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.).