Uber ordered to pay $1.1 million to blind passenger who was denied rides 14 separate times

Uber, Lyft, and other ride-hailing and food-delivery companies have aggressively fought efforts in multiple states and countries to reclassify drivers as employees, which would add significant additional costs to their already unprofitable business models.

tsonnemaker@insider.com (Tyler Sonnemaker)

4/2/2021

© RJ Sangosti/Getty Images A blind passenger gets into an Uber in Denver, Colorado (Lisa Irving is not pictured). RJ Sangosti/Getty Images

Uber must pay a blind passenger $1.1 million for illegally denying her rides, an arbitrator ruled.
Uber drivers denied Lisa Irving rides 14 times because of her blindness and guide dog, Bernie.
Uber unsuccessfully argued it wasn't responsible because its drivers are contractors.

An independent arbitrator on Thursday ordered Uber to pay $1.1 million to a blind passenger for illegally discriminating against her after its drivers refused her rides on 14 occasions.

The arbitrator also rejected Uber's argument that it wasn't liable for discrimination by its drivers because they're contractors.

Uber said it strongly disagreed with the ruling.

Lisa Irving, a San Francisco Bay Area resident who is blind and relies on her guide dog, Bernie, to help her get around, brought the claim against Uber in 2018 after "she was either denied a ride altogether or harassed by Uber drivers not wanting to transport her with her guide dog," the arbitrator's ruling said.

Uber drivers left Irving stranded late at night, caused her to be late to work (which eventually contributed to her being fired), and on two occasions, verbally abused and intimidated her - and that discrimination didn't stop even after she complained to Uber, her lawyers told Insider in a statement.

"Of all Americans who should be liberated by the rideshare revolution, the blind and visually impaired are among those who stand to benefit the most. However, the track record of major rideshare services has been spotty at best and openly discriminatory at worst," Catherine Cabalo, one of Irving's attorneys, said in the statement.

"The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go," Cabalo added.

"We are proud Uber's technology has helped people who are blind locate and obtain rides. Drivers using the Uber app are expected to serve riders with service animals and comply with accessibility and other laws, and we regularly provide education to drivers on that responsibility. Our dedicated team looks into each complaint and takes appropriate action," Andrew Hasbun, a spokesperson for Uber, said in a statement.

But the arbitrator found that Uber employees who investigated possible incidents of discrimination were "trained, in some instances, to coach drivers to find non-discriminatory reasons for ride denials," and even to "'advocate' to keep drivers on the platform despite discrimination complaints."

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, it's illegal for transportation businesses that are subject to the law to refuse to transport people with guide dogs, but Uber tried to shift the blame to its drivers, arguing that it wasn't responsible for any ADA violations because its drivers are independent contractors.

The arbitrator disagreed, ruling that Uber was also liable for ADA violations because of its "contractual supervision over its drivers and for its failure to prevent discrimination by properly training its workers."

But classifying drivers as contractors is a strategy that has allowed Uber to avoid legal liability in other contexts, such as when a pedestrian alleged that she nearly lost her leg after being struck by an Uber.

The strategy has also allowed Uber to avoid paying drivers' health insurance, sick pay, and unemployment insurance, shifting those costs to taxpayers - who paid $80 million last year to keep Uber and Lyft drivers afloat during the pandemic, making the companies two of the larger beneficiaries of a subsidy program aimed at small businesses.

Uber, Lyft, and other ride-hailing and food-delivery companies have aggressively fought efforts in multiple states and countries to reclassify drivers as employees, which would add significant additional costs to their already unprofitable business models.

Earlier this week, UK food-delivery company Deliveroo's initial public offering tanked by 30% after investors expressed concerned about how it had exploited its drivers.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Uber Falls as Focus Shifts From First Profit to Slow Growth

Jackie Davalos
Tue, August 1, 2023 

(Bloomberg) -- Uber Technologies Inc. reported its first-ever operating profit, but the shares slid as Wall Street questioned whether the company can maintain the pace of growth in its ride-hailing and delivery business.

Uber posted a second-quarter operating profit according to generally accepted accounting principles of $326 million and free-cash-flow of $1.14 billion. Total revenue jumped 14% to $9.2 billion during the period, narrowly missing the $9.3 billion analysts were expecting. It was the slowest rate of growth since the first quarter of 2021.

The shares, which had doubled this year, dropped 5.1% to $46.97 in New York Tuesday morning.

“The market doesn’t believe Uber can keep top-line growth at these levels,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Mandeep Singh.

The results have raised the bar for Uber going forward. Uber’s business has remained largely unscathed from elevated inflation rates as customers are still willing to pay a premium for the convenience of hailing a ride and getting food delivered to their door. Trips in the US and Canada have recovered to pre-pandemic levels, while delivery demand hit an all-time high, despite increased costs for food.

After struggling with a driver shortage that caused fares and wait times to increase, Uber said the number of active drivers were up 33% in the second quarter compared with last year. The number of trips taken increased 26% from a year earlier to a record high.

Uber has focused on adding new features and products to the app, including a teen rides program, the ability to book group and guest rides, video gift messaging and a boat service. The company has also expanded advertising on the app and said it has been disciplined in cost management “across the board.” The company has avoided the widespread layoffs that have afflicted many other tech companies in recent months, though it has made limited cuts in its freight unit and in human resources. Uber was forced to undertake a major downsizing in 2020, when it dismissed about a quarter of its workforce at the height of the pandemic.

The operating profit, the company’s first since its founding in 2009, helped push Uber to a surprising gain in net income in the quarter. Uber has previously reported a quarterly net profit on occasion but it has always been fueled largely from investment gains, as it was again in the second quarter. In the three months ended June 30, Uber generated net income of $394 million, far surpassing the loss of $49.2 million analysts were expecting.

Uber projected gross bookings of $34 billion to $35 billion in the current quarter and adjusted earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization of $975 million to $1 billion, both beating analysts’ forecasts.

“These milestones were achieved through a combination of disciplined execution, record audience, and strong engagement,” Chief Executive Officer Dara Khosrowshahi said in prepared remarks. He added that the company was “well-positioned to sustain strong, incremental profit generation.”

