# Gig workers in California petition Supreme Court to overturn Prop 22.



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://gizmodo.com/gig-workers-in-california-petition-supreme-court-to-ove-1846044030


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Ignoring the fact that overturning the will of the voters via a proposition is nearly impossible, I doubt the few drivers who signed their name were ever asked if Prop 22 was overturned and AB5 was in full force they would most likely not be selected to be hired by Uber/Lyft et al.
they did not bluff when they said not a 100% of those who can go online would be 'hired'. My estimate was like 30% would be turned away; they said > 50%, which was scare tactics. 

Also, for tone, balance and accuracy it is the Calif Supreme Court, and they will most likely not even take it up. And the reason is courts historically say the legislature should fix these types of issues. 

Poor unions are really butthurt; what they fail to understand ants will never come together and vote to unionize.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> Ignoring the fact that overturning the will of the voters via a proposition is nearly impossible,


NOT in California!
Are you new here?

Voters here have passed many things that the super intelligent, you know ... 1%, just decided that it was not in in unwashed masses' best interest for that law to stay in effect, and it was overturned.
The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals has overturned many voter wishes.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> Ignoring the fact that overturning the will of the voters via a proposition is nearly impossible, I doubt the few drivers who signed their name were ever asked if Prop 22 was overturned and AB5 was in full force they would most likely not be selected to be hired by Uber/Lyft et al.
> they did not bluff when they said not a 100% of those who can go online would be 'hired'. My estimate was like 30% would be turned away; they said > 50%, which was scare tactics.
> 
> Also, for tone, balance and accuracy it is the Calif Supreme Court, and they will most likely not even take it up. And the reason is courts historically say the legislature should fix these types of issues.
> ...


Key words,

"They did not bluff when they said not a 100% of those who can go online would be hired".

They never intended to hire 100% of "those that can go online".

That was a scare tactic in itself because most drivers "that can go online" have already quit.

Uber can claim it has one million drivers "that can go online", the reality is most don't.

The California Supreme Court will definitely take this up since this is an attempted end run around not only the courts but the legislature as well.

Both have already ruled on TNCs and their employees.

Employees don't need to unionize.

Employers do need to follow employment laws.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals has overturned many voter wishes.


calif propositions? Show me. And the 9th court can't touch the Calif Supreme Court, right? You know the whole state court, federal court thing. You can't bounce back and forth between them. And if the CAlif SC disses them their next step is THE Supreme Court, right?

btw, you might match the percent of my life I've lived in calif, but you could NOT exceed it. &#128526; :thumbup:


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> btw, you might match the percent of my life I've lived in calif, but you could NOT exceed it.


If you been here that long, and you still can't see ... then, you are a loyal member of the brain washed masses that just barely live here.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> That was a scare tactic in itself because most drivers "that can go online" have already quit.


so, you believe every single person who goes online (which is what I said) would all be hired? If so, then gotta agree to disagree on that. The simple fact none of the gigs would hire every single driver. Period. Hard stop. plus how many drivers could go from what they do now, to being forced to take every single request. No shuffling, no 'I don't feel like this ping' habits we have now going on. Oh, the butthurt would be severe. Being an employee is not a cure all. How many drivers, here, could handle being supervised directly? Certainly not 100%.

Anyway, in the last year or so enough has been debated on Prop 22; nothing new until this case moves (or rather is rejected).

Seems we agree on the union thing. That is a non-issue. Union would bring nothing to the table, but union dues and overhead.



UberBastid said:


> and you still can't see


see the difference between a state court and a federal appeal court district? u r kidding, right. I didn't get that wrong; you did.

Might want to review propositions to see who is more right than wrong. Even hard for the legislature overturn a prop; 2/3rd vote. Courts are not going to touch that.

But, we shall see if the Calif SC takes this silly filing up at all. That is the first hurdle.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

I never said 100% would be hired. In fact, I agree with you, they would never be able to hire 100% or 50% or even 30% because the vast majority of those "that can go online" have already quit.

I seriously doubt that this will be rejected because the Supreme Court has already ruled FOR Dynamex and the legislature has approved AB5.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> majority of those "that can go online" have already quit.


only Uber et al could say that and prove it. Here, speculation. I would agree a huge percent who can go online, haven't since March (me).

Does federal precedent count in a state Supreme court? Not a lawyer, sorry.

Anyway, THE Supreme court would not be invoked until after, so pointless to speculate. First hurdle is the state Supreme court even accepting it. Second is the arguments. And so on. then only if the losing party cares to fund $$$ needed for the final step.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> But, we shall see if the Calif SC takes this silly filing up at all. That is the first hurdle.


They won't ... because it is to the gov't advantage for 22 to remain in force.
But, if it wasn't ... the will of the people would have little to do with it.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> the will of the people would have little to do with it.


....and on that we disagree. I know you are cool with that and won't go to the 'go to' this site has when somebody disagrees with anybody else. We let the kids do that, right?


----------



## Mole (Mar 9, 2017)

The fight goes on! Drivers should have the option to unionize.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Mole said:


> Drivers should have the option to unionize.


one must be an employee first, right?


----------



## Mole (Mar 9, 2017)

SHalester said:


> one must be an employee first, right?


Not really no reason we can't have representation and Seattle mandated a minimum wage for drivers anything is possible.


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

The right move, now we have biden/harris and senate majority the pro act ie national ab5 will be great for drivers. Why? workmans comp the biggest issue for drivers will be given to us. Yes there will be 77% downsizing and the remaining few will make 13 an hour 30 miles from your house with no ability to reject rides or use dest filter, but in return you will get workmans comp which will be well worth the loss of flexibility.

In the employee model you wont get health benefits since they can hire you 29 hours a week, who needs health care since workmans comp is more important. Prop 22 gives you a health care stipend if you have 15 active hours and a full stipend if its over 30, the first time in history 1099's have a path to health care, but who needs health care, when you can drive 30 miles from your house on a shift to dead mile back with no destination filter, it will all be worth it for workmans comp.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

dnlbaboof said:


> in return you will get workmans comp which will be well worth the loss of flexibility.
> workmans comp is more important. it will all be worth it for workmans comp.


Workmans comp IS A BIG DEAL.
It's a dangerous job.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Mole said:


> Not really no reason we can't have representation


And how would that work, with no union. How would the ants be reached? Certainly not via this forum.


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

UberBastid said:


> Workmans comp IS A BIG DEAL.
> It's a dangerous job.


I agree, even though prop 22 gives you injury protection on top of already having commercial car insurance, this is not as important as workman's comp, in fact ubers is not legally required to give commercial car insurance, they can make us pay for it which is fine, Id trade that for workmans comp anyday. Nothing is important as workman's comp, and we as drivers should be willing to drive 75 miles from your house on a shift for 6 bucks an hour(after dead miling costs) for this. Workmans comp, the number #1 asked for demand from drivers.

Take away tipping, the dest filter, give us a shift during a riot 40 miles from your house where you have to pick up murderers and rapists or be fired, all this is worth it for workmans comp.


----------



## circuitsports (Apr 19, 2020)

dnlbaboof said:


> The right move, now we have biden/harris and senate majority the pro act ie national ab5 will be great for drivers. Why? workmans comp the biggest issue for drivers will be given to us. Yes there will be 77% downsizing and the remaining few will make 13 an hour 30 miles from your house with no ability to reject rides or use dest filter, but in return you will get workmans comp which will be well worth the loss of flexibility.
> 
> In the employee model you wont get health benefits since they can hire you 29 hours a week, who needs health care since workmans comp is more important. Prop 22 gives you a health care stipend if you have 15 active hours and a full stipend if its over 30, the first time in history 1099's have a path to health care, but who needs health care, when you can drive 30 miles from your house on a shift to dead mile back with no destination filter, it will all be worth it for workmans comp.


ahahahhaa they just stole an election and are trying to get away with it, they don't need to buy your vote anymore. Why would they go against K street which has tons of Uber money flowing in right now, u r fkd

Or as Lenin said "useful idiots"


----------



## Blatherskite (Nov 30, 2016)

I like how Prop 22 was explicitly enacted to curtail abuses by rideshare companies who were then absolved by the AB5 cutout which preserved enough of the original proposition’s Procrustean abuses against all other contract workers to dissuade sane folk from moving to the new abode of Hephaestus. Pretty clever, you Californians!


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

It doesn't have to be black & white.

Ideally ICs could perform collective bargaining without having to be employees.

That would require the legislature to create a new quasi-employee status.

That would require the legislator to recognize we are in a new economy.

That might require turning over those in governance. Vote some younger, fresher blood in to office.

That might be a good idea all around.


----------



## Ummm5487 (Oct 15, 2020)

Im confused...i thought since becoming employees driver had to have a schedule and everyone hated it?



circuitsports said:


> ahahahhaa they just stole an election and are trying to get away with it, they don't need to buy your vote anymore. Why would they go against K street which has tons of Uber money flowing in right now, u r fkd
> 
> Or as Lenin said "useful idiots"


Who stole the election?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

I'll just leave this little nugget here.

