- California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against the ride-sharing companies Uber and Lyft.
- The lawsuit alleges that the companies are violating state law by classifying drivers as contractors, not employees.
- Notably, employee status could give drivers access to minimum wage and health benefits.
- Uber and Lyft have argued that their business model is in technology, not rides. They have also argued that their drivers enjoy the independence given to them by being classified as contractors.
California Sues Uber and Lyft
After passing a law aiming to reclassify over a million independent contractors as employees, California is taking that mission one step further by suing Uber and Lyft for their defiance to do so.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed the lawsuit on Tuesday. He was joined by a coalition of city attorneys, including those for San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego.
In the lawsuit, Becerra alleges Uber and Lyft violated state law by classifying their drivers as independent contractors (AKA, “gig” workers) when they should actually be classified as employees.
“…Uber’s and Lyft’s misclassification of drivers deprives workers of critical workplace protections such as the right to minimum wage and overtime, and access to paid sick leave, disability insurance, and unemployment insurance,” the coalition said in a statement.
The statement goes on to say that they are seeking “restitution for workers, a permanent halt to the unlawful misclassification of drivers, and civil penalties that could reach hundreds of millions of dollars.”
If found guilty of violating the law, the riding-share companies could be forced to pay driver backwages, as well as fines for not paying state payroll taxes. Becerra has accused the companies of harming California taxpayers by avoiding “hundreds of millions of dollars in social safety net obligations.”
According to the lawsuit itself, Uber and Lyft utilized “…the illegitimate savings they gain from depriving their Drivers of the full compensation and benefits they earn as employees to offer their ride-hailing services at an artificially low cost, decimating competitors and generating billions of dollars in private investor wealth off the backs of vulnerable Drivers.”
Part of the reason Becerra and those other attorneys are saying these companies’ actions are illegal is because last year, California passed a law known as Assembly Bill 5. Notably, that law requires companies to treat their workers as employees instead of contractors if those companies control how workers perform tasks, or if their work is a routine part of the company’s business.
When A.B. 5 was drafted, it specifically targeted companies like Uber and Lyft. Since it went into effect on Jan. 1, both companies have resisted adhering to it. In fact, both Uber and Lyft, as well as DoorDash, have pumped $90 million into a campaign for a ballot initiative to exempt them from that law.
Uber and Lyft Respond to Lawsuit
For its part, Uber has argued that its business lays in its technology, not its rides. Because of that, it has argued that drivers are not a routine part of its business.
Both it and Lyft have also argued that their drivers prefer being independent and deciding when they work.
According to a spokesperson, Uber plans to contest the lawsuit, saying that at the same time, it will push “to raise the standard of independent work for drivers in California, including with guaranteed minimum earnings and new benefits.”
“At a time when California’s economy is in crisis with four million people out of work, we need to make it easier, not harder, for people to quickly start earning,” the spokesperson added.
In its own statement, Lyft seemed to be less critical of lawsuit, saying the company is “…looking forward to working with the Attorney General and mayors across the state to bring all the benefits of California’s innovation economy to as many workers as possible, especially during this time when the creation of good jobs with access to affordable healthcare and other benefits is more important than ever.”
Could Ride-Sharing Drivers Be Classified in the Future?
Even though these companies are resisting this lawsuit, labor experts say other states with similar laws may also start to take action against them.
“Uber and Lyft have lived a kind of charmed life in terms of escaping law enforcement generally, and particularly with regard to employment law, Stanford law professor William B. Gould IV told The New York Times. “The attorney general’s action can’t help but have a positive influence on law enforcement generally against them.”
Despite Uber and Lyft saying their drivers like the independent model, California’s lawsuit still claims that those companies have enough control over drivers to classify them as employees.
“They hire and fire them,” it reads. “They control which drivers have access to which possible assignments.”
“Uber and Lyft are transportation companies in the business of selling rides to customers, and their drivers are the employees who provide the rides they sell,” the lawsuit goes on to say. “The fact that Uber and Lyft communicate with their drivers by using an app does not suddenly strip drivers of their fundamental rights as employees.”
