[Traster]

I would put it this way: They must be paid for all idle time. If they're on the app they're considered to be working. It's like the person working at the McDonalds drive through - if no one pulls up to the drive through that doesn't mean the person shouldn't be paid. It's then down to Uber or Lyft or whoever to determine whether they want to engage a contractor whose previous behaviour includes spending long periods not accepting jobs.

[eridius]

The person at a McDonald's drive-thru is an actual employee though, they're paid for all their time on the job, and they can't just refuse to serve a given customer. A Lyft or Uber driver is a contractor, and is legally allowed to refuse any individual ride.

If they couldn't refuse rides, then saying "pay them for all the time they're in the app" makes sense, but that's not the case. Since they can refuse rides, it doesn't make sense to say "you must pay them for all the time they're in the app", especially since a single driver can be active on both Uber and Lyft at the same time.

One could argue that drivers should be turned into part-time or full-time employees, at which point yes they'd have to be paid for their idle time, but that's a different argument.