Uber and Lyft could shut down in California this week. It may not help their cause

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

When faced with tough legislation over the years, Lyft and especially Uber relied on a tried and tested playbook: threaten to suspend service in the area. The threat, which the companies would sometimes follow through on, appeared designed to rile up customers and drivers, and put more pressure on lawmakers.

Now Uber and Lyft are once again betting on a version of this playbook as they confront a heated legal battle in their home state over a new law impacting how much of the on-demand economy classifies its workers.

The two companies have said they may suspend their operations in California as soon as this week while simultaneously pushing for a referendum in November to exempt them from the law, known as AB-5. But industry watchers say the shutdown may not have the same impact on residents now as it once did in earlier fights because of their steep drop in ridership from the pandemic.

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, then did it really happen?" said Bradley Tusk, a venture capitalist, political strategist and former regulatory adviser to Uber. "If voters couldn't get an Uber or a Lyft when they wanted it, that's one thing. But ridership is down so drastically, if this does prompt a political outcry, it'll come from the drivers, not the riders."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/uber-and-lyft-could-shut-down-in-california-this-week-it-may-not-help-their-cause/ar-BB181Fzs?li=BBnbfcN&ocid=DELLDHP

[appalachiablue]

1. The bosses need to step up and pay their employees, and

all that goes with it. Like the judge just ruled.

Do Uber and Lyft pay insurance, collision, liability, or do they skate on that too?

[Silver Gaia]

5. The thing is...

I used to ride Lyft and Uber before Covid-19, and this was an issue then as well. Every driver I talked to did NOT want this and said they would quit if it happened. Why? Because it takes away their autonomy, and most of them will end up making less money, not more, under these rules.

One big reason why they do this job is because they have the freedom to set their own hours. Under the new rules, they can't work more than 8 hours a day, or 40 hours a week. Anything over that is overtime, and the company will just say "no overtime!" The company can also set the hourly wage at mininum wage or barely above if they want, which ends up hurting the workers as well. Most of them do jobs like this because they can work as much or as little as they want, and when they want. This will change all of that.

On top of it, they will have to keep track of and report their hours, which takes extra time to do, and they will have to allow for meals and breaks in their schedules. And benefits? They aren't going to get any. They will all be classified as part time, so no healthcare or vacation time.

They did this to adjunct faculty, too, and it did not help anyone that I know of. It's a real hassle for the workers, and most of the time, we end up making less, not more.

Honestly, i love my governor, but I think he has his head up his ass on this one. The state legislature even passed legislation to exempt professional educators after listening to the feedback from these workers themselves, and he vetoed it. It sounds good on the surface, but it is not what the workers themselves want, and for most, it hurts rather than helps. For the record, I'm one who was hurt, not helped.

[appalachiablue]

8. I've read these positions posted here, why then are there

protests and cases about Uber and Lyft brought to court? The adjunct prof. issues I've also read a bit about, and in Britian a couple years ago. I couldn't believe how much the compensation and security of faculty is being lowered. Education and teaching really are not valued anymore unilke earlier times; everything in this era is about big business, tech, for profit enterprises, etc.

For Uber and Lyft, and maybe educational institutions it sounds like the mgmt. is putting up as many obstacles as possible-- excess paperwork, no overtime, lowest wage-- to retain existing conditions which mainly benefit them. The greedhead executives at U & L are multimillionaires or billionaires, for good reason.

In the court cases they continue with the lie that they're not an 'employer,' just a 'connection platform/service' so to wiggle out of treating workers fairly and providing any benefits.
Reminds me of two people living together, and one insists they don't have to pay half the rent and expenses because they're still 'idependent' and not really an official couple.

So, return to the pre-labor rights Guilded Age and before, when bosses had all the power. That was changed through effort and struggle by progressive labor rights activism of the late 19th and early 20th c., and new stronger labor laws with FDR and Frances Perkins, Labor Secy. in the New Deal 1930s. It all began rolling back in the later 70s, mainly with Reagan in 1980.

