
Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay - badwolf
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/20/21377841/uber-lyft-california-judge-block-emergency-stay-employees
======
serjester
Completely anecdotal but I bring this question up every time I drive in an
Uber and overwhelmingly the drivers tell me they want to stay independent. No
one is forcing drivers into their jobs. I really struggle to understand why we
need bureaucrats imposing their idea of what a market should look like on an
fairly efficient market.

From my experience the drivers are perfectly aware of the costs that go into
driving so I really don't buy the exploitation argument. Seems like a loss for
everyone except bureaucrats. Also don't see how it's realistic to expect them
to be able to adjust to this on a dime. Although large, California is still a
minority of their revenue.

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
They want to stay independent, fine. Then actually treat them like independent
contractors. Let them set rates. Let them decline rides without facing
penalties by the platform. Make the changes necessary to fit the independent
contractor model. And not just the rideshare company, but the state too: these
workers need unemployment insurance, as Covid has shown, and somebody needs to
pay for it: be it the workers or the ridesharing businesses.

~~~
kyle_martin1
I worked for SuperShuttle developing their driver mobile app.

I can tell you for a fact that a big reason SuperShuttle failed is because the
drivers were independent. They would consistently reject low cost trips and
wait it out until they got one "mega" trip so that they only need to actually
work for about 3 hours/day. Some days they wouldn't take any trips, just hang
out in the van playing Flappy Bird.

This was a main issue for the SuperShuttle because they couldn't get their
drivers to do adapt when Uber came around, including accepting work that more
resembled Uber pool workloads.

~~~
jeffbee
This is what we call "revealed preference". It doesn't really matter what ten
thousand Uber drivers have told you (and some of the supposed first-hand field
surveying claimed in this discussion stretches belief). The only thing that
matters in the end is how the participants in the market actually behave.

~~~
Zak
I think what's happening here is the defined categories don't adequately model
reality. An Uber driver is somewhere between the current legal categories of
employee and independent contractor.

A fully independent contractor like a SuperShuttle driver can treat each fare
as a separate contract, pick only the best offers, and generally not provide
the company an adequate service level to ensure a reliable stream of
customers. Each driver prioritizing their short-term interests keeps that
model from being a viable profession in many cases.

On the other hand, an employer is required to provide certain benefits to
employees, especially if they exceed certain thresholds of hours worked. To
make the fixed cost of some of those benefits viable, the employer will
usually want to require the employee to work specific hours, and often
_limits_ those hours to stay within legal thresholds.

It's the flexibility of scheduling I that I think attracts people to gig work.
They'll _take_ the ability to cherry-pick the most profitable gigs if given
the chance, but it isn't a core requirement.

It's probably desirable to add a third category to provide gig workers some
protections without shoehorning them into the employee classification, which
many of them actively wish to avoid.

~~~
toddmclaughlin
Very well said. Gig workers are in that nebulous, legally undefined category
between employees and contractors.

------
URSpider94
We have long ago decided that we don’t let people give away certain rights,
even if they do it freely, even if they want to. I can’t work for a business
for free, or for below minimum wage, even if I call myself an “unpaid intern”.
I can’t work for a business as a child (below working age). I can’t ask a
business not to withhold income tax from my paycheck, or to not pay their half
of the social security tax, or withhold my half. My employer has to pay into
the unemployment insurance pool on my behalf.

We have these rules because every unscrupulous employer out there has
exploited one or more of these ploys at some time in the past, and would
gladly do so again.

Companies are constantly looking for ways to avoid one or more of these
restrictions. One way is to claim someone is a contractor - basically another
business - and therefore is responsible for making sure its own employees are
treated according to the law (usually there’s only one employee...). This is a
constant cat and mouse game.

Uber and Lyft claim to be transportation marketplaces where riders and drivers
meet up and contract for services, except they dictate every aspect of the
transaction, other than when the drivers choose to work. It’s not 100% of the
way employees at Wal Mart or McDonalds are treated, but it’s at least 80%
there. We have to draw the line somewhere, and the TNC’s have fulfilled almost
all of the standard tests for when someone is considered an employee.

~~~
neosat
> other than when the drivers choose to work. That's not true. What about who
> else they can work for? That's not enforced either.

Which other businesses commonly allow people to work when they want, work for
whatever competition they want, take any amount of 'vacation' in between?

You're fitting something new into an existing category by handwaving away lot
of important nuance, when it is exactly this nuance that makes a ton of
difference and why the new type of work may not fit into an existing category.

