4 ms·
Best guess: Uber/Lyft can't demand exclusivity from their drivers without crossing a line clearly delineated by the IRS. Doing so would be considered an "inapp
by avalaunch 12y ago
Best guess: Uber/Lyft can't demand exclusivity from their drivers without crossing a line clearly delineated by the IRS. Doing so would be considered an "inappropriate degree of control" and the drivers would no longer be considered independent contractors, but instead employees. Neither Uber nor Lyft would want that. Penalizing drivers that don't accept a high percentage of rides offered them is Uber's attempt to demand exclusivity without demanding it.
- dnautics 12y agoIt's state-by-state/region-by-region. IIRC, California specifically disallows non-compete clauses in general [citation needed]. Seattle outlaws driving for more than one service.
- toomuchtodo 12y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California
- avalaunch 12y agoI'm pretty sure it's state-by-state as well as federal. That is, you need to follow both federal (IRS) rules and state rules to ensure your workers are independent contractors and not employees.
- rhino369 12y agoNon-moonlighting employment rules / provisions aren't the same legal issue as non-compete. Non-competes are for after the contract ends. It still might not be legal for a part time contractor, but it wouldn't be because of non-compete law.