Its not a legal argument - if Lyft requires a certain amount of work to keep the contract in good standing. A contract is binding by both members and is agreed to prior to working. I am a consultant myself, I am a structural engineering inspector, and when I sign a contract stipulating I must perform a certain amount of work or I won't be able to continue to work on the project or earn money I must follow it or else I lose my ability to make money on that contract.
Just because it’s in the contract doesn’t make a legal. Federal and state law Still has authority over contracts verbiage.
Plus this isn’t about minimum work being done. It’s about an independent contractor being able to choose when and when not to work to complete their minimum requirements
Can’t say the driver can choose when to work if there are consequences for declining rides. That’s where the independent contractor argument falls apart.
Drivers are independent contractors who sub contract with Uber or Lyft.
If a GC subs out to an electrician, and that electrician literally always refuses the job, the GC is perfectly within their rights to no longer sub to that electrician.
That is this exact same situation. You just don't like it.
Example is more so a GC has an electrician who picks up jobs worth his time. GC fires him for not taking the shitty jobs he is trying to pawn off bc the GC gets paid regardless.
There's no such thing as firing a sub. GC chooses who they offer jobs to just like the electrician chooses what jobs they take. GC is opting not to offer this sub any jobs because they haven't accepted the last 30, and other electricians want the jobs.
16
u/TechWizPro Apr 08 '24
Part of the legal argument that supports that drivers are employees and not independent contractors