# Prop 22 Allows Delivery Companies to Ban Multi-Apping during Deliveries



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Read the text of Prop 22 BEFORE you vote. Clauses such as this is the reason...

Article 2 / Section 7451-c...

" The network company does not restrict the app-based driver from performing rideshare services or delivery services through other network companies EXCEPT during ENGAGED TIME" (emphasis added).

Up to now, none of the delivery companies banned multi-apping in their contracts because to do so would be a violation of IC status. This provision of Prop 22 would codify that loss of driver freedom into LAW.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> Read the text of Prop 22 BEFORE you vote. Clauses such as this is the reason...
> 
> Article 2 / Section 7451-c...
> 
> ...


Hmmmm. Doesn't that for all practical purposes, make drivers EMPLOYEES.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

observer said:


> Hmmmm. Doesn't that for all practical purposes, make drivers EMPLOYEES.


Yep.

I just started reading the text of Prop 22. I wonder how many other goodies are buried in the text.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> Yep.
> 
> I just started reading the text of Prop 22. I wonder how many other goodies are buried in the text.


Ohhhh, I forgot to mention, EMPLOYEES with no safety net or minimum employee benefits.


----------



## Deadmiler69 (Jan 11, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> Read the text of Prop 22 BEFORE you vote. Clauses such as this is the reason...
> 
> Article 2 / Section 7451-c...
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure that has always been the case. You can't drive an Uber and Lyft pax at same time. You can't deliver a door dash an grub hub order on same trip. That doesn't make you employees. It's for insurance purposes.

When I was an independent contractor sales person for the medical field, I could carry as many products as I wanted as long as they didn't violate non compete clauses. That's all this is is a non compete clause. Nothing illegal about those.

You folks just love to jump to conclusions without thinking. That wording changes nothing from what is happening right now. If UE found out you were had a Door Dash order on the route, they could deactivate you now.


----------



## Atom guy (Jul 27, 2016)

Oh, did anyone think that Prop 22 was actually being proposed for the benefit of the drivers? In my state the recent ride share law basically just codified Uber and Lyft's terms of service into law. Did nothing to benefit the workers at all


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

can somebody define 'engaged' time to be...........? Online, driving to pax/restaurant, driving with pax/food. 

still, this doesn't make AB5 better than Prop 22. For sure, with AB5 you could not run apps simultaneously.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> can somebody define 'engaged' time to be...........? Online, driving to pax/restaurant, driving with pax/food.
> 
> still, this doesn't make AB5 better than Prop 22. For sure, with AB5 you could not run apps simultaneously.


Engaged time is from acceptance to delivery.

Many drivers, myself included have multi-apped. In many markets it's almost impossible to make decent money without multi-apping.



SHalester said:


> still, this doesn't make AB5 better than Prop 22. For sure, with AB5 you could not run apps simultaneously.


"Better" is in the eye of the beholder depending on their viewpoint. It certainly reduces the so-called "freedom" gap between AB5 and Prop 22.

It means that for informed voters, a YES vote is an anti-AB5 vote, not a pro-Prop 22 vote.

It also means that Prop 22 has become more "foul smelling" than it was before.



Deadmiler69 said:


> You folks just love to jump to conclusions without thinking. That wording changes nothing from what is happening right now. If UE found out you were had a Door Dash order on the route, they could deactivate you now.


According to their contract they can fire you for any or no reason at all. In reality, firing for no reason could bring the govt down on them. This is why their contracts specifically spells out the the violations that can get a driver fired, and multi-apping is conspicuously absent.

ICs have the right to multi-app.

Clearly these companies believed it was necessary to codify it into law or they wouldn't have inserted the clause into Prop 22.



Deadmiler69 said:


> When I was an independent contractor sales person for the medical field, I could carry as many products as I wanted as long as they didn't violate non compete clauses. That's all this is is a non compete clause. Nothing illegal about those.


Uber contracts don't have non-compete clauses, and anyway, non-competes are illegal in California.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> Up to now, none of the delivery companies banned multi-apping in their contracts because to do so would be a violation of IC status.


The TNCs even could ban you from working other applications without violating your Independent Contractor status. Ask me how I know this. As the California legislation reads, they can not in California, which also is legal, but, in states where the law is silent, the TNCs and delivery applications could demand that you work them exclusively.



Deadmiler69 said:


> It's for insurance purposes.


That is part, but not all of it. "Customer Service" does come into play as does also..........................



Deadmiler69 said:


> non compete clauses. That's all this is is a non compete clause. Nothing illegal about those.


This has much to do with it, as well.



Atom guy said:


> Oh, did anyone think that Prop 22 was actually being proposed for the benefit of the drivers?


Uber and Lyft do not want anything that helps drivers. If it harms drivers, they are happy.



Deadmiler69 said:


> In my state the recent ride share law basically just codified Uber and Lyft's terms of service into law.


.........and Uber and Lyft paid well to make sure that this happened.



Deadmiler69 said:


> Did nothing to benefit the workers at all


................which is how both Uber and Lyft want it...................



Nats121 said:


> In many markets it's almost impossible to make decent money without multi-apping.


I would believe that.



Nats121 said:


> firing for no reason could bring the govt down on them.


You do have to be careful when you invoke that to terminate a contract. You can get away with it here and there, but you can not invoke it continually, lest you bring the scrutiny of the regulators upon yourself.



Nats121 said:


> ICs have the right to multi-app.


In reality, you do not necessarily have that right. Ask me how I know this. The rub is that Uber/Lyft and the others _do not_ know it. I do not plan on telling them.


----------



## Deadmiler69 (Jan 11, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> Uber contracts don't have non-compete clauses, and anyway, non-competes are illegal in California.


That's actually good information to learn about California, thank you! I did work in another state.

