3 ms·
1) if they forced that requirement on drivers, that would 100% indicate an employment relationship. But note that it is generally regarded as fraud to double bi
by gamblor956 6y ago
1) if they forced that requirement on drivers, that would 100% indicate an employment relationship. But note that it is generally regarded as fraud to double bill multiple clients for the same unit of time.
2) irrelevant to the employee/contractor determination. It is possible for an employee to also be a contractor, see for example restaurants...
- dnautics 6y agoOk, so we are saying #1, If you pick to be in a contractor relationship you can do whatever with regards to having both apps on simultaneously. #2 If you pick to be in an employee relationship, uber and lyft have a right to exclusivity during all phases of the ride. Of course a driver can choose to work for both, but lyft can terminate a driver if they find that a driver is online for uber, and vice versa. Or #3, the state can decide that the "employees" are "not working" unless they are in the phases where they are going towards an accepted ride or have a passenger in the car. The state will almost certainly not go with #3. Between #1 and #2, I can tell you which option 90% of drivers will take. It's not #2. So we will be back to square one.
- eru 6y agoWhat's wrong with #2, but Uber and Lyft decide not to use that right, and also to cede that right in the employment contract?