Re:Uber and Lyft don't have a right to exist
by dnautics on Saturday August 31, 2019 @12:45PM
(#20847372)
> Lots of companies in the service business do not care whether an employee has a second job with another company, even a "competitor."
Absolutely none of them will let you be on the clock with a competitor at the same time you're on the clock with them.
Re:Uber and Lyft don't have a right to exist
by eugeniub on Saturday August 31, 2019 @12:49PM
(#20847410)
Neither do Uber or Lyft. No driver performs an Uber ride and a Lyft ride at the same point in time.
Re:Uber and Lyft don't have a right to exist
by arthens on Saturday August 31, 2019 @01:01PM
(#20847472)
Could it be because these companies are paying you to be on the clock while Uber and Lyft are not?
Re:Uber and Lyft don't have a right to exist
by theferalrobot on Saturday August 31, 2019 @12:49PM
(#20847405)
I don't think they said it would disqualify them, just that those arrangements are far more common in independent work. I would say it is rare to find those attributes in employee relationships, even rarer to find all of them.
Re:Uber and Lyft don't have a right to exist
by braythwayt on Saturday August 31, 2019 @01:36PM
(#20847662)
Well, it is absolutely true that Uber and Lyft are unique. That’s their entire philosophy, to be different than what has come before.
But in doing so, they open themselves to the following reasoning: “Just as they bring a new and hitherto unique model for transportation companies, they also bring a new and hitherto unique model for employer-employee relationships.”
They are by definition unicorns, so while the courts may rule that their drivers are contractors, if they were to rule that the drivers are employees, it seems appropriate to accept that its relationship with its employees would also be unique.
Lots of companies are very flexible about employees setting their own hours.
Lots of companies in the service business do not care whether an employee has a second job with another company, even a "competitor."
The issue around getting paid for jobs completed is absolutely a non-issue. Lots of employees are paid for piece-work, or equivalently have paid-for-performance structures.
The issue is whether such payment can drop below minimum-wage laws, and the answer in law is, "no."
So, frankly, while Uber and Lyft are certainly doing their best to act like their drivers are not employees, the criteria you give here do not disqualify them from being considered employees, as there are a non-trivial number of companies that have arrangements like this with their employees.
I'm left to think that it is certainly reasonable for a court to consider all these issues in aggregate and make a determination. It does not strike me as "obvious" either way.