This non- living wage, 60+ hrs. a week multiple 'gig job' economy with no benefits and security is wrong and unhealthy.
The majority of Americans make $18,000 a year; who can live on that, impossible. But look at the upper 10%.
Child labor and no minimum wage, like Newt Gingrich and many Republicans have wanted will make a comeback if they haven't already.
______________

* The Strike That Shook America, A Landmark Victory for American Workers: The 1912 Bread & Roses Strike.
The power looms that thundered inside the cotton weaving room of the Everett Mill in Lawrence, Massachusetts, suddenly fell silent on Jan. 11, 1912. When a mill official demanded to know why workers were standing motionless next to their machines, the explanation was simple: “Not enough pay.”..https://www.history.com/news/the-strike-that-shook-america

[kcr]

10. Bullshit

[Silver Gaia]

11. It's not "bullshit." It's my personal perspective and experience.

Last edited Mon Aug 17, 2020, 02:02 AM - Edit history (1)

The intention of the legislation is good, but the legislation itself is flawed and hurts those it intends to help. That's all. Plain and simple. I've nothing more to say, except that it hurt me and many others like me. None of my colleagues like this. None have benefited from it. The legislation itself needs work. I'm certainly not on the side of Uber or Lyft. I'm on the side of the workers. And that's not bullshit.

[brush]

2. They'd better hurry up and forge new agreements with drivers or they could be out of business.

There is still some middle ground between them and taxis where they can remain profitable and still give their drivers a better deal as taxis are so much more expensive with slower service.

Pigs get fed but hogs get slaughtered.

[DSandra]

3. How are they going to convince voters to support them?

“Vote for Prop 22, because I don’t want health insurance, unemployment insurance, and workers compensation!”

[VarryOn]

4. They just need to remind voters of the antiquated taxi model...

And being able to summon a car via an app and not having to conduct the payment transaction at the end. Oh, and taxis are way more expensive.

[AlexSFCA]

6. and there are far more riders than drivers...

[VarryOn]

7. I travel for business....

as long as I can get an Uber or Lyft driver fairly quickly, I'll go that route. If that requires a wait, I'll go to the taxi queue if it isn't too long. I get pissed when the app tells me that particular airport doesn't allow Uber or Lyft.

I'll always support the Uber or Lyft driver and tip them to show that support.

[smirkymonkey]

12. +1000

I am happy to give them my support and always tip them well. I do not want to go back to the days when I would call a cab and wait and wait, call and call, and then call again, only to be told my designated taxi decided to pick up another fare along the way and wouldn't be coming. Meanwhile, I had wasted 30 minutes waiting for nothing.

I love the convenience of being able to see where my car is and being able to communicate with the driver if necessary. Not having to deal with a transaction at the end of the ride and riding in a car that isn't about to fall apart when it hits the next pothole. Taxi drivers have never treated their customers very well and the business model is outdated. They need to modernize or become obsolete.

[Xolodno]

9. Complicated Issue.

On one hand, you have part time drivers out there to supplement their income. Getting treated as an employee makes it harder to set your hours, independence, decide if you want to do any driving that day, etc. Or they have another primary job that pays more, but want or need a little extra cash. I even thought about it a couple of times just to have extra spending cash when I go on vacation.

Flip side, you have people who do it as their primary job and its way less than what a taxi driver makes. And obviously the company knows this, but haven't done anything about it. Their threat to pull out of course, all those drivers will be immediately applying for state benefits.

Ultimately, Uber and Lyft don't want to compromise. If they do so here, then, it will happen in other states.

I caution this. No one is going to get what they want. If they vacate, another company will start up and fill the void. Probably a hybrid of dedicated employee's and actual independent contractors, who are not allowed to work above a number of hours.

Sometime back, an insurance company lost a class action suit from its claims employee's. They were all classified as management, where as they argued they were hourly. Company lost. And had to pay them a settled amount for over time. The claims employees, thought from now on they would always get overtime. It didn't. Company mandated only 40 hour work week, then embraced technology and moved them all into centralized offices to conduct claims over the phone, PC, Smart Phone, etc. This worked out so well, that they even reduced the number of claims employees. There were some that still got the company vehicle and went out to adjust claims personally, but these were the more complicated claims. The company then moved the model nationwide.