Prop 22 does not allow you to have two apps simultaneously in "engaged time" from the way I read it. That does not mean you can't work for as many apps as you want. They just can't have you delivering both an UE and DD order at the same exact time for insurance purposes. They aren't trying to control your time. If you have a DD order in your car and a $500 surge ride comes in, you cancel the DD without being fired and take the Uber ride. Same as it is now. (Which means if you still would like to take the risk, you are free to do so knowing you will be deactivated if caught, just like it is right at this moment).

Pre AB5 it was illegal to deliver two different companies at same time, but you only get deactivated if caught.

Post AB5 IF Prop 22 it will STILL be illegal to do but you'll only get deactivated if caught.

Post AB5 if Prop 22 fails- it will be impossible to do since you will have to spend 100% of your time as employees engaged in the app you are hired by.

Why is this so difficult?


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Deadmiler69 said:


> Prop 22 does not allow you to have two apps simultaneously in "engaged time" from the way I read it. That does not mean you can't work for as many apps as you want.


Many delivery drivers, myself included will, when the logistics allow it (and once in a while, even when they don't :smiles juggle orders from 2 delivery companies simultaneously. This is especially valuable when dealing with restaurants that keep drivers waiting.

These companies hate it and want to stop it, and not just during deliveries. They hate the fact that many drivers have more than one app running at a time, period.



Deadmiler69 said:


> They just can't have you delivering both an UE and DD order at the same exact time for insurance purposes.


I don't think they've used insurance as an excuse, but if they did, it's lame.



Deadmiler69 said:


> They aren't trying to control your time.


C'mon dude, you can't possibly be that naive.



Deadmiler69 said:


> Pre AB5 it was illegal to deliver two different companies at same time, but you only get deactivated if caught.


That's not true at all. There's no such law.



Another Uber Driver said:


> The TNCs even could ban you from working other applications without violating your Independent Contractor status. Ask me how I know this. As the California legislation reads, they can not in California, which also is legal, but, in states where the law is silent, the TNCs and delivery applications could demand that you work them exclusively.


If you're correct this is one of the most misunderstood provisions in the entire IC vs employee controversy.

I've seen several IC checklists online and working for more than one company was always on those lists. Maybe the Trump administration has watered down the requirements. His labor secretary is reportedly a fan of the so-called gig economy.



Another Uber Driver said:


> Ask me how I know this.


OK, I'm asking.

This whole IC matter needs to be settled once for all. Suffice to say the govt checklists are so vague as to be almost worthless. They're full of "you could be an IC" and "you may be an IC" statements.

My simple test is as follows:

Party A is hired to perform a task or service for Party B...

If Party A sets the rules and rates via contract (written or oral), Party A is an independent contractor and Party B is the customer.

If Party B sets the rules and rates via contract, Party B is the employer of Party A.

It's simple and direct and extremely unlikely to become law because there would be historic levels of lobbying against it, but nevertheless it should become law and settle this debate once and for all.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> OK, I'm asking.


The D.C. cab drivers were, and still are, independent contractors, whether they were or are owners or renters. Despite that, the cab companies could enforce non-compete clauses. The item pertinent to this discussion would be that a driver for Company A could not subscribe to the dispatch service of Company B. There were two dispatch services that would take any driver regardless of the colors that he flew. There are others, as well, but the one cited is the pertinent item.

See _Mazanderan vs. DCX, Inc._ and _Farahpour, Price, Proctor et al_. _vs. DCX, Inc._


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The D.C. cab drivers were, and still are, independent contractors, whether they were or are owners or renters. Despite that, the cab companies could enforce non-compete clauses. The item pertinent to this discussion would be that a driver for Company A could not subscribe to the dispatch service of Company B. There were two dispatch services that would take any driver regardless of the colors that he flew. There are others, as well, but the one cited is the pertinent item.
> 
> See _Mazanderan vs. DCX, Inc._ and _Farahpour, Price, Proctor et al_. _vs. DCX, Inc._


The cab industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the US and operates under a unique set of rules and regulations.

Uber would love to prohibit their drivers from driving for Lyft, Doordash, etc, but they know there'd be hell to pay.

Even in the many markets where Uber was allowed to write their own regulations they knew better than to include non-compete clauses.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> It means that for informed voters, a YES vote is an anti-AB5 vote, not a pro-Prop 22 vote.


well, of course. Been saying for nearly a year Prop 22 is less smelly than AB5. Drivers agree en mass. and nobody here has even tried to justify if AB5 is it, how does one explain the over 40% of active drivers get the heave hoooooooo, buh bye treatment.

Kinda like AB5 is Trump and Prop 22 is Biden. Who smells the least? :roflmao:


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

observer said:


> Ohhhh, I forgot to mention, EMPLOYEES with no safety net or minimum employee benefits.


All of the Risk
None of the Benefit !


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> The cab industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the US and operates under a unique set of rules and regulations.


Where this breaks down is that relations with independent contractors are _internal_ corporate matters, thus they are governed mostly by the laws of the state of incorporation. The regulators can not interfere The Taxicab Commission tried to interfere in the Farahpour matter and could not do anything except cite DCX for failure to give adequate notice of cancellation of insurance. At the time, the insurance was through the sinking fund administered by the cab company. The Taxicab Commission's Panel on Adjudication even admitted, _for the record_, that it was unhappy that it could do nothing to DCX other than cite it for violating insurance cancellation regulations.

DCX was incorporated in Delaware. Delaware is quite the _laissez-faire_ state when it comes to corporate regulation.

Uber and Lyft actually could stop you from working with another platform, as it would be an internal corporate matter.



Nats121 said:


> Uber would love to prohibit their drivers from driving for Lyft, Doordash, etc, but they know there'd be hell to pay.


The legal costs would be staggering, even though Uber would prevail. It is far less expensive simply not to push it.



Nats121 said:


> Even in the many markets where Uber was allowed to write their own regulations they knew better than to include non-compete clauses.


