> They often have other side hustles and pursuits, and don't want to spend 100% of their working time for Uber or DoorDash. I've always been under the impressi

> They often have other side hustles and pursuits, and don't want to spend 100% of their working time for Uber or DoorDash. I've always been under the impression that one could have multiple W-2 jobs that don't have to be classified as full-time. Also I read all the time on HN about side hustles developed by folks with full-time jobs. Heck I can even recall some folks gaming the system with two full time SWE jobs at the same time. Does the proposed legislation seek to enforce some kind of single-employer condition? > This isn't some grassroots effort, this is being pushed by politicians and union organizers (more members = more $$). I won't argue with your premise because I can't think of any federal legislation that reflects grassroots desires (even if advocacy/lobbying started at that level). However, in my experiences with gig drivers, there are two types: (1) those who are trying to make some extra cash on the side, but would be okay if they didn't drive, and (2) those who are driving whenever/however needed to make ends meet. I wonder what other types are out there, and how all the types are distributed amongst gig drivers. But I think it's the second group that makes Lyft/Uber work. I just don't see a fleet of flexible, entrepreneurial gig drivers being able to meet the 100s or 1000s of edge cases that must be met in order for ride sharing companies to maintain their value proposition to customers in various markets. These companies know who these non-stop gig workers are, and might not be in the current situation if they'd taken earlier steps to offer them FT employment with benefits.