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.
Related Stories
The California appeals court found that a labour measure, known as Proposition 22, was largely constitutional.
Labour groups and some workers had opposed the measure, saying it robbed them of rights like sick leave.
The firms say the proposition protects other benefits such as flexibility.
The latest ruling overturns a decision made by a lower court in California in 2021, which found that Proposition 22 affected lawmakers' powers to set standards at the workplace.
The state of California and a group representing Uber, Lyft and other firms appealed against the decision.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2020, @07:43PM
Feels like the same "news" stories keep getting posted over and over.
It's like dejavu all over again. And again.
It's like dejavu...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Osamabobama on Wednesday May 06 2020, @09:06PM
California passed this law with this lawsuit in mind. It was only a matter of time until this story occurred.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2020, @09:47PM
Does the law apply to conventional taxi cab drivers for the taxi cab companies that have medallions? If not then why should taxi cab medallion owners be given an unfair advantage?
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2020, @09:57PM
You are going to lose at Supreme Court. The Constitution enshrines our right to exploit gig-econony workers, which is why they count as 3/5 of a person (Article 1, Section 2).
(Score: 2, Disagree) by darkfeline on Wednesday May 06 2020, @09:59PM (7 children)
It's pretty clear to me that gig workers are not employees:
* Employees have work hours set by the employer. Gig workers work when they want.
* Employees only use assets provided by the employer. Gig workers use their own cars.
* Employees have insider trading restrictions. Gig workers (as far as I know) have no such restrictions.
I'm sure there are a lot others.
What *should* be done is to create a new category for gig workers that is in between independent contractor and employee, and regulate that new category appropriately. What is being attempted is to force gig workers into the employee category to enforce certain regulations/worker rights. I predict that if this succeeds, it will backfire spectacularly, in the same fashion that the Vizcaino v. Microsoft case brought by temps to improve their treatment instead caused all companies to treat their temp workers even worse than before. Mission failed successfully!
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 06 2020, @10:56PM
If that is required. I have yet to hear of anything from gig economy detractors that would justify a change in treatment over existing contractors. And I don't think this is mere lack of attention on my part. For we have had stories on this subject before (such as here [soylentnews.org]). Repeatedly, detractors will spill boilerplate complaints like:
So anyway, still have yet to hear why gig economy ride hailing is supposed to be a bad idea.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday May 07 2020, @02:33AM (2 children)
If the US had health care that is affordable-- none of that $6000 deductible crap-- it'd be one less distinction between contractors (on their own for insurance) and employees (might be covered by a company plan).
But there's lots more. Contractors aren't eligible for unemployment. Work is "at will", and they can be terminated instantly, with no reason given. They can't go to the state board of labor if the employer cheats them of pay or discriminates. They have to pay self-employment tax, which is a lot higher than taxes upon wages and salary, because the employer does not pay into Social Security or Medicare. To compensate for all the disadvantages of not being a de jure employee, pay should be at least 1.5x higher than a salary or wage for that same position.
Because a lot of people overlook all these costs, employers are too often able to entice people into gigs by dangling what appears to be equivalent pay. Uber and Lyft are especially bad about passing on a great deal of hidden cost. Driving and maintaining a car is not cheap. Sure, drivers get to deduct mileage from their taxes, and it is a generous deduction, but it is a deduction, not a payout. Further, driving is risky. It's not skydiving risky, no, but it carries plenty of risk. Of the routine activities we do, traveling in a car is an order of magnitude more risky than all the rest. I would guess most of their drivers don't know the real costs of all that driving.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07 2020, @05:37AM
In case you haven't worked it out yet, this is exactly why the USA doesn't have a decent healthcare system. Tying your health insurance to your employment limits your options and makes switching jobs much riskier. This puts power in the hands of employers and downwards pressure on wages. As long as corporate amerika controls your politicians, you will never get a decent system.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 07 2020, @12:29PM
What level of pay compensates for the advantages? Such as work only when and where you feel like it - which incidentally is great for when you have a real job that you're working around or move to a new location and need to pick up some work.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07 2020, @03:46AM (2 children)
I don't think the qualities you mention are nearly as clear cut as you seem to think in how to define an employee.
1: Plenty of employers offer flexible hours. I myself have worked places where I could choose to start at 5am, or noon, or take a break in the middle of the day and resume work at 6pm. Heck, I could skip half a day and come in early or work late on another day. All that mattered was whether I got my assignments done on time or not.
2: Tell that to the pizza chains. I had to drive my own car when I worked for Domino's. The vast majority of pizza delivery is done in private vehicles.
3: Insider trading? That's what you think defines an employee? Martha Stewart would like to have a word with you...
I don't know if you're right about this whole thing working out for the better or not, but I would like to hear what benefits there would be for this intermediate category you're suggesting. Obviously the corporations wouldn't want it, and clearly the state doesn't either or they would have done it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 07 2020, @12:40PM (1 child)
Actually, yes, it's another indication. Employees are subject to black out periods [investopedia.com].
Insider trading is still illegal, but there's a presumption that employees would have insider knowledge and hence, are blocked from trading during these periods by default.
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Thursday May 07 2020, @03:16PM
The insider trading thing has no bearing on whether someone is considered an employee or not.
Are you familiar with Martha Stewart's conviction for insider trading? She wasn't an employee of the company stock she sold. The person she got information from wasn't even an employee of the company either.
Sure, employees have extra restrictions and what not, but it is absolutely not part of what designates whether someone is an employee of a company.
(Score: 2) by Username on Thursday May 07 2020, @12:15AM (3 children)
I have no idea why they didn't just leave CA when this first came about.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 07 2020, @01:46AM
Money.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday May 07 2020, @12:41PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Saturday May 09 2020, @08:23AM
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.