5 ms·

If Uber and Lyft are forced to classify drivers as employees, doesn't that mean these companies will try to lock them in? For example Uber won't allow their dri

If Uber and Lyft are forced to classify drivers as employees, doesn't that mean these companies will try to lock them in? For example Uber won't allow their drivers to work for Lyft, and vice versa. If this is the case, I think Lyft will die very quickly because as far as I know, most drivers prefer Uber over Lyft.

microtherion 6y ago
IANAL, but to my knowledge, in California, a company cannot[] legally prevent their employees from working a second job in their spare time, so this kind of lock in would not work. [] some exceptions apply, mainly related to IP I think.
- cjlars 6y ago
  Mostly it's been people working for both at the same time, and then taking the best fare as it comes up. Employers can definitely prevent them from doing that, and then there would be additional friction over who gets to schedule drivers for rush hour.
- cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
  But it's not a "spare time". A driver literally has to constantly make decisions whether to take the next Uber call or Lyft call. A lot of drivers have both Uber and Lyft apps running and take the ones they prefer at the moment. Some have become tired of this and just choose Uber. If Uber or Lyft are required to legally hire these drivers as employees, they will probably develop a technology to track the drivers so that they won't take a Lyft call when there's an Uber passenger nearby, for example. This effectively means lockin. Also, Uber (or lyft) may even compensate these behaviors by giving the drivers base salary as long as they don't take their competition's calls. Of course, this is until one becomes the dominant player and the other goes out of business.
  - microtherion 6y ago
    > A driver literally has to constantly make decisions whether to take the next Uber call or Lyft call. Under an employee model, they would do this while on the clock of a particular company (and being paid by it). Sure, Uber could choose to employ a driver for 16 hours a day, but they'd have to pay for that time.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- crobertsbmw 6y ago
  Could both companies require employees to be full time? Thereby restricting employees to one company? Although, if everyone did prefer driving for uber over driving for lyft, I’m sure lyft would sweeten the pot to the point that they were competitive.
  - cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
    Uber will be always better at this game than Lyft will ever be. This is why I think Lyft will be dead when this happens. The only reason Uber couldn't dominate was because there was a factor of "choice". Now that the drivers are classified as effectively taxi drivers belonging to a taxi company, there is no choice. And the funny thing is, the drivers will actually prefer this.
- temp667 6y ago
  That is total BS in california then - if an employer is paying you by the hour for your time, while you are collecting that money they HAVE to be able to expect you are working for them (only). This idea that uber / lyft drivers (both phones are always running) can work for BOTH companies at the same time seems ridiculous to me.
  - microtherion 6y ago
    > This idea that uber / lyft drivers (both phones are always running) can work for BOTH companies at the same time seems ridiculous to me. Yes, I agree, and I did not mean to imply that. What I meant is that a company has limited ability of restricting employee behavior during the time they are NOT paying them.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Well... many people work more than one job. IANAL, but I don't think your employer can forbid you from working more than one job. But Uber and Lyft are direct competitors. I have a clause in my contract that forbids me working for a direct competitor, but I'm a software engineer and I have knowledge of trade secrets. A driver? Not so much. So I think that a court would find a restriction that you couldn't work for both to be an unreasonable exclusion... but I don't know. But let's say it was legal. Uber still might not be able to do it. They need onboarding to be as frictionless as possible. Tying their hands by saying they can't also drive for Lyft might make people think twice.
- nordsieck 6y ago
  > many people work more than one job. IANAL, but I don't think your employer can forbid you from working more than one job. Sure. But employers can prevent you from working for someone else at the same time as you are working for them. So if you wanted to do a 6 hour shift for Uber and then after that do another 4 hours for Lyft. That would almost certainly be legal. But the common practice today is to run both apps at the same time and pick up clients on both networks as requests come in. This is what people are talking about, and will almost certainly be banned.
  - Panini_Jones 6y ago
    I think Uber can also 'terminate' you if you choose to work for a competitor. IANAL, but if I work for Google, Google most certainly wouldn't let me work at Facebook as well even if I was spending 8 hours a day working for each.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    I don't see why. Currently, drivers are being paid by the ride, not by the hour. If they aren't available for a ride, they don't get paid for the ride. If Uber wants that kind of exclusivity, they're probably going to have to pay drivers for idle time.
    - nordsieck 6y ago
loceng 6y ago
From my experiences I've heard they prefer Uber solely because of surge pricing, so they can make more money. Many drivers only drive Lyft because Uber attracted early on the more price conscious users, who initially likely checked both apps for cheapest price and cancelled more expensive ride; Uber subsidized rides to a higher amount and in more markets AFAIK.

