would never be used for that.
_
"*Employee business expense reimbursements. *Do not use Form 1099-NEC to report employee business expense reimbursements. Report payments made to employees under a nonaccountable plan as wages on Form W-2. Generally, payments made to employees under an accountable plan are not reportable on Form W-2, except in certain cases when you pay a per diem or mileage allowance. For more information, see the Instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3, and Pub. 463. For information on reporting employee moving expense reimbursements on Form W-2, see the Instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3.

*Independent contractor or employee.*
Generally, you must report payments to independent contractors on Form 1099-NEC in box 1. See the instructions for box 1."_

Again, 1099s aren't used for employees, so not really on point. The second part is the general rule, which is payments totaling over $600 to ICs are reportable.

Later:

*"Examples.*
_
The following are some examples of payments to be reported in box 1. _



_A fee paid to a nonemployee, including an independent contractor, or travel reimbursement for which the nonemployee did not account to the payer, if the fee and reimbursement total at least $600. To help you determine whether someone is an independent contractor or an employee, see Pub. 15-A."_


Aha! Here is a hint that ICs must have travel reimbursements included the 1099 if not substantiated (the standard mileage rate exists under IRS regs for substantiation of business expenses). The opposite logic suggest that means that substantiated reimbursements do not have to be included.

Maybe that is what U/L will do. Maybe not. Either way, the driver is still going to have to track their total miles, and U/L are going to have to report the amount of the mileage allowance, whether as (potentially) taxable income in Box 1, or somewhere in a separate statement so the driver can make the appropriate reduction in their claimed mileage allowance. Bear would prefer the former (if bear lived in CA, which bear does not), because the accounting is easier, even if U/L is permitted to exclude the reimbursement. It's not like bears have to pay tax anyway (bears don't pay any tax).

Bear is tired now. Bear was eating out of a dumpster behind a Mexican restaurant, and doesn't feel too well at the moment :frown:


----------



## Galveston (Aug 16, 2019)

sasu66 said:


> That's unfair. Only few UP members supported this scam. Uber and California voters screwed the drivers.


Almost this whole damn idiotic forum supported prop 22 which let me to believe most Uber drivers truly are idiots and why I don't hang around this forum much


----------



## AB5 (Mar 29, 2020)

Wildgoose said:


> Sorry for the full time drivers but Prop 22 will help a lot of families who needs extra incomes, students who just want to earn money on their favor times and employees who wants to do this gig as part time.


Sorry you just voted for sharecropping and slavery with yes on Prop 22.


----------



## Wildgoose (Feb 11, 2019)

AB5 said:


> Sorry you just voted for sharecropping and slavery with yes on Prop 22.


I don't even drive for Uber right now due to covid. How would I be a slave? ? If I were an employee, I would be driving out right now during deadly pandemic as being Uber slave. &#128514;&#128514;&#128514;&#128514;


----------



## Alemus (Jul 25, 2017)

OC-Moe said:


> Über and Lyft might have hoodwinked the easily swayed donkeys in California but it cost them a quarter billion and they will have to pay dearly to stop other states from enacting AB5 legislation. this is a Pyrrhic victory.


Hoodwinked people into better pay, setting their own hours?


----------



## OC-Moe (Oct 6, 2018)

Alemus said:


> Hoodwinked people into better pay, setting their own hours?


all a mirage, Über and Lyft bought the law to benefit their stock price not the drivers


----------



## BradT50 (May 8, 2020)

Gigworker said:


> Nothing will really change. Drivers will keep their freedom and Uber/Lyft will still have to pay enough to get drivers to work. The long pickups might be worth it, since we get paid starting when we accept the request. When will we get the new Uber/Lyft agreements ?


Weird. I'm Alberta Canada and I don't get paid until I pick the person up lol


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

jeanocelot said:


> Why not go live in some old West economically depressed town? Houses there are super cheap, and you can still access Medicare. I remember talking to a ski bum in northern Idaho that bought 3 old buildings (each separated by only a brick wall) in Wallace, ID (I believe) for only $30K and was going to fix it up for a great pad.


I bought a mobile home and live in a park where the space rent is cheap under rent control. Didn't have to move.



observer said:


> Not only that but Prop 22 only allows for .30 per mile while on a ping. All other miles will be lost unless the feds somehow allow it. No more driving to/from home while on the mileage clock. No more miles while repositioning to a better location.
> 
> It's going to be a nightmare come tax time.


I just do what the software tells me to do, and hope for the best. Previously, it was 58 cents per mile on the federal tax form, and it should be similar next year. Prop 22 only affects state taxes, and since my state taxes are practially nil anyway, not going to worry about it.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Oscar Levant said:


> Prop 22 only affects state taxes,


not exactly true. Prop 22 mandates reimburse for mileage and if the 1099 clearly shows that, we won't be able to take the full IRS deduction; only the net difference between the IRS amount and the reimbursed amount.

IRS frowns on people taking a deduction for a reimbursed expense.


----------

