> And do they cook one food order at a restaurant they work for, then 15 minutes later walk across the street and cook for a competing restaurant for 30 minutes, and then immediately walk back across the street and cook a food order for the other restaurant? No, of course that's not normal.
As a former Lyft/uber driver this is absolutely correct. It gets even hairier: suppose you are sitting on both apps (or even more) waiting for a ride. Do you get to double-bill two companies for minimum wage hours?
I think what is going happen is if Uber and Lyft are forced to recategorize as employees, they get to do something like "compel drivers to wear a uniform", so like a polo with the brand on it, and prohibit wearing of competitors logo. Or prohibit displaying competitor logo on the car (displaying is a legal requirement in many jurisdictions). In the end the take-home for the driver is going to be worse.
I'm quite frankly surprised that Uber didn't preempt the legislation by creating a class of driver that is an employee, putting these sorts of onerous restrictions on the driver, plus other ones like "you must start and end at central processing center, drive an uber-owned car", "requiring shifts on ADA-compliant vehicles", "being required to comply with an uber-generated shift schedule", in exchange for bare minimum wage and benefits.
Is Uber the only rideshare company available in Europe? In America, every rideshare car has uber and lyft stickers, at a minimum. Just about every driver keeps both apps open and takes rides from wherever they come in.
I think GP has a good point, I took a slightly america-centric POV on the issue; topic is specifically about Dutch legal system. Nonetheless the end bit about 'strategies' is likely to be applicable across jurisdictions.
> It gets even hairier: suppose you are sitting on both apps (or even more) waiting for a ride. Do you get to double-bill two companies for minimum wage hours?
IMO this is a no-brainer, the answer is yes, double-bill. The same applies if you get two remote jobs, you bill both.
I don't think it'd be strictly illegal, they'd just have grounds to fire you if you ever refused a ride (that goes for both Uber/Lyft).
Maybe fraud and breach of contract if, in the full-time contract, it says "you affirm you do not have another full-time job that will interfere with this job".
IANAL, but my understanding is: Double-billing hours is probably illegal, but many remote programmers likely have two "full time", salaried, jobs with no stipulation about "you must work X hours"... at the very least a legal grey area, and if you breach some contract clause, you are most likely in breach of contract, which is a civil suit, and most likely you'll just be dismissed, no severance will be offered, and they might try to take away any unexercised options grants.
This is not just programmers by the way. I know of people in other professions doing this. And as long as there isn't a conflict based on anything you signed or company policy I'm not sure a company has recourse beyond terminating you
Again, I don't do it because I can't handle the stress of two jobs, but I don't begrudge those who can
Assuming (which is very safe in most cases) that the employment contract has something in it that is being violated by double-dipping, it is both garden variety fraud (in many cases state and therefore dependent on the state laws in question), and in some cases federal depending on the circumstances. In the jurisdictions where fraud against an employer is based on the amount of money at play, it's still almost always going to be a felony because it takes very little time to reach the common thresholds (e.g. $1k) when double-dipping.
Additionally, it's a pretty obvious opening to a lawsuit in at least most jurisdictions for breach of fiduciary duty (under the duty of loyalty -- Google this + your own jurisdiction for more details on what it covers where you are) and breach of contract.
Now, the employer probably won't sue or prosecute in most circumstances, so you may get away with it. But that's some high-stakes roulette, especially since you're not going to get UI if you get fired for gross misconduct and you're not going to get a good recommendation.
As a former Lyft/uber driver this is absolutely correct. It gets even hairier: suppose you are sitting on both apps (or even more) waiting for a ride. Do you get to double-bill two companies for minimum wage hours?
I think what is going happen is if Uber and Lyft are forced to recategorize as employees, they get to do something like "compel drivers to wear a uniform", so like a polo with the brand on it, and prohibit wearing of competitors logo. Or prohibit displaying competitor logo on the car (displaying is a legal requirement in many jurisdictions). In the end the take-home for the driver is going to be worse.
I'm quite frankly surprised that Uber didn't preempt the legislation by creating a class of driver that is an employee, putting these sorts of onerous restrictions on the driver, plus other ones like "you must start and end at central processing center, drive an uber-owned car", "requiring shifts on ADA-compliant vehicles", "being required to comply with an uber-generated shift schedule", in exchange for bare minimum wage and benefits.