The company also announced that Chief Financial Officer Nelson Chai is stepping down effective Jan. 5, marking one of the most high-profile departures since the company went public in 2019. A search for his replacement is underway.

“When I joined the company in 2018, Dara asked me to lead the financial transformation of the company,” Chai said in a statement. “As you can see from our Q2 results, that transformation has occurred. I am very proud of the great work we have all accomplished and thank Dara for his partnership.”

San Francisco-based Uber shares have diverged sharply from Lyft Inc., which has struggled to fully recover from the effects of Covid-19. Unlike Uber, Lyft only operates in North America and doesn’t have a food-delivery unit. Earlier this year, Uber’s crosstown rival installed a new chief executive officer and lowered prices to stem market share losses to Uber. Uber accounted for 74% of the US consumer ride-share sales at the end of June, while Lyft had 26%, according to Bloomberg Second Measure. Lyft shares slid less than 1% in premarket trading. The company is scheduled to report results next week.

In a conference call with analysts, Khosrowshahi said that Ubers fares during the quarter were “comparable” to Lyft’s. The two are in a “constructive” marketplace, Khosrowshahi said, adding that Lyft is “a tough competitor who now is competing effectively. We think the US is going to be a two-player market for some periods to come.”

When the pandemic crushed demand for rides, Uber’s decision to focus on Uber Eats helped it gain a foothold in the meal delivery sector which has continued to grow, even as indoor dining has resumed. Uber Eats generated $3.06 billion in revenue, slightly below Wall Street’s estimates, but better-than-expected adjusted Ebitda of $329 million as the unit benefitted from advertising. Customers seem to have been undeterred by higher prices for food, with delivery frequency of four monthly orders per eater, up 8% from a year earlier.

Uber generated $33.6 billion in gross bookings, which include ride hailing, food delivery and freight. That was up 16% from a year earlier and beat the $33.5 billion Wall Street had forecast.

Uber’s freight unit dragged on the company’s overall results. The division, which accounts for less than a quarter of total revenue, saw bookings and sales tumble 30% in the quarter. Uber said the unit is pressured by “category-wide headwinds,” with spot rates seasonally weak, a trend it expects to continue in the near term.

(Updates shares in third paragraph. A previous version of this story corrected a typo on Uber name in first paragraph.)

Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek

BC
Union files complaint alleging Uber engaging in unfair labour practices

A large B.C. union is taking Uber to the B.C. Labor Relations Board over allegations it fired a number of drivers for refusing unsafe work.

Author of the article: Keith Fraser
Publishing date:Oct 07, 2021 •

A large B.C. union is taking the cases of three Uber drivers to the B.C. Labor Relations Board alleging that the giant tech corporation is engaging in unfair labour practices.

 PHOTO BY REUTERS/MIKE BLAKE/FILE PHOTO
Article content

A large B.C. union is taking the cases of three Uber drivers to the B.C. Labour Relations Board alleging that the giant corporation is engaging in unfair labour practices.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union local 1518 said Thursday that the Lower Mainland drivers in question were fired after refusing unsafe work. One of the drivers was allegedly terminated in November 2020 and the other two in February and July of this year.

The union, which represents more than 26,000 members in various sectors including community health, hospitality and retail, says in a news release that in one case a customer threatened to lodge a complaint against a driver and became violent after the driver asked her to wear a mask.

In that instance, the driver phoned police, who had to remove the customer from the driver’s car, according to the union.

Another driver was fired after refusing to take four passengers in his vehicle in violation of Uber’s COVID-19 safety regulations, says the union.

After complaints were made against them, the drivers discovered that the Uber app had been deactivated from their phones, meaning they were no longer able to get passengers, it says.

Eva Prkachin, press secretary for the union, said that the union has been fighting for a long time to get Uber drivers the right to organize and join a union in order to enhance their working conditions.

“So we’ve been partnering with them over the last couple of years on a variety of initiatives, this one being a pretty obvious example.”

Bhupinder Singh, one of the drivers who was fired, says in the news release that he bought a new car, borrowed money from a friend and planned to start studying for his future, but his livelihood was stolen from him.

“It affected my mental health. I was a top star rating driver and completed more than 2,000 trips and with two false and angry customer accusations, Uber deactivated my account without proper investigation.”

The union says that if the board rules in their favour, the drivers could be reinstated and compensated for the unfair firings.

Uber said in a statement that they had just received a copy of the complaint and were reviewing it.

“We want every experience on the Uber platform to feel safe, respectful and positive and we’ve developed our policies with this in mind,” an Uber spokesperson said in the statement.

The company said that by way of background, that “losing access to a driver or delivery account” didn’t happen very often.

“Often when it does, we know it can be very stressful and frustrating. That’s why our case review process is human-led.”

The company said the most common reasons why a driver or delivery person might lose access to their account are an expired document or an issue with their background check.

“Others are usually due to safety issues, fraud, discrimination by the driver or the delivery person, or persistently low ratings from riders or Uber Eats users.”

 

B.C.-based Uber drivers claim they were fired for refusing unsafe work

In one case a driver says a woman became violent when he asked her to wear a mask.

a day ago By: Elana Shepert

One of B.C.'s oldest and largest unions is supporting Uber Drivers who claim they were fired fo

r refusing unsafe work in 2021 in Vancouver, BC. File photo.

One of B.C.'s oldest and largest unions is supporting Uber drivers who claim they were fired for refusing unsafe work. 

UFCW 1518, the United Food and Commercial Workers' International Union, is taking the cases of several Uber drivers to the BC Labour Relations Board. They've filed an unfair labour practice complaint against giant tech corporation Uber, according to a news release. 

For the drivers who were fired the ride-hailing service was the primary source of income. They had also been working for the company for several months without any other incidents before being fired. In fact, one of the drivers had "1,000 five-star reviews on his account."

In one of the cases, an Uber driver said a customer threatened to lodge a complaint and became violent when the driver asked her to wear a mask. The driver phoned the police who had to remove the customer from the vehicle.

In another incident, a driver refused "to take four passengers in his vehicle as this violated Uber’s explicit COVID-19 safety regulations. The driver believes that the customer who ordered the trip retaliated against him by leaving a bad review and rating."