Check out @veenadubal's Tweet:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1349789900221026304
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-high-court-ABC-test-for-gig-15871187.php
Goes back the statute of limitations, 3-4 years.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

oh, can't wait to see driver's now start drooling and dreaming of suits that predate 12/18/20. Dreaming of OT (not happening) and such.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> oh, can't wait to see driver's now start drooling and dreaming of suits that predate 12/18/20. Dreaming of OT (not happening) and such.


No OT, no breaks, no three days sick pay, no vehicle reimbursements, no disability or workers comp for those that qualified, I'm sure I forgot one or two.

Ohh and this almost guarantees a look at Prop 22 by the State Supreme Court.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> No OT


...not happening. In those court cases about OT it was an EMPLOYEE who was forced to work hours. With RS, nobody is forced. Each driver decided on their own. No judge would grant that. And breaks? Waiting for a ping, is a break.

and no matter, those would be fines; not awards to drivers.

Let's see if SSC even takes the case, first.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> ...not happening. In those court cases about OT it was an EMPLOYEE who was forced to work hours. With RS, nobody is forced. Each driver decided on their own. No judge would grant that. And breaks? Waiting for a ping, is a break.
> 
> and no matter, those would be fines; not awards to drivers.
> 
> Let's see if SSC even takes the case, first.


Ahhhh but under Dynamex drivers WERE employees ( still are in my opinion). They didn't become Independent Contractors "till after" Prop 22.

So, for at least 3 years retro, drivers will be paid.

It's going to be a nightmare for Uber to calculate. Might take a few years to sort out.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Ahhhh but under Dynamex drivers WERE employees


ok, let's play the split hair game so this can go on forever.

Employees don't have the option to work overtime on their own. Nearly all companies one must get OT preapproval. First time you do it, you are paid and warned. 2nd time you are paid and fired.

Not one RS could argue they were forced to work OT; none can prove they had approvals; none would be paid. If they want to sue, well find something to else to sue about; OT won't hunt.

Calif we are not employees; Prop 22 put that to rest. BUT as you point out this would be prior to 12/18 or so.

No doubt lawyers are looking for sheep drivers to sign up. A case looking for principals.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> ok, let's play the split hair game so this can go on forever.
> 
> Employees don't have the option to work overtime on their own. Nearly all companies one must get OT preapproval. First time you do it, you are paid and warned. 2nd time you are paid and fired.
> 
> ...


Except Uber/Lyft never gave drivers the option for overtime since they missclasified drivers. They will have no recourse but to pay drivers. They don't need approval, it's up to the employer to ensure employee rules are followed.

There is no case, Dynamex is already ruled on. This case just made it retroactive.

As soon as Prop 22 is ruled invalid, they'll wind up paying for that time too.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

observer said:


> As soon as Prop 22 is ruled invalid


Why would cali rule 22 invalid?
It makes them lots of tax money ...


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

observer said:


> It's going to be a nightmare for Uber to calculate. Might take a few years to sort out.


LOL. They are a technology company.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Sacto Burbs said:


> LOL. They are a technology company.


Exactly. Do you trust them to be fair?


----------



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

According to the FLSA regulations at 29 C.F.R. §785.17,

_ "An employee who is required to remain on *call* on the employer's premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the *time* effectively for his own purposes is working while ‛on-*call*. ... In such cases, the employee must be compensated for this *time*._

I would argue that 99% of the time, the time between pings would count for this. If I drop off a ping can i go home and have a snack? No chances are high that i would get a ping long before i make it in the door.

Having on call time being not payable would be a situation where you get only a few calls per day.... not 20 in 10 hours.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> They will have no recourse but to pay drivers.


for overtime? Not happening. People win court cases on OT when they actually were TOLD to work longER hours and the employers tried to not pay them.
Flip that to drivers: they decided to work more than 8 hours in a day/ 40 in a week. They made a choice. Even if a judge accepted the case, a jury would have no sympathy.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> for overtime? Not happening. People win court cases on OT when they actually were TOLD to work longER hours and the employers tried to not pay them.
> Flip that to drivers: they decided to work more than 8 hours in a day/ 40 in a week. They made a choice. Even if a judge accepted the case, a jury would have no sympathy.


Nope. No idea where you got that from.

Overtime is payable EVEN WITHOUT. EMPLOYER APPROVAL or disapproval of over time.

The employers only recourse is to discipline an employee that works unauthorized over time. They still MUST PAY the employee for over time work.

Employees HAVE NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER.

They CAN NOT sign away their employment rights.

It is up to the employer to ensure compliance with labor laws.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Overtime is payable EVEN WITHOUT. EMPLOYER APPROVAL or dissaproval of over time.


nope. Most companies have very strict rules on OT. As I have posted here, several times, you breach the rules you WOULD be paid and you would get a warning. The next time you will be PAID and then fired. No union would step forward since you were written up both (or all) times.

Review how many times I've said they would be paid; each post I think.

there is no reality it wouldn't be a very steep hill to climb for a driver to prove they should be paid OT when clearly it was their choice to do so.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberBastid said:


> Why would cali rule 22 invalid?
> It makes them lots of tax money ...


How?

They are missing out on billions in employment taxes.



SHalester said:


> nope. Most companies have very strict rules on OT. As I have posted here, several times, you breach the rules you WOULD be paid and you would get a warning. The next time you will be PAID and then fired. No union would step forward since you were written up both (or all) times.
> 
> Review how many times I've said they would be paid; each post I think.
> 
> there is no reality it wouldn't be a very steep hill to climb for a driver to prove they should be paid OT when clearly it was their choice to do so.


Sorry.

I know you keep repeating the same mistaken information.

Yes, you can have very strict rules on overtime BUT AN EMPLOYER MUST ENFORCE those strict rules.

Uber chose NOT to enforce those rules.

No need for a union to step in since no warnings were issued by Uber. Unions have nothing to do with this matter.

There is no steep hill to climb. Uber by law is required to maintain employee time cards for three years.

Oooops, Uber didn't keep time cards? Time to reconstruct every hour a driver was on the clock.

It's the employers duty to keep accurate payroll records.


----------



## Mole (Mar 9, 2017)

SHalester said:


> for overtime? Not happening. People win court cases on OT when they actually were TOLD to work longER hours and the employers tried to not pay them.
> Flip that to drivers: they decided to work more than 8 hours in a day/ 40 in a week. They made a choice. Even if a judge accepted the case, a jury would have no sympathy.


Four years ago the app use to tell you great job you made $500 in 8 hours try to make more now it's busy out there and night time rides are longer and more profitable. They had no time limits on how long you could work. When I first started I worked the airport 16 hours a day.


----------



## Jst1dreamr (Apr 25, 2019)

SHalester said:


> calif propositions? Show me. And the 9th court can't touch the Calif Supreme Court, right? You know the whole state court, federal court thing. You can't bounce back and forth between them. And if the CAlif SC disses them their next step is THE Supreme Court, right?
> 
> btw, you might match the percent of my life I've lived in calif, but you could NOT exceed it. &#128526; :thumbup:


That is exactly how the justice system works. In California the highest state court is the California State Supreme Courts and the state Supreme Court appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court typically through or after the U.S. Court of Appeals.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Jst1dreamr said:


> Actually that is exactly how the justice system works.


ha, you got the point I made. Thanks. :thumbup: Except, once at the Calif SC that is the last stop. It doesn't bounce to a federal appeals court. It might go to the USSC.


----------



## Jst1dreamr (Apr 25, 2019)

SHalester said:


> ha, you got the point I made. Thanks. :thumbup: Except, once at the Calif SC that is the last stop. It doesn't bounce to a federal appeals court. It might go to the USSC.


No it is appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals which the only court in between the State Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court and only on occasion will the USSC take it up instead of the Appeals Court. Usually most cases don't go beyond the U.S. Court of Appeals which is the second highest court in the U.S.A.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Jst1dreamr said:


> U.S. Court of Appeals which is the second highest court in the U.S.A.


do believe you are confusing state courts with federal courts.

The Constitution and laws of *each state* establish the *state courts*. A *court* of last resort, often known as a Supreme *Court*, is usually the highest *court*. Some *states* also *have* an intermediate *Court of Appeals*. Below these *appeals courts* are the *state* trial *courts*.

Clearly this thread is about a state case; there is nothing 'federal' about Prop 22. It would completely bypass the 9th court and go directly from the state supreme court to the USSC. And that assume there were grounds and that the USSC accepted the case.

Here, it will be an uphill battle just to get the state supreme court to accept this case. The grounds are lacking.


