U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#11

Post by gizmo686 » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 7:50 AM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #4

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #3

> The drivers work when they want to and are free to nap, run personal errands, or smoke cigarettes in between rides, Baylson said. Interesting. If that makes you not an employee then half the flexible working time companies don't have employees :)

What are flexible working time companies?

You don't have set hours.

In my experience (as a software engineer) most companies take a hybrid approach, where they define a few core hours a day when you are supposed to be working (to assure that everyone is in at the same time for at least part of the day), but let you decide when to put in the majority of your hours.

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#12

Post by cuckcuckspruce » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 7:52 AM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #5

lokopodium wrote: post #2

You'd think minimum wage should be observed even if you're allowed a nap.

Recent studies released show Rideshare drivers do make more than minimum wage (per hour).

After you take depreciation, wear-and-tear, insurance, and maintenance into account?

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#13

Post by gnicholas » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 7:57 AM UTC

Note that this is just for the purposes of one federal law, and it is not dispositive for the question of taxation.

> U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson on Wednesday said San Francisco-based Uber does not exert enough control over drivers for its limo service, UberBLACK, to be considered their employer under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The factors for the FLSA determination are not identical to the factors that the IRS considers for the purposes of making their employee/contractor determination. [1]

Also, of course, this is just one US District Court judge, so it's not binding on other District Courts or Courts of Appeal. Basically, we're still in the early days.

1: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=062eba8d-8fad...

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#14

Post by hardwaresofton » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 7:59 AM UTC

ggm wrote: post #7

Unsurprising, but luckily only applicable to the US however undoubtedly will be referred to on other trials in other economies. We've always had the 'gig' economic problem. It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of…

> It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of savings, depressed lifetime income and absense of 401 self funded retirement.

Yes. However the venn diagram of people who know/learned this, and people who are willing to change it, and those who have influence requisite to make change do not overlap enough at present.

I get most surprised that this is the steady state of things in a large supposedly democratic republic like America -- if the country was reckless in hopes for growth and selling Special Economic Zones and stuff OK, there's clearly a large problem maybe even a short-sighted goal issue (oh they're trading worker's lives for short term maybe long-term economic growth), but that just isn't the case with the US.

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#15

Post by db48x » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 8:00 AM UTC

ggm wrote: post #7

Unsurprising, but luckily only applicable to the US however undoubtedly will be referred to on other trials in other economies. We've always had the 'gig' economic problem. It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of…

Being a contractor does not automatically put you in a bad position relative to your client, because you can negotiate the details of that contract. As a result it can be both lucrative and extremely rewarding.

Of course I'm sure Uber will simply not agree to any modifications of their standard contract, but they do have competitors that the drivers could go to.

Oh, and contractors should always set up an individual 401k; it has the same tax benefits as you'd get as an employee, and then some.

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#16

Post by flukus » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 8:22 AM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #13

Note that this is just for the purposes of one federal law, and it is not dispositive for the question of taxation. > U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson on Wednesday said San Francisco-based Uber does not exert enough control over drivers for its limo service, UberBLACK, to be considered their employer under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The factors for the FLSA determination are not identical to the factors…

Wouldn't that screw drivers both ways? Not an employee IR purposes but not a contractor for tax purposes? We have two different definitions?

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#17

Post by jon_richards » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 8:22 AM UTC

db48x wrote: post #15

ggm wrote: post #7

Unsurprising, but luckily only applicable to the US however undoubtedly will be referred to on other trials in other economies. We've always had the 'gig' economic problem. It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of…

Being a contractor does not automatically put you in a bad position relative to your client, because you can negotiate the details of that contract. As a result it can be both lucrative and extremely rewarding. Of course I'm sure Uber will simply not agree to any modifications of their standard contract, but they do have competitors that the drivers could go to. Oh, and contractors should always set up an individual…

I think the primary issue is that Uber provides incentives in the contract for "employee-like" behaviour.

Imagine an extreme case where minimum wage is $8/hour and I'm offering a contracting job that comes out to $0/hour before incentives. If people work 8 hours a day on the schedule I want and do everything else that employees have to do, I give them $4/hour. Now most of my workers will be just as good as employees, but at half minimum wage. They say "I'm working like an employee, I should get minimum wage." I say "They have all the freedom a contractor has, they aren't employees."

Sure, in this scenario there are still people happy to work an hour here and there and earn the $2/hour or whatever it comes out to, but this isn't about whether those people exist or in what proportion. This is about the people who feel compelled by Uber's incentives to treat themselves as employees of Uber without receiving the legally mandated protections and benefits afforded to employees.

This also isn't about supply/demand, the free market, and whether people want to work for that $4/hour or not. The fact that we have minimum wage in the first place is proof that the country has made a decision to not leave employment terms to natural equilibria.

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#18

Post by pessimizer » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 8:26 AM UTC

ggm wrote: post #7

Unsurprising, but luckily only applicable to the US however undoubtedly will be referred to on other trials in other economies. We've always had the 'gig' economic problem. It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of…

> It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of savings, depressed lifetime income and absense of 401 self funded retirement.

No, you get it.

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#19

Post by regularfry » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 8:28 AM UTC

polskibus wrote: post #8

chrischen wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are flexible working time companies?

I guess the parent meant come in between 8-10 leave 8hrs later?

Or "As long as you've clocked 40 hours in a week, we don't care when".

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#20

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 8:29 AM UTC

ggm wrote: post #7

Unsurprising, but luckily only applicable to the US however undoubtedly will be referred to on other trials in other economies. We've always had the 'gig' economic problem. It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of…

> tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of savings, depressed lifetime income and absense of 401 self funded retirement.

Yes. At this point we have to assume it's intentional.