# California says Uber is classified as a transportation firm and owes back fees!



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

*State regulator ruling could cost Uber 'millions*
http://www.sfexaminer.com/state-regulator-ruling-cost-uber-millions/amp/

State regulators changed how they legally classify ride-hail giant Uber on Thursday, a technical move that may cost the company millions of dollars.

The California Public Utilities Commission voted Thursday morning to classify Uber partially as a charter party carrier, a designation usually used for towncars or limousines, due to the existence of Uber SUV and Uber Black services.

Uber Black is an option in Uber's app that lets riders hail towncars that the company's website calls "high-end rides."

The ride-hail company's new classification will also require it to pay fees to the CPUC going back three years, according to a legal decision by CPUC Commissioner Liane Randolph. The CPUC said it has yet to calculate the amount of those fees.

An Uber spokesperson told the San Francisco Examiner the company disagrees with the CPUC's ruling and will appeal the decision.

The new designation will make Uber known legally in California as both a charter party carrier and a transportation network company, the latter of which is the state's designation for ride-hails like Uber and Lyft. Previously, Uber's subsidiary, Rasier-CA, took the brunt of legal wrangling for charter party carrier status. Rasier is a corporation registered in Delaware.

But in her decision, Randolph wrote that Rasier should not be the only entity regulated, as functionally it is "a mere instrumentality" of Uber. Rasier has no operations in California, she wrote, and Uber staff performs many legal functions Rasier should be responsible for, including investigating safety incidents, investigating complaints against the zero-tolerance intoxication policy for drivers and taking actions against intoxicated drivers.

Uber uses a number of subsidiaries in California for its myriad services: Uber USA, LLC and UATC, LLC, Rasier-CA, Rasier, LLC, and more.

In legal filings with the CPUC, Uber wrote that designating Uber as a charter party carrier, instead of Rasier, would create duplicative regulatory compliance leading to "millions of dollars in unnecessary and additional operational costs, and the implementation of the necessary operational changes could potentially harm aspects of the (ride-hail) service provided in California."

In her ruling, Randolph wrote that problems arising from Uber's corporate structure were of "Uber's own design."

"It was Uber's decision alone regarding how it would operate its business with the creation of subsidiaries totally lacking in employees and dependent on Uber to run their (ride-hail and charter) operations," she wrote. "What the commission needs to concern itself with is the goal of ensuring the entity &#8230; registers."

Marcelo Fonseca, a San Francisco taxi driver, told the commission he welcomed the decision, but wished it would go further. Because the CPUC designated ride-hails like Uber and Lyft as "transportation network companies," he said, cities have been unable to directly regulate and limit ride-hails, which has impacted the taxi industry.

"You dumped 50,000 of them on our streets and you turned driving for hire into a dead end," he told commissioners in public comment. "Although I support commissioner Randolph's findings that Uber is a TCP charter party carrier &#8230; I urge you to revisit the TNC issue. Uber X and Lyft are taxicabs in every sense of the word."

PUBLISHED BY
Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez





*REGULATIONS:*
https://www.lctmag.com/news/729550/uber-now-must-follow-the-limo-rules-in-a-california


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

Uber SUV and Uber Black services have been suspended to eliminate the charter party carrier designation.


----------



## luckytown (Feb 11, 2016)

Its coming......

https://www.lctmag.com/news/729550/uber-now-must-follow-the-limo-rules-in-a-california?refresh=true


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

njn said:


> Uber SUV and Uber Black services have been suspended to eliminate the charter party carrier designation.


Bad day for all those black cars that lease from companies and only do Uber.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

BurgerTiime said:


> Marcelo Fonseca, a San Francisco taxi driver, told the commission he welcomed the decision, but wished it would go further. Because the CPUC designated ride-hails like Uber and Lyft as "transportation network companies," he said, cities have been unable to directly regulate and limit ride-hails, which has impacted the taxi industry.
> 
> "You dumped 50,000 of them on our streets and you turned driving for hire into a dead end," he told commissioners in public comment. "Although I support commissioner Randolph's findings that Uber is a TCP charter party carrier &#8230; I urge you to revisit the TNC issue. Uber X and Lyft are taxicabs in every sense of the word."


Uber and Lyft may be taxi service. And the surplus of drivers may make driving not a good financial decision for those who it has historically been good for who are the highest earners in the previous system of stifled competition.

But for every taxi driver who lost a good living through the competition, on the other side of the coin you have rideshare drivers who are only doing it because it elevates their own condition and their condition would be worsened if they were forced out. The taxi driver can say he was there first but being first does not make you entitled. In a free market whoever provides the best service for the least money wins. And today that's rideshare, and tomorrow it may be self-driving cars. In a free market you have to adapt to changing times.

If the money becomes too little, that means you should find something else to do and let someone else willing to do it for so little do it. I personally believe that the only reason so many rideshare drivers are financially desperate is because the economy is so over regulated that getting almost any job is extremely difficult. Rideshare provides regulatory loopholes that make getting a job easy, and that's why it is oversaturated. But if getting all jobs were easy rideshare drivers would easily jump ship. Imagine a world where you didn't need a license to be a hair stylist. There would be more hair stylists. Less money per hair stylist, but I bet a lot of Uber drivers whining about making only $10/hr would be hair stylists making $12, and so on.

In my opinion a fluid labor market is best for the workers and the limits on the taxi market are very short-sighted that protect only existing cab drivers to keep their own job while similar regulation across all industries makes it challenging for a taxi driver with other talents to be able to move to another field where he could make more because the other field will be equally as regulated and restrictive.

It seems to me that with a highly regulated labor market, nepotism is the key to any position rather than individual merit or quality of service.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Uber didn’t care... their plan was to buy enough time to bring in more investors/drivers/customers.. which they succeeeded.


----------



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

Uber will appeal...

Beyond that nothing is certain.


This could be the regulatory nightmare that kept the management awake at night.

But if uber loses the ability to use independent contractors in a market, they will have to massively crank up prices or leave. That's all there is to it.


Employees are entitled by law to make min wage free and clear of all deductions.

In Orlando that would require making $8.05 per hour plus 53c per EVERY mile.

And On-call time would have to be paid as well, as the time between fares is completely impossible to guess, drivers fall under the catagory of being "engaged to wait" meaning that they can be called up at any minute, not having a set time to wait until.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

njn said:


> Uber SUV and Uber Black services have been suspended to eliminate the charter party carrier designation.


Is this for real ?

Is it safe to assume that Lyft hasn't been affected because they have already been paying their fees ? We know Uber pays no taxes, using an offshore shell account.


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Is this for real ?


Unfortunately, no.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Being an employee is not a good thing for Uber drivers. If drivers get reimbursed for mileage, there goes the tax deduction. And speaking of taxes, taxes will be kept out of the the weekly pay. Drivers will be assigned shifts and an area to work. No refusing a ride. Uniforms? Required greeting? Who's ready for 8 hours in the ghetto?

I'd imagine it would work similar to the Amazon Flex schedule. Check the app in the morning for available shifts. Pick the one you want, if there are any available. Once the driver arrives at their assigned location, turn the app on and punch the clock.

Hustlers and the efficient will lose out. Full time drivers will now gross $400 a week (at $10/hr) whether you know what you're doing or not. I wouldn't expect a paid vacation. I wouldn't expect a paid lunch hour. I wouldn't expect overtime.


----------



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

bsliv said:


> Being an employee is not a good thing for Uber drivers. If drivers get reimbursed for mileage, there goes the tax deduction. And speaking of taxes, taxes will be kept out of the the weekly pay. Drivers will be assigned shifts and an area to work. No refusing a ride. Uniforms? Required greeting? Who's ready for 8 hours in the ghetto?
> 
> I'd imagine it would work similar to the Amazon Flex schedule. Check the app in the morning for available shifts. Pick the one you want, if there are any available. Once the driver arrives at their assigned location, turn the app on and punch the clock.
> 
> Hustlers and the efficient will lose out.


Nope..

Uber will close up shop in cali first..

The cab companies couldn't afford to operate with employees, there's no way uber can paying their drivers. The cab companies used to be able to operate leaner by issuing company vehicles than by paying per mile rates.

And getting paid for mileage is a good thing.
The fact that your taxes are getting wiped out by deductions is a bad thing.

For orlando 8 hours MINIMUM pay would be in the neighborhood of...

