But Uber/Lyft/Doordash etc can give them autonomy, they can make them true contractors.

I also doubt that the law forces companies to have a work schedule for their employees. From what I understand it just says that benefits are provided if employee works for more than certain amount of hours.

So to me it seems like it's all about exploiting their drivers (treating drivers like employees without providing advantages that employees have)

While it's true that the law doesn't force companies to assign shifts to employees, in practice, it's always the case.

The reason is because ultimately, scheduling shifts is going to be both easier to manage and more cost efficient than letting employees choose their own schedule.

Uber has a good idea of how many drivers they need at any given time. This ideal distribution of supply will never align perfectly with the supply pool's natural scheduling preferences. You can try to use economic incentives to force these two distributions to overlap, or you can just exert control (that you rightfully have over employees) and force your employees to work when you need them.

If scheduling shifts were better for Uber and Lyft, they would have done it already.

You can't legally schedule shifts for independent contractors.

Are you sure about that? Because I worked with other contractors and they also had a schedule like me. The main difference was that they didn't get any benefits and could be let go immediately.

but you're saying shifts are scheduled because it is easier for companies. And that's actually true, if people work at the same time, it's easier to cooperate if a manager likes to micromanage it is also easier look at their screen making sure they are working.

The thing is that Uber et al prefers if there is no schedule and law actually doesn't stand in the way of that.

> But Uber/Lyft/Doordash etc can give them autonomy, they can make them true contractors.

How? As far as I understand, this is literally impossible with AB5, unless they get an exemption like all the other contractor-based industries.

They could make drivers independent, allow them receive payments directly (if they chose so) and instead charge them for using their apps. Kind of like it is normally done.

>70% of ride-share drivers don't want to be employees

Firstly, is that backed up by data? Secondly, what is their reason for not wanting to be employees? Is it something about immigration law, exploitative employers or truly something about freedom?

Yep.

https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/

Why is it so hard to believe drivers enjoy their freedom? They get to control their schedule. Turn the app on and off. Quit after two rides or drive for ten hours because the hits keep coming.

This is not exploitation. There’s a small number of drivers taking advantage of free lawyers backed by the taxi industry.

But more than anything. If you don’t like ride share don’t drive for ride share. Find a different job. Who said anyone has a right to demand a job to be created their way? Ride share works as it is. If you want a full-time with benefits go get a trucking job. There are a ton of those.

> Other ethnicities like Hispanic/Latino reported just 7.1% compared to the national average of 17.8%

Disclosure. I am not in the United States, I am no expert. But the over-representation of some groups may be what is wrong with that data. It could be that those people that were missed by the survey feel more exploited?

Across the pond in the UK it is not drivers welfare that is driving me to think they should be employees, but tax. In the UK being employed means your boss pays national insurance (a kind of tax). Secondly VAT (sales tax) is only charged by entities with sales over £85k ie not one driver on their own (making them much cheaper). However if they were employees the sales would be by Uber and subject to 20%VAT. HMRC finally got around to demanding this from Uber this week.

https://goodlawproject.org/update/hmrc-to-collect-1-5bn-uber...