Uber wrote the law in the District of Columbia. Grosso, the worst sub-moron to serve on the City Council since Nathanson, and Nathanson was the Moron's Moron,. did not have a problem with that. He opened his mouth on that one before Cheh could shut him up.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Uber and Lyft actually could stop you from working with another platform, as it would be an internal corporate matter.


As I stated previously, the taxi industry is a unique, heavily regulated industry with unusual regulations, some of which would normally run afoul of anti-trust laws.

Delaware's laissez-faire system wasn't able to stop NYC from instituting strict regulations nor was it able to stop California from declaring Uber drivers as employees, and it won't be able to stop other states when they decide to regulate Uber as well.

If Uber and Lyft could stop us from working for other companies they would. They've got plenty of lawyers on staff as well as retainer and massive amounts of money. Whether or not they'd prevail in court they know the states wouldn't allow them to dictate where drivers can work. That's the real issue here.

I've had plenty of debates on this website with people who've said it's hopeless trying to fight Uber and look at Uber as almost omnipotent. I've always maintained that's not the case. NYC and California are proof of that.


----------



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

By their definition of engaged time that would be while you are on a pickup. So no accepting a ride while you are still on one.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> As I stated previously, the taxi industry is a unique, heavily regulated industry with unusual regulations, some of which would normally run afoul of anti-trust laws.


.........and as I replied to you, citing examples, this has nothing to do with taxicab regulations. This is an internal corporate matter that is outside the specific taxicab regulations. There is nothing in Title Thirty One nor even D.C. Code that even addresses this subject. The only thing that the regulators in the District of Columbia ever have been able to do that has anything _remotely_ to do with this is to extend the twenty one day notice for insurance cancellation to expelling a driver from your company so that the driver has time to find another cab company.

The courts have upheld its being an internal corporate matter as far as both Delaware the District of Columbia are concerned. I must plead ignorance as to the State of Incorporation of Uber, Lyft, related entities or even the other platforms. Delaware is not a bad bet for Uber/Raiser, Lyft/Stripe.

Yes, the cab business is in competition with the insurance business to see which one is the most overregulated, but, in this case, the regulations are silent. As Delaware is not a "Mother, may I?" State, especially with regard to corporations, if it does not say that you can not, it means that likely, you can. The Delaware Courts did uphold that.



Nats121 said:


> Delaware's laissez-faire system wasn't able to stop NYC from instituting strict regulations nor was it able to stop California from declaring Uber drivers as employees, and it won't be able to stop other states when they decide to regulate Uber as well.


I never stated that it would. Until recently, the laws in California were silent on this This attempt at regulation is new.



Nats121 said:


> If Uber and Lyft could stop us from working for other companies they would.


...............not if the cost were too high, they would not. In this case, the cost would be too high. Further, they do understand that states and localities could correct the lack of regulation, which would make all of the money spent to dictate to drivers money spent in vain. Even Uber and Lyft can figure out, on occasion, wihich battles to fight. As it is now, any of them could restrict you to their platform or refuse to contract with you.



Nats121 said:


> Whether or not they'd prevail in court they know the states wouldn't allow them to dictate where drivers can work.


The states and localities would have to address that, first. As the laws in most states and localities are silent on it, it is still an internal corporate matter. If the law changes, that is _a hosas uvva' diff'rint cullah_. As it stands now, those platforms could dictate to you or refuse to contract with you if you will not meet their terms. Non-compete clauses are a standard item in contract boiler plate. The states and localities would have to address this item specifically to stop the platforms from dictating.

This would be nothing unusual or without precedent. The Federal Government, the states and the localities have done end-runs around S



Nats121 said:


> I've had plenty of debates on this website with people who've said it's hopeless trying to fight Uber and look at Uber as almost omnipotent. I've always maintained that's not the case. NYC and California are proof of that.


If you or anyone else has the money for high powered lawyers or can find some hotshot who is trying to make a name for himself, it is not necessarily hopeless. In addition, if you can get legislators to pay attention to you and turn up their nose at the platforms'
brib-ER-uh-_campaign contributions_ , you can beat them that way. This can be difficult, but, I, at least, never stated that it could not be done.

. Further, I am not trying to discourage anyone nor have I ever. Any negative commentary that I might have posted on that simply has addressed the reality of the matter.

My original point _does_ stand: as it is, the platforms _could_ dictate to you.



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> By their definition of engaged time that would be while you are on a pickup. So no accepting a ride while you are still on one.


The platforms could use "customer service" as an argument in favour of this. This would be what is called "sound business reasons". As far as "multi-apping" on food delivery, the argument against it from the platforms will be:

Driver picks up F*ub*a*r* Ch*eats* order. He then goes to a different restaurant to fetch a Fl*oor* Tr*ash* order. Of course he gets kept waiting at restaurant Number Two, just as he was at Number One. Order Number One gets cold plus customer Number One is kept waiting longer than expected. Overall, customer Number One has a negative experience and decides to try Takeout Taxi, next time, which causes F*ub*a*r* Ch*eats* to lose a customer.

Anyone who thinks that these platforms do not know that the restaurants usually keep you waiting and that the order rarely is ready when you get there is not paying attention. The platforms simply do not care. They do not care about the drivers hence they do not value the drivers' time, despite what spin they try to put onto it.

Mind you, I understand why the drivers must multi-app. As my interlocutor _supra_ has stated repeatedly, and done so correctly, you must
multi-app to make this pay, as the platforms pay garbage. You must look out for Number One and the platforms and public both be damned. If these platforms charged the customer the true value of the service, they fear that they will lose customers. Economics has its laws for a reason. In a capitalistic economy, the customer must pay the cost of doing business. The platforms, and the TNCs, for that matter, seem to think that they can change that.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> " The network company does not restrict the app-based driver from performing rideshare services or delivery services through other network companies EXCEPT during ENGAGED TIME" (emphasis added).


Well, if they are paying a guaranteed hourly rate while the driver is "engaged" shouldnt they be able to ensure they are only paying for the driver to perform services for them?

