# California Court Order Temporarily Stayed - Stocks Rip



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/20/...lifornia-judge-block-emergency-stay-employees


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

so, Uber did guess correctly that a stay was coming.


----------



## Jo3030 (Jan 2, 2016)

California buckled? ROFL.


----------



## #professoruber (Feb 19, 2018)

SHalester said:


> so, Uber did guess correctly that a stay was coming.


Uber has deep pockets. Money was exchanged and bam! Miracles happen.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

#professoruber said:


> Money was exchanged and bam! Miracles happen.


a state judge? sure, right. Earth is flat as well.


----------



## Kilroy4303 (Jul 31, 2020)

Or maybe someone figured out that it might not be a good idea. . .and that the full time drivers are independent contractors and NOT EMPLOYEES


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

*UBER WINS AGAIN!!!*

What a surprise, they keep winning every time they are challenged.


----------



## doyousensehumor (Apr 13, 2015)

Gee wiz, Uber figured it out again

How many times does the same thing have to happen over and over again before you guys noticed a pattern? 

Probably the same ones that are unable to notice patterns and make decisions for themselves when it comes to driving for these companies


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

Kilroy4303 said:


> Or maybe someone figured out that it might not be a good idea. . .and that the full time drivers are independent contractors and NOT EMPLOYEES


I suspect employee status never happens and the few aren't able to cram down their hair-brained policies on the many. UBER and Lyft are considering a franchise model that would also allow them to escape the draconian law.


----------



## donurs (May 31, 2015)

ftupelo said:


> https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/20/...lifornia-judge-block-emergency-stay-employees


The temporary reprieve gives Uber and Lyft until 5 p.m. PT on August 25 to file written statements agreeing to expedited procedures.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/20/app...rieve-in-case-over-driver-classification.html


----------



## Iann (Oct 17, 2017)

Frank's alive


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

donurs said:


> The temporary reprieve gives Uber and Lyft until 5 p.m. PT on August 25 to file written statements agreeing to expedited procedures.
> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/20/app...rieve-in-case-over-driver-classification.html


I don't know know why they don't just stay the order until the November election and let the fine denizens of CA vote on prop 22. It's a very strange concept when you think about it. Your fate as an UBER driver and your freedoms to operate in the manner you wish to will be decided by other folks who have no knowledge of the industry or what the Ants want.



Iann said:


> Frank's alive


I've been back for a little while and have already single-handedly resuscitated the Dallas boards from the brink of a near-certain death like a phoenix rising out of the ashes.


----------



## ChinatownJake (Jan 3, 2016)

This gives Uber/Lyft until October. That sound you hear is California taxi drivers who had planned to aggressively get back on the road Friday cursing out the deep legal pockets of the rideshare companies.


----------



## Kilroy4303 (Jul 31, 2020)

This thread is going to go a while. . .. .


----------



## Denver Dick (Nov 2, 2019)

good thing i picked up 1000 uber shares yesterday!...they went out the door this afternoon...no need to drive the next week or so


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

Denver Dick said:


> good thing i picked up 1000 uber shares yesterday!...they went out the door this afternoon...no need to drive the next week or so


I love to hear about folks making money. However, should've held until it's a Trillion dollar business.


----------



## BigBadDeliveryMonster (Jul 18, 2020)

ftupelo said:


> I don't know know why they don't just stay the order until the November election and let the fine denizens of CA vote on prop 22. It's a very strange concept when you think about it. Your fate as an UBER driver and your freedoms to operate in the manner you wish to will be decided by other folks who have no knowledge of the industry or what the Ants want.
> 
> 
> I've been back for a little while and have already single-handedly resuscitated the Dallas boards from the brink of a near-certain death like a phoenix rising out of the ashes.


The news reporting on this is unnecessarily obtuse.
The stay stops the preliminary injunction. No injunction will happen unless the court ultimately rules against Uber/Lyft in this case AND Prop 22 fails.
The court case is unlikely to wrap before the election.
The Aug 25th deadline is simply for Uber/Lyft to submit a plan for reclassification within 30 days that can be used when/if the injunction goes into effect. The court is basically saying fine, we'll let you continue for now, but we want to know how you are going to comply in the event we rule against you.
Uber/Lyft truly got what they wanted.


----------



## Kilroy4303 (Jul 31, 2020)

BigBadDeliveryMonster said:


> The news reporting on this is unnecessarily obtuse.
> The stay stops the preliminary injunction. No injunction will happen unless the court ultimately rules against Uber/Lyft in this case AND Prop 22 fails.
> The court case is unlikely to wrap before the election.
> The Aug 25th deadline is simply for Uber/Lyft to submit a plan for reclassification within 30 days that can be used when/if the injunction goes into effect. The court is basically saying fine, we'll let you continue for now, but we want to know how you are going to comply in the event we rule against you.
> Uber/Lyft truly got what they wanted.


