11 ms·
Uber Drivers Sue Company over Pressure to Support Prop 22
- megaman821 6y agoI guess you can sue for anything, but does saying Uber could theoretically use your answers against you in the future hold any water? It is going to be very hard to prove actual harm here.
- laser 6y agoProbably more about the visibility than the outcome—an attempt to drive a narrative that Uber et al are corrupt regulatory-capturing entities that are manipulating the public through a suit like this could help the NO on Prop 22 cause. The trouble is, although that is substantially true, California legislators have broken things so badly with AB-5 that the public has no choice but to vote YES on Prop 22.
- jkaplowitz 6y agoThat's a false dichotomy. Addressing any perceived problems with the law through less extreme means than Prop 22 would be another option. As one example of how Prop 22 is extreme, it imposes an absurdly high 7/8 supermajority requirement to make legslative changes "consistent" with the proposition and a new initiative vote to make inconsistent changes. Entrenching self-interested corporate-written legislation to that extreme is awful.
- whimsicalism 6y agoI'm not voting for any loosening of labor laws that requires a 7/8th majority to change. And, honestly, what Uber has been doing with its platform recently has been really worrying me. I get a push notification almost every single day now asking me to vote Yes on Prop 22. I'm worried for what the future holds if this sort of thing is permitted because of Citizens United.
- vinay427 6y agoThe Uber Eats order I placed recently (in CA) felt more like a political campaign than a restaurant delivery service. It didn't exactly drive me further towards a Yes, no pun intended.
- reso 6y agoI can't believe the 7/8ths rule isn't a bigger story than it is. Insanely undemocratic. I wouldn't vote for any bill that included that stipulation.
- megaman821 6y agoI have seen in other comments that it can be changed with a simple majority with another prop, but if the legislature want to override the prop they need a 7/8 super-majority.
- jonas21 6y agoThe 7/8 provision only applies to changes made by the legislature -- if Prop 22 were to pass, voters could repeal or amend it with a simple majority vote on a future ballot initiative. By default, laws enacted via ballot initiative in California can't be changed by the legislature at all without voter approval -- California has some of the strongest protections in the country for these (see https://ballotpedia.org/Legislative_alteration https://ballotpedia.org/Legislative_alteration)
- masonic 6y agoWho would organize and pay for such an initiative?
- km3r 6y agoit makes more sense in the frame of the original AB5 being passed with a massive margin, so a slightly higher margin was included to prevent an immediate reversal by the legislator.
- brian_cloutier 6y ago
- throwaway2048 6y agoI'm pretty sure they do have a choice.
- zests 6y agoCurrently the only two child comments to your comment mention the requirement of 7/8ths in agreement for legislative amendment and say that this is ridiculous. I just finished reading an article saying that most ballot measures do not allow for legislative amendment at all. Who knows what to believe anymore. I don't live in California anymore so I have no vested interest in the politics there. Let this be a lesson to not believe everything you see on the internet.
- tomjakubowski 6y agoBy default, ballot intiatives, once enacted, can't be repealed or changed by the legislature. When a proposition has historically allowed for legislative editing, it's typically to allow for unthought of edge cases to be handled without going again through the ballot prop process. Far as I know, of propositions that allow for legislative editing, requiring a 7/8th majority is unprecedented. The legislature can always work around this, however, with a simple majority, by passing a proposed constitutional amendment to be approved by referendum.
- damnyou 6y agoAB2257 fixes most of the issues of AB5.
- mpd 6y agoI am Jack's complete lack of surprise. It's not like 22 ever had 100% driver support.
- smabie 6y ago" And because drivers could reasonably believe they will be deactivated from the platform or denied favorable ride matches if they don’t express explicit support, the data collected about driver support and used for promotion is skewed and misleading." I'm not sure it's reasonable believe that drivers would get kicked off the platform for answering "Ok". In fact, I think if you asked almost anyone, they would say that's a totally unreasonable belief. Sounds like a lawyer is trawling for settlement fees, not that any driver actually wanted to do this.
