Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

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

#41

Post by leg100 »

manigandham wrote: post #40
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, a…

> 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 do specifically do not want to have a FT job.

I always hear this line about the sheer variety of backgrounds of the drivers, and that an Uber job is a way to collect a bit of extra cash. That they have something going on that is far more preoccupying, and that the Uber job is a mere sideline.

In my experience, 9 out of 10 Uber drivers in London are 25-60 years old, from East Africa or the Middle East, and do the job full time if you include working for other mini cab companies. It's their main occupation.

Might well be different elsewhere and probably is, but I can see why Uber might prefer to push a certain story that doesn't reflect reality.

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

#42

Post by aksss »

Ride-sharing, like a fry cook, was never meant to be a life’s career ambition. Jeez people. Folks are complaining that a fry cook can’t afford to buy a house and an Uber driver doesn’t get a 401(k). Wake up and smell the coffee. Let these positions continue to function as gap-filling opportunities for the young and those who need massive flexibility or want side-hustles. We drive up employment cost massively and wonder why less people get employed. We come up with creative opportunities like ride-sharing and then try to kneecap it. Guess what? Driving cars for hire has always been a shit way to make a living, ask anyone who’s driven cab. Now some dim people are shocked their career ambitions can’t end with Uber? Let them learn that lesson and move on. We don’t need to anihilate the awesomeness that is Uber and the benefit it has for drivers who use it with the proper expectations.

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

#43

Post by sokoloff »

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.

In general, I don't think I want the government to be in the business of stamping out the best deal that individuals have available.

I know in this case, the assumption is that the deal offered will magically get substantially better. I don't think that generally works nearly as well as the abstract arguers argue.

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

#46

Post by skate22 »

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…

I was in france several months ago and i canceled my uber & paid the driver the same price in cash. The driver was a nice guy, struggling to make enough.

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

#47

Post by bkor »

aksss wrote: post #42

Ride-sharing, like a fry cook, was never meant to be a life’s career ambition. Jeez people. Folks are complaining that a fry cook can’t afford to buy a house and an Uber driver doesn’t get a 401(k). Wake up and smell the coffee. Let these positions continue to function as gap-filling opportunities for the young and those who need massive flexibility or want side-hustles. We drive up employment cost massively and wond…

> Let these positions continue to function as gap-filling opportunities for the young and those who need massive flexibility or want side-hustles.

It seems pretty clear that instead of letting people be underpaid (which affects the economy badly anyway) they prefer people to be paid properly.

In Netherlands there's a proposal that employers who use flex workers should actually pay more social benefits for such people. This as these workers will likely need more social security. That cost needs to be on the employer, plus it'll encourage companies to hire people on a permanent contract.

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

#48

Post by amelius »

skate22 wrote: post #46
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…

I was in france several months ago and i canceled my uber & paid the driver the same price in cash. The driver was a nice guy, struggling to make enough.

Sounds good, and I feel more people should do this. But how often can you cancel a ride before you get banned from the platform?

Also, are there any negative consequences for the driver when a ride is canceled, even before the start of the ride? I can imagine that Ueber can detect when driver and client are within talking distance (from cellphone GPS coordinates), so they can detect and penalize this form of "gaming".

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

#49

Post by dannyw »

bkor wrote: post #47
aksss wrote: post #42

Ride-sharing, like a fry cook, was never meant to be a life’s career ambition. Jeez people. Folks are complaining that a fry cook can’t afford to buy a house and an Uber driver doesn’t get a 401(k). Wake up and smell the coffee. Let these positions continue to function as gap-filling opportunities for the young and those who need massive flexibility or want side-hustles. We drive up employment cost massively and wond…

> Let these positions continue to function as gap-filling opportunities for the young and those who need massive flexibility or want side-hustles. It seems pretty clear that instead of letting people be underpaid (which affects the economy badly anyway) they prefer people to be paid properly. In Netherlands there's a proposal that employers who use flex workers should actually pay more social benefits for such people…

Or the costs push companies or of business and less jobs exist.

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

#50

Post by manigandham »

leg100 wrote: post #41
manigandham wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

> 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 do specifically do not want to have a FT job. I always hear this line about the sheer variety of backgrounds of the drivers, and that an Uber job is a way to collect a bit of extra cash. That they h…

Just because you do something full-time doesn't make it full-time employment. I'm sure there are people who use these options as their main occupation but would still rather have the flexibility instead of showing up to work on a schedule because, as I said, there are actual jobs available if they want that.
Post reply on HN