Well the full time drivers almost got a taste of what it might mean. No driving at all. . . .. so maybe a time to re evaluate if that is what they wanted


----------



## Denver Dick (Nov 2, 2019)

Kilroy4303 said:


> Well the full time drivers almost got a taste of what it might mean. No driving at all. . . .. so maybe a time to re evaluate if that is what they wanted


id be happy setting my own multiplier....it would never go below 3


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

Denver Dick said:


> id be happy setting my own multiplier....it would never go below 3


I hope you like sitting around and waiting for pings that never materialize.


----------



## Denver Dick (Nov 2, 2019)

ftupelo said:


> I hope you like sitting around and waiting for pings that never materialize.


oh ok i will let you drive to go get that $4 fare


----------



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

doyousensehumor said:


> Gee wiz, Uber figured it out again
> 
> How many times does the same thing have to happen over and over again before you guys noticed a pattern?
> 
> Probably the same ones that are unable to notice patterns and make decisions for themselves when it comes to driving for these companies


Meh.... not buying it. If you can link to a single post you made predicting that the CA appeals court would extend the injunction the day before it was set to take effect, then you would have full gloating rights.

Otherwise, nope. No sale. Do not pass Go; do not collect $200.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

Denver Dick said:


> oh ok i will let you drive to go get that $4 fare


You can set your surge wherever you want, but if plenty of ants undercut you, you'll be a waiting.


----------



## MikhailCA (Dec 8, 2019)

So, do we have time till October, right?


----------



## selfemployed (Jul 19, 2020)

Denver Dick said:


> oh ok i will let you drive to go get that $4 fare


I tried that for two weeks, setting my multiplier at various rates and never go below 1.1. My conclusion is unless you drive exclusively late night, or exclusively in affluent areas with no other uber/lyft cars around, you ain't getting any pings unless an unsuspecting out-of-towner just happen to fall on your lap


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

selfemployed said:


> I tried that for two weeks, setting my multiplier at various rates and never go below 1.1. My conclusion is unless you drive exclusively late night, or exclusively in affluent areas with no other uber/lyft cars around, you ain't getting any pings unless an unsuspecting out-of-towner just happen to fall on your lap


Thank you for sharing your experience. Unfortunately many ants believe they can charge whatever they want and pax will pay it without considering other factors like competition.


----------



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

ftupelo said:


> Thank you for sharing your experience. Unfortunately many ants believe they can charge whatever they want and pax will pay it without considering other factors like competition.


Frankie! How are you, old bean? I've just jetted back from Monaco for the start of the harvest season at my winery in Napa! Did you summer in the Med this year?


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Frankie! How are you, old bean? I've just jetted back from Monaco for the start of the harvest season at my winery in Napa! Did you summer in the Med this year?


No sir, not with Covid, but luckily I was able to spend 10 days in Australia prior to the shutdown. I was supposed to spend a few weeks in Spain last summer to look for a pied-à-terre, but Sweetie ended up switching jobs just prior to our trip, so we had to cancel. Next summer I will be taking a Hawaiian vacation with my full family. Sweetie and I are also considering a trip to Europe next fall to possibly tour scotch distilleries or Swiss watch manufactures. Recall Frankie de la crème comes for exquisite Swiss stock and has a penchant for _haute horlogerie._


----------



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

ftupelo said:


> No sir, not with Covid, but luckily I was able to spend 10 days in Australia prior to the shutdown. I was supposed to spend a few weeks in Spain last summer to look for a pied-à-terre, but Sweetie ended up switching jobs just prior to our trip, so we had to cancel. Next summer I will be taking a Hawaiian vacation with my full family. Sweetie and I are also considering a trip to Europe next fall to possibly tour scotch distilleries or Swiss watch manufactures. Recall Frankie de la crème comes for exquisite Swiss stock and has a penchant for _haute horlogerie._


I would imagine jobs must be such a bore. I know someone who has one; they sound frightful.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

If Uber shuts down, and it's permanent, I'm going to buy a taxi medallion in San Diego and I will be truly independent. The new taxi rules are such that you don't have to paint your car, it can look just like an Uber, au natural. you can put your taxi sign lit up inside your window.. Fine by me. Uber has been a disrupter in the transportation business, and I kinda miss driving a cab. Taxi rates are $3 per mile, and $40 per hour, and if Uber folds, they will get real busy, especially when the virus passes.