~~~
URSpider94
At least in California, an employer has virtually no say about who you work
for in your off hours. If you want to work for McDonald’s 9-5 and Wendy’s
6-midnight, it’s nobody’s business but yours.

~~~
sida
But while you are working at macdonalds you cannot simultaneously be working
for KFC.

That’s what a uber/lyft drivers do

~~~
sixstringtheory
I don’t believe a driver viewing the available riders is “working” any more
than someone looking at prices in the apps to ride are “riding” until they
accept a fare. People interview at many jobs simultaneously, bid on multiple
contracts simultaneously, but they are not _working_ them simultaneously until
an agreement is made.

So unless a driver has a rider from lyft and a rider from uber in the car at
the same time, they are not simultaneously working for both.

That being said I don’t know if there is some employment or contract law that
makes me wrong, or even just terms laid out by uber or lyft.

~~~
sida
Right so your point is that the driver is only an employee while on a trip.
And while waiting for a trip, the driver is not an employee?

I am sure uber/lyft will be more than happy to pay minimum wage if the wage
only counts when a trip begins. But the reason the companies are against the
law is because the law requires minimum wage while the driver is not driving
too. Which means that a driver could actually get 2 minimum wages at the same
time while driving for both uber/lyft.

But of course that won’t happen. Uber/lyft will ban driving for competitor.
Set up shifts such that every driver drives 37.5 hours a week. It is simply
not worth the hassle of paying all these benefits for drivers who log in for
an hour a day at random times.

~~~
sixstringtheory
> Right so your point is that the driver is only an employee while on a trip.
> And while waiting for a trip, the driver is not an employee?

I think I agree with this. Seems like you could still have the traditional, if
not archaic, model where they are paid by hour of work, and simply track the
time they spend en route to pick up and while driving, in place of or
combination with however it's worked out today.

_How much_ they pay per hour of driving I think will still be subject to the
usual market forces. Same for restrictive covenants. Uber and Lyft aren't just
competing for customers, they're also competing for labor. But this is all I
think orthogonal to the question of "what is the true nature of the
relationship between the companies and the drivers," you're talking about
outcomes of possible answers that should not have bearing on what the answer
is.

------
blakesterz
"Uber and Lyft say drivers prefer the flexibility of working as freelancers,
while labor unions and elected officials contend this deprives them of
traditional benefits like health insurance and workers’ compensation."

I was curious about what drivers think. I guess they're not happy [1] but want
to be independent contractors still [2].

1\. [https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-
survey/](https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/)

2\. (In a May online survey drawing responses from 734 Uber and Lyft drivers
nationwide, 71% said they wanted to be independent contractors)
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-lyft-ordered-to-
classify-d...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-lyft-ordered-to-classify-
drivers-as-employees-11597106349)

~~~
Skunkleton
> ...Uber drivers reported earning $13.47 per hour, which means that on
> average, drivers report that their car is costing them over $6 per hour to
> operate.

If you were to drive full time, that would get you about 27k/year, which is
about the average income that a taxi driver makes. Rideshare companies are
asking you to take more personal financial risk than you might as a taxi
driver, but giving you more flexibility.

Still 27k/year is not much money really anywhere in the country. I think this
is a symptom of some major underlying problems with our economy rather than an
indictment of the rideshare industry. If we can't afford to pay drivers a
living wage to do their work, then the people who are using these services
aren't as well off as they think they are.

~~~
hammock
Who says driving for Uber/Lyft should be a full-time job, or statutorily
viable as a full-time job? If you consider it only as a second or third job,
then it makes a lot more sense that your second or third job is not going to
pay as well or have the same benefits as your first job. Those aspects would
be expected and reasonable. The low-risk, high-reward jobs fill your primary
job slot, then you seek other options as needed. (After all, if it was any
different, you might quit your first job and drive for rideshare instead)

~~~
jon-wood
That you don’t bat an eyelid at people needing a second or third job to make
ends meet is in itself an indictment of the general state of the US.

