一个惊人的法庭裁决让优步和Lyft陷入了困境
作者：Jay Peters和Andrew J.Hawkins美国东部时间2020年8月10日下午5:06
翻译：沈斌倜 北京市中闻律师事务所 翻译仅供学习使用
加州法官在周一下午发布的一项令人震惊的初步禁令中裁定，Uber和Lyft必须将他们的司机归为雇员。然而，禁令被搁置了10天，这给了Uber和Lyft对这一决定提出上诉的机会。优步表示，计划立即提出紧急上诉，阻止这一裁决生效。
Uber和Lyft面临着越来越大的压力，要求它们从根本上改变在加州的商业模式，这两个公司都是在加州成立并最终繁荣起来的。有争议的是将代驾司机归类为独立承包商。优步（Uber）和Lyft表示，司机更喜欢自由职业者的灵活性，而工会和民选官员则认为，这剥夺了他们享受医疗保险和工人赔偿等传统福利的权利。
今年5月，加州总检察长泽维尔·贝塞拉（Xavier Becerra）与洛杉矶、旧金山和圣地亚哥的市检察官一起起诉了这两家公司，他们辩称，根据1月1日生效的州AB5法律，当他们应该是雇员时，他们的司机被错误地归类为独立承包商。Becerra后来提出了一项动议，要求颁布一项初步禁令，迫使出租车公司立即将司机归类为雇员。去年9月签署成为法律的AB5规定了所谓的“ABC测试”，以确定某人是承包商还是雇员。
“就是这么简单，”加州高等法院法官伊桑·舒尔曼（Ethan Schulman）在裁决书中写道，“被告的司机从事的工作并不‘超出正常业务范围’。被告坚持他们的业务是“多方平台”，而不是运输公司，这与被作为运输网络公司管理其业务的法律规定完全不符，这些公司被定义为‘从事机动车辆运送人员获得报酬的公司’。”
他还说，“这也与经济现实和常识背道而驰。。。很明显，司机是Uber和Lyft整个代驾业务的核心，而不是次要因素。”
贝塞拉在一份对这项裁决表示欢迎的声明中说，当大企业试图逃避责任时，加州及其工人“不应该为自己买单”。我们将继续努力确保Uber和Lyft遵守规则。”
这只是加州对Uber和Lyft的最新法律打击。上周，该州劳工专员在两起诉讼中指控，这些公司拒绝将司机归为雇员，从而窃取司机的工资。
司机团体一直在向这些公司施压，要求他们对司机进行重新分类，他们将这一决定视为向前迈进。“今天的裁决肯定了加州司机早就知道的事实，”南加州司机组织移动工人联盟（Mobile Workers Alliance）成员、Lyft司机迈克•罗宾逊（Mike Robinson）在一份声明中说，“像我这样的工人有权利，Uber和Lyft必须尊重这些权利。”
但Uber和Lyft坚持认为，这一规定与大多数司机的愿望相冲突，并将导致在全球流行病期间减少工作岗位，这将给工人的财政带来压力。
优步发言人说：“绝大多数司机都想独立工作，我们已经对我们的应用程序进行了重大修改，以确保根据加州法律，这种情况仍然存在。”。“当超过300万加州人失业时，我们当选的领导人应该专注于创造就业机会，而不是在经济萧条时期试图关闭整个行业。”
Lyft的一位发言人表示同意。这位发言人说：“司机不想成为雇员，请停下来。”。“我们将立即对这一裁决提出上诉，并继续为他们的独立而战。最终，我们相信这个问题将由加州选民决定，他们将站在司机一边。”
如果司机被归类为雇员，Uber和Lyft将负责向他们支付最低工资、加班费、带薪休息时间，以及报销公司的驾驶费用，包括个人车辆行驶里程。但作为独立承包人，司机却得不到这些好处。
加利福尼亚州的一系列诉讼和法庭裁决发生在11月大选之前，届时该州选民将投票决定一项由优步（Uber）和Lyft支持的通过将ride-hail司机和其他gig经济工人归类为独立承包商的投票措施，从而推翻AB5法案。
Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees
A stunning court ruling puts Uber and Lyft in a tight spot
By Jay Peters and Andrew J. Hawkins Aug 10, 2020, 5:06pm EDT
A California judge ruled that Uber and Lyft must classify their drivers as employees in a stunning preliminary injunction issued Monday afternoon. The injunction is stayed for 10 days, however, giving Uber and Lyft an opportunity to appeal the decision. Uber said it planned to file an immediate emergency appeal to block the ruling from going into effect.
Uber and Lyft are under increasing pressure to fundamentally alter their business models in California, the state where both companies were founded and ultimately prospered. At issue is the classification of ride-hailing drivers as independent contractors. Uber and Lyft say drivers prefer the flexibility of working as freelancers, while labor unions and elected officials contend this deprives them of traditional benefits like health insurance and workers’ compensation.
In May, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, along with city attorneys of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, sued the companies, arguing that their drivers were misclassified as independent contractors when they should be employees under the state’s AB5 law that went into effect on January 1st. Becerra later filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that could compel the ride-hailing companies to classify drivers as employees immediately. AB5, which was signed into law last September, enshrines the so-called “ABC test” to determine if someone is a contractor or an employee.
“It’s this simple,” California Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman wrote in his ruling, “Defendants’ drivers do not perform work that is ‘outside the usual course’ of their business. Defendants’ insistence that their businesses are ‘multi-sided platforms’ rather than transportation companies is flatly inconsistent with the statutory provisions that govern their businesses as transportation network companies, which are defined as companies that ‘engage in the transportation of persons by motor vehicle for compensation.’”
He added, “It also flies in the face of economic reality and common sense... To state the obvious, drivers are central, not tangential, to Uber and Lyft’s entire ride-hailing business.”
In a statement hailing the ruling, Becerra said California and its workers “shouldn’t have to foot the bill when big businesses try to skip out on their responsibilities. We’re going to keep working to make sure Uber and Lyft play by the rules.”
This was just the latest legal blow against Uber and Lyft in California. Last week, the state’s labor commissioner alleged in a pair of lawsuits that the companies were stealing wages from drivers by refusing to classify them as employees.
Drivers’ groups that have been pressuring the companies to reclassify their drivers celebrated the decision as forward progress. “Today’s ruling affirms what California drivers have long known to be true,” Mike Robinson, a Lyft driver and member of the Mobile Workers Alliance, a group of Southern California drivers, said in a statement, “workers like me have rights and Uber and Lyft must respect those rights.”
But Uber and Lyft maintain this ruling conflicts with the desires of the majority of drivers and will result in fewer jobs during a global pandemic that is putting strain on workers’ finances.
“The vast majority of drivers want to work independently, and we’ve already made significant changes to our app to ensure that remains the case under California law,” an Uber spokesperson said. “When over 3 million Californians are without a job, our elected leaders should be focused on creating work, not trying to shut down an entire industry during an economic depression.”
A Lyft spokesperson agreed. “Drivers do not want to be employees, full stop,” the spokesperson said. “We’ll immediately appeal this ruling and continue to fight for their independence. Ultimately, we believe this issue will be decided by California voters and that they will side with drivers.”
If drivers were classified as employees, Uber and Lyft would be responsible for paying them minimum wage, overtime compensation, paid rest periods, and reimbursements for the cost of driving for the companies, including personal vehicle mileage. But as independent contractors, drivers receive none of these benefits.
The flurry of lawsuits and court rulings in California comes ahead of the November election, when the state’s voters will decide on an Uber-and-Lyft-backed ballot measure that would override AB5 by classifying ride-hail drivers and other gig economy workers as independent contractors.