----------



## Jst1dreamr (Apr 25, 2019)

SHalester said:


> do believe you are confusing state courts with federal courts.
> 
> The Constitution and laws of *each state* establish the *state courts*. A *court* of last resort, often known as a Supreme *Court*, is usually the highest *court*. Some *states* also *have* an intermediate *Court of Appeals*. Below these *appeals courts* are the *state* trial *courts*.
> 
> ...


Do you realize that you are saying the exact same thing?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

did it sink in twice as fast? 🤔


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

This seems an appropriate place to ask ... why ... you know, down in the right corner the like thing and we get to choose thumbs up or heart or ... whatever?
Why isn't there a choice of SMH ?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> Why isn't there a choice of SMH ?


oh, it comes up as an issue to add more reactions. And boy, does THAT cause reactions. Heck, a down thumb causes heads to explode with silly reasons why it is not included.

Just open a thread in feedback and see the results.

I use the WOW for so many things; it's magical.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> oh, it comes up as an issue to add more reactions. And boy, does THAT cause reactions. Heck, a down thumb causes heads to explode with silly reasons why it is not included.
> 
> Just open a thread in feedback and see the results.
> 
> I use the WOW for so many things; it's magical.


The only one I never use is the heart, love one.
I give you the only one I have ever given - and you know, you _never_ forget your first.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> I give you the only one I have ever given - and you know, you _never_ forget your first.


yeah, I feel that love. Like crashing against coral over and over. I enjoy it now. :thumbup: :roflmao:

Once upon a time there was a 'member' here who really really really paid attention to reactions. To their own notes and to notes in threads they were in. To the point they became butthurt if you sent a reaction to another member they were angry with. <sigh>

Anyway, I'm all for more reactions; but that horse is quite dead. Maybe when the new owners start to flex their muscles here......


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article248606245.html


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> yeah, I feel that love. Like crashing against coral over and over. I enjoy it now. :thumbup: :roflmao:
> 
> Once upon a time there was a 'member' here who really really really paid attention to reactions. To their own notes and to notes in threads they were in. To the point they became butthurt if you sent a reaction to another member they were angry with. <sigh>
> 
> Anyway, I'm all for more reactions; but that horse is quite dead. Maybe when the new owners start to flex their muscles here......


Yea ... I didn't know there was 'new owners'.
In fact, I know nothing about the 'business' of forums.
What a mystery.
One of these days I'll research it ...

I always keep in mind, in a forum like this, that I am a guest in some else's house. When I'm a guest in your home I do NOT have the right to fart at the dinner table, or tip over the coffee table with drinks on it and scream obscenities. And, if I do my host has every right (and duty) to point out that farting in front of the ladies is not acceptable, and or to eject me from their house for tipping furniture and shouting.

Either way; if the rules are clear I should have no complaint.


----------



## Truelytcufrebu (Oct 9, 2019)

SHalester said:


> ...not happening. In those court cases about OT it was an EMPLOYEE who was forced to work hours. With RS, nobody is forced. Each driver decided on their own. No judge would grant that. And breaks? Waiting for a ping, is a break.
> 
> and no matter, those would be fines; not awards to drivers.
> 
> Let's see if SSC even takes the case, first.


Waiting in my car (my work tool ) with my cell phone (another work tool) on, app open and logged in as available, waiting for a ping. Not a break.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Truelytcufrebu said:


> Not a break.


not really working if you compare that to having a W2 position, right?


----------



## Truelytcufrebu (Oct 9, 2019)

SHalester said:


> not really working if you compare that to having a W2 position, right?


Ahhh, wrong. There are lots of w2 office jobs where they have several moments without activity. Still get paid.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Truelytcufrebu said:


> There are lots of w2 office jobs where they have several moments without activity. Still get paid.


moments. Waiting for a ping is not working in any sense of the word.


----------



## Truelytcufrebu (Oct 9, 2019)

SHalester said:


> moments. Waiting for a ping is not working in any sense of the word.


Yes. Yes it is. You can use your intellectual logic all you want. 
If I am in my car, app on, ready to accept anything, i am still working.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Truelytcufrebu said:


> If I am in my car, app on, ready to accept anything, i am still working.


a compromise you are 'available' to work, but aren't doing anything. Try that on a W2 position; ask your supervisor if it is ok.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

SHalester said:


> a compromise you are 'available' to work, but aren't doing anything. Try that on a W2 position; ask your supervisor if it is ok.


Sitting in the drive up window at McD on a slow night waiting for cars to pull up

tech support and wearing a pager (decided as payable hours by a lawsuit 40 years ago)


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

I have had many W2 jobs.

One of the first was working on an assembly line ... if that line shut down because of mechanical problems, I would pour a cup of coffee outta my thermos and lite a smoke and sit down. Think I got paid for that time? Yup.

Another job was working as an ER tech in a big county hospital. Most of the time we were just busy. Sometimes we were slammed. Sometimes there was nothing going on. Nothing. We restock, checked for expired stuff, tested equipment, cleaned ... then we'd sit down. Think I got paid for that time?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

my wife works in a hospital; sometimes they has back to back patients and sometimes hours of nothing. Paid for it all.

When she works a standby shift she is paid 50% of her hourly for just being 'available'. And if called, jumps to 150% since it would be ot.

And when I worked fast food if there were no customers and the manager caught us doing nothing, there was hell to pay. 

All depends on the supervision.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> my wife works in a hospital; sometimes they has back to back patients and sometimes hours of nothing. Paid for it all.
> 
> When she works a standby shift she is paid 50% of her hourly for just being 'available'. And if called, jumps to 150% since it would be ot.
> 
> ...


There's companies looking to "gigify" nursing.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> There's companies looking to "gigify" nursing.


those hospitals with unions, that will never happen. Ever.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> those hospitals with unions, that will never happen. Ever.


That's what NY taxi drivers thought.

That is the threat of gig companies.

Not so much what they are doing to the taxi industry but what other companies can do to other industries as well.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> That's what NY taxi drivers thought.


that is not an apple to apple comparison. We are talking employees. We are talking a union already in place. We are talking, in most cases, high hourly paid workers. Some super high hourly paid.

Break the union?
Get employees to agree?

Never. Going. To. Happen.

Other industries, maybe. A decent sized hospital with > 1000 employees; nope. Or YUP and then the hospital would close as there would be no employees.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> that is not an apple to apple comparison. We are talking employees. We are talking a union already in place. We are talking, in most cases, high hourly paid workers. Some super high hourly paid.
> 
> Break the union?
> Get employees to agree?
> ...


Taxi drivers weren't "employees" either.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...nomy-has-arrived-in-the-world-of-nursing/amp/
It's just a matter of time.

https://medely.com/


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> when I worked fast food if there were no customers and the manager caught us doing nothing, there was hell to pay.


But, they still paid you ... yes?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> But, they still paid you ... yes?


is that a real question? Of course they did, but not to stand around with our thumbs up our butts. And when I became shift manager that was my duty to make sure they at least pretended to be 'doing' something.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/au.fin...nounces-record-growth-momentum-140300784.html
IntelyCare's platform and mobile app empowers nurses with access to flexible, on-demand opportunities and intelligently matches them to open shifts that facilities need filled-reducing burnout and turnover. The solution is powered by advanced machine learning algorithms that optimize matching and pricing, creating shifts before facilities know their own need and resulting in the highest shift-fill rate in the industry. It also employs the principles of gig economics to add more than 20 percent capacity to the available workforce. This virtual workforce expansion lowers costs to facilities by reducing turnover and compliance penalties, and ensures facilities have the support needed to care for the patient population.

About IntelyCare

IntelyCare offers a workforce management platform that combines a gig-model application with advanced data science to optimize staff resources and close the widening gap between workforce supply and demand. IntelyCare is revolutionizing the antiquated healthcare staffing, scheduling, and training markets - filling nursing shifts at three times the industry average and giving post-acute facilities the tools to predict and manage staffing needs. The company's engaging mobile app empowers healthcare workers with access to flexible, on-demand work opportunities, reducing burnout and attrition while increasing productivity.

If this doesn't sound like "gigspeak", I don't know what does.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> If this doesn't sound like "gigspeak", I don't know what does.


you keep mentioning nurses. So, yeah a gig to act as a temp service, sure. Or when there is a need.

But for highly skilled positions, yeah not so much since most hospitals already have a way to get more staff in those positions: per diem.

But only if you want health costs to go even higher, would one want something like this. And you still have the whole 'breaking' the union hurtle to clear first, in most cases.


----------



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

So let's look at nurses...

Let's say the "gigify" the nurses.

I used to date a nurse, years ago, so this is how i see it happening.

Nurse shows up, accepts a few patients to care for. She goes on the facebook group for the hospital. She turns down all the pain in the ass patients and the hard cases with lots of oozing wounds who ***** and moan a lot.


Now the slacker shows up, she's late to start for the day and all that's left are the pain in the ass patients. The ones with lots of oozing infected wounds, the *****y ones, and the ones that if you accept your rating will just go down.

