5 ms·

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 loc

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.

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.