# SF to require Lyft, Uber drivers to obtain business licenses



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Oh, the humanity. a license. The horror.

Get ready for a giant PR war against the public officials who dared to require this.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-to-require-Lyft-Uber-drivers-to-obtain-7250137.php

For the first time, San Francisco is going to require the 37,000 Lyft and Uber drivers who work in the city seven or more days a year to obtain a business license.

City Treasurer Jose Cisneros wouldn't fully explain why he is now requiring the license, which will cost drivers $91 annually, when the companies started operations years ago. But one reason, he said, is that the city launched its online business registration system in March - before, registrants had to go to City Hall to apply in person.

The move ups the political tension between the city and Uber and Lyft. When faced with class-action lawsuits from drivers seeking status as employees, the companies have vigorously maintained that the drivers are independent contractors. Cisneros is in essence turning that argument back on them and saying: If that's the case, the drivers have to register as independent contractors for a business license.

Another reason the treasurer is taking action now may be that he finally has the names of the drivers. Uber and Lyft have long refused to provide drivers' names and addresses to the city. Cisneros would not say how he obtained them.

The license will cost drivers $91 a year if they earn $100,000 or less in gross receipts. If they have been driving for multiple years, they will have to pay a registration fee for the years in which they didn't register.

Cisneros' letter, which will be sent in three batches - on Friday, Monday and Tuesday - states that the recipient has been identified as a driver for a transportation network company and therefore must obtain a business registration certificate within 30 days.

"Failure to respond to this letter may result in penalties and payment obligations," the letter states.

"We have a very broad and comprehensive business registration requirement," Ciseneros said. "This has been a law that has been around for many years. It's very clearly spelled out on our website - the law here in San Francisco requires you to register your business with the city. If they missed that requirement, they are still obligated to do that."

In response to the news, Uber struck a conciliatory tone and indicated it would not challenge the city.

"Uber partners with entrepreneurial drivers and as independent contractors, they are responsible for following appropriate local requirements," Uber spokeswoman Laura Zapata wrote in an email.

Lyft spokeswoman Chelsea Wilson said the company is opposed to the plan.

"We have serious concerns with the city's plan to collect and display Lyft drivers' personal information in a publicly available database," she said in an email. "People in San Francisco, who are choosing to drive with Lyft to help make ends meet, shouldn't have to compromise their privacy in order to share a ride."

Cisneros has aggressively gone after companies that profit from the gig economy, sometimes clashing with Mayor Ed Lee in the process.

In 2012, over Lee's objections, Cisneros ruled that Airbnb owed back taxes, which city officials estimated at $25 million. The mayor wanted Cisneros to hold off on the decision until a broader tax overhaul could be rolled out. Airbnb acquiesced last year and paid the taxes.

Lee was not involved in Cisneros' decision to require the Uber and Lyft drivers to register with the city.

Christine Falvey, Lee's spokeswoman, neither endorsed nor opposed the move. "The mayor defers questions about the definition of independent contractor and interpretation of requirements under city law to the treasurer," Falvey said.

Cisneros said he doesn't expect that all 37,018 drivers who receive the letter are still drivers. But if they are and they register, it will generate $3.37 million a year for the city. An unknown number of drivers already have the license.

It is also unclear to what extent Cisneros will be able to enforce the business registration requirement. He said San Francisco law requires firms to display a registration certificate in their place of business - including their car - and drivers could be cited for failing to do so.

Both Lyft and Uber have faced class-action lawsuits over the past year over whether its drivers are employees or independent contractors. Plaintiffs say they should be classified as employees and entitled to reimbursement for expenses as well as the rights and benefits of employees.

Lyft attempted to settle such a lawsuit in January, agreeing to pay $12.25 million to drivers, although not classifying them as employees. A San Francisco federal judge rejected that proposed settlement this month, saying the $12.25 million shortchanged the drivers. A similar lawsuit against Uber is still in the courts.

"It's incredibly important to Lyft and Uber's business model that the drivers be independent contractors," said UC Hastings law Professor Reuel Schiller. "They are not really interested in compromise. This sounds to me like the city of San Francisco is attempting to play hardball in return."


----------



## TBone (Jan 19, 2015)

I read a different article and understand why they are doing it however the only real reason to get a business license is to pay sales tax.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

This is entirely to drive out many of the drivers and grab cash. Meh. At these rates, I think anything that drys up the seemingly limitless driver pool and forces these companies to allow the drivers who are left to actually be able to make a living with reasonable rates is a great thing.


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

Oh! We let the cat in and it peed on the carpet, now how do we get the smell out. Corrupt politicians have been kissing Travis s azz for years... this is a joke!


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Well, considering that all drivers are classified by Uber as "Independent Contractors" ... it makes sense that the city would require the drivers to register their "business" ... albeit, most business owners get to set their own rates and turn down contracts that are not profitable. Most services are not subject to sales tax in California; so likely drivers won't have to pay anything other than the $91 to SF City. While this should thin the herd in SF, enforcing this rule is going to be a bear ... it's not like drivers are going to tape their business license to their car window, like brick-and-mortar businesses do.


----------



## Micmac (Jul 31, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Oh, the humanity. a license. The horror.
> 
> Get ready for a giant PR war against the public officials who dared to require this.
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-to-require-Lyft-Uber-drivers-to-obtain-7250137.php


This a cooked policy for the next hearing they want to show the judge that drivers are IC , so Uber can win !! It s F$&@ up .


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

I smell another lawsuit ... wtf ... San Fran expects drivers to pay for the prior years too?
Driver to SF - prove that I was driving Uber 2 years ago; and then maybe I'll pay you.

* sounds like a sequel to "Catch me, if you can" ... starring SF Uber drivers, coming to a theater near you


----------



## Micmac (Jul 31, 2015)

$91 a year fee for the license ! Drivers are like sheep everyone waiting for his turn to get to slaughterhouse!Lol


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Uber is very sneaky with this new SF ruling ... 'cause they see it as a way to defuse the June Employee Lawsuit.
Because the Business License thing doesn't directly screw Uber ... until tons of drivers quit ... Uber has decided not to fight the city about this; more correctly, they probably paid off some city officials to push out this Biz License crap now .. before the June court date for the Employee Class Action Suit.








Sure ... Uber wants drivers to follow local requirements; but Uber will break every law on the books ...


----------



## Micmac (Jul 31, 2015)

Ziggy said:


> Uber is very sneaky with this new SF ruling ... 'cause they see it as a way to defuse the June Employee Lawsuit.
> Because the Business License thing doesn't directly screw Uber ... until tons of drivers quit ... Uber has decided not to fight the city about this; more correctly, they probably paid off some city officials to push out this Biz License crap now .. before the June court date for the Employee Class Action Suit.
> 
> 
> ...


The problem is most of the drivers are [email protected] they don't want to strike!!!


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Micmac said:


> The problem is most of the drivers are [email protected] they don't want to strike!!!


Yep ... agreed. We have some drivers trying to create a driver union here ... but in 4+ months, less than 100 drivers actually joined the union; bizarre thing is the guys who started the union weren't directly affected by the pay cuts ... they were just trying to make Uber a better place for all drivers. You're totally right ... 99% drivers are only in it for themselves and the next ride; but they'll all come crying when they get deactivated for silly things ... they should have joined the Union.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

There like the Mafia, have to pay them off too.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

As revenues diminish from taxi's, it must be replenished by Uber.
They will legislate their financing from your pockets.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Yeah and not making the $ off DUI's does not help either. Since those stat's are down too.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> Yeah and not making the $ off DUI's does not help either. Since those stat's are down too.


Less money spent on 17 year old quadrapalegics with trach. Tubes in nursing homes also . . . kind of balances out.


----------



## OrlandoUberX (Feb 15, 2016)

Well I hope this doesn't catch fire and more cities start doing this.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

OrlandoUberX said:


> Well I hope this doesn't catch fire and more cities start doing this.


If it brings money into the city it most certainly WILL spread like wildfire.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

D Town said:


> If it brings money into the city it most certainly WILL spread like wildfire.


