> Instead, what Sacramento politicians are pushing is an employment model that 4 out of 5 drivers don’t support.
Is that stat accurate? If so, what is the argument for imposing a model that the vast majority of drivers don't support?
Is that stat accurate? If so, what is the argument for imposing a model that the vast majority of drivers don't support?
Because the pool of drivers for a particular company would be massively reduced as well, driver down-time between rides on their platform may be expected to significantly decrease, which was a major reason for running multiple apps in the first place. Basically the remaining drivers will essentially partition themselves into two pools, driving exclusively for either Uber or Lyft. I'm not saying anything about whether that's good or bad, but it seems a likely outcome.
Nothing about this legislation or the court case before it took that flexibility away. Nothing about it requires people to be "full time" either.
Obviously, Lyft and Uber could've anticipated this and could've decided months ago to work on an alternative. Instead they let it come to a head and now they are trying to a dramatic PR push to get the law changed.
Uber/Lyft will control when and where and how long work is. That changes everything about the service (which is what matters more than the price) and makes it nonviable outside of a few major urban areas.
Do you want low-commitment employment (from both sides) or do you want employee benefits. You can't have both.
What do you think independent contractor means? Do you think that nobody should be independent then? Do you realize that full-time driving jobs already exist? Why do you presume that drivers can't make this choice for themselves? Why can't the people who are unhappy with the earnings just stop driving? Why is it better for both riders and drivers to lose this service and income by forced legislation when it already works fine for millions?
With regards to my experiences- I've spent years as an independent contractor. My linkedin is in my profile, feel free to confirm. I know the pros and cons of being an independent contractor and have followed the changes in the law both on the federal and local level. I'd say I'm fairly well versed in it.
Your argument about how "employee == full time" is just a straw man. No one is requiring people to be full time. In fact "flexibility"- which in most survays done on drivers is one of their top concerns- is preserved with the legal cases and subsequent AB5 legislation. The only difference is that as employees drivers would also get paid for idle time while waiting for rides, would have the option of benefits, and Uber would be responsible for paying unemployment taxes for when those riders lose their jobs (like when a pandemic hits).
Why did you ever work as a contractor if you're against not having a min wage and benefits? You claim that's "right" so what changed? Why impose that on others instead of choosing for yourself?
Flexibility means work when, where, and however long you want. AB5 removes this. Employee classification means preset shifts, which means it's only viable with fewer drivers working set schedules in dense areas instead of the fluid supply/demand with high coverage that exists today. This fundamentally changes the service from what consumers want, and that's why it doesn't work.
I don't drive often- I use public transit and lyft. I have talked to drivers, and most of them are pissed that their wages are dropping every year but they can't do things like unionize as they aren't "real employees". My anecdotal evidence, which you value so highly, lines up with what I've been saying.
> Employee classification means preset shifts
This is factually wrong. California doesn't have any law requiring "shifts". It does have a law saying that companies which enforce shifts (such as saying someone needs to be in the office from nine to five) give a minimum of four hours pay if they send people home early, but that's a huge difference from what you're saying.
There are tons of examples of this too- "work from home data entry" is a big field in California, and while they often have deadlines they rarely schedule specific shifts.
Wages decrease because there's more supply than demand. That's why surge pricing exists. The issue isn't the feedback (surveys align with the thousands I've talked to), it's that you don't think AB5 affects flexibility.
However paying by time requires shifts. Ridesharing needs to meet demand. Employees have to be placed in the best location and time to avoid idle drivers. This would lead to fewer drivers working longer hours and less coverage. This changes the service that people expect and pay for, leading to less riders and then even less drivers in a bad feedback loop.
All because some people don't think other people can choose how to spend their own time.
The idea that someone can clock-in, work 2-3 hours, clock-out and then clock in again in 2 weeks tells me this isn't a real job. We need another classification.
And the problem here isn't that Uber's model doesn't work. Uber can transition to this new classification and adjust their business model to make it work, the bigger problem is that the drivers don't want it to work this way. The service works because it can respond to minute-by-minute demand. That's not possible with the new rules.
Outside of the fact that uber would have to pay them more, there is nothing stopping them from working five hours one week and fifty the next.
Exactly, why are so many people forgetting this aspect of ridesharing? The whole point is that you can pick it up and put it down whenever you want for a little extra cash. VERY early on people were able to make a killing doing Uber and that gave others a false impression that this was somehow a viable full time job. It's been years and years since it made economic sense to do Uber on a fulltime basis. Giving drivers benefits isn't going to change the effective hourly rate of $7/hr or whatever it's been for a while.
Now they are trying to avoid the laws that made them unprofitable in the first term.
it was unsustainable from the beggining, they just expected to gain the public opinion to change the laws
A low-skill contract like driving casual passengers just has too much competition to be worth a full-time position, but it's still a great way for extra income with little commitment.