I wouldn't want to pay someone to do work for my competition.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Deadmiler69 said:


> I'm pretty sure that has always been the case. You can't drive an Uber and Lyft pax at same time. You can't deliver a door dash an grub hub order on same trip. That doesn't make you employees. It's for insurance purposes.


Only UberEats provides any insurance as far as I know. All of the other food delivery companies do not. So I don't see any insurance issue with driving a Doordash and a Grubhub at the same time.


----------



## Director T.Y. Sanchez (Sep 21, 2019)

If these thieves would actually pay some money, they wouldn't have to worry about no rules. Instead, ya gotta get the gummint to make these bastards pay up.


----------



## Mash Ghasem (Jan 12, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> Read the text of Prop 22 BEFORE you vote. Clauses such as this is the reason...
> 
> Article 2 / Section 7451-c...
> 
> ...


See what Uber had to say about that on the 3rd row of the table below. No on Prop22 seems to completely ban other apps, which makes some sense, because you would be an employee and your employer wouldn't want you sneaking off to other employers.


----------



## Jst1dreamr (Apr 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> Yep.
> 
> I just started reading the text of Prop 22. I wonder how many other goodies are buried in the text.


There are a shit load of them.



SHalester said:


> well, of course. Been saying for nearly a year Prop 22 is less smelly than AB5. Drivers agree en mass. and nobody here has even tried to justify if AB5 is it, how does one explain the over 40% of active drivers get the heave hoooooooo, buh bye treatment.
> 
> Kinda like AB5 is Trump and Prop 22 is Biden. Who smells the least? :roflmao:


Actually they are both more of the Biden smell so to speak they reek of control issues.



Mash Ghasem said:


> See what Uber had to say about that on the 3rd row of the table below. No on Prop22 seems to completely ban other apps, which makes some sense, because you would be an employee and your employer wouldn't want you sneaking off to other employers.
> 
> View attachment 511815
> 
> ...


Yep, just another shill quoting Uber. The whole issue is that Uber can not be trusted. You may never get it.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

[


Another Uber Driver said:


> ......and as I replied to you, citing examples, this has nothing to do with taxicab regulations. This is an internal corporate matter that is outside the specific taxicab regulations. There is nothing in Title Thirty One nor even D.C. Code that even addresses this subject. The only thing that the regulators in the District of Columbia ever have been able to do that has anything _remotely_ to do with this is to extend the twenty one day notice for insurance cancellation to expelling a driver from your company so that the driver has time to find another cab company.
> 
> The courts have upheld its being an internal corporate matter as far as both Delaware the District of Columbia are concerned. I must plead ignorance as to the State of Incorporation of Uber, Lyft, related entities or even the other platforms. Delaware is not a bad bet for Uber/Raiser, Lyft/Stripe.


DC is a unique entity and will remain so unless it becomes a state.

Given the fact that states have regulatory power with other types of insurance, I'd be surprised if they didn't have regulatory power with taxi insurance as well.



Another Uber Driver said:


> My original point _does_ stand: as it is, the platforms _could_ dictate to you.


I agree. They could dictate the hours we work, they could treat us 100% like employees. They could even dictate that I hand over my first born son. (It's buried in the teeny tiny print of their contracts. :smiles: )

Dictating terms in a contract is one thing. Enforcing it is another. And states instituting regulations is yet another.

Curiously or not so curiously, Uber has never declared drivers as being independent contractors in their contracts. In fact, they declared the drivers as being their customers to the SEC during their IPO application process.



Mash Ghasem said:


> See what Uber had to say about that on the 3rd row of the table below. No on Prop22 seems to completely ban other apps, which makes some sense, because you would be an employee and your employer wouldn't want you sneaking off to other employers.
> 
> View attachment 511815
> 
> ...


BOTH Uber and some of the AB5 supporters are being disingenuous. I say SOME because unlike Uber, many AB5 supporters are speaking out of ignorance. Uber on the other hand knows exactly what they're talking about.

It's true that AB5 doesn't mandate any of those X's, but the financial reality is that Uber WOULD have to restrict hours and probably force drivers to accept all trips. But even at that Uber is being disingenuous. Given the fact that Uber punishes drivers for declining trip requests it's sleazy for Uber to use trip acceptance as a selling point for Prop 22.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> Given the fact that Uber punishes drivers for declining trip requests it's sleazy for Uber to use trip acceptance as a selling point for Prop 22.


Do they though?

It's been speculated, but I don't buy it.


----------



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

If you are employees you WILL have to accept everything, however when that ping comes in from 45 minutes away (one that says 20 minutes but is actually 45 minutes) and 10 miles away..

Well guess what?

That's $5.75 paid to get ot the pickup plus most of an hour pay

That's $15 just to get to the pickup.


If they are paying for all miles and time just accept everything no matter how far it is.

If they change pings 8 different times to keep putting you on a "closer" fare than guess what? All that time and all those u-turns will add up.


If your running around the hood going 5 miles to drive someone 4 blocks that's a good thing as an employee. Because those are a ton of miles that you'll get paid for but don't have a smelly dirty drunken paxhole in your car and your getting paid for it.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> Do they though?
> 
> It's been speculated, but I don't buy it.


It ain't speculation with me bud. I get kicked offline a zillion times a shift because I accept only the orders that work for me.

Uber can be very sneaky about how they kick me off, often times waiting several seconds after I decline an offer to silently kick me offline. If I'm not vigilant about it I could be offline for 10, 20, or even more minutes before I discover the app was silently turned off.

In addition to the above, depending on how many drivers are available, declining "too many" offers can cause my phone to stop ringing, even if I'm in the middle of a busy area.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> DC is a unique entity and will remain so unless it becomes a state.


The corporation in the cited cases was a Delaware Corporation. My money is on Uber's and Lyft's being Delaware Corporations. Regardless of the state in which a corporation does business, its internal matters are governed by the laws of the state of incorporation. How a corporation treats its contractors is an internal corporate matter. This is one reason why those who pushed for AB-5 wanted classification as employees. The states (_and_ the District of Columbia) have far more control over how a corporation treats its employees than they do over how it treats its contractors.



