News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:California Labor Bill, Near Passage, Is Blow to Uber and ... by RHSeeger on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @11:28AM (#20929272)
> Being an employee DOES NOT require (1) only full-time work, (2) fixed schedules, or (3) exclusivity with one company.

> Drivers shouldn't have to spend 45 minutes off the clock in the airport cell phone lot waiting for their turn at the top of the queue.

If the driver is driving for more than one company, who pays for that cell phone lot time?

Re:California Labor Bill, Near Passage, Is Blow to Uber and ... by resfirestar on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @12:08PM (#20929739)
Assuming the post AB 5 system essentially has rideshare workers agree to take 2-4 hour "shifts" (just a guess based on the easiest adaptation and how Amazon's delivery system works), the 45 minutes of idle time would be paid for by the company the driver agreed to work the shift for. Needless to say, such a system would heavily incentivize Uber and Lyft to avoid having drivers sitting in airport lots.
Re:California Labor Bill, Near Passage, Is Blow to Uber and ... by kevingadd on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @01:11PM (#20930540)
In practice they just won't drive for two companies. With minimum wage / employee status that won't hurt them at all. In practice, Uber and Lyft already don't want you keeping both apps open - they encourage you to only keep their app open with incentives.