"If the court doesn't reconsider, then in California, it's hard to believe we'll be able to switch our model to full-time employment quickly", Khosrowshahi told MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle.
The two ride-hailing companies have been accused of not conforming to the Assembly Bill 5, one of California's new state laws that require companies to classify their workers as employees if they control how the workers do their jobs or work is part of their business, Reuters reports.
"Our state and workers shouldn't have to foot the bill when big businesses try to skip out on their responsibilities".
The court's ruling comes into effect on 20 August 2020, however, Lyft and Uber are appealing the decision in an attempt to delay the effects of the claim until the November 2020 election, in an attempt to persuade voters to change the law.
Uber initially said it might take until November to restructure its workforce, but later cautioned the process could stretch more than a year.
Mike Feuer, Los Angeles City Attorney, described the ruling as "a resounding victory" for drivers.
Schulman delayed enforcing his order by 10 days to allow appeals, which Lyft said it will pursue. We have teams thinking about it, working on it. According to an analysis by the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center, Uber and Lyft collectively would have paid $413 million into the California Unemployment Insurance fund from 2014 to 2019 if their drivers were classified as employees.
Get our best delivered to your inbox.
"The years-long ploy of these behemoth corporations to stall, obfuscate, and flat-out break the law has failed", Pulaski said.
Lyft and Uber are expected to continue fighting against AB 5's classification requirements under the guise of proving flexibility to drivers-even though, as San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera explained Monday, "there is no rule that prevents these drivers from continuing to have all of the flexibility they now enjoy".
The companies argue they are technology platforms rather than transportation services and that drivers aren't core to their platforms. "Being properly classified as an employee doesn't change that". Unlike rival Uber, Lyft does not operate a food-delivery business.
The idea that Uber and Lyft would shut down their apps in such lucrative markets "is ridiculous, and just another empty threat in their attempt to avoid accountability", a statement from the group representing gig workers and drivers noted.
Lyft officials contend that drivers do not "want to be employees". "If passed, it would exempt them from the AB 5 law, but offer drivers some benefits".
The judge said Uber and Lyft had themselves to blame if their resisting state laws contributed to any "far-reaching" effects an injunction might have.
Employees, even part-time employees, are generally granted a slew of rights under California state and federal labor laws, while contractors are not.