----------



## Denver Dick (Nov 2, 2019)

selfemployed said:


> I tried that for two weeks, setting my multiplier at various rates and never go below 1.1. My conclusion is unless you drive exclusively late night, or exclusively in affluent areas with no other uber/lyft cars around, you ain't getting any pings unless an unsuspecting out-of-towner just happen to fall on your lap


i get ya its ants beating the shit out of ants


----------



## Steve appleby (May 30, 2015)

Funny I remember saying to myself last night “their gunna get an 11th hour stay.” Low and behold... people will say “well, Uber and Lyft left Austin, tx and came back”

I just think that this is different. Its California. I hope that people come to their senses and vote yes on prop 22. I can tell you right now, if I become an employee of Uber. Bye bye. I’ll go find another line of work.

I also think that AB5 is a bunch of leftist garbage. It’s a bunch of people who think that the system owes them something and are just mad that they can’t afford to live in the places that they live in and cost of living is way to high. Well, instead of blaming their government as to why the standard of living is so high they blame Uber and Lyft and Uber and Lyft are just standing their looking at these people like “we’re not going to do anything about it, don’t look at us, it’s not our fault”

i also think that AB5 feeds into the leftist narrative that they think the system owes them something. In reality, the system doesn’t owe you shit. I’m sorry but I disagree with AB5 and I think if prop 22 fails then Uber and Lyft will pull out.

a couple of commenters on here will make the argument and “oh don’t worry they’ll be back you just wait” well I’m sorry but i don’t think they will. Yes, California is a big market for both companies, but guys, it’s CALIFORNIA. it’s the most left wing state in the union. They won’t go down without a bloody fight. The majority of California’s politicians are hard lefties. They don’t live in the same reality that the rest of the country lives in.

this is going to get interesting for sure and I think this is going to go all the way to the surpreme court.


----------



## MikhailCA (Dec 8, 2019)

Oscar Levant said:


> If Uber shuts down, and it's permanent, I'm going to buy a taxi medallion in San Diego and I will be truly independent. The new taxi rules are such that you don't have to paint your car, it can look just like an Uber, au natural. you can put your taxi sign lit up inside your window.. Fine by me. Uber has been a disrupter in the transportation business, and I kinda miss driving a cab. Taxi rates are $3 per mile, and $40 per hour, and if Uber folds, they will get real busy, especially when the virus passes.


Not gonna happen, tradition taxi is dead. No one gonna try to catch a taxi on the street anymore, it is easy and safe just to make a few clicks on you phone.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Jo3030 said:


> California buckled?


^^^^^^^^Never mind, he already mentioned it.\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/


#professoruber said:


> Uber has deep pockets. Money was exchanged and bam! Miracles happen.





SHalester said:


> a state judge? sure, right. Earth is flat as well.


https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/...e-arrested-on-charges-of-obstructing-justice/
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1209031/download


----------



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

Steve appleby said:


> Funny I remember saying to myself last night "their gunna get an 11th hour stay." Low and behold... people will say "well, Uber and Lyft left Austin, tx and came back"
> 
> I just think that this is different. Its California. I hope that people come to their senses and vote yes on prop 22. I can tell you right now, if I become an employee of Uber. Bye bye. I'll go find another line of work.
> 
> ...


I don't normally comment on such things, but your spelling and grammar are a trowshus.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

that's a joke, yeah? My reply on a 'bribe' and that was the reason Uber/Lyft got another 5 days.....huh.

earth is flat and everything circles earth.

The stay will extend until Uber and Lyft's appeals are resolved on the condition that they agree to a new timeline and procedure. If they do not, the stay will expire on Aug. 25 at 5 p.m. PT. One of those conditions is that the CEOs of Uber and Lyft both submit sworn statements confirming they've developed plans to comply with the preliminary injunction within 30 days if the appeals court affirms the preliminary injunction and Proposition 22, the ballot measure that would exempt them from AB5, fails to pass.


----------



## cman5555 (Aug 11, 2020)

Denver Dick said:


> oh ok i will let you drive to go get that $4 fare


Some actually do materialize, even at 5x&#128522; Keep it up with those 3x) "If you set it, they will come"


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I don't normally comment on such things, but your spelling and grammar are a trowshus.


something tells me your beef is more about his content than anything else.


----------



## Paul Vincent (Jan 15, 2016)

ftupelo said:


> I suspect employee status never happens and the few aren't able to cram down their hair-brained policies on the many. UBER and Lyft are considering a franchise model that would also allow them to escape the draconian law.


The appeals court warned the companies to continue preparing for the possible switch to employee drivers, saying each company must submit a sworn statement by Sept. 4 "confirming that it has developed implementation plans." The companies must also affirm they are prepared to actually implement those plans and switch to the employee system within 30 days if they ultimately lose their appeal and a company-sponsored measure on the November ballot fails.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

cman5555 said:


> Some actually do materialize, even at 5x&#128522; Keep it up with those 3x) "If you set it, they will come"


I won't go and say you represent all pax out there but I'm seeing enough from many different ants out there along with my own ant'n that Uber and Lyft can raise their rates without fear of losing pax and that Uber should drop the scare tactic that setting a higher fare could mean no rides.

