The judge does not understand what a "gig" is. Uber drivers can choose to drive one, twelve, or zero hours in any given day. They can suddenly stop working by simply not accepting any more ride requests. It's the ultimate remote, self-directed, self-managed job.
An employee can't make such decisions; they do as they are told or they are fired.
Uber drivers are private, self-owned businesses that rent out their time and equipment to a corporation on a completely arbitrary basis. The company counts on an oversupply of such drivers to meet demand and does not need to manage the supply other than to continually recruit more people.
I suspect this ruling will be overturned, if not in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, then in the Supreme Court.
The judge certainly does understand what is going here. Secure employment is being replaced with "gigs" to the point where a huge chunk of the country has no stable income and is one week away from homelessness.
I guess that's one theory: Uber, purely by existing, somehow managed to significantly reduce the number of secure employment opportunities available in the US and lured happily employed people onto a life that's inches away from homelessness. In the same vein, if we were to shut down Uber right now and went back to the taxi model we should be able to salvage our economy.
Can you? Not trying to argue, I am a limey brit so I don't know the exact details. /r/legaladvice seems to be filled with people being fired for no reason or just de-scheduled or having their wages cut and it's all perfectly legal...
> Uber drivers are private, self-owned businesses that rent out their time and equipment to a corporation on a completely arbitrary basis.
As far I know, this is not true. Uber dictates the prices that drivers can charge, they cannot set an arbitrary price for their own labor. Is that not the case?
I'm not sure that this makes an economic difference - ultimately Uber's algorithm will set the price where supply intersects demand. Or equivalently, drivers can raise their own prices/restrict supply by only working during surge hours.
Is the driver charging the passenger? Or is Uber charging the passenger, and putting forth a contract at a set rate which individual drivers can accept or decline?
An employee can't make such decisions; they do as they are told or they are fired.
Uber drivers are private, self-owned businesses that rent out their time and equipment to a corporation on a completely arbitrary basis. The company counts on an oversupply of such drivers to meet demand and does not need to manage the supply other than to continually recruit more people.
I suspect this ruling will be overturned, if not in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, then in the Supreme Court.