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

#31

Post by HenryBemis » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:21 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #16

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?

I was thinking the exact same thing.

In the eyes of the State you are ONE or the OTHER. Can't have only the good halves of the bad halves. If the State hasn't figured out what 'Uber drivers' are, then this discussion will lead only to more confusion and pain.

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

#32

Post by makomk » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:22 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #30

jon_richards wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

The situation is an interesting case of economic realities quietly trumping political ideology. Uber thinks they are offering a reasonable deal. The people doing the work obviously think that it is the best deal they have available. The government is going to need to stamp down pretty heavily to stop that, because the actors in this situation have no particular incentive to change anything.

If the companies that offer their employees enough to live on are driven out of business by companies like Uber, then of course it will be the best deal they have available.

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

#33

Post by vertex-four » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:25 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #16

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?

If it turns out to be the case that Uber drivers fall between the cracks, so to speak, that’s kind of the legislature’s job to solve. Not that they will, of course.

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

#34

Post by tyingq » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:26 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…

Aside from the 401k, you need health insurance too.

I can tell you from experience that your cost per month as a tiny company is MUCH higher than being an employee at a larger company.

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

#35

Post by HenryBemis » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:26 AM UTC

bkor wrote: post #28

chrischen wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A Dutch journalist drove for Uber for various months. They advertise that drivers can make loads of money. After expenses, the journalist barely made more than minimum wage. He also found that drivers often handed out business cards to encourage repeat customers to pay them directly (avoid taxes+Uber, etc). Further, customers abused drivers various times (e.g. it's used as a cheap moving service incl expecting you to…

I like Dutch people. I really do. They have this sense of honesty, that if they don't like something, they'll blatanly tell you "that sucks, throw it away and make a new one". No sugar-coating involved.

That said, Dutch people tend to be (let me say it nicely) 'very considerate on their spending patterns'.

The biggest object I've moved with Uber was a 40" TV which I carried and placed in/removed from the trunk.

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

#36

Post by NicoJuicy » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:31 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…

In Europe, UberPOP is considered a transport company and not an IT service company which has different rules.https://tweakers.net/nieuws/137241/eu-hof-lidstaten-mogen-ub...

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

#37

Post by walshemj » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:33 AM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #11

chrischen wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is the basis of all salaried jobs ie you don't have fixed hours of work

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

#38

Post by walshemj » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:36 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #16

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?

Which is the problem IT contractors and IR35 in the Uk.

Funnily IR35 is written so that self employed barristers don't get caught - even though they work on the same case for the same employer for over a decade.

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

#39

Post by tom_mellior » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:38 AM UTC

> The case is Razak v. Uber Technologies Inc, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:16-cv-00573.

I would just like to commend Reuters for giving an explicit, concrete citation of the case in question.

We should really hold journalists to the minimal standard of actually pointing us the the primary source. It's not hard; they know what it is they are referring to. All they need to do is to put it into the article, as was done here. Good job.

(The same goes not just for "some court has ruled that X", but also for "a new study found that Y".)

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

#40

Post by manigandham » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:42 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…

But that's the fundamental issue, it's not actually employment. Why does everyone seem to ignore that the job of "professional driver" already exists so anyone who does want full-time employment can already do it?

Every single driver I've ever asked (in 1000s of rides taken over 7 years) has always said they prefer the freedom of being able to work when and where they want. Students, retirees, stay at home parents, and others who specifically do not want to have a FT job.