In addition to COVID-19 safety regulations, drivers reported having to deal with intoxicated customers who were "rude, demanding and insulting." When they asked the customers to tone down their behaviour, the riders said they would "lodge a formal complaint against the drivers."

Following these complaints, the drivers discovered that the Uber app was deactivated from their phones. The apps were deleted from drivers who otherwise had "strong driving records and high customer ratings and reviews."

When they attempted to reach Uber support, the drivers claim that the team did not follow up on requests. 

“I bought a new car, borrowed money from my friend and planned to start studying for my future, but my livelihood was stolen from me,” explained driver Bhupinder Singh. “It affected my mental health. I was a top star rating driver and completed more than 2,000 trips and with two false and angry customer accusations, Uber deactivated my account without proper investigation.”

If the Labour Relations Board rules in favour of the UFCW 1518 complaint, the drivers could be reinstated and compensated for the unfair firings.
The union is also seeking changes to the Employment Standards Act to enable app-based contract workers like Uber drivers to join a union.

A spokesperson from Uber Canada told Vancouver Is Awesome that the company has just received the complaint and is reviewing it. “We want every experience on the Uber platform to feel safe, respectful, and positive and we’ve developed our policies with this in mind.”

Uber Canada adds that people don't lose access to driver or delivery accounts often. "When it does, we know it can be very stressful and frustrating. That’s why our case review process is human-led. While data and technology are useful tools for improving the safety of the Uber platform, people will always play a role in helping to ensure that drivers and delivery people are treated fairly.

"The most common reasons why a driver or delivery person might lose access to their account are an expired document or an issue with their background check. Others are usually due to safety issues, fraud, discrimination by the driver or delivery person, or persistently low ratings from riders or Uber Eats users."

UFCW Local 1518 represents more than 26,000 union members working in the community health, hospitality, retail, grocery, industrial, and professional sectors across British Columbia.

Uber and Lyft could shut down in California this week. It may not help their cause

By Sara Ashley O'Brien, CNN Business
 August 16, 2020


Exclusive: Amanpour interviews Uber's CEO
(CNN Business)

When faced with tough legislation over the years, Lyft and especially Uber relied on a tried and tested playbook: threaten to suspend service in the area. The threat, which the companies would sometimes follow through on, appeared designed to rile up customers and drivers, and put more pressure on lawmakers.
Now Uber (UBER) and Lyft (LYFT) are once again betting on a version of this playbook as they confront a heated legal battle in their home state over a new law impacting how much of the on-demand economy classifies its workers.
The two companies have said they may suspend their operations in California as soon as this week while simultaneously pushing for a referendum in November to exempt them from the law, known as AB-5. But industry watchers say the shutdown may not have the same impact on residents now as it once did in earlier fights because of their steep drop in ridership from the pandemic.
"If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, then did it really happen?" said Bradley Tusk, a venture capitalist, political strategist and former regulatory adviser to Uber. "If voters couldn't get an Uber or a Lyft when they wanted it, that's one thing. But ridership is down so drastically, if this does prompt a political outcry, it'll come from the drivers, not the riders."

Court orders Uber, Lyft to reclassify drivers as employees in California
The threats from Uber and Lyft to halt their businesses came after a California court ordered them last Monday to reclassify their drivers in the state as employees in 10 days. This reclassification would represent a radical shift for the two businesses. They built up massive fleets of drivers by treating them as independent contractors. That way they were not entitled to benefits like minimum wage, overtime pay, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance and paid sick leave.
Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said last week that it would be "really, really unfortunate," but the company would "essentially shut down Uber until November when the voters decide" if it cannot delay the order until the referendum vote. Not long after, Lyft cofounder John Zimmer said on the company's quarterly earnings call that it would also be "forced to suspend rideshare operations in California."
"Lyft cannot comply with the injunction at a flip of the switch," Zimmer added.
At a time when Uber and Lyft arguably have the least leverage with riders, the stakes are the highest for the companies to mobilize support for a more favorable solution. Both companies are grappling with sharp revenue declines from the pandemic and have histories of steep losses. Now they risk losing access to a state whose economy is larger than most countries -- or else overhauling their business models.
Moreover, if they lose the battle in their home state, it may only add momentum for other states to rethink legislation for the gig economy.
Under AB-5, which went into effect January 1, companies must prove workers are free from company control and perform work outside the usual course of the company's business in order to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees. Last week's injunction is part of an ongoing lawsuit brought in May by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and a coalition of city attorneys.
In their ideal world, Uber and Lyft would delay the enforcement until California residents vote on the referendum, known as Prop 22, that the companies have each backed with tens of millions of dollars. If passed, it would exempt Uber, Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash and Uber-owned Postmates from the law while providing drivers with some additional benefits. (The other companies are not part of the ongoing lawsuit so are not facing the same deadline.)
But their initial attempt at an appeal proved unsuccessful. On Thursday, a California judge denied them. Uber said it plans to again appeal the order; Lyft filed an appeal Friday with a California appellate court.
In the absence of a legal victory, shutting down is one way for Uber and Lyft to attempt to wield the power of their apps in order to sway public opinion. And there is certainly precedent for it. The companies have threatened to leave, or have left, a number of cities, including Chicago, Houston and Austin. In 2015, in New York City, the company put a tab on its app to show New York riders what it would be like to need to wait 25 minutes for a car if the city's mayor's proposed regulations went through.

Uber's delivery service is now bigger than its rides business
But multiple industry watchers noted that Uber and Lyft may be in a weaker position this time. Uber's ride-hailing revenue for the second quarter of this year declined 67% from the same period a year earlier. Lyft's business similarly shrank during the second quarter ending in June, with its revenue falling 61% and ridership falling by nearly the same amount.
A sharp drop in ridership from the public health crisis may only be one part of their problem in this fight. Bruce Schaller, a transportation consultant and a former New York City transportation official, said the public is "far more sympathetic to worker rights issues now with respect to these companies than they were five or six years ago," citing the recession and pandemic, which have drawn increased attention to the plight of essential workers.
California is hardly the only legal challenge Uber and Lyft are facing. Massachusetts has a similar law to AB-5 and the attorney general there recently sued the companies over worker misclassification. Decisions in Pennsylvania and New York around unemployment insurance also go against the companies' stance on employment. Last year, the New Jersey Labor Commissioner determined Uber owed $649 million in unpaid unemployment insurance contributions as a result of driver misclassification.
Terri Gerstein of the Harvard Labor and Worklife Program and Economic Policy Institute questioned if the companies may also eventually withdraw from other markets where their business model is similarly in limbo: "What's the long term plan?"