~~~
macinjosh
Why is it necessarily better for someone to have a single job verses multiple
gigs? Not everyone wants to be a shift worker or office drone. Its just an
implementation detail of the economy not some sort of indicator of a problem.

~~~
ivalm
If you have multiple gigs then at least one of those gigs should provide basic
benefits such as insurance. What gig is better at doing it than the gig
powered by a megacorp?

------
overgard
I honestly don't mind paying more if it goes to support the drivers, but I
haven't really seen a compelling argument for why all drivers should count as
employees. From my perspective being an "employee" implies certain things that
don't seem to apply here (predictable work times, exclusivity (so many lyft
drivers are also uber drivers), etc. ) "Freelancer" seems way more
appropriate, the only problem is the lack of protections. It seems to me that
culturally "gig worker" has become its own category anyway and it makes more
sense to create a new legal category with its own set of legal protections.

I know people will point to health insurance... but that's a separate problem
with having health insurance tied to employment. I think it's awful that
people that aren't considered full time employees don't get health insurance..
but I also think that's the government's problem and obligation, not Uber or
Lyfts

~~~
dannyw
You hit the hammer on the nail. If I was an employee and worked for two
directly competing companies simultaneously, I’d be fired for cause.

~~~
sixstringtheory
Is it actually simultaneous? Of course drivers use multiple services, but I’ve
never taken a ride with uber where the driver had passengers from lyft in the
car, eg.

~~~
bhupy
Drivers usually keep both apps open and active, then accept the first dispatch
they receive and temporarily go offline on the other app while finishing the
trip. Then lather, rinse, repeat.

~~~
sixstringtheory
I used to work multiple jobs at different restaurants, where I’d do a morning
shift at one and an evening shift at the other. They could be considered
competitors.

What is the difference between what I did and what drivers do, besides the
frequency of and duration of shifts? I don’t know what kind of laws might
govern requirements here. Could be different between cities/states/countries,
too.

Now, maybe they’d dictate requirements for things like shift duration if
drivers were considered “actual employees” but then they’d presumably also be
receiving other benefits that might obviate the need to drive for multiple
services.

~~~
bhupy
Sure, and in a world where Uber & Lyft drivers are employees, drivers would be
forced to work shifts in the same way. They’d have to clock in a certain
number of hours as part of the condition of “employment”, be it full time or
part time.

What they would not be able to do is drive on both simultaneously. There’s
virtually no low skilled minimum wage job that affords you the flexibility of
setting your own hours at different employers.

~~~
sixstringtheory
I agree that may be an outcome. But don't put the cart before the horse (in
this case, the horse is the question: "what is the nature of the relationship
between Uber and Lyft" and possibly even "what should the nature of the
relationship between a company and an employee and/or contractor even be").

I think it might be helpful to define what "simultaneous" means in the context
of drivers. I stated that I believe it would only be simultaneous if a driver
had passengers from multiple rideshare companies in the car at the same time.
I agree that this would be unacceptable. I don't believe it's unacceptable for
drivers to canvas multiple rideshare apps for fares as long as they drive them
separately.

~~~
bhupy
In the status quo, drivers are able to turn off their dispatch whenever they
want. They can drive 20 hours one week, 2 hours the next, take an indefinite
break, then drive 40 hours. There's no boss, there's no clocking in. There's
no getting "fired" for flaking.

An employment contract would allow Uber/Lyft to enforce hours and contiguous
schedules. On top of that, it's extremely trivial for Uber/Lyft to include
exclusivity clauses in employment agreements. It's in their best interests to
do that, since they have entire projects dedicated to handling "multi-appers".

Keep in mind that traditional taxicab drivers were able to go "off-duty"
whenever they wanted because they, too, were independent contractors.

------
ccktlmazeltov
This is all a shit show because the infrastructures in place are currently
doomed for the market to succeed:

\- no healthcare means you're a slave of whatever you can find,

\- tipping culture means your employer can pay you shit

~~~
ram_rar
+1 for tipping culture. I just dont get it, why can employers pay their fair
share, instead of expecting customers to foot the bill.

~~~
ksdale
I wouldn't mind at all if tipping culture disappeared, but I think it's naive
to think that costs wouldn't go up dramatically for customers. Customers are
footing the bill one way or another, it's just a matter of whether we're
willing to pay enough to ensure everyone gets a livable wage.

~~~
ccktlmazeltov
so you're saying you're hopping that tipping goes away like that you can save
by not tipping and letting other people tip? Sounds good to me!

