UBER UPDATE
CALL FOR BAN ON UBER CARS COMING TO YORK FROM LOCKDOWN AREAS
A spike in Covid-19 cases has led to local lockdowns in parts of West Yorkshire – but Uber drivers from these areas are still able to work in York. Recent new coronavirus restrictions affect Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees among other places. York has refused a licence to Uber, but drivers from West Yorkshire regularly ply their trade there. York mix reports that Wendy Loveday, chair of the York Private Hire Association, has written to council leader Keith Aspden urging action. She wrote: “Will you now do something to stop Uber drivers travelling from West Yorkshire into York and coming into contact with hundreds of York residents/students? “Will you take any action whatsoever to stop them from bringing the virus into York? Or will you continue to ignore the facts, and allow Uber drivers’ behaviour to result in York being forced into a local lockdown through no fault of its own residents?” Wendy went on to say that “someone MUST have the power to stop this from happening”. Ashley Mason is chair of the council’s licensing, gambling and regu- latory committee. Responding to the concerns, he said on Twitter: “North Yorkshire Police’s view was that they were legally able to still work in York during lockdown. I have asked the Chief Constable for her view and information on their powers now.”
CALIFORNIA JUDGE RULES THAT UBER MUST CLASSIFY DRIVERS AS EMPLOYEES
A preliminary injunc- tion has been issued by a California Judge blocking Uber and Lyft from classifying their drivers as inde- pendent contractors instead of employees. The move on Monday 10 August followed a lawsuit filed in May by the state of California, against both companies, alleging they are misclassifying their drivers under the state’s new labour law, AB5. California is the largest market in the US for Uber and Lyft and the state where both companies were founded. The new law which took effect on 1 January makes it more difficult for companies to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees who are entitled to minimum wage and ben- efits. The lawsuit, and Monday’s subsequent injunction, are the most sig- nificant challenges made against Uber and Lyft but the San Francisco superior court judge delayed enforcing his injunction by ten days to give the companies a chance to appeal. Veena Dubal, an associate professor of law who researches the gig economy at the University of California said: “This is huge. This is the closest in eight years the judiciary has come to enforcing labour rights in the gig economy.” Uber has made changes to its app in the months since AB5 went into effect, such as allowing drivers to set their own rates, in an effort to avoid the reach of the new law by demonstrating drivers operate as contractors. Uber, Lyft and DoorDash have spent more
50
than $100m on a 2020 ballot measure that aims to undermine AB5. Drivers have called on these companies to drop their expensive efforts to evade AB5 enforcement and reinvest the funds into help- ing its workers, said Edan Alva, a Lyft driver and member of advocacy group Gig Workers Rising. “For years, workers have been organising and speaking out against our mistreatment by billion-dollar gig companies who have refused to obey the law,” he said. “Today, the court sided with workers and not corporations.” Meanwhle Dara Khosrowshahi said in an interview following the judgement that Uber could shut down temporarily for several months if the court does not overturn the ruling. “If the court doesn’t reconsider, then in California, it’s hard to believe we’ll be able to switch our model to full-time employment quickly,” Khos- rowshahi told MSNBC. Rather than classify drivers as employees, Khosrowshahi has advo- cated for what he calls a “third way” that would maintain drivers’ independence while allowing companies to provide some protec- tions without risking being viewed as full-time employers. In a New York Times interview ahead of the court ruling, Khosrowshahi said gig companies such as Uber could pay into a fund that workers could dip into for paid time off or health-care benefits based on the number of hours they work. Khosrowshahi said that his Plan B, if Uber can’t win on appeal, would be to temporarily pause service in California. While he said Uber would later resume service in the state, it would likely be more centered in cities, which could mean limited availability in less con- centrated areas such as suburbs. Both Uber and Lyft had until Thursday 20 August 2020 to appeal the ruling, and both duly lodged an appeal, but instead of ruling on the issue, the judge then blocked the order until 13 October, when an oral argument will take place in court. In the meantime, the com- petitors have been asked to consolidate their appeals into one. The court has now confirmed that the appellants’ opening briefs shall be filed no later than 4 September 2020 and both organisa- tions have until October 2020 to convince the court to dismiss the previous ruling to classify its drivers as employees. Ahead of that decision on Thursday, Uber and Lyft had threatened to suspend services in the state of California and had leveraged their large user base, sending push notifications in the app to mil- lions of people, attempting to promote their views that drivers should not be paid full-time wages. The companies have encouraged riders and drivers to sign petitions in support of Proposition 22, a measure on the November ballot that would negate the impact of AB5. The proposition has millions of dollars in backing from Uber and Lyft as well as other gig econ- omy firms that are affected by the law. Uber and Lyft claim they cannot reclassify their employees while allowing them to continue to choose their own hours, a feature cen- tral to the gig economy. But there is nothing in the law that prevents this, said John Coté, the communications director for the San Fran- cisco city attorney, Dennis Herrera, who is one of the parties bringing the lawsuit against the ride-hailing firms. “When faced with the law, Uber and Lyft are now threatening to take their ball and go home,” he said. “No one is forcing Uber and Lyft to shut down. That’s a choice these companies are making to avoid paying their drivers what they’re owed.” These threats to suspend services represent a means to “scare Cal- ifornians into voting yes on Prop 22”, said Shona Clarkson, an organizer with Gig Workers Rising, a group representing Uber and Lyft drivers. “Uber and Lyft’s heinous threats to kill driver jobs and leave Califor- nia are nothing short of extortion,” Clarkson said. “Multimillionaire CEOs are choosing to lay off thousands of workers across California in the middle of a pandemic because they don’t want to pay them living wages or give them access to lifesaving benefits. We will not let this shutdown sway us.”
SEPTEMBER 2020
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