California ruling against Uber, Lyft threatens to upend gig economy

BY CHRIS MILLS RODRIGO - 08/16/20

© Getty Images


The business models for Uber, Lyft and dozens of other gig worker companies that have sprouted up over the last decade are up in the air after a California judge ruled that rideshare drivers must be classified as employees rather than contractors.

Uber and Lyft have until Thursday to appeal the decision. The end result will likely have repercussions well beyond California.

Failure to overturn the ruling would mean the two companies, which already fail to turn a profit, will be unable to operate under their current business structures in a state known for setting nationwide precedents.

San Francisco Superior Court judge Ethan Schulman ruled Monday that Uber and Lyft must classify their drivers as full employees under Assembly Bill (AB) 5, a landmark law that establishes a test for determining whether workers can be classified as independent contractors.

Schulman sided with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), who brought the lawsuit after the two ridesharing giants resisted the law after it took effect in January, arguing their core business is technology rather than ride-hailing.

Both companies reacted aggressively to Monday’s court decision, threatening to shut down operations in California if they are forced to provide workers with basic protections like a minimum wage and the right to organize. Those threats have put drivers in a precarious position.

“As deplorable as that is, it's not surprising, because now that the pandemic has pushed the vast majority of drivers into financial ruin, Uber and Lyft are ready to completely abandon them,” Erica Mighetto, a driver in the San Francisco area and member of Rideshare Drivers United, told The Hill.

After the ruling, both companies filed motions to extend a 10-day stay that Schulman placed on his decision to give Uber and Lyft time to file appeals. He denied their motions, meaning Thursday is still their deadline for appealing.

Legal experts say that while the companies are almost certain to appeal, they’re unlikely to make any new arguments when they do so.


“Based on what I heard in the oral argument, I think they’re really going to go hard on this idea that this is going to cause irreparable harm both to the companies and to drivers,” said Veena Dubal, associate professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.

That argument was rejected in court by Schulman, who said the companies had plenty of time to figure out how to comply with the law.

The case will also likely hinge on rules for determining employment status. AB5 codified a test for determining whether workers can be considered independent contractors.

The first prong of the test says the worker must be free from control and direction of the hiring entity. Both Uber and Lyft have emphasized the flexibility that they provide drivers on their platforms, letting them select their own hours and rides.

However, researchers have raised questions about that independence, noting that drivers are tightly surveilled and have to follow strict policies. Additionally, nothing about being a full employee has a requirement for hours.

Uber has taken some steps to resolve that part of the codified test in California, such as letting drivers set their own surge rates and showing them whole trips before they pick up riders.

But those changes don’t “give drivers sufficient control to say that they control their own destiny, and that they control their own work,” Bryant Greening, an attorney at LegalRideshare, a law firm that specializes in rideshare cases, told The Hill.

The second prong of the state test, and the most important in this case, is that the task performed by workers must be outside of the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.

Uber and Lyft have long held that they are technology platforms, not ride hailing businesses. That argument has been increasingly harder to defend.

“It’s this simple,” Schulman wrote in his ruling, “Defendants’ drivers do not perform work that is ‘outside the usual course’ of their business. Defendants’ insistence that their businesses are ‘multi-sided platforms’ rather than transportation companies is flatly inconsistent with the statutory provisions that govern their businesses as transportation network companies, which are defined as companies that ‘engage in the transportation of persons by motor vehicle for compensation.’”

The third prong of the test requires that the worker participate in a type of task that has been established before as being independent.

If any one of the prongs is failed, the worker cannot be considered an independent contractor under state law.


Even though they’re expected to file appeals, Uber and Lyft have already begun charting next steps.

In addition to threatening to leave the state -- a tactic Uber used frequently while it expanded across the country -- the two firms have joined forces with other gig companies to pour millions of dollars into a ballot measure Prop 22, that would exempt them from state labor laws that threaten their business models.

The ballot measure would entitle gig company workers to some protections including minimum earnings, vehicle insurance and health care subsidies, but would exempt the companies from having to give them full employee status.

Uber and Lyft asked Schulman to delay his decision until after the vote on Prop 22 to let voters decide, a plea that was swiftly rejected by the court.

Prop 22 would establish the kind of third employee classification type that Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi has long sought. Khosrowshahi sent a letter to the White House earlier this year asking President Trump to consider legislative action on a worker classification that could let Uber maintain the flexibility of having independent contractors while adding some basic worker protections. He made a similar push for new laws in a New York Times op-ed on Monday.

An Uber and Lyft driver in California named John, who asked that his last name not be used for fear of reprisal, said the companies’ threats to leave the state also have the effect of pressuring drivers to support Prop 22.

“They’re shooting a salvo over the bow, they basically want to scare drivers, they want to scare them into voting yes,” he told The Hill.

The resolution of Uber and Lyft’s battles against California labor laws could have ripple effects nationwide for other companies that rely on gig work, like grocery or food delivery, that have grown immensely during the coronavirus pandemic.

Dubal called the decision "probably the most important one that has come out globally,” because “California is such a huge market for them, and... the judge made such clear legal statements about how this is not a technology company but a transportation company and they are clearly in violation of the law.”

For Mighetto, the San Francisco area driver, forcing Uber and Lyft to choose between offering worker protections or folding is long overdue.

“We're really hopeful that we can put a stop to Prop 22, and that Uber and Lyft come to the reality that there's no place for them anywhere unless they treat their workers fairly,” she said.

