[Netwerkjim]

It's now been nearly a year since the California Supreme Court Ruled in the Dynamex case that be they were making new and more simple rules that employers must follow if they want to classifying their worker's as Independent Contractor's.
The Court said as of 04/30/2018 that all workers in California are employees and that if an employer wants to change their employees to independent contractor's the employer must be able to prove that they can pass the ABC Test.
If they can pass this test, then they can change their employees into independent contractor's
So on 5/1/2018 all Driver's that work for Uber, Lyft, and any other Gig economy worker should have been changed to employees.
But as we all know as of right now all these workers are still being treated as Contractor's.
This all being said, my question is why hasn't the California Labor Commissioner cracked down on all these companies that have just ignored California law? It blows my mind that Uber and Lyft can time after time ignore the law and after more than 5 years, they are still getting away with cheating thousands of worker's.
So if you're like me who tried working for these clowns or still do, and you're mad because you have been screwed in order for these Gig scammer to use you to pay their expenses so that they can be millionaires, while you have to sleep in your car because even with 50 hr plus work weeks, after expenses you can't afford an apartment, then do something about it. Contact the California Labor Commissioner's office near you and ask them why, after the California Supreme Court ruled that all workers are employees until the employer can prove they can pass the ABC test, are Uber and Lyft not complying with the law? And why after a year has gone by, you haven't done anything to make them comply? If at least a few hundred of us did this I think you would soon start seeing expense reimbursement checks showing up in your bank accounts soon. For me that amounts to over $26,000 Lyft owes me. But not for long I have already accessed the Labor Commission to get my money back. It's just a matter of a few more months and with penalties I will be $50k richer and so can you. But only if you make Uber and Lyft obey the law.

 

[TomTheAnt]

This all being said, my question is why hasn't the California Labor Commissioner cracked down on all these companies that have just ignored California law?

Contact the California Labor Commissioner's office near you and ask them why, after the California Supreme Court ruled that all workers are employees until the employer can prove they can pass the ABC test, are Uber and Lyft not complying with the law?

So... Have YOU contacted them yourself? What was the response?

And if the below was the response, why not be a bit more helpful and provide instructions for other CA drivers so they can claim their funds?

I have already accessed the Labor Commission to get my money back. It's just a matter of a few more months and with penalties I will be $50k richer and so can you.

 

[NotanEmployee]

I hate to be the barer of bad news....you might disagree but this is how uber is set up. YOU are the business owner. YOU collect 100% of the fare for transporting people. You pay uber for 1) the use of their technology and 2) for them to use their technology to process payments for you. YOU are UBER CUSTOMER. So....

(A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact, and

They do not control how you work, when you work, who you choose to take or kick out of your car.

(B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and

Uber is NOT a transportation business. They are a tech business. They make money by you using their tech. You pay them for using their tech to match YOU with customers and processing payments.

(C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.

This is your business, transporting people. You must have a business license (where required by your location) and pay all business taxes.

These facts may seem wrong to everyone in this forum but they are the facts. Uber has worked hard to protect themselves and used the laws on the books to do so.

I have worked as an independent contractor for various companies and would never go back to being an employee but there are some things that uber does that seem incredibly wrong to me. Riders should be UBERS customers not ours. My gross should be what uber pays me. But that's not reality. I don't like it but I'm not ignorant to it and I choose to drive anyway. If you don't like it, you can choose not to do it.

Thanks for bringing to my attention that CA law. Now I know uber will never change the way they do things because if they did, they couldn't earn money off drivers in CA.

 

[RDWRER]

I hate to be the barer of bad news....you might disagree but this is how uber is set up. YOU are the business owner. YOU collect 100% of the fare for transporting people. You pay uber for 1) the use of their technology and 2) for them to use their technology to process payments for you. YOU are UBER CUSTOMER. So....

(A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact, and

They do not control how you work, when you work, who you choose to take or kick out of your car.

(B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and

Uber is NOT a transportation business. They are a tech business. They make money by you using their tech. You pay them for using their tech to match YOU with customers and processing payments.

(C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.

This is your business, transporting people. You must have a business license (where required by your location) and pay all business taxes.