Most certainly this will be adopted by every city in the nation ... in fact, Uber might fan the flames to encourage cities to do this to further their contention that drivers are not employees. Cities might see this as a temporary "win" and a first step toward fingerprints, considering that Uber's not fighting this in SF ... and since they will have all the names of the drivers, they should then be able to require fingerprints at a later date.

But most certainly, other cities will start going after drivers who don't have a business license. All cities and states have a business license requirement for small businesses ... the process to get one is generally pretty quick and painless (fees are generally based on projected income and since Uber pays peanuts, it probably won't be more than 1x day trips). On a positive note, most cities/states do not tax services ... so the only fee you'll pay will be for the business license (and this is tax deductible for next year's taxes).

I already have a Texas LLC (for my other biz) ... but most drivers will only need a simple business license from their city. BTW - Biz license in Austin is only $24.50 (so 1-3 rides will cover the fee).


----------



## optmeout (Jan 1, 2016)

you know every city will soon want License revenue get ready to get 10+ Biz licenses for the bay area. Uber is go to loss every driver when this happens Uber will Die


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

what if youve only given like 5 rides in the city


----------



## CatchyMusicLover (Sep 18, 2015)

We have to get a Nevada licence as well as a Clark County one. $200 + $25
Don't see the big deal here outside of that it's being required now instead of years ago


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

Lol. You rideshare drivers as ic have no idea how much money the government along with insurance companies can make off of you. This is a win/win situation for the government and uber. More money in the government pockets and proof that uber drivers are considered independent contractors.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

LA Cabbie said:


> Lol. You rideshare drivers as ic have no idea how much money the government along with insurance companies can make off of you. This is a win/win situation for the government and uber. More money in the government pockets and proof that uber drivers are considered independent contractors.


The only reason we would need to get a license is because Uber and Lyft are both misclassifying us as IC's in the first place. When we win the lawsuit, this will all go away as the onus will be on Uber and Lyft to pay the fees for us to drive in their cities as they already should be.


----------



## shpana69 (Nov 9, 2015)

It's very good!!!!
At least you have to pay to do this business. I wish all countries and cities will do the same.
Now salves get less food again, but working longer hours. Bravo to San Jose and SF. What next? Will see.


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The only reason we would need to get a license is because Uber and Lyft are both misclassifying us as IC's in the first place. When we win the lawsuit, this will all go away as the onus will be on Uber and Lyft to pay the fees for us to drive in their cities as they already should be.


This is actually counterproductive to the suit because uber will tell the court "look, the cities are acknowledging drivers as ic by having them register as individual businesses."


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Probably you won't need a business license to drop pax off in the city (any city); however, likely you'll need one if you start picking up pax in the city.

On a positive note, if cities start requiring licenses/permits to drop-off pax ... then Uber will have to provide drivers with the destination before we accept the ride ... so that we can make sure that we have a license/permit for that city.

One more thing to consider ... some counties require business licenses too; so make sure you check with your City, County and State web sites under the "Business License" section.

*personally, I'm just going to operate under my existing LLC for my existing biz


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The only reason we would need to get a license is because Uber and Lyft are both misclassifying us as IC's in the first place. When we win the lawsuit, this will all go away as the onus will be on Uber and Lyft to pay the fees for us to drive in their cities as they already should be.


The problem is SF is requiring drivers to get a biz license within 30 days ... which is before the court case. *And since the 30 days expires before the court case, this is why Uber is not protesting ... in fact, they are probably encouraging the city to enforce the business license mandate; as it will help them win the June court case.


LA Cabbie said:


> This is actually counterproductive to the suit because uber will tell the court "look, the cities are acknowledging drivers as ic by having them register as individual businesses."


 Agreed.

If I were a SF driver, I'd press the City of San Francisco to require business licenses for drivers who drop-off pax in SF too ... that would require drivers who live in other cities (East Bay, SJ, etc) to get a San Francisco business license to drop-off pax ... and while on the surface the non-SF drivers will protest; it might eventually get Uber to protest about business licenses too ... because drivers would have to know the pax destination before the trip started to ensure that they are in compliance with the necessary city license/permits for the destination city.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Ziggy said:


> Probably you won't need a business license to drop pax off in the city (any city); however, likely you'll need one if you start picking up pax in the city.
> 
> On a positive note, if cities start requiring licenses/permits to drop-off pax ... then Uber will have to provide drivers with the destination before we accept the ride ... so that we can make sure that we have a license/permit for that city.
> 
> ...


If drivers had to get separate licenses for every city and county they picked up and dropped off in that would probably kill Uber.


----------



## UberProphet? (Dec 24, 2014)

LA Cabbie said:


> This is actually counterproductive to the suit because uber will tell the court "look, the cities are acknowledging drivers as ic by having them register as individual businesses."


Your Honor,

Since we, Uber, declared our workers to be independent contractors, the city has taken the logical step of requiring our workers to comply with existing independent contractor laws. Therefore, this court is bound to determine that the city has declared our workers, in fact, independent contractors because they took us at our word and are now requiring our workers to comply with the existing law.

Therefore, Your Honor, you have no choice but to dismiss this lawsuit now and rule in our favor.

Thanking you for your prompt attention to this matter.


----------



## Lost In Translation (Sep 18, 2015)

Uber sent me this e-mail moments ago:

On Friday the San Francisco City Treasurer announced that he had begun mailing out “business registration” notices to the personal addresses of Uber drivers. Among other things, these notices state that drivers are required to pay an annual “business registration fee” of $91, generating an estimated $3.3 million dollars for the City of San Francisco. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the City Treasurer "would not explain why he is now requiring the license.”

Unfortunately, the Treasurer’s office did not reach out to us before making its announcement and we are still exploring its impact. We are obviously worried about any proposal that seems to value paperwork and process over flexibility and independence. We are also unsure as to how the Treasurer's office obtained addresses for Uber drivers and we are looking into how that could have happened.

What we do know is that we will do everything in our power to protect your privacy and fight any unnecessary bureaucracy that increases costs and penalizes Uber drivers.

We will be in touch when we have more information and we want to thank you for driving with Uber.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Lost In Translation said:


> Uber sent me this e-mail moments ago:
> 
> On Friday the San Francisco City Treasurer announced that he had begun mailing out "business registration" notices to the personal addresses of Uber drivers. Among other things, these notices state that drivers are required to pay an annual "business registration fee" of $91, generating an estimated $3.3 million dollars for the City of San Francisco. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the City Treasurer "would not explain why he is now requiring the license."
> 
> ...


Lol. The complaint about the Treasurer 'not explaining' the reason why is priceless. As is the bit about penalizing drivers.

I wonder if this will stall their next planned rate cut/ percentage increase.

The Treasurer should take a page from Uber's playbook and post a graph showing how paying the costs of doing business will increase drivers' hourly revenue.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

UberProphet? said:


> Your Honor,
> 
> Since we, Uber, declared our workers to be independent contractors, the city has taken the logical step of requiring our workers to comply with existing independent contractor laws. Therefore, this court is bound to determine that the city has declared our workers, in fact, independent contractors because they took us at our word and are now requiring our workers to comply with the existing law.
> 
> ...


Yeah, you figure they have to run out of road in regards to how many ways they can classify drivers to avoid paying.


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

$91 dollars a year is not much for having the privilege of being called a partner.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

D Town said:


> If drivers had to get separate licenses for every city and county they picked up and dropped off in that would probably kill Uber.


True. Though Uber's likely going to use this ruling to their advantage until after the June (employees) case is ruled in their favor; and they'll scream "foul" from every rooftop.

Seriously I doubt that drivers will need a business license to drop off; since that will be virtually impossible to verify that a pax is being dropped off and even harder to enforce. Probably the only place a drop off license can be checked or enforced would be at an airport.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Yeah, I got the same email. Its funny how Uber is openly complaining about how the SF attorney got a hold of everyones addresses as if Uber wasn't complicit in giving them out. lol


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Ziggy said:


> Probably you won't need a business license to drop pax off in the city (any city); however, likely you'll need one if you start picking up pax in the city.
> 
> On a positive note, if cities start requiring licenses/permits to drop-off pax ... then Uber will have to provide drivers with the destination before we accept the ride ... so that we can make sure that we have a license/permit for that city.
> 
> ...


