Uber和Lyft可能最快本周就會(huì)暫時(shí)關(guān)閉它們?cè)诩又莸慕熊嚪?wù)。
此舉取決于州法官是否同意他們上訴,或者給予他們更多的時(shí)間來(lái)按照今年1月出臺(tái)的法律要求,將司機(jī)的身份從承包商重新劃歸為雇員。這兩家共享出行服務(wù)商表示,如果輸?shù)艄偎?,或者法庭?月20日還沒(méi)有做出裁決,他們將暫停加州的網(wǎng)約車業(yè)務(wù),直至他們建立起將司機(jī)作為雇員對(duì)待的支付和追蹤系統(tǒng)。兩家公司宣稱還沒(méi)有做好轉(zhuǎn)換準(zhǔn)備,盡管他們已經(jīng)準(zhǔn)備了將近一年的時(shí)間。
“起初我認(rèn)為這是一個(gè)空洞的威脅?!苯?jīng)紀(jì)公司AB Bernstein的分析師馬克·施穆利克表示,“但假設(shè)上訴法院說(shuō)‘不’,我真的相信Uber和Lyft將暫停加州業(yè)務(wù)?!?/font>
這不是網(wǎng)約車巨頭第一次因?yàn)榈貐^(qū)監(jiān)管問(wèn)題而停止服務(wù)。在成立之初的那些年,兩家公司耗費(fèi)大量時(shí)間抗擊出租車行業(yè)的游說(shuō)者,并試圖向各地的市政府解釋為什么應(yīng)該允許他們?cè)诓煌囊?guī)則下運(yùn)營(yíng)。
從歷史上看,這種戰(zhàn)略對(duì)Uber和Lyft頗為管用。
2016年,在奧斯汀拒絕一項(xiàng)旨在允許網(wǎng)約車公司自身對(duì)司機(jī)進(jìn)行背景調(diào)查的提議后,Uber和Lyft離開了這座城市。但一年后,由于公眾強(qiáng)烈要求恢復(fù)網(wǎng)約車服務(wù),州政府推翻了當(dāng)?shù)氐姆ㄒ?guī),轉(zhuǎn)而支持Uber和Lyft的主張。
但加州的這場(chǎng)網(wǎng)約車服務(wù)之爭(zhēng)可能跟以往不盡相同。
首先,加州對(duì)Uber和Lyft已經(jīng)非常熟悉,他們分別于2010年和2012年開始在加州運(yùn)營(yíng)。這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論的焦點(diǎn)是司機(jī)的薪酬和福利,而不是網(wǎng)約車服務(wù)是否對(duì)消費(fèi)者有用。而在這個(gè)特殊的問(wèn)題上,目前還不清楚消費(fèi)者是否會(huì)站在網(wǎng)約車公司一邊。施穆利克說(shuō)。
那么,如果法官做出不利于Uber和Lyft的裁決,會(huì)發(fā)生什么呢?
Uber和Lyft將高度依賴選民在11月通過(guò)22號(hào)提案。這項(xiàng)獲得兩家公司支持的公民表決提案將改善司機(jī)的工作條件,但將繼續(xù)保留他們的承包商身份。與此同時(shí),暫停業(yè)務(wù)可能會(huì)對(duì)兩家公司有雙重好處。此舉既可以爭(zhēng)取到那些因?yàn)榉?wù)暫停而感到出行不便的選民對(duì)22號(hào)提案的支持,也可能在客流量減少之際為公司節(jié)省資金。兩家公司每個(gè)季度都在虧損。
“考慮到新冠疫情期間,網(wǎng)約車客流量?jī)H僅是正常時(shí)期的30%或40%,暫停業(yè)務(wù)不會(huì)給他們帶來(lái)太大的損失。”施穆利克說(shuō)。
