Live data from Hacker News

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

101–102 of 102 posts

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

#101

Post by toddBarkus » Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 11:58 PM UTC

drunkenmonkey wrote: post #91

toddBarkus wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They chose to accept Uber's deal. Don't strawman

Heartless and out of touch with the needs of the general public. Guess that happens when you forget what it means to struggle to pay both rent and health insurance. When you see a poor person struggling, remember that your public arguments contributed to their plight. If that even resonates with you.

We're not accountable for others choices. It's not on the private sector to play parent

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

#102

Post by tom_mellior » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

gowld wrote: post #98

tom_mellior wrote: post #39

> 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 t…

It's especially great because if you search the actual ruling, you can see that Reuters summary is BS.

Oops, I missed this late answer. In case you wonder by here again, would you mind providing a link and maybe a brief summary of what parts of the Reuters article is BS?

Post reply on HN