$151.60
With only $64.40 being taxable
(plus tolls)
PLUS TIPS

That's... A LOT more than they are making now here. If that was the case i would go back to uber.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> If the money becomes too little, that means you should find something else to do and let someone else willing to do it for so little do it. I personally believe that the only reason so many rideshare drivers are financially desperate is because the economy is so over regulated that getting almost any job is extremely difficult.


Trafficat:
On a forum that frequently details all the inadequacies of rideshare jobs, I find it surprising that you have such a dismissive attitude towards worker exploitation.
Workplace protections are universal throughout developed countries not only to ensure that workers are treated fairly but that society is protected from the broad social effects of poverty, homelessness, and crime. While sweatshop wages in developing countries have proven to actually help build a initial platform for continuing economic advancement, substituting fair wage jobs with substandard paying jobs reverses the effect and becomes a threat to social advancement for all. One needs to look not to far to see the expanding economic divide happening in the US and other developed countries.

Secondly, rideshare work is frequently performed by immigrants with language issues and other individuals whose work history and education is not verifiable and find themselves excluded from jobs with fair pay and safe working conditions. While many on this forum have the benefit of a middle class upbringing, others that are less privileged or have fewer job opportunities because of social or physical handicaps are vulnerable to the sort exploitation schemes promoted in ridesharing. Choosing whether to work or not is not like choosing either a latte or a cappuccino, one has to work for food, shelter and family support. For many, rideshare work is a last resort and it also allows workers to stay on the job for up to 80-120 hrs/week.

This forum has documented the false promises of good wages and fun working conditions and many who enter into this field are unaware of the risks and downsides to the rideshare job. Driving while working is the #1 cause of job related deaths and job related injuries and rideshare companies cleverly avoid the responsibilities that all employers must bear for safety, accident prevention, medical cost reimbursement, continuing wages in the event of becoming disabled at work and even compensation to the families of those that lose their lives while driving professionally.
Finally, few look far enough down the road to anticipate losing their principal vehicle after an accident. Nearly all other professional driving jobs involve driving a vehicle provided by the employer and an accident does not keep the driver from continuing to work, they simply are assigned another vehicle from a pool. If someone thinks this is a small factor, take a look at sites like GoFundMe and search for the term Uber and Lyft. You will find over 13,000 charity pleas from injured drivers, the families of drivers killed on the job and those that cannot work because of the cost of mechanical or body car repairs. Sadly, many other pleas come from those that are unable to find work and just need a few dollars to enter into a sub-prime lease agreement, or perhaps purchase an older compact car to get on the road and get some food money and maybe make rent.

Privilege, especially white privilege term currently being thrown around but may of us take for granted growing up in a safe neighborhood in a country not torn by daily strife and violence. Perhaps we got a fair education and some of us made it to college and beyond. I encourage those that have those benefits to spend some time in charity work with those that are disadvantaged or have made mistakes in their lives. Donate time at a food bank, work a church kitchen at Thanksgiving, spend time helping the homeless, or perhaps tutor children of working single parent homes. You will get a better idea of how false promises of the rideshare industry lead many to even greater poverty and how some become stuck with negative equity in their vehicle and cannot leave a job that goes nowhere.


----------



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

KevinH said:


> Trafficat:
> On a forum that frequently details all the inadequacies of rideshare jobs, I find it surprising that you have such a dismissive attitude towards worker exploitation.
> Workplace protections are universal throughout developed countries not only to ensure that workers are treated fairly but that society is protected from the broad social effects of poverty, homelessness, and crime. While sweatshop wages in developing countries have proven to actually help build a initial platform for continuing economic advancement, substituting fair wage jobs with substandard paying jobs reverses the effect and becomes a threat to social advancement for all. One needs to look not to far to see the expanding economic divide happening in the US and other developed countries.
> 
> ...


I gotta pay $50 a month for death/dismemberment/ accident insurance.

If i was an employee that would be free on workers comp.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

BurgerTiime said:


> *State regulator ruling could cost Uber 'millions*
> http://www.sfexaminer.com/state-regulator-ruling-cost-uber-millions/amp/
> 
> State regulators changed how they legally classify ride-hail giant Uber on Thursday, a technical move that may cost the company millions of dollars.
> ...


As I stated before when the initial ruling was issued a few weeks ago, the ruling applies only to the high end services, UberSUV and UberBlack.



BurgerTiime said:


> *and a transportation network company*, the latter of which is the state's designation for ride-hails like Uber and Lyft. Previously, Uber's subsidiary, Rasier-CA, took the brunt of legal wrangling for charter party carrier status. Rasier is a corporation registered in Delaware.
> 
> But in her decision, Randolph wrote that Rasier should not be the only entity regulated, as functionally it is "a mere instrumentality" of Uber. Rasier has no operations in California, she wrote, and Uber staff performs many legal functions Rasier should be responsible for, including investigating safety incidents, investigating complaints against the zero-tolerance intoxication policy for drivers and taking actions against intoxicated drivers.
> 
> ...


I highlighted them in bold. Just expand the quotes.

At the bottom, you see the quote where the taxi driver says he believes it should apply to the TNC versions, namely UberX, Lyft etc etc.

Also, regarding have to call drivers employees, nowhere does it state that and I don't know where people are getting that. Even the taxi's call their drivers independent contrators.

There is nothing in the ruling that changes anything regarding employee status. Everyone is getting ahead of themselves.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

KevinH said:


> You will get a better idea of how false promises of the rideshare industry lead many to even greater poverty and how some become stuck with negative equity in their vehicle and cannot leave a job that goes nowhere.


Some people also try to make a living as a professional gambler and it doesn't always work out.

Personally I would not find it wise to try and do this job if you do not own outright the vehicle you are using.

And I would not find it wise to grant an auto loan to a person planning on using a vehicle for rideshare.

Doing rideshare on a borrowed vehicle you can't afford with meager rideshare fares sounds like a path to bankruptcy, which will ultimately punish most of all those who allowed the loans. When you file for bankruptcy, sure you lose your possessions and there is a stigma against that, but all of the people I personally know who have filed for bankruptcy in the past are now financially better off than I am.

If there was less regulation on labor in industries across the board, those who are overqualified for rideshare could move on more easily, meaning higher wages for those currently doing it.

You are right that there are a lot of people with fresh college degrees driving rideshare as their primary source of income. And those who aren't are often doing jobs at the very lowest end of the payscale that require minimal training, for which Uber actually is often a better deal if you do it smart. It is quite absurd! The reality for many young people is they were told the lies of how an education would advance them, when in fact too many people have diplomas. 20-30 years ago a college degree was an exceptional accomplishment but today only about half of degree holders (the most exceptional, and that doesn't mean GPA) will be able to make it work for them.

For many current diploma holders, the only good thing about having a diploma is the fact that they can leave it OFF their resume since no one wants to hire them for what they studied and companies won't even interview them for lower paying jobs knowing that such an over-educated individual is a poor company investment in a system where managing labor is exceedingly difficult.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Only had to read the first paragraph. Let's see, either Uber must raise their pricing giving none of the increase to the driver or Uber needs to take more from the driver. My guess, Uber will take more from the driver.


----------



## luckytown (Feb 11, 2016)

If your local government did this in your city...what would it mean for you?....


----------



## westsidebum (Feb 7, 2015)

Uber has been hiding behind lie that it is a technology company. The corporate structure of Uber with several shell companies is anything but a technology company. This could force uber to become what it claims it really is because its business model is based on using drivers while forcing them to act as employees without the benefits of employees which undercuts the regulated limo industry.


----------



## westsidebum (Feb 7, 2015)

Uber cant take more from driver. They have already sucked to the marrow.


----------



## jester121 (Sep 6, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> But if uber loses the ability to use independent contractors in a market, they will have to massively crank up prices or leave. That's all there is to it.
> 
> Employees are entitled by law to make min wage free and clear of all deductions.
> 
> ...


Sure.... Soon, Uber now tells employees the exact shift they'll be working each day, number of hours, and where they will report to work for rides. You will accept any and all rides they send you, and when finished, drive where they tell you to wait. Sorry, you only get 20 hours this week, at base pay rate. No more Boost or Surge, ever. You don't get to swipe on and off any time you feel like it any more...

How's that employee thing working out for drivers now?


----------



## westsidebum (Feb 7, 2015)

Whats so great about putting excessive miles on your car paying for gas and extra data on phone to sometimes make above min wage?


