>Let them set rates. Let them decline rides without facing penalties by the platform...
As a contractor I can set my rate, but the company can also simply not hire me. As a contractor I can act as I wish, but the company can terminate my contract. As a contractor, I pay for my unemployment insurance if I want it.
So... What's the practical difference? How is this any different than someone who decides to make a living by selling goods on eBay?
When I sell you my Smurfs collection on EBay, I set the terms of sale and you bid. You and I come to agreement on the terms of the transaction, within some limits that EBay, as the platform, sets.
When I sell a ride to you on Uber, Uber sets the price, tells me where to pick you up, and even dictates the route I should take. I don’t even get to see where I’m taking you until after I accept the ride.
On EBay, you and I are negotiating with each other. On Uber, the driver has no say in what the offer to the passenger is.
You know your statement is categorically untrue right.
"Uber sets the price"
In California, the driver sets their own price.
"tells me where to pick you up"
Given that this is a taxi service. The driver has to know where to pick up. In fact, how is this different from EBay? Does the seller become an employee because ebay tells the seller where to ship the goods?
"even dictates the route I should take"
No it doesn't. Most drivers use google maps.
"I don’t even get to see where I’m taking you until after I accept the ride"
That's also categorically untrue in California. The driver gets to see the trip before accepting.
Of course, all of these rolled out because of AB5. The question is: can you tell me why the driver is an employee?
If your contract can be terminated at any time without cause, that supports the notion that you're an employee, not a contractor. That's one of the aspects of the Borello test.
> If your contract can be terminated at any time without cause, that supports the notion that you're an employee, not a contractor.
How interesting. That inverts expectations: you need a reason to fire a contractor but no reason to fire an employee.
Ah, I see it:
> Whether the employer has a right to fire at will or whether a termination gives rise to an action for breach of contract; and...
You can't fire a contractor when you haven't written in end-of-contract terms in there. i.e. when you contract with someone and you say "I hire this person from time X to time Y for money Z for delivery of A" you can't just abort sometime in the middle and be like "welp! off you go then".
However, it is perfectly reasonable for you to have exit clauses in your contracts to say that you pay per ride and that either party can exit the contract at any time.
i.e. it determines whether the 'firing' is a breach-of-contract situation
Okay, that makes sense, but it's not a factor in this case. Only a naïve reading makes it work that way but that won't work if you have the exit stipulations.
Won't companies get around this rule by just having these contractors become employees of "staffing agencies". Happens all the time in the software world
As a contractor I can set my rate, but the company can also simply not hire me. As a contractor I can act as I wish, but the company can terminate my contract. As a contractor, I pay for my unemployment insurance if I want it.
So... What's the practical difference? How is this any different than someone who decides to make a living by selling goods on eBay?