Basically this. As best I can tell, most of the flexibility Uber and Lyft want is the flexibility to pay people less and give them less benefits and prevent them from being able to unionize/organize effectively.
Assuming that what Lyft is saying about "4 out of 5 drivers don't support" is accurate, that would seem to imply that this is also about giving flexibility to all the people who are only driving 5 hours a week to pick up some spare pocket change. Which is the model for how this would mostly work that is invoked by the word "rideshare."
I do see a potential problem here of the interests of people who do this as their job being unnecessarily put into direct conflict with the interests of people who don't do this as their job.
People being taken advantage of by unfair business practices are usually still making an active choice to participate in those unfair practices. People making below minimum wage would likely rather keep that below minimum wage job than be fired because the company refuses to pay them more. That is still not a valid argument against the minimum wage.
A business model that relies on unfair business practices is not a viable business model. We just need to make sure that the employees caught in this transition have a social safety net that protects them from the financial repercussions of implementing these higher standards for all employees.
Surely "ridesharing" should be reserved for when a group of people share the same vehicle and all are going in the same direction, with another purpose than driving the group there. If I drive my friend to the airport and I then drive back we did not share a ride I gave him a ride.
It's physically impossible to flip burgers at McDonalds and Burger King at the same time. Presumably, it would be pointless for a driver to work for Uber in the morning and Lyft in the evenings.
They certainly do if that cashier is working the same shift at McDonalds as when he's supposed to be at Burger King. His manager will also care if his work at another employer affects his performance when he's working his shift at Burger King.
They certainly don't let you work for both at the exact same moment in time (which is quite common with drivers who have both Uber and Lyft open at same moment). Also Burger King generally sets your schedule and McDonalds usually sets your schedule. It's usually not feasible to work for both, because they both might end up scheduling you in the same time slot.
You are describing a literal impossibility as your example, being physically present at the Burger King and McDonald’s at the same time.
It’s the very same thing as say a driver can’t give a passenger a ride for Uber at the same time they are giving a ride for a Lyft passenger.
> It's usually not feasible to work for both, because they both might end up scheduling you in the same time slot.
You are essentially trying to argue no one Can work 2 jobs because of potential scheduling conflicts. Plenty of people work 2-3 jobs, often times for competitors in the same industry.
Not quite. If Uber and Lyft must shoulder the burden of full-time employee status, they should get the benefits, too: dictating when someone works for maximum profit, and a no-compete clause in the contract.
The best solution is for the state to end the distinction between independent contractors and full-time employees. I wonder if there's a way to manipulate state corporate taxes and credits to essentially nullify the federal employee status rules. Increase corporate state income tax, use the revenue to credit the employer's portion of social security tax and the independent contractor's excess social security tax. Put a state sales tax on group medical insurance plans and use the funds to provide a public option. Could get complicated, but there's probably a way.
