Uber, DoorDash plunge on Labor Dept proposed change to gig worker classification
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
The majority of W-2 employees are not a member of a union in the US.
I also think it’s funny to consider a labor voting bloc and lobbying infrastructure to be some kind of a bad thing and at the same time having plenty of tolerance for all the voting and lobbying efforts of corporate interests. God forbid we have a workers’ lobbying bloc, wouldn’t want to get in the way of all the other lobbyists and corporate-owned political influencers.
We’re bombarded with constant threats by the ownership class that any sort of political policy that helps the common person will result in all of us losing our jobs and the economy crumbling, and we’re told that unions are going to be “weaponized” (as you called it) to wreck the political system.
Meanwhile, there’s dozens of examples of industry organizations using their influence to enshrine terrible policy into law: gun manufacturers and the NRA keeping guns easy to purchase and selling the message of fear, food manufacturers keeping nutritional, labeling, and advertising standards loose, the automobile industry stopping the expansion of public transit, the agricultural industry giving us laws outlawing oversight of humane practices, numerous companies fighting right to repair legislation, and the list just flows on and on like Niagara Falls.
All of that stuff is totally fine but as soon as an organization controlled by workers wants to lobby and influence policy, that’s bad!
However, Biden admin is trying to take California's AB5 national. This is obvious. Its the same people pushing for it. Alot of people, across all political opinion and backgrounds, oppose these labor laws.
To me, this is less about gig work and unionization, and more about independent contractor freedom. Big government doesn't like self employment. The union piece is just a bone the politicians will throw to repay some favors. I'm worried that one day, all workers will have to be classified as w-2, which is a boon to corporate interests, and the feds. This is why I oppose this, because it'll set some new precedent.
Its already happened in places like Australia, where their federal government brokered a deal between Uber and a large union. I imagine the architects behind this idea have a very similar plan in mind. Look at police and teacher unions in the US - total disaster. Those have very close ties to the government, as will this. This isn't some grassroots unionization effort. I view this gig worker classification as an extension of that, given the federal governments zeal for this issue.
https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/uber...
For one thing, AB5 has since had a "cleanup law" passed to help alleviate unintended consequences.
I think it's also more than fair to say that Uber and Lyft abuse the rules on independent contracting, and I think there's a very decent argument that their entire business model isn't viable in the first place without below-minimum wage compensation (after expenses).
If shuttling people around the long distances of the suburbs for casual frequent trips was economically viable, taxi and livery companies would have already offered the service long before Uber and Lyft thought of the idea. Uber and Lyft are both exiting California, and to that I say: unviable businesses don't have the right to exist, and while you can say it's a net negative for the poorest workers, that's kind of like saying that banning child labor is bad for poor families.
An enforceable minimum wage is the tool used to force companies to properly compensate their workers in industries where the labor supply is always be greater than the labor demand, and in my view Uber and Lyft completely skirted that by dumping all the risk and downside onto their "contractors," who were never given the same negotiation and job selection rights that a normal contractor has. They were given a switch to go on or off shift and that's about it.
When it comes to things that happen in Australia and the issues you bring up with teacher and police unions, I think you're tying together separate issues that are not related. The status of Uber in Australia is not related to the status of Uber in the United States, and it's not at all related to labor law in the United States. It's a different country.
The union status of teachers and police isn't at all related to any independent contractors in the USA. To my knowledge, AB5 didn't lead to the creation of any new unions or a mass shift to W-2 employment.
Its effect on independent truckers is just getting started.
Let's take a gander:
Following are the 20-points that have been established:
1. Must the individual take instructions from your management staff regarding when, where, and how work is to be done? (should be no if independent)
Yes, down to the routes given. Drivers cannot go their own path, they typically have to use the instructions from the app. In addition, when / where is often forced by taking away work privileges from those who turn down work at any time.
2. Does the individual receive training from your company? (should be no if independent)
No
3. Is the success or continuation of your business somewhat dependent on the type of service provided by the individual? (should be no if independent)
Yes
4. Must the individual personally perform the contracted services? (should be no if independent)
Not sure what this one means, so I'll give it either way.
5. Have you hired, supervised, or paid individuals to assist the worker in completing the project stated in the contract? (should be no if independent)
Iffy, this one is interesting since they do hire folks to maintain the service that allows them to do their part aka assist the worker in completing the project.
6. Is there a continuing relationship between your company and the individual? (should be no if independent)
Yes
7. Must the individual work set hours? (should be no if independent)
Iffy, individuals have to accept jobs or they're subject to ejection from the platform.
8. Is the individual required to work full time at your company? (should be no if independent)
Iffy, individuals have to accept jobs or they're subject to ejection from the platform.
