I would think the exact opposite...in this scenario drivers who do this part time anyway are fine but anyone driving more than 30 hours a week will be hosed.
Citation needed.
This is a standard condition of many employment contracts that the employee not also work for a competitor. Uber and Lyft previously had no such condition because drivers driving for both companies helped their case that drivers should be considered independent contractors. But now that drivers are employees by fiat, Uber will obviously ban driving for Lyft (or anyone else) and Lyft will obviously ban driving for Uber (or anyone else).
It will reduce the number of aviable drivers on each platform, thus pushing their (drivers) price up.
I think a lot of drivers who use both have both apps turned on simultaneously? This would probably mean that you’d only be able turn on one at a time, which might mean fewer trips per hour.
Another interesting consequence is potential to introduce stricter employment contracts that might say you can’t drive for a competitor...
> Another interesting consequence is potential to introduce stricter employment contracts that might say you can’t drive for a competitor...
This aspect is good for uber, there are many ride sharing apps now and drivers will flick between them and uber has zero competitive advantage. As private contractors they're free to recommend others to clients and this will go away. Bootstrapping competitors will be much harder.
They absolutely can and they probably will. You can put almost anything you want in an employment contract, and agreeing not to work for a competitor is an extremely common clause.
- <30 hours/week so no benefits - you can only work in these hours - take it or leave it cause we now can remove your ability to work for any other times
No marginal costs outside the min wage (no benefits) and honestly you don’t want more hours unless they are explicitly in the time and place you want them.
I look forward to day when corporations support universal health care from purely selfish grounds: if government takes care of employee's health, companies won't have to deal with it, or worry whether driver crosses the threshold of working over 30 hours a week.
A better healthcare system requires the government to do something rather than an individual corporation. In fact it's the tight coupling of healthcare to employment that makes it such a nightmare already, and companies are not against a more universal system because it would greatly reduce costs and overhead.