Personally I think they should be considered employees, but a pro-management federal prosecutor could make some trouble for them.
In the end I don't think it will matter, Uber and Lyft could probably code around this pretty easily if it started to affect their bottom line. When they see 100+ drivers in the same place go offline within X seconds of each other, it's a pretty clear indication that there's coordinated action taking place. They probably have enough data from drivers' phones to see that they're sitting still waiting to go back online.
I just hope they don't decide to make an example out of these drivers by banning them...
Speaking of price-fixing.. Competition is what usually keeps prices low in ride-sharing; if Lyft is too expensive, more people will use Uber. But if the drivers of both apps all trigger surge pricing together (in both platforms simultaneously) then it is possible that both platforms will make more money until the fake surge ends.
Practically, the impact of a hundred airport drivers deciding to "strike" is so small that a non-mendacious prosecutor probably wouldn't even look at it. But there's a lot of mendacity around Washington, so who knows.
No, they don't. No one is putting a gun to their head and forcing them to work. Uber/Lyft's offer is take-it-or-leave-it, but leaving it is always an option.
The part of parent comment that you quoted is just about how the take-it-or-leave-it nature leaves no middle ground (bidding).
What the drivers are doing is not bidding, it is colluding to hide the true market price, i.e. what the lowest bidder would actually be willing to accept. That is illegal.
Please note that my sympathies are very much with the drivers. Their situation sucks and needs to be improved. But breaking the law is not the way to improve it.
Is that what's happening? The drivers have no ability to coerce other drivers. It seems to me that if there were a driver willing to accept a lower price, they would do so. But not enough drivers are willing, so Uber/Lyft is forced to increase its offer.
What is really happening here is that Uber wants the drivers to play a multi-player prisoner's dilemma, and the drivers want to coordinate cooperation. Uber wants to force the price to the lowest that the market will bear and the drivers want to force the price to the highest the market will bear. The rules of capitalism are specifically designed to produce the former outcome.
Breaking the law is exactly what Uber and Lyft did and now that they're on the other side they're whining about it.
Aren’t you begging the question? How do you know this is the case?
Barring some extreme measure of lobbying for and passing a law that carves out an entirely new employment classification for the gig economy, Uber/Lyft/etc have to comply with at least one of the existing classifications.
All of the drivers around that airport incur roughly the same costs for gas, wear and tear, rent, etc. So while you might find someone halfway across the world to build your website for $5, you won't be able to do the same for your driver between the airport and your hotel.
Why do Uber and Lyft need to take on the drivers as employees all of a sudden? I'm not saying they shouldn't be, but just curious why the seemingly sudden change in opinion from some people?