2 ms·

> This is one of the primary litmus tests used No, where did you read that? There's no even mentions of "schedule" in "Borello test" [1] Also see "Alexander

> This is one of the primary litmus tests used No, where did you read that? There's no even mentions of "schedule" in "Borello test" [1] Also see "Alexander v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.", where Fedex drivers were ruled to be employees, not contractors, regardless of schedules. Again, Uber and Lyft can legally continue doing what they already doing -- not enforcing any schedules. DoL explicitly says that they don't require employers to enforce any schedules. Uber et al can incentivize more drivers with more money, just as they do today. [1] Borello test: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm

randomdata 2y ago
> There's no even mentions of "schedule" in "Borello test" [1] What you mean? It's right there: The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business > where Fedex drivers were ruled to be employees, not contractors, regardless of schedules. You're confused. As has been said multiple times now, an employee's schedule may not be dictated, but a contractor's cannot be. > Again, Uber and Lyft can legally continue doing what they already doing -- not enforcing any schedules. Of course. In fact, I have said exactly that several times now. Did you somehow forget to read the thread? But why would Uber and Lyft want to do that? It would be quite advantageous for them to demand workers to show up at certain times, especially peak times that currently struggle with service availability. They can't do that right now as it would prove that the workers are employees, without question (see your link). But if the workers were already established as employees, there would be no reason to stick with the status quo. > Uber et al can incentivize more drivers with more money, just as they do today. Nah. Incentivizing workers with the threat of termination if they don't show up is a much better business model. At least in a vacuum. Maintaining that workers are independent is more beneficial for other reasons, but, again, if that ends up lost, why on earth would these companies continue to needlessly offer more money to the workers? That would be just plain dumb.

randomdata 2y ago

> There's no even mentions of "schedule" in "Borello test" [1] What you mean? It's right there: The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business > where Fedex drivers were ruled to be employees, not contractors, regardless of schedules. You're confused. As has been said multiple times now, an employee's schedule may not be dictated, but a contractor's cannot be. > Again, Uber and Lyft can legally continue doing what they already doing -- not enforcing any schedules. Of course. In fact, I have said exactly that several times now. Did you somehow forget to read the thread? But why would Uber and Lyft want to do that? It would be quite advantageous for them to demand workers to show up at certain times, especially peak times that currently struggle with service availability. They can't do that right now as it would prove that the workers are employees, without question (see your link). But if the workers were already established as employees, there would be no reason to stick with the status quo. > Uber et al can incentivize more drivers with more money, just as they do today. Nah. Incentivizing workers with the threat of termination if they don't show up is a much better business model. At least in a vacuum. Maintaining that workers are independent is more beneficial for other reasons, but, again, if that ends up lost, why on earth would these companies continue to needlessly offer more money to the workers? That would be just plain dumb.