如果選民沒(méi)有通過(guò)22號(hào)提案,Uber和Lyft很可能會(huì)撤出通常需求較低的農(nóng)村地區(qū),并提高該州城市地區(qū)的服務(wù)價(jià)格,以抵消額外的成本。施穆利克指出,為了降低運(yùn)營(yíng)成本,Uber還可能會(huì)推動(dòng)更多司機(jī)同時(shí)從事駕車和送餐服務(wù)。
盡管加州法官的裁決只會(huì)影響網(wǎng)約車服務(wù),但外賣配送服務(wù)商DoorDash正在一旁密切地關(guān)注事態(tài)發(fā)展。上周,舊金山地方檢察官切薩·布丁在一份初步禁令中特別提到DoorDash,這份初步禁令跟加州首席檢察官澤維爾·貝塞拉針對(duì)網(wǎng)約車巨頭提出的禁令非常相似。法官預(yù)計(jì)將在10月5日對(duì)請(qǐng)求的禁令做出裁決。
對(duì)于卷入大型法律監(jiān)管戰(zhàn),Uber和Lyft已經(jīng)習(xí)以為常。但他們很可能在加州遇到了真正難纏的對(duì)手。
譯者:任文科
Uber和Lyft可能最快本周就會(huì)暫時(shí)關(guān)閉它們?cè)诩又莸慕熊嚪?wù)。
此舉取決于州法官是否同意他們上訴,或者給予他們更多的時(shí)間來(lái)按照今年1月出臺(tái)的法律要求,將司機(jī)的身份從承包商重新劃歸為雇員。這兩家共享出行服務(wù)商表示,如果輸?shù)艄偎?,或者法庭?月20日還沒(méi)有做出裁決,他們將暫停加州的網(wǎng)約車業(yè)務(wù),直至他們建立起將司機(jī)作為雇員對(duì)待的支付和追蹤系統(tǒng)。兩家公司宣稱還沒(méi)有做好轉(zhuǎn)換準(zhǔn)備,盡管他們已經(jīng)準(zhǔn)備了將近一年的時(shí)間。
“起初我認(rèn)為這是一個(gè)空洞的威脅。”經(jīng)紀(jì)公司AB Bernstein的分析師馬克·施穆利克表示,“但假設(shè)上訴法院說(shuō)‘不’,我真的相信Uber和Lyft將暫停加州業(yè)務(wù)?!?/font>
這不是網(wǎng)約車巨頭第一次因?yàn)榈貐^(qū)監(jiān)管問(wèn)題而停止服務(wù)。在成立之初的那些年,兩家公司耗費(fèi)大量時(shí)間抗擊出租車行業(yè)的游說(shuō)者,并試圖向各地的市政府解釋為什么應(yīng)該允許他們?cè)诓煌囊?guī)則下運(yùn)營(yíng)。
從歷史上看,這種戰(zhàn)略對(duì)Uber和Lyft頗為管用。
2016年,在奧斯汀拒絕一項(xiàng)旨在允許網(wǎng)約車公司自身對(duì)司機(jī)進(jìn)行背景調(diào)查的提議后,Uber和Lyft離開了這座城市。但一年后,由于公眾強(qiáng)烈要求恢復(fù)網(wǎng)約車服務(wù),州政府推翻了當(dāng)?shù)氐姆ㄒ?guī),轉(zhuǎn)而支持Uber和Lyft的主張。
但加州的這場(chǎng)網(wǎng)約車服務(wù)之爭(zhēng)可能跟以往不盡相同。
首先,加州對(duì)Uber和Lyft已經(jīng)非常熟悉,他們分別于2010年和2012年開始在加州運(yùn)營(yíng)。這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論的焦點(diǎn)是司機(jī)的薪酬和福利,而不是網(wǎng)約車服務(wù)是否對(duì)消費(fèi)者有用。而在這個(gè)特殊的問(wèn)題上,目前還不清楚消費(fèi)者是否會(huì)站在網(wǎng)約車公司一邊。施穆利克說(shuō)。
那么,如果法官做出不利于Uber和Lyft的裁決,會(huì)發(fā)生什么呢?
