Uber claims to be exempt from California's law on the economy of the gig because it is a "platform" and not a taxi company

After the California legislature passed AB5, a bill to compel technology companies to treat market economy workers as employees rather than contractors, Uber drew a well-worn map of its hat: invent an excuse not to do like that.

AB5 threatens Uber's fundamental business model, as it could eventually force the company to treat its fleet of contract drivers as employees, which could entitle them to tough labor protections, including a minimum wage, health care , compensation for workplace injuries and the right to employment. organize. To do this, he codifies a three-part checklist of the classification of the workforce enforced by the Supreme Court in 2018, called ABC test. One of these three criteria is that a company that classifies a worker as an entrepreneur must perform tasks "outside the normal course of business of the hiring entity".

Uber is a company that manufactures Uber application. The Uber app has a variety of features, most of which – carpooling – generated $ 9.2 billion in sales last year, far more than its other activities such as scooters, product delivery food and the transport of goods. It is obvious that people who drive Uber by carpool for Uber customers follow the Uber's "usual course" of the company, and control the working conditions of these drivers (Uber minimum qualifications, Uber-set price and remuneration, etc.). ), just as it is obvious that these other companies are too.

Not so, says Uber! In his view, Uber's "usual course" of business is to be a "technology platform for many types of digital markets". According to the New York Times, this means that he will not reclassify his workforce preemptively and that he will oppose any attempt to do so in court:

Uber said Wednesday that he was confident that his drivers would retain their independence status when the measure comes into effect on January 1. "Several previous decisions have shown that the work of drivers was outside the usual course of Uber's business, which serves as a technological platform for several types of digital markets," said Tony West, the chief legal officer of Uber added that the company was "no stranger to legal battles".

In order to classify drivers as entrepreneurs, legal experts said that Uber should also prove that it does not run and control them, and that they generally operate an independent driving business outside their control. work for Uber.

Here is the absolute height of the obscene bullshit of Silicon Valley: The law does not apply to us because something something market platform. Uber's chief lawyer, Tony West, did not mention what he said: "Legal battles are not alien to society," because they all came into existence because society has always ignored the law.

As the Harvard Business Review wrote in 2017, Uber's basic business model no doubt uses conventional non-commercial cars to circumvent the regulations applicable to conventional taxi companies, including the rules relating to "l & # 39; 39; commercial insurance, commercial registration, special registration plates, special driver's licenses, background checks, commercial vehicle inspections and countless other expenses. (That does not even count his other blatant attempts to get around or break the law, such as encouraging drivers to drive illegally in jurisdictions where it is forbidden, to follow reporters, develop a tool "Greyball" to blacklist The regulators have ordered rides and allegations of corruption.) Uber has always justified his behavior by claiming that it was a technology company and that it meant somehow that the relevant laws did not apply to them – and, as HBR noted, by reinforcing its "capabilities its illegality", including extensive lobbying efforts in dozens of states aimed at protecting em from all consequences.

What is different now is that Uber, which has never made a profit despite feverish efforts to reduce competition and free up the most costs for drivers, is beginning to show flaws in its facade. After its IPO this year, the share price fell and many layoffs took place. The autonomous cars needed to make Uber profitable are nowhere else (if the autonomous cars made it even profitable).

AB5 has the potential to make all these problems a lot worse, so Uber has every interest in fighting it ruthlessly. The law is not self-enforcing, which means that drivers and cities will have to fight Uber in a long legal battle. The victory is not certain. But Uber and Lyft and DoorDash, two other major concert companies, are apparently quite worried about their chances of preparing a $ 90 million war chest to support a voting initiative that would effectively dispense them from AB5.