CAPITAL STRIKE THREATENED
Uber and Lyft say they will have to SHUT DOWN for several months in California if a court upholds ruling requiring them to classify their drivers as full-time employees

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi warned on Wednesday that his company may have to shut down service if a California court's ruling is upheld 

Lyft President John Zimmer issued the same warning soon after 

A San Francisco Superior Court judge on Monday ordered Uber and Lyft to reclassify their drivers as employees instead of independent contractors 

Both companies are now in the process of filing appeals to 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,' Khosrowshahi said

He said switching will result in 'much smaller service [and] much higher prices'

By MEGAN SHEETS FOR DAILYMAIL.COM and WIRES

PUBLISHED: 16:49 EDT, 12 August 2020 | UPDATED: 17:09 EDT, 12 August 2020

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi says the ride-sharing company could be forced to shut down service in California for several months if a state court does not overturn a ruling requiring it to classify its drivers as full-time employees.

'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,' Khosrowshahi told MSNBC on Wednesday.

'We will have to shut down until November.'

Uber's rival Lyft issued the same warning about a probable shutdown soon after.

'We may appeal this ruling and request a further stay. If efforts here are not successful, we would be forced to suspend our operations in California,' Lyft co-founder and president John Zimmer said.

Both companies are now in the process of filing appeals to overturn a Monday ruling from San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman, who determined there is an 'overwhelmingly likelihood' that the firms violated a state law by classifying their drivers as contractors instead of as employees.

Schulman gave Uber and Lyft 10 days to reclassify the drivers, which would require the companies to provide benefits and unemployment insurance to all of them.

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi is pictured in an MSNBC interview on Wednesday, where he warned that the ride-sharing company could be forced to shut down service in California for several months if a state court does not overturn a ruling requiring it to classify its drivers as full-time employees


Khosrowshahi warned that restructuring its operations in California would result in 'much smaller service [and] much higher prices', hurting both drivers and customers.

'That's a reality, so it's not a game of chicken one way or another,' he said. 'It's really up to the courts and we're going to comply with the law, and we will look to get going again.'

He said that service would have to pause for a few months, and when it resumed it would be much more limited and concentrated in cities rather than suburbs.

Khosrowshahi penned an op-ed in the New York Times over the weekend calling for states to require all gig economy companies to establish benefit funds for their workers instead of forcing them to classify workers as employees.

Schulman's ruling came down the following day, marking a crushing defeat for Uber and Lyft as they fight a May 5 lawsuit from state Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco - where they are both based.

The suit accused Uber and Lyft of violating Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which requires companies to classify workers as employees if they controlled how workers did their jobs, or the work was part of their normal business.

Uber and Lyft say their drivers prefer the flexibility of working as freelancers, while labor unions and elected officials argue that the designation deprives drivers of benefits like health insurance, sick leave and overtime.

A judge on Monday ordered Uber and Lyft to classify their drivers as employees instead of contractors after California sued the ride-sharing giants for violating state law (file photo)

In a 34-page decision faulting the money-losing companies' 'prolonged and brazen refusal' to comply with state law, Schulman said the plaintiffs showed an 'overwhelming likelihood' they could prove Uber and Lyft classified drivers illegally.

Labor advocates praised the ruling as a milestone in their fight to apply traditional worker protections to a fast-growing segment of the labor force.

'This is a resounding victory for thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers who are working hard - and, in this pandemic, incurring risk every day - to provide for their families,' Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer said in a statement.

But the companies - whose largest market is in California - criticized the decision, saying it threatens to shut them down during a pandemic-induced economic downturn where many people who have lost their jobs turn to the ride-hailing companies to make money.

'Our elected leaders should be focused on creating work, not trying to shut down an entire industry during an economic depression,' Uber spokesperson Davis White said.

Both Uber and Lyft have pledged to spend more than a hundred million dollars to support a November ballot measure, Proposition 22, that would exempt them from AB5.

'Drivers do not want to be employees,' Lyft said in a statement. 'Ultimately, we believe this issue will be decided by California voters and that they will side with drivers.'
Judge blocks Uber and Lyft from classifying drivers as contractors



Both Uber and Lyft have pledged to spend more than a hundred million dollars to support a November ballot measure, Proposition 22, that would exempt them from AB5. Pictured: Drivers protest the proposition on August 6 in Los Angeles

Several hundred thousand 'gig' workers, including many at ride-hailing companies and app-based food delivery services, are affected by AB5, which took effect on January 1 and had broad support from organized labor.

Lawyers for Uber and Lyft said they are not violating the law because drivers are not fundamental to the business, arguing the companies are 'multi-sided platforms' whose activities encompass much more than transportation.

But Schulman rejected that argument, writing that it 'flies in the face of economic reality and common sense'.

'To state the obvious, drivers are central, not tangential, to Uber and Lyft's entire ride-hailing business,' Schulman wrote.

He also said the public could face substantial harm if drivers were denied employee benefits such as minimum wage, paid sick and family leave, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance.

'These harms are not mere abstractions; they represent real harms to real working people,' Schulman wrote.

The judge said Uber and Lyft had themselves to blame if their resisting state laws contributed to any 'far-reaching' effects an injunction might have.

'Defendants may not evade legislative mandates merely because their businesses are so large that they affect the lives of many thousands of people,' he wrote.

State officials have argued Uber and Lyft's behavior hurts more than just drivers, noting the companies don't pay into the state's unemployment insurance fund that covers benefits for people when they lose their jobs.

The state's fund was quickly depleted following huge job losses because of the pandemic, resulting in the state borrowing billions of dollars from the federal government.

'Our state and workers shouldn't have to foot the bill when big businesses try to skip out on their responsibilities,' Becerra, California's Democratic attorney general, said.

'We're going to keep working to make sure Uber and Lyft play by the rules.'

But ride-hailing companies have been hurt by the pandemic, too. Uber announced last week it lost $1.78billion in the past three months as millions of people stayed home during the pandemic.

Shares in both companies tumbled in early trading on Tuesday following the ruling.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (right) and Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer (left) are leading the state's lawsuit against Uber and Lyft. After their injunction was granted on Monday, Feuer said: 'This is a resounding victory for thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers who are working hard - and, in this pandemic, incurring risk every day - to provide for their families'

Hours before the ruling was handed down, Uber outlined proposals for a new type of relationship with gig workers, including its own drivers, that would allow them to keep their independence as freelancers while also receiving benefits.

The ride-hailing giant described 'a new model for independent platform work' in an 18-page document it hopes can be used as blueprint for Uber and similar firms relying on independent workers.

