4 ms·

I honestly don't mind paying more if it goes to support the drivers, but I haven't really seen a compelling argument for why all drivers should count as employe

I honestly don't mind paying more if it goes to support the drivers, but I haven't really seen a compelling argument for why all drivers should count as employees. From my perspective being an "employee" implies certain things that don't seem to apply here (predictable work times, exclusivity (so many lyft drivers are also uber drivers), etc. ) "Freelancer" seems way more appropriate, the only problem is the lack of protections. It seems to me that culturally "gig worker" has become its own category anyway and it makes more sense to create a new legal category with its own set of legal protections. I know people will point to health insurance... but that's a separate problem with having health insurance tied to employment. I think it's awful that people that aren't considered full time employees don't get health insurance.. but I also think that's the government's problem and obligation, not Uber or Lyfts

dannyw 6y ago
You hit the hammer on the nail. If I was an employee and worked for two directly competing companies simultaneously, I’d be fired for cause.
- sixstringtheory 6y ago
  Is it actually simultaneous? Of course drivers use multiple services, but I’ve never taken a ride with uber where the driver had passengers from lyft in the car, eg.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Drivers usually keep both apps open and active, then accept the first dispatch they receive and temporarily go offline on the other app while finishing the trip. Then lather, rinse, repeat.
    - sixstringtheory 6y ago
      I used to work multiple jobs at different restaurants, where I’d do a morning shift at one and an evening shift at the other. They could be considered competitors. What is the difference between what I did and what drivers do, besides the frequency of and duration of shifts? I don’t know what kind of laws might govern requirements here. Could be different between cities/states/countries, too. Now, maybe they’d dictate requirements for things like shift duration if drivers were considered “actual employees” but then they’d presumably also be receiving other benefits that might obviate the need to drive for multiple services.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        Sure, and in a world where Uber & Lyft drivers are employees, drivers would be forced to work shifts in the same way. They’d have to clock in a certain number of hours as part of the condition of “employment”, be it full time or part time. What they would not be able to do is drive on both simultaneously. There’s virtually no low skilled minimum wage job that affords you the flexibility of setting your own hours at different employers.
        sixstringtheory 6y ago
        I agree that may be an outcome. But don't put the cart before the horse (in this case, the horse is the question: "what is the nature of the relationship between Uber and Lyft" and possibly even "what should the nature of the relationship between a company and an employee and/or contractor even be"). I think it might be helpful to define what "simultaneous" means in the context of drivers. I stated that I believe it would only be simultaneous if a driver had passengers from multiple rideshare companies in the car at the same time. I agree that this would be unacceptable. I don't believe it's unacceptable for drivers to canvas multiple rideshare apps for fares as long as they drive them separately.
        bhupy 6y ago
        In the status quo, drivers are able to turn off their dispatch whenever they want. They can drive 20 hours one week, 2 hours the next, take an indefinite break, then drive 40 hours. There's no boss, there's no clocking in. There's no getting "fired" for flaking. An employment contract would allow Uber/Lyft to enforce hours and contiguous schedules. On top of that, it's extremely trivial for Uber/Lyft to include exclusivity clauses in employment agreements. It's in their best interests to do that, since they have entire projects dedicated to handling "multi-appers". Keep in mind that traditional taxicab drivers were able to go "off-duty" whenever they wanted because they, too, were independent contractors.
kart23 6y ago
Aside from the health insurance problem, I think they should be able to earn minimum amounts, there should be a limit on how much money you can lose per hour driving for lyft or uber. Workers comp should be included as well, its morally wrong to have someone work for you and not take care of them if they are injured while working.

dannyw 6y ago

You hit the hammer on the nail. If I was an employee and worked for two directly competing companies simultaneously, I’d be fired for cause.

sixstringtheory 6y ago
Is it actually simultaneous? Of course drivers use multiple services, but I’ve never taken a ride with uber where the driver had passengers from lyft in the car, eg.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Drivers usually keep both apps open and active, then accept the first dispatch they receive and temporarily go offline on the other app while finishing the trip. Then lather, rinse, repeat.
  - sixstringtheory 6y ago
    I used to work multiple jobs at different restaurants, where I’d do a morning shift at one and an evening shift at the other. They could be considered competitors. What is the difference between what I did and what drivers do, besides the frequency of and duration of shifts? I don’t know what kind of laws might govern requirements here. Could be different between cities/states/countries, too. Now, maybe they’d dictate requirements for things like shift duration if drivers were considered “actual employees” but then they’d presumably also be receiving other benefits that might obviate the need to drive for multiple services.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Sure, and in a world where Uber & Lyft drivers are employees, drivers would be forced to work shifts in the same way. They’d have to clock in a certain number of hours as part of the condition of “employment”, be it full time or part time. What they would not be able to do is drive on both simultaneously. There’s virtually no low skilled minimum wage job that affords you the flexibility of setting your own hours at different employers.
      - sixstringtheory 6y ago
        I agree that may be an outcome. But don't put the cart before the horse (in this case, the horse is the question: "what is the nature of the relationship between Uber and Lyft" and possibly even "what should the nature of the relationship between a company and an employee and/or contractor even be"). I think it might be helpful to define what "simultaneous" means in the context of drivers. I stated that I believe it would only be simultaneous if a driver had passengers from multiple rideshare companies in the car at the same time. I agree that this would be unacceptable. I don't believe it's unacceptable for drivers to canvas multiple rideshare apps for fares as long as they drive them separately.
        bhupy 6y ago
        In the status quo, drivers are able to turn off their dispatch whenever they want. They can drive 20 hours one week, 2 hours the next, take an indefinite break, then drive 40 hours. There's no boss, there's no clocking in. There's no getting "fired" for flaking. An employment contract would allow Uber/Lyft to enforce hours and contiguous schedules. On top of that, it's extremely trivial for Uber/Lyft to include exclusivity clauses in employment agreements. It's in their best interests to do that, since they have entire projects dedicated to handling "multi-appers". Keep in mind that traditional taxicab drivers were able to go "off-duty" whenever they wanted because they, too, were independent contractors.

kart23 6y ago

Aside from the health insurance problem, I think they should be able to earn minimum amounts, there should be a limit on how much money you can lose per hour driving for lyft or uber. Workers comp should be included as well, its morally wrong to have someone work for you and not take care of them if they are injured while working.