3 ms·

I'm confused how they are violating Assembly Bill 5 (workers can generally only be considered contractors if they perform duties outside the usual course of a c

I'm confused how they are violating Assembly Bill 5 (workers can generally only be considered contractors if they perform duties outside the usual course of a company’s business)? Do any employees working at Uber or Lyft currently do any driving? Their business is providing riders with drivers. The driving is not their business.

gruez 6y ago
>Their business is providing riders with drivers. The driving is not their business. Can't you use this excuse to bypass that clause altogether? eg. a pizza restaurant that classifies its delivery drivers as contractors: "their business is making the pizza. delivery is not their business".
- tick_tock_tick 6y ago
  I mean it's that how contracting is supposed to work? If your core competency is in making the product expecting you to become experts on delivering it too is crazy.
- x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
  Pizza restaurants contract out delivery to firms all of the time. Is that really different than contracting out to an individual?
droidno9 6y ago
This decision technically doesn't find that Uber/Lyft are violating the statute. The analysis considers: (1) the likelihood that the prevailing party will ultimately prevail on the merits; and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from the issuance or nonissuane of the injunction. Here, a Superior Court judge found that the State of California is likely to prevail on the merits in the end. The reason being that Uber/Lyft failed to satisfy the prong "(B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business." Basically, the judge thought that Uber/Lyft is in the transportation business, not some "multi-sided platforms" as they claim to be. Can this injunction be overturned by a higher California court? Absolutely. Does it look bad for Uber/Lyft in the court of public opinion? Yup, very much so. That's why three's an Opinion piece in the Times today by the CEO of Uber.[0] He knew this was coming. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/uber-ceo-dara-khosrowshahi-gig-workers-deserve-better.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/uber-ceo-dara-kho...

gruez 6y ago

>Their business is providing riders with drivers. The driving is not their business. Can't you use this excuse to bypass that clause altogether? eg. a pizza restaurant that classifies its delivery drivers as contractors: "their business is making the pizza. delivery is not their business".

tick_tock_tick 6y ago
I mean it's that how contracting is supposed to work? If your core competency is in making the product expecting you to become experts on delivering it too is crazy.
x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
Pizza restaurants contract out delivery to firms all of the time. Is that really different than contracting out to an individual?

droidno9 6y ago

This decision technically doesn't find that Uber/Lyft are violating the statute. The analysis considers: (1) the likelihood that the prevailing party will ultimately prevail on the merits; and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from the issuance or nonissuane of the injunction. Here, a Superior Court judge found that the State of California is likely to prevail on the merits in the end. The reason being that Uber/Lyft failed to satisfy the prong "(B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business." Basically, the judge thought that Uber/Lyft is in the transportation business, not some "multi-sided platforms" as they claim to be. Can this injunction be overturned by a higher California court? Absolutely. Does it look bad for Uber/Lyft in the court of public opinion? Yup, very much so. That's why three's an Opinion piece in the Times today by the CEO of Uber.[0] He knew this was coming. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/uber-ceo-dara-khosrowshahi-gig-workers-deserve-better.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/uber-ceo-dara-kho...