DOes that slacker say "the hell with this" and walk away and find a nursing home that doesn't pay as well but starts an hour later.

in fact miss slacker nurse can even just say "the hell with this" and take a nap before coming in later to try again for better patients at night.



So who the hell is going to actually care for some of these patients who none of the nurses want to deal with?



here's another thing, if your financial well being is decided in any part by the survival of your patients, why would you take a really sick patient who may not make it?


Gigify nursing?

What kind of idiot would think that would work?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> you keep mentioning nurses. So, yeah a gig to act as a temp service, sure. Or when there is a need.
> 
> But for highly skilled positions, yeah not so much since most hospitals already have a way to get more staff in those positions: per diem.
> 
> But only if you want health costs to go even higher, would one want something like this. And you still have the whole 'breaking' the union hurtle to clear first, in most cases.


I never said I wanted this.

Wait a minute. I thought you said unions were bad.



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> So let's look at nurses...
> 
> Let's say the "gigify" the nurses.
> 
> ...


It doesn't.

It doesn't work for drivers either.

The only ones that "make money" in either case are the gig companies.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> is that a real question? Of course they did, but not to stand around with our thumbs up our butts. And when I became shift manager that was my duty to make sure they at least pretended to be 'doing' something.


Yea, it was the same way in nursing. Soon as the shift supervisor came on 'the floor' we'd all make ourselves scarce. Looking busy, or just ... gone. But, scattered for sure.
But, in a factory (with a very strong union) if you couldn't do YOUR JOB, you sat down. Period. I saw guys playing cards or liars dice with dollar bills. If they send you home, you get your eight hours pay. If you sit on your ass, you get your eight hours pay.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> But, in a factory (with a very strong union) if you couldn't do YOUR JOB, you sat down. Period. I saw guys playing cards or liars dice with dollar bills. If they send you home, you get your eight hours pay. If you sit on your ass, you get your eight hours pay.


revenge is a dish best served cold: those union workers now out of a job due to automation and robots. Oh well. That kind of union, we can do wo. Adds cost to product for zero reason. No tears for falling union membership.



observer said:


> I thought you said unions were bad.


I said that? In those words? Huh, kinda doubt it. My high per hour wage wife is a union employee, so I can't really say they are 'bad' in her case.. I have said union membership has been in a free fall for the last 10 yrs. Myself, my career, no unions allowed.

thread here was about gig'ing an industry where it won't work at all (hospitals). Low skilled jobs, maybe; high skilled jobs, ain't happening. Unions have a pretty good hold on hospitals jobs and that would be first hurdle to clear. A 2nd would be staff buy in; that ain't happening either.

otherwise unions that don't try to be more than they are, are fine.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.latimes.com/business/te...-court-throws-out-prop-22-challenge?_amp=true


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

observer said:


> https://www.latimes.com/business/te...-court-throws-out-prop-22-challenge?_amp=true


So now it case will now have to be heard in the lower courts first before it can be taken to the CSC. Expect a ruling from the CSC sometime in 2044!


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> https://www.latimes.com/business/te...-court-throws-out-prop-22-challenge?_amp=true


so, I was correct in my assumption. Points to me, yea? 

Almost impossible to overturn a voter generated proposition.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> Almost impossible to overturn a voter generated proposition.


IF the 1% Elites want it to be overturned ... it will be.
ESPECIALLY in California.
It's happened before, and quickly.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> IF the 1% Elites want it to be overturned ... it will be.


nope. 2/3 of the legislature voting is required. So, sorry. Nope. As predicted (for a change) I was right in the State Supreme court would not even take the case. Nothing there there. Unions can continue to be butthurt, even tho they had zero chance with RS to begin with.

How many times was Prop 13th attacked? Hum.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> How many times was Prop 13th attacked?


Yea, many times.
I was involved in that 'attack'.
It's a bad law that was/is a bad response to bad actions.
And is really not fair to taxpayers, but, oh well.

But, I put IF in caps because it is important.
In California ... IF THE ELITE want it, they get it.
Hollywood and Sacramento and to a lesser extent, San Francisco runs the state.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> It's a bad law that was/is a bad response to bad actions.


nope and maybe. I was in middle school. School sports were whacked at the middle school level, so we were lumped in with the HS aged kids. That sucked.

The other side of the coin: my parents weren't *.* every year come RE Tax time any longer. And even today we aren't *.* either. Max increase and that is that. No Prop 13, that would not be true, right?


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> No Prop 13, that would not be true, right?


Well, yes, but theres better solutions.

Example:
A young couple moves in next door to me. I have owned my home for 20 years and my tax base is $15,000 in value. They just bought and their tax base is $320,000.
Same house.
Same.

Example:
Property is supposed to be reassessed upon sale. If Chevron or Kaiser Steel turns or sells more than 50% of it stock has the company been sold? I say, yes. The courts say no. But, Chevron's real estate tax base is NO where near fair market value ... because of Prop 13.

So my next door neighbors pay $265 a month in taxes ... I pay $15.
Fair?
Chevron pays 10% of actual value of their holdings, my next door neighbors pay 100% of the value of their holdings.
Fair?

Here's a better way, and this system exists in tax code right now, it's just need to be repealed. 
Homeowners exemption of $500,000. 
Value of all real estate is reassessed to market value every year by appraisal.

That means that Chevron Oil or Kaiser Steel pays full value for their property holdings and the young couple that is trying to start a family gets a break.

Like it?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> Like it?


ok, you are mixing apples (individuals) and oranges (businesses). I'm all for killing the biz loophole. Did that prop pass recently? idk, didn't pay attn which won or the impact.

For individuals Prop 13th was and is necessary. Period. And for somebody (you) who is or leans GOP I'd think you would be happy? Smaller taxes = smaller gov'ment?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> so, I was correct in my assumption. Points to me, yea?
> 
> Almost impossible to overturn a voter generated proposition.


It isn't ever over.

Still a long way to go.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> It isn't ever over.


yeah, but for that case, which I replied on, it is OVER. Done. Period.

Prop 22 in full force...still...and no viable threats coming. Unions still butthurt and still confused that they have no possibilities with drivers in Calif (or anywhere, really).


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> yeah, but for that case, which I replied on, it is OVER. Done. Period.
> 
> Prop 22 in full force...still...and no viable threats coming. Unions still butthurt and still confused that they have no possibilities with drivers in Calif (or anywhere, really).


There will be another or there will be national legislation.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> there will be national legislation.


I guess 'not' happening. Fed gov'ment is a bit busy at this time and for the distant future.

Maybe if AOC becomes President.  -o: :thumbup:


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Not necessarily. 

The PRO Act passed the house last year. With Dems running the Senate this year, they could quickly bring it up again.

I also think there may be an appeal to SCOTUS since Prop 22 did not follow the one issue rule.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> I also think there may be an appeal to SCOTUS since Prop 22 did not follow the one issue rule.


if that did occur, the SCOTUS would just send back to a lower court and that would be that again.

Round and round we go. Voters spoke.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> if that did occur, the SCOTUS would just send back to a lower court and that would be that again.
> 
> Round and round we go. Voters spoke.


Yes they did when they voted for propositions being just one issue. Prop 22 fails to be a one issue proposition.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Prop 22 fails to be a one issue proposition.


but, is there an appeal? Who is funding it? The few dope drivers they 'found'? Unions?

Or does it matter? AB5 is/was worse. Period.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> but, is there an appeal? Who is funding it? The few dope drivers they 'found'? Unions?
> 
> Or does it matter? AB5 is/was worse. Period.


It's too early for an appeal but I expect that the state will pick it up.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> l but I expect that the state will pick it up.


that ain't happening either. Ever. On this case, that is.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> that ain't happening either. Ever. On this case, that is.


Time will tell.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Time will tell.


since I've been right each time on Prop 22, I feel super confident.

Ain't happening. Prop 22 will remain in force all year. And someday I might actually get to taste the benefits directly. Just need a measly 2 shots. Well, a single shot I'm going back online; just can't tell wife unit who said both shots.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> since I've been right each time on Prop 22, I feel super confident.
> 
> Ain't happening. Prop 22 will remain in force all year. And someday I might actually get to taste the benefits directly. Just need a measly 2 shots. Well, a single shot I'm going back online; just can't tell wife unit who said both shots.


Ehhhhh. Still not over.

https://thehill.com/policy/technolo...challenging-californias-new-rules-for-gig?amp


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Ehhhhh. Still not over.


kinda is. Experienced female opera singer sang and left the stage already.

Gee, it's almost as if you WANT AB5 to be the law of the RS land. And that would mean you want > 50% of active drivers to get the boot, so to speak. Almost....

Just say no to AB5 and anything that does that is ok in my book.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> ok, you are mixing apples (individuals) and oranges (businesses). I'm all for killing the biz loophole. Did that prop pass recently? idk, didn't pay attn which won or the impact.
> 
> For individuals Prop 13th was and is necessary. Period. And for somebody (you) who is or leans GOP I'd think you would be happy? Smaller taxes = smaller gov'ment?


