4 ms·

But being a traditional employee means traditional employee lock-in. That means only working for Uber and not for Lyft or Google Shopping, and Uber chooses when

But being a traditional employee means traditional employee lock-in. That means only working for Uber and not for Lyft or Google Shopping, and Uber chooses when you work.

jeffbee 7y ago
What you describe applies only to some exempt employees. For hourly labor there is nothing that prevents someone from working at both Target and Walmart. In fact this is very common. Scheduling is a hassle yes but it puts the risk off the driver and back on Uber where it belongs: if they schedule someone for an hour, they pay them for that hour.
gnopgnip 7y ago
That is not true in CA. Employers cannot prohibit moonlighting and fire employees unless it affects their work performance, or it creates a conflict of interest
- ping_pong 7y ago
  What you say doesn't apply to a real job. I can't have a Google laptop and Facebook laptop and work for both companies at the same time. It's a huge distinction that drivers can pick and choose what they want to do at a particular time, by having both apps open and accepting whichever ride they please, or just stop working for the day altogether.
  - jeffbee 7y ago
    Doesn't sound like you have much experience having "a job". What you are talking about is exempt employment. There is a three-part test for exemption in California and Uber drivers don't meet any of the administrative, executive, or professional criteria. They also do not pass the salary basis test. Unless Uber wants to start paying their drivers a regular salary, Uber drivers are non-exempt. Uber drivers are not even hourly wage workers, they are paid by the piece. This is the lowest form of employment.
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      No, that's describing not being an employee, accepting contracts on a gig-by-gig basis.
      - jeffbee 7y ago
        The whole point of AB5 was to render your statement incorrect by law.
        SamReidHughes 7y ago
        And... the post in question wasn't reciting what AB5 says.
- toast0 7y ago
  Common practice among drivers is to be available in both Uber and Lyft simultaneously. That's certainly something I would expect an employer to be able to prohibit. I wouldn't expect them to be able to prohibit being active on one service while not active on the other (except maybe if you've got committed hours, and working another driving job would put you over DOT permitted hours, as prima facia evidence that additional driving hours would be unsafe)

But being a traditional employee means traditional employee lock-in. That means only working for Uber and not for Lyft or Google Shopping, and Uber chooses when you work.

jeffbee 7y ago

What you describe applies only to some exempt employees. For hourly labor there is nothing that prevents someone from working at both Target and Walmart. In fact this is very common. Scheduling is a hassle yes but it puts the risk off the driver and back on Uber where it belongs: if they schedule someone for an hour, they pay them for that hour.

gnopgnip 7y ago

That is not true in CA. Employers cannot prohibit moonlighting and fire employees unless it affects their work performance, or it creates a conflict of interest

ping_pong 7y ago
What you say doesn't apply to a real job. I can't have a Google laptop and Facebook laptop and work for both companies at the same time. It's a huge distinction that drivers can pick and choose what they want to do at a particular time, by having both apps open and accepting whichever ride they please, or just stop working for the day altogether.
- jeffbee 7y ago
  Doesn't sound like you have much experience having "a job". What you are talking about is exempt employment. There is a three-part test for exemption in California and Uber drivers don't meet any of the administrative, executive, or professional criteria. They also do not pass the salary basis test. Unless Uber wants to start paying their drivers a regular salary, Uber drivers are non-exempt. Uber drivers are not even hourly wage workers, they are paid by the piece. This is the lowest form of employment.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    No, that's describing not being an employee, accepting contracts on a gig-by-gig basis.
    - jeffbee 7y ago
      The whole point of AB5 was to render your statement incorrect by law.
      - SamReidHughes 7y ago
        And... the post in question wasn't reciting what AB5 says.
toast0 7y ago
Common practice among drivers is to be available in both Uber and Lyft simultaneously. That's certainly something I would expect an employer to be able to prohibit. I wouldn't expect them to be able to prohibit being active on one service while not active on the other (except maybe if you've got committed hours, and working another driving job would put you over DOT permitted hours, as prima facia evidence that additional driving hours would be unsafe)