9. Is the work performed on company premises? (should be no if independent)
No
10. Is the individual required to follow a set sequence or routine in the performance of his work? (should be no if independent)
Iffy, individuals have to accept jobs or they're subject to ejection from the platform.
11. Must the individual give you reports regarding his/her work? (should be no if independent)
Not sure, but I'll say yes since they rate riders. I don't care too much about this one.
12. Is the individual paid by the hour, week, or month? (should be no if independent)
By the ride, so I guess no.
13. Do you reimburse the individual for business/travel expenses? (should be no if independent)
No
14. Do you supply the individual with needed tools or materials? (should be no if independent)
Iffy, since the platform is a tool / material.
15. Have you made a significant investment in facilities used by the individual to perform services? (should be no if independent)
Iffy, since the platform is a tool / material.
16. Is the individual free from suffering a loss or realizing a profit based on his work? (should be no if independent)
No
17. Does the individual only perform services for your company? (should be yes if independent)
No
18. Does the individual limit the availability of his services to the general public? (should be yes if independent)
Not sure, maybe? Is this an insurance thing?
19. Do you have the right to discharge the individual? (should be yes if independent)
Yes
20. May the individual terminate his services at any time? (should be yes if independent)
Yes
"In general "no" answers to questions 1-16 and "yes" answers to questions 17-20 indicate an independent contractor. However, a simple majority of "no" answers to questions 1 to 16 and "yes" answers to questions 17 to 20 does not guarantee independent contractor treatment. Some questions are either irrelevant or of less importance because the answers may apply equally to employees and independent contractors."
These are taken from: https://galachoruses.org/sites/default/files/IRS-20-question...
Overall, I would say they don't meet the definition of independent contractor by a long margin, even excluding some of the iffy ones.
>Not sure what this one means, so I'll give it either way.
This means, can the uber driver sub out his drive to someone else as long as the customer gets from A to B? Answer to the DoL question is yes.
It depends though, because sometimes there are not enough drivers, so technically it can go either way.
I think this is why defining a key part of your workforce as not a key part (aka gig) is tricky at best.
I've always been under the impression that one could have multiple W-2 jobs that don't have to be classified as full-time. Also I read all the time on HN about side hustles developed by folks with full-time jobs. Heck I can even recall some folks gaming the system with two full time SWE jobs at the same time. Does the proposed legislation seek to enforce some kind of single-employer condition?
> This isn't some grassroots effort, this is being pushed by politicians and union organizers (more members = more $$).
I won't argue with your premise because I can't think of any federal legislation that reflects grassroots desires (even if advocacy/lobbying started at that level). However, in my experiences with gig drivers, there are two types: (1) those who are trying to make some extra cash on the side, but would be okay if they didn't drive, and (2) those who are driving whenever/however needed to make ends meet. I wonder what other types are out there, and how all the types are distributed amongst gig drivers.
But I think it's the second group that makes Lyft/Uber work. I just don't see a fleet of flexible, entrepreneurial gig drivers being able to meet the 100s or 1000s of edge cases that must be met in order for ride sharing companies to maintain their value proposition to customers in various markets. These companies know who these non-stop gig workers are, and might not be in the current situation if they'd taken earlier steps to offer them FT employment with benefits.
See, #1 to me is an obvious no (you pick when to work, you don't have to work the same area of town). If you worked for a taxi company as w2, they may tell you to work a certain neighborhood or only to/from the airport.
#3 is a yes.
#4 is no (you can't subcontract out your uber work, because its dependent on your DL/driving record).
#5 - probably a no. "hired, supervised, or paid individuals to assist the worker" it would clearly state, providing a service (an app), but it means actual people.
#6 should be no - what makes the relationship continuing?
#7 is no (some drivers pick nights, or weekends, or after class), #8 is no (there are many less than FT drivers)
#18 should be yes -- they can work for other gig work apps that do similar things at the same time, not just 1 company, thus servicing more of the general public
I am happy to not be a lawyer :)
Like #1, turning down a ride or job you don't want could eject you from the platform. It's seems to imply "telling you where / when to work". Does that count? I'd say so, but IANAL.
Like #5, they provide hired support for issues, and I would argue (IANAL) that engineers making the app are assisting the worker.
Overall I think the fact their business can't exist without the drivers means they should be classified as something other than gig workers. What that is, I don't know.
It sounds like we need something new to handle this.
To your other anecdote though, don't underestimate the impact of the massive spending these companies engage in to push propaganda to their gig workers. There's propaganda on both sides for sure.
Ultimately I would say most gig workers don't realize their exploitation until it's too late (health issues, car maintenance, etc.).