LEGAL In Historic Ultimatum, Uber Threatens To Shut Down California Business If Appeal Isn't Approved

Blacknarwhal

Let's Go Brandon!
...

Well...you know...there's something to be said for voting with your feet.

That being said, I'm not super happy about the notion that corporations have so much power they can basically force a judge to overturn law in their favor. Sounds like one of those slippery slopes I keep hearing about.

Fair use cited so on and so forth.


In Historic Ultimatum, Uber Threatens To Shut Down California Business If Appeal Isn't Approved

by Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/12/2020 - 10:55


In one of the most daring - if seemingly inevitable - ultimatums issued by a corporation facing a damaging legal action, Uber CEO Dara Khosroshahi has just threatened for the first time publicly to shut down its California business if its appeal of a judge's ruling in a case over a recent California law is rejected.



This is not good for shareholders, but the company claims it has no choice, since running the business with all drivers as full-time employees would lead to an impossible hike in fees, likely rending (sic) the business uncompetitive and unprofitable. California is the largest state in the country as well as Uber's home state, and San Francisco and LA are two of Uber's biggest markets worldwide.

As we reported yesterday, Uber warned that it may need to hike prices by as much as 111% after a San Francisco judge ruled on Monday that the ride-sharing company, as well as its competitor Lyft, must classify its drivers as employees, a move which will disproportionately impact drivers from low-income backgrounds who don't see driving as a full-time job, but rather a flexible way to earn some money on their own terms.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/u...n-california-business-if-appeal-isnt-approved
The ruling was the confluence of months of developments in California leading to what would become one of the most restrictive, anti-business labor laws regarding ride-share drivers in the country. The precedent, which is effectively an interpretation of a new law signed by Gov Newsom in September, a law that imposes new restrictions on classifying employees as "independent contractors," could create problems throughout the "sharing economy" - and the tech industry more broadly - and not just in California.

The result is that companies like Uber will be required to provide various benefits to drivers, including overtime pay and health insurance.

The lawsuit was filed in May by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, along with city attorneys from San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco. It argued that companies like Uber had been illegally classifying their drivers as independent contractors under the new law.

Even though this move could leave tens of thousands of drivers stranded in the short term, cut off from what has become a crucial income stream in a state where the cost of living is among the highest in the country, largely due to regulations on business, zoning and agriculture. Remember, Sacramento's role in contributing to the state's brutal wildfires was largely underplayed by the mainstream press in 2017 and 2018. Though most Californians associate this argument with President Trump's incoherent rambling about raking or whatever, there's a solid argument that forestry mismanagement by the state, intended to appease environmental activists, contributed to the deadly blazes. But we don't hear anybody crying about how the Sierra Club, or Greta Thunberg, contributed to the murder of Americans.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Yeah, for once I am with California on this one.

Every few years of my adult lifetime (starting in the 1970s) I've seen various "Bigs" businesses and corporations go through a fad of trying to "save money" by making all employees independent contractors.

Colorado solved this problem after a young boy was killed on his paper route and the newspaper claimed he was an "independent contractor" so no workers comp was owed) by passing a simple bill:

If a person works for Three or more employers in a month, they are an independent contractor (that covers plumbers, mechanics, some IT people, etc).

What it did not allow was the kind of same the local newspapers (and other businesses, like cleaning companies) had started using to get out of paying proper wages, benefits, or even legally mandated workers compensation insurance.

I have no idea if that law has changed or not but it did solve the problem for several years when I was there (and helping to run a small business on the side of my regular job, so we had to keep up with that stuff).

Uber had the same problems in London and got whacked across the eyeballs several years ago, I'm not sure the current situation, but I think officially they have to pay people as employees, unofficially a lot of London Taxi "service" is under the table.
 

ShadowMan

Designated Grumpy Old Fart
So leave! No skin off my back. Take your ball and go home.....no wait. California is home - oh well. Take your temper tantrum and go somewhere else.

I see this as a win-win. All the businesses leave because of the over taxation, legislation, etc. they just get fed up and leave. The state goes bankrupt and the Dem's finally go under. All the social services crash and all the Gimedats go somewhere else. Then maybe we can get a real conservative government and undo all the damage the lib's have forced on the state and we can get back to some sort of sanity. Ok....it's my dream and will never happen, but I can dream can't I?
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
In this sort of situation, I suspect that a lot of State will simply follow California; that's because at the end of the day it tends to be the State government that has to step in if a "non" employee-employee is severely injured or killed in a work-related incident on the job (medicare/Medicaid/welfare/social security disability/social security to support orphaned children etc).

I worked at the State of Colorado regulation oversight board for about 5 long years and most people have no clue how many serious deaths and accidents happen from car crashes, including many businesses that you would never associate with cars.

Places like fast-food companies, Mom and Pop shops, garden centers, fun-fairs, etc; all you need is for the boss to ask John or Susie to "please make a deposit of company funds" at the bank and boom if they are injured or killed driving or walking to the bank - it is a claim.

This is one of the REAL reasons Uber/Lyft doesn't want to become "employers" because their worker's compensation insurance is going to be pretty darn high since traffic is kind of the nature of the job (with the ever-present risk of accidents).
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Uber has been fighting for EONS whether or not they are a Taxi Service.

This is just another piece of that battle.
I'm pretty sure in London they were ruled a Taxi service, at one point they lost their license but I think they got it back (this was several years ago) when people couldn't get to work etc.

It is a complicated situation, but yeah there are ways to run a taxi service, and some do use independents - some use employees.
 

Kayak

Adrenaline Junkie
The IRS rules say if you have to be there at a certain time, you're an employee. If you set your own hours, you aren't. There's more to it -- if you control the tools you use, how you get the job done, etc. It's my understanding that Uber drivers sign in and work when they want, and not on a schedule. They also decide the kind of car they'll drive, etc. My understanding of how they work means they aren't employees, they are contractors. If I'm wrong and they are assigned times when they must be on the job, then yeah, that would be an employee.

 
Top