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

westsidebum said:


> Uber has been hiding behind lie that it is a technology company. The corporate structure of Uber with several shell companies is anything but a technology company. This could force uber to become what it claims it really is because its business model is based on using drivers while forcing them to act as employees without the benefits of employees which undercuts the regulated limo industry.


Under the current system, Uber is a technology company. They do not drive people for money. If one works for Uber, they do not need a driver's license.

As a direct example, I work as a real estate appraiser. Due to regulations, no longer can lenders contact appraisers directly, they must use a middleman. The lender calls the middleman and the middleman calls the appraiser. The middleman is not an appraiser or a lender, they are a technology company.



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Employees are entitled by law to make min wage free and clear of all deductions.


"Clear of all deductions" is a state regulation, I believe. An employee driving their own car in Nevada is not guaranteed to be reimbursed by their employer. Nevada drivers would be entitled to a job related expense deduction on their federal tax forms.



jester121 said:


> Uber now tells employees the exact shift they'll be working each day, number of hours, and where they will report to work for rides. You will accept any and all rides they send you, and when finished, drive where they tell you to wait. Sorry, you only get 20 hours this week, at base pay rate. No more Boost or Surge, ever. You don't get to swipe on and off any time you feel like it any more...


It could be even worse. They could assign a driver a start time and a start location but not tell them when their shift ends. They could tell a driver that their shift starts at 3 am across town. Then at 4 am they tell the driver that they are no longer needed that day.


----------



## shinebox74 (Oct 3, 2016)

bsliv said:


> Being an employee is not a good thing for Uber drivers. If drivers get reimbursed for mileage, there goes the tax deduction. And speaking of taxes, taxes will be kept out of the the weekly pay. Drivers will be assigned shifts and an area to work. No refusing a ride. Uniforms? Required greeting? Who's ready for 8 hours in the ghetto?
> 
> I'd imagine it would work similar to the Amazon Flex schedule. Check the app in the morning for available shifts. Pick the one you want, if there are any available. Once the driver arrives at their assigned location, turn the app on and punch the clock.
> 
> Hustlers and the efficient will lose out. Full time drivers will now gross $400 a week (at $10/hr) whether you know what you're doing or not. I wouldn't expect a paid vacation. I wouldn't expect a paid lunch hour. I wouldn't expect overtime.


Probably the most salient post in the history of posts.


----------



## westsidebum (Feb 7, 2015)

Uber has been allowed to cherry pick what it is to skirt regulations. Uber is a tech company when the regs favor tech companies it is a limo company when they can get a piece of the limo action. Uber is not an employer so it can skirt work regs, but it fails the federal govt own criteria for classification of wokers as independent contractors which states that independent contractors are allowed to run their own businesses and set rates and negotiate contracts. You fail to see the big picture because you are caught up in legality which is how uber wants it.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

westsidebum said:


> Uber has been allowed to cherry pick what it is to skirt regulations. Uber is a tech company when the regs favor tech companies it is a limo company when they can get a piece of the limo action. Uber is not an employer so it can skirt work regs, but it fails the federal govt own criteria for classification of wokers as independent contractors which states that independent contractors are allowed to run their own businesses and set rates and negotiate contracts. You fail to see the big picture because you are caught up in legality which is how uber wants it.


I see the big picture. I quit driving for TNCs.

You can set your own rates, no TNC prohibits it. You can renegotiate the contract with the TNC. I don't expect they will accept your offer, tho. Why would they? If you mean set your own rate and advertise to the general public, its not the TNCs that prevent it, its the local government.

In my day job, I get offered contracts all the time. Some have a set fee. Some ask for my best fee. It all depends on their business model. If I accept either type of offer, I'm bound by the terms. If one job should be worth $500 and they offer $5, I'd probably not accept it. If I did accept it, it wouldn't be a dastardly deed by the offerer. Its business. It would be my error to accept a contract with inadequate compensation. I don't need or want a nanny to tell me which contracts I should accept and/or how to run my business. I want my business to succeed or fail based on my decisions.

The problems arise when there is a lack of competition. But there are plenty of driving jobs out there. Uber, Lyft, taxis, limos, buses, pizza, flowers, etc.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

https://www.law.com/therecorder/201...ers-to-gig-companies/?slreturn=20180330191831

*Calif. Supremes Embrace Worker-Friendly Classification Test. Why This Matters to Gig Companies*
*"The result will be sweeping reclassification of workers throughout the state, including in the gig economy where much of the litigation has recently focused," a lawyer for the workers said.*
By Erin Mulvaney | April 30, 2018 at 03:21 PM








_California Supreme Court building on 350 McAllister St., San Francisco, California, 94102 (Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM)_

The California Supreme Court adopted a new worker-friendly standard Monday to determine a central question for gig economy companies whose business models depend on classifying workers as independent contractors rather than employees.

The court, ruling in the case _Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court_, embraced a more rigid test than the current, looser standard for determining whether a worker is an employee or a contractor. The closely watched case presents significant implications for worker classification in the gig economy. Cases in state courts were paused in anticipation of the ruling.

Altshuler Berzon attorney Michael Rubin, who represented the workers, said the opinion "provides needed clarity to worker and employers alike, slicing through decades of confusing and inconsistent case law to focus on the key practical inquiry: where the worker 'would ordinarily be viewed as working in the hiring business.'"

He added, "The result will be sweeping reclassification of workers throughout the state, including in the gig economy where much of the litigation has recently focused."

A team from Littler Mendelson and McDermott Will & Emery represented Dynamex. Attorneys for the company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In the wage-and-hour class action, a Dynamex delivery driver named Charles Lee claimed he and his fellow workers were misclassified as independent contractors. At oral arguments, the lawyers in the case were asked to argue about whether California should abandon its current test for determining who is an employee or adopt a more worker-friendly standard.

Worker classification is a central issue in the gig economy. Many large companies, including Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc., are built on the backs of independent contractors. Employees, under the federal labor structure, are guaranteed collective bargaining rights, health care benefits and worker compensation. Gig companies contend their workforce enjoys more flexibility, setting hours and pace on their own.

Judges across the country have grappled in recent years with worker classification in the sharing economy. Grubhub prevailed in a trial over this issue of misclassification last year. The court sided with the company and found that the driver was an independent contractor. With that case now on appeal, it will now be governed by the new standard set in _Dynamex_.

"In recent years, the relevant regulatory agencies of both the federal and state governments have declared that the misclassification of workers as independent contractors rather than employees is a very serious problem, depriving federal and state governments of billions of dollars in tax revenue and millions of workers of the labor law protections to which they are entitled," the California Supreme Court said.

Rubin said there are likely hundreds of other misclassification cases pending that will be affected by the decision, including many in the gig economy.

The decision falls only under California law, but it follows a New Jersey Supreme Court decision. Several other states have more worker-friendly tests, in different forms, to determine how to classify an employee. Rubin predicted that more states are likely to follow suit, following the California decision.

"As the federal government increasingly abandons its past commitment to protecting workplace rights, the states are stepping up to fill the gaps," Rubin said.

Dynamex argued that the current standard, in place since 1989, should be used. The older standard is a multifactor test that focuses mostly on whether the employer has control in the way the worker performs. It considers various other factors, including the worker's skill, the method of payment and the nature of the business.

The lawyers for the workers successfully urged the California Supreme Court to embrace a so-called "ABC test," which is used in New Jersey and Massachusetts.

That test requires the employer to establish three factors to show a worker is an independent contractor: "that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work; that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity."

The Supreme Court wrote: "It bears emphasis that in order to establish that a worker is an independent contractor under the ABC standard, the hiring entity is required to establish the existence of each of the three parts of the ABC standard."

*'This could ruin the gig economy'*
Fisher & Phillips partner Richard Meneghello said the "ABC" test "makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for your average gig company to label its workers as contractors." He wrote in a blog post that the "ABC" test essentially presumes an individual in question is an employee unless the employer proves three specific criteria.

Meneghello said the requirements would be nearly impossible for gig economy companies to comply with if they want to keep their workers classified as independent contractors.

"This could ruin the gig economy as we know it. After all, a great many of those providing services for gig companies-taking advantage of their idle capacity so they can fill a specific need and make some extra money-are handling these jobs as side hustles," Meneghello said. "They are not running an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. And moreover, how would a gig economy business confirm that their workers are meeting these standards?"

California companies, leading in the gig workforce model, should be thinking about the _Dynamex_ case and any consequences, a team from Paul Hastings said in a recent blog post. In anticipation of the ruling, the lawyers recommended that companies look closely at worker relationships and to "take steps to assess their potential risk."