Technically I believe it will go by the pickup location not the destination. It's like how we can pickup at the airports only when we are authorized but we can drop off at any airport.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

I actually wish cities like East Palo Alto and Richmond would force business licenses. Then we could email support and vow not to buy a license but ask that they uninclude us from having to pick up in those cities lol I don't mind Palo Alto at all but when I'm on the border I'd rather avoid EPA, especially at night lol


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

ubershiza said:


> View attachment 36125
> 
> $91 dollars a year is not much for having the privilege of being called a partner.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

LA Cabbie said:


> This is actually counterproductive to the suit because uber will tell the court "look, the cities are acknowledging drivers as ic by having them register as individual businesses."


That's like the old movie ,Miracle on 34th Street. The lawyer argues that because thousands of people mailed letters, and the Post Office delivered them, then this fellow must be Santa Claus. Fallacious argument.

Uber says the drivers are ICs. The city says OK, pay up. But the court hasn't ruled.

Either way, good news for the full-time drivers. Bad for the part-time drivers.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

OrlandoUberX said:


> Well I hope this doesn't catch fire and more cities start doing this.


Of course it will. The government has been regulating businesses since this country began. I've been a "fare for hire" driver in AZ for over 15 years and we have to license our vehicles every year. AZ even makes the handicapped vans register and they transport for free.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

[QUOTE="stuber, post: 1001613, member: 350

Uber says the drivers are ICs. The city says OK, pay up. But the court hasn't ruled.


Everyone knew they would be considered IC's when they 1st signed up with Uber. The ads stated "be your own boss, work when you want to, make great money etc". Now that the reality of actually operating a business with overhead exist, drivers are complaining. I doubt there will be any compensation on Uber's part to reimburse. KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING BEFORE YOU DO IT.


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

It's more likely than not that Uber furnished the driver's names, addresses, etc to the SF authorities. There was probably some sort or backroom deal made that SF would not go directly after Uber. 

Since, Uber sets the rates and collects the money from the passengers; the bottom line is that Uber can purchase ONE business license that will cover all of the Uber driver's in San Francisco. This part is being left out of the announcement and could be part of the back room deal.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

TBone said:


> I read a different article and understand why they are doing it however the only real reason to get a business license is to pay sales tax.


AFAIK, there is no sales tax on a service in California. But, I agree the only reason they do it is to squeeze drivers for mo money. Do drivers of delivery and messenger services need to get a biz license? This could be selective application of a law.


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

Ziggy said:


> Probably you won't need a business license to drop pax off in the city (any city); however, likely you'll need one if you start picking up pax in the city.
> 
> On a positive note, if cities start requiring licenses/permits to drop-off pax ... then Uber will have to provide drivers with the destination before we accept the ride ... so that we can make sure that we have a license/permit for that city.
> 
> ...


Picking up is where it matters. Dropping off does not. For example, as a LA CITY taxicab permitted driver, I can pickup only in the city of LA. I can drop off anywhere in the U.S., no problem. Picking up is the issue, I can only pick-up from the city of LA. Quick example, Burbank, Pasadena, West Hollywood, Glendale, are incorporated cities. I cannot pickup from there. I can get arrested and charged with a misdemeanor along with fines, suspension, towing... and perhaps imprisonment!!!

Some cabs are permitted to pick-up from multiple cities within LA county. Of course, each city requires a fee. I think if cities require to have permits/licenses for themselves regarding Uber pick-ups, this will eliminate A LOT of part timers. Which is good for full time drivers.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

On the bright side, since biz license info is public data, drivers will now know who all the other drivers are, and can band together,
form an association, etc.

But, this won't will affect TCP ( CA livery ) drivers, since they are already licensed by the state to pick up anywhere in the state, and they can't get a biz license in every county, just as all other state licensed enterprises don't get biz licenses in every county they do biz in.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

TBone said:


> I read a different article and understand why they are doing it however the only real reason to get a business license is to pay sales tax.


You don't pay sales tax on service, just on goods. "fare for hire" is service only, unless you're selling dope to your pax's.


----------



## Kmiles (Jun 2, 2015)

$91 * 37,000 = $3,367,000 plus the previous years...

Pretty good deal considering the low overhead since the entire licensing system is online.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Kmiles said:


> $91 * 37,000 = $3,367,000 plus the previous years...
> 
> Pretty good deal considering the low overhead since the entire licensing system is online.


That's about 1/10 what the city will accumulate in legal fees battling Uber every year.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> You don't pay sales tax on service, just on goods. "fare for hire" is service only, unless you're selling dope to your pax's.


Even if a driver were selling stuff, the seller's permit required for selling stuff ( for paying sales tax ) is all done through the Calif State Board Of Equalization, not the city license people. I was a wedding photographer for many years, and was required to collect sales tax, and pay the BOE every quarter. It's PITA, let me tell ya, to have to do it, more book work, bs, etc.


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

Oscar Levant said:


> AFAIK, there is no sales tax on a service in California. But, I agree the only reason they do it is to squeeze drivers for mo money. Do drivers of delivery and messenger services need to get a biz license? This could be selective application of a law.


This is the government trying to align Uber within their money scheme. I'm permitted by the city of LA where I pay permit fees, but I do NOT need a business license. So you are somewhat right that the city wants money from one avenue or the other. As for delivery drivers and messengers not needing business licenses, I'm guessing the city's mentality is that we are giving you exclusive rights to pick-up from our jurisdiction therefor you owe us? This whole rideshare or the on-demand gig economy powered by the push of a button requires overhauling and innovations of so many rules and restrictions.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

LA Cabbie said:


> This is the government trying to align Uber within their money scheme. I'm permitted by the city of LA where I pay permit fees, but I do NOT need a business license. So you are somewhat right that the city wants money from one avenue or the other. As for delivery drivers and messengers not needing business licenses, I'm guessing the city's mentality is that we are giving you exclusive rights to pick-up from our jurisdiction therefor you owe us? This whole rideshare or the on-demand gig economy powered by the push of a button requires overhauling and innovations of so many rules and restrictions.


Delivery drivers and messengers aren't IC; but the company they work for has a biz license


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

The bay area delivery companies ALL changed their employees to employees from independent contractors recently because they all saw what is about to happen to Uber and Lyft. 

I strongly believe that Lyft would love to change the classification but they would be at a disadvantage to Uber if they did so they gotta ride out this lawsuit. 

As I've said time and time again Uber would have to pay the business license fee based on how many drivers are driving in that city IF we were already classified as employees already. This is another reason they don't want us to be employees.


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

Ziggy said:


> I smell another lawsuit ... wtf ... San Fran expects drivers to pay for the prior years too?
> Driver to SF - prove that I was driving Uber 2 years ago; and then maybe I'll pay you.
> 
> * sounds like a sequel to "Catch me, if you can" ... starring SF Uber drivers, coming to a theater near you


Yep! Uber doesn't store that kind of data. If they do, SF will never get a hold of it...

Wait...


----------



## bard1290 (Jan 3, 2016)

LA Cabbie said:


> This is actually counterproductive to the suit because uber will tell the court "look, the cities are acknowledging drivers as ic by having them register as individual businesses."


Possibly, but the 9th Circuit court of California has ruled that we are treated as employees, therefore we are misclassified. Of which, uber has appealed.


----------



## Tequila Jake (Jan 28, 2016)

This could be a nightmare for the TNCs and their databases. It seems to me that if every city and town starts requiring licenses to pick up passengers, Uber will have to track those licenses and have multiple geofences for every single driver in the area. 

If they don't geofence the drivers, then Uber won't be able to penalize drivers for refusing to accept pings.

I don't see how the models can work if they require licenses in drop-off locations unless the TNCs start requiring passengers to enter destinations. Otherwise, Uber will have to deal with us cancelling passengers after they get in the car!


