http://www.mercurynews.com/michelle-quinn/ci_29441450/quinn-lyft-lucky-and-nice
Quinn: Lyft, lucky and nice By Michelle Quinn [email protected] Thursday, Jan. 28, 2016 - 12:05 p.m. FILE - In this Monday, Jan. 26, 2015, file photo, Logan Green, co-founder and chief executive officer of Lyft, displays his company's "glowstache" during a launch event in San Francisco. On Monday, Jan. 4, 2016, General Motors Co. announced it is investing $500 million in ride-sharing company Lyft Inc. GM gets a seat on Lyft?s board as part of the partnership, which could speed the development of on-demand, self-driving cars. (AP Photo/Noah Berger, File) (Noah Berger/AP) It pays to be lucky. And nice. That's my take of news that Lyft, the ride-booking firm, has settled a lawsuit over whether its 100,000 California drivers should be classified as employees. By paying out $12.25 million and giving drivers a few concessions, Lyft, the main rival to Uber, has dodged a bullet. Uber, which is facing a similar suit, doesn't look like it will get that lucky. So I recommend taking the nice route, if there's still time. Advertisement A quick recap: Lyft said late Tuesday that it will pay $12 million to settle the case that involved drivers' claims that they were employees seeking payment for back expenses such as mileage, not contractors on the hook for their own costs. The company will also give up the ability to terminate drivers at will and allow drivers to settle issues such as pay through arbitration, at Lyft's expense. The deal doesn't do anything to resolve the larger issue about whether these workers have been misclassified as independent contractors. But the settlement offers a glimmer of hope that there may be an alternative to the collision course the so-called sharing economy seems to be on regarding its workers. Companies like Lyft have argued that drivers want the flexibility and control they have over their work. But labor advocates have countered that these on-demand platforms make the companies richer while leaving workers vulnerable in a variety of ways. The model has received attention from presidential candidates, government regulators, entrepreneurs and others. The Seattle City Council approved a measure allowing drivers for companies like Lyft and Uber to unionize. Other on-demand economy firms such as Shyp, Instacart, Luxe Valet and others have turned their workers into employees, after maintaining that they were independent contractors. U.S. Labor Secretary Tom Perez announced this week that for the first time in 10 years, the government would conduct a survey tracking the contingent work. In a blog post, Perez cited the "tech-driven expansion of the gig or on-demand economy" and the creation of "entirely new industries and new job structures." The ability of Lyft to settle the case without going to court apparently hinged on one technical issue, its driver arbitration clause, which prevents Lyft drivers from suing as a group. Lawyers for drivers said Lyft's clause was difficult to challenge and chose the path to settlement. In contrast, a court has found that a similar clause in Uber's contract with workers was unenforceable, and now a federal trial is set for June in San Francisco. But besides that bit of very good luck is something notable about Lyft's different approach, as Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lawyer for drivers in both the Lyft and Uber cases, said in a statement. Uber drivers complain frequently about how they feel they are mistreated, she said, citing issues such as "cutting fares without their input, shortchanging them on pay they are owed and deactivating them for no legitimate reason," among other things. "We have not been hearing so many concerns from Lyft drivers, which leads us to believe that Lyft is treating its drivers with more respect than Uber is treating its drivers," she said. "It cements our belief that far more Uber drivers than Lyft drivers are anxious for us to continue pursuing these misclassification claims against Uber." That won't change the legal arguments over how to classify workers, but Uber's treatment of drivers could affect a jury. And Liss-Riordan's statement makes me think there is possibly a way for companies to continue with a contingent workforce if they also pursue better deals for workers. The terms of the Lyft settlement mean the drivers' counsel "doesn't necessarily want to destroy the independent contractor business model," said Stephen Hirschfeld, a labor employment lawyer who represents management in cases. They are "trying to do the right thing for these folks. There should be a way to maintain this relationship but to see what everyone can do to gain more security and benefits." The Lyft settlement should be positive news for Uber. The other side might be willing to walk away with key concessions that make workers' lives better. It doesn't have to also take down the scaffolding of the on-demand economy. Contact Michelle Quinn at 510-394-4196 and [email protected]. Follow her at Twitter.com/michellequinn. Key Terms of the Lyft Settlement $12.25 million to be distributed among 100,000 California drivers, after legal fees. Change in Lyft's terms of service saying that it can't terminate drivers at will. Lyft will pay arbitration costs over termination, payment and other issues. Sent from my iPhone -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