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

The problem is the arbitration clause that Uber and Lyft have. Unless the US Supreme Court finally rules it's not enforceable in employee classification lawsuits, Uber and Lyft will still not have to comply.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

bsliv said:


> Being an employee is not a good thing for Uber drivers. If drivers get reimbursed for mileage, there goes the tax deduction. And speaking of taxes, taxes will be kept out of the the weekly pay. Drivers will be assigned shifts and an area to work. No refusing a ride. Uniforms? Required greeting? Who's ready for 8 hours in the ghetto?
> 
> I'd imagine it would work similar to the Amazon Flex schedule. Check the app in the morning for available shifts. Pick the one you want, if there are any available. Once the driver arrives at their assigned location, turn the app on and punch the clock.
> 
> Hustlers and the efficient will lose out. Full time drivers will now gross $400 a week (at $10/hr) whether you know what you're doing or not. I wouldn't expect a paid vacation. I wouldn't expect a paid lunch hour. I wouldn't expect overtime.


It's not about wanting to be employees. No driver wants to be an employee. What we want is to be paid for all of the time they said we were ic's but treated us like employees and for us to have the authority to be ic's going forward. That would put an end to the Pool and Line scams of them both making money on our backs.


----------



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

Uber is screwed if they lose sub contractor classification.

They are just.. dare I say it... *ü*ber screwed.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Good. I’m so goddamn tired of employers abusing that designation including Boober and gryft


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The problem is the arbitration clause that Uber and Lyft have. Unless the US Supreme Court finally rules it's not enforceable in employee classification lawsuits, Uber and Lyft will still not have to comply.


Can an arbitrator skip the State Supreme Court ruling? This seems pretty clear cut.



KevinH said:


> Can an arbitrator skip the State Supreme Court ruling? This seems pretty clear cut.


Also, what about the cases for those who opted out?


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

Great news for drivers!!!


----------



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

If uber loses independent contractors they are done. Period... that's all there is to it. They will have to raise rates too much too fast and like everyone said start with the whole treating people like employees thing. Then when business is slow they have to send people home...

The shift in businss model will wipe them out. They depend on super part timers more than anyone else in the nation (beyond the other gig employers, lyft, grubhub ect)

It's a mess they NEED to avoid.

Uber is facing the same thing that every single Brewer and vineyard faced on February 1920.

One legal ruling away from going under completely...

If they lose employee classification they are done, no ifs or buts.

Employee status will be the end of uber, if it does survive the rates will be a ridiculous amount higher than they are now.

If i was in charge of uber and I lost that lawsuit... The next step would be slinking with my tail between my leg to every cab company in the nation begging them to sign on to do uberTaxi (where the uber app dispatches taxis)

It's going to fail once the cab companies realize that all they have to do is say no and their city goes back in time to pre-uber days.

Independent contractors are the linchpin keeping uber alive. I'm in agreement with uber on this.

However i want to watch uber burn... because it's a lousy way to a company. Every day people's lives get ruined over technicalities.








\

Oh how i wish i could be the harbinger of death brings down uber...


----------



## Driver2448 (Mar 8, 2017)

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/c...-may-be-costly-to-uber-lyft-report-2018-04-30

The California Supreme Court Monday issued a ruling Monday that expanded the number of workers that may be classified as employees and not contractors, according to the Associated Press. The suit, brought against the package delivery company Dynamex Operations West Inc. by labor unions on behalf of drivers, may affect ride-hailing giants such as Uber Technologies Inc. and rival Lyft Inc. "It makes it far more likely than before that in California, the Ubers and Lyfts will have to begin treating the workers as employees," Michael Rubin, an attorney for the drivers, told AP. The court adopted a tougher standard to determine whether a worker can be classified as a contractor. The decision is seen as a victory for labor advocates and will likely mean that more workers in California are eligible for minimum wage, rest breaks and other benefits, AP reported.


----------



## Pax Collector (Feb 18, 2018)

No worries, they'll just charge riders double and still pay you time and distance to pay their bill lol


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> If uber loses independent contractors they are done. Period... that's all there is to it. They will have to raise rates too much too fast and like everyone said start with the whole treating people like employees thing. Then when business is slow they have to send people home...
> 
> The shift in businss model will wipe them out. They depend on super part timers more than anyone else in the nation (beyond the other gig employers, lyft, grubhub ect)
> 
> ...


The local cab companies have an app, too


----------



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

Rat said:


> The local cab companies have an app, too












It launched in orlando before uber did.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

KevinH said:


> Can an arbitrator skip the State Supreme Court ruling? This seems pretty clear cut.
> 
> Also, what about the cases for those who opted out?


Do you know what the purpose of an arbitration clause is ? Especially when it comes to Uber ?


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

Where do you people get this nonsense? Shifts? Why would Uber ever have to assign shifts? Paranoia


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Being an employee is not a good thing for Uber drivers. If drivers get reimbursed for mileage, there goes the tax deduction. And speaking of taxes, taxes will be kept out of the the weekly pay. Drivers will be assigned shifts and an area to work. No refusing a ride. Uniforms? Required greeting? Who's ready for 8 hours in the ghetto?
> 
> I'd imagine it would work similar to the Amazon Flex schedule. Check the app in the morning for available shifts. Pick the one you want, if there are any available. Once the driver arrives at their assigned location, turn the app on and punch the clock.
> 
> Hustlers and the efficient will lose out. Full time drivers will now gross $400 a week (at $10/hr) whether you know what you're doing or not. I wouldn't expect a paid vacation. I wouldn't expect a paid lunch hour. I wouldn't expect overtime.


If you get reimbursed for mileage you're getting 53 cents per mile in your hand. If you deduct it you simply don't pay taxes on that 53 cents.

Ube depends on drivers sitting around waiting at all times. So it can't work like Amazon flex as they couldn't pay drivers to do that. It simply doesn't work for them no matter what.

The only thing that works is to really treat us like contractors. They can't possibly afford to have us be employees. And it would never work for their pax.


----------



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

Fuzzyelvis said:


> If you get reimbursed for mileage you're getting 53 cents per mile in your hand. If you deduct it you simply don't pay taxes on that 53 cents.
> 
> Ube depends on drivers sitting around waiting at all times. So it can't work like Amazon flex as they couldn't pay drivers to do that. It simply doesn't work for them no matter what.
> 
> The only thing that works is to really treat us like contractors. They can't possibly afford to have us be employees. And it would never work for their pax.


The difference is...

$7.25 t0 $12.50 per hour PLUS 53c per EVERY mile driven.

For Orlando that would come to.... $96.00 in wages and $132.50 (on average) in non taxable mileage reimbursements for 12 hours. PLUS TOLLS BOTH WAYS.. ($10 or so) For a total of $238.50

Currently.. the pay is closer to $140 than it is to $240..

Meaning for Orlando they would need to increase driver pay by... 71%

Then there's the non pay costs associated with paying drivers...

Another $15... give or take... for the 15% in employment tax.

So now we are up to $253... in costs... to pay the driver min wage for 12 hours...

Or... interestingly..

263% of just min wage.

And Florida is a low min wage state to. Washington is $4.00 higher.

12 hours in Washington DC?

12 hoursX 12.50
(+15% for taxes)
250 miles) .545X 250

$136+
$150+
$22.50

$308 for Washington DC.

Plus some states don't allow tips to count towards min wage, Some do however....

We are looking at astronomical sums of money that even Seattle drivers rarely see in order to cover just paying drivers min wage.

Funny?

I think so...

The truth is that the Law requires employees to make min wage IN TAXABLE INCOME. You know that thing almost no drivers have any of?

Employee status pushes the cost of an uber well beyond the cost of a taxi... to the point where it's rediculous.

Uber would be able to save large amounts of money by buying cars and issuing them to drivers and covering ALL EXPENSES, then to continue with ride sharing.

If uber loses independent contractor status.... They lose... Ride sharing is dead.


----------



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

*https://www.law.com/therecorder/201...tion-test-why-this-matters-to-gig-companies1/*

*https://www.pymnts.com/gig-economy/2018/gig-economy-california-supreme-court-ruling-contractors/*


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> If you get reimbursed for mileage you're getting 53 cents per mile in your hand. If you deduct it you simply don't pay taxes on that 53 cents.
> 
> Ube depends on drivers sitting around waiting at all times. So it can't work like Amazon flex as they couldn't pay drivers to do that. It simply doesn't work for them no matter what.
> 
> The only thing that works is to really treat us like contractors. They can't possibly afford to have us be employees. And it would never work for their pax.