The company seeks 'to deliver certainty for millions of independent contractors who will increasingly rely on independent work to help them face the economic challenges that lie ahead,' Uber said in its document.

'The current health and economic crisis has brought into sharp focus the need for everyone, regardless of their employment status, to be able to find good quality, rewarding work; be able to work in the way they choose; and have access to adequate social protections and benefits.'

Uber proposed that gig economy companies be required to establish 'benefits funds', allowing gig workers to accrue and use the money for benefits or paid leave.

In his Times op-ed, Uber CEO Khosrowshahi said that the current employment system 'is outdated and unfair' and 'forces every worker to choose between being an employee with more benefits but less flexibility, or an independent contractor with more flexibility but almost no safety net'.

'Uber is ready, right now, to pay more to give drivers new benefits and protections,' Khosrowshahi wrote.

'But America needs to change the status quo to protect all workers, not just one type of work.'

Khosrowshahi (pictured) penned an op-ed in the New York Times on Monday calling for all gig economy companies to establish benefit funds for their workers

Khosrowshahi echoed the arguments Uber made in response to the California lawsuit, saying that the requirement to classify drivers as employees would leave fewer jobs and dramatically increase costs.

'Uber would not be as widely available to riders, and drivers would lose the flexibility they have today if they became employees,' Khosrowshahi wrote.

'The vast majority of drivers have said they don't want to be employees because of how much they value flexibility.'

He called the argument over flexibility and benefits a 'false choice', adding: 'As a start, all gig economy companies need to pay for benefits, should be more honest about the reality of the work and must strengthen the rights and voice of workers.'

Khosrowshahi said that if all 50 states required gig economy companies to establish benefits funds, Uber would have paid $655million into theirs last year.

'During this moment of crisis, I fundamentally believe platforms like Uber can fuel an economic recovery by quickly giving people flexible work to get back on their feet,' he wrote.

'But this opportunity will be lost if we ignore the obvious lessons of the pandemic and fail to ensure independent workers have a stronger safety net.

'This is the time for Uber to come together with government to raise the standard of work for all.'

UPDATED  

Uber and Lyft's win to keep California drivers classified as contractors has national implications

California voters pass Proposition 22, denying gig workers the benefits of full employees -- after gig economy companies spent over $200 million on the campaign.

Dara Kerr 
Nov. 4, 2020 


Uber and Lyft drivers have long rallied to be classified as employees. James Martin/CNET

California voters on Tuesday passed Proposition 22, a ballot measure backed by Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies. During the yearlong battle over the initiative, which aimed to exempt the gig economy companies from classifying their drivers as employees, millions of dollars have been spent and all sorts of tricks have been pulled from the political playbook.

Proposition 22 is likely to have national implications as other states watch what happens in California, the home of Silicon Valley tech giants. If Proposition 22 had failed, they may have been forced to rethink their business models. Now that the ballot measure has passed, companies can use the campaign as a blueprint for similar fights they're waging in other states and countries.

Early polling showed a close race for the ballot measure, with 46% of voters backing the proposition and 42% opposed. The initiative needed 50% of the vote to win. As of Wednesday morning, the bill appeared to have passed with 58% of the ballot, according to the California Secretary of State's Office.

Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates contributed more than $205 million to the campaign, with a last-minute $1 million more from Uber on Monday. The No on Proposition 22 campaign was backed with about $19 million from labor groups and unions. The initiative became the most expensive ballot measure campaign in California history and one of the most expensive in US history, according to Ballotpedia.

At stake was whether the gig economy companies would be required to reclassify their workers as employees, as mandated by California law AB5. If classified as employees, workers would get labor benefits, such as health care, sick leave and minimum wage. But the companies said that would add tremendous costs to their businesses. Proposition 22 suggests creating an alternative in which drivers remain independent contractors and get a few more benefits, like an expense reimbursement and health care subsidy.

The No on Proposition 22 campaign said that's not enough. It said that drivers still might not make minimum wage and that the health care subsidy needed to be more substantial, especially during the coronavirus pandemic. When calculating paid time for workers, Proposition 22 only takes into account when they're on a ride or delivery. It doesn't add in when they're waiting to be matched with a customer.

"Over the past years, Instacart has hired so many new shoppers that I often don't get any orders," Ginger Anne Farr, an Instacart shopper, told Human Rights Watch in a paper released Monday. "I would sit in my car waiting for an order to appear, without making any money." 
Final flurry of activity

As Election Day neared, both sides of the Proposition 22 campaign went all in.

Uber, Lyft and the Yes campaign blanketed social media and TV stations with ads, spending a total of $95 million, according to MarketWatch. The gig economy companies also sent in-app messages and emails to riders and drivers asking for their support.

One email Uber sent customers on Monday reminded Californians they could register to vote even on Election Day. It then asked customers to "join the NAACP and California Small Business Association in supporting drivers by voting yes on Prop 22.""We'll do what it takes to reach every voter we can with the truth."
Mike Roth, spokesman for No on Prop 22 campaign

The California chapter of the NAACP endorsed the Yes campaign, as a series of payments totaling $85,000 were made to a small consulting firm run by the chapter's president. The national branch of the NAACP did not endorse the ballot measure.

The Yes campaign has said drivers prefer to remain independent contractors, often citing "independent studies." Many of those studies have been paid for by the gig economy companies or the Yes campaign and others involved informal non-scientific polls. The authors of the studies say their findings are independent and objective.

When asked for comment before the election, Lyft spokeswoman Julie Wood said, "Drivers have consistently said they want to remain independent, and we believe California voters will stand with them."

A spokesman for the Yes campaign reiterated the sentiment. "Drivers are participating in text and phone banking events ... to let voters know that by voting yes they can protect hundreds of thousands of jobs and the app-based services millions rely on," he said.

For its part, the No campaign touted the support of several big-name Democrats, including presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris. Also openly opposing Proposition 22 are Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, California Rep. Barbara Lee and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The No campaign additionally coordinated several events across the state. Drivers opposing the initiative held car caravan protests and dropped "No on Prop 22" banners throughout California's cities. On Monday, California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who authored AB5, worked with drivers to reach out to voters by text banking. The campaign said it reached about 10 million voters as of Monday afternoon.