~~~
ksdale
I don’t think there’s any possible interpretation of my comment that lines up
with what you said...

------
solutron
This is a symptom of the core, underlying problem. The coupling between
employer, employee and health care needs to be undone. Employers aren't
healthcare providers, we don't need additional middle-men and bureaucracy
dictating, by proxy, how people receive care and from who. Universal
healthcare would let Uber and Lyft continue to do what their primary focus is,
and drivers would be able to do whatever they want work-wise and not have to
worry about its affect on their ability to receive healthcare at an affordable
price.

~~~
viscanti
It's crazy to see the same politicians who push for universal healthcare also
push for more coupling of employment to healthcare.

~~~
vinay427
The subset of politicians who are pushing for universal healthcare don't all
belong to the group supporting coupling with employment. I'm not really sure
where you heard that? For instance, I don't believe Medicare for All, at least
in its proposed form, encourages coupling employment with healthcare, but
correct me if I'm wrong.

------
ffggvv
I’m not sure why we need prop22 specifically targeting rideshare drivers
instead of just repealing AB5

i know so many people’s whose jobs were destroyed by it and still haven’t
found anything else.

~~~
wskinner
Can you share the professions of the people you know whose jobs were
destroyed?

~~~
ffggvv
one was a contractor for a company that did content moderation/fact checking
on a big tech website. when ab5 was passed they predictably laid off everyone
in california.

others include freelance writers, and other online work

~~~
renewiltord
Upwork sent around a "Don't worry about AB5" email but I'm not taking chances.
Just ended everything with Cali contractors.

~~~
ffggvv
yeah i mean frankly speaking it’s just not worth the risk to hire someone from
ca given the law. it’s not like ca employees provide anything special over
other state’s that would justify paying them more for low skill jobs that can
be done remotely

------
kreutz
Why not let the market decide? If drivers are so unhappy why not just seek
some alternative form of work? Uber/Lyft do not force anyone to hop online.

~~~
yannyu
The market is not fair. People have to eat, and will look for whatever job
that can get that will help them eat and provide for their families.

~~~
tetrometal
I genuinely don't understand this position. I don't see how replacing a "bad"
option with _no_ option helps anyone, especially the people that were willing
to take the "bad" option.

~~~
jayd16
The missing link is that you're raising a false dichotomy. Its a sliding scale
of profit margin. Instead of bad or none, the choice is more low paying
options or fewer higher paying options. Some will receive higher wages, while
some opportunities will not be available.

Both sides believe the net benefit backs up their stated position and there's
very little compelling data one way or another.

~~~
tetrometal
I'm not so sure how false it is. If there were a better option, wouldn't
people be using it already? And since they're not, aren't we just... firing
them and leaving them to figure it out? Seems heartless. Honestly it comes
across as "F the little guy, give me the policy I want." (I'm not accusing you
of that, your tone came across as quite polite.)

------
dang
The earlier thread, before this new information came up, is at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24224882](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24224882)
and still ongoing.

------
donsupreme
Uber gained market cap of $4B since this appeal news broke, already spent
$100M to fight AB5, all the while they burnt $2B in their last quarter.