True, Uber does rely on drivers being "on call", however they are only obligated to pay "on call" time if you are required to accept a job when offered. If you are allowed to voluntarily accept a job or reject it, then Uber would not have to pay on call time.

The employee model will work just fine, but Uber will be required to pay drivers properly and provide benefits they are entitled to. THIS IS VERY VERY GOOD FOR DRIVERS.



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> The difference is...
> 
> $7.25 t0 $12.50 per hour PLUS 53c per EVERY mile driven.
> 
> ...


Once again, they are not required to pay you for on call time unless you are required to take the job. They only need to pay you from acceptance of job to drop off.


----------



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

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> True, Uber does rely on drivers being "on call", however they are only obligated to pay "on call" time if you are required to accept a job when offered. If you are allowed to voluntarily accept a job or reject it, then Uber would not have to pay on call time.
> 
> The employee model will work just fine, but Uber will be required to pay drivers properly and provide benefits they are entitled to. THIS IS VERY VERY GOOD FOR DRIVERS.
> 
> Once again, they are not required to pay you for on call time unless you are required to take the job. They only need to pay you from acceptance of job to drop off.


Oh contrare...

On time call is paid if the time you are on call is so short that you have no reasonable time to do anything, in laymen's terms. Here's several basic guidelines to determining whether it is paid or not. Uber fits 4/6 quite well IMHO

_*the frequency of calls during the on-call period;*_
_*the time limit provided to respond*_;
the geographic restrictions placed on the employee;
the ability to trade or swap on-call responsibilities, _*and the amount of advance notice of assigned on-call time periods*_;
the use of a pager or cell phone to contact on-call employee (e.g. whether an employee is expected to continuously monitor radio traffic for a call vs. employees being issued a pager that will notify them of calls); and
_*the employees' ability to engage in personal activities during on-call time periods*_

Here's some guidelines to determine when it's payble
3/4 are nailed by uber


is not engaged in the work for which they were hired;
remains subject to the direction of his or her employer;
is not able to effectively use the time for themselves; and
is unsure as to when the waiting period will occur and/or how long it will last.

Here's a set of examples
I nail ALL OF THEM when i am doing this. That's very much a great analogy for what's going on when we don't have customers.

A messenger who works a crossword puzzle while _*awaiting assignments*_.
A fireman who plays checkers while waiting for alarms.
A factory worker who talks to fellow employees while waiting for machinery to be repaired.
A waitperson in a restaurant waiting for customers to arrive.

Uber does not *perfectly* fall into the category of on call time being payable, but most of them.. yeah most of the criteria are dead on.

Let's look at the criteria to NOT be eligible to be paid


your employee is completely relieved from duty;
the periods are long enough to enable your employee to use the time effectively for his or her own purposes;
your employee is definitely told in advance that he or she may leave the job; and
your employee is advised of the time that he or she is required to return to work.

Yeah uber fits none of these, like at all.. Not a single one.. (2 is arguable, i argue that you can not go home and make a snack between pings 99% of the time)

So if uber has to treat drivers as employees they will end up paying them wait time.

Uber could however involuntarily boot drivers offline for set periods of time... that WOULD remove the requirement to pay them for that time.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Driver2448 said:


> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/c...-may-be-costly-to-uber-lyft-report-2018-04-30
> 
> The California Supreme Court Monday issued a ruling Monday that expanded the number of workers that may be classified as employees and not contractors, according to the Associated Press. The suit, brought against the package delivery company Dynamex Operations West Inc. by labor unions on behalf of drivers, may affect ride-hailing giants such as Uber Technologies Inc. and rival Lyft Inc. "It makes it far more likely than before that in California, the Ubers and Lyfts will have to begin treating the workers as employees," Michael Rubin, an attorney for the drivers, told AP. The court adopted a tougher standard to determine whether a worker can be classified as a contractor. The decision is seen as a victory for labor advocates and will likely mean that more workers in California are eligible for minimum wage, rest breaks and other benefits, AP reported.


This article is written wrong. The California State Supreme Court didn't "expand" the number of workers. They "clarified" the rules. They made it easier for lawbreaking companies like Uber and Lyft to understand what is and is not an employee.

Now it is up to Uber and Lyft to treat drivers as true independent contractors.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

bsliv said:


> Being an employee is not a good thing for Uber drivers. If drivers get reimbursed for mileage, there goes the tax deduction. And speaking of taxes, taxes will be kept out of the the weekly pay. Drivers will be assigned shifts and an area to work. No refusing a ride. Uniforms? Required greeting? Who's ready for 8 hours in the ghetto?
> 
> I'd imagine it would work similar to the Amazon Flex schedule. Check the app in the morning for available shifts. Pick the one you want, if there are any available. Once the driver arrives at their assigned location, turn the app on and punch the clock.
> 
> Hustlers and the efficient will lose out. Full time drivers will now gross $400 a week (at $10/hr) whether you know what you're doing or not. I wouldn't expect a paid vacation. I wouldn't expect a paid lunch hour. I wouldn't expect overtime.


Overtime is a requirement under Federal law, unless you mean one would never get over 40 hours.


----------



## Driver2448 (Mar 8, 2017)

observer said:


> This article is written wrong. The California State Supreme Court didn't "expand" the number of workers. They "clarified" the rules. They made it easier for lawbreaking companies like Uber and Lyft to understand what is and is not an employee.
> 
> Now it is up to Uber and Lyft to treat drivers as true independent contractors.


And those first steps includes getting rid of those pesky cancellation notices and not punishing drivers for declining trips that are ten or more minutes away.


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> Imagine a world where you didn't need a license to be a hair stylist.


Wha????? 
You mean... no more need for Barber Colleges??


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Under the current system, Uber is a technology company. They do not drive people for money. If one works for Uber, they do not need a driver's license.
> 
> As a direct example, I work as a real estate appraiser. Due to regulations, no longer can lenders contact appraisers directly, they must use a middleman. The lender calls the middleman and the middleman calls the appraiser. The middleman is not an appraiser or a lender, they are a technology company.
> 
> ...


It's not state, it's federal. Employers don't have to reimburse vehicle expenses at all, SO LONG AS THE EMPLOYEE IS MAKING MINIMUM WAGE AFTER THE FEDERAL CAR EXPENSE IS DEDUCTED FROM THEIR WAGES.

So if an employee is paid $20 per hour and incurs vehicle costs of $3 the employer doesn't have to reimburse, although many do. Many only reimburse partially. For instance, pizza places often pay for "gas." It's less than the deductible amount. And you do get to deduct the part they don't reimburse (so if they pay 30 cents per mile you deduct 23, NOT 53. Most drivers don't realize this of course.)

But you can't have someone making minimum wage use their vehicle and not reimburse them.



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> The difference is...
> 
> $7.25 t0 $12.50 per hour PLUS 53c per EVERY mile driven.
> 
> ...


As I pointed out, they only have to ensure minimum wage AFTER expenses (although there's a lower minimum they can't apply it to--even waitresses get a couple bucks an hour). Of course that is still too much for them. Dead miles would do them in.


----------



## Tnasty (Mar 23, 2016)

It's their fault if they didn't play games this would have never come.


----------



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

Driver2448 said:


> And those first steps includes getting rid of those pesky cancellation notices and not punishing drivers for declining trips that are ten or more minutes away.


i'd drive 40 minutes to a ping if i was getting 54.5c a mile and was on the clock.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/01/news/economy/california-gig-employer-ruling/index.html
*California ruling puts pressure on Uber, Lyft and other gig economy employers*
by Lydia DePillis CNNMoney May 1, 2018

*The California Supreme Court just changed the game in a big way for gig economy companies and the people who work for them.*

A ruling issued Monday will make it more difficult for employers in the state to treat their workers as independent contractors, who don't enjoy many of the rights employees do, such as a minimum wage, overtime pay, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance and paid sick leave. Independent contractors also pay their own expenses.

Many online labor platforms, such as Uber and Postmates, have said they consider the independent contractor relationship key to their business model since it would be much more expensive to provide benefits and rights to which an employee would be entitled.

The case that was before California's Supreme Court involved courier service Dynamex, which converted all its delivery drivers to independent contractors from employees in 2004. Some of its workers then sued, saying they should still be classified as employees in part because they worked solely for Dynamex, which exerted significant control over the assignments they took, their pay rates, their uniforms and other aspects of the job.

