Judge Rules California’s Gig Worker Law Is Unconstitutional
Warning: For Full Access Please Log In or Create an Account (Free)
...for mystery shoppers who voiced concern that the Prop 22 initiative might spread to other states.
Before you get all excited my understanding is that this is about Prop 22. (I cannot read the article AZW sent as I am not a subscriber).
Prop 22 was only about uber and lyft drivers and a few delivery app driver companies. It is not about the rest of the world of gig workers in California.
Prop 22 was only about uber and lyft drivers and a few delivery app driver companies. It is not about the rest of the world of gig workers in California.
I am not a subscriber of NYT either, but a google search sent me to the article. For something that affected only uber, lyft, and a few delivery app drivers, it sure stirred up a lot of concern in the mystery shop forum community a year or so ago.
I am a Californian. You misunderstood.
Prop. 22 was a response from Uber, Lyft, and others to AB 5. AB 5 was what stirred up a lot of concern. Uber et al spent $200 million to exempt its drivers from AB 5, which would reclassify the drivers and possibly mystery shoppers as employees.
Prop. 22 was a response from Uber, Lyft, and others to AB 5. AB 5 was what stirred up a lot of concern. Uber et al spent $200 million to exempt its drivers from AB 5, which would reclassify the drivers and possibly mystery shoppers as employees.
@AZwolfman wrote:
I am not a subscriber of NYT either, but a google search sent me to the article. For something that affected only uber, lyft, and a few delivery app drivers, it sure stirred up a lot of concern in the mystery shop forum community a year or so ago.
So, is this good news or bad news? I don't get it the conclusion.
*****************************************************************************
The more I learn about people...the more I like my dog..
Mark Twain
The more I learn about people...the more I like my dog..
Mark Twain
The conclusion is that the "fix" (Prop 22) the uber and lyfts of the world spent millions of dollars on so that they did not have to comply with the new California gig worker rule (AB 5) was found unconstitutional. This does not affect AB 5 which is what all the commotion was about. AB5 is the ruling that could affect us as mystery shoppers and AB 5 still stands.
Personally as a California mystery shopper I never thought mystery shopping qualified under the AB5 ruling which still stands. To me it did not seem we would be reclassified to employees under AB5 and so far we have not been. The AB5 ruling had specific requirements for someone to be reclassified as an employee. Whether or not mystery shopping met the criteria was the big discussion on this forum.
Basically this new ruling affects only drivers and puts them back under the original AB5 ruling and gets rid of the exemption their employers spent so much money to avoid.
At the moment we have more pressing issues to deal with in California!!! ????
Personally as a California mystery shopper I never thought mystery shopping qualified under the AB5 ruling which still stands. To me it did not seem we would be reclassified to employees under AB5 and so far we have not been. The AB5 ruling had specific requirements for someone to be reclassified as an employee. Whether or not mystery shopping met the criteria was the big discussion on this forum.
Basically this new ruling affects only drivers and puts them back under the original AB5 ruling and gets rid of the exemption their employers spent so much money to avoid.
At the moment we have more pressing issues to deal with in California!!! ????
@MsJudi wrote:
So, is this good news or bad news? I don't get it the conclusion.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.