Yes. Over all Prop 13 did more good than harm.
But, it could have been better. Still could be.
And ... in property tax is that real property is taxed the same for everyone. Prop 13 applies to everyone, corporations too. 
So, how can a corporation that has millions of its shares traded every month not say that a transfer of ownership has occurred and trigger reassessment? 
Why does the young couple moved in next door to me paying 100% of value on their holding, and Chevron paying 10% ?
Sorry, even to this Libertarian leaning, Republican voting citizen that doesn't seem fair.
Prop 13 is way too much in favor of BIG business.

Sorry for the hijack ... LoL.
But, point is ... California government is JUST as corrupt as New Jersey, New York, Louisiana ... if the 
one-percent elite want it; the courts find in their favor.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> kinda is. Experienced female opera singer sang and left the stage already.
> 
> Gee, it's almost as if you WANT AB5 to be the law of the RS land. And that would mean you want > 50% of active drivers to get the boot, so to speak. Almost....
> 
> Just say no to AB5 and anything that does that is ok in my book.


She was on her way out but was called back for an encore.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/02/05/tech/marty-walsh-biden-gig-economy/index.html


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

...a


observer said:


> was called back for an encore.


and then she was told, no need; audience was satisfied 100%.

It's over. Quiver has no arrows. Prop 22 rules Calif and that is that.

Again, it's better than AB5.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...-labor-rights-bill-during-covid-pandemic.html


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

🤐


----------



## tmart (Oct 30, 2016)

_Tron_ said:


> It doesn't have to be black & white.
> 
> Ideally ICs could perform collective bargaining without having to be employees.
> 
> ...


I'd move out there's really a lot of other great places to live


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.latimes.com/business/te...on-22-lawsuit-refiled-alameda-court?_amp=true


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

hahahahahaha I'm real good at speculation and getting it right. Rejected AND sent back to a lower court.

And I could even go and watch the proceedings, since it is in my neighborhood. 

Poor unions: they are still thinking they can have a say. :roflmao:


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> hahahahahaha I'm real good at speculation and getting it right. Rejected AND sent back to a lower court.
> 
> And I could even go and watch the proceedings, since it is in my neighborhood.
> 
> Poor unions: they are still thinking they can have a say. :roflmao:


Yupp, you are real good at speculation...










Getting it right,

Not so much.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

yup, and I still stand by those and all the others. Prop 22 is the law of Calif and AB5 isn't (for RS, that is).

No viable attack has been mounted.

All silly attempts are from unions that are still confused you can't unionize non-employees.

So, better at conjecture than some, right?

and really: you want Prop 22 down in flames and AB5 resurrected? I suppose if you weren't doing RS that would be a safe opinion since you know exactly what would happen; lotta active drivers given the boot. Well, actually, not hired at all. 

Posted a zillion times Prop 22 is the far better then AB5. Still true today.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Experienced female opera singer is back on stage and ready for her encore.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Experienced female opera singer is back on stage and ready for her encore.


Nope. she left the country for her next gig (see what I did there?).

Prop 22 rules the Calif roads and that is that.

Wake me up when there is a credible threat.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

SHalester said:


> Nope. she left the country for her next gig (see what I did there?).
> 
> Prop 22 rules the Calif roads and that is that.


I agree Prop 22 is the rule, for now. But you can't say that is that. The lower courts will hear the argument and going by history will rule against Uber/Lyft/Etc which will then go back to the CSC who will most likely uphold the lower court ruling. This process will take quite some time though... we are talking years.

The big threat to Prop 22 is the White House and the reintroduction of the PRO Act. The PRO Act will probably come in to play long before the courts have any chance to do away with Prop 22.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> Poor unions: they are still thinking they can have a say


They do.
Look at what the unions have done to enable and empower the COWARD TEACHERS who walk amongst us.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> Look at what the unions have done to enable and empower the COWARD TEACHERS who walk amongst us.


yeah, don't get me started about the teachers union. They even frak up school re-openings. Take teachers out of the unions, their membership falls to single digit percent. So much for unions being the middle class. not.


----------



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

Honestly the only viable threat in California would be Old uncle Joe and the feds writing legislation completely rewriting the independent contractor labor model on a federal level dealing with the problem nation wide.

Which is something that uber left et all would fight tooth and nail.

Which I honestly don't expect to happen until after covid is all done and over, but there's probably a long list of other shit they would want to deal with first.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Old uncle Joe and the feds writing legislation completely rewriting the independent contractor


nope. Once a sane person explains to Biden there is no union issues, he'll lose interest and not waste time.


----------



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

SHalester said:


> nope. Once a sane person explains to Biden there is no union issues, he'll lose interest and not waste time.


Depends on if the feds think it will be closing a "loophole" that's letting all you evil uber drivers escape paying taxes.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> hat's letting all you evil uber drivers escape paying taxes.


you must mean some RS drivers. This household pays a shyte ton of taxes. However, my schedule C this is year is a loss; so at least that will offset the 'other' income by a whopping $100. Woohoo.


----------



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

SHalester said:


> you must mean some RS drivers. This household pays a shyte ton of taxes. However, my schedule C this is year is a loss; so at least that will offset the 'other' income by a whopping $100. Woohoo.


And that's my point, you earned money (in theory i personally suspect you really lost money) and didn't have to pay ANY taxes on your rideshare earnings.

A million people not paying taxes on their earnings from a company is just begging for government intervention. Just be lucky that there's enough politicians using their company cars that they won't vote to disallow mileage.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> (in theory i personally suspect you really lost money)


dude: what alternative reality are you in? Certainly producing a schedule C loss for RS is quite easy; at least for 2020. 2021 in calif the mileage deduct is going to be different and maybe the loss won't come quite as easily.

but, I assure you my cash flow RS wise was quite positive; even if only until 3/18//20. Because, really, all that matters is cash flow and at the end you have more then you started with in any meaningful period of time.

like I said this household paying plenty of taxes. A loss to offset other income is kinda a normal target, no?


----------



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

SHalester said:


> dude: what alternative reality are you in? Certainly producing a schedule C loss for RS is quite easy; at least for 2020. 2021 in calif the mileage deduct is going to be different and maybe the loss won't come quite as easily.
> 
> but, I assure you my cash flow RS wise was quite positive; even if only until 3/18//20. Because, really, all that matters is cash flow and at the end you have more then you started with in any meaningful period of time.
> 
> like I said this household paying plenty of taxes. A loss to offset other income is kinda a normal target, no?


In the taxi i had $5,000 in deductible expenses on $12,000 in revenue working.. averaging less than 1 day a week for 2020.

So I had $7,000 in taxable profit give or take.

I work to turn a profit to make money, not to offset my tax burden.

Then on deliveries I had $10,000 on 5,000 miles.

again taxable profit, but I also exclusively do deliveries from a handful of sit down restaurants from one very small part of town so i can control everything and only take pings that i know have a high likelihood of tipping and aren't drive thru.

In 2014-2016 i had a mucho taxable profit doing uber.. just uber.

in 2010-2014 i had tons of taxable profit running a taxi I owned myself.

In 2017-2020 I had tons and tons of taxable profit in the taxis.

in 2014-2017 i transitioned from ubering to driving a taxi, one pay cut at a time and i was in a taxi more and ubering less. But my uber income was still taxable profit because even in the last days i was doing it all I did was uber for surge from bar close, disney park close ect.

So i think the question your having is best answered by... I'm 99% sure i quit ubering for serious money before i stopped owing taxes off what i made and long before you started up.

Shalester you joined UP in 2019...

By 2018 my closed account on UP had 7,000 messages and had been around for years. I closed my old account because... well... the cab company i drive for signed a deal with Satan/uber to get on their platform and i was ordered to stop trolling in their name. So I did.

https://www.uberpeople.net/threads/changing-my-name.251481/
the birth of "Stevie the magic unicorn"


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I work to turn a profit to make money, not to offset my tax burden.


you and I are on different islands. I retired from a long career (W2 job); RS is to kill time and have some $$ to reduce impact of upgrading a gadget here and there. Mostly, for the time OUT OF THE HOUSE.

the point being it is not hard to have positive cash flow and a tax loss. If one isn't getting that, they need to dig deeper.


----------



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

SHalester said:


> you and I are on different islands. I retired from a long career (W2 job); RS is to kill time and have some $$ to reduce impact of upgrading a gadget here and there. Mostly, for the time OUT OF THE HOUSE.
> 
> the point being it is not hard to have positive cash flow and a tax loss. If one isn't getting that, they need to dig deeper.


I paid $76 last night for a taxi rental. 9:00 pm to 9:00 am. I spent $20 in gas and $4.00ish in tolls.