When all the ants refuse the minimum fare people at higher multiplier often get the ride which benefits both Uber and the ant.

Let the minimum wage ants sit there and cherry pick out of fear of not getting a ride. I'll take a $14 6 minute 1-2 mile ride every time.


----------



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

ftupelo said:


> something tells me your beef is more about his content than anything else.


Your cat, perhaps?

No, I've got no interest in dealing with Fisher Price level missives.


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/08/uber-lyft-capital-strike-california-reclassify/


----------



## ThanksUber (Jul 26, 2017)

California must be forever known as the chicken state.


----------



## Johnny Mnemonic (Sep 24, 2019)

ftupelo said:


> I don't know know why they don't just stay the order until the November election and let the fine denizens of CA vote on prop 22.


"Oral arguments in the case are set for mid-October...The fight could drag on for months, as Uber and Lyft battle a state labor law intended to give employment benefits to gig workers." -New York Times-

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/20/technology/uber-lyft-california-shutdown.html
There probably won't be a decision until next year, according to what I'm reading in the Times.

Just remember, though, even if 22 passes it can be struck down by the California Supreme Court the same way Proposition 8 was.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

waldowainthrop said:


> https://jacobinmag.com/2020/08/uber-lyft-capital-strike-california-reclassify/


What a load of lawnsausage. What I never understand about these corporate greed type arguments is their failure to reflect on their own self motivations for what they are doing, greed. The folks advocating for these rule changes are doing so because they desire more. But for some reason the corporation should voluntarily given up profit - why don't the ants pitch in and take a voluntary pay cut to help UBER and Lyft reach profitability?


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

ftupelo said:


> What a load of lawnsausage. What I never understand about these corporate greed type arguments is their failure to reflect on their own self motivations for what they are doing, greed. The folks advocating for these rule changes are doing so because they desire more. But for some reason the corporation should voluntarily given up profit - why don't the ants pitch in and take a voluntary pay cut to help UBER and Lyft reach profitability?


The writer isn't an ant.

I don't think you read far past the headline.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

MikhailCA said:


> Not gonna happen, tradition taxi is dead. No one gonna try to catch a taxi on the street anymore, it is easy and safe just to make a few clicks on you phone.


Not true. In San Diego, there are probably over 1000 taxis all of whom work the city cab stands ( always by a hotel ) and the airport.
Before the pandemic, they do okay. Remember, if you own a cab, you're not paying a lease, and you can get radio service to fulfill the legal requirement pretty cheap now. So, the only big expense is commercial insurance which is about $300 per month, that's it. You keep the $3 per mile. People still take taxis, I see people climb into cabs all day long in my city. What has happened is that radio service is dead, but there is a lot of hailing going on downtown ( but not any where else ). However, if Uber and Lyft leave, it will perk up again.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Taxis were abundant today, they kept photobombing.


----------



## MikhailCA (Dec 8, 2019)

Oscar Levant said:


> Not true. In San Diego, there are probably over 1000 taxis all of whom work the city cab stands ( always by a hotel ) and the airport.
> Before the pandemic, they do okay. Remember, if you own a cab, you're not paying a lease, and you can get radio service to fulfill the legal requirement pretty cheap now. So, the only big expense is commercial insurance which is about $300 per month, that's it. You keep the $3 per mile. People still take taxis, I see people climb into cabs all day long in my city. What has happened is that radio service is dead, but there is a lot of hailing going on downtown ( but not any where else ). However, if Uber and Lyft leave, it will perk up again.


Well, let's say it's slowly dying, for sure, some people (mostly old one) would stick with the taxi, but if 95% of the people would rather call an Uber i don't see the future for taxi or would need some serious law changes like to force Uber to buy a medallion for each car on the platform.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

Stock rips, options explored like July 4th.
A Lyft $28 strike call expired on the August 21, 2020 went from $0.09 to more than 3000% return of $2.87 in less than 4 hours. 
Driving RS is hard, Trading options is not. I was wrongfully denied equal access to the platform(s), I've no option but to become an independent trader now.







, but am an


----------



## selfemployed (Jul 19, 2020)

Denver Dick said:


> i get ya its ants beating the shit out of ants


Can't complain. I was trying to get easy money. Didn't work out. Back to my auto pricing $30 an hour normal driving and rates


----------



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

ftupelo said:


> What a load of lawnsausage. What I never understand about these corporate greed type arguments is their failure to reflect on their own self motivations for what they are doing, greed.