And yet their argument is they can't afford to spend $300M to cover driver
benefits and pay into state unemployment insurance.

~~~
donor20
I'm in a non-rideshare field. The law here (AB5) has been a disaster, a total
mess.

One proof point, workers in a TON of fields have absolutely flooded Sacramento
to get exception after exception into this law. This is not a normal
principles based law. This a law with "principles" that are so ridiculous that
everyone then goes let's carve these random folks.

Get a grip.

Imagine if we had laws like this elsewhere. It's pathetic - really.

Some of the carevouts.

physicians surgeons dentist podiatrists psychologists veterinarians insurance
brokers lawyers architects and engineers private investigators accountants
securities broker-dealers and investment advisers direct sales salespeople
(often horrible abuse here with door to door sales) marketing professionals
travel agents human resources administrators graphic designers grant writers
fine artists enrolled agents payment processing agents through an independent
sales organizations photographers or photojournalists freelance writers
editors newspaper cartoonists and lots more I think gig musicians want to be
sure they have a carveout. Fisherman are doing carevouts. I think truckers are
getting a carevout. A bunch of beauty industry jobs A ton of contractor and
subcontractor work

There has got to be some transit union or something pulling strings here -
because the law is horribly unworkable even for folks who DO want to do the
right thing. Most are resigned to waiting until everything is carved out but
uber and lyft.

------
senderista
How much of this debate would be moot if we had a proper social safety net, so
workers didn't depend on their employers for necessities like health
insurance? Social democracy can make the economy more agile, not less.

------
Ericson2314
I'm sad that here was a rare chance that people voted on something, and the
effects of the vote would have been palpable.

We'll have scare tactics, stays, negotiations, changes to the bill, etc., all
leading to a complete lack of shock and awe. People will not pay attention,
and continue assume the effects of votes is nothing. And I wouldn't want to
convince them otherwise.

To be clear, this comment doesn't assume people actually want Lyft to leave.
Whether people are thrilled or filled with regret, it doesn't matter. I just
want them to feel the power of a vote.

:(

------
CharlesMerriam2
Recognize that more reasonable solutions exist, for example, modifying AB5
exempting anyone pulling in >$50K ($25/hour for any hour available or logging
into the app).

Propositions, being like an unchangeable binary library, are 'take-it-or-
leave-it' laws.

~~~
umvi
So basically "if you are poor you can't use Uber/Lyft you would exploit
yourself out of desperation. Go find a different job that pays a living
wage/benefits. If you are middle class and already making enough to live on,
that's cool you can use Uber/Lyft to supplement your income since you won't
abuse yourself trying to make the platform sustain you."

------
leptoniscool
The state government blinked, and Lyft and Uber won

------
iaabtpbtpnn
They're lucky to have that judge. Uber and Lyft have consistently flaunted the
law with a basic attitude of "screw you, our service is too popular, if you
try to regulate us out of existence then your constituents will be madder at
you than us". But right now, the service is not popular at all. I was a
relatively heavy user of Uber and I haven't even thought about calling one in
months. Food delivery sure, but I don't plan on using ride-sharing services
for at least another year... who wants to sit in an Uber with a stranger,
breathing each other's air? Who wants to DRIVE for Uber, breathing strangers'
air all day? Besides, there is nowhere to go. No events, bars are all closed,
etc. The ride-sharing economy has just evaporated.

~~~
ojagodzinski
> who wants to sit in an Uber with a stranger, breathing each other's air?

XD There are countries (like any other country then US) that have something
called PUBLIC TRANSPORT. And people use is every day regardless of pandemic.

> The ride-sharing economy has just evaporated

Uber is still much more "healthier" than public transport.

~~~
iaabtpbtpnn
I am posting from the Bay Area, we have public transit here too. Not as good
as other countries, but it's normally quite popular. My girlfriend actually
works for the transit agency. And right now, let me tell you, they are
completely fucked. Ticket revenue is down something like 95%. Nobody wants to
be on BART or Caltrain right now. (Although it's worth noting, here
specifically the trains are typically used by people who also have a private
car that they could take instead if they choose.)

~~~
pixelatedindex
I'm from the Bay Area and public transit here is laughable at best. To go some
place would be 15 minutes by car and 45 minutes by bus - if the bus comes on
time at all. The light rail in South Bay moves slower than traffic sometimes.
Caltrain runs once an hour (apart from 4 hours every weekday when it's once
every 20 minutes). BART extension took over 15 years!

How is this remotely a good solution? DC Metro's transit and NY transit runs
circles around the one here, not to mention ones from Korea/Japan/Poland runs
circles. I've been forced to take public transit for over 5 years and boy do I
hate it if I've to actually get somewhere on time.

Sorry, I'm triggered :)

------
fastball
Honestly I think all of these ideas about what isn't and is a contractor are
wayyyy over-specified.

To my mind, a contractor has always been just someone you are hiring for a
particular piece of work. It's about one-offs. You are not hiring them for a
year, in which time they will do an indeterminate number of pieces of work.
That is what an employee with a salary is for. You are hiring them to do a
particular piece of work. That is why you _pay them_ per piece of work. So to
me, the simplest (and only) test should be: "are you paying them per piece of
work?". If yes, contractor. If no, employee.

I can't think of any occupation where the "employee" is getting paid on a per-
task basis (rides in this case) and I would consider them an employee.

If I hire someone to write blog posts for me, and I pay them per blog post,
they're a contractor. The employee version is someone I pay a set salary to
based on their skillset, and then they output some _indeterminate_ amount of
work.

If I hire someone to watch my kids for me, and I pay them per time they watch
my kids, they're a contractor, not an employee. The employee version is a
nanny who lives in my home.

If someone is getting paid each time they perform a ride (and not otherwise),
they're a contractor. An employee is someone that you are paying even when
they're not driving.

I don't think "setting prices", "choosing which hours", etc. has anything to
do with it.

If I hire someone to write a blog post for me this morning and tell them I
need it by lunch time, I'm not giving them a choice of when they want to work
– they need to do it now. But they're still clearly a contractor.

The question remains whether or not contractors under this definition need
similar protections that are afforded to employees, and I definitely think
this is a question worth debating/considering. But California conflating
everything to be an employee seems like the worst way to approach the issue.