These facts may seem wrong to everyone in this forum but they are the facts. Uber has worked hard to protect themselves and used the laws on the books to do so.

I have worked as an independent contractor for various companies and would never go back to being an employee but there are some things that uber does that seem incredibly wrong to me. Riders should be UBERS customers not ours. My gross should be what uber pays me. But that's not reality. I don't like it but I'm not ignorant to it and I choose to drive anyway. If you don't like it, you can choose not to do it.

Thanks for bringing to my attention that CA law. Now I know uber will never change the way they do things because if they did, they couldn't earn money off drivers in CA.

$$coughshill$$

The government hasn't yet codified that ruling into law so they have leeway to continue business as usual until then. The California State Assembly already is working on Assembly Bill 5 which will redefine employment in accordance with that ruling and they have already made it clear that the rideshare market will not be exempt.

 

[Jake Air]

Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles was an 82 page decision

Contact the California Labor Commissioner's office near you and ask them why, after the California Supreme Court ruled that all workers are employees until the employer can prove they can pass the ABC test, are Uber and Lyft not complying with the law?

As someone else pointed out, what were you told when you called? I don't know enough about this voluminous 82-page court decision to challenge anybody over what was decided and how it applies to ride share.

• For information on making a wage and hour claim, employer/employee rights and general labor law questions, contact a Deputy Labor Commissioner at one of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement local offices. You can also refer to the Department of Industrial Relations Contact page or call 1-844-LABOR-DIR (1-844-522-6734) if you have a work-related issue and can't find the appropriate contact, to get help directing your call.

 

[NotanEmployee]

The government hasn't yet codified that ruling into law so they have leeway to continue business as usual until then. The California State Assembly already is working on Assembly Bill 5 which will redefine employment in accordance with that ruling and they have already made it clear that the rideshare market will not be exempt

If that is true, I see this being hung up in court battles for years. Or uber will just stop driver app service in California.

 

[UberBastid]

California Labor Board is doing its job.
It is fining employers, monitoring employers, making employers pay fees and taxes.
They are collecting money.
THAT is the number one priority of ALL branches of California government.

 

[Netwerkjim]

I hate to be the barer of bad news....you might disagree but this is how uber is set up. YOU are the business owner. YOU collect 100% of the fare for transporting people. You pay uber for 1) the use of their technology and 2) for them to use their technology to process payments for you. YOU are UBER CUSTOMER. So....

(A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact, and

They do not control how you work, when you work, who you choose to take or kick out of your car.

(B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and

Uber is NOT a transportation business. They are a tech business. They make money by you using their tech. You pay them for using their tech to match YOU with customers and processing payments.

(C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.

This is your business, transporting people. You must have a business license (where required by your location) and pay all business taxes.

These facts may seem wrong to everyone in this forum but they are the facts. Uber has worked hard to protect themselves and used the laws on the books to do so.

I have worked as an independent contractor for various companies and would never go back to being an employee but there are some things that uber does that seem incredibly wrong to me. Riders should be UBERS customers not ours. My gross should be what uber pays me. But that's not reality. I don't like it but I'm not ignorant to it and I choose to drive anyway. If you don't like it, you can choose not to do it.

Thanks for bringing to my attention that CA law. Now I know uber will never change the way they do things because if they did, they couldn't earn money off drivers in CA.

You are full of crap! You mean to tell me Uber has no control over it's Driver's? Then according to you the ratings that Uber and Lyft make Driver's keep above 4.6 or they will be Deactivated isn't control over Driver's?
The Uber and Lyft BS about being tech companies and letting driver drive when they want to doesn't work anymore. Because there are many companies that have employees who are allowed to work when they want to. That doesn't make them a Contractor. This is the only argument that both Uber and Lyft have to show Driver's are legally contractors. What you guys don't let it be known is the 20 other things you do that only an employer can do to an employee. Deactivation is one and changing the rates that Driver's are paid without Driver's able to negotiate the fare rate is another.
But the nail in the coffin that neither Uber or Lyft can't prevent from proof that their driver's are employees is, the fact that your Driver's are the main source of your income and without your Driver's you could not exist.
Therefore according to the labor laws of the Great State of California your Driver's are Employees and should have been changed over to employees a year ago next month.
You have no legal leg to stand on, enjoy the thousands of lawsuits and millions you're going to be paying out soon.
Oh and by the way according to the Arbitration Act of 1925 all Transportation Worker's are exempt from forced Arbitration. And yes your Driver's do interstate Transportation. Look up the definition and you will find any driver who moves commerce even though they do not cross the state line, if that commodity then is transfered and it's end journey has crossed state lines, as long as that worker was involved in the distribution, they are enguaged in insterstate commerce.
So you can't force any Driver into Arbitration as I will be soon proving and Lyft and the rest of you will soon realize the gig is up.