The article does not make a "corporate greed type argument". What it actually states is:

_"Here's how it works: private businesses exist to make as much profit as possible."_

This, we all already know, and it's not controversial. This idea is one of the cornerstones of capitalism.

No, the argument that the article makes is not that making money is bad, but that it must be done within the confines of the law. In this instance, the relevant law is labour law, which Uber has openly flouted by misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors.


> The folks advocating for these rule changes are doing so because they desire more.


Nobody is advocating for rule changes; AB5 has already been signed into law. The purpose of the current lawsuit in CA is to force Uber to obey the law.


> But for some reason the corporation should voluntarily given up profit


The money saved by Uber by not paying employee benefits and taxes was obtained illegally, in open contravention of AB5. It therefore does not belong to Uber.


> why don't the ants pitch in and take a voluntary pay cut to help UBER and Lyft reach profitability?


How each person spends his/her own money is up to the individual. You're free to cut Uber a check if you'd like.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> The article does not make a "corporate greed type argument". What it actually states is:
> 
> _"Here's how it works: private businesses exist to make as much profit as possible."_
> 
> ...


They believe they are obeying the law, which is why they have not been classifying Ants as employees since the passage of AB5. Laws must be interpreted and their reading is different from the state's, hence the ongoing litigation.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

ftupelo said:


> They believe they are obeying the law, which is why they have not been classifying Ants as employees since the passage of AB5. Laws must be interpreted and their reading is different from the state's, hence the ongoing litigation.


In 5 days, they will swear to tell the truth or face the consequence. Are we delivering technology or are we delivering food and bodies?


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

ntcindetroit said:


> In 5 days, they will swear to tell the truth or face the consequence. Are we delivering technology or are we delivering food and bodies?


UBER is a developer of a technology platform that connects consumers and producers who independently and voluntarily agree to provide and consume services at a fluctuating price dictated by supply and demand if and when they choose to transact.


----------



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

ftupelo said:


> They believe they are obeying the law, which is why they have not been classifying Ants as employees since the passage of AB5. Laws must be interpreted and their reading is different from the state's, hence the ongoing litigation.


No, Uber knows that they are not obeying the law as it is written. The way the law is written, workers who perform work in the same line of business as the hiring entity are employees, not IC. It's as clear as day.

As the judges have said, for Uber to claim that it is _not_ in the transportation business is, quote, "ludicrous", especially given Uber's own filings and declarations in other court cases. In the Waymo theft of intellectual property case, for example, Uber's executives testified about Uber's plans to develop its own fleet of self driving cars. So we have a company investing in and developing its own fleet of vehicles with which to transport passengers, yet it's not in the transportation industry. &#129315;. Clearly Uber thinks that everyone except them came down in the last rainfall.

There are other examples, such as Uber's purchase and running of electric bike company Jump. Again, we have a transportation firm that bought, operated, repaired, maintained and hired out its own fleet of bicycles, yet this firm is _not_ in the business of transportation! How incredible is that?! Truly amazing. Of course, once AB5 came along, Uber dropped Jump like a hot potato and very quickly divested itself of it in the US. "Electric bicycle fleet? What electric bicycle fleet? Us? Nope! There's no electric bicycle fleet here!".

So no, there is no doubt at Uber knows that AB5 applies to them. Now, Uber may not _agree_ with this law, but that's a different matter entirely.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> No, Uber knows that they are not obeying the law as it is written. The way the law is written, workers who perform work in the same line of business as the hiring entity are employees, not IC. It's as clear as day.
> 
> As the judges have said, for Uber to claim that it is _not_ in the transportation business is, quote, "ludicrous", especially given Uber's own filings and declarations in other court cases. In the Waymo theft of intellectual property case, for example, Uber's executives testified about Uber's plans to develop its own fleet of self driving cars. So we have a company investing in and developing its own fleet of vehicles with which to transport passengers, yet it's not in the transportation industry. &#129315;. Clearly Uber thinks that everyone except them came down in the last rainfall.
> 
> ...


There is plenty of doubt that AB5 applies to them. Am I an employee of fidelity or NYSE because I make money when they connect me with someone on their platform? Those two companies have built a platform/marketplace that connects buyers and sellers. Am I an employee of Craigslist because they connected me with someone who bought the service I put up on their sight? eBay? Letgo? FB marketplace?


----------



## Steve appleby (May 30, 2015)

The Gift of Fish said:


> No, Uber knows that they are not obeying the law as it is written. The way the law is written, workers who perform work in the same line of business as the hiring entity are employees, not IC. It's as clear as day.
> 
> As the judges have said, for Uber to claim that it is _not_ in the transportation business is, quote, "ludicrous", especially given Uber's own filings and declarations in other court cases. In the Waymo theft of intellectual property case, for example, Uber's executives testified about Uber's plans to develop its own fleet of self driving cars. So we have a company investing in and developing its own fleet of vehicles with which to transport passengers, yet it's not in the transportation industry. &#129315;. Clearly Uber thinks that everyone except them came down in the last rainfall.
> 
> ...