- whimsicalism 6y ago> I'm not sure it's reasonable believe that drivers would get kicked off the platform for answering "Ok". In fact, I think if you asked almost anyone, they would say that's a totally unreasonable belief. You've clearly never been involved in any sort of union push if you think that employers are so above something like this. Even if they wouldn't do something like this, there are often behind the scenes conversations about how to create the perception that they would - because that is equally as effective. In that context, repeatedly pinging drivers asking if they support the legislation (with yes in bold/highlighted) could definitely be a calculated move to create that environment.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- aqme28 6y agoI highly disagree. Uber's platform is heavily gamified for drivers to encourage the driver behaviors that Uber wants. It is reasonable to expect them to gamify this piece too.
- henryfjordan 6y agoThe California Labor Code says: > No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1102.&lawCode=LAB https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... Uber very publicly threatened to shut down in CA if they did not get their way with respect to AB5 and the suit alleges that they continue to threaten layoffs. If that isn't an attempt to coerce drivers to vote a certain way by threatening their jobs, I don't know what is.
- dmlittle 6y agoI'm not a lawyer and I'm sure there are things I'm not seeing but I think the loophole here is that as of right now, because of the emergency stay on AB5, drivers are independent contractors and not employees so this might not apply.
- schoolornot 6y agoSeems like a stretch. They only want to operate the company under specific regulations. They aren't firing employees for voting one way or another. There is similar legislation in NY. When DNAinfo voted to unionize the owner said, forget it, I don't want to deal with this union stuff and shut down the company.
- freerobby 6y agoYou may be technically correct, but I would ordinarily read "threat of discharge or loss of employment" in a retaliatory sense, not an existential one. A more cut-and-dry example might be clarifying: if there were a ballot initiative to outright ban strip clubs, and a strip club sent a memo to its staff, correctly noting their jobs would be gone if it passed, would that be a violation of this statute?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gruez 6y agorelevant story from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24781588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24781588 they must be really desperate.
- rhizome 6y agoThey need California much more than California needs them. I wouldn't be surprised if strong-arming their employees is the only leverage they have.
- ponker 6y agoI’m not sure I agree with your assertion. My parents heavily rely on Uber after they lost their last good set of eyes.
- rhizome 6y agoNobody's forcing Uber/Lyft/DoorDash to close up shop, despite their cries of poormouth. There are also lots of free and discounted disability shuttles out there, but that probably depends a lot on location (though so does the availability of gig-taxis).
- rogerdickey 6y agoEven if it’s a real violation, what damages can they prove? Uber is trying to help them
- mrtweetyhack 6y agohaha. well deserved
- yalogin 6y agoThey show the prop 22 ad before I can request a ride too. I wonder if it pisses people off too.
- Drblessing 6y agoUber is already unprofitable in CA, and then they get sued by there drives lol. When Uber goes bankrupt nobody has a job.
- mullingitover 6y agoIs there reputable polling of ride share drivers' support for Prop 22? I've heard anecdotal evidence of overwhelming support for it from drivers but I can't find any polling that's from an unbiased third party.
- brian_cloutier 6y agoI've also tried and failed to find any independent polling. It's funny to me that both sides of this debate confidently claim most drivers support their position.
- muhneesh 6y agoMorgan Stanley did a driver poll that pretty much supported Uber's numbers.
- mullingitover 6y agoThat makes sense to me, overall it sounds like an 80/20 situation: 80% of drivers are side hustlers and will be harmed when they lose their side hustle, 20% will get a slight pay bump and benefits. The overall economic benefit for California will be a wash (and the overall result for the average driver, reduced income). The real underlying problem is that we've been papering over our underemployment crisis with these low-skill, low wage jobs. You can't turn them into viable careers by legislative fiat.