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Tequila Jake said:


> I don't see how the models can work if they require licenses in drop-off locations unless the TNCs start requiring passengers to enter destinations. Otherwise, Uber will have to deal with us cancelling passengers after they get in the car!


Likely, most cities will follow the model they have for taxis ... that is only cars that pickup in their city will need a license. However, cities that don't have an existing taxi base or are cash strapped, might opt for licenses for drop-offs ... in either case, it's incumbent on the drivers to know the business requirements for cities in their immediate area ... as I'd hate to be the "example" driver when a city levies a fine for not being licensed.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

WeirdBob said:


> Yep! Uber doesn't store that kind of data. If they do, SF will never get a hold of it...


How do you think SF got the current list of drivers?


----------



## UberJag (Feb 29, 2016)

I don't know how they are going to enforce this. Say I'm picking up a pax in San Jose (where I live) and dropping off in SF. I get pulled over and they ask for my business license. How would they even know that I don't need one? Would I have to take time off work (my 9-5 job) and go through a legal headache to prove that I don't need one? I've been driving for 4 months. I've dropped off in SF 3 times, only one of those times I picked up before I left. And what is _"work in the city seven or more days a year"_ even mean? To me that means more than just dropping off and leaving... "work" seems like if you spend hours there.


----------



## Russ Reed (Mar 30, 2016)

TBone said:


> I read a different article and understand why they are doing it however the only real reason to get a business license is to pay sales tax.


Indeed, thats why referrals are officially OUT THE WINDOW and think twice about bonuses


----------



## UberJag (Feb 29, 2016)

Russ Reed said:


> Indeed, thats why referrals are officially OUT THE WINDOW and think twice about bonuses


Referrals are $1,000 in the SF Bay Area right now and that's just for the first one, it increases with each one after that.


----------



## NachonCheeze (Sep 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Oh, the humanity. a license. The horror.
> 
> Get ready for a giant PR war against the public officials who dared to require this.
> 
> "


So what.....this is a non issue. This should have been expected a long time ago. Kids cant open a lemonade stand without a license.


----------



## Russ Reed (Mar 30, 2016)

UberJag said:


> Referrals are $1,000 in the SF Bay Area right now and that's just for the first one, it increases with each one after that.


Cool, be careful, because that could become taxable income


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Hackenstein said:


> Oh, the humanity. a license. The horror.





Hackenstein said:


> Get ready for a giant PR war against the public officials who dared to require this.
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-to-require-Lyft-Uber-drivers-to-obtain-7250137.php
> 
> ...


POST #:1/Hackenstein: Bostonian Bison
Thanks You for this
Hyperlinked sfgate.com Article, AS WELL
AS the Complete Printout, of Interest
to S.F.'s A-B TNC Drivers in Particular!
Ju$t another "Co$t of Bu$ine$$" heaped
onto the Backs of the ALREADY UNDER-
PAID Drivers. DAMMIT !

BTW: Since YOU'VE been here as long
as I have...it MUST be gratifying to get
your 1st Featured Thread. Congrats!

Haberdasher Admires. Bison Inspires!


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I actually wish cities like East Palo Alto and Richmond would force business licenses. Then we could email support and vow not to buy a license but ask that they uninclude us from having to pick up in those cities lol I don't mind Palo Alto at all but when I'm on the border I'd rather avoid EPA, especially at night lol


Yep ... been to EPA ... made a wrong turn off of 101; thanks ... but F-No. You could call EPA, Richmond, Oakland and other god forsaken places like Hercules ... and ask them when they are going to require Uber Business Licenses like SF ... maybe they haven't thought of it yet and they need you to put the idea in their head. *If you really wanted to amp up the possibility that EPA, Richmond and other edgy cities would start requiring business licenses; if they say "not required" ... say "great me & 200+ driver friends will claim ___ (EPA, whatever) as our home base to avoid paying SF business license fees, thanks - you've saved us a ton of money" ... that will get them talking for sure and probably within a couple of weeks they'll announce that Uber drivers must have a biz license in EPA, etc.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> AFAIK, there is no sales tax on a service in California. But, I agree the only reason they do it is to squeeze drivers for mo money. Do drivers of delivery and messenger services need to get a biz license? This could be selective application of a law.


Yep all businesses are subject to a biz license in SF; most messengers work for a company as do delivery drivers ... the companies are registered SF biz. I was a bike messenger in SF eons ago and the company I worked for had the business license with the city ... since I got paid per trip (with some marginal benefits, I was not a business ... I was the vehicle).


----------



## UberJag (Feb 29, 2016)

Ziggy said:


> Yep ... been to EPA ... made a wrong turn off of 101; thanks ... but F-No. You could call EPA, Richmond, Oakland and other god forsaken places like Hercules ... and ask them when they are going to require Uber Business Licenses like SF ... maybe they haven't thought of it yet and they need you to put the idea in their head. *If you really wanted to amp up the possibility that EPA, Richmond and other edgy cities would start requiring business licenses; if they say "not required" ... say "great me & 200+ driver friends will claim ___ (EPA, whatever) as our home base to avoid paying SF business license fees, thanks - you've saved us a ton of money" ... that will get them talking for sure and probably within a couple of weeks they'll announce that Uber drivers must have a biz license in EPA, etc.


Let's add parts of East San Jose to that list! When I end up there I drop off the pax and turn off the app and get out of there!


----------



## Zinc (Jul 10, 2015)

So one of the most liberal cities in the country also happens to be the greediest. Not surprising at all. Their tickets are also the most expensive. Greed is good, only if it's for the government.


----------



## Zinc (Jul 10, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Yeah, I got the same email. Its funny how Uber is openly complaining about how the SF attorney got a hold of everyones addresses as if Uber wasn't complicit in giving them out. lol


They certainly have no problem giving it out to insurance companies...


----------



## Zinc (Jul 10, 2015)

NachonCheeze said:


> So what.....this is a non issue. This should have been expected a long time ago. Kids cant open a lemonade stand without a license.


That only proves how ridiculous licensing has become and by extension, the government.


----------



## dpv (Oct 12, 2015)

Business License? My crystal ball is showing that driver's might have some leverage over the rates if they are required to get a business license.


----------



## NachonCheeze (Sep 8, 2015)

Zinc said:


> That only proves how ridiculous licensing has become and by extension, the government.


no disagreement,,,,our government at work


----------



## drive&survive (Feb 16, 2016)

Things like that is what killed the taxi
-I mean they wanted money from every bussiness, taxi Lic/medallion costs $250k dmv and city takes large bite from the established taxi industry and dmv even wanted RS driver to pay for commercial registrations and fee. Similarly, hate the SJ airport bussiness license, soon we will pay county/city tax in addition to payin fed and state. Yay


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Zinc said:


> That only proves how ridiculous licensing has become and by extension, the government.


Licensing is very necessary. Would you get in a plane with an unlicensed pilot? Don't worry though, he's wearing a set of wings. We might as well get rid of the USDA. Then places like Chipotle's will be allowed to get millions sick without any recourse. Government licensing and regulation is vital for a safe environment.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Ziggy said:


> Uber is very sneaky with this new SF ruling ... 'cause they see it as a way to defuse the June Employee Lawsuit.
> Because the Business License thing doesn't directly screw Uber ... until tons of drivers quit ... Uber has decided not to fight the city about this; more correctly, they probably paid off some city officials to push out this Biz License crap now .. before the June court date for the Employee Class Action Suit.
> 
> 
> ...


POST #.9/Ziggy: EXACTLY how you
DON'T want things to
work: Kakanicky "WORLD'S MOST NO-
TORIOUS SCOFFLAW" is Advising Drivers
to be Law Abiding while avoiding the
Financial Consequences.....YET AGAIN!

Mentoring Bison: Keeping. It.100%. REAL !


