5 ms·

Can lyft drivers work for uber? I've seen that happen I think. This seems different than google employees working for microsoft - which I think would be prohib

Can lyft drivers work for uber? I've seen that happen I think. This seems different than google employees working for microsoft - which I think would be prohibited. If these workers are misclassified will they have to work for just one company? Will uber/lyft then be able to set their working hours?

atq2119 6y ago
You raise an interesting point. It seems that having a legal framework in which gig economy workers can work for multiple companies may be important to facilitate competition between those companies. If the workers are locked to a single company, then entry to the market becomes much more difficult for new competitors. I definitely want gig workers to be paid fairly and to enjoy a generous social safety net, but it's good to keep such potential unintended consequences in mind as well.
PopeDotNinja 6y ago
If you mean historically, drivers have worked for both Uber and Lyft. I don't what would happen if they became W-2 employees. Being in W-2 sounds kind of like simultaneously working at Taco Bell and Burger King, running between restaurants depending on which has more customers.
gnopgnip 6y ago
CA employment law does not allow a company to universally ban moonlighting and fire you unlike most other states. They can only do that if it interferes with your work, or it creates a conflict of interest
- bhupy 6y ago
  Typically employees are prohibited from simultaneously working for competing companies, due to conflicts of interest. Do you think that an Uber driver driving for Lyft can be construed as a "conflict of interest"?
  - hamandcheese 6y ago
    Not any more than working part time at, say, two different restaurants, which is common.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      It appears that it is legal for employers in California to prohibit their employees from working for competitors, as an explicitly defined exception to its Moonlighting law.
      - hamandcheese 6y ago
        The letter and spirit of the law are two different things though.
        bhupy 6y ago
        The letter of the law is how lawsuits are won.
      - gnopgnip 6y ago
        Working for a competitor is not automatically a conflict of interest. Working at two restaurants, or two retail stores, or driving passengers would all likely not be a conflict of interest
        thoraway1010 6y ago
        That's not what someone paying on a W2 basis is going to say. Is this is a winning arguement in front of a jury? I worked for company A and then started working for company B - their direct and primary competitor (!!) AT THE SAME TIME I WAS WORKING AND GETTING PAID by company a(uber and lyft drivers drive for both at same time). Even if not at the same time, if Company A is having to pay for the vehicle or whatever other costs and equipment are being used - in what world can someone driving the comcast truck start installing for AT&T? This logic is so twisted.
asdff 6y ago
Typically my drivers do both and pick up whichever ride comes first. In the past Uber got in trouble for trying to ban this practice with shady techniques.

atq2119 6y ago

You raise an interesting point. It seems that having a legal framework in which gig economy workers can work for multiple companies may be important to facilitate competition between those companies. If the workers are locked to a single company, then entry to the market becomes much more difficult for new competitors. I definitely want gig workers to be paid fairly and to enjoy a generous social safety net, but it's good to keep such potential unintended consequences in mind as well.

PopeDotNinja 6y ago

If you mean historically, drivers have worked for both Uber and Lyft. I don't what would happen if they became W-2 employees. Being in W-2 sounds kind of like simultaneously working at Taco Bell and Burger King, running between restaurants depending on which has more customers.

gnopgnip 6y ago

CA employment law does not allow a company to universally ban moonlighting and fire you unlike most other states. They can only do that if it interferes with your work, or it creates a conflict of interest

bhupy 6y ago
Typically employees are prohibited from simultaneously working for competing companies, due to conflicts of interest. Do you think that an Uber driver driving for Lyft can be construed as a "conflict of interest"?
- hamandcheese 6y ago
  Not any more than working part time at, say, two different restaurants, which is common.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    It appears that it is legal for employers in California to prohibit their employees from working for competitors, as an explicitly defined exception to its Moonlighting law.
    - hamandcheese 6y ago
      The letter and spirit of the law are two different things though.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        The letter of the law is how lawsuits are won.
    - gnopgnip 6y ago
      Working for a competitor is not automatically a conflict of interest. Working at two restaurants, or two retail stores, or driving passengers would all likely not be a conflict of interest
      - thoraway1010 6y ago
        That's not what someone paying on a W2 basis is going to say. Is this is a winning arguement in front of a jury? I worked for company A and then started working for company B - their direct and primary competitor (!!) AT THE SAME TIME I WAS WORKING AND GETTING PAID by company a(uber and lyft drivers drive for both at same time). Even if not at the same time, if Company A is having to pay for the vehicle or whatever other costs and equipment are being used - in what world can someone driving the comcast truck start installing for AT&T? This logic is so twisted.

asdff 6y ago

Typically my drivers do both and pick up whichever ride comes first. In the past Uber got in trouble for trying to ban this practice with shady techniques.