Nats121 said:


> Given the fact that states have regulatory power with other types of insurance, I'd be surprised if they didn't have regulatory power with taxi insurance as well.


The mention of the insurance was more in passing than anything else.



Nats121 said:


> I agree. They could dictate the hours we work, they could treat us 100% like employees. They could even dictate that I hand over my first born son.


They can dictate indirectly the hours that you work. There are several ways to do that. They can not directly dictate those hours, however.



Nats121 said:


> Dictating terms in a contract is one thing. Enforcing it is another.


As long as the cost is prohibitive or the possibility of government interference is real, the corporations will choose not to fight that battle. The battle against multi-apping is one that they will fight, in the name of customer service if nothing else. Keep in mind that I do not disagree with you that multi-apping is the only way to make food delivery pay. From my experience with Uber and Lyft plus what I know plus what I learn from people like you who have extensive experience in food delivery, it makes sense that you must multi-app. You had to pick up multpile passengers under the Zone System in D.C. to make the garbage zone jobs (the l ong two and three zoners) pay. It only makes sense that you must run several bags at a time to make food delivery pay. I could pay my cab rent and walk away with one hundred fifty dollars for eight hours on a Sunday in the Summer of 1979 when I did nothing but run Allstate blood bags. One hundred fifty dollars for eight hours was better than a princely sum of money for that kind of work in that era.



Nats121 said:


> And states instituting regulations is yet another.


The ultimate power in a democracy is in the Legislature. It is how you get around both the judicial and executive.



Nats121 said:


> Curiously or not so curiously, Uber has never declared drivers as being independent contractors in their contracts. In fact, they declared the drivers as being their customers to the SEC during their IPO application process.


This is a "bottom line" perspective; the cab companies look at the drivers as _their _customers and the passengers as the _drivers'_ customers. Both regulation and legislation has stopped the cab companies from using this as a defence. It will happen soon enough for the platforms; it already is beginning to happen.


----------



## Mash Ghasem (Jan 12, 2020)

Jst1dreamr said:


> Yep, just another shill quoting Uber. The whole issue is that Uber can not be trusted. You may never get it.


Shill my ass. -o:

No I don't trust Uber, but I also don't trust what will become of me if Prop22 fails: I have never had any intentions on becoming an employee and loosing multiple freedoms and flexibilities thatI have had so far.

I quoted Uber's email because that is just what might happen.



Nats121 said:


> BOTH Uber and some of the AB5 supporters are being disingenuous. I say SOME because unlike Uber, many AB5 supporters are speaking out of ignorance. Uber on the other hand knows exactly what they're talking about.
> 
> It's true that AB5 doesn't mandate any of those X's, but the financial reality is that Uber WOULD have to restrict hours and probably force drivers to accept all trips. But even at that Uber is being disingenuous. Given the fact that Uber punishes drivers for declining trip requests it's sleazy for Uber to use trip acceptance as a selling point for Prop 22.


Yes Uber is and will always be disingenuous-- and plain old untrustable. But regardless, it is still likely that there will be many such negative outcomes as listed in that email of theirs if Prop22 fails, chief among them being the mass axing of drivers.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The corporation in the cited cases was a Delaware Corporation. My money is on Uber's and Lyft's being Delaware Corporations. Regardless of the state in which a corporation does business, its internal matters are governed by the laws of the state of incorporation. How a corporation treats its contractors is an internal corporate matter. This is one reason why those who pushed for AB-5 wanted classification as employees. The states (_and_ the District of Columbia) have far more control over how a corporation treats its employees than they do over how it treats its contractors.


Avoiding state income tax is the primary reason most corps locate in Delaware, usually via shell corp "subsidiaries". International money-laundering is another due to Delaware's lax banking regulations.

Raiser (Uber rideshare subsidiary) is a Delaware shell corp. You don't think slickster Travis would pass up the opportunity to evade taxes do you?

States have more control over how a corp treats employees but they still have enough control over how they treat ICs to dramatically raise driver pay rates (Seattle drivers will be paid 56 cents per minute next year), provide minimum wage during engagement guarantees, etc. In other words, they have enough regulatory power to make things very unpleasant for Uber if they so choose.

If Prop 22 prevails and it survives possible lawsuits, don't be surprised to see an angry California legislature slam Uber with very costly regulations such as massive pay rate increases for drivers.


----------



## Big Lou (Dec 11, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> Read the text of Prop 22 BEFORE you vote. Clauses such as this is the reason...
> 
> Article 2 / Section 7451-c...
> 
> ...


Looks to me that the key term is "ENGAGED TIME" which would imply that as long as you're on an accepted ride or delivery, you're not allowed to use other App based services.

Am I getting this wrong?
And if you've accepted a ride/delivery, why would you want to be online to accept others?

What am i missing?


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Big Lou said:


> Looks to me that the key term is "ENGAGED TIME" which would imply that as long as you're on an accepted ride or delivery, you're not allowed to use other App based services.
> 
> Am I getting this wrong?
> And if you've accepted a ride/delivery, why would you want to be online to accept others?
> ...


Delivery drivers can make more money by doing more than one delivery at a time, especially if one of the restaurants is keeping the driver waiting. Rather than waiting at the first restaurant twiddling their thumbs, drivers can go to a second restaurant and pick up the other order. By the time the driver gets back to the first restaurant the food will usually be ready. Now the driver has two deliveries instead of one.

It's known as productivity and efficiency.


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

Director T.Y. Sanchez said:


> If these thieves would actually pay some money, they wouldn't have to worry about no rules. Instead, ya gotta get the gummint to make these bastards pay up.


Yep. I always get the gunmmint to solve my financial problems. it's cuz I was borned in the woods and raised by squirr8 and wolves.


