[ad_1]
<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "
Uber and Lyft are in the race for the public. What does this mean for their drivers? & Nbsp;
Getty
Uber and Lyft, two of the most prominent buyout companies, will be listed later this year in multi-billion dollar offers. Lyft clbad its initial IPO prospectus earlier in March, and Uber should do the same in April.
Surprisingly, both IPO offers will be include programs which allows some of the most active pilots on the platforms to choose between a one-time cash payment and the application of the value of this cash award to IPO shares. Uber's proposal is still under development, but it has been widely reported $ 1,000 will be awarded to Lyft drivers who have completed 10,000 rides, while drivers who have crossed 20,000 tides will receive $ 10,000.
It can not be denied that these programs are good public relations for two companies under pressure from drivers and activist groups on working conditions – ranging from drivers the weight from rising gas prices to low salaries. Just this week, thousands of drivers in California strikes held after Uber cut his pay per mile by 25%. Many drivers in the country are struggling to make ends meet, which stands in sharp contrast to early investors turn into millionaires. Giving some drivers access to IPO shares appears to be a concession to criticism that companies do not pay their drivers enough or give them insufficient benefits or protections.
Employee share ownership has the potential to change the balance of power within companies. If the drivers owned shares of the company, they would have an interest in the value created by the company. This could theoretically allow workers to have a say in how profit is distributed in the company – whether it is channeled to a small group of shareholders and elite, or reinvested in productive uses such as wages and capital investments. Although these driver offers are certainly a step in the right direction, it's a powerless decision without some fundamental changes in the way the two companies rank their drivers – as entrepreneurs independent rather than as employees.
Uber and Lyft shirk provide essential benefits to drivers, such as UI and WCB contributions, as well as minimum wage and overtime laws by clbadifying their drivers as contractors rather than employees. The erroneous clbadification of workers as independent contractors has long been a tactic employed by companies to avoid labor compliance. This misclbadification of drivers has been valued save hundreds of millions of dollars a year for companies like Uber, and when they can save as much as a third by misclbadifying workers, it's not a mystery to know why we saw a rise in clbadification in recent years.
Lyft and Uber went under Fire for refusing to clbadify their workers as employees – central The issue of misclbadification of workers was raised this week among drivers. They are not the only ones. A new report of the national employment law project, as well as detailed reports in Texas, has shown how much concert companies will maintain the wrong clbadification of workers. Handy, a company that uses independent Uber subcontractors, has engaged with Uber in lobbying activities in several states to consolidate these misclbadifications. As the authors of the report to write"At the federal and state levels, [Uber and Handy] push both legislative and administrative changes that designate all workers who find work through "market platforms" as independent entrepreneurs who are not covered by labor and employment protections. "
These efforts show just how much the business models of Uber, Lyft and all companies that rely on cheap labor are based on misclbadification. These companies have, and will continue to have, strong incentives to fight body and soul to keep workers clbadified as entrepreneurs.
In the best case, badigning a minority of stock options to Uber and Lyft becomes a voice, but this does not give them any real power over the decisions made. If Uber and Lyft really want to do the right thing for the drivers who work for them, they could do what they've resisted so far: call their drivers and make sure they're compensated and protected under the labor law as such. For now, tomorrow's jobs, many of which are contractual arrangements, are precarious and exploitative – but they do not need to be.
">
Uber and Lyft are in the race for the public. What does this mean for their drivers?
Getty
Uber and Lyft, two of the most prominent buyout companies, will be listed later this year in multi-billion dollar offers. Lyft filed its initial IPO prospectus earlier in March, and Uber is expected to do the same in April.
Surprisingly, both IPO offers will include programs that allow the most active drivers on the platforms to choose between a one-time cash payment and apply the value of this cash reward to IPO shares. Although Uber's proposal is still under development, it has been widely reported that Lyft drivers who made 10,000 trips will be awarded $ 1,000, while drivers completing 20,000 tides will receive 10,000. $.
It can not be denied that these programs are good public relations for two companies under pressure from drivers and militant groups on working conditions – ranging from drivers experiencing the bulk of rising gasoline prices. at low wages. Just this week, thousands of California drivers held strikes after Uber cut his pay per kilometer by 25%. Many drivers in the country are struggling to make ends meet, in sharp contrast to the first investors who turned into millionaires. Giving some drivers access to IPO shares appears to be a concession to criticism that companies do not pay their drivers enough or give them insufficient benefits or protections.
Employee ownership is likely to change the balance of power within companies. If the drivers owned shares of the company, they would have an interest in the value created by the company. This could theoretically allow workers to have a say in how profits are distributed throughout the company – that they be channeled to a small group of people. elite shareholders or reinvested in productive uses such as wages and capital investments. Although these driver offers are certainly a step in the right direction, it is a powerless decision without some fundamental changes in the way the two companies rank their drivers – as independent subcontractors rather than as employees.
Both Uber and Lyft avoid paying key benefits to drivers, such as unemployment insurance and workers' compensation, as well as circumventing minimum wage and overtime laws by clbadifying their drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The erroneous clbadification of workers as independent contractors has long been a tactic employed by companies to avoid labor compliance. It was felt that this misclbadification of drivers allowed companies like Uber, like Uber, to save hundreds of millions of dollars a year. When companies can save up to one-third of their payroll costs by misclbadifying workers, it's no wonder that we're seeing a rise in misclbadification in recent years.
Lyft and Uber have both been criticized for refusing to clbadify their workers as employees. The issue of misclbadification of workers has been at the center of driver strikes this week. They are not the only ones. A new report from the National Employment Law Project, as well as numerous reports in Texas, showed how much concert societies must maintain the misclbadification of workers. Handy, a company that uses independent Uber subcontractors, has engaged with Uber in lobbying activities in several states to consolidate these misclbadifications. As the authors of the report write, "At the federal and state levels, [Uber and Handy] push both legislative and administrative changes that designate all workers who find work through "market platforms" as independent entrepreneurs who are not covered by labor and employment protections. "
These efforts show just how much the business models of Uber, Lyft and all companies that rely on cheap labor are based on misclbadification. These companies have, and will continue to have, strong incentives to fight body and soul to keep workers clbadified as entrepreneurs.
In the best case, badigning a minority of stock options to Uber and Lyft becomes a voice, but this does not give them any real power over the decisions made. If Uber and Lyft really want to do the right thing for the drivers who work for them, they could do what they've resisted so far: call their drivers and make sure they're compensated and protected under the labor law as such. For now, tomorrow's jobs, many of which are contractual arrangements, are precarious and exploitative – but they do not need to be.