The workers won in lower courts. When Dynamex appealed, the state Supreme Court not only upheld the previous decisions, but also decided to adopt a standard similar to one currently used in a handful of states, such as Illinois and New Jersey, for determining whether a worker is a contractor or an employee.

It's called an "ABC test" and it lays out three requirements an employer must meet to prove their workers are independent contractors: One, that the contractor provides the service free from the company's control; two, that the service provided is outside the company's core business, such as a janitor at a law firm; and three, that the contractor is an independent professional engaged in providing their service to companies other than the one in question.

An Uber driver who has never driven passengers before and doesn't work for other ride-hailing services would therefore have a hard time qualifying as an independent contractor - unless Uber can prove it's not a transportation company at all, says Todd Lebowitz, a labor attorney at BakerHostetler.

"That may be the only thing that can get around an ABC test," says Lebowitz, noting that California's version is now the country's most strict. "If a ride-hailing service is a technology company, then they may still be able to meet that test. But it's going to be scrutinized a lot more closely now."

Uber spokesman Matthew Wing declined to comment on the case.

Labor advocates hailed the decision, saying that workers who claim they are misclassified as independent contractors have a much better case under the new standard, at least for claims under California's wage and hour laws. (The ruling does not change the definition of contractor for the purposes of federal taxes and other U.S. laws like those that govern union organizing.)

"This test expresses the essence of the employment relationship, and most on-demand companies will fail it," says Rebecca Smith, deputy director of the National Employment Law Project. "Most workers will win."

Not all online labor platforms treat their workers as contractors. Companies like the personal assistant service HelloAlfred and the staffing firm BlueCrew issue their workers W-2 tax forms, rather than the contractor's 1099.

But those that depend on the use of contractors could be forced to either offer their workers more freedom - by allowing them to set their own prices and other terms - or convert them into employees. The change will also have a large impact in traditional industries that have relied on independent contractors, such as trucking.

The case adds to a long running legal drama over the question of employee status, which weighs heavily on the future of online labor platforms. Cases alleging worker misclassification have cropped up across the country, with varying outcomes depending on state laws. Several lawsuits have been stalled pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision on whether it's constitutional to force workers to sign arbitration agreements that bar workers from joining together in class actions, which are one of the only ways to force a company to change its practices.

Arbitration agreements, however, don't protect companies from audits by state agencies. Under the new standard, California regulators may go after companies for breaking the law without workers having to sue at all.

In response to lobbying from gig economy companies, more than 40 states have changed their labor laws in recent years to exempt ride-hailing services from the tighter regulations, according to NELP. This year, a handful of right leaning states also passed broader exemptions for all kinds of online labor platforms.

A movement is also afoot to change the law in California, where gig platform companies have said they would like to be able to offer their workers some employee-like benefits - such as health care and training opportunities - while maintaining their independent contractor status.

read the full article _HERE_


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/business/economy/gig-economy-ruling.html
*Gig Economy Business Model Dealt a Blow in California Ruling*
.
By NOAM SCHEIBER APRIL 30, 2018

In a ruling with potentially sweeping consequences for the so-called gig economy, the California Supreme Court on Monday made it much more difficult for companies to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees.

The decision could eventually require companies like Uber, many of which are based in California, to follow minimum-wage and overtime laws and to pay workers' compensation and unemployment insurance and payroll taxes, potentially upending their business models.

Industry executives have estimated that classifying drivers and other gig workers as employees tends to cost 20 to 30 percent more than classifying them as contractors. It also brings benefits that can offset these costs, though, like the ability to control schedules and the manner of work.

"It's a massive thing - definitely a game-changer that will force everyone to take a fresh look at the whole issue," said Richard Meneghello, a co-chairman of the gig-economy practice group at the management-side law firm Fisher Phillips.

The court essentially scrapped the existing test for determining employee status, which was used to assess the degree of control over the worker. That test hinged on roughly 10 factors, like the amount of supervision and whether the worker could be fired without cause.

In its place, the court erected a much simpler "ABC" test that is applied in Massachusetts and New Jersey. Under that test, the worker is considered an employee if he or she performs a job that is part of the "usual course" of the company's business.

By way of an example, the court said a plumber hired by a store to fix a bathroom leak would not reasonably be considered an employee of that store. But seamstresses sewing at home using materials provided by a clothing manufacturer would probably be considered employees.

In addition, a company must show that it does not control and direct the worker, and that the worker is truly an independent business operator, not just classified that way unilaterally.

While companies like Uber have had some success arguing that they don't exert sufficient control over drivers to be considered employers, it would be hard to assert that drivers are performing a task that isn't a standard feature of their business.

In a recent case involving the restaurant ordering and delivery service GrubHub, for example, a California judge found that food delivery was a regular part of the company's business in Los Angeles, where the plaintiff worked, potentially satisfying the ABC test. But she ruled in favor of the company, concluding that it did not exert sufficient control over the worker to be considered an employer.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, the attorney for the plaintiff in that case, said she would seek reconsideration in light of the new ruling.

GrubHub said in a statement that it was aware of Monday's ruling but could not comment because of the appeals process in the case, other than to say it "will continue to ensure delivery partners can take advantage of the flexibility they value from working with our company."

Uber declined to comment.
. . .

...read the full the *New York Times article* _HERE_


----------



## Uberdriver2710 (Jul 15, 2015)

We don't need any more stupid laws, we have plenty already.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

A few things come to mind: 40 states already specifically define rideshare drivers as ICs - would a federal ruling based on the ABC test 'trump' the state finding - or would a driver be an employee under federal law (fed tax withholding, fed min-wage, fed overtime, etc) - or would the driver be classified as an employee only for federal tax requirements and federal wage & hour regulations - while still being considered a contractor under state law?

Workers Comp programs are State programs, not federal, as are unemployment programs - so companies would still not provide those benefits. Rideshare companies could avoid the Over-Time issue by doing what Amazon does with Flex drivers: limit the driver's active online time (8 or 9 hours/day and 40 hrs/wk).

Seems we are finally getting to the point where legislatures and courts are being forced to write the rules for the modern-day Gig Economy. The issue is not about existing law in general, it's about the regulations and opinions of the IRS and Dept of Labor that are being applied to support _current_ law. The IRS and DoL (and fed and state legislators) are dealing with labor issues that didn't exist on a wide scale in the past.

It seems to me that this is about writing new laws and adding new regulations that allow companies some flexibility in creating on-demand work forces while at the same time preventing the exploitation of labor. It will take an act of congress (new laws/regulations) to determine how the gig economy should move forward. None of us (or 'them') know enough about applicable law - because the laws and how to implement them are just now being considered and written.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Seems the love affair between California and TNC is growing sour.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> The difference is...
> 
> $7.25 t0 $12.50 per hour PLUS 53c per EVERY mile driven.
> 
> ...


I just had this talk with a limo company. They play all kinds of games with when you are actually "working". But they are obligated to pay the federal minimum wage when they decide you are.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

There is another possibility that no one has mentioned. What if U/L actually went more in the direction of making us more ICs?

What if the pax were to offer a dollar amount for their ride, U/L take a cut, and the closest 5 drivers bid on the ride? We would know in advance how much we make, and reject offers we don't want.

If no one accepts, the pax can try again, or offer to pay more, or uber can offer more for someone to take the ride.


----------



## Harry Seaward (Mar 7, 2017)

This pretty much sums up my outcome predictions.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ce-uber-lyft-to-convert-drivers-to-employees/

"It's hard to see Uber sticking around to bear these new costs," he emailed. "Over time, they might consider withdrawing from this immense market and become more focused on international markets with huge populations and far less regulation."


----------



## Bygosh (Oct 9, 2016)

observer said:


> This article is written wrong. The California State Supreme Court didn't "expand" the number of workers. They "clarified" the rules. They made it easier for lawbreaking companies like Uber and Lyft to understand what is and is not an employee.
> 
> Now it is up to Uber and Lyft to treat drivers as true independent contractors.


This is the truth right here. Uber will go under before buying cars and hiring employees. You wouldn't want to drive for them as an employee anyways, I guarantee you would make less then now.

Hopefully this forces them to show the whole trip and fare up front.


----------



## westsidebum (Feb 7, 2015)

If there is any justice the courts will allow past and present drivers to sue both Uber and Lyft for abuse of California labor laws to the level of an ongoing criminal conspiracy to defraud workers of their rights including collective bargaining, or the other scenario depriving contractors of their freedom to own and operate an independent business.