----------



## DriverMark (Jan 22, 2018)

Deadmiler69 said:


> You can't deliver a door dash and grub hub order on same trip.


Oh dear...... (whistles)....


----------



## Big Lou (Dec 11, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> Delivery drivers can make more money by doing more than one delivery at a time, especially if one of the restaurants is keeping the driver waiting. Rather than waiting at the first restaurant twiddling their thumbs, drivers can go to a second restaurant and pick up the other order. By the time the driver gets back to the first restaurant the food will usually be ready. Now the driver has two deliveries instead of one.
> 
> It's known as productivity and efficiency.


My apologies. Since I have not been driving since March, I'm way out of touch.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
My bad!


----------



## Helpmehome (Mar 14, 2020)

Methinks you are playing with fire working for 2 apps at a time. It would be easy for an app to pick up that you aren't taking the fastest or recommended route to deliveries. I saw a guy who was deactivated for "taking too long" on deliveries. The customer's food is getting colder. There is a good reason the companies don't want you taking a second order for another company. They give the customer an estimated delivery time and the customer can watch your car on the map to see your exact route. Both Postmates and UE show the route your car is taking. Customer thinks his food takes too long and you take a roundabout route to deliver an order for another company? Meh, if you don't care about deactivation go for it. Risk isn't worth it to me. I'm sure you could get away with it... until you don't.


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

let us not worry about fine print, you will be able to have multiple apps open with prop 22, w/o prop 22 rideshare will end in CA you will have no job. And if you despise the way you think rideshare has treated you support a bill that doesn't kill 90% of the gig economy, come up with something way better than ab5 or prop 22.......


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> Delivery drivers can make more money by doing more than one delivery at a time, especially if one of the restaurants is keeping the driver waiting. Rather than waiting at the first restaurant twiddling their thumbs, drivers can go to a second restaurant and pick up the other order. By the time the driver gets back to the first restaurant the food will usually be ready. Now the driver has two deliveries instead of one.
> 
> It's known as productivity and efficiency.


The state of California doesn't see it this way or just doesn't care. If prop 22 passes or not, drivers will not be able to work two apps at the same time.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Mash Ghasem said:


> seems to completely ban other apps, which makes some sense, because you would be an employee and your employer wouldn't want you sneaking off to other employers.


If you are classified as an "employee" they do have more control. If you consider a parallel situation:

I can have a day job at AT&T. They can tell me that I can not work for Verizon as a part-time second job, as Verizon competes with AT&T. AT&T can not, however, prohibit me from working at Sears and Roebuck as a part-tmer. Sears and Roebuck does not compete with AT&T.



Nats121 said:


> Avoiding state income tax is the primary reason most corps locate in Delaware, usually via shell corp "subsidiaries". International money-laundering is another due to Delaware's lax banking regulations.
> 
> Raiser (Uber rideshare subsidiary) is a Delaware shell corp. You don't think slickster Travis would pass up the opportunity to evade taxes do you?
> 
> States have more control over how a corp treats employees but they still have enough control over how they treat ICs to dramatically raise driver pay rates


The potential is there, but in most states, the laws do not address it as legislators always have shied from regulating internal matters of a foreign corporation. One thing, of several, that motivates this inaction is fear of running afoul of Federal Interstate Commerce rules. Reglating rates of remuneration does not necessarily run afoul of Federal rules. Further, until recently, there has not been a large amount of outcry over how corporations treat independent contractors. The sheer numbers of application workers, of late, have drawn attention to their plight. This is one thing that is compelling legislators to direct their attention to these people.

Uber and the others are not unaware that they are operating on a shaky foundation. The states and localities could impose regulations at any time and there is little that they could do.

Another great advantage of Delaware incorporation is that the laws there are largely silent on internal corporate matters. As Delaware does not have a "Mother, may I?" legal tradition, if it does not say that you can not, you probably can. I actually have been involved in making this play out.

Delaware allows the issuance of "no par value" capital stock.



Nats121 said:


> If Prop 22 prevails and it survives possible lawsuits, don't be surprised to see an angry California legislature slam Uber with *very costly regulations* such as massive pay rate increases for drivers.


(emphasis added)

As you admit, the laws are largely silent on the matter of how a corporation treats its independent contractors. What you cite is _precisely_ what I would expect, especially from California. While many people will eat sour grapes after losing fair and square, certain elements in our society are notoriously sore losers.



Big Lou said:


> if you've accepted a ride/delivery, why would you want to be online to accept others?


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


Nats121 said:


> Delivery drivers can make more money by doing more than one delivery at a time, especially if one of the restaurants is keeping the driver waiting*.....*It's known as productivity and efficiency.


There was something similar when the cabs in Washington had zones rather than meters (1931-2008). A driver could get a long and time consuming trip and it would be only one or two zones. You could make a garbage trip pay by taking on additional passengers that were going in the same direction. This was legal, as well. From 1931-1942 and 1946-1973, you had to have the first passenger's permission to take on another customer. Wartime exigencies (1942-1946) shifted discretion from passenger to driver or dispatcher. The gasolene shortages triggered by the Arab Oil Embargo put it back to the drivers' discretion after it had reverted to the first passenger's in 1946.. In the name of saving fuel, it remained that way until the end of the zones (2008)



Helpmehome said:


> Methinks you are playing with fire working for 2 apps at a time.


It can blow up in your proverbial face in any number of ways. Because these applications pay such garbage while they keep dreaming up new ways to steal from drivers, you must do what you can to make it pay.

It is similar to shuffling when you are working the passenger applications. Yes, it is dishonest, but do not expect me to play by the rules while the platforms make them up as we go along then break their own rules and lie. When the platforms start to play fair, I will. As long as they chear, I am not interested in hearing about my cheating. ..........and if the public is unwilling to pay the true cost of the service, the public can be damned as well....................


