At that point, I don't understand how could anyone argue they are an employee (in the traditional sense of the word) of either company.
Uber will warn the driver if a ride is especially long and allow them to decline those, but overall the driver is kept in the dark as to which rides are more profitable.
Additionally, until recently, Uber punished drivers who declined too many rides, either by deprioritizing them, or dropping them altogether.
I do support worker's rights heavily in most cases, I just really feel like these rideshare cases (and other similar industries, carefully curated) should be exceptional. It is hard for me to feel like the lack of structure that the driver's operate under is enough to demand full employment rights.
I'm sure that somewhere in their algorithms, there is a way (or a potential way) to discriminate/penalize less active or lapsed drivers when they return to business. But that relatively minor power being said, Uber/Lyft can literally only control their worker's schedules and availability and hours using positive profit reinforcement. Like, are you really an "employee" if you can, without warning or consequence, just not work for a months and then return just as suddenly? I don't know if "contractor" is the right word, maybe this should be considered something new like "micro-contractor" or something, but it operates in a way that is economically and operationally fundamentally different from traditional employers, including taxi companies.
This isn't an acceptable situation because the workers aren't employees. Uber and Lyft can offer below minimum wage to contractors who don't get their "positive profit reinforcement". The contractors will then self-enforce employee-like behaviours in order to get a better wage that still doesn't have to be above minimum wage.
It just seems like this is a case where free-market solutions really could be a powerful optimization for just about everyone involved (already the companies are struggling with drivers exploiting the system themselves). There is always regulation necessary, I just hope that this particular business remains pretty fluid compared to most industries.
Part of this stems from my suspicion that the steady-state of driving services will either require a bulk of the labor to be done by people for which driving is not their primary income anyway, or there to be a very large overhead built into the prices.
Now you could classify them as freelancers taking contracts at will, or you could classify them as employees working out with their manager which shifts they will work so they can get to their second job. It's just that the shifts are a few minutes long and spread out throughout the day. To most people the freelance classification probably makes more sense.
How can they possibly claim to be ride-sharing services if the driver doesn't know where they'll be going until they've accepted the ride?
How is that an argument against drivers being contractors? My parents tried to get some contractors to work on the roof of their house. The contractors wouldn't do it. I suspect they may get deprioritized, or dropped altogether, for future roofing work.
No. It's a tax construct, and that is the only criteria we should use to measure it.
If I sign up on one of those freelance coding websites and I get no work offered to me, can I claim they need to pay me a minimum wage? What is the difference between that website and Uber that makes them entitled to be treated as employees?
I could be a server who works shifts at two restaurants. They both call me the same morning with available shifts that day. I pick the one that usually gives better tips. I’m still an employee of both.
Edit: Guess the Uber shills don’t like it and downvoting is easier than admitting you’re wrong.
This breaks not one but two of the site guidelines. Would you please (re-)read them and not do that? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
For uber/lyft that's not rare at all, that happens multiple times a day if you want to extend the shift analogy to giving someone a ride.
And again these are irrelevant details. The point remains solid.
The reason you are an “employee” and not a “contractor” at the restaurants is because they dictate your hours and place of business.
Your example about filling in is a red herring as by its nature it’s an atypical circumstance.
These arguments are ridiculous.