Uber和Lyft將高度依賴選民在11月通過(guò)22號(hào)提案。這項(xiàng)獲得兩家公司支持的公民表決提案將改善司機(jī)的工作條件,但將繼續(xù)保留他們的承包商身份。與此同時(shí),暫停業(yè)務(wù)可能會(huì)對(duì)兩家公司有雙重好處。此舉既可以爭(zhēng)取到那些因?yàn)榉?wù)暫停而感到出行不便的選民對(duì)22號(hào)提案的支持,也可能在客流量減少之際為公司節(jié)省資金。兩家公司每個(gè)季度都在虧損。
“考慮到新冠疫情期間,網(wǎng)約車客流量?jī)H僅是正常時(shí)期的30%或40%,暫停業(yè)務(wù)不會(huì)給他們帶來(lái)太大的損失。”施穆利克說(shuō)。
如果選民沒(méi)有通過(guò)22號(hào)提案,Uber和Lyft很可能會(huì)撤出通常需求較低的農(nóng)村地區(qū),并提高該州城市地區(qū)的服務(wù)價(jià)格,以抵消額外的成本。施穆利克指出,為了降低運(yùn)營(yíng)成本,Uber還可能會(huì)推動(dòng)更多司機(jī)同時(shí)從事駕車和送餐服務(wù)。
盡管加州法官的裁決只會(huì)影響網(wǎng)約車服務(wù),但外賣配送服務(wù)商DoorDash正在一旁密切地關(guān)注事態(tài)發(fā)展。上周,舊金山地方檢察官切薩·布丁在一份初步禁令中特別提到DoorDash,這份初步禁令跟加州首席檢察官澤維爾·貝塞拉針對(duì)網(wǎng)約車巨頭提出的禁令非常相似。法官預(yù)計(jì)將在10月5日對(duì)請(qǐng)求的禁令做出裁決。
對(duì)于卷入大型法律監(jiān)管戰(zhàn),Uber和Lyft已經(jīng)習(xí)以為常。但他們很可能在加州遇到了真正難纏的對(duì)手。
譯者:任文科
Uber and Lyft may temporarily shut down their ride-hailing services in California as soon as this week.
The move depends on whether a state judge grants them an appeal or more time to reclassify their drivers from contractors to employees, as has been required by law since January. If they lose or if no ruling is made by August 20, the services said they would go dark in the state until they have the systems in place to pay and track drivers as employees. The services say they're not ready for the switch, even though they've had almost a year to prepare.
“At first I thought this was an empty threat,” said Mark Shmulik, an analyst at brokerage firm AB Bernstein. “But assuming appeals court says 'no', I actually do believe Uber and Lyft will shut down temporarily in California.”
This wouldn’t be the first time the ride-hailing giants have halted services based on regional regulatory issues. Both companies spent much of their early years fighting taxi lobbyists and trying to explain to city governments why they should be allowed to operate under different rules.
Historically speaking, that strategy has served Uber and Lyft well.
Uber and Lyft left Austin in 2016 after the city rejected a proposal that would have allowed the services to perform their own background checks on drivers. But one year later, after the public complained to get the services back, the state overrode local regulations in favor of Uber and Lyft.
But the fight in California may not mirror previous battles.
First, the state is already well familiar with Uber and Lyft, which began operating in California in 2010 and 2012, respectively. This debate focuses specifically on driver pay and benefits, not on whether the services are useful for consumers. And on this particular issue, it’s unclear whether consumers side with the companies, Shmulik said.
So what happens if the judge rules against Uber and Lyft?
Uber and Lyft will heavily lean on voters to pass Proposition 22, the November ballot initiative backed by the companies that would improve some working conditions for drivers but keep them as contractors. Meanwhile, a temporary shutdown may help the companies twofold. It could drum up support for Prop 22 from voters inconvenienced by the pause, and it could save the companies money at a time when ridership is down. Both companies are losing money every quarter.
“Shutting down in a pandemic, when you have 30% or 40% the volume—you won’t lose too much,” Shmulik said.
If voters don’t pass Prop 22, Uber and Lyft likely would pull out of rural areas, which typically have low demand, and raise prices in the state's urban areas to offset the extra costs. Uber may also try to push more drivers to work for both its rides and food delivery services to reduce costs, Shmulik said.
Though the California judge’s decision will only impact ride-hailing services, delivery service DoorDash is watching closely from the wings. Last week, San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin singled out DoorDash in a preliminary injunction similar to the one filed by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra against the ride-hailing giants. The judge's decision on the requested injunction is expected on Oct. 5.
Uber and Lyft are used to big legal regulatory battles. But they may have met their match in the state of California.