microtherion 6y ago

IANAL, but to my knowledge, in California, a company cannot[] legally prevent their employees from working a second job in their spare time, so this kind of lock in would not work. [] some exceptions apply, mainly related to IP I think.

cjlars 6y ago
Mostly it's been people working for both at the same time, and then taking the best fare as it comes up. Employers can definitely prevent them from doing that, and then there would be additional friction over who gets to schedule drivers for rush hour.
cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
But it's not a "spare time". A driver literally has to constantly make decisions whether to take the next Uber call or Lyft call. A lot of drivers have both Uber and Lyft apps running and take the ones they prefer at the moment. Some have become tired of this and just choose Uber. If Uber or Lyft are required to legally hire these drivers as employees, they will probably develop a technology to track the drivers so that they won't take a Lyft call when there's an Uber passenger nearby, for example. This effectively means lockin. Also, Uber (or lyft) may even compensate these behaviors by giving the drivers base salary as long as they don't take their competition's calls. Of course, this is until one becomes the dominant player and the other goes out of business.
- microtherion 6y ago
  > A driver literally has to constantly make decisions whether to take the next Uber call or Lyft call. Under an employee model, they would do this while on the clock of a particular company (and being paid by it). Sure, Uber could choose to employ a driver for 16 hours a day, but they'd have to pay for that time.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
crobertsbmw 6y ago
Could both companies require employees to be full time? Thereby restricting employees to one company? Although, if everyone did prefer driving for uber over driving for lyft, I’m sure lyft would sweeten the pot to the point that they were competitive.
- cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
  Uber will be always better at this game than Lyft will ever be. This is why I think Lyft will be dead when this happens. The only reason Uber couldn't dominate was because there was a factor of "choice". Now that the drivers are classified as effectively taxi drivers belonging to a taxi company, there is no choice. And the funny thing is, the drivers will actually prefer this.
temp667 6y ago
That is total BS in california then - if an employer is paying you by the hour for your time, while you are collecting that money they HAVE to be able to expect you are working for them (only). This idea that uber / lyft drivers (both phones are always running) can work for BOTH companies at the same time seems ridiculous to me.
- microtherion 6y ago
  > This idea that uber / lyft drivers (both phones are always running) can work for BOTH companies at the same time seems ridiculous to me. Yes, I agree, and I did not mean to imply that. What I meant is that a company has limited ability of restricting employee behavior during the time they are NOT paying them.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Well... many people work more than one job. IANAL, but I don't think your employer can forbid you from working more than one job. But Uber and Lyft are direct competitors. I have a clause in my contract that forbids me working for a direct competitor, but I'm a software engineer and I have knowledge of trade secrets. A driver? Not so much. So I think that a court would find a restriction that you couldn't work for both to be an unreasonable exclusion... but I don't know. But let's say it was legal. Uber still might not be able to do it. They need onboarding to be as frictionless as possible. Tying their hands by saying they can't also drive for Lyft might make people think twice.

nordsieck 6y ago
> many people work more than one job. IANAL, but I don't think your employer can forbid you from working more than one job. Sure. But employers can prevent you from working for someone else at the same time as you are working for them. So if you wanted to do a 6 hour shift for Uber and then after that do another 4 hours for Lyft. That would almost certainly be legal. But the common practice today is to run both apps at the same time and pick up clients on both networks as requests come in. This is what people are talking about, and will almost certainly be banned.
- Panini_Jones 6y ago
  I think Uber can also 'terminate' you if you choose to work for a competitor. IANAL, but if I work for Google, Google most certainly wouldn't let me work at Facebook as well even if I was spending 8 hours a day working for each.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  I don't see why. Currently, drivers are being paid by the ride, not by the hour. If they aren't available for a ride, they don't get paid for the ride. If Uber wants that kind of exclusivity, they're probably going to have to pay drivers for idle time.
  - nordsieck 6y ago

loceng 6y ago

From my experiences I've heard they prefer Uber solely because of surge pricing, so they can make more money. Many drivers only drive Lyft because Uber attracted early on the more price conscious users, who initially likely checked both apps for cheapest price and cancelled more expensive ride; Uber subsidized rides to a higher amount and in more markets AFAIK.