~~~
tokai
>I can't think of any occupation where the "employee" is getting paid on a
per-task basis (rides in this case) and I would consider them an employee.

Piece rate work payment exists in construction, agriculture, and other
industries. People are permanently on staff, but only paid in direct relation
to their productivity. It's an old trick to extract the value of labour.

------
omot
What really irks me about this whole thing is how Uber Eats and Door Dash is
unaffected by all this. Delivery workers have almost exactly the same
paradigm, but I guess they're not enforcing it, because of the number of
restaurants, drivers, and eaters that will be affected?

~~~
deminature
They are being affected, just not as publicly as the transportation example
[https://www.ktvu.com/news/sf-d-a-chesa-boudin-takes-
action-t...](https://www.ktvu.com/news/sf-d-a-chesa-boudin-takes-action-to-
make-doordash-recognize-delivery-workers-as-employees)

What is particularly egregious is how traditional taxis are being ignored,
despite having most of the same labor problems as app-based transportation
services.

------
afrojack123
Possibly a dumb and general question. Is Uber and Lyft responsible for state
tax revenue from its contractors? Or are the contractors supposed to pay their
own taxes? I could understand the states having problems with contractor's
paying their own taxes considering their incomes are lower.

~~~
darkwizard42
Independent contractors pay their own taxes. Uber and Lyft offer tools and
assistance to help drivers adequately report and take deductions etc. as
needed (Lyft at least offers the ability to export ride data etc. as needed, I
believe but am not sure if Uber does the same).

Companies pay taxes for their employees (different tax relationship
altogether). Another way to think about it is... do you ever pay taxes for a
painter or plumber that does a job for you? (probably not)

~~~
afrojack123
If so, I understand where the state's are coming from. They need to make a
special low-income contractor status with which the parent company is
responsible income tax for contractors.

------
MangoCoffee
Isn't their business is based on "freelance"? if their taxi drivers go full
time. the business operation will be a lot more with additional cost.

------
m0zg
Yeah, removing the means to make a living from 200K people in CA while also
pushing millions of people to crowded and epidemiologically disastrous public
transportation seems like a particularly idiotic idea right about now. I'm not
necessarily against better labor protections, and I only do Uber rides maybe
3-4 times a year, and not in CA, but I'm sure there will be a better time to
argue this out to its logical conclusion.

------
filereaper
Good, this can wait till Covid-19, forest-fires and other urgent matters right
now in California have been taken care of.

~~~
AlexandrB
Yes. Once those crises are over it's all smooth sailing ahead! There'll be
TONS of time for labor law then.

~~~
filereaper
I'm not saying it'll be smooth sailing at all, just that this isn't the right
time to cut access given all the other issues that are ongoing.