Sorry man but I completely disagree. I just think that Uber and Lyft are eventually going to leave California out of irreconcilable differences. I have never agreed with California's politics and just think that California needs to leave the union. They are just not on par with the rest of the country ideologically. California taxes the living shit out of people , it's one of the only states on the mainland where people pay $5 a gallon for gas, (if I paid $5 for gas I wouldn't even do rideshare much less own a car) I hope prop 22 passes so the people can shove it right back into their socialist faces.

If I ever become an employee of Uber I'm finding another job, bye &#128075;


----------



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

ftupelo said:


> UBER is a developer of a technology platform that connects consumers and producers who independently and voluntarily agree to provide and consume services at a fluctuating price dictated by supply and demand if and when they choose to transact.


No, as explained above, the myth that Uber propagates about it being simply a software company was debunked and abandoned long ago. To be honest, I am surprised there are people still drinking that Kool Aid. As I mention above, have a look at the Uber's own sworn court statements in which they state that their aim is build their own transportation fleet of vehicles and provide transportation direct to the public. These documents are a fascinating read, especially regarding the speed with which Uber believed it could put its own fleets into operation - they had been planning to have 25,000 of their own driverless SDC operating in 13 cities by 2019, IIRC.

It should be obvious to anyone, even to those who have been swayed by Uber's great spin machine, that software companies do not engage in and develop transportation businesses. Transportation businesses develop transportation businesses.

In contrast, let's look at a genuine software company, Microsoft. Microsoft develops and licences software to its customers, and it has no control over how its customers use the software. Microsoft does not contact me to tell me how I must use Excel, for example, nor does it threaten to deactivate me or put me in a time out if it doesn't like how I build spreadsheets. This should be more than obvious. However, such a degree of control and authority is exactly what Uber exerts over its drivers every day. Uber does not simply licence software to customers as Microsoft does; it actively controls how drivers use the software and can and does suspend drivers' use of the software and/or deactivate the software if it does not like how driver a driver uses it.

This distinction shows that the Uber software is incidental to the work product being performed by the worker for Uber; it is not the work product itself. Many companies rely on technology in order to operate their businesses, but this does not mean that this makes all such companies software sellers. Netflix, for example, depends heavily on software in order to operate, but it would be ridiculous for it to try to claim that it sells internet viewing software. It is simply a media distributor that uses technology.

Another clue that Uber is not a software provider is that the Uber software can only be used to obtain work only from Uber. The software is a tool that facilitates interaction between Uber and the driver. In contrast, I can use my copy of Excel to open spreadsheets made by anyone. I can even open spreadsheets that were not written in Excel. I can and do use my copy of Excel with no interaction whatsoever with Microsoft. It is a product that stands in its own right. If Microsoft disappeared tomorrow, I could still keep using the product.

All of these distinctions are so obvious that even Uber has stopped claiming that it is a software provider. You're following and "rah-rah-rahing" to rhetoric which is no longer used by the company. Uber's latest line is that drivers are not customers of its software; it now says that drivers do indeed work for Uber, but as contractors who deserve minimum wage guarantees, portable benefits funds and the like.

I do find it fascinating, though, that the power of a company's PR can be so persuasive that it can bend the reasoning of people, who are otherwise completely rational, in such ways.



ftupelo said:


> There is plenty of doubt that AB5 applies to them. Am I an employee of fidelity or NYSE because I make money when they connect me with someone on their platform? Those two companies have built a platform/marketplace that connects buyers and sellers. Am I an employee of Craigslist because they connected me with someone who bought the service I put up on their sight? eBay? Letgo? FB marketplace?


Indeed, just because companies allow communication between third parties, that does not mean that the third parties are employees of the company. This is obvious, and not in dispute. For example, the fact that the phone company allows me to pick up my phone and call my neighbour does not make either me or my neighbour an employee of the phone company.

No, the reason that Uber drivers are employees is not because it allows communication with third parties; it is because it does not pass the three-pronged test as established in the AB5 legislation.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> No, as explained above, the myth that Uber propagates about it being simply a software company was debunked and abandoned long ago. To be honest, I am surprised there are people still drinking that Kool Aid. As I mention above, have a look at the Uber's own sworn court statements in which they state that their aim is build their own transportation fleet of vehicles and provide transportation direct to the public. These documents are a fascinating read, especially regarding the speed with which Uber believed it could put its own fleets into operation - they had been planning to have 25,000 of their own driverless SDC operating in 13 cities by 2019, IIRC.
> 
> It should be obvious to anyone, even to those who have been swayed by Uber's great spin machine, that software companies do not engage and develop transportation businesses. Transportation businesses develop transportation businesses.
> 
> ...