While the idea of independent hours and extra money is likely true for some of the companies’ drivers, for others, the work is a vital source of income.
Facts like that have been made all the more evident since the coronavirus lockdown as many gig workers have struggled to claim unemployment or sick pay. In March, Congress included special provisions in the CARES Act to help gig workers receive unemployment benefits.
Still, even if a company like Uber doesn’t want to go all the way by classifying its drivers as employees, it does seem to agree that some level of change needs to be made on behalf of its drivers.
In March, CEO Dara Khosrowshahi penned a letter to President Donald Trump asking for a new, third classification. Notably, that would mean drivers would be neither employees nor contractors. Under that potential classification, drivers would not see full employment benefits, though they would be provided with some health benefits.
The news of California’s lawsuit comes as Uber announced it was laying off 3,700 people on Wednesday, roughly 14% of its jobs. Additionally, Khosrowshahi has pledged to waive his base salary for the rest of the year.
That’s also on top of Lyft last week saying that it was cutting 17% jobs, putting hundreds of workers on unpaid furloughs, and trimming salaries.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (CNN) (NPR)
Google Is Banning “Sugar Dating” Apps as Part of New Sexual Content Restrictions
The change essentially targets apps like Elite Millionaire Singles, SeekingArrangements, Spoil, and tons of other sugar dating platforms.
Sugar Dating Crackdown
Google has announced a series of policy changes to its Android Play Store that include a ban on sugar dating apps starting September 1.
The company’s Play Store policies already prohibit apps that promote “services that may be interpreted as providing sexual acts in exchange for compensation.”
Now, it has updated its wording to specifically include “compensated dating or sexual arrangements where one participant is expected or implied to provide money, gifts or financial support to another participant (‘sugar dating’).”
The change essentially targets apps like Elite Millionaire Singles, SeekingArrangements, Spoil, and tons of other sugar dating platforms currently available for download.
What Prompted the Change?
The company didn’t explain why it’s going after sugar dating apps, but some reports have noted that the move comes amid crackdowns of online sex work following the introduction of the FOSTA-SESTA legislation in 2018, which was meant to curb sex trafficking.
That’s because FOSTA-SESTA created an exception to Section 230 that means website publishers can be held liable if third parties are found to be promoting prostitution, including consensual sex work, on their platforms.
It’s worth noting that just because the apps will no longer be available on the Play Store doesn’t mean the sugar dating platforms themselves are going anywhere. Sugar daters will still be able to access them through their web browsers, or they can just sideload their apps from other places.
Still, the change is likely going to make the use of these sites a little less convenient.
See what others are saying: (The Verge)(Engadget)(Tech Times)
Activision Blizzard CEO Apologizes for “Tone Deaf” Response to Harassment Suit, Unsatisfied Employees Stage Walkout
Organizers of a Wednesday walkout say they “will not return to silence” and “will not be placated by the same processes that led us to this point.”
After a week of growing criticism against its workplace culture, the CEO of Activision Blizzard has finally apologized for how the company first responded to allegations of sexual harassment and assault in its offices.
“Our initial responses to the issues we face together, and to your concerns, were, quite frankly, tone deaf,” CEO Bobby Kotick said Tuesday in a letter to employees. “It is imperative that we acknowledge all perspectives and experiences and respect the feelings of those who have been mistreated in any way. I am sorry that we did not provide the right empathy and understanding.”
In its initial response, Activision Blizzard denounced the disturbing allegations brought forth in a lawsuit by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) as “irresponsible.” The company added that it came from “unaccountable State bureaucrats that are driving many of the State’s best businesses out of California.”
But many current and former employees soon disputed that claim. In fact, at the time, more than 2,500 had signed their name to an open letter condemning the company for its response, which they described as “abhorrent and insulting” to survivors.
In his letter, Kotick promised employees that Blizzard will take “swift action to be the compassionate, caring company you came to work for.”
As part of a series of new policies, he said the company will now offer additional employee support and listening sessions, as well as potential personnel changes to leadership.
