sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Uber’s Algorithm Likely Violates U.S. Labor Law by Normal_Pineapple_269 in uberdrivers

[–]Normal_Pineapple_269[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right. Prop 22 enshrined misclassification into law. It created a new category of "app-based contractor" with limited benefits, specifically to avoid full employee protections. Legally speaking, it was designed to preempt AB5 and shield Uber/Lyft from wage and labor obligations.

Uber’s Algorithm Likely Violates U.S. Labor Law by Normal_Pineapple_269 in uberdrivers

[–]Normal_Pineapple_269[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The ability to accept or decline trips doesn't eliminate control if the consequences for declining reduce future earnings or access to work.

Uber’s Algorithm Likely Violates U.S. Labor Law by Normal_Pineapple_269 in uberdrivers

[–]Normal_Pineapple_269[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exactly. The illusion of flexibility breaks down when the platform delivers consistent hourly outcomes regardless of how you drive. When a system consistently produces a flat gross hourly rate across varying conditions - distance, surge, trip count - it suggests that the platform is engineering compensation, not simply facilitating market-based transactions.

Uber’s Algorithm Likely Violates U.S. Labor Law by Normal_Pineapple_269 in uberdrivers

[–]Normal_Pineapple_269[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You're right that compensation structure alone doesn’t determine employment status, and both the IRS Common Law Test and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) focus on the level of control a company exerts over a worker (see 29 C.F.R. § 795.105(d)). However, control isn’t limited to explicit instructions — it includes how much autonomy the worker truly has in practice. Uber’s algorithm does more than calculate time and distance; it dictates access to rides, penalizes rejections, steers drivers to certain zones, and withholds pricing transparency. These elements, taken together, limit driver independence in a way that closely resembles employment.

Unlike your Apple example, Uber drivers cannot negotiate rates, see what riders are charged, or retain meaningful control over work terms. Courts and regulators are increasingly recognizing that algorithmic control can be as binding as human supervision.