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Ziggy said:


> Most certainly this will be adopted by every city in the nation ... in fact, Uber might fan the flames to encourage cities to do this to further their contention that drivers are not employees. Cities might see this as a temporary "win" and a first step toward fingerprints, considering that Uber's not fighting this in SF ... and since they will have all the names of the drivers, they should then be able to require fingerprints at a later date.
> 
> But most certainly, other cities will start going after drivers who don't have a business license. All cities and states have a business license requirement for small businesses ... the process to get one is generally pretty quick and painless (fees are generally based on projected income and since Uber pays peanuts, it probably won't be more than 1x day trips). On a positive note, most cities/states do not tax services ... so the only fee you'll pay will be for the business license (and this is tax deductible for next year's taxes).
> 
> I already have a Texas LLC (for my other biz) ... but most drivers will only need a simple business license from their city. BTW - Biz license in Austin is only $24.50 (so 1-3 rides will cover the fee).


POST #:18/Ziggy: You KNOW all too
well that PLENTY
OF DRIVERS across the U.S.A. have had
SUB $91/Net Workdays ! In Austin:
SUB $24.50/Net...maybe not so often ?


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

optmeout said:


> you know every city will soon want License revenue get ready to get 10+ Biz licenses for the bay area. Uber is go to loss every driver when this happens Uber will Die


POST # 19/optmeout: P L E A S E ...tell
us ALL that CONSIDERING
YOUR USERNAME, you OPTED-OUT of Binding Arbitration in the First 30 Days after Down-
loading the Driver App !


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

UberProphet? said:


> Your Honor,
> 
> Since we, Uber, declared our workers to be independent contractors, the city has taken the logical step of requiring our workers to comply with existing independent contractor laws. Therefore, this court is bound to determine that the city has declared our workers, in fact, independent contractors because they took us at our word and are now requiring our workers to comply with the existing law.
> 
> ...


You and LAcabbie are right on. Uber will use this, they will also use the sting operations directed at drivers not Uber the company, they will use airport verifications of how the driver goes through background checks and not Uber the company, they will use the Hillsborough Co, Fl example of how the drivers are operating illegally and not Uber the company. And many many many more examples. If the drivers are hoping for employee status, then there will be much disappointment in this Forum by the end of the year.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The only reason we would need to get a license is because Uber and Lyft are both misclassifying us as IC's in the first place. When we win the lawsuit, this will all go away as the onus will be on Uber and Lyft to pay the fees for us to drive in their cities as they already should be.


POST#23/uberdriverfornow: HUZZAH!


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> You and LAcabbie are right on. Uber will use this, they will also use the sting operations directed at drivers not Uber the company, they will use airport verifications of how the driver goes through background checks and not Uber the company, they will use the Hillsborough Co, Fl example of how the drivers are operating illegally and not Uber the company. And many many many more examples. If the drivers are hoping for employee status, then there will be much disappointment in this Forum by the end of the year.


It's not our relationship with the cities that matters, it's Uber's relationship with us that matters with regards to our employee relationship.

Since Uber has complete control over every aspect of our driving operation constantly and consistently daily it will be obvious to any juror that we are employees. Nothing in our relationship is set in stone. It can and will change at will depending on what Uber wants. This isn't an independent contractor relationship, it's an employee relationship.


----------



## LadyDi (Nov 29, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's not our relationship with the cities that matters, it's Uber's relationship with us that matters with regards to our employee relationship.
> 
> Since Uber has complete control over every aspect of our driving operation constantly and consistently daily it will be obvious to any juror that we are employees. Nothing in our relationship is set in stone. It can and will change at will depending on what Uber wants. This isn't an independent contractor relationship, it's an employee relationship.


WELL SAID!!!!


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST #:18/Ziggy: You KNOW all too
> well that PLENTY
> OF DRIVERS across the U.S.A. have had
> SUB $91/Net Workdays ! In Austin:
> SUB $24.50/Net...maybe not so often ?


Well the SF Business License is only $91/year ... so drivers should be able cough up 25¢/day for their business license to stay compliant. Heck, put a collection jar in the car ... "Donations for SF Business License"


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Russ Reed said:


> Cool, be careful, because that could become taxable income


Actually, all referrals from Uber, even the $5 pax referrals are reported to IRS on 1099 ... as long as you made at least $600 for the year. The only thing a driver should consider is ... does he want to add additional competition to the street?


----------



## UberProphet? (Dec 24, 2014)

UberProphet? said:


> Your Honor,
> 
> Since we, Uber, declared our workers to be independent contractors, the city has taken the logical step of requiring our workers to comply with existing independent contractor laws. Therefore, this court is bound to determine that the city has declared our workers, in fact, independent contractors because they took us at our word and are now requiring our workers to comply with the existing law.
> 
> ...


Apparently I was too subtle in my argument. Any court would laugh the above petition right out of court. Just because you assert that something is true, and someone else acts on that assertion does not make it true. And since the root of their action is your assertion, you cannot use their action to validate your assertion. You are chasing your own tail.

What the city of San Francisco does with its bylaws does not bind the California courts to interpret and enforce federal and state labor law per their actions.

San Francisco will, however, enforce its laws based on the facts before them. Uber declares its workers to be independent contractors then those IC's must comply with city codes. Should the court reclassify those workers, San Francisco will respect the court decision and stop requiring IC permits.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Ziggy said:


> Well the SF Business License is only $91/year ... so drivers should be able cough up 25¢/day for their business license to stay compliant. Heck, put a collection jar in the car ... "Donations for SF Business License"


POST # 1/Ziggy: D A Y U M ! That IS
a Good Idea AND would
Generate "Tips" without looking like
a Driver is "begging" ! ALSO...it gives
"LongTime" A-B TNC Pilots a chance
to explain San Francisco's RETROACTIVE
"Clawing Back" of Fee$.

Mentoring Bison: NOT COOL, SanFran!


----------



## Russ Reed (Mar 30, 2016)

T


Ziggy said:


> Actually, all referrals from Uber, even the $5 pax referrals are reported to IRS on 1099 ... as long as you made at least $600 for the year. The only thing a driver should consider is ... does he want to add additional competition to the street?


Thats exactly WHAT I was referring to


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's not our relationship with the cities that matters, it's Uber's relationship with us that matters with regards to our employee relationship.
> 
> Since Uber has complete control over every aspect of our driving operation constantly and consistently daily it will be obvious to any juror that we are employees. Nothing in our relationship is set in stone. It can and will change at will depending on what Uber wants. This isn't an independent contractor relationship, it's an employee relationship.


Must say you can't be any more wrong. Being in the "fare for hire" industry for 15 years I can say you are definitely IC's. Working as little as 5 hours a month (desired work time is solely up to the driver), maintaining and using your own vehicle, having your own commercial insurance (Uber only covers liability to others), all necessary licensing, fees and permits in name of registered owner, ability to accept/deny/cancel any fare at any time, ability to discard passenger at any time, ability to work for any other ride share/transportation company at any time, all employment advertising states "be your own boss, work when you want to work, use your own vehicle", never filled out any necessary government documents for employment (I-9, W-2, state withholding), no employer tax was ever paid on your behalf, all fines, levies and injunctions paid by registered owner, not represented by Uber in any legal proceedings (see the thread; "Long Beach driver responsible for death" something close to that) and too many more instances to name. Don't wait for employee status, maybe in 10 years you'll get some reimbursement. Then you'll have to amend all your tax returns. It'll never happen. But you are still entitled to DREAM!!!!!!!


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

After careful consideration ... I firmly believe that all the blame for the failure to notify drivers about business license requirements in San Fran and every other city/county/state ... falls squarely on the shoulders of Uber & Lyft ... as both companies were treating drivers as IC and they failed to tell drivers to get a business license before you start driving ... because it messed up their "sign & drive" campaign. Cities have always required business licenses for and I remember getting my first business license in San Francisco when I was still in high school ... for an after-school biz with some friends. This is not some massive cash grab by the cities ... just because you're an Uber driver ... but rather, business licenses pay for maintaining city infrastructure (fixing potholes, cops, fire dept, etc).