 

[UberBastid]

You are full of crap! You mean to tell me Uber has no control over it's Driver's? Then according to you the ratings that Uber and Lyft make Driver's keep above 4.6 or they will be Deactivated isn't control over Driver's?

It's easy enough to check, Jim.
Google it.
"Is an Uber driver an independent contractor". Do it. Google it.
It's a fact.
A legal fact.
The law doesn't have to make sense.
It just ... is.

 

[Nats121]

They do not control how you work, when you work, who you choose to take or kick out of your car.

You've gotta be kidding.

"High" cancellation rates have gotten many drivers terminated. Uber used to terminate for "low" acceptance rates.

Every kick out is a potential termination.

By showing only one destination for stacked (multiple orders from same restaurant) Eats orders, Uber micromanages (controls) the delivery process, a big no no when dealing with a supposed IC.

Uber is NOT a transportation business. They are a tech business. They make money by you using their tech. You pay them for using their tech to match YOU with customers and processing payments.

Uber says 2+2 = 5. The fact that our govt has allowed uber to get away with making that claim doesn't change the fact that their claim is false.

 

[UberTrent9]

If that is true, I see this being hung up in court battles for years. Or uber will just stop driver app service in California.

Doubt the latter ever happens, thatd be career suicide.

 

[NOXDriver]

Most ants can't wrap their heads around the fact that they are AGREEING to the terms they hate so much. You, as an IC are free to take all/some/none of the ride REQUESTS that uber offers you.

So why would a tech company, that makes money by SELLING ITS SERVICES TO DRIVERS want to keep drivers that would simply decline the request? No one would want an unreliable sub-contractor on there list.

The fact that they are deactivating you (NOT FIRING YOU) because you do not want to work for them makes you an employee how??

If you don't like the terms of each ride Ubers platform offers you, then don't use the app. You can't cry about not being an employee when you never do anything that makes you look like an employee, ever.

This will not go to the courts because Ubers position is very solid and they have precedent on their side. If the wacky CA legislature changes the rules, it doesn't back date everyone to employee status for the last X years, and Uber will have plenty of time to make whatever changes it needs to keep you an IC.

 

[Atom guy]

Most ants can't wrap their heads around the fact that they are AGREEING to the terms they hate so much. You, as an IC are free to take all/some/none of the ride REQUESTS that uber offers you.

So why would a tech company, that makes money by SELLING ITS SERVICES TO DRIVERS want to keep drivers that would simply decline the request? No one would want an unreliable sub-contractor on there list.

The fact that they are deactivating you (NOT FIRING YOU) because you do not want to work for them makes you an employee how??

If you don't like the terms of each ride Ubers platform offers you, then don't use the app. You can't cry about not being an employee when you never do anything that makes you look like an employee, ever.

This will not go to the courts because Ubers position is very solid and they have precedent on their side. If the wacky CA legislature changes the rules, it doesn't back date everyone to employee status for the last X years, and Uber will have plenty of time to make whatever changes it needs to keep you an IC.

The switch occurred with upfront pricing. Before upfront pricing, WE controlled the prices the passengers paid by the route we took them, since they paid actual time and miles. Then we remitted 20-25% service fee to uber. After upfront pricing, we earn a set per mile and per minute rate, but that has no relation to what the passenger pays. The passengers used to be our customers, but now they are Uber's customers, since our earnings are independent of the passengers' fares.

