Uber, Lyft struck by sue-ball, no, sue-meteorite in California after insisting their apps' drivers aren't employees
- Reference: 1588712734
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/05/05/uber_lyft_sued/
- Source link:
The Golden State is asking for $2,500 for each violation of its Unfair Competition Law, and up to another $2,500 for violations perpetrated against senior citizens or individuals with disabilities. The eventual bill could be massive, if the lawsuit succeeds.
The sue-ball is an enforcement of a [1]California law , AB5, that was passed last year and came into force on January 1. The law specifically targeted the gig economy, and made it much harder for companies to claim that people that work for them are “independent contractors” rather than employees.
As such, the [2]lawsuit [PDF], issued by Xavier Becerra, California’s Attorney General, is a critical test of the new rules and will be carefully watched by hundreds of other companies in California and the US.
In a [3]press release , Becerra said the state was suing Uber and Lyft for “misclassifying their drivers as independent contractors,” a situation that “deprives workers of critical workplace protections such as the right to minimum wage and overtime, and access to paid sick leave, disability insurance, and unemployment insurance.”
The gig (economy) is up: New California law upgrades Lyft, Uber, other app serfs to staff [4]READ MORE
The lawsuit seeks a permanent halt to the practice as well as “civil penalties that could reach hundreds of millions of dollars.”
In some respects, the timing couldn’t be better: the coronavirus pandemic has put the issue of workers rights into the political foreground – something that Becerra explicitly noted. “Sometimes it takes a pandemic to shake us into realizing what that really means and who suffers the consequences,” he said in a statement. “Uber and Lyft drivers who contract the coronavirus or lose their job quickly realize what they're missing.”
But he also claimed that American taxpayers suffer by “having to help carry the load that Uber and Lyft don’t want to accept… We intend to make sure that Uber and Lyft play by the rules.”
Relief
The impact of the gig economy was clear when a federal relief bill to provide financial support to those put out of work thanks to the COVID-19 health crisis had to explicitly include non-employees. Ordinarily such workers would not be in a position to receive unemployment benefits because no employers had paid into the state unemployment fund on their behalf.
The reason that companies like Uber and Lyft continue to insist that their drivers are independent contractors is almost entirely financial: as employees the companies would have to provide benefits including sick leave, family leave, and unemployment insurance. These would typically add around 30 per cent to the cost of each person. Reclassification would cost Uber an estimated $500m a year.
Both companies have their headquarters in San Francisco. City Attorney Dennis Herrera made it clear the upstarts were not going to get special treatment. "We have been building this case for months in partnership with the California Attorney General and our counterparts in Los Angeles and San Diego,” he said.
“Uber and Lyft are breaking the law. We are going to put a stop to it. Uber and Lyft claim that properly classifying drivers as employees is incompatible with flexibility. That is a lie. There is no legal reason why Uber and Lyft can’t have a vast pool of employees who decide for themselves when and where they work – exactly as drivers do now. These companies simply don’t want to do it. Uber and Lyft are selling a lie. They are lying to the public and lying to their drivers.”
That’s a lot of “lies” in one statement from lawyer.
Other proposals
Uber and Lyft were two of the most vociferous opponents to AB5 as it was debated in the Cali capital of Sacramento and went to some lengths to try to quash it. Just before the law went into effect, Uber also sued arguing that it violated people’s constitutional rights and discriminated against tech platforms.
Both companies have also [5]heavily funded a ballot measure that would create a [6]third kind of worker that sits in between contracting and employment where Uber drivers. For example, workers would gain “access to benefits,” as well as guaranteed earnings but free companies from having to pay any sick leave, paid time off or compensation if they are injured while carrying out their job.
This lawsuit puts down a solid marker on the issue however. Not that AB5 is perfect. One of the worst aspects (that will be changed) is the fact it completely ignored freelance journalism and decided that anyone writing more than 35 pieces a year for an outlet should be classified as an employee. There are other examples that will require tweaks but fundamentally AB5 was designed with Uber and Lyft specifically in mind.
In response to the lawsuit, a Lyft said in a statement: "We are looking forward to working with the Attorney General and mayors across the state to bring all the benefits of California’s innovation economy to as many workers as possible, especially during this time when the creation of good jobs with access to affordable healthcare and other benefits is more important than ever."
Uber said in its statement: "At a time when California’s economy is in crisis with four million people out of work, we need to make it easier, not harder, for people to quickly start earning. We will contest this action in court, while at the same time pushing to raise the standard of independent work for drivers in California, including with guaranteed minimum earnings and new benefits.”