~~~
Bahamut
Tell that to Uber and Lyft.

~~~
slimed
Tell them what? That they are _required_ to operate in CA no matter the terms?
Good luck with that.

------
dmode
So, I wasted my outrage in another thread complaining about this only only for
a judge to put this on hold. :facepalm:

------
tareqak
The article links the appellate injunction here:
[https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets....](https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2325037&doc_no=A160706&request_token=NiIwLSEmXkw3W1BNSCMtVEtIMFw6UVxfJSJeWzpSUCAgCg%3D%3D)
.

I read the following section in it “Oral argument shall be scheduled for
October 13, 2020”, but nothing about an October deadline.

Here is the relevant section in full.

>> start

On August 10, 2020, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining
Lyft, Inc. (Lyft) and Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) from classifying their
drivers as independent contractors and from violating certain laws. Both Lyft
and Uber have appealed the order, and the trial court stayed the injunction
for ten days to allow them to seek relief in this court. Lyft (in case No.
A160701) and Uber (in case No. A160706) have each petitioned this court for a
writ of supersedeas. The People have filed an opposition to the petitions. The
petitions for writ of supersedeas are hereby consolidated for purposes of
decision. The petitions are granted and the preliminary injunction is stayed
pending resolution of Lyft and Uber's appeals, subject to the condition that,
by 5:00 p.m. on August 25, 2020, Lyft and Uber shall both file written
consents to the expedited procedures specified herein. If Lyft and Uber do not
both file such written consents, the stay shall expire at 5:00 p.m. on August
25, 2020.

The procedures are as follows:

1\. Lyft's and Uber's appeals shall be consolidated. Lyft and Uber may file
separate briefs or combined briefs as they prefer.

2\. Lyft and Uber shall proceed with an appendix in lieu of a clerk?s
transcript on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.124.) They shall cooperate
to prepare and file a single combined appellants' appendix, rather than
separate appendices, which they shall file no later than the date they file
their opening briefs. The appendix shall include a full copy of the index at
the beginning of each appendix volume, and the digital copy of the appendix
shall include pdf bookmark tabs for each entry on the index.

3\. Briefing shall proceed on the following schedule. The appellants' opening
briefs shall be filed no later than September 4, 2020. The respondent's brief
shall be filed no later than September 18, 2020. The reply briefs, if any,
shall be filed no later than September 25, 2020. Absent unforeseen
extraordinary circumstances, there shall be no extensions. Oral argument shall
be scheduled for October 13, 2020.

4\. On or before September 4, 2020, each defendant shall submit a sworn
statement from its chief executive officer confirming that it has developed
implementation plans under which, if this court affirms the preliminary
injunction and Proposition 22 on the November 2020 ballot fails to pass, the
company will be prepared to comply with the preliminary injunction within no
more than 30 days after issuance of the remittitur in the appeal.

5\. Should Lyft or Uber fail to comply with these procedures, the People may
apply to this court to vacate this stay. Unless otherwise ordered, the stay
will dissolve upon issuance of the remittitur in the appeal. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.272.)

<< end

Hopefully, the above should help others here figure out where the October
deadline is coming from.

------
maedla
These companies aren't even profitable, why should they be allowed to survive?

------
cltby
> Seems like a loss for everyone except bureaucrats

Not true, it's a great opportunity for javascript developers to get up on
their soap boxes and share with us their moral and economic wisdom.

~~~
geodel
Indeed. This is great point. JS developers have made seminal contribution to
our collective well being by their virtuous signals and thoughtful commentary
on anything that matters.

With the advent of E-protests they are finally being able to highlight against
injustices taking place anywhere in the world.

~~~
kbenson
Sublime. Just the _slightest_ change in the context in which this was
presented and Poe's law would be in full effect. :)

------
throwawaygh
When companies like Uber/Lyft depend on safety nets like unemployment without
ever paying into the system, what’s happening is that our children are paying
for returns on VC capital.

People profiting from these types of companies should feel bad about
themselves.

~~~
mardifoufs
That's pretty much the total opposite of what's happening right now. Uber (and
the recent group of "tech but not really" unicorns in general) have if
anything burnt hundreds of billions of VC/PE money thus directly subsidizing
the costs of hundreds of millions of users, for very slim profits at best.

Yes, it's because they are expecting future returns on their "burnt" money.
But considering the risks, the enormous amounts involved, the meagre margins
involved even in a market dominant postion and that there are still no signs
of profitability or even positive cash flow, I don't see how this can be seen
as just a wealth transfert from society to the wealthy. Even in their best
case scenario, they will be able to get meagre returns from perpetually
capital intensive, low margin businesses. That's far from obscene wealth
extraction imo.

