Because benefits (healthcare) are so costly that the rideshare business model becomes nonviable. To that, some might claim that no business model deserves to exist if it cannot provide all of these benefits. I think that’s misguided.
The very idea that health benefits are tied to employment is the real problem. In Canada they aren’t and thus it’s far more reasonable to work as a ride share driver here. If we could go even further and add pharmacare, dental, and even basic income to the services provided by the government, then we could get rid of minimum wage laws as well. When people are truly free to walk away from any job, then the market will decide the appropriate wage. Any job offering truly unacceptable wages at that point becomes a ripe target for automation.
Seems like that's what Lyft was hoping would be sufficient compromise. Per the release:
"We’ve spent hundreds of hours meeting with policymakers and labor leaders to craft an alternative proposal for drivers that includes a minimum earnings guarantee, mileage reimbursement, a health care subsidy, and occupational accident insurance, without the negative consequences."
That's what AB5 did. It allowed for a new type of worker that was still partially an employee but would also allow for flexible hours and the ability for drivers to reject rides.
That's what's so disingenuous about this campaign by Uber and Lyft. They're pretending that being an employee would take away all of this flexibility, but the reality is the legislation left that flexibility in place. This is entirely an argument about benefits and protections, but Lyft and Uber are trying to pretend otherwise.
That's nothing new. Employees can already have flexible hours and part-time employment.
The issue is that they're still considered employees which means predetermined shifts and control rather than fluid supply meeting demand by the minute. This changes the service (which matters more than the price for customers) so that it no longer works at the current scale.
> The issue is that they're still considered employees which means predetermined shifts
Is there anything in California labour law or AB5 that requires predetermined shifts? What would prevent Uber/Lyft from allowing its now-employees to volunteer for an X-hour shift at any point that demand forecasts suggest it would be useful?
There's nothing in California law that requires predetermined shifts. The only rules are that if you do have predetermined shifts, you have to pay for at least half the shift even if you send someone home early. All of these people talking about predetermined shifts are just pretty FUD with no backing in reality.
Everything I look up says AB5 makes rideshare drivers wholesale employees with the obligations and benefits that carries. Can you explain what you mean?