Elsewhere
In a sign of how hard the gig economy is being hit by the coronavirus health crisis, today Airbnb [7]announced it was laying off 1,900 employees - nearly 25 per cent of its workforce. ®
Sponsored: [8]How to Build Your Digital Experience Portfolio
[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/11/california_law_gig_workers/
[2] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/2020-05-05%20-%20Filed%20Complaint.pdf
[3] https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-and-city-attorneys-los-angeles-san-diego-and-san
[4] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/11/california_law_gig_workers/
[5] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/30/uber_lyft_ballot/
[6] https://medium.com/uber-under-the-hood/moving-work-forward-in-california-7de60b6827b4
[7] https://news.airbnb.com/a-message-from-co-founder-and-ceo-brian-chesky/
[8] https://go.theregister.co.uk/tl/1936/-8578/how-to-build-your-digital-experience-portfolio?td=wptl1936
Re: Meanwhile (according to the BBC)...
It's all about the money. The law's major opponents were Uber and Lyft. It was clearly written with gig companies like Uber and Lyft in mind. And it enacts a California Supreme Court ruling.
Reclassification would cost Uber an estimated $500 million a year.
At the end of February, Uber said it had approximately $10 Billion in cash.
But goddess forbid any of that go to their workers.
AB5 hurts more than just UBER...
as I understand it, many businesses are harmed by AB5, ones that you would never GUESS would fall into this kind of category.
Like professional musicians, playing gigs in bars and clubs [well, when THE STATE IS NOT SHUT DOWN anyway]. These guys who'd normally play for $xxx per gig, suddenly have to be EMPLOYEES? That makes _NO_ sense whatsoever!
And not to mention I.T. and Engineering contractors and consultants - particularly of the 'work from home' variety. Fortunately I have a CORPORATION so nothing really changed for ME, but I know it has hurt OTHERS.
AB5 - it's a *STUPID* law, created by *IDIOTS* for the purpose of CONTROLLING that segment of the work force that's existing outside of a LOT of RIDICULOUS REGULATIONS that ONLY empower GUMMINT, at the expense of WORKING STIFFS. It makes CONTRACTORS LESS LIKELY TO BE HIRED, because companies must THINK TWICE before they make people "employees" with all of the usual ADDITIONAL regulations, insurance requirements, taxes, yotta yotta yotta that's associated with it. The unemployment insurance laws REQUIRE THEM to re-imburse the ENTIRE cost of it for up to 6 months after the employee stops working for you. Whereas a CONTRACTOR is TEMPORARY, and there is NO unemployment tax deducted. [in the case of my corporation I end up paying the stupid tax ANYWAY even though i will *NEVER* use it - it's just "yet another gummint expense" and if I ever DID use it I'd have to PAY IT ALL BACK so what's the point???]
It's what happens when you have ONE PARTY RULE in Sacramento for WAY TOO LONG, and the SOCIALISTS TAKE OVER. It's just a MONEY GRAB and a POWER GRAB, by ELITIST LIBERAL POLITICIANS.
I'm (holding fingers almost together) *THIS* close to leaving Cali-Fornicate-You for GOOD, over THIS and SEVERAL OTHER THINGS, and thereby DENYING them my business in this state. ONE MORE THING and I'm going to TEXAS!!! Or, maybe, Florida... and if I can take my customers WITH me, that'd be even BETTER!!!
I'd like to challenge AB5 on its EXISTENCE and MAKE IT GO AWAY. Go, UBER!!! I'm rooting for ya!
Re: AB5 hurts more than just UBER...
Oh what a suprise RANDOM caps Bob IS against workers RIGHTS. I guess this is too COMMIE for Bob, SO LONG as BOBS rights are OK fuck everyone ELSE.
Uber and Lyft have yet to show a cent of profit, right?
And last year, Uber lost 8 billion dollars. Ah well, with the current crisis and everybody staying at home, they should actually lose less money than usual, right?
Re: Uber and Lyft have yet to show a cent of profit, right?
They'll probably have even higher losses. The only profitable thing they do is to arrange these rides, as they earn more from the customer than they pay the driver. They use all that money, as well as plenty from investors, to pay for projects that don't make any money now but theoretically could in the future, such as their self-driving cars. At this point, they have fewer rides making a small amount of profit, but to the best of my knowledge, they're still paying the engineers on the self-driving project, and they're of course continuing to pay the lawyers and managers. They're going to be even farther from profitable now.
Meanwhile (according to the BBC)...
..."Uber and Lyft have also pushed Congress to include their drivers in the federal government's coronavirus relief, including expanded unemployment benefits."
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52552998)
They make Janus look like a paragon of virtue!