Sure, some early VCs made tons of money off of this new era of unicorns, but
that was pretty much all coming from _other_ VC or private equity that have
had to keep the money pump going.

~~~
gamblor956
Where do you think VC funding comes from?

VC's get their money from everyone else: pension funds, college endowments,
charitable foundation endowments, and insurance companies.

It quite literally is a case of our children funding this.

~~~
logicchains
Which pension funds are investing in VCs? Pension funds generally prefer less
risky investments..

~~~
mardifoufs
Pension funds have traditionally invested very small parts of their portfolios
in riskier investments. It's usually done to slightly enhance yield.

But in the past decade pension funds have increased their "alternative"
investments since their traditional bread and butter,bonds and fixed income,
have had abysmal yields due to low interest rates. Yet with pension payout
obligations having only gotten bigger (especially in europe, with the aging
population, the pressure to generate returns is pushing the fund managers to
seek out riskier and riskier investments.

------
kumarski
What most of the people in this thread don't realize is the reason that Uber
became large?

The smart ones will understand that Uber's entire subversive cross border
growth tactic was tracking cops, which is a felony.

They hired Eric Holder to do the clean up job with workplace harassment as the
cover story.

Eric Holder is not the best sexual harassment lawyer, he's the best lawyer to
go close private backroom deals with Attorney Generals in all 50 states.

Uber not only did this domestically they did it in places abroad too, india
etc...

They were able to fly under the radar long enough to circumvent localized
taxes.

Medallion holders pay taxes into their locales, Uber does not.

TNC liceneses are a small fraction of the profits generated.

AB5 California Contractor/Employee Policy:

To hire a contractor, businesses must prove worker

a) is free from the company’s control

b) doing non core/critical work to co

c) has an ind. business in that industry.

Must meet all 3 or be classified as employees.

The lack of property taxes, more pension fund shortfalls, etc... means that
California is racing to collect taxes.

The first levers are things like weird fees on receipts, then it moves to
applying payroll logic and taxes to businesses (employee vs. contractor), then
to wealth taxes, and then the real big kahuna is the VAT taxes.

The VAT taxes are coming.

Taxi cab drivers were middle class and medallion ownership created wealth.

Uber exploits its contractors, operates at a loss, and is propped up by
political nepotism and cheap laundered CCP cash.

David Plouffe's job was to run an astroturfing campaign in every major city.

He had trouble written all over him.
[https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-david-
plouff...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-david-plouffe-uber-
lobbying-fine-20170216-story.html)

Uber is a revolving door of corruption at the highest levels.

Uber circumvented taxes in every city they approached by bribing the State
with TNC's and hiring from the revolving door.

People don't talk about all the thug life things Uber did to grow.

I always call BS whenever some Uber shirt tucker comes my way and says
"marketplace dynamics" and "intelligent routing."

Uber is an amoral company that built political firewalls against regulatory
realities, not one of brilliant technologists.

Also, here's me with $50k in uber credits:
[https://twitter.com/datarade/status/1080608107409993728?s=20](https://twitter.com/datarade/status/1080608107409993728?s=20)

It took me several years to figure out the subversive truths of Uber that made
it large.

------
tyre
For those wondering why Lyft and Uber doing the shutdown, it's to bully voters
into voting their way on Prop 22 in November.

They had two years to adjust their businesses for a proposition approved by
voters. They chose to spend nine figures fighting it in the press and the
courts.

~~~
handmodel
I mean - if no one else comes up with a business now that works well and
people enjoy doesn't that prove Uber and Lyft are right in that the platform
is valuable and unique?

If California lawmakers are using this as negotiating tactic that's cool with
me - but I'm not sure why we wouldn't expect Uber or Lyft to negotiate as
well.

~~~
alpha_squared
> I mean - if no one else comes up with a business now that works well and
> people enjoy doesn't that prove Uber and Lyft are right in that the platform
> is valuable and unique?

To me, it proves that investors don't have the appetite to fund an underdog
fight against the two large companies. There _are_ ethical alternatives (at
least half a dozen when I last checked a couple years ago), but they're slow-
growing. The fact that the conversations seem to default to assuming there are
no other alternatives already speaks volumes about consumer mentality.

------
timavr
Love how they fight for drivers rights and working real hard to replace them
with self driving fleet.

