Thursday, August 24, 2017

Grubhub “Gig Work” Case Set for Trial: Why It’s a Big Deal

Uber, Lyft, Homejoy, Grubhub, Snagajob, CityHour—they are versions of “gig work.” That term means that a person performs work, usually through an internet intermediary, and is paid “piece rate” or by the task. 
Upside: Flexibility. 
Downside: No wage-and-hour protections (minimum wage, overtime), no insurance for vehicles, liability, or personal health, no pension contribution, etc.
Many of these “gigs” run afoul of federal and state wage and hour laws, which have very broad definitions of employment. The definition of “employ” is this: “to suffer or permit to work.” Gosh, that sounds like doing dishes after dinner!
Lawson v. Grubhub might be the first gig work case to actually go to trial. Most settle; a few are dismissed. 
A judge has set trial for September 5th in San Francisco. Grubhub drivers are seeking to be treated as employees under a very worker-friendly California law that requires employers to reimburse workers for travel expenses incurred in the course of doing business.

FedEx lost a major case along these lines about 15 years ago—but that wasn’t gig work. This is “app-driven” work. The implications are huge.

No comments: