If the economics of Uber don't work when Uber is responsible for treating their drivers right, giving them a minimum wage, and offering benefits- then it sounds like their business model is simply exploiting the working class.
The problem is that many drivers prefer having the flexibility to work 5 hours one week and then 50 hours the next. With the new rules, this would not be possible. By taking away this option, you are telling drivers they need to commit to Uber as a legit job. Considering the vast majority of Uber drivers I've ever spoken to use it as a side gig to earn extra cash, I will bet they side with Uber on this one.
The idea that someone can clock-in, work 2-3 hours, clock-out and then clock in again in 2 weeks tells me this isn't a real job. We need another classification.
And the problem here isn't that Uber's model doesn't work. Uber can transition to this new classification and adjust their business model to make it work, the bigger problem is that the drivers don't want it to work this way. The service works because it can respond to minute-by-minute demand. That's not possible with the new rules.
The point is they may work full-time one week, and then not work for 6 months, or ever again. Once you start classifying people as employees, this low commitment approach becomes nearly impossible to maintain.
You are using a completely subjective opinion of "treating their drivers right". Have you spoken to many drivers about what they actually want?
What do you think independent contractor means? Do you think that nobody should be independent then? Do you realize that full-time driving jobs already exist? Why do you presume that drivers can't make this choice for themselves? Why can't the people who are unhappy with the earnings just stop driving? Why is it better for both riders and drivers to lose this service and income by forced legislation when it already works fine for millions?
You're asking a lot of questions that can be answered with Google.
With regards to my experiences- I've spent years as an independent contractor. My linkedin is in my profile, feel free to confirm. I know the pros and cons of being an independent contractor and have followed the changes in the law both on the federal and local level. I'd say I'm fairly well versed in it.
Your argument about how "employee == full time" is just a straw man. No one is requiring people to be full time. In fact "flexibility"- which in most survays done on drivers is one of their top concerns- is preserved with the legal cases and subsequent AB5 legislation. The only difference is that as employees drivers would also get paid for idle time while waiting for rides, would have the option of benefits, and Uber would be responsible for paying unemployment taxes for when those riders lose their jobs (like when a pandemic hits).
So you didn't talk to any drivers? None of those questions are for Google. They question your position, and it seems that's why you didn't answer.
Why did you ever work as a contractor if you're against not having a min wage and benefits? You claim that's "right" so what changed? Why impose that on others instead of choosing for yourself?
Flexibility means work when, where, and however long you want. AB5 removes this. Employee classification means preset shifts, which means it's only viable with fewer drivers working set schedules in dense areas instead of the fluid supply/demand with high coverage that exists today. This fundamentally changes the service from what consumers want, and that's why it doesn't work.
So what you're saying is that surveys with statistically significant numbers or respondents are not as important as the anecdotal evidence that comes with talking to a handful of people.
I don't drive often- I use public transit and lyft. I have talked to drivers, and most of them are pissed that their wages are dropping every year but they can't do things like unionize as they aren't "real employees". My anecdotal evidence, which you value so highly, lines up with what I've been saying.
> Employee classification means preset shifts
This is factually wrong. California doesn't have any law requiring "shifts". It does have a law saying that companies which enforce shifts (such as saying someone needs to be in the office from nine to five) give a minimum of four hours pay if they send people home early, but that's a huge difference from what you're saying.
There are tons of examples of this too- "work from home data entry" is a big field in California, and while they often have deadlines they rarely schedule specific shifts.
What I'm saying is what I said. Why don't you answer the questions?
Wages decrease because there's more supply than demand. That's why surge pricing exists. The issue isn't the feedback (surveys align with the thousands I've talked to), it's that you don't think AB5 affects flexibility.
However paying by time requires shifts. Ridesharing needs to meet demand. Employees have to be placed in the best location and time to avoid idle drivers. This would lead to fewer drivers working longer hours and less coverage. This changes the service that people expect and pay for, leading to less riders and then even less drivers in a bad feedback loop.
All because some people don't think other people can choose how to spend their own time.