----------



## Mash Ghasem (Jan 12, 2020)

Another Uber Driver said:


> If you are classified as an "employee" they do have more control. If you consider a parallel situation:
> 
> I can have a day job at AT&T. They can tell me that I can not work for Verizon as a part-time second job, as Verizon competes with AT&T. AT&T can not, however, prohibit me from working at Sears and Roebuck as a part-tmer. Sears and Roebuck does not compete with AT&T.


Technically, true.
But we already know how sneaky and underhanded Uber is: if they decide their new driver employees should not be on other platforms, I'm sure their developers will add a nice new feature in the driver app.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Mash Ghasem said:


> But we already know how sneaky and underhanded Uber is


A ban on signig onto Lyft would be difficult to enforce as would a requirement that if you want to continue to drive for Uber, you must delete Lyft driver application. Still, they could put something into their driver application that detects the presence of other applications on your telephone. The driver could get around this by using a second telephone.

Uber and Lyft might run afoul of privacy laws, though. Even if it tried to put a provision into the contract where you give one or the other permission to mine your telephone for data, the legislators or regulators could give it the _ix-nay._


----------



## RideshareDog (Feb 25, 2019)

Deadmiler69 said:


> I'm pretty sure that has always been the case. You can't drive an Uber and Lyft pax at same time. You can't deliver a door dash an grub hub order on same trip. That doesn't make you employees. It's for insurance purposes.
> 
> When I was an independent contractor sales person for the medical field, I could carry as many products as I wanted as long as they didn't violate non compete clauses. That's all this is is a non compete clause. Nothing illegal about those.
> 
> You folks just love to jump to conclusions without thinking. That wording changes nothing from what is happening right now. If UE found out you were had a Door Dash order on the route, they could deactivate you now.


No they wouldnt for using two apps at the same time. they cant. your free to accept all the contracts you want. What they will deactivate you for is having orders take too long to be delivered. Bad experience will not using two apps. nothing in the Terms talks about a lot of situations but does not say anything about using two apps at the same time. If you think you can deliver two orders from two apps different apps where one isnt late do it.

you want to know what will happen when you become employees of uber? not more pay. NOPE! you will be living in your cars cuz they will cap the number of drivers online during peak periods like they did in New York and give access to the app during peak periods to drivers who do a certain amount of rides.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pke...ber-drivers-in-nyc-are-sleeping-in-their-cars


----------



## DriverMark (Jan 22, 2018)

Helpmehome said:


> Methinks you are playing with fire working for 2 apps at a time. It would be easy for an app to pick up that you aren't taking the fastest or recommended route to deliveries. I saw a guy who was deactivated for "taking too long" on deliveries. The customer's food is getting colder. There is a good reason the companies don't want you taking a second order for another company. They give the customer an estimated delivery time and the customer can watch your car on the map to see your exact route. Both Postmates and UE show the route your car is taking. Customer thinks his food takes too long and you take a roundabout route to deliver an order for another company? Meh, if you don't care about deactivation go for it. Risk isn't worth it to me. I'm sure you could get away with it... until you don't.


I certainly don't recommend it for new drivers, if it's too stressful, you don't know your area well, or the pickups well, etc. For 90%of stuff I stack it's adding < 4 minutes..... it's running in to grab the food and perhaps the drop off time an extra mile. With COVID drop off = leave at door. Winter coming so I'm probably going to need to wait a bit longer on the doorstep before to much longer.

Picking up 1-2 Eats an hour on top of DD runs means an extra $10ish / hr. I'll play that game to ensure I'm $20-30/hr.

And this area can have some long runs. If I can stack 2 DD and an Eats all going 15-20 minutes that's $25-30 for that time and worth it. And sometimes I text my customers "I'm collecting all my orders coming out to Saratoga (or Eagle Mountain or Cedar Hills), food is in the heat bag and I'll be heading that way shortly".

In end just gotta figure out what works best for you and your area.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> As you admit, the laws are largely silent on the matter of how a corporation treats its independent contractors.


Most people are unaware that on paper, IC workers are not protected by federal civil rights laws (I doubt ICs are included in any state civil rights laws). In theory, Uber could openly discriminate by race. In reality of course they wouldn't dare.

IC status should be abolished. It's too vague and too easy to abuse.

There should be 4 business categories... vendors, customers, employers, and employees.

Classification would depend on which party sets the rates and rules.



Another Uber Driver said:


> What you cite is _precisely_ what I would expect, especially from California. While many people will eat sour grapes after losing fair and square, certain elements in our society are notoriously sore losers.


The CA legislature may be sore losers but I'd certainly enjoy watching them do to Uber what Uber does to their drivers 24/7, which is to bend them over a chair with no lube.

The drivers of CA would also enjoy the hefty pay raises.


----------



## 1995flyingspur (Aug 18, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> By their definition of engaged time that would be while you are on a pickup. So no accepting a ride while you are still on one.


But how on Earth would they know that you accepted another pickup while taking one for them? Especially, if one were to use more than one phone.

Is it possible for them to know?


----------



## Helpmehome (Mar 14, 2020)

It would be sooooo easy to tell if you are doing 2 apps if you are an employee. Your delivery times after pickup would be slower. Once you hit the red zone of being too far above acceptable delivery times you would get a warning. Then another. Then termed. You would be violating the non-compete clause that every major company has when you work for them. Anyone who thinks if you are an employee you can work for 2 companies at the same is kidding themselves. They know your location at all times. How long and how far. Always. This will be simple to program into an algorithm and they absolutely will do it. I fired a guy who worked for me at an insurance company because he had an active insurance broker website while working under me. HR was swift and there was no room for debate.


----------



## Mash Ghasem (Jan 12, 2020)

Another Uber Driver said:


> A ban on signig onto Lyft would be difficult to enforce as would a requirement that if you want to continue to drive for Uber, you must delete Lyft driver application. Still, they could put something into their driver application that detects the presence of other applications on your telephone. The driver could get around this by using a second telephone.
> 
> Uber and Lyft might run afoul of privacy laws, though. Even if it tried to put a provision into the contract where you give one or the other permission to mine your telephone for data, the legislators or regulators could give it the _ix-nay._


Yep, all technically true, but, they will still (continue to) be the _umbagscay_!


