Main Menu

Gig Employer Blog

One of my favorite workplace law reporters, Tyrone Richardson of Bloomberg Law, had two stories in the past week addressing the issue of Congress and the gig economy. They present two sides of the same coin when it comes to the possible action that our nation’s federal lawmakers might take with respect to gig workers and the companies that retain their services.

A recent decision from a federal court in California shows that there is a simple three-step process to follow if you want to ensure that your gig workers are found to be subject to your arbitration provisions. The judge’s December 17 opinion in a misclassification case against Postmates provides a classic blueprint that you might to consider adopting for your own business. 

As the competition to secure investments with startups continues to increase, venture capitalists are discovering new ways to strengthen their relationships with potential investment partners. In addition to listening to pitches from startup founders and reviewing financial projections, Bloomberg reports that venture capitalists are now immersing themselves in the gig economy by working for the startups that they may ultimately invest in.

The British government announced workplace reforms yesterday (which include new legislation) that will impact employers including gig economy companies, although the reforms do not seek a “radical reworking of existing business models.” The reforms set forth in the “Good Work Plan” are based on an independent review of modern working practices conducted by Matthew Taylor (“Taylor’s Review”), chief executive of the Royal Society of Arts. Taylor’s Review was commissioned by the Prime Minister, and the Reforms bring forward 51 of Taylor’s 53 recommendations.

December 3 was the first day of the new legislative session in California, the first day that members could introduce bills for the 2019-2020 legislative session. If the first day is any indication, there is one issue that will dominate employment policy discussion in 2019: DynamexDynamex and Dynamex.

Last week was a bad week for gig economy companies in Oregon. It wasn’t just the post-holiday malaise that so many suffer from after having to return to work following a long, relaxing weekend that probably included eating too much turkey.

We’ve been expecting this since August, when the New York City Council passed a proposal establishing that ride-sharing driver should earn a minimum rate of pay, the first such minimum wage in the nation. Today, the other shoe dropped and the minimum wage was set.

Airbnb Inc. recently announced it would no longer force its employees who filed sexual harassment lawsuits to settle their claims in private arbitration. The notice came only days after Google and Facebook made similar announcements concerning policy changes about sexual harassment, including ending forced arbitration for such claims. Google’s announcement followed a 20,000 employee walkout protesting the company’s handling of sexual misconduct allegations. As previously discussed on the blog, in May of this year, Uber and Lyft became two of the first gig companies to waive mandatory arbitration and remove the confidentiality requirement for sexual assault and harassment victims (for passenger, driver and employee claims).

On the heels of the NYC Council passing (and the mayor signing into law) a bill requiring minimum payments for ride-sharing drivers and a one-year freeze on the number of ride-sharing vehicle licenses issued, the NYC Council just passed another six new bills aimed at protecting both taxi drivers and ride-sharing drivers. The bills, approved by the Council on November 14 and expected to soon be signed into law by Mayor DeBlasio, are focused not only on drivers’ pay, but also on the financial and mental well-being of drivers in the wake of a spate of recent driver suicides and some of the more macro-economic issues facing the taxi and ride-sharing industries in NYC.

The Grubhub misclassification battle, which has dominated gig economy headlines for the past year or so, has taken another interesting turn. An Uber driver has jumped into the fray, offering his opinion about why the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should conclude that the Grubhub driver at issue was incorrectly classified as an independent contractor.

Recent Posts

Category List

Archives

Back to Page