Just chalk it up to every other thing that Uber/Lyft conveniently "forgot" to tell you before you started driving: 

taxes - you're responsible to pay them, so save some money
your personal insurance carrier may cancel your policy once they find out you're driving Uber
Uber insurance doesn't cover you or your car ... just the passenger
keep a log of all your business miles for tax purposes
we tell pax not to tip you ... so refuse any tips you get ... or we might deactivate you
you need a business license to legally p/u pax in your city
register your business with the state
Uber should have disclosed all items above to drivers before they started driving ... but it messes up their "Sign & Drive" campaign. How many of you would have signed up to drive Uber had they disclosed the entire list above (or even 1/2 the list for that matter)?


----------



## Russ Reed (Mar 30, 2016)

Ziggy said:


> After careful consideration ... I firmly believe that all the blame for the failure to notify drivers about business license requirements in San Fran and every other city/county/state ... falls squarely on the shoulders of Uber & Lyft ... as both companies were treating drivers as IC and they failed to tell drivers to get a business license before you start driving ... because it messed up their "sign & drive" campaign. Cities have always required business licenses for and I remember getting my first business license in San Francisco when I was still in high school ... for an after-school biz with some friends. This is not some massive cash grab by the cities ... just because you're an Uber driver ... but rather, business licenses pay for maintaining city infrastructure (fixing potholes, cops, fire dept, etc).
> 
> Just chalk it up to every other thing that Uber/Lyft conveniently "forgot" to tell you before you started driving:
> 
> ...


I'd like to dispute #3 though Ziggy, if you have full coverage you are covered. Its those with liability insurance, that's the catch.


----------



## Lost In Translation (Sep 18, 2015)

NachonCheeze said:


> So what.....this is a non issue. This should have been expected a long time ago. Kids cant open a lemonade stand without a license.


I received the letter from Cisneros telling me to pay up.

I will claim exemption from the license because I am an employee driver for Uber. I will not sign any license application giving up my rights as a member of the class of drivers who are plaintiffs to the Class Action lawsuit. I am awaiting instructions from the attorney for the class, but if I believe under the law I have been misclassified, why on earth would I get a independent contractor's license thereby admitting that I am an Independent Contractor and giving up my rights to sue Uber?

I am not a lawyer but the letter from Cisneros says if I am an employee of Uber, I am not required to have a license. No driver who is part of the class should buy a license. Claim exemption as an employee. Uber will deny it of course, which is the very reason the matter is going to a jury trial.

Let's wait for the outcome of the trial. I will not pay until then and will send a letter to Cisneros so stating that I dispute his assertion that driving for Uber under Uber's total control somehow magically makes me a self employed independent contractor.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Russ Reed said:


> I'd like to dispute #3 though Ziggy, if you have full coverage you are covered. Its those with liability insurance, that's the catch.


Actually ... if you have full coverage and you have Rideshare Gap coverage or Commercial Insurance ... then you are covered. But in either case, Uber left a few details out when they signed up drivers


----------



## Russ Reed (Mar 30, 2016)

Go


Ziggy said:


> Actually ... if you have full coverage and you have Rideshare Gap coverage or Commercial Insurance ... then you are covered. But in either case, Uber left a few details out when they signed up drivers


True, like Volkswagen's sign and drive... Gotta READ fine print...


----------



## hanging in there (Oct 1, 2014)

Ziggy said:


> After careful consideration ... I firmly believe that all the blame for the failure to notify drivers about business license requirements in San Fran and every other city/county/state ... falls squarely on the shoulders of Uber & Lyft ... as both companies were treating drivers as IC and they failed to tell drivers to get a business license before you start driving ... because it messed up their "sign & drive" campaign. Cities have always required business licenses for and I remember getting my first business license in San Francisco when I was still in high school ... for an after-school biz with some friends. This is not some massive cash grab by the cities ... just because you're an Uber driver ... but rather, business licenses pay for maintaining city infrastructure (fixing potholes, cops, fire dept, etc).
> 
> Just chalk it up to every other thing that Uber/Lyft conveniently "forgot" to tell you before you started driving:
> 
> ...


Ditto on the insurance. I won't be surprised if one of two things happen at some point to those 37,000 SF Uber drivers, now that they have been publicly "outed".

Thing1: They get called out on their livery driving on their personal policy, and the insurance company cancels their policy, or...

Thing2: said personal insurance company sits and waits in the wings for all of the inevitable accident insurance claims to come trickling in from Uber drivers, all the while happily taking their insurance premiums in the meantime. Then when the moment comes to cover a claim, they conveniently pipe up with "Gee, it seems like we are not able to cover your damages since you were performing livery work at the time of the accident, which your policy clearly excludes. CLAIM DENIED. And, BTW, your policy is now cancelled and, well, you might have a pretty difficult time finding another reasonably priced personal policy from another carrier since we we all share claim data with each other and you, my friend, now have a big scarlet "U" or "L" branded on your forehead."


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Russ Reed said:


> True, like Volkswagen's sign and drive... Gotta READ fine print...


But unlike VW, uber doesn't really give drivers access to the official fine print until they've logged into the app.

I knew what to expect as I was a livery OO and LEO


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Russ Reed said:


> I'd like to dispute #3 though Ziggy, if you have full coverage you are covered. Its those with liability insurance, that's the catch.


In AZ I heard James River dropped all comp/coll. They just cover liability only. They made all drivers accept new agreement before logging in. Can anyone verify this please. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Bolympia (Jan 8, 2015)

Every SF taxi driver has to do this every year and Ditto for LA. It is standard practice in the taxi industry all over the US.......not that you kids actually know anything about the taxi industry.

However, I speculate that this is a first step. I think that the city will use this as a database to start forcing rideshare drivers to clearly mark their vehicles with some type of municipal issue trade dress with the intent on cutting down on the numbers flowing into the city everyday.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Since Uber has complete control over every aspect of our driving operation constantly and consistently daily it will be obvious to any juror that we are employees.


Uber has almost zero control of your driving operation. You decide when you turn your app on to work. You decide if and what ping you accept. You decide if you want to actually pick up the ping or cancel. You decide which route to take (GPS is suggested). You decide if you want to take the pax to their destination or end trip at driver discretion. You decide if your vehicle is "properly" insured. You decide how and when to maintain your vehicle. You decide when to turn your app off. And most important to this thread, you decide if and when to properly license your "fare for hire" vehicle in accordance with federal, state and municipal laws. The IRS list Uber as an Internet App company, not a transportation business.


----------



## Schweisshund (Feb 28, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> As revenues diminish from taxi's, it must be replenished by Uber.
> They will legislate their financing from your pockets.


Yep .... 91 x 37,000 = that's why because we said so.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)




----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Must say you can't be any more wrong. Being in the "fare for hire" industry for 15 years I can say you are definitely IC's. Working as little as 5 hours a month (desired work time is solely up to the driver), maintaining and using your own vehicle, having your own commercial insurance (Uber only covers liability to others), all necessary licensing, fees and permits in name of registered owner, ability to accept/deny/cancel any fare at any time, ability to discard passenger at any time, ability to work for any other ride share/transportation company at any time, all employment advertising states "be your own boss, work when you want to work, use your own vehicle", never filled out any necessary government documents for employment (I-9, W-2, state withholding), no employer tax was ever paid on your behalf, all fines, levies and injunctions paid by registered owner, not represented by Uber in any legal proceedings (see the thread; "Long Beach driver responsible for death" something close to that) and too many more instances to name. Don't wait for employee status, maybe in 10 years you'll get some reimbursement. Then you'll have to amend all your tax returns. It'll never happen. But you are still entitled to DREAM!!!!!!!


You can disagree all you want. You are completely wrong. Nothing in our job is set in stone. Independent contractors have actual contracts that govern their particular job. Our job has NO contract whatsoever. Our job has an "agreement" that governs it. That agreement is completely one-sided. We must do exactly as is in that "agreement" or we will be deactivated. It is very detailed on how exactly we must do our job or we will be deactivated. They can and will change the prices of that agreement at will, with no input from us whatsoever. We are definitely employees.

Even lawsuits that have involved taxi cab drivers have gone in the drivers favor that they are employees even though the taxi companies have even long argued that their drivers are independent contractors.

http://sfist.com/2015/06/29/another_worry_for_uber_suit_finds_y.php

You are free to disagree all you want. When we win the lawsuit you will still disagree and that's quite fine. It doesn't make any difference to us what you think, and any other guy on here that constantly rages against drivers.


