If a company litearlly cant have employees or it will go under, then it shouldn't be classified as an employer.

Image from preview.redd.it and submitted by SkrooImperator
image showing If a company litearlly cant have employees or it will go under, then it shouldn't be classified as an employer.

bluntdogcamelman on August 16th, 2020 at 12:33 UTC »

I like being an independent contractor, but I also want benefits, but I also like being able to let customers cancel their Uber order and pay me directly so I'll probably be happy with either outcome

Edit: just want to say, don't go around asking customers to cancel their orders, that just seems shady on your end and makes the rider uncomfortable. But when the rider offers to cancel, that's a different story.

NoW3rds on August 16th, 2020 at 13:32 UTC »

To be fair, they literally don't require you to work any amount of time, and the company really just maintains a matchmaking service, for a small fee.

I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did in a state like CA.

Imupnthis on August 16th, 2020 at 13:42 UTC »

Most drivers like the flexibility of being independent contractors. In May of this year a independent survey found 71% prefer being contractors over employees. This allows more control over working conditions including choosing hours and declining rides.

https://therideshareguy.com/california-sues-uber-and-lyft-for-misclassifying-workers/