Care to explain where I can get another $122 in expenses to hit zero?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Care to explain where I can get another $122 in expenses to hit zero?


are you really playing a game here? No mileage deduct for you, aye? I can use JUST my mileage to eek out an almost loss. Did that last year. Didn't even include legit deducts. IRS frowns on 3 of out 5 years a loss; instant audit.

You seem to enjoy what you have going, great. I do just fine as well; but do it in far far far fewer hours.

Different goals: I already had a career.

Next.


----------



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

SHalester said:


> are you really playing a game here? No mileage deduct for you, aye? I can use JUST my mileage to eek out an almost loss. Did that last year. Didn't even include legit deducts. IRS frowns on 3 of out 5 years a loss; instant audit.
> 
> You seem to enjoy what you have going, great. I do just fine as well; but do it in far far far fewer hours.
> 
> ...


I already deducted out $76 for the cab rental and $20 for gas, I can't deduct mileage and actual expenses...


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> I can't deduct mileage and actual expenses...


...which was kinda my point. You and I (well most here) are on different boats. What you do obviously works for you as you do as a regular thing. Me, I could never go that route; way way too much work required just to break even.

For the rest of us generating a loss is not hard work due to the single biggest deduction we get.

But in Calif, that takes a horrible turn for 2021 taxes since Uber now reimburses .30 for miles driven to and during a request. Going to be harder for that loss amount.....much harder.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> ...which was kinda my point. You and I (well most here) are on different boats. What you do obviously works for you as you do as a regular thing. Me, I could never go that route; way way too much work required just to break even.
> 
> For the rest of us generating a loss is not hard work due to the single biggest deduction we get.
> 
> But in Calif, that takes a horrible turn for 2021 taxes since Uber now reimburses .30 for miles driven to and during a request. Going to be harder for that loss amount.....much harder.







I thought Prop 22 was the greatest thing since grilled cheese sandwiches?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> I thought Prop 22 was the greatest thing since grilled cheese sandwiches?


oh please, you know better. Stop playing around. You know exactly where I stand. There was AB5 and there was Prop 22. One was better than the other; drivers agreed as did the voting public by a huge huge margin. One would have eliminated > 50% of active drivers; one would not. That was the MAIN reason Prop 22 was better.

And yes, I think and still do the non-viable attacks on Prop 22 were just that. And so far, clearly I'm correct. In calif it is a very very steep hill to overturn a voter proposition. Not impossible, but not probable.

and for tone, balance and accuracy (which is really important on a wild speculation forum) I've yet to even 'enjoy' Prop 22 beyond all the goodies we got after AB5 and prior to Prop 22.

And the one you know I've posted before, that concerns me, is the change in the IRS mileage deduction that will be reduced by the reimbursement, at least on engaged miles. A schedule C loss or near loss is important, at to least me.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.theverge.com/platform/a...22-gig-economy-expansion-industries-bloomberg
@SHalester










Just a matter of time.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Just a matter of time.


still, no threat to Prop 22. Nothing here is new. Or did I miss something.

It's almost as you wish for Prop 22 to go away and be replaced with AB5? Which is better in your opinion? (careful here).


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> still, no threat to Prop 22. Nothing here is new. Or did I miss something.
> 
> It's almost as you wish for Prop 22 to go away and be replaced with AB5? Which is better in your opinion? (careful here).


Nope, I was referring to nursing being a target of gig companies next.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

observer said:


> Nope, I was referring to nursing being a target of gig companies next.


It always has been.
I remember working for a 'temp agency' when I was doing surgery.

I'd get a call at 8pm ... "John Muir Hospital needs a tech tomorrow morning at 5am to do general abdominal procedures, and a peripheral neuro local. Have you done neuro before? Do you want this one?" Or, "I have a five day assignment in Central Supply at Alta Bates."

When I got a full time spot I used to take vacation time or sick time from my regular job at County Hospital and work the temp agencies for extra cash.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> I was referring to nursing being a target of gig companies next.


oh, that again. Think I posted why that won't take hold previously. don't feel like repeating the 'why' is 99% of hospitals that would be a 'no go'.

And here I **** there was a new attempt. drat.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

SHalester said:


> And the one you know I've posted before, that concerns me, is the change in the IRS mileage deduction that will be reduced by the reimbursement, at least on engaged miles. A schedule C loss or near loss is important, at to least me.


From my own experience I can say you will not have to worry about mileage reimbursement if you can manage to make more than the minimum guarantee. For anyone doing roughly $24 or more an hour they will never see the minimum guarantee kick in.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Fusion_LUser said:


> I can say you will not have to worry about mileage reimbursement


well, one can't write off 57.5 cents per mile if one is getting reimbursed for 30 of those cents during engaged portion of driving. That will certainly make a difference. My aim is for a loss or low income. Really really don't want to pay even more taxes due to RS income.....that would be horrible...


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> well, one can't write off 57.5 cents per mile if one is getting reimbursed for 30 of those cents during engaged portion of driving. That will certainly make a difference. My aim is for a loss or low income. Really really don't want to pay even more taxes due to RS income.....that would be horrible...


You're not willing to pay twenty cents to make a buck?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> You're not willing to pay twenty cents to make a buck?


I"m not willing for my RS income to toss 'us' into an even higher tax bracket. thankyouverymuch. There a lot more income on our 1040 that would be effected by that disaster.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

SHalester said:


> well, one can't write off 57.5 cents per mile if one is getting reimbursed for 30 of those cents during engaged portion of driving. That will certainly make a difference. My aim is for a loss or low income. Really really don't want to pay even more taxes due to RS income.....that would be horrible...


This is what I thought too before I started driving last month and now I've seen how Uber/Lyft payout... You have two payment tiers, the "Guaranteed Earnings" tier or "Eligible Earnings" tier.

Lyft takes your booked hours at minimum wage * 120%
Lyft takes your booked miles at $.30

If those two amounts together are more than what you earned then Lyft will pay the difference.

However if your earnings are over the minimum guarantee then it works the same as before.

But even then it might not be so bad, lets say you eligible earnings are $72 and the guaranteed earnings is $78... all Lyft has to do is cover the missing $6.

Unless I have this wrong the only way you will have to worry about the IRS reimbursement rate is when you fail to meet the guaranteed earnings and Lyft has to kick in some money.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Fusion_LUser said:


> If those two amounts together are more than what you earned then Lyft will pay the difference.


what about the mileage reimb? I was under the impression that is set, regardless of earnings. All engaged miles you get the mileage pay out.

It wasn't MAYBE you get the mileage reimb if you don't earn enough, That would be silly, I hope.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

SHalester said:


> what about the mileage reimb? I was under the impression that is set, regardless of earnings. All engaged miles you get the mileage pay out.
> 
> It wasn't MAYBE you get the mileage reimb if you don't earn enough, That would be silly, I hope.


Well like I said unless I have it wrong it appears its a either/or situation with the guaranteed earnings... Here is a screenshot from what I did a few weeks ago on Lyft... I did 4 rides and my overall total was $115.










The "eligible earnings" was based solely on rides and bonus if any, no tips/credits. So Lyft either pays under the guaranteed earnings or eligible earnings. I did go look at the pay statement from Lyft online and it did not show anything about reimbursed miles. It was just an accounting of what I did under eligible earnings (rides/bonus/tips/credits).

Uber is doing pretty much the same I just don't a screenshot handy.

I guess at the end of 2021 Uber/Lyft can send a reimbursement form for miles and I agree with you that would suck... but until then going by what I've seen as long as you don't touch the guaranteed earnings part should be OK.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Fusion_LUser said:


> Uber is doing pretty much the same I just don't a screenshot handy.


did you actually get the $24?


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

SHalester said:


> did you actually get the $24?


No.

The $115 was from rides/tips and commercial credits (Gieco). And its pretty much the same from Uber.

I haven't driven for a couple of weeks but I did get a notice from Uber in early Feb comparing the guaranteed earnings vs what I actually earned and it was the same format. There is no mention of mileage reimbursement at all from both.

I actually thought we would get the .30 reimbursement rate added to our rides. But a friend who does this up in the Bay Area had already figured out that wasn't the case and then I saw it for myself that we don't.

As far as Prop 22 is concerned it has had no impact on me whatsoever. I make it or break it purely on my skills... (scary thought!)


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Fusion_LUser said:


> As far as Prop 22 is concerned it has had no impact on me whatsoever. I make it or break it purely on my skills... (scary thought!)


that sounds right, Prop 22 was a floor and a breathing person with ave IQ could make more.

but, I'm not clear on the mileage reimbursement. From U/L you aren't getting it directly? Now that would suck more than the theory Uber is taking tips. sheesh.

I don't recall seeing 'you might get a 30 cents per mile reimbursement'. I wonder how they justify it? You only get it if you are dumb and can't make any $$?


