Even If California Law Classifies Its Drivers As Employees, Uber Has Options
Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash’s forced arbitration clauses could weaken the effect of the proposed law.
A California bill that is on the brink of becoming law threatens the business model of the gig economy. Called Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), it would make workers for companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash employees under state law, rather than independent contractors, as they are currently classified. That change would legally entitle them to a minimum wage, unemployment insurance, and other benefits.
It’s one thing to pass such a law, but it’s another thing to enforce it. Companies that dispatch workers using smartphone apps typically require those workers to handle disputes outside of court, and those same apps can easily be leveraged to push for exemptions from a law like AB 5.
Tony West, chief legal officer for Uber, told the New York Times late last month that if the bill becomes law, the company will litigate cases “just as we have done for the last decade.” In that case, it would be up to courts to ensure enforcement of the proposed law. The Ubers of the world, however, have effectively shut down one common pathway for challenging their employment practices in court.
Signing up to work for most gig economy apps involves agreeing to settle disputes in arbitration and on an individual basis. This means drivers can’t bring class action lawsuits against Uber or Lyft, and the rulings on their individual cases don’t establish legal precedent. As a result, it would largely be up to government agencies to bring cases against these companies that could force them to reclassify workers according to AB 5.
Though California Governor Gavin Newsom wrote in an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee that he supported AB 5, agencies have discretion in which suits they bring against employers, and the way they enforce the law can change depending on which politicians are in power.
Apps like Uber and Lyft have an extra weapon in their arsenal when it comes to battling for such an initiative: email lists and app notifications.
Veena Dubal, associate professor of law at the University of California, Hastings, says government agencies can be at a disadvantage compared to private lawyers when it comes to bringing class action lawsuits. “Government agencies are more constrained in what they can reveal to the public. They have fewer resources. They’re politically constrained,” she says. “They’re foot soldiers of the governor. It’s not necessarily, in theory, that government agencies are not as capable as enforcing as class action lawsuits, but in practice that’s typically what we’ve seen.”
Drivers could still bring a lawsuit through California’s Private Attorneys General Act, a law that allows workers to sue even if they have signed a mandatory arbitration agreement. Or they could file arbitration demands. “They still can bring suits. They just have to be in arbitration,” says Sharon Block, executive director of the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School. But, she says, “it does impede [drivers’] ability to be in control and bring a lawsuit in the most effective way that they want to or believe they can.”
In addition to arbitration agreements, Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash have preemptively played defense against AB 5 by pledging $90 million to run a ballot initiative that would essentially exempt them from the proposed law if it passes. The companies did not respond to a request for comment.
Apps like Uber and Lyft have an extra weapon in their arsenal when it comes to battling for such an initiative: email lists and app notifications. “They have so much power in this context, not just because they have the resources — almost $100 million — but they also have the ability to reach drivers in a way that none of us can,” says Dubal, who works with Drivers United — Bay Area, an independent organization of gig economy drivers.
In 2015, as Uber faced a bill that would limit the number of its drivers allowed to operate in New York City, the company created what it called “de Blasio’s Uber,” a spoof feature named after the city’s mayor that showed customers long wait times in a supposed preview of what the service would look like should the bill pass. The feature prompted users to send an email to city hall.
Uber’s response worked — de Blasio dropped the bill. Uber, Lyft, and other sharing economy companies could use their apps in a similar way to lobby against AB 5. Uber and Lyft have already used their apps to dispatch requests for drivers to sign petitions against the bill.
Even though AB 5 might not be a “silver bullet,” Block says, she’s encouraged by the bill and other proposals related to gig worker classification and protections around the country. It’s a “moment when a broad range of policy options are on the table,” she says.
Whatever the policy solutions, passing them will only go so far. Forcing companies to abide is a whole other battle.