So what? Different software is used in different ways. That doesn't make me an employee of any of the companies that put it out. Fidelity or NYSE can also kick people off their marketplace for violating their terms of use. Other marketplaces will kick you off if you peddle prohibited goods or services.

Whether they are attempting to develop autonomous driving has nothing to do with you being an employee because you can log into their marketplace and choose to either connect with someone or not, at any time you want, as often or little as you want, etc.


----------



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

ftupelo said:


> So what? Different software is used in different ways. That doesn't make me an employee of any of the companies that put it out. Fidelity or NYSE can also kick people off their marketplace for violating their terms of use. Other marketplaces will kick you off if you peddle prohibited goods or services.
> 
> Whether they are attempting to develop autonomous driving has nothing to do with you being an employee because you can log into their marketplace and choose either connect with someone or not, at any time you want, as often or little as you want.


Correct; you using Fidelity's or NYSE's trading software does not make you an employee of either company, any more than you using Starbuck's software to order yourself a tasty beverage would make you an employee of Starbuck's. This is not in dispute.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Correct; you using Fidelity's or NYSE's trading software does not make you an employee of either company, any more than you using Starbuck's software to order yourself a tasty beverage would make you an employee of Starbuck's. This is not in dispute.


What's the difference? Those are marketplaces where I make money selling something. All they are doing is providing me with software to locate a counter-party to hawk my wears.

Since I drive for Uber, Lyft, Eats, Grubhub, postmates, and doordash, am I an employee of each?


----------



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

ftupelo said:


> What's the difference? Those are marketplaces where I make money selling something. All they are doing is providing me with software to locate a counter-party to hawk my wears.


What's the difference, you ask? Well, let's find out! The criteria for whether or not someone is an employee in CA is the three prong test contained in AB5. So let's put both Uber and Fidelity through the test. The first criterion of the test is:

_(A) The hiring entity does not control or direct the worker in performing the work in fact or under the terms of a contract._

As we know, Uber exerts significant control over the worker in performing the work. For example, if Uber doesn't like the amount of requests that a driver is accepting, it can put that driver in "time outs", or deprioritise drivers. Uber also can take back fares from drivers at its discretion, should it believe complaints from pax. Uber specifies which cars can and cannot be used by drivers. I would be here all day if I were to list all the control that Uber exerts over drivers' work. So, that's a fail for Uber under question A.

On the other hand, Fidelity does not exert such control over the traders using its marketplace. It does not set the prices for securities traded on it. It does not conceal material information related to the transaction, etc etc etc. Under question A, users of Fidelity's trading platform are not employees of Fidelity.

Next, question B:

_(B) The work performed is outside the "usual course" of the hiring entity's business._

As discussed above, Uber's usual course of business is the provision of transportation for hire to passengers. Drivers' usual course of business is the same as Uber's. So this is a clear AB5 fail for Uber.

Fidelity is a marketplace for conducting transactions between third parties. Fidelity is not a principal in the transactions conducted in its online consumer marketplace - it does not buy or sell securities in it. This is an AB5 pass for Fidelity.

Next, question C:

_(C) The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed. _

The question here is whether or not the person could conduct their businesses independently of the partner entity. That is, if Uber, Lyft and the other rideshare companies ceased to exist, could a driver still be a rideshare driver? Here, the answer is no, so that's a fail.

On the other hand, if Fidelity's and other online marketplaces, or the NYSE ceased to exist, it would not mean that people could no longer trade securities. In fact, people traded securities long before securities exchanges even existed! So that is an AB5 pass for Fidelity.

And there you have your answer! In California according to the law, Uber is an employer of drivers, while Fidelity is not an employer of the traders using its marketplace.



> Since I drive for Uber, Lyft, Eats, Grubhub, postmates, and doordash, am I an employee of each?


Yes, it is possible and indeed common for people to have multiple jobs. A great example of this are policemen, who are employees of the police forces and also moonlight as employees for other companies, often doing security work.


----------



## ftupelo (Mar 18, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> What's the difference, you ask? Well, let's find out! The criteria for whether or not someone is an employee in CA is the three prong test contained in AB5. So let's put both Uber and Fidelity through the test. The first criterion of the test is:
> 
> _(A) The hiring entity does not control or direct the worker in performing the work in fact or under the terms of a contract._
> 
> ...


I could easily produce counterpoints for each, but don't care to waste my time. It would be instructive to hear why you are tripping over yourself to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to square this circle - why do you so badly want to be an employee of a company you disdain? Why not go work for McDonald's or Walmart which unequivocally hire you as an employee?