- namesbc 6y agoThe 80/20 split is actually the other way around, 71% of drivers work more than 30 hrs: https://transform.ucsc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/OnDemandOntheEdge_ExecSum.pdf https://transform.ucsc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/OnDema... Drivers earn about $9.21 which is less than minimum wage in most cities. SF has a minimum wage of $15.59: https://www.epi.org/publication/uber-and-the-labor-market-uber-drivers-compensation-wages-and-the-scale-of-uber-and-the-gig-economy/ https://www.epi.org/publication/uber-and-the-labor-market-ub...
- sbussard 6y agoThere is an unspoken third option: roll back the ridiculous law that put us in this position in the first place. Proposition 22 is also bad because it’s anticompetitive, which is why Uber and Lyft support it. It would prevent smaller scale businesses from competing. The California government needs to stop attacking the foundations of capitalism. It’s obvious why so many people and companies are leaving and want to leave California
- damnyou 6y agoIt was not a law that put us in this position, it was the Supreme Court of California. In any case, AB2257 fixes the issues with AB5 that needed to be fixed.
- subroutine 6y agoHow does AB2257 fix the issues with AB5 that needed to be fixed (I'm genuinely curious)? From what I've read it all boils down to the interpretation of the "ABC Test". For those unfamiliar with the AB2257 ABC test... The provisions of AB 2257 sets forth the ABC Test in statute. The statutory ABC Test codified the language used by the state Supreme Court in its Dynamex decision. “A person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied: A. The person is free from the control and direction of a hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, under the contract for the performance and in fact. B. The person performs work outside a hiring entity's usual course of business. C. The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, business, or occupation of the same nature as the performed work Let's apply the ABC test to an Uber Driver (Umar); and for comparison a violinist (Viola, ironically) who is often hired by Joel Nelson Bay Area wedding Productions (JNP) [joelnelson.com/weddings]. A. The person is free from control and direction of the hiring entity for the performance of the work - Umar is given the location of the pickup, and the dropoff destination. The Uber app suggests pickup and dropoff routes, however Umar has some flexibility on which routes he takes, how fast or careful he drives, how chatty he is, the cleanliness of his vehicle, and any 'extras' (e.g. phone charger) he provides. - Viola is given the location of the venue and a list of songs to play. She has some flexibility in the specific musical arrangements of those songs, and her performance. Ultimately she is trusted to show up on time and play, to her ability, the requested songs. B. The person performs work outside a hiring entity's usual course of business. - Umar provides transportation/taxi services. Uber will claim they are not a 'transportation' company, but a software company that caters to the vehicle-for-hire, food delivery, courier/freight & package delivery industries. They will claim programmers and IT specialists fall within their 'usual course of buisness', not vehicle drivers. Nevertheless, to the customer, it seems like Uber provides transportation services. - Viola provides musical performance services. JNP will claim they are not a musical performance company, but a wedding & event planning agency. Nevertheless, JNP offers wedding music and entertainment right on their website ("String quartets, variety bands, experienced and diverse Disc Jockeys and MC’s, specialty lighting and photography packages, and more... Joel Nelson Productions has the right plan at the right price to make your wedding dreams a reality." C. The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade of the same nature as the performed work - Umar mostly drives for Lyft. He only gives Uber rides on weekends. - Viola has a full-time job as an accountant. She only does violin gigs on some weekends. She only gigs through JNP. Who is an employee and who is a contractor? Seems like Viola would be classified as an employee, because doesn't fulfill requirement 'C'. IMO all three of these stipulations are not very concrete, open to many interpretations/arguments, and thus not a very good law. ---- I think a better law would be something simpler, and less open to interpretation, like... Has the person (A) performed service for the company longer than X months, (B) more than Y hours a week, and (C) is this their primary source of income.
- DevKoala 6y agoDid anybody get text messages from Uber drivers asking you to support prop 22? I got a few thinking they were bots, but when I looked up the numbers they seemed legitimate.