----------



## REX HAVOC (Jul 4, 2016)

bsliv said:


> Being an employee is not a good thing for Uber drivers. If drivers get reimbursed for mileage, there goes the tax deduction. And speaking of taxes, taxes will be kept out of the the weekly pay. Drivers will be assigned shifts and an area to work. No refusing a ride. Uniforms? Required greeting? Who's ready for 8 hours in the ghetto?
> 
> I'd imagine it would work similar to the Amazon Flex schedule. Check the app in the morning for available shifts. Pick the one you want, if there are any available. Once the driver arrives at their assigned location, turn the app on and punch the clock.
> 
> Hustlers and the efficient will lose out. Full time drivers will now gross $400 a week (at $10/hr) whether you know what you're doing or not. I wouldn't expect a paid vacation. I wouldn't expect a paid lunch hour. I wouldn't expect overtime.


If this happens ride-share as we know it will be extinct. Uber can hardly turn a profit with the drivers fronting all the expenses. They would have to raise the prices back to 2014 prices to survive. In California minimum wage is going to $15 very soon in the larger markets.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

REX HAVOC said:


> If this happens ride-share as we know it will be extinct. Uber can hardly turn a profit with the drivers fronting all the expenses. They would have to raise the prices back to 2014 prices to survive. In California minimum wage is going to $15 very soon in the larger markets.


The thing is, the only stuff that is cheaper than ride share is the bus or train. Even if they raised prices, it would simply be competing at a more realistic price point with taxis. Fewer rides overall, but it could still survive in some new, demented form.


----------



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

Bygosh said:


> This is the truth right here. Uber will go under before buying cars and hiring employees. You wouldn't want to drive for them as an employee anyways, I guarantee you would make less then now.
> 
> Hopefully this forces them to show the whole trip and fare up front.


Depends on the area to be honest.

Uber rates in orlando for base are 53c a mile 8c a minute,

Or less than minimum wag after expenses when there's a customer in the car.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

njn said:


> Uber SUV and Uber Black services have been suspended to eliminate the charter party carrier designation.


This will effect 1000s of drivers. The loss of work, on a moments notice, will hurt alot of people. This is Uber's bad!


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> Uber and Lyft may be taxi service. And the surplus of drivers may make driving not a good financial decision for those who it has historically been good for who are the highest earners in the previous system of stifled competition.
> 
> But for every taxi driver who lost a good living through the competition, on the other side of the coin you have rideshare drivers who are only doing it because it elevates their own condition and their condition would be worsened if they were forced out. The taxi driver can say he was there first but being first does not make you entitled. In a free market whoever provides the best service for the least money wins. And today that's rideshare, and tomorrow it may be self-driving cars. In a free market you have to adapt to changing times.
> 
> ...


Your argument is that sweatshops are ok because they create jobs that are easy to get?

The more shitty jobs there are, the MORE nepotism is a factor in the GOOD jobs.

There's no such thing as a "free market." What you're proposing is a market that only protects the top. If it were a truly free market we could set our own prices and pick up street hails, but the ONLY regulation that uber wants is that which benefits it: regulation that controls the drivers, not uber.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Harry Seaward said:


> This pretty much sums up my outcome predictions.
> 
> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ce-uber-lyft-to-convert-drivers-to-employees/
> 
> "It's hard to see Uber sticking around to bear these new costs," he emailed. "Over time, they might consider withdrawing from this immense market and become more focused on international markets with huge populations and far less regulation."


Lol.
Uber China- gone.
Uber Southeast Asia- gone.
Uber India- troubled
Uber Brazil- troubled

What then? UberYak in Tibet?


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> What then? UberYak in Tibet?


Isn't every bar night UberYak?


----------



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

Michael - Cleveland said:


> A few things come to mind: 40 states already specifically define rideshare drivers as ICs - would a federal ruling based on the ABC test 'trump' the state finding - or would a driver be an employee under federal law (fed tax withholding, fed min-wage, fed overtime, etc) - or would the driver be classified as an employee only for federal tax requirements and federal wage & hour regulations - while still being considered a contractor under state law?
> 
> Workers Comp programs are State programs, not federal, as are unemployment programs - so companies would still not provide those benefits. Rideshare companies could avoid the Over-Time issue by doing what Amazon does with Flex drivers: limit the driver's active online time (8 or 9 hours/day and 40 hrs/wk).
> 
> ...


If uber drivers are determined to be employees under federal law the house of cards just got doused in gasoline.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Lol.
> Uber China- gone.
> Uber Southeast Asia- gone.
> Uber India- troubled
> ...


And INCREASING competition in ALL of Ubers other markets.


----------



## Uber_Yota_916 (May 1, 2017)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Lol.
> Uber China- gone.
> Uber Southeast Asia- gone.
> Uber India- troubled
> ...


Uber sleigh rides for the north and south pole. Duh!


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Uber_Yota_916 said:


> Uber sleigh rides for the north and south pole. Duh!


I hear Rudolph is a union mole.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

> Your argument is that sweatshops are ok because they create jobs that are easy to get?
> 
> The more shitty jobs there are, the MORE nepotism is a factor in the GOOD jobs.
> 
> There's no such thing as a "free market." What you're proposing is a market that only protects the top. If it were a truly free market we could set our own prices and pick up street hails, but the ONLY regulation that uber wants is that which benefits it: regulation that controls the drivers, not uber.


I agree we should be allowed to pick up street hails, etc. Complete deregulation of the taxi industry would be better, I agree. And you're right Uber is opposed to that.

But the existence of TNC companies is in fact a step towards deregulation of the industry by removing the cap on the maximum number of drivers. Deregulation of labor laws means that more people can in fact get jobs, and if only one industry allows people to easily get jobs that means that particular industry is going to have a decrease in wages. But as I was saying before, it is short sighted to support regulations stifling entry in your own industry as it will prevent you from ever moving on to another industry that is similarly regulated. There is no nepotism in Uber because basically anyone with a pulse is let in. In a time and place where one guy owns all the taxi medallions and lets people rent his cars, you know he's going to let his friends and family have first pick.

Sweatshops are often the highest paying jobs and best opportunities in areas where they are established, but are condemned internationally because of the low pay relative to US workers.

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1369

.


----------



## westsidebum (Feb 7, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> A few things come to mind: 40 states already specifically define rideshare drivers as ICs - would a federal ruling based on the ABC test 'trump' the state finding - or would a driver be an employee under federal law (fed tax withholding, fed min-wage, fed overtime, etc) - or would the driver be classified as an employee only for federal tax requirements and federal wage & hour regulations - while still being considered a contractor under state law?
> 
> Workers Comp programs are State programs, not federal, as are unemployment programs - so companies would still not provide those benefits. Rideshare companies could avoid the Over-Time issue by doing what Amazon does with Flex drivers: limit the driver's active online time (8 or 9 hours/day and 40 hrs/wk).
> 
> ...


You will get the best gig economy law bought and paid for by uber lyft lobbyists. There is a reason for the existing laws. There is a reason contractors are classified the way they are.

You miss the main point which is high tech is exploiting labor they are not creating a new economy.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

westsidebum said:


> You miss the main point which is high tech is exploiting labor they are not creating a new economy.


False logic.
Blaming 'high tech' for exploitation is like blaming a hammer for missing a nail.
Business will always exploit labor. Labor will always be at odds with corporate goals.
Our existing laws to protect labor from exploitation pre-date the current technologies used to exploit the labor force.
Labor laws will (and are) being revised and written. How well they are revised and written will depend on who we vote into office at all levels of government - and that's how it has been since the industrial revolution. The US doesn't have the strongest labor laws in the world - nor the weakest. That is by design and part of how the US economy succeeds when other economies fail. Vote wisely.


----------



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

Michael - Cleveland said:


> False logic.
> Blaming 'high tech' for exploitation is like blaming a hammer for missing a nail.
> Business will always exploit labor. Labor will always be at odds with corporate goals.
> Our existing laws to protect labor from exploitation pre-date the current technologies used to exploit the labor force.
> Labor laws will (and are) being revised and written. How well they are revised and written will depend on who we vote into office at all levels of government - and that's how it has been since the industrial revolution. The US doesn't have the strongest labor laws in the world - nor the weakest. That is by design and part of how the US economy succeeds when other economies fail. Vote wisely.


