Sure, but perhaps this definition is flawed. You can literally be on call for your competitor simultaneously. Let's say a driver is paid hourly by lyft and uber. It's kind of absurd that they should be paid for that time by both companies.

At the very least, if they are reclassified, california should allow the lyft drivers to choose to be contractors. Then lyft and uber could prohibit employee drivers from working for the competitor.

Having driven rideshare for an year and a half I think the reclassification is not really going to work in the driver's favor.

> At the very least, if they are reclassified, california should allow the lyft drivers to choose to be contractors. Then lyft and uber could prohibit employee drivers from working for the competitor.

This makes perfect sense.

And let's forget competition for a moment. Let's say I'm working for a company I shall call BeeperShift, or "BS." If I am working for BS today, and while I am working for BS I write some code for my side-hustle.

Does BS still owe me minimum wage? I think that unless their terms of employment prohibit working on anything except the company's business, they owe me minimum wage.

But if they neglect to prohibit me from working on anything else, and if they neglect as employers to set up appropriate supervision and direction of my activities, I think they owe me minimum wage.

It's not my fault if they don't give me other work to do. I could only give them an out f they give me work to do and I don't do it, i.e. I don't respond when they beep me.

In which case, their recourse is to fire me with cause.

Perhaps this definition is what the world needs.

The whole gig economy thing is bad for the working class. People need real jobs, not sitting in their car waiting for an app to tell them to do some slave labor for a rich person.