51–60 of 602 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whose employee? That of the taxi organisation which regulates them, but doesn't actually pay them? That of each of individual customer, who are the ones who pay them?
There's the obvious choice of the dispatch company they work for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was under the impression that the only way the Uber/Lyft business model is even remotely viable (without continuous VC subsidy) is classifying drivers as contractors, meaning they don't have to pay them minimum wage or benefits, which lets them undercut taxis.
> as contractors, meaning they don't have to pay them minimum wage or benefits, which lets them undercut taxis. That's not really true though. Their pay is higher to make up the difference. No, the main thing is that Uber doesn't have to guarantee them fulltime work, or at least any kind of minimum amount of work. i.e. Uber can say "No work today, too bad".
I thought part of the problem was that it isn't, in general.
Now it would be interesting to see the opinion of the court on fake IT contractors (SSII), where as a developer you are a full-time employee of company X, rented for years as full-time "consultant" to company Y, on premises of company Y, just with lower salary and no profit sharing & no bonuses that staff of company Y enjoys. (This has been a common practice of Microsoft in US in 1990s and they lost a lawsuit on that…
It is a win-win situation, the majority of those junior devs are from North Africa and they still make way more than they would have back home.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was under the impression that the only way the Uber/Lyft business model is even remotely viable (without continuous VC subsidy) is classifying drivers as contractors, meaning they don't have to pay them minimum wage or benefits, which lets them undercut taxis.
> as contractors, meaning they don't have to pay them minimum wage or benefits, which lets them undercut taxis. That's not really true though. Their pay is higher to make up the difference. No, the main thing is that Uber doesn't have to guarantee them fulltime work, or at least any kind of minimum amount of work. i.e. Uber can say "No work today, too bad".
Citation needed. Please include costs of owning, operating, and maintaining an automobile in your calculations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Ontario (at least pre-Ford) you can get full-time benefits as an hourly worker, as long as you work 40h a week or more (or maybe 35?). It's been awhile though so I'm not super confident on the details here.
The same is true (at least in my experience) in America. Over 40 hrs/week means the employer has to pay out extra benefits. This is also why employers do not want you to work over 39 hours if you're not salaried.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whose employee? That of the taxi organisation which regulates them, but doesn't actually pay them? That of each of individual customer, who are the ones who pay them?
Does this reasoning mean that all waiters are independent contractors? They collect cash directly from the customer and reserve a portion of that before passing it on to their employer (the tip) - taxi drivers (who are members of a firm) due end up paying the firm dues for the service of having a pooled call center and possibly maintenance services. I think trying to determine if someone is an employee based on if th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if that's true. Our hourlies get benefits like health insurance, vacation, etc. Maybe not as good as salaried but it's not as clear cut as "hourly pay only."
In Ontario (at least pre-Ford) you can get full-time benefits as an hourly worker, as long as you work 40h a week or more (or maybe 35?). It's been awhile though so I'm not super confident on the details here.
Now it would be interesting to see the opinion of the court on fake IT contractors (SSII), where as a developer you are a full-time employee of company X, rented for years as full-time "consultant" to company Y, on premises of company Y, just with lower salary and no profit sharing & no bonuses that staff of company Y enjoys. (This has been a common practice of Microsoft in US in 1990s and they lost a lawsuit on that…
It is a win-win situation, the majority of those junior devs are from North Africa and they still make way more than they would have back home.
Seems a fair judgement since all the restriction make the drivers effectively work as employees: > Drivers who use the Uber application do not build up their own clientele, do not freely set their rates, and do not determine the terms and conditions of providing their transportation service. The company imposes the itinerary and the driver’s fare is adjusted if this itinerary is not followed. The destination is unkno…
Doesn't all of this also apply to taxis? Taxis pick up at taxi ranks or off the street. Taxis have regulations set by an organisation. Taxis (in most places) have rules that say they must take the most efficient route. In most places, taxis aren't allowed to refuse a customer based on destination. Does that mean that a taxi driver is an employee? Of course not.
Not disagreeing with the absurdity of this, but aren't taxi drivers usually employees when there's a centralized call number to hail a cab? That, or they are truly independent. So I don't see the argument here.