For those interested in understanding the underlying case law that AB5 codifies (a decision called Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court), my company, Judicata, published a visual (and tech-enabled) explanation of the decision when it was first published: https://blog.judicata.com/understanding-dynamex-the-californ...
Whether or not Uber drivers are employees or contractors under Dynamex and the ABC test is an open question, but the Uber explanation of the bill's impact is more or less correct.
One of the tests is: “that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact”
Since Uber rates drivers, does background checks, sets the routes, leases cars, etc., how does Uber plan to avoid this check? Do ratings sort drivers, or is Uber effectively creating a credential that governs the driver? What does the distribution of driver activity look like?
It’s hard to believe an all-or-nothing determination will hold. Surely some fraction of most-active drivers will end up getting called employees.
It’s one thing to explain the law (and case law) and yet another to provide an explanation with evidence. The latter is what we need (especially as voters), yet the former is what lawyers like to peddle because it makes them money. Uber’s post is almost 100% legalese. CEO Dara had an opportunity to make a grounded statement here, but didn’t.
Whether or not Uber drivers are employees or contractors under Dynamex and the ABC test is an open question, but the Uber explanation of the bill's impact is more or less correct.