I think you’re misreading our situation. We run phone and computer repair shops as our primary business. Uber is his part-time side gig.

We do pay into unemployment, as we are both salaried workers of our own business.

He did not take unemployment during Covid. Our stores were considered essential, so they stayed open.

That is pretty much the point of part-time driving. You have a full-time job or business that pays the bills and you just want some extra cash.

The extra cash from Uber enabled him to pay off his car quickly and continues to provide extra money for our family. It is not a full-time income, nor do we ever expect it to be.

This is our situation, and I understand that others are different. However, you specifically asked about him, so I replied with our details.

I don't understand how part time employment requires him to be classified as a contractor, not an employee.

I'd say part of being a contractor is setting your own hours. If you determine when or where you do a thing for a company, it feels like contracting to me.

Being a contractor means setting your own contracts. Choosing hours is part of that, but you can offer flexible hours to part-time employees to the extent your business permits, nothing saying you can't.

Isn't every time you confirm a ride a contract?

Yes, but not the way you are constructing it. The driver doesn't get to set the price, and there are downsides to declining the fare. Additionally there is no relationship established between the driver and the rider. The carriage contract is between Uber/Lyft and the rider. The platform is then hiring the driver to fulfill their end of the contract. The driver and rider have no ability to form future contracts, unless they break the terms of service and exchange information during the ride. The business models could be tweaked to accommodate proper contractor relationships, but then Uber wouldn't be able to achieve their goal, which is monopoly control over public transit.

I don't get to walk in to a shop and set the price I pay for goods. They have items with an implicit offer for sale. I can either take or reject the contract.

It's a 3 way relationship between driver, passenger with Uber facilitating that relationship. Uber owns the passengers and they offer drivers the ability to fulfill the potential-passengers.

Maybe this would be clearer if Uber offered an API for the driver side so they wouldn't be forced to use the app and thus muddy the relationship.

Interestingly, in your example it is often quite possible to negotiate or haggle on price when you are dealing with an independent agent. Employees who don’t have that agency in the business are unable to budge on price.

I can’t completely tell whether you are agreeing with me or not, but I think that example reinforces that Uber drivers are exploited employees with the benefit of a flexible schedule.

I 100% am not agreeing with your position.

I was coming at it from the point of view of the customer.

Negotiating a sale price is not exclusive to independent agents. Some stores and indeed some chains will allow their employees(supervisor/manager) to accept a lower price. That is not exclusive to or indicative of an independent contractor.

Someone who drives for Uber has the agency to turn down work that Uber puts in front of them with 0 reason needed to be given (either to customer or Uber).

Related, if a software contracting firm says: 'hey, there's a gig that pays $x an hour, no negotiations - do you want it?'

I don't suddenly become an employee of the firm I'm contracting for just because I didn't get a chance to negotiate the price. I had agency to accept or decline the contract.

If I'm going for a job as an employee and negotiate my salary, they don't suddenly mark me down as a contractor.

No doubt, Uber has responded to regulatory pressure by making minor concessions in a (now successful) attempt to circumvent State law.

> Related, if a software contracting firm says: 'hey, there's a gig that pays $x an hour, no negotiations - do you want it?'

That's not what is happening here. The driver and the rider are not forming a carriage contract. Uber is forming a contract with the rider, and employing drivers to fulfill those contracts. Even with the concessions Uber has offered, they are still using their platform power to control activity via incentives, and whatever games they play with the algorithm once the heat is off. At the end of the day, as long as the labor pool remains unorganized, Uber still retains pricing power.

None of these drivers own the customer relationship (again, they are not forming a contract with the riders). That means that (without violating the TOS) these drivers are not holding any equity in the business. In your proposed scenario, if you accept the software contract and do good work, there is a likelihood of more work at higher rates, and increased business through word of mouth. With no opportunity to build wealth, I can't imagine how rideshare drivers would be considered independent.

It's fine to look at the problem from a customer-centric viewpoint, and I realize that doing so has been a fairly orthodox economic strategy for the past 50 years, but that doesn't make it correct or good. None of the ride share companies seem to be able to turn a profit, even with a questionable model built on exploiting labor laws, yet they had $200M to pass Prop22. That kind of strategy only makes sense if your goal is to gain a monopoly position, and it is right to oppose these companies in doing so. Devaluing labor maybe optimal for some individuals, but it's bad for labor as a whole, which is exactly why we pass law that raise the floor.

Actually the driver does set the price. They get to set whatever multiplier they desire and can effectively set the price to whatever they believe is fair.

Couple things:

1. Yes, in California only, effective in July of this year. I.E. regulation having an intended effect, increasing worker power.

2. The contract is still between the rideshare company the rider, not between the driver and the rider. An actual IC relationship would give the rider and driver the ability to opt-in to a provider-customer relationship and easily create future contracts with each other. Uber's model (monopoly power) necessitates their involvement, which is basically the source of conflict here. Their model is incompatible with giving the drivers actual independence.

Could you address the insurance and workers compensation issue? Does your husbands auto insurance have a maximum payout? Otherwise we as a society will end up picking up the unpaid medical bills over that amount.

There are many others, but these two are the most egregious.

Bro, I'm picking up the bill for your kids (or if you're childless then someone's kids) to go to school. So maybe stop with this nonsensical view of society where you have to cover all your costs.

Obviously some of us net positive into the government. That's how society works.

Because other people specifically do have to pay into workers compensation because we collectively decided everyone should.

Her husband and Uber are gaming the system to avoid that responsibility.

And it should be mentioned again that Uber drivers out of work are currently receiving benefits that Uber avoided paying into.

The fact that Congress provided some relief to self-employed people during a once in a century disaster is absolutely not a good reason to reclassify people as employees.

Businesses got billions in forgivable loans to simply not fire the people they'd hired, it seems reasonable that self-employed people get some help.