"Rideshare drivers have been building momentum throughout this No on Prop 22 campaign and they are in overdrive mode now, taking their campaign right up to the finish line," said Mike Roth, a spokesman for the No campaign. "We'll do what it takes to reach every voter we can with the truth."

Uber, DoorDash and Postmates (which Uber acquired in July) didn't respond to requests for comment. Instacart referred CNET to the Yes on Proposition 22 campaign.

First published on Nov. 3, 2020 

RELATED STORIES
Uber and Lyft paid $400K to firm conducting 'independent studies' on Proposition 22
'A totally different ballgame': Inside Uber and Lyft's fight over gig worker status
Uber and Lyft drivers could become employees with this law: 10 things to know
Election Night 2020: Here's how your vote will actually be counted

Uber-backed gig worker initiative wins in California: US media

California voters put the brakes Tuesday on a law stopping ride share firms such as Uber and Lyft from classifying drivers as independent contractors, according to US media.

Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

Some 58 percent of voters backed a proposition that would leave drivers as independent contractors but provide them benefits such as supplemented health care coverage, according to local media and the "Yes on Proposition 22" campaign.

"This is a win for drivers across California," Southern California ride share driver Alfred Porche said in a statement issued by the campaign.

Explore further Uber and Lyft argue in California court over status of drivers

© 2020 AFP

Uber, Lyft shares surge after key ballot win in California

By Noah Manska

November 4, 2020 

AP

Uber and Lyft’s stock prices soared Wednesday after California voters allowed the ride-hailing giants to continue treating their drivers as independent contractors instead of employees.

Uber shares surged 11.5 percent in premarket trading while Lyft’s spiked about 14.8 percent as of 7:54 a.m. after the passage of Proposition 22, which exempts ride-hail drivers from a controversial California law that would have forced tech firms to give gig workers benefits such as a minimum wage and sick leave.

More than 58 percent of Golden State voters cast ballots in favor of the measure, handing Uber and Lyft an important victory in one of their biggest US markets after spending heavily to get out of the state law’s obligations.

The vote “will send a ripple impact as investors were worried if Prop 22 did not pass this would significantly impact the core DNA of the gig economy and ultimately the revenue model for Lyft and Uber,” Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives said in a Wednesday research note.

Tuesday’s vote will allow Uber and Lyft to escape pressure from California officials who had tried to force the companies to treat their drivers as employees under the state law known as AB5, which took effect in January

California sued the companies in May in an attempt to enforce the law, and a state appeals court said last month that they had to provide their drivers with benefits generally afforded to traditional employees. An earlier unfavorable ruling in that case prompted Uber and Lyft to threaten to halt their operations in the state.

Uber, Lyft and similar app-based services spent some $200 million urging voters to support Proposition 22. Other supporters of the measure included food-delivery platforms DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates, which rely on independent couriers to ferry groceries and takeout to their users.

Uber and Lyft contended that AB5’s requirements would have fundamentally changed their business models and limited flexibility for workers. But supporters of the law pointed out that tech giants poured massive amounts of money into the ballot measure fight.

“The obscene amount of money these multibillion-dollar corporations spent misleading the public doesn’t absolve them of their duty to pay drivers a living wage,” Art Pulaski, a leader at the California Labor Federation, said in a statement.

California bill passes allowing Uber to call workers contractors, deny them benefits

Uber not ‘doing enough to protect women,’ assault victim charges in suit

This Uber driver got COVID-19. With Prop 22, he says, 'I have a lot on the line'
by Avi Asher-Schapiro | @AASchapiro | Thomson Reuters Foundation
Tuesday, 3 November 2020 14:24 GMT


'I worked for Uber for six years full-time, sleeping in my car to work long hours. Then I contracted COVID-19. It's time to call me an employee.'


Nov 3 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – On Tuesday, Californians vote on a ballot measure that would exempt ride-hailing firms Uber and Lyft from a law compelling them to reclassify their drivers in the state as employees.

The measure, Prop. 22, could redefine gig work, a key pillar of the U.S. economy with COVID-19 driving up demand for delivery services.

A Reuters analysis found that Uber and Lyft would face over $392 million in annual payroll taxes and workers’ compensation costs if the proposition fails, and they are forced to extend employee status to drivers.

The companies say the majority of drivers do not want to be employees, and work fewer than 25 hours a week.

Uber and other gig firms have spent nearly $200 million to pass Prop. 22, which would extend limited benefits to workers, including a subsidy for drivers to buy private healthcare.

But workers like Orlando Mims, a 50-year-old from Sacramento who’s been driving full-time for Uber for 6 years, worry that without full employee protections like minimum wage guarantees and injury insurance, drivers are primed for exploitation. 

This is his story as told to Avi Asher-Schapiro, Thomson Reuters Foundation Digital Rights correspondent:

I started driving in 2014, and at first it was on the weekends, like a vacation from my regular job as a truck driver.

I’d drive down to San Francisco, stay there -- sleep in my car -- Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. And I’d work long days, and come back with over a thousand dollars.

When they made cutbacks at my trucking company, I left and I started driving Uber full-time -- as much as 60 or 70-hours-a- week on average.

At first I was making good money.

Then all the sudden they started cutting the rates at Uber; at first the drivers got 80% of the rides, then it was 70%. Now it’s not even a percentage, it’s calculated by your mileage and time. It’s just gone down, down, down.

About two years ago, I went into Uber’s office and asked about it. And they told me: 'we have enough drivers now, we can pay less' -- they had the audacity to tell me that.

That impacted my thinking tremendously.

When a friend of mine got shot when she was driving for Uber back in 2017, I started thinking: we are taking all the risks, but they are getting all the money.

And then, at the end of February, right when this pandemic started, I got sick while driving in San Francisco.

I went to the hospital down there, they took my temperature it was 105 degrees Fahrenheit (41 Celsius). Fearing I might have contracted COVID-19, they asked me if I’d been to Wuhan, China.

I hadn’t, but I was driving a lot of people from the airport. I later tested positive for COVID-19, and was told to self-isolate for 14 days; I was sick for longer than that, though.

