Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday May 06 2020, @06:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the misclassification dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

The state of California is suing Uber and Lyft. Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed a lawsuit against the two ride-hailing companies on Tuesday alleging they've "exploited hundreds of thousands of California workers" by classifying their drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.

[...] The lawsuit alleges Uber and Lyft violated a California state law called AB 5, which aims to ensure workers have adequate labor protections by classifying them as employees. The suit was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court by the Attorney General's Office in conjunction with the city attorneys from San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego.

[...] Gig workers are considered essential workers, meaning they can continue to work as the virus spreads. Because they're still out there, delivering food to people in quarantine and transporting medical workers to and from hospitals, they can be more at risk of contracting COVID-19. Thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers have been infected with or exposed to the coronavirus, according to the companies, and at least five drivers have died from the disease.

An Uber spokesman said the company plans to fight the lawsuit. "At a time when California's economy is in crisis with 4 million people out of work, we need to make it easier, not harder, for people to quickly start earning," he said.

A Lyft spokesman said the company will work with state lawmakers "to bring all the benefits of California's innovation economy to as many workers as possible."

[...] The lawsuit seeks to fine the companies up to $2,500 for each violation under California law. If a court rules in favor of the state, Uber and Lyft could end up owing hundreds of millions of dollars in those civil penalties and in back wages to drivers.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Username on Thursday May 07 2020, @12:15AM (3 children)

    by Username (4557) on Thursday May 07 2020, @12:15AM (#991203)

    I have no idea why they didn't just leave CA when this first came about.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 07 2020, @01:46AM

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday May 07 2020, @01:46AM (#991220)

    Money.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday May 07 2020, @12:41PM (1 child)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 07 2020, @12:41PM (#991290) Journal
    Just because there is a new law, doesn't mean the law will last.
    • (Score: 2) by Booga1 on Saturday May 09 2020, @08:23AM

      by Booga1 (6333) on Saturday May 09 2020, @08:23AM (#991979)

      Interesting point. On top of that, most courts require you to have standing in order to challenge a law. If they left the state then they would potentially lose that.
      Regardless of the law or whether one supports it or not, there are generally only two ways to change it. You can challenge it in the courts if you want to get it struck down or you can push for a repeal or modification of it through further legislation.

      Of course there is a third "option" that is frequently chosen: ignore the law. That's not always successful and there's always the chance it will cost more than just following the law.