4 ms·
The relevant statute:[0] 2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Indust
by droidno9 6y ago
The relevant statute:[0]
2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(A) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
(B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.
(C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
- tick_tock_tick 6y agoOther than the spirt of the law being drafted to explicitly target Uber/Lyft the letter explicitly clears them.
- shkkmo 6y agoThe law was drafted to formalize a set of legal criteria that was established and enforced by Californian courts. The spirit of the law was not to target Uber/Lyft. The letter of the law, according to the courts so far does not appear to clear Uber in anyway. We will see how the appeal goes. Edit: I don't see how you think the letter of the law clears Uber, Uber sea to fail every part of the test. A) Uber does exert control over many aspects of how the work is performed, e.g. acceptable car models, acceptable ride acceptance rates. B) The rides provided by drivers are central to Uber's business. Uber has no business model without its drivers. C) Many drivers do drive for other companies and would pass this critiwia but some do completely different work and have not done any driving work independently from Uber. These drivers would not pass this criteria.
- TheGeminon 6y agoI think his argument is that the ABC test was crafted to ensure that Uber/Lyft failed the test, as it was only made effective January 1.
- sudosysgen 6y agoThis seems to pretty conclusively result in Uber drivers being employees, then. Specifically, in B. It's going to be hard for Uber to argue that driving cars is outside of the usual course of Uber's business.
- tomerico 6y agoI actually don’t think that point B is the ones they failed off. They claim that they are in the business of facilitating a connection between drivers and riders, in the same way that Youtube connects creators to viewers without employing them. The main thing they failed on is that the court thinks that they exert too much control on the drivers. For example, they don’t allow users to choose their own drivers. They also don’t allow drivers to price their ride.
- sudosysgen 6y ago>They claim that they are in the business of facilitating a connection between drivers and riders, in the same way that Youtube connects creators to viewers without employing them. This doesn't stand. If YouTube hired every single YouTuber as a contractor it would be forced to reclassify them as employees. Because Uber doesn't facilitate connections between two third parties, it facilitates connections between clients and their contractors. If drivers on Uber were neither contractors nor clients and if contractual obligations were between drivers and riders then it would make sense.
- droidno9 6y ago> The main thing they failed on is that the court thinks that they exert too much control on the drivers. No, the court didn't address prong A at all because it found that Uber/Lyft could not possibly satisfy prong B of the ABC test.
- LatteLazy 6y agoUber owns no cars and has no existing employees who work as drivers though. Uber only really hires tech people, not cab drivers...