----------



## Uberdancer (Mar 25, 2016)

Interesting ... I gather, from San Francisco City Treasurer assertions that ride sharing drivers are independent contractors and therefore require drivers to possess a business license to the upcoming trial to determine "employee or independent contractor," and Uber's Power Driver something or another which is directly affecting the occurrences, or diminishing occurrences, of surges, Uber is ferreting out certain drivers, the surge-only drivers, in the event that the law determines whether drivers are employees or not ... and if and when the time comes, Uber will offer jobs to those drivers they determine are worthy, i.e., the "Power Drivers" since these types of persons are the kind of drivers Uber wants, the ones who accept riders for pools to keep the cars occupied for longer periods of time and for more miles ...


----------



## Uberdancer (Mar 25, 2016)

... and with Juno boasting a driver-friendly environment, it would appear Uber/Lyft are digging in for the public relations war for drivers ...


----------



## Novus Caesar (Dec 15, 2015)

Do you really want to be an employee? Uber loses and starts telling you when you can drive and not, who works what shift and evaluations. You start making minimum wage . . .

Oh, and they can actually prohibit you from taking tips or regulate what you wear.


----------



## Uberdancer (Mar 25, 2016)

Well... I'm pretty sure some drivers will not have a choice ... and others may have a choice ... and still others will decide that it's not fun anymore and seek other forms of fun when it becomes "just a job" ...


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> You can disagree all you want. You are completely wrong. Nothing in our job is set in stone. Independent contractors have actual contracts that govern their particular job. Our job has NO contract whatsoever. Our job has an "agreement" that governs it. That agreement is completely one-sided. We must do exactly as is in that "agreement" or we will be deactivated. It is very detailed on how exactly we must do our job or we will be deactivated. They can and will change the prices of that agreement at will, with no input from us whatsoever. We are definitely employees.
> 
> Even lawsuits that have involved taxi cab drivers have gone in the drivers favor that they are employees even though the taxi companies have even long argued that their drivers are independent contractors.
> 
> ...


Did you get a 1099?


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> You can disagree all you want. You are completely wrong. Nothing in our job is set in stone. Independent contractors have actual contracts that govern their particular job. Our job has NO contract whatsoever. Our job has an "agreement" that governs it. That agreement is completely one-sided. We must do exactly as is in that "agreement" or we will be deactivated. It is very detailed on how exactly we must do our job or we will be deactivated. They can and will change the prices of that agreement at will, with no input from us whatsoever. We are definitely employees.
> 
> Even lawsuits that have involved taxi cab drivers have gone in the drivers favor that they are employees even though the taxi companies have even long argued that their drivers are independent contractors.
> 
> ...


I love the "Independant contractors have actual contracts" line. Having a contract does not clarify you as an IC's. Almost all union employees have contracts. I think you need to learn a little more about business, but good luck with Uber.


----------



## Novus Caesar (Dec 15, 2015)

I am a teacher and have a contract. So yes, contracts alone do not make a person an IC. However, he said IC's have contracts, not contracts make you an IC.


SEAL Team 5 said:


> I love the "Independant contractors have actual contracts" line. Having a contract does not clarify you as an IC's. Almost all union employees have contracts. I think you need to learn a little more about business, but good luck with Uber.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Novus Caesar said:


> I am a teacher and have a contract. So yes, contracts alone do not make a person an IC. However, he said IC's have contracts, not contracts make you an IC.


I know, uberdriverfornow along with many think they're going to be classified as employees. Basically if you get a 1099 at the end of the year that means you contracted for that revenue, no taxes were withheld, no employer matching FICA, no workmans comp was provided or any other employer required item.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> I know, uberdriverfornow along with many think they're going to be classified as employees. Basically if you get a 1099 at the end of the year that means you contracted for that revenue, no taxes were withheld, no employer matching FICA, no workmans comp was provided or any other employer required item.


Apparently to you anything Uber says is the law of the land. If they told you to jump off a bridge, I'm assuming you would. If they told you, "these aren't the droids you're looking for", you would wave them through.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Uber has almost zero control of your driving operation. You decide when you turn your app on to work. You decide if and what ping you accept. You decide if you want to actually pick up the ping or cancel. You decide which route to take (GPS is suggested). You decide if you want to take the pax to their destination or end trip at driver discretion. You decide if your vehicle is "properly" insured. You decide how and when to maintain your vehicle. You decide when to turn your app off. And most important to this thread, you decide if and when to properly license your "fare for hire" vehicle in accordance with federal, state and municipal laws. The IRS list Uber as an Internet App company, not a transportation business.


I'm going to disagree with you about pretty much everything here, and I'm basing this all on what courts have ruled on.
Courts make ruling based on who has control in the situation and drivers have little control. A driver does not get to pick which rides they will accept. If you don't take enough rides, Uber shuts you out of the platform. A driver does not have the discretion to end a trip anytime they want, there are only certain situations where a driver can end a ride and those are very rare (and likely vary from place to place). A driver has no control over the price that is being charged. And most importantly a driver has no control over when they license, Uber has told their drivers they must follow all laws.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Demon said:


> A driver does not get to pick which rides they will accept. Uber has told their drivers they must follow all laws.


So your app automatically accepts pings? And I believe the law says you must follow all laws. Some people on this forum are business law ignorant.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Apparently to you anything Uber says is the law of the land. If they told you to jump off a bridge, I'm assuming you would. If they told you, "these aren't the droids you're looking for", you would wave them through.


Come back here and post your findings after you have at least 10 years of "fare for hire" experience.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Apparently to you anything Uber says is the law of the land. If they told you to jump off a bridge, I'm assuming you would. If they told you, "these aren't the droids you're looking for", you would wave them through.


You still haven't answered, did you get a 1099 for last year?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> You still haven't answered, did you get a 1099 for last year?


I answered it indirectly.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Come back here and post your findings after you have at least 10 years of "fare for hire" experience.


So basically a cabby taking Ubers side, surely you're not biased in any fashion.

No wonder you're so mad at drivers. Poor thing.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> So basically a cabby taking Ubers side, surely you're not biased in any fashion.
> 
> No wonder you're so mad at drivers. Poor thing.


Definitely not a cabbie, we're livery drivers who started with Uber back in '12 when it was just Uber Black. I drive a '15 Escalade. Started our company in '01. We have a client base of over 600, including 23 corporate accounts. Not taking Uber's side, just taking the law's side. We've been spending thousands of dollars a year for the last 15 years to comply, I think everyone else should too.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I answered it indirectly.


Love that. So indirectly I'm guessing you did receive a 1099 and must file IRS form SE. You know what SE stands for? SELF EMPLOYMENT.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Definitely not a cabbie, we're livery drivers who started with Uber back in '12 when it was just Uber Black. I drive a '15 Escalade. Started our company in '01. We have a client base of over 600, including 23 corporate accounts. Not taking Uber's side, just taking the law's side. We've been spending thousands of dollars a year for the last 15 years to comply, I think everyone else should too.


So basically a competing driver taking the company's side over the drivers. Not a surprise. Now we all know what you're up to.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Love that. So indirectly I'm guessing you did receive a 1099 and must file IRS form SE. You know what SE stands for? SELF EMPLOYMENT.


Just because Uber says something, doesn't make it the law. I hope you will still be around for your Open Mouth Insert Foot come July when we hit the lawsuit jackpot.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> So your app automatically accepts pings? And I believe the law says you must follow all laws. Some people on this forum are business law ignorant.


Wouldn't matter if it did automatically accept pings. The point is that Uber maintains control and will shut you out of the system if you don't accept as many pings as they want you to. If driver's were really their own boss they could accept or reject as many rides as they want without penalty. The law does say one must follow all laws, but we're not talking about government employees we're talking about Uber drivers. If a driver was their own boss they could get a speeding ticket and would only have the government to deal with, not Uber.