----------



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

Nats121 said:


> It ain't speculation with me bud. I get kicked offline a zillion times a shift because I accept only the orders that work for me.


Everyone knows about toggling. Both U/L punish drivers for not accepting rides. On Lyft they don't even tell you, you just realize for the last 30 minutes your car is not showing available on the rider app. It becomes available when there is no drivers around, then disappears again. Really childish.

They used to straigh deactivate over AR until drivers stood up and sued.


----------



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

I wonder how in the world they could realistically ever enforce this.

Let me put it this way. Let's say you are fresh out of college and interviewing for your first job. You get an offer and accept. The next day another company gives you a better offer (more pay and a shorter commute). What is wrong with accepting the better offer?

I've also seen this in the sports world.

I know plenty of grocers that sell both Coke and Pepsi products. And then there are beers with lots more choices.

Competition is a GOOD thing!


----------



## Director T.Y. Sanchez (Sep 21, 2019)

Judge and Jury said:


> it's cuz I was borned in the woods and raised by squirr8 and wolves.


Well thunder & lightning, Cletus, whyncha Jess go gitcher shootin iron & go to thett thar Uber office & teach 'em a lesson?


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

Driving With A Purpose said:


> I know plenty of grocers that sell both Coke and Pepsi products.


But not many restaurants.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

Deadmiler69 said:


> They just can't have you delivering both an UE and DD order at the same exact time for insurance purposes.


I have no idea why you keep saying that. What insurance are you talking about? DD only provides liability insurance AFTER you go thru your own personal insurance and GH has NO insurance for the driver. Are you aware of that? What specific insurance are you talking about?



Helpmehome said:


> Methinks you are playing with fire working for 2 apps at a time. It would be easy for an app to pick up that you aren't taking the fastest or recommended route to deliveries. I saw a guy who was deactivated for "taking too long" on deliveries. The customer's food is getting colder. There is a good reason the companies don't want you taking a second order for another company. They give the customer an estimated delivery time and the customer can watch your car on the map to see your exact route. Both Postmates and UE show the route your car is taking. Customer thinks his food takes too long and you take a roundabout route to deliver an order for another company? Meh, if you don't care about deactivation go for it. Risk isn't worth it to me. I'm sure you could get away with it... until you don't.


Been doing these gigs for 3 years and some very experienced drivers multi app simultaneously. You can do it AND be on time. It's an acquired skill that needs a lot of experience to be successful. My personal record is 1 DD, 2 GH, and 1 UE order at the same time AND, they were all on time.

It is difficult to do successfully but can be done well with a lot of experience.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

It is going to resoundingly fail. The funny thing is that these companies could have used that money to pay out better fares, but instead are spending it on taking more from the drivers.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

nosurgenodrive said:


> It is going to resoundingly fail.


next polling will tell the story.


----------



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

SHalester said:


> next polling will tell the story.


We won't know until the election day.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> We won't know until the election day.


for sure, certainly. But nice to know which way likely voters are leaning prior, yah?


----------



## 45821 (Feb 15, 2016)

Nats121 said:


> Engaged time is from acceptance to delivery.
> 
> Many drivers, myself included have multi-apped. In many markets it's almost impossible to make decent money without multi-apping.
> 
> ...


Non-compete close is only for direct employees.


----------



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

Reality is that they will easily be able to say you can only log into one app at a time. This is not the same as having to pick between one app or the other:

If they are paying you for time between pings they will be able to say this. Which they will have to with AB5.


if I’m working as the night auditor in a hotel Can I use my laptop to work a home call center job and collect 2 paychecks at once?

Yeah that’s not going to fly.


They also arnt going to let you log into both Uber and lyft and collect time pay for both then log off and accept the first ride that comes your way.

They also arnt going to pay you logged in time for being logged in and waiting for pings while still on a ride for the other platform.

I also highly doubt that you’ll be able to decline pings at all. However that could be a good thing as...

If you get pinged to somewhere that’s 15 miles 24 minutes away they’ll pay to to drive out there and no-show them, because they’ll have to.

There’s parts of town that I know that I would make better money accepting everything if I was getting 57.5c a mile 8c driving to pickup locations.
(which is by the way higher then the current pay rate here)



now if you maxed out your hours and for lyft they couldn’t keep you from logging into Uber and visa versa.


----------



## Mash Ghasem (Jan 12, 2020)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Reality is that they will easily be able to say you can only log into one app at a time. This is not the same as having to pick between one app or the other:


While I don't think Uber can legally prevent you from working for Lyft (ie, a second job) app after you finish your shift and log off the Uber app, I won't be surprised if they start giving a hard time to those with another app installed-- particularly given the sleazebagery they have exhibited in the past.



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> If they are paying you for time between pings they will be able to say this. Which they will have to with AB5.


What a lot of people are missing with AB5 is that they will become "at-will employees" in California -- and the boss can expect them to do anything they're told. And the boss can fire them for almost anything too-- they already have been doing it for years.


----------



## Floofy (Aug 22, 2020)

1995flyingspur said:


> But how on Earth would they know that you accepted another pickup while taking one for them? Especially, if one were to use more than one phone.
> 
> Is it possible for them to know?


As a customer, I watch the car on the app. So if I say I see the car going all over creation before coming here, that driver is busted.


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

Floofy said:


> As a customer, I watch the car on the app. So if I say I see the car going all over creation before coming here, that driver is busted.


The earth is flat. If your driver goes too far, you're never gonna see him/her.


----------



## Mash Ghasem (Jan 12, 2020)

Judge and Jury said:


> The earth is flat.


That's the REAL reason Trumpfart wants to build a wall: to protect people from falling off the edge. :thumbup:


----------