And when I tried to go back to work in May, after being off for two-and-a-half months, I waited for 10 hours at the San Francisco Airport, and only got one $23 fare.

There was just no work. The only compensation I got from Uber was $1,400 for that two weeks I was in quarantine.

And that’s when I really started thinking; if this were a regular job, we would get workers compensation.

We are out here doing this work, they are taking the money. And technically, since we are just contractors they aren’t responsible for us.

I have a lot on the line with Prop. 22. I want to be a real employee of Uber; it would give me job security, health insurance and benefits, and I would know I am getting a steady paycheck.

I can’t afford to go to the airport and wait, sitting around for an hour or two and not getting paid. I want to be paid by the hour for my work.

So, when people get in my car and ask me about Prop. 22, I tell all my customers: ‘please vote no.’

It’s really upsetting seeing Uber and Lyft spend all this money on Prop. 22. It’s like they are trying to buy a law; I think it’s wrong, if I get enough money -- can I buy a law?

I got 20,000 trips with Uber! Never a thank you from them; 'we appreciate it; here's a bonus.'

So, you know what? If Prop 22 passes, I won't drive anymore. Why should I? Enough is enough. 

(Reporting by Avi Asher-Schapiro @AASchapiro, Editing by Tom Finn. Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers the lives of people around the world who struggle to live freely or fairly. Visit http://news.trust.org)

ABOUT OUR ECONOMIES COVERAGE We report on how to ensure people globally have economic security and a decent standard of living.

Uber's CEO took a shot at labor groups, accusing them of being driven by 'politics' in the massive fight over drivers' employment status

NEXT HE WILL BE SAYING IT'S "CLASS WAR"!

Tyler Sonnemaker
  

Carlo Allegri/Reuters

IS LIBERAL BOURGEOIS FEMINIST CAPITALIST ARIANA HUFFINGTON STILL ON UBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS?
Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi slammed labor groups that oppose the company's stance on drivers' employment status, accusing them of being motivated by "politics." 

During a call with investors Thursday, Khosrowshahi said groups on Uber's side of the issue, conversely, "actually are taking into account the wants and needs of drivers." TYPICAL ANTI UNION BOILER PLATE, THE BOSSES ALWAYS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR WORKERS SUDDENLY WHEN THE ISSUE OF UNIONIZING ARISES AMONG THE WORKERS THEMSELVES

Uber and other gig-economy companies are engaged in a massive legal and political battle, most notably in California, over whether their drivers are employees or independent contractors.

The state's regulators have ruled that drivers are employees under its gig-worker law and have taken Uber and Lyft to court over the issue, while the companies have pumped $30 million each into a ballot measure that would exempt them from the law.

The stakes are high — analysts said last year that an adverse ruling on the issue could bankrupt Uber and Lyft.

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi took a shot at labor and driver-advocacy groups on Thursday over their stance on drivers' employment status, accusing them of not representing drivers' interests.

During Uber's quarterly earnings call, Khosrowshahi said groups opposing Proposition 22 — the company's ballot measure in California that would permanently make drivers independent contractors — were motivated by "politics."

Labor and driver groups pushed back on Khosrowshahi's comments.

"We've got terrific supporters [of Proposition 22] in the community as well who actually care about drivers, versus labor unions and politics, they actually are taking into account the wants and needs of drivers," he said.
       
"It is the height of hypocrisy for Uber's rich executives to feign that they care about drivers when they are spending hundreds of millions on a ballot proposition to prevent those workers from receiving the wages, healthcare, and fundamental rights that they have been granted under California law," the Transport Workers Union's president, John Samuelsen, told Business Insider.

Carlos Ramos, a driver and organizer for Gig Workers Rising, said: "From my years of organizing with fellow drivers I can unequivocally say that Dara's words do not reflect Uber's actions. They never have. Uber has always attempted to deceive drivers around new policies and procedures, claiming that changes were made in the best interest of drivers."

Uber, Lyft, and other ride-hailing and food-delivery companies are in the middle of a heated battle in California over whether drivers are employees or contractors under the state's gig-worker law, AB-5, which took effect this year and raised the bar companies must clear to treat workers as contractors.

While the lawmakers behind AB-5 argued it made Uber drivers employees, the companies have refused to reclassify drivers.


In June, the state agency responsible for regulating Uber and Lyft ruled that ride-hailing drivers were considered employees under AB-5, and a month earlier, a group of attorneys general from the state, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego sued both companies over their refusal to reclassify workers.

On Wednesday, Uber and Lyft got hit with another lawsuit from the state's labor commissioner, who accused them of wage theft by refusing to pay drivers minimum wage, sick pay, unemployment, and other benefits guaranteed to employees under California law.

Unlike employees, contractors aren't guaranteed those benefits, and companies aren't bound by certain labor regulations around minimum-wage payments or subject to payroll taxes for those workers, which feed into programs like unemployment insurance.

But Uber is hoping that Proposition 22, which it introduced last fall along with Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates, and Instacart, will pass in November, allowing drivers to remain classified as contractors and making its legal battles a moot point. The companies have pumped more than $110 million into a group supporting the initiative, with Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash contributing $30 million each.


Khosrowshahi called Proposition 22, which also includes new benefits for drivers such as higher wages and some reimbursement for health insurance and vehicle-related expenses, "the best of both worlds."

But driver groups have slammed the companies' proposal, saying it shortchanges drivers by not fully accounting for the actual work they do and the costs they incur. For example, under Proposition 22, drivers would not be paid for the time they spend waiting to get matched with a rider, and they would be reimbursed only $0.30 a mile (the IRS per mile rate for business-related travel is 57.5 cents, by comparison).

Both Uber and driver groups claim drivers are on their side regarding the initiative. Khosrowshahi said the "vast majority of drivers" support it, while Ramos said "tens of thousands of drivers are organizing against" it.

The stakes are undoubtedly high for both drivers and the companies. When AB-5 passed last year, analysts at Barclays concluded that having to reclassify drivers as employees in California alone could cost Uber and Lyft an additional $3,625 a driver.

"We think an adverse ruling on the contract workforce issue would potentially bankrupt both Uber and Lyft," they concluded.

Axel Springer, Insider Inc.'s parent company, is an investor in Uber.