“Anyone found to have impeded the integrity of our processes for evaluating claims and imposing appropriate consequences will be terminated,” he added.
Kotick also said Blizzard will add “compliance resources” to ensure that leadership is adhering to diverse hiring directives.
Lastly, he promised that the company will remove “inappropriate” in-game content. In a similar statement on Tuesday, Blizzard’s World of Warcraft team said it’s actively working to remove “references that are not appropriate for our world,” though it didn’t specify what those references were.
It now appears that many of the references being removed are of the game’s former Senior Creative Director, Alex Afrasiabi, who is cited in the lawsuit as someone who hit on and made unwanted advances at female employees. Moreover, the suit also directly accuses him of groping one woman.
“Afrasiabi was so known to engage in harassment of females that his suite” during company events “was nicknamed the “[Cosby] Suite” after alleged rapist Bill [Cosby],” the suit claims.
Organizers of a company-wide employee walkout, which was announced Tuesday and occurred Wednesday, still argue that Kotick’s latest message doesn’t address their larger concerns.
Among those are “the end of forced arbitration for all employees,” “worker participation in oversight of hiring and promotion policies,” “the need for greater pay transparency to ensure equality,” and “employee selection of a third party to audit HR and other company processes.”
“We will not return to silence; we will not be placated by the same processes that led us to this point.”
Ahead of the walkout, Blizzard reportedly encouraged its own employees to attend, saying those workers would face no repercussions and “can have paid time off” during the demonstration, according to The Verge.
Frito-Lay Workers End Nearly Three-Week Strike After Securing Higher Wages and a Guaranteed Day Off
Employees also negotiated an end to “suicide shifts,” which are two 12-hour shifts that are only eight hours apart.
Hundreds of Frito-Lay workers in Kansas have put an end to their nearly three-week strike over alleged mandatory overtime assignments that resulted in extremely long work weeks and so-called “suicide shifts.”
The term “suicide shift” refers to working two 12-hour shifts with only eight hours of rest in between. That can be especially hard on employees who claim to have worked up to 84 hours in a single week. For context, that’s 12 hours a day without a single day off.
One of the reasons workers have found themselves taking on more hours and days at plants is because consumer snacking has increased during the pandemic — so much so that Frito Lay’s recent net growth has exceeded every single one of its targets. That’s why at one point, the striking workers asked consumers to boycott Frito-Lay products in a show of solidarity.
The strikes began July 5 and concluded on July 23 following an agreement reached by union leaders and PepsiCo., Frito-Lay’s parent company. Under that deal, all employees will see a 4% wage increase over the next two years. They’ll also be guaranteed at least one day off a week, and the company will no longer schedule workers with only eight hours off between shifts.
Following the agreement, Anthony Shelton, the president of the union representing the workers, said that they’ve “shown the world that union working people can stand up against the largest food companies in the world and claim victory for themselves, their families and their communities.”
“We believe our approach to resolving this strike demonstrates how we listen to our employees, and when concerns are raised, they are taken seriously and addressed,” Frito-Lay said in a statement. “Looking ahead, we look forward to continuing to build on what we have accomplished together based on mutual trust and respect.”
The Long, Bitter Road to an Agreement
When the workers went on strike, they lobbed several very disturbing accusations against Frito-Lay.
In fact, the workers were pushed so hard that according to one employee who wrote in the Topeka Capital-Journal, “When a co-worker collapsed and died, you had us move the body and put in another co-worker to keep the line going.”
While Frito-Lay dismissed this account as “entirely false,” other employees continued to protest conditions in the plants. Many even argued the 90-degree temperatures they had to stand in to protest outside were preferable to the 100-degree-plus temperatures and smokey conditions in the factories.
During the strikes, PepsiCo. actively disputed that its employees are overworked, describing their claims as “grossly exaggerated” and saying, “Our records indicate 19 employees worked 84 hours in a given work week in 2021, with 16 of those as a result of employees volunteering for overtime and only 3 being required to work.”
It also said an initial concession more than met the striking employees’ terms, but the union backing those workers disagreed, and further negotiations were held until the final deal was reached.