Yup...

The first cell phone app for calling taxis appeared in like 2008 or so (prior to uber being founded)



westsidebum said:


> You will get the best gig economy law bought and paid for by uber lyft lobbyists. There is a reason for the existing laws. There is a reason contractors are classified the way they are.
> 
> You miss the main point which is high tech is exploiting labor they are not creating a new economy.


Not true, the apps didnt cause this mess. It was uber and lyft creating the concept of ride sharing.


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

'A California ruling threatens the gig economy'

From 'Wired': https://www.wired.com/story/a-california-ruling-threatens-the-gig-economy/.

First two paragraphs:

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME Court dealt a major blow to the gig economy on Monday in a decision that will have far-reaching effects not just for the likes of Uber and GrubHub, but for many different types of employers.

The court ruled that employers must treat workers who do work related to a company's "usual course of business" as full-fledged employees. For example, if a store hires a plumber to fix a sink, that plumber wouldn't need to be considered an employee because the store isn't in the plumbing business. But if a clothing company paid someone to sew clothes at home, then that person should be considered an employee, entitled to minimum wage, breaks, and other benefits of employment.

[end of extract]

Full text of decision (85 pages): http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S222732.PDF.


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

Hmmm. Could this be related to a class action update email I recently received below? Or is the OP's class action something entirely different? I didn't bother reading it when it spammed my inbox earlier today. Figured I'd get pennies on the dollar based on the Plantiff's (some guy named Ghazi) $2,500 award out of $1,447,500 (minus 33% Torte lawyer fees etc) that Uber got squeezed into paying 

If nothing else, he's definitely persistent, I'll give him that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Spoiler: Uber Lawsuit



From: *donotreply @ghazisettlement.com* <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, May 18, 2018
Subject: Notice of Uber Class Action Settlement.

*If you are a peer-to-peer driver who has entered into a contract with Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, and/or any of their subsidiaries and who has completed a trip using the Uber software application as a driver to generate leads for rides in California at any time from April 28, 2011 to March 27, 2018 you may be entitled to benefits from a proposed class action settlement. *

*Read this notice carefully, it affects your legal rights. *
For more information, visit www.GhaziSettlement.com.

*What is this case about? *Plaintiff Abdo Ghazi filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court called _Abdo Ghazi v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. _(Case No. CGC-15-545532). He claims Uber should have provided workers' compensation insurance for drivers. The lawsuit asks the Court to order Uber to provide workers' compensation insurance, and pay restitution and penalties. Uber denies it did anything wrong, claims that drivers are properly classified as independent contractors, claims it does not have to provide workers' compensation insurance to drivers, and does not owe any restitution or penalties. The Court has not decided if either side is right.

After lengthy negotiations, the parties agreed to a settlement that, if approved by the Court, would provide guaranteed rights and benefits to class members.

*Who is included? *You are a class member if you are a peer-to-peer driver who has entered into a contract with Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, and/or any of their subsidiaries and who has completed a trip using the Uber software application in California at any time from April 28, 2011 to March 27, 2018. You received this notice because you were identified as having a driver account with Uber and have completed a trip using the software application at least one time in California at any time from April 28, 2011 to March 27, 2018.

*What do I get from the settlement? *Uber is now offering drivers in California access to occupational accident insurance. The cost of the occupational accident insurance is being covered through an increase in rider fares. The fares have been increased by $0.06 per mile as of September 28, 2017. If the settlement is approved, rider fares will not be reduced until at least September 28, 2020 unless ordered otherwise by the Court. The insurance provides coverage for medical expenses from injuries to class members while using the Uber software application as a driver. Class members can apply their portion of the increased fare to the insurance (which will cover the premium cost completely), or keep the fare if they do not want the insurance. In exchange for these items, class members give up their right to sue Uber for the same legal issues that were, or could have been raised in this lawsuit. The settlement does not affect class members' rights to file a claim for workers' compensation or individual claims for personal injuries.

*What are my options? *If the Court approves the settlement, the increase in fares will remain in place for at least 3 years, whether or not you remain a class member. But, if you want to keep your right to sue Uber separately for the claim for restitution in this lawsuit, you must send a request to exclude yourself from the class. To request exclusion, you may complete the attached form. and either a) mail it to *GHAZI V. UBER CLASS ACTION *ADMINISTRATOR, C/O GCG , P.O. BOX 9349, DUBLIN, OH 43017-4249, postmarked by July 19, 2018, or b) email it to [email protected] no later than 11:59 p.m. on July 19, 2018. While it is preferable for you to use the attached form, if you choose not to use that form, please submit a written statement including your name, address, and telephone number; a clear statement that you "wish to be excluded from the release of claims for damages and restitution based on an alleged failure to provide workers' compensation insurance in violation of the California Labor Code as provided by this Settlement;" and your signature or the signature of your legally authorized representative. You may either a) mail this statement to GHAZI V. UBER CLASS ACTION ADMINISTRATOR, C/O GCG , P.O. BOX 9349, DUBLIN, OH 43017-4249, postmarked by July 19, 2018, or b) email it to [email protected] no later than 11:59 p.m. on July 19, 2018.


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

Pt II con't



Spoiler



Please note that even if you request exclusion from the settlement, you will keep only claims for damages or restitution related to the legal issues that were, or could have been, raised in this lawsuit. If the settlement is approved, you will still be bound by the Court's approval of the settlement for any claims for injunctive or declaratory relief related to the legal issues that were, or could have been, raised in this lawsuit.

Or, if you believe the settlement should not be approved by the Court for any reason, you may submit an objection in writing to GHAZI V. UBER CLASS ACTION ADMINISTRATOR, C/O GCG , P.O. BOX 9349, DUBLIN, OH 43017-4249, postmarked by July 19, 2018 if sent by mail. You may also appear in person at the approval hearing to make an objection. If you object, you will stay in the class and give up your right to sue.

*The approval hearing. *The Court will hold a hearing to consider whether to approve: 1) the settlement, 2) attorneys' fees and costs of up to $1,447,500 that Uber agreed to pay on top of the benefits provided to class members, and 3) a service award of $2,500 to Plaintiff Abdo Ghazi. You may appear at the hearing, but you do not have to. The hearing will be on August 8, 2018 at 2:00pm, before Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow, Department 304, San Francisco Superior Court, 400 McAllister St., San Francisco CA 94102.

If the settlement is approved, you will get the benefits described, and lose your right to sue separately except to the extent you request exclusion. If the settlement is not approved, the settlement will be void and the lawsuit will continue. If that happens, there is no guarantee the case will be allowed to be a class action, or that the Court will rule in favor of Plaintiff or class members.

*How can I get more information? *Do not call or write to the Court. You can see a detailed notice with more information, learn how to contact the lawyers working on the case, and review other documents at www.GhaziSettlement.com.. You can also access the Court's online case file at http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/online-services..

_This notice was authorized by the Court. It is not a solicitation from a lawyer. You are not being sued._


----------



## underpaiduber (Mar 4, 2016)

*Abdo Ghazi v. Uber Technologies Inc., the best thing to do is fill out opt out form, send in before July 19, 2018; if half of us opt out it will show worthless lawyers I will take my chances, rather than accept next to nothing and let them get away with small fortune. It could blow it up and force them to re-negotiate if enough opt out*

Ghazi is lead plaintiff that is why he gets $2,500. The rest of us will be lucky to get $50.00


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> And getting paid for mileage is a good thing


Drivers in Orlando would get paid more for mileage than they do now.


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

REX HAVOC said:


> If this happens ride-share as we know it will be extinct. Uber can hardly turn a profit with the drivers fronting all the expenses. They would have to raise the prices back to 2014 prices to survive. In California minimum wage is going to $15 very soon in the larger markets.


At which point it will make 100% logical sense to quit Uber and go work for McD. Or any traditional, minimum wage job not associated with the gig economy. LMAO.

That hike to $15 is sure going to screw over a TON of small business owners. Between the unions and bigger corporations, they're going to be hard pressed to compete in their respective industries here in California.



TwoFiddyMile said:


> Lol.
> Uber China- gone.
> Uber Southeast Asia- gone.
> Uber India- troubled
> ...


Uber's been kicked out of Denmark last year.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...hut-down-denmark-operation-over-new-taxi-laws

The Danes apparently also felt they were a taxicab and not tech company. And were also shirking responsibility by not paying taxes

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...aid-tax-regulators-ride-hailing-a8288371.html


----------

