[cactus2093]

Just 17% of Uber and Lyft drivers surveyed want to remain full-time employees [0].

How does this not stop this whole conversation in its tracks immediately? There's so much grandstanding about this, you and every other politician or upper middle class tech worker has their takes on how these poor drivers are being tricked into bad deals they can't understand and need the protection of full-time employment. But it's not a very good protection! There are a lot of downsides, and drivers simply don't want it, but for some reason a lot of people feel the need to force this change through anyway.

Our current labor system, and its default assumption that tying yourself to a full-time job with a large company is the only way you deserve to have stability, is just very clearly showing its flaws here. It's not compatible with gig economy work, why can't we look for solutions that drivers would actually want, and that would help every other independent contractor? Things like improving overall safety nets, so that everyone has health coverage and is covered in the case of things like disabilities even if they don't work for a large company.

Almost every take I read on the pro-AB5 side of this argument seems more focused on punishing Uber the corporation for some perceived moral failing, than on actually helping the drivers. It's quite bizarre.

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2020/08/19/wil...

[jawns]

It's not surprising that only a minority would want to be full-time employees.

But that's the wrong question.

The better question is: What percentage would want to be either full-time or part-time employees?

I would imagine the percentage would be much higher.

When classified as part-time employees, they'd have much of the same flexibility they currently enjoy, but they would at least be covered under minimum-wage laws, same as part-time workers who work at McDonald's or the grocery store.

If Uber/Lyft don't think it's financially viable to offer its workers the same bare-minimum protections that a McDonald's worker gets, then I don't see how it can claim to be a non-exploitative business.

[curryst]

Does being an employee change their liability at all? In CA they seem to be willing to meet some pay and health insurance demands, so I wonder what part of the employee relationship they're opposed to. Is it firing and unemployment?

[Analemma_]

Is there a more reliable source for that 17% number? The quoted figure comes from a poll by "TheRideshareGuy", which is apparently a magazine for rideshare drivers giving tips on maximizing earnings, and so whose entire existence is predicated on the rideshare business remaining as it is. So as a source for a question like this, it's basically worthless.

[cactus2093]

This is another survey with similar findings [0].

It was commissioned by Uber but conducted by an independent research firm, and the methodology is documented, so it's up to you how reliable of a source you find that.

Since these are major lawsuits and it's also becoming a pretty big story in California, I imagine if there are significant flaws here or if there are other reputable surveys that have found the opposite, that those will start to surface. So far I haven't seen anything to that effect.

[0] https://www.cadriversurvey.com/

Edit: I missed in the irony in your comment as well on first read. There's an entire side industry devoted to helping workers maximize their profit, and many seem to have success doing so. That seems like a good thing, at least for those who want it? Compare that to other industries like Amazon warehouse workers, where many are full-time employees. It doesn't seem to have helped their working conditions much as there are a lot of complaints about the job, and if certain employees are more productive the company pockets the savings rather than the employees being able to make more money.

[abdullahkhalids]

> Just 17% of Uber and Lyft drivers surveyed want to remain full-time employees [0].

Because that doesn't include the number of people who would want to be ride-share/delivery drivers but don't because they can't be employees.

That pool could have 99% people who want to be employees, but only a small number them (17% of current drivers) keep driving despite their preferences.

[maxerickson]

Might as well link the source of the survey vs a Forbes blag: https://therideshareguy.com/california-sues-uber-and-lyft-fo...

Too bad they didn't ask questions like "do you want to deal with independent contractor taxes" and "do you want to set your own hours" and so on, to drill down into why they liked the independent contractor status.

Maybe the solution is to force ride share companies to truly act as matchmakers, where they show passengers and drivers the book and collect a small fee for completed transactions rather than using opaque pricing to maximize their take from both sides of the transaction.

[PeterisP]

A lot of the difference is caused by the words "full time" - the parent post and related arguments are not using these words.

The main case here is about requiring employee status or employee-like basic standards of workers rights for the drivers, even if they don't work full time for a single company but (for example) five hours for Uber followed by three hours for Lyft on the same day.

Workforce moving to the 'gig economy' does not by itself justify abandoning the basic standards and protections from exploitation that our society has decided long ago to afford for even the poorest and most vulnerable workers. There currently are legal loopholes that enable the 'gig employers' to skip these standards. That's a bug, not a feature - it should be fixed.

[AgloeDreams]

With extreme propaganda and marketing of anti-labor rights movements by the companies they work for, why would they?