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

SHalester said:


> that sounds right, Prop 22 was a floor and a breathing person with ave IQ could make more.
> 
> but, I'm not clear on the mileage reimbursement. From U/L you aren't getting it directly? Now that would suck more than the theory Uber is taking tips. sheesh.
> 
> I don't recall seeing 'you might get a 30 cents per mile reimbursement'. I wonder how they justify it? You only get it if you are dumb and can't make any $$?


Same here I thought it would be an extra .30 per mile reimbursement on top of whatever we take in, no matter the amount. With the few weekends I have driven its pretty much the same as before Prop 22 kicked in.

Uber/Lyft use the .30 per mile rate to boost the minimum wage guarantee and if you do .01 more you don't see anything Prop 22 wise.

I tried doing some minimum fare rides with Lyft to see if the guarantee would kick in but laughably I was getting juicy rides on Lyft! I've lost interest with trying to trigger Prop 22 guarantee's now...


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Fusion_LUser said:


> Uber/Lyft use the .30 per mile rate to boost the minimum wage guarantee and if you do .01 more you don't see anything Prop 22 wise.


that sucks and really doesn't line up with what at least Uber stated in writing a zillion times. The mileage was a reimbursement, period. NOT a maybe calculation based on earnings total. I'd riot.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> that sucks and really doesn't line up with what at least Uber stated in writing a zillion times. The mileage was a reimbursement, period. NOT a maybe calculation based on earnings total. I'd riot.


Oh NO. A riot?
Are you inciting insurrection? Revolution?

I have recently graduated "The Ex-Trumpsters Re-education Advanced Course" Pod number 9 and that sounded awfully violent.
Just sayin.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

@SHalester I finally got a Uber minimum fare guarantee. It's not as detailed as the Lyft statement but pretty much the same as I recall.










The weekend I did this my average was over $50 an hour so I wasn't anywhere near triggering the minimum :thumbup:


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Fusion_LUser said:


> ally got a Uber minimum fare guarantee.


so, no per mile reimbursement if you make more than the floor? I suppose that should suck, but will also mean you get the full mileage deduct on the schedule C.

Still, was a game of 'words' re: the mileage reimbursement. Disappointing.

Still better than the alternative.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

SHalester said:


> so, no per mile reimbursement if you make more than the floor? I suppose that should suck, but will also mean you get the full mileage deduct on the schedule C.
> 
> Still, was a game of 'words' re: the mileage reimbursement. Disappointing.
> 
> Still better than the alternative.


Both Uber/Lyft played the word game with getting paid the moment you accept a ride as well. You should get paid the second you accept at ride and go to the pax but no, Uber/Lyft consider the accept point once you have the pax in your car. Total BS. Accept a ping, drive the 20-30 minutes to get the pax *THEN* get paid to take the ride... :i'm mad::i'm mad::i'm mad:


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> so, no per mile reimbursement if you make more than the floor? I suppose that should suck, but will also mean you get the full mileage deduct on the schedule C.
> 
> Still, was a game of 'words' re: the mileage reimbursement. Disappointing.
> 
> Still better than the alternative.


Wanna hear something that will absolutely blow your mind?
Back when I was driving, I took ALL THE MONEY that Uber 'paid', and claimed it as income. Mileage reimbursement included. THEN I deducted the full allotment of mileage.
I dunno if that's right ... but I imagine the end result $ owed/refunded won't change much.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Fusion_LUser said:


> Same here I thought it would be an extra .30 per mile reimbursement on top of whatever we take in, no matter the amount. With the few weekends I have driven its pretty much the same as before Prop 22 kicked in.
> 
> Uber/Lyft use the .30 per mile rate to boost the minimum wage guarantee and if you do .01 more you don't see anything Prop 22 wise.
> 
> I tried doing some minimum fare rides with Lyft to see if the guarantee would kick in but laughably I was getting juicy rides on Lyft! I've lost interest with trying to trigger Prop 22 guarantee's now...


Define *juicy rides on Lyft!*


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

goneubering said:


> Define *juicy rides on Lyft!*


At the time I was looking for minimum fare rides to see if I can trigger the minimum guarantee pay but I was getting $25+ rides which made the average per hour rate higher than the minimum guarantee.


----------



## Toocutetofail (Sep 14, 2018)

Major trucking companies are no longer allowing drivers who are residents of California to become independent owner/operators because they were required to treat drivers of California as employees. This has become a major loss of income for Truck Drivers who do not wish to become employees. This is an example only. This is why anti-Prop 22 lost.

Trucking companies OTR rates example $0.42 cents per mile = $40,000 a year + net

Independent trucking Owner-operators make $100,000 per year. net


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel (Apr 10, 2018)

SHalester said:


> still, no threat to Prop 22. Nothing here is new. Or did I miss something.
> 
> It's almost as you wish for Prop 22 to go away and be replaced with AB5? Which is better in your opinion? (careful here).


Why do you strongly believe AB5 will require drivers to accept every ride? I am not disputing the possibility but do you really think it will be that simple? What happens when driver doesn't have gas and tolls? What if my shift is over in 30 minutes? Can they still send me an hour away? If I get fired can I collect unemployment? In my opinion it would be more trouble for them than its worth to require it.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

ThrowInTheTowel said:


> Why do you strongly believe AB5 will require drivers to accept every ride?


simple, you would be an employee. there would be no 'decision' available to you. They wouldn't be pings; they would be dispatch orders. That is what being an employee is.

You would be assigned a shift and you work it. They tell you WHERE.

The flip side; they pay you per hour and pay for everything.

The flip flip side around 50% of current drivers wouldn't be hired. So there's that negative.

Pointless debate, AB5 has been neutered and spayed.


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel (Apr 10, 2018)

SHalester said:


> simple, you would be an employee. there would be no 'decision' available to you. They wouldn't be pings; they would be dispatch orders. That is what being an employee is.
> 
> You would be assigned a shift and you work it. They tell you WHERE.
> 
> ...


There is no debate. Doesn't matter to me whether it stands or gets reversed. Just a simple question on your opinion. You gave a partial generalized answered. That should be the debate. If only it would be that simple.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

ThrowInTheTowel said:


> You gave a partial generalized answered.


I gave a partial answer? OK, fine. Use search and find the hundreds of notes on this from a year ago. Partial answer my arse.

Are you, or have you been, an employee? For tone, balance and accuracy.


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel (Apr 10, 2018)

SHalester said:


> I gave a partial answer? OK, fine. Use search and find the hundreds of notes on this from a year ago. Partial answer my arse.
> 
> Are you, or have you been, an employee? For tone, balance and accuracy.


Do you care to elaborate more on the "There will be no decision available to you?" Just shut up and drive? No tolls or gas to go round trip to New York City? Student coming home for a weekend funeral 3 hours away? If you believe they will have that much power you are right. Nothing to debate. Have a pleasant night.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

ThrowInTheTowel said:


> Just shut up and drive?


hey, you answered you own question. Woohoo.

But you failed to answer the relevant question. Are you, or have you been an employee?

If no, I understand your confusion. If YES, I'm mystified and would love to know what kind of job you had where you could do what you wanted, when you wanted.

Please come up with something new that wasn't discussed already (a year ago). I'll wait right here.


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel (Apr 10, 2018)

SHalester said:


> hey, you answered you own question. Woohoo.
> 
> But you failed to answer the relevant question. Are you, or have you been an employee?
> 
> ...


You are truly looking to make something out of nothing. I don't recall saying anything similar to your comments. I had a simple question basically asking how could they force a driver to take all rides when there are so many different factors that come into place. Unfortunately some people can't think past themselves and give a valid answer because they don't have one.

To answer your question I have had numerous jobs. The majority have been white collar (in case you don't know what that means its working in an office.) Which jobs allowed me to do whatever I wanted? None. Why not? Because I wasn't using my own car to make them filthy rich? Can you understand the difference? I decide what to do with my vehicle. No one else. If you choose to bend over then speak for yourself.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

SHalester said:


> that sucks and really doesn't line up with what at least Uber stated in writing a zillion times. The mileage was a reimbursement, period. NOT a maybe calculation based on earnings total. I'd riot.


UBER SHOULD PAY
FOR THE CAR
FOR THE DRIVERS TIME.

SEPERATELY.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

ThrowInTheTowel said:


> Why do you strongly believe AB5 will require drivers to accept every ride? I am not disputing the possibility but do you really think it will be that simple? What happens when driver doesn't have gas and tolls? What if my shift is over in 30 minutes? Can they still send me an hour away? If I get fired can I collect unemployment? In my opinion it would be more trouble for them than its worth to require it.


Simple. Rideshare is a no-skill minimum wage type of job just like McDonald's or Wal*Mart. No skill jobs like McDonald's and Wal*Mart do not let you pick your own hours, do not let you pick which customers you will serve, do not let you pick which McDonald's or Wal*Mart you will work at. No skill jobs are controlled very tightly and you are not allowed any freedom to do the job outside of the posted instructions on how to do the job.

