Seattle becomes first in U.S. to protect gig workers from sudden 'deactivation'
Seattle becomes first in U.S. to protect gig workers from sudden 'deactivation'
On Tuesday, Seattle’s city council passed legisation that would protect gig workers from being suddenly kicked off apps like Instacart or DoorDash. It’s the first gig worker protection measure of its kind in the entire country.
You're viewing a single thread.
Right to work doesn't apply to contractors. You have a contract.
If you get deactivated without cause, sue.
edit: Right to work lets employees be fired without cause. Contracts can't be breached as easily so deactivation without cause isn't legal. Suing is easy. File a complaint with your state labor board or department of labor. The gig corp will want to settle so precedent doesn't get set in court and lead to a big class action.
I did this to Instacart when they violated state labor laws They asked to settle. Mediation is next week so no idea yet how much they will settle for. 40k is the average for these types of cases.
edit 2: I was mixing up right to work with at will employment. My point stands though. Contractors aren't employees and can't be terminated without cause. Deactivating a contractor when they haven't done anything to violate the terms of the contract is a breach of contract .
Washington does not have "right to work" laws.
You are mistaken.
Okay.
My point was contractors cannot be fired at will, even in right to work states where regular employees can be.
So, deactivating gig workers without cause is a breach of contract. Which you can easily sue for. And these assholes know they're wrong, so they will want to settle out of court. You don't even need a lawyer.
Any competent contractor will include a termination clause in their contract. I have signed many contracts, and every single one had language to terminate the contract under some specific circumstances.
Especially with a big company like uber they can bury a favorable termination clause somewhere in the contract, and you can't exactly negotiate with an app if the terms aren't to your liking.
Companies have lawyers who get paid handsomely to write language to let them get away with things. There's no way they would be deactivating contractors if it was opening them up to significant liabilities.
'Right to work' has to do with not being required to be in a Union in order to get a job (ie, you have a right to work at a location whether you're in the union or not).
Right to work is bullshit and definitely helped in gutting the unions, but, I'm not sure how that has to do with anything to do with gig workers at all.
It doesn't; this guy is just unaware of what 'right to work' means (admittedly, it's a deliberately obtuse name), and seems to have no willingness to entertain the possibility that he might not know something.
Right to work allows employment at will. Meaning you can be fired without cause.
My point is it doesn't apply to contractors and deactivating someone without cause is a breach of contract.
Do a quick Google search for "right to work vs at will employment" because you've got them mixed up.
Additionally, the gig folks don't have a contract that protects them and they're being classified as contractors when (it's being argued) they shouldn't be. That's literally the issue.
Right to work refers specifically to laws that make mandatory union membership illegal. It has absolutely nothing to do with at-will employment, termination, or anything relevant here.
It does more than that. It lets you quit and be fired at will.
This doesn't apply to contractors and gig jobs firing contractors without cause is a breach of contract.
Again, that is not what 'right to work' means. You are talking about 'at-will' employment, which is a completely different topic that is essentially unrelated.
Yes, it's a deliberately obtuse name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
Note the "Not to be confused with At-will employment." bit at the top. This isn't really a debatable matter, so cheers. Have an enjoyable read.
Thanks. I will check out the link and I appreciate the kind correction.
The idea of the "right to work" is bizarre to me. I am a USA citizen and it still confuses me. Isn't our right to freedom from oppression, life, liberty, and happiness? I'm not sure how the right to work gets mixed up in there. I should be able to live happily if I work or not. Call me a commie but a strong social program (including free healthcare, free standardized education, and transit) and universal income would solve many of the issues the USA faces today. That all costs money of course but it doesn't take an economist to see how much the USA spends on the military, and we are not even in an active war, so I think the budget could probably be finagled a little. Anyway I forgot what I was talking about, and all I'm saying is if the guy at the Wendy's drive thru is replaced with a tablet for ordering he should still get paid.
Yes, use your piles of cash and unlimited time to get what you're already owed. Perfect system, you're right.
I sued Instacart over violation of state employment laws.
Lodged a complaint with the state and Instacart asked to settle in mediation
Cost me nothing and I didn't even hire a lawyer.
Time?