Uber maintains control.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Demon said:


> Wouldn't matter if it did automatically accept pings. The point is that Uber maintains control and will shut you out of the system if you don't accept as many pings as they want you to. If driver's were really their own boss they could accept or reject as many rides as they want without penalty. The law does say one must follow all laws, but we're not talking about government employees we're talking about Uber drivers. If a driver was their own boss they could get a speeding ticket and would only have the government to deal with, not Uber.
> 
> Uber maintains control.


He knows exactly what you mean and he knows you're right. He's just trying to troll. I'm going to put him on ignore for the time being. It's useless trying to reason with a troll.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Just because Uber says something, doesn't make it the law. I hope you will still be around for your Open Mouth Insert Foot come July when we hit the lawsuit jackpot.


Your not going to have to wait till July. NY Times today reported that Uber reached an agreement. Look it up for yourself. It will be a lot easier with your foot out of your mouth. Look at the bright side. You get up to $260 for 3 years of Uber driving.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Demon said:


> Wouldn't matter if it did automatically accept pings. The point is that Uber maintains control and will shut you out of the system if you don't accept as many pings as they want you to. If driver's were really their own boss they could accept or reject as many rides as they want without penalty. The law does say one must follow all laws, but we're not talking about government employees we're talking about Uber drivers. If a driver was their own boss they could get a speeding ticket and would only have the government to deal with, not Uber.
> 
> Uber maintains control.


Hey, I just sent your buddy uberdriverfornow this. The NY Times just reported that Uber has reached an agreement in both CA & MA. Make sure you remember what tax forms you used this year because as an IC you'll be using the same forms next year. Welcome to Business 101.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Hey, I just sent your buddy uberdriverfornow this. The NY Times just reported that Uber has reached an agreement in both CA & MA. Make sure you remember what tax forms you used this year because as an IC you'll be using the same forms next year. Welcome to Business 101.


Yes, I saw you don't the difference between a settlement and a decision.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Just because Uber says something, doesn't make it the law. I hope you will still be around for your Open Mouth Insert Foot come July when we hit the lawsuit jackpot.


Just dropped off my charter at the ball game. Have about 4 hours to burn. Debate?


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Must say you can't be any more wrong. Being in the "fare for hire" industry for 15 years I can say you are definitely IC's. Working as little as 5 hours a month (desired work time is solely up to the driver), maintaining and using your own vehicle, having your own commercial insurance (Uber only covers liability to others), all necessary licensing, fees and permits in name of registered owner, ability to accept/deny/cancel any fare at any time, ability to discard passenger at any time, ability to work for any other ride share/transportation company at any time, all employment advertising states "be your own boss, work when you want to work, use your own vehicle", never filled out any necessary government documents for employment (I-9, W-2, state withholding), no employer tax was ever paid on your behalf, all fines, levies and injunctions paid by registered owner, not represented by Uber in any legal proceedings (see the thread; "Long Beach driver responsible for death" something close to that) and too many more instances to name. Don't wait for employee status, maybe in 10 years you'll get some reimbursement. Then you'll have to amend all your tax returns. It'll never happen. But you are still entitled to DREAM!!!!!!!


POST # 86/SEAL Team 5: W H A T ?
Are S E V E N 
Exclamation Points "Good Luck" ?
Lucky you didn't MAKE THAT BET:
10 Years flew by this Pa$t Week !

Bison Chortling !


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST # 86/SEAL Team 5: W H A T ?
> Are S E V E N
> Exclamation Points "Good Luck" ?
> Lucky you didn't MAKE THAT BET:
> ...


Can't say I really understand your reply. I think "lucky I didn't make that bet", well I don't really call $8,000 for over 25,000 miles reimbursement. $.28 a mile is a tip.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Ziggy said:


> After careful consideration ... I firmly believe that all the blame for the failure to notify drivers about business license requirements in San Fran and every other city/county/state ... falls squarely on the shoulders of Uber & Lyft ... as both companies were treating drivers as IC and they failed to tell drivers to get a business license before you start driving ... because it messed up their "sign & drive" campaign. Cities have always required business licenses for and I remember getting my first business license in San Francisco when I was still in high school ... for an after-school biz with some friends. This is not some massive cash grab by the cities ... just because you're an Uber driver ... but rather, business licenses pay for maintaining city infrastructure (fixing potholes, cops, fire dept, etc).
> 
> Just chalk it up to every other thing that Uber/Lyft conveniently "forgot" to tell you before you started driving:
> 
> ...


The 7 items you bring up are very valid points. The one thing I disagree with is that you stated Uber should of told the drivers about this. No, the drivers themselves should or researched in their own state what is required. But just like 99% of Uber drivers everyone just saw "make great money, be your own boss, drive when you want to". Ignorance of the law ( that is 99.9% of Uber drivers) is no excuse.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> The 7 items you bring up are very valid points. The one thing I disagree with is that you stated Uber should of told the drivers about this. No, the drivers themselves should or researched in their own state what is required. But just like 99% of Uber drivers everyone just saw "make great money, be your own boss, drive when you want to". Ignorance of the law ( that is 99.9% of Uber drivers) is no excuse.


The primary reason I said Uber should have told drivers about the regs is because Uber was specifically targeting and hiring novices/laypeople who were only looking to make a few extra bucks. I, for one, do extensive research to analyze my risk before jumping into any situation ... as such, I didn't start driving in Austin until Uber had provisional operating authority ... whereas, many people drove for almost a year before Uber had any operating authority ... sure they made big bucks during the WWW (wild, wild west) days ... but I felt the risk was too high, at least it was for me.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Ziggy said:


> The primary reason I said Uber should have told drivers about the regs is because Uber was specifically targeting and hiring novices/laypeople who were only looking to make a few extra bucks. I, for one, do extensive research to analyze my risk before jumping into any situation ... as such, I didn't start driving in Austin until Uber had provisional operating authority ... whereas, many people drove for almost a year before Uber had any operating authority ... sure they made big bucks during the WWW (wild, wild west) days ... but I felt the risk was too high, at least it was for me.


That is fantastic that you are smart enough to research. So many were not. There's this one story of an Uber driver still making car payments on his totaled vehicle. There's stories of drivers in Tampa and New Jersey paying hefty fines and having their vehicles impounded. When Uber first came to Scottsdale AZ in 2012 it was only Uber Black/SUV @ $5.00 a mile. All the legal livery drivers joined, myself included. Since we were already licensed, insured and registered with the proper governing agency it was no big deal. Basically Uber's on demand app was just a different way of ordering a "fare for hire" vehicle. Then in late 2013, Uber wanted to go cheap and the X platform was "invented". That's when all the "Toms, Dicks & Harrys" joined. And the illegal driving started. So I've been around since the very 1st rate cut, Nov. 2013 the start of Uber X. There is still many drivers across the nation and on this forum that are ignorant to the laws, rules and regulations required to be a "fare for hire" operator. Just hope the majority don't have to learn the hard way with fines, impounds and worse yet an insurance claim denial for a major incident. Good luck.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Not sure if you guys realize it but if we were classified as employees in the lawsuit, Uber would be paying for each and every business tax certificate in each city in which we drive.

The only reason we have to pay for it is because Uber has misclassified us as independent contractors to the city. They are only appearing to be against the certificate so drivers don't rant against Uber. They want us to rant against the city of SF instead.

Yet another Uber spin.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Can't say I really understand your reply. I think "lucky I didn't make that bet", well I don't really call $8,000 for over 25,000 miles reimbursement. $.28 a mile is a tip.


POST # 126/SEAL Team 5: THANK YOU
for a Far More Courteous
Reply than I DESERVED. I gue$$ that 
the "Settlement-as-Proposed" seems like
it falls into the "Good START...." Category.

Sorry, Sir. I guess I've been LE$$ CRITI-
CAL of "SledgeHammer Shannon" than
Other Respected Members. MY ADMIT-
TEDLY NEAR-RABID "Feelings" about
The Kakanicky has ME looking for his...
Head...Atop a Pike...adjacent to the "Wel-
come to S.F." Sign...."Game of Thrones"
Style. I'm a REAL "Old Testament" Guy,
if THAT hasn't been Readily Apparent.


----------