即使加州法律将其司机归类为员工，优步也有选择
优步、Lyft 和 DoorDash 的强制仲裁条款可能会削弱拟议法律的效果。
即将成为法律的加利福尼亚州法案威胁着零工经济的商业模式。被称为第 5 号大会法案 (AB 5)，它将根据州法律为优步、Lyft 和 DoorDash 等公司的员工提供工人，而不是像目前被分类的独立承包商一样。这一变化将合法地赋予他们最低工资、失业保险和其他福利。
通过这样的法律是一回事，但执行它是另一回事。使用智能手机应用程序派遣工人的公司通常要求这些工人在法庭外处理纠纷，而这些应用程序可以很容易地被用来推动对 AB 5 等法律的豁免。
优步首席法律官托尼·韦斯特上个月底告诉《纽约时报》，如果该法案成为法律，该公司将“像过去十年一样”对案件提起诉讼。在这种情况下，将由法院确保执行拟议的法律。然而，世界上的优步实际上已经关闭了一种在法庭上质疑其雇佣行为的常见途径。
注册为大多数零工经济应用程序工作涉及同意在仲裁和个人基础上解决争议。这意味着司机不能对 Uber 或 Lyft 提起集体诉讼，而且对他们个人案件的裁决也没有确立法律先例。因此，主要由政府机构对这些公司提起诉讼，这可能会迫使他们根据 AB 5 对工人进行重新分类。
尽管加利福尼亚州州长加文·纽瑟姆在萨克拉门托蜜蜂报的一篇专栏文章中写道，他支持 AB 5，但各机构可以自行决定对雇主提起的诉讼，而且他们执行法律的方式可能会根据执政的政客而改变。
优步(Uber)和Lyft等应用在争夺此类主动权时，还有一个额外的武器:电子邮件列表和应用通知。
加州大学黑斯廷斯分校法学副教授 Veena Dubal 表示，在提起集体诉讼时，与私人律师相比，政府机构可能处于劣势。 “政府机构在向公众披露的信息方面受到更多限制。他们的资源更少。他们在政治上受到限制，”她说。 “他们是总督的步兵。理论上，政府机构不一定像集体诉讼那样有执行力，但在实践中，这通常是我们所看到的。”
司机仍然可以通过加州的《私人总检察长法》提起诉讼，该法允许工人提起诉讼，即使他们已经签署了强制性仲裁协议。或者他们可以提出仲裁要求。 “他们仍然可以带上西装。他们只需要进行仲裁，”哈佛法学院劳工与工作生活项目执行主任莎朗·布洛克说。但是，她说，“它确实阻碍了 [司机] 以他们想要或相信他们能够做到的最有效的方式控制和提起诉讼的能力。”
除了仲裁协议外，优步、Lyft 和 DoorDash 还先发制人地为 AB 5 辩护，承诺提供 9000 万美元进行一项投票倡议，如果该法案获得通过，他们将基本上免于拟议的法律。这些公司没有回应置评请求。
像 Uber 和 Lyft 这样的应用程序在争取这样一个倡议时，他们的武器库中有一个额外的武器：电子邮件列表和应用程序通知。 “在这种情况下，他们拥有如此强大的力量，不仅因为他们拥有近 1 亿美元的资源，而且他们也有能力以一种我们都做不到的方式接触到司机，”与 Drivers United 合作的 Dubal 说 -湾区，一个独立的零工经济驱动组织。
2015 年，当 Uber 面临一项限制允许在纽约市运营的司机数量的法案时，该公司创建了它所谓的“de Blasio 的 Uber”，这是一个以纽约市市长命名的恶搞功能，向客户展示了漫长的等待时间如果该法案通过，该服务将是什么样子的假设预览。该功能提示用户向市政厅发送电子邮件。
优步的回应奏效了——白思豪放弃了这项法案。优步、Lyft 和其他共享经济公司可以使用他们的应用程序以类似的方式游说反对 AB 5。优步和 Lyft 已经使用他们的应用程序发送请求，要求司机签署反对该法案的请愿书。
尽管 AB 5 可能不是“灵丹妙药”，布洛克说，但她对该法案和其他与全国各地的零工工人分类和保护有关的提案感到鼓舞。她说，这是“一个广泛的政策选择摆在桌面上的时刻”。
无论采取何种政策解决方案，通过它们都只能到此为止。迫使企业遵守则是另一场战争。
Comments