 

[RDWRER]

Most ants can't wrap their heads around the fact that they are AGREEING to the terms they hate so much. You, as an IC are free to take all/some/none of the ride REQUESTS that uber offers you.

So why would a tech company, that makes money by SELLING ITS SERVICES TO DRIVERS want to keep drivers that would simply decline the request? No one would want an unreliable sub-contractor on there list.

The fact that they are deactivating you (NOT FIRING YOU) because you do not want to work for them makes you an employee how??

If you don't like the terms of each ride Ubers platform offers you, then don't use the app. You can't cry about not being an employee when you never do anything that makes you look like an employee, ever.

This will not go to the courts because Ubers position is very solid and they have precedent on their side. If the wacky CA legislature changes the rules, it doesn't back date everyone to employee status for the last X years, and Uber will have plenty of time to make whatever changes it needs to keep you an IC.

Tell that to the 9th Circuit Court.

 

[NOXDriver]

Tell that to the 9th Circuit Court.

The already agree with me. What employer like acts does Uber perform? NONE.

You get a contract/ping. You are free to accept/ignore it. You already know the pay rates and where the person is. By accepting the contract/ping you also agree to the 'random value' of the ride (based on distance). It up to you to accept it.

By contrast an employee can not refuse work. Nor can they simply leave if scheduled to work.

The last thing you want is a craptastic company like Uber to be your actual boss. Do you think Punjuheeb Dhrashmckika, your third supervisor for the week, give a crap about you?

You have no idea how good you have it as an IC.

 

[RDWRER]

The already agree with me. What employer like acts does Uber perform? NONE.

You get a contract/ping. You are free to accept/ignore it. You already know the pay rates and where the person is. By accepting the contract/ping you also agree to the 'random value' of the ride (based on distance). It up to you to accept it.

By contrast an employee can not refuse work. Nor can they simply leave if scheduled to work.

The last thing you want is a craptastic company like Uber to be your actual boss. Do you think Punjuheeb Dhrashmckika, your third supervisor for the week, give a crap about you?

You have no idea how good you have it as an IC.

:roflmao:

Okay, now it's time to ignore the shill. Buh-bye!

 

[Nats121]

Most ants can't wrap their heads around the fact that they are AGREEING to the terms they hate so much

"Agreeing" to terms does not necessarily mean someone likes the terms, especially when the alternative to "agreeing" to them is losing your job.

You, as an IC are free to take all/some/none of the ride REQUESTS that uber offers you.

Being an IC didn't prevent uber from threatening drivers with termination for low acceptance rates. Uber didn't change that policy until 2016, and even then they only did it to appease a judge in California.

So why would a tech company, that makes money by SELLING ITS SERVICES TO DRIVERS want to keep drivers that would simply decline the request? No one would want an unreliable sub-contractor on there list.

Now you're contradicting yourself and uber.

A company wouldn't want to keep them, but that's the price they pay for paying their drivers garbage pay rates. It's also the price they pay for choosing not to put drivers on the payroll as employees. Uber saves billions of dollars a year in Minimum Wage, FICA, Comp, and unemployment by classifying their drivers as ICs.

If uber really wants reliably available drivers, PAY THEM WELL or put them on the PAYROLL as employees. They demand having their cake and eating it too, but that's not the way it works.

So why would a tech company, that makes money by SELLING ITS SERVICES TO DRIVERS

If they're not a transportation company, then 2+2 = 5

The fact that they are deactivating you (NOT FIRING YOU

In their literature, the IRS uses the term "fired" for ICs whose contracts have been terminated by their companies. If it's good enough for the IRS, it's good enough for me.

 

[here2der]

I have acted as a clearly defined housing project contractor/subcontractor, with my own business, as well as having worked in clearly defined employer-employee relationship jobs.

It's been made obvious to me over nearly a year of doing various driving app gigs that various standout characteristics can fall solidly under BOTH classifications, and until they institute a more accurate hybrid classification along the lines of Dependent Employee Contractor, there will continue to be more unfair and abusive treatment, non-negotiable compensation reductions, and many acts of driver discrimination, abuse, and fraud given no legitimate credence and proper investigation than is actually necessary.