790 a.m. radio
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Joined
·
798 Posts
No clue about podcasts.
What did they say?
Joined
·
798 Posts
I switched back to music because I picked up a passenger. From the party that I heard, the employment attorney thinks that we are employees because the only independent contractor test that we meet is working when we want to. Even then, declining rides leads to punishment.
Joined
·
7,642 Posts
Read closer. The language says specific pings. It was carefully wordsmithed to allow them to penalize drivers for not accepting multiple pings.
You are always entitled to your opinion....no matter how wrong.
Prior to Prop 22 I would get threatening pop ups from Lyft if I allowed more than 2 pings to pass. I would also get threatening e-mails if I kept missing pings.
Since Prop 22 my acceptance rate has been between 5% and 15% and averages below 10%.......and not one word from Lyft.
If your interpretation was correct my e-mail inbox would be full from Lyft threats.
Do you want further proof?
Why is Uber playing the 5 out of 10 bull craap?
Why not just tell drivers if they decline 2 pings in a row they will be deactivated.
I am sure you have copies of such correspondence you can produce to bolster your opinion.
Joined
·
7,642 Posts
No, that's not proof that they can't do anything if you don't accept a bunch of rides. It's only proof that they've opted not to do anything and are being more liberal so it doesn't look like they're penalizing for a low number of refusals. Also, while they say that they're short of drivers, they're not going to push the issue. There's nothing stopping them from changing policy anytime they want.
Here's the specific language:
(b) The network company does not require the app-based driver to accept any specific rideshare service or delivery service request as a condition of maintaining access to the network company’s online-enabled application or platform.
That language means that if they wanted to, they could put drivers on silent suspension for a short time, suspend them or permanently delete them for as little as 2 declined rides. There's nothing in 22 to prevent it. Granted, 2 is a ridiculous number, but if they decided that drivers need to accept 95% of all rides, they could do whatever they want.
Any specific means any and all.
If a driver declines 10 rides in a row and then gets deactivated on the 11th decline then the 11th ping is a "specific" request.
The fact that you believe that Lyft could deactivate drivers but out of the kindness of their heart they choose not to is pretty funny.
If you want to buy a bridge I can make you a hell of a deal.
Joined
·
7,642 Posts
No, "any specific" does not mean any and all. It means exactly any one, single, specific offer. If they said "any offer", that would mean any and all. All they would need to do is say "this driver declined an unacceptable number of offers." Using your example, it's not that he declined the 11th ping, it's that he declined a total of 11 pings. That's not a specific ping, it's a group of pings. If you doubt this, ask an attorney.
Do you not believe that Uber and Lyft, who authored 22, knew exactly what they were doing and spent countless hours refining the text so they could do precisely what they want later?
As for Lyft, they're doing exactly what they believe is in their best interest right now. It's unfortunate that you don't understand that and that your grasp of legalese is lacking.
You claim that U/L don't want to deactivate drivers due to a shortage.
But that has nothing to do with threatening deactivation....especially when thay have a history of making drivers believe they could be deactivated if they decline too many rides.
There is also the federal court ruling that prevents them from deactivating drivers for declining pings.
Where is the federal case?
You are saying Prop 22 violates a federal court ruling and nobody has thought to file a federal case?
If only you had a better grasp of the law.
Joined
·
7,642 Posts
Your debate is an attempt to refocus the debate and to change the subject. Let's be perfectly clear. I stated clearly that there's nothing in prop22 that prevents the gig companies from deactivating a driver for refusing multiple pings. That is all. Anything said about why they aren't doing it is pure conjecture on both of our parts.
As for threats of deactivation, that's another topic entirey. They may threaten to do so, or merely imply a threat (can you say "Lyft"? "It's bad for the platform when drivers decline too many rides.") Are such threats illegal? Perhaps, perhaps not. But then again, it woudn't be the first time these companies do something allegedly illegal.
Yes, there was a federal case about declining pings. That was a pre-22 case dealing with employee status. U/L's opinion appears to be that 22 superseded that ruling. If you find that case, let me know. I'd like to read the actual ruling.
Personally, yes, I say that Prop22 violates the federal statutes and rulings on employee vs. IC status. However, neither your nor my opinion matters on this. A definitive case has yet to come before the federal courts to resolve that. The one about declining pings and being deactivated only addressed that specific aspect of driver IC vs employee status, to the best of my knowledge.
More importantly, 22 violates CALIFORNIA law, according to CA courts, and that will be going before the CSC soon. I expect the ruling to be upheld.
Bottom line, despite your attempts to broaden and conflate the debate, I'll say it again. There's nothing in Prop22 that prevents the gig companies from deactivating a driver for declining multiple rides. (Assuming 22 were upheld, it would then be a matter for the courts to decide how far the gig companies could take this, once an applicable case is brought forward.)
The problem is your interpretation.
The lawyers who wrote Prop 22 know far more about the law than either if us.
Never the less you believe that they wrote a California law that defies a federal court ruling....absurd.
According to you the authors knowingly wrote a California law in defiance of federal law and yet there is no case in federal court to have it declared unconstitutional.
A slam dunk case if ever there was one.....if your interpretation is correct.
We can only conclude you are making a wrong interpretation.
As for what the appeals court and the CSC rules we need to pray it is upheld as constitutional and they strike down the 7/8 vote requirement.
That could pave the way to make meaningful changes in favor of drivers.
Joined
·
7,642 Posts
First. based on past actions, I have no problem believing that they'd do exactly that, in order to claim that they're acting within the law. Second, they also have spent a ton of money on lobbying and other tactics to persuade the feds not to take any action. You do recall that the feds are taking a closer look at this, or at least, they were. It's gone radio silent.
And once again, you're trying to conflate issues. I've only stated that there's nothing in 22 to stop the gig companies frrom deactivating drivers from declining or canceling too many pings.
As for Prop 22, it will be upheld or struck down in it's entirety. They're not going to keep part and throw part away. That's been made clear.
In my opinion, it has to go in it's entirety. But we've had that debate before. And since I dislike repeating myself, especially more than twice, I've made my case. Those that read this thread can make up their own minds. I'm confident of whom they'll agree with. This is the last I'm saying on the topic here. So, feel free to have any last word you wish.
And once again, you're trying to conflate issues. I've only stated that there's nothing in 22 to stop the gig companies frrom deactivating drivers from declining or canceling too many pings.
As for Prop 22, it will be upheld or struck down in it's entirety. They're not going to keep part and throw part away. That's been made clear.
In my opinion, it has to go in it's entirety. But we've had that debate before. And since I dislike repeating myself, especially more than twice, I've made my case. Those that read this thread can make up their own minds. I'm confident of whom they'll agree with. This is the last I'm saying on the topic here. So, feel free to have any last word you wish.
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
