4 ms·
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
by gnopgnip 6y 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 6y agoWhat 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 6y agoDoesn'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 6y agoNo, that's describing not being an employee, accepting contracts on a gig-by-gig basis.
- jeffbee 6y agoThe whole point of AB5 was to render your statement incorrect by law.
- SamReidHughes 6y agoAnd... the post in question wasn't reciting what AB5 says.
- toast0 6y agoCommon 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)