Safer roads: An unexpected benefit of the independent contractor ruling?

When the California Supreme Court ruled on April 30 that many independent contractors -- including, presumably, Uber and Lyft drivers -- must be reclassified as employees, it may have unintentionally paved a path toward greater safety on the state's roads and highways.

The gig economy has exploded in recent years, with a virtual nation of independent contractors who can set their own hours and are not bound by government rules on minimum wage, overtime and rest breaks. The court's unanimous decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2018 DJDAR 3856, could crumble the borders of that nation.

The court held that to be able to classify someone as an independent contractor, a business must show that it has no control over the worker or how the work is performed. The work must be different from the company's core business and must be of the type that would constitute an "independently established trade, occupation or business." Examples of these types of workers are tradespeople, such as plumbers and electricians, who are hired to perform tasks that lie outside the expertise or skill set of the party hiring them and whose services are completely separate from those of the hiring party.

"When a worker has not independently decided to engage in an independently established business but instead is simply designated an independent contractor ... there is a substantial risk that the hiring business is attempting to evade the demands of an applicable wage order through misclassification," Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote for the court.

Uh oh, Uber: A company whose business is connecting people with transportation services will have a hard time claiming that drivers aren't part of its core business. Imagine, if you can, a driverless Uber. Without those drivers, there is no Uber. It is disingenuous to argue, as Uber does, that its sole reason for being is to serve as a connector, not a direct provider of services.

Uber has managed to evade regulation in the United States thus far by calling itself a technology company, not a transportation provider. As result, it has profited royally from lack of regulation. It has used a range of techniques and technologies to control its drivers and how they do their work. In the pursuit of corporate profit, the company has hired teams of social scientists and data scientists to develop video game techniques, graphics and noncash rewards to prod its drivers into working long and unsafe hours.

Because drivers have been classified as independent contractors, they have been free to drive as many hours as is necessary to earn a living wage. I urge you to do the math: CBS Newswatch reported on a study that found "drivers for the two biggest ride-sharing companies earn a median profit of $3.37 per hour before taxes, while almost three out of four drivers make below the minimum wage in their state." An Uber driver has to be behind the wheel almost nonstop in order to come out ahead.

Wage and hour laws, according to the California Supreme Court, should enable people to earn a subsistence standard of living while protecting workers' health and safety. The laws should also shield the public from having to assume financial responsibility for workers earning substandard wages or working in unhealthy or unsafe conditions.

Uber has operated on the premise that drivers are simply an inconsequential part of a bigger technology offering. Except in the case of its self-driving cars, however, Uber's technology has been for the sole purpose of connecting passengers with rides and making sure those rides are always available -- forget about the health and safety of the ride provider.

In December, long-haul truckers across the United States became subject to a requirement that hours behind the wheel be logged on electronic devices. This regulatory change made it impossible for truckers to evade limits on their driving time by doctoring their log books. The change was hailed as a significant contributor to highway safety. No longer would big rig drivers operate with not enough sleep and too many distractions.

One can imagine a similar outcome if Uber drivers are required to rest, take meal breaks and stop driving after a set number of hours. A mandatory minimum wage should enable them to support themselves while driving fewer hours. I acknowledge that passenger vehicles are not as inherently dangerous as big rigs, but there are a lot more of them on the nation's roads, and they operate predominantly in heavily populated urban areas where the risk of death and injury extends to pedestrians and many other drivers.

Assuming the Supreme Court's decision affects Uber, as most experts believe, wage and hour regulations -- including meals and breaks -- would have to be factored into drivers' schedules. Uber would have to pay its drivers the applicable minimum wage. Uber, which has made a science of incentivizing drivers to work long hours while absolving itself from vicarious liability as an employer, is bound to be in for a rude awakening.

Although the California Supreme Court's decision applies only to California drivers, it's important to note that courts in Massachusetts and New Jersey have already ruled that workers who are independent contractors in name only must be reclassified as employees. I foresee a time when companies such as Uber and Lyft will adopt a one-size-fits all approach to stay ahead of the wave and avoid acrimony among drivers in other states who continue to be paid less than a living wage and work untenable and unsafe hours.

Safer roads, happier drivers and an Uber that takes care of its workers: This is a true winning hand for California and, we hope, the rest of the country.