- rrix2 6y agothe number that delivers text messages to you from your driver is owned by Uber, not the driver; they proxy messages between driver+rider, nominally to protect riders and drivers from each other. I wouldn't be surprised if uber was re-using the phone numbers to send these messages under the assumption that many will think it's a driver that's sending them rather than their automated system.
- xmprt 6y agoWhy would Uber: 1. need to send messages through text instead of in the app 2. message only this one user instead of everyone else who also has registered like me (and probably you too)? Your conspiracy theory makes no sense.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- danans 6y ago> Why would Uber: 1. need to send messages through text instead of in the app SMS is still the most attention getting messaging medium. When these messages are in an SMS it looks more like it's coming from the driver's personal number. If it were instead sent through the app, people are far more likely to ignore it as a broadcast corporate marketing message. > 2. message only this one user instead of everyone else who also has registered like me (and probably you too)? I got the same sort of message purportedly from an Uber driver, but enough people had reported that number as a source of SPAM by than that my phone automatically marked the message as spam. Therefore, it sure seems like the same numbers are being reused via an SMS proxy service of some kind - or drivers are being provided a list of numbers by Uber to send the same form message. It's really no different in that way from all the political text messages that have flooded our phones of late.
- benatkin 6y agoUber and Lyft are keeping a lot of people from unemployment, it seems. When it first came out, I thought it was a way for people to supplement their income, retirement, or that of their spouse or parents. I think it sucks as a primary source of income and as a rider I tend to prefer part-time rideshare drivers to full-time ones. Basic income can't come soon enough.
- lsiebert 6y agoApparently both the Lyft and Uber apps pressure drivers to "agree" with prop 22, or the popups keep popping up repeatedly? If you have a video showing otherwise, feel free to link below. Lets set aside the legal question for the moment: Is that good user interface design, or is it more of a dark pattern? Do you like when apps do this?
- kingnight 6y ago> Is that good user interface design, or is it more of a dark pattern? Do you like when apps do this? No it's not good user interface design, not only because it's annoying af, it doesn't achieve the goals it sets out to do.
- kbos87 6y agoIf we were to ask Uber why they don’t provide a living wage or any meaningful benefits to their drivers, they would be the first to tell us that they believe they follow the law. Then they turn around and use aggressive tactics to bend the law to their will by strong-arming their drivers. This is absolutely reprehensible and individuals as well as Uber should be held criminally responsible.
- webnrrd2k 6y agoInstacart is pushing their side of Prop 22 very hard as well - with prominent placement in their app, and annoying calls to my cell phone.
- webnrrd2k 6y agoFWIW, Instacart is pushing their side of prop 22 very hard with a prominent notification in their app, and a phone campaign to contractors.
- rainyMammoth 6y agoProp 22 is literally Uber and Lyft using tax-money to pay for driver's social security and medicare. [0] Those companies are unprofitable by design and try to shift the losses to taxpayers. The campaign for prop 22 has been an amazing pool of misinformation. Voting YES on prop22, means that you allow Uber and Lyft to get away with their greed. You will end up paying more through your taxes. [0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/AB5-gig-law-enforced-California-sues-Uber-and-15248217.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/AB5-gig-law-enf...
- rreichman 6y agoThe companies aren’t unprofitable by design, that has been repeatedly disproven. Their service is profitable in many cities. Prop 22 makes sense exactly because those things shouldn’t be tied to employment. The state should tax businesses more and offer the benefits itself.
- rainyMammoth 6y agoThat is YOUR politically biased vision of how medicare and social security should work. It is not how the system currently works. I'm not against moving to such a system, but it cannot be applied selectively to a couple few companies that would profit from it (in this case Uber, Lyft, Doordash etc). Uber and Lyft are unprofitable by design. They are only profitable if you don't account for the huge driver's incentives and other users promotions that are always written off as a "one time thing". (I looked at Uber's financials). If they want to become profitable, they need to increase price and most users would stop using it all together. They don't want to go this way as it would instantly make the stock tank.