----------



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

ftupelo said:


> I could easily produce counterpoints for each, but don't care to waste my time. It would be instructive to hear why you are tripping over yourself to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to square this circle - why do you so badly want to be an employee of a company you disdain? Why not go work for McDonald's or Walmart which unequivocally hire you as an employee?


You may see this discussion as mental gymnastics however, for me, explaining this to you is a light stroll in the park! All the elements in the discussion are crystal clear.

What I want is unrelated to the courts finding that Uber fails the AB5 test. I have never said that I want to be an employee of Uber. I would much prefer to remain as a pseudo IC who was earning, say, 2016 rates. But alas, it was not to be.

Why not go and work for McDonalds or Walmart? Because I am not interested in working for either of those companies!



Steve appleby said:


> Sorry man but I completely disagree. I just think that Uber and Lyft are eventually going to leave California out of irreconcilable differences. I have never agreed with California's politics and just think that California needs to leave the union. They are just not on par with the rest of the country ideologically. California taxes the living shit out of people , it's one of the only states on the mainland where people pay $5 a gallon for gas, (if I paid $5 for gas I wouldn't even do rideshare much less own a car) I hope prop 22 passes so the people can shove it right back into their socialist faces.
> 
> If I ever become an employee of Uber I'm finding another job, bye &#128075;


You're conflating two separate ideas. The first is whether or not the law says that drivers are employees, and the second is whether or not you agree with it. All court proceedings to date have taken a strictly clinical legal approach and decided that Uber's business model is that of employee drivers, according to the law. Whether or not individuals agree with the law is another matter.

Let's say that California passes a fluffy bunny law (FB5), that requires that all fluffy bunnies be eliminated. &#128048;&#128299; In order to classify which animals are fluffy bunnies and which are not, California establishes a two pronged test. Test A states that if an animal has fluffy bunny ears, then it is a fluffy bunny. Test B states that if an animal has a fluffy bunny tail, then it is a fluffy bunny. This test may be a good test for classifying animals, and it may not be. However, it is the test that is used by this law.

One day, a fluffy bunny is arrested and taken before a judge. The judge asks him if he is a fluffy bunny. "Nope", he says. "I'm a horse". The judge then applies the two pronged fluffy bunny test, and sees that the animal does indeed have fluffy bunny ears as well as a fluffy bunny tail.

The judge rules, "I find that you have fluffy bunny ears and tail and are therefore, according to the definition laid down by FB5, indeed a fluffy bunny. You will be eliminated". And with that, the fluffy bunny was taken outside, eliminated and made into a delicious soup shortly thereafter.

Without examining whether the law is right or just, there is no doubt that, according only to the strict definition laid down by FB5, that the fluffy bunny was indeed a fluffy bunny, not a horse as he had claimed. Now, we may not agree with FB5. Maybe we think that an animal with what look like fluffy bunny ears and tail could actually be a hare in some circumstances. And maybe we don't think that fluffy bunnies should be eliminated. However, these are separate points of contention.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Let's say that California passes a fluffy bunny law (FB5), that requires that all fluffy bunnies be eliminated. &#128048;&#128299;


Fluffy bunnies should be left alone.

and not strong armed into a horse costume with none of the carrots and all of the &#128169;&#128169;


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

MikhailCA said:


> Well, let's say it's slowly dying, for sure, some people (mostly old one) would stick with the taxi, but if 95% of the people would rather call an Uber i don't see the future for taxi or would need some serious law changes like to force Uber to buy a medallion for each car on the platform.


Taxis will always survive on hotel stands in big cities, and where there is enough foot traffic for drive by hailing to work. ( if you are only going across town, and a cab is driving by, meaning no waiting, many will choose to hail a cab in that circumstance. So, this works in NYC, and downtown San Diego at night in the Gaslamp, and hotels Downtown, of which there are many, not to mention the airport has a huge cab stand ). It probably works in downtown L.A. for the hotels there, and in Hollywood on Hllywd Blvd and the Sunset Strip.

And, I don't think it is 95%, because North County Yellow Cab has a few hundred cabs, and they are still in business. Before the virus, a lease was a whopping $650 per week, and $700 per week if you wanted Camp Pendleton priviledges ( Ubers not allowed on base, and it's a huge Marine base ). There's no way in hell one can pay that lease if there weren't people calling cabs. I've talked to a few yellow drivers, and they tell me that the lease is a tough nut to crack, but doable if you put in the hours. I just don't have the stamina to work 12 hours a day 6 days a week like i used to back in the 70s.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Oscar Levant said:


> Taxis will always survive on hotel stands in big cities,


..and airports where they clearly have an advantage of the 'taxi line' right outside arrivals........


----------

