4 ms·

30 hours is the threshold for “full time” worker if you’re determining eligibility for health insurance. No way Uber will offer health insurance to drivers, so

• amadeusw 7y ago
  Perhaps this will encourage tech companies to recognize access to health services as a basic human right. 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.
  • manigandham 7y ago
    You have a right to health (as in nobody can stop you from being healthy). Healthcare is a service that others provide and can't really be a human right. 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.
• seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  Drivers will simply split their time between Uber and lyft like they do already.
  • tempsy 7y ago
    I don’t think it’s that simple. What is considered “work hours”? I assume it’s whenever the app is turned on and you are looking for fares, not just when you have someone in your car. 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...
    • flukus 7y ago
      If they have to be paid minimum wage I think uber will be playing a much more direct role in setting their work hours, not just whenever the app is turned on. They probably can't prevent them from taking a second job but they can prevent them from doing their second job when they're on the clock of the first. This actually solves a common complaint lately of drivers cancelling one ride while they pick up someone on another service. > 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.
      • dodobirdlord 7y ago
        > They probably can't prevent them from taking a second job 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.
        • seanmcdirmid 7y ago
          Not in California can they do that (non compete clauses are not enforceable in California).
          • dodobirdlord 7y ago
            I am aware, but I don't believe California's prohibition on non-competition clauses covers the scenario where you're still employed by the company.
            • seanmcdirmid 7y ago
              It depends if they are exempt or not. If non exempt, then no.
  • pishpash 7y ago
    You can bet your bottom dollar that as employees drivers will be afforded no freedom to double dip. The only reason they are able to at the moment is because companies held back on initiatives that they feared would classify drivers into employees. Now they will have no such fear and gig work will be strictly controlled. Prices will go up simply due to the loss of efficiency from multiplexing gain that gig work provided the economy. California never fails to take every opportunity to reduce market efficiency.
    • jackmodern 7y ago
      Prices up, sorry consumers. total earnings down, sorry full time drivers. hourly earnings up, yay part time drivers.
      • manigandham 7y ago
        Why hire part-time drivers at all? The marginal costs don't make sense if they can't get all the hours they can.
        • darkwizard42 7y ago
          Mmm I think you get the best of all worlds (as the hiring company) with part timers. - <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.
• jackmodern 7y ago
  not only will they cap it as you have said, but generally you aren't allowed to be employed by multiple employers. almost every driver drives for both companies. the drivers are going to get shafted here in total earnings. they will work fewer hours and make more per hour, but won't be able to drive crazy hours on both apps any more.
  • comex 7y ago
    > not only will they cap it as you have said, but generally you aren't allowed to be employed by multiple employers. Citation needed.
    • dodobirdlord 7y ago
      > but generally you aren't allowed to be employed by multiple employers 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).
      • unionpivo 7y ago
        Why would uber or lyft do that, because they know the other will do the same ? It will reduce the number of aviable drivers on each platform, thus pushing their (drivers) price up.