[ad_1]
Flexibility has become a totemic word for Uber and Lyft. They regularly cited his opportunity when they were asked about their decision to rank drivers as independent contractors in countries, including the United States. A bill passed by the California Senate is a step forward so timely to change that.
It seems obvious that people working full-time for these companies should be treated as employees and enjoy the benefits of classification. California legislation should catalyze a broader effort to ensure that employers in large economies do not benefit from workers. Digital disrupters may be right to update labor law. This does not mean that drivers should suffer to increase business income.
Bill 5 does not automatically change the status of contractors' workers. Instead, it echoes an earlier decision of the California Supreme Court on labor rights, making it more difficult for employers to prove that workers are independent contractors. The bill follows a similar legal precedent originally set in October 2016 in the United Kingdom. The ruling ruled that Uber should treat drivers as "workers." Drivers in the country now have the right to receive both a minimum wage and a holiday pay (but not the maximum benefits of an employee).
For part-time workers, the possibility of choosing the time of work is of considerable interest. For those who work full time, however, the Assembly's Bill 5 makes sense. By treating their workers as independent contractors, Uber and Lyft sought to limit overhead costs. Since both are causing losses, the business decision is understandable. But the effect on drivers is pernicious. This deprives them of the benefits they would receive if they were classified as employees, such as health care, paid vacation or minimum wage.
Companies' attempts to portray themselves as motivated by the best interests of their workers are also not futile because of their continued work with autonomous vehicles. In 2014, Travis Kalanick, CEO of Uber, had then talked about removing "the other man in the car" to cut costs. It's hard to believe that the mindset has changed.
Uber and Lyft may be right in saying that setting up a minimum wage would affect their service. The current system pays workers a percentage of the fare per trip. Air transport companies say that obliging companies to pay a minimum wage to drivers, whether they make a booked trip, would result in one of two changes: a reduction in the number of drivers on the roads, affecting customers, a regular move. changes, reducing drivers' ability to start and stop.
This may require changes to the labor law. In 2017, Matthew Taylor's proposal to apply piece-wise minimum wage rules offers a way to do this. Implementing these changes will likely result in higher costs for consumers, with Uber and Lyft seeking to limit the damage to their own results. Neither one nor the other are good arguments for maintaining the broken status quo.
Uber, Lyft and DoorDash, the food delivery service, allocate a total of $ 90 million to a voting measure by November 2020. They hope this will exempt them from reclassification and allow them to lobby for alternative arrangements. . This sizeable amount of money could instead be used to provide drivers with better benefits. The Golden State's decision should serve as an example to other local and national governments. Business models that risk compromising fair employment standards should not be allowed to remain under the innovation label.
[ad_2]
Source link