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

Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

courdecassation.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 602 posts

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#131

Post by alistairSH »

m11a wrote: post #117
alistairSH wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your shed example, a builder could contact you and negotiate the price (perhaps the $100 price you set is completely unrealistic). That's not possible with Uber - there is no price negotiation - only declining/accepting a ride. Similar argument for changing toppings on a cake - a caterer can negotiate changes to the cake - an Uber driver has no such flexibility. Regardless, given corporate (human?) nature is to le…

Say John make a platform right now and set the rule that there's no negotiations permitted. Builders accepting the proposal must accept at the listed price. Obviously there remains a variation in the quality of the different proposals (some builders may be more polite, or use better wood). Obviously, the key difference here is that I would be able to choose what builder I want, but the customer on Uber doesn't get to…

I'd argue that in the builder-app, the builder has now been transformed into an employee, same as an Uber driver. To me, "setting prices" is more than just refusing/accepting prices set by an algorithm/app, but the ability to negotiate those independently.

In the cake example, a baker absolutely could attempt to negotiate for chocolate. They might not "win" the negotiation, but they have the option.

Edit - in the taxi driver (traditional taxi in US), I'd argue that most of them should be employees too. Sometimes they are employed directly by "Acme Cab" or whatever. But, in the case of the local airport taxi company (Washington Flyer), the company has a monopoly on airport transport, but drivers are independent contractors - this always struck me as a very lopsided and questionable arrangement. If a driver wants to pick up at Dulles, they have to contract for Wash Flyer at fixed rates, renting a company car, etc.

And I'll freely admit this all can be a bit ambiguous. And that I'm not a fan of the "gig economy" in general - I'm convinced corporations are using it to reduce wages and benefits and effectively foist the cost of those lower wages/benefits on society as a whole.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#132

Post by viscanti »

boudin wrote: post #105
m11a wrote: post #96

> The criteria for self-employment include the possibility of building up one's own clientele, the freedom to set one's own rates, and the freedom to set the terms and conditions for providing one's services. Immediately I'd seem to agree with this statement. I think of typical self-employment businesses; hairdressers, freelance developers, etc and this seems to apply. You can set your own rate and your own terms, ev…

The main differnce is that the handymem can easily look for other customers elsewhere to find an alternative job. Uber drivers don't have this choice. They can't do a counter-offer neither. Technically, as you said, they can refuse. In practice, the power that Uber has on his drivers limits those choices a lot.

> The main difference is that the handymen can easily look for other customers elsewhere to find an alternative job. Uber drivers don't have this choice.

I'm not sure what the situation is like in France, but most Uber drivers I've seen have the Lyft app open at the same time. It seems pretty trivial to download another app and use both at the same time (easier than almost any other freelancer finding more sources for work).

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#133

Post by reaperducer »

awb wrote: post #116
boudin wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main differnce is that the handymem can easily look for other customers elsewhere to find an alternative job. Uber drivers don't have this choice. They can't do a counter-offer neither. Technically, as you said, they