The only thing that makes rideshare jobs unique from the rest of the no-skill minimum wage type jobs is that you can set your own hours, drive where you want and pretty much who you want and if you are good at it make far far more than minimum wage.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

ThrowInTheTowel said:


> I had a simple question basically asking how could they force a driver to take all rides when there are so many different factors that come into place


asked & answered multiple times. If you have never been an employee it makes perfect sense you 'don't understand'.

that thinking you have, gave us AB5 from a noob who had no idea what 'she' was doing. Luckily AB5 is now hallow.

Nuff said. You can have the last word as I know you can't resist. tata


----------



## somedriverguy (Sep 6, 2016)

UberBastid said:


> Why would cali rule 22 invalid?
> It makes them lots of tax money ...


Because as AB5 employees, we make them even more money, and instead of chasing 70k IC around and collecting it five dollars at a time they can just point at the giant pule of cash That is UBER and say "mine!"


----------



## somedriverguy (Sep 6, 2016)

Fusion_LUser said:


> Simple. Rideshare is a no-skill minimum wage type of job just like McDonald's or Wal*Mart. No skill jobs like McDonald's and Wal*Mart do not let you pick your own hours, do not let you pick which customers you will serve, do not let you pick which McDonald's or Wal*Mart you will work at. No skill jobs are controlled very tightly and you are not allowed any freedom to do the job outside of the posted instructions on how to do the job.
> 
> The only thing that makes rideshare jobs unique from the rest of the no-skill minimum wage type jobs is that you can set your own hours, drive where you want and pretty much who you want and if you are good at it make far far more than minimum wage.


So the only thing that makes it different than a low skill minimum wage job is that if you use your skill that you dont have then you get paid more than the minimum wage that you don't deserve? Thanks for clarifying that.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

somedriverguy said:


> So the only thing that makes it different than a low skill minimum wage job is that if you use your skill that you dont have then you get paid more than the minimum wage that you don't deserve? Thanks for clarifying that.


Uh, no. Not even close but thanks for playing. Go back and re-read what I said, Sparky.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

AB5 is a change for contractors and the way companies abuse them, the voting should have never reached their clients, they have no business voting for contractors rights or changes if they aren't contractors themselves, Prop22 exploited that little loophole to use the clients against the workers, the whole voting process was a sham, I have no idea why California allowed the rest of the state to vote.

But yes, even if this fails, Biden has a little surprise for Gig slavework.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> those hospitals with unions, that will never happen. Ever.


Jacobin magazine: Vulture Capitalists Want to Flood the Health Care System With Cheap Medical Labor.








Vulture Capitalists Want to Flood the Health Care System With Cheap Medical Labor


Private equity firms have conspired to flood the emergency health care market with ER doctors in an effort to cut labor costs — in the midst of what patients will still experience as an acute physician shortage with declining standards of care.




jacobinmag.com


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Uber Has Shown Us the Future It Wants for Employment


With a new bill, gig-economy companies aren’t just targeting their own workers. They’re coming for everyone.




slate.com





Told ya so.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> so, I was correct in my assumption. Points to me, yea?
> 
> Almost impossible to overturn a voter generated proposition.


I know you haven't been on the forum in months but when you do come back, 

It was overturned.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

observer said:


> Uber Has Shown Us the Future It Wants for Employment
> 
> 
> With a new bill, gig-economy companies aren’t just targeting their own workers. They’re coming for everyone.
> ...


It's laughable for the bill's supporters to call it "bipartisan" given the fact that DINO (Democrat in name only) Henry Cuellar is more conservative than some Republicans.

I doubt the bill will get very far because it's highly unlikely most Dems will support any bill that goes after minimum wage and other worker protections. Biden would veto it anyway.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> It's laughable for the bill's supporters to call it "bipartisan" given the fact that DINO (Democrat in name only) Henry Cuellar is more conservative than some Republicans.
> 
> I doubt the bill will get very far because it's highly unlikely most Dems will support any bill that goes after minimum wage and other worker protections. Biden would veto it anyway.


The problem is it's just a matter of time before Texas or Florida comes up with a similar proposition.

Biden will only be in office a short time longer. It's just a matter of time before a Republican becomes president.


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel (Apr 10, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> It's laughable for the bill's supporters to call it "bipartisan" given the fact that DINO (Democrat in name only) Henry Cuellar is more conservative than some Republicans.
> 
> I doubt the bill will get very far because it's highly unlikely most Dems will support any bill that goes after minimum wage and other worker protections. Biden would veto it anyway.


Nowadays the bipartisan support doesn't have to come from congress but only from those who donate to congress. All the corporations agree that this is a wonderful idea and they will vote with their wallets. At least we have the unions to fight against it. Independent contractors would hurt their bottom line.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

observer said:


> The problem is it's just a matter of time before Texas or Florida comes up with a similar proposition.
> 
> Biden will only be in office a short time longer. It's just a matter of time before a Republican becomes president.


The real threat this bill poses is to gig workers by creating a nationwide Prop 22. I doubt Congress would allow employee rights to be eroded.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Nats121 said:


> I doubt Congress would allow employee rights to be eroded.


THIS congress .... yea.
But ... things are changing.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberBastid said:


> THIS congress .... yea.
> But ... things are changing.


Hopefully there'd be enough people in Congress who'd realize that harming workers will drag the entire country down.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Nats121 said:


> Hopefully there'd be enough people in Congress who'd realize that harming workers will drag the entire country down.


and, if THAT IS THEIR GOAL?


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberBastid said:


> and, if THAT IS THEIR GOAL?


They need to be thrown the hell out of office.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Nats121 said:


> They need to be thrown the hell out of office.


83 days my friend.
83 days.









Congressional, State, and Local Elections | USAGov


Congressional elections take place every two years. Midterm elections for members of Congress happen between presidential elections. And a variety of state and local races happen every year. Learn about upcoming elections near you.




www.usa.gov


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

UberBastid said:


> and, if THAT IS THEIR GOAL?


That bill has Dara's fingerprints all over it.

One of the worst parts of that bill is the provision that would ban individual states from enacting their own gig-worker laws.

That's pretty much the exact MO that was used by Uber when they "helped" write the TNC laws in many states. The state laws banned municipalities from enacting their own TNC laws.


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel (Apr 10, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> The real threat this bill poses is to gig workers by creating a nationwide Prop 22. I doubt Congress would allow employee rights to be eroded.


I think I am looking at the bigger picture. If we create a 3rd category of employment that benefits BIG business little by little we will see traditional jobs transform into these positions. 

I see a future where a standard job like a cashier is turned into a independent contractor. Work your own hours for peanuts and then pay surge of an extra $5 per hour during peak times to fully staff the store. Why not have carpenter's buy their own tools and then tell them they are their own boss a.k.a. business partner with no medical benefits?

I sure as hell hope your right but I have little faith in government intervention. At least unions would fight to block it because they needed employee dues to survive.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

ThrowInTheTowel said:


> I think I am looking at the bigger picture. If we create a 3rd category of employment that benefits BIG business little by little we will see traditional jobs transform into these positions.
> 
> I see a future where a standard job like a cashier is turned into a independent contractor. Work your own hours for peanuts and then pay surge of an extra $5 per hour during peak times to fully staff the store. Why not have carpenter's buy their own tools and then tell them they are their own boss a.k.a. business partner with no medical benefits?
> 
> I sure as hell hope your right but I have little faith in government intervention. At least unions would fight to block it because they needed employee dues to survive.


I was always skeptical about a "third way" because of the reasons you stated. I became even more skeptical when Uber and Lyft joined forces a couple of years ago to push for a "third way".

The more the line between IC and employee gets blurred, the greater the threat to employee rights and protections.

This is why it's so important for the govt to completely overhaul and tighten the requirements for companies to claim IC status for their workers.


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel (Apr 10, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> I was always skeptical about a "third way" because of the reasons you stated. I became even more skeptical when Uber and Lyft joined forces a couple of years ago to push for a "third way".
> 
> The more the line between IC and employee gets blurred, the greater the threat to employee rights and protections.
> 
> This is why it's so important for the govt to completely overhaul and tighten the requirements for companies to claim IC status for their workers.


So far I see the government starting with a slight lead to set the record straight but moving at a turtle's pace, and I see big business starting slightly behind but coming up with new creative ways to game the system at a lighting fast pace. Unless Tom Brady is playing for the government I don't see a come from behind victory in the end. 😫


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

ThrowInTheTowel said:


> So far I see the government starting with a slight lead to set the record straight but moving at a turtle's pace, and I see big business starting slightly behind but coming up with new creative ways to game the system at a lighting fast pace. Unless Tom Brady is playing for the government I don't see a come from behind victory in the end. 😫


They're the only hope gig workers have. AB5 became law in CA. NYC, Seattle, and Washington State regulated rideshare.


----------

