>But you can't do upfront pricing under CA law - the driver has to be able to earn whatever they earn from driving
I think the two parts of this statement can be decoupled. Couldn't Uber feasibly keep fixed upfront pricing on the customer side but provide variable payouts to drivers to be compliant with the law? They probably wouldn't do this because it exposes them to risk on every ride (i.e. they might undercharge for the ride and have to pay up to the driver anyway) but the law is not directly forcing them to provide a worse experience - they're doing that by passing the risk to customers.
In the rest of the world, and in CA before this change, drivers are paid per mile/time and riders pay an upfront price.
The only way this is possible is if Uber does absorb the risk for the rider's convenience. They will not be providing this service from now on because it strengthens their claim that the drivers are contractors.
For what it's worth, I agree that the drivers deserve more protection, and I also consider that it's impossible to envision Uber drivers as employees without totally destroying the whole concept.
The only solution that I can see to this problem is to improve the status of contractor for these people's health care to be covered at large.
Government is pretty bad in this country like in most other countries. I suspect it is because most good solutions are the product of balanced view-points, but politics and legislation is driven by public opinion, which is rarely balanced in its views.
I for one would happily pay, or at least like to have the option to pay, a risk-adjusted flat fare instead of by-mile. This change will absolutely tilt my default provider to lyft.
Its just nice as a customer to be able to know that a 40$ trip to the airport can't wind up being 140$ if the car gets stuck behind an accident on a bridge (or whatever). I'd much rather round it up to 42 - call it trip insurance. Uber must have enough data to be able to handicap their markets to within 5% or so, and still come out ahead.
I think the two parts of this statement can be decoupled. Couldn't Uber feasibly keep fixed upfront pricing on the customer side but provide variable payouts to drivers to be compliant with the law? They probably wouldn't do this because it exposes them to risk on every ride (i.e. they might undercharge for the ride and have to pay up to the driver anyway) but the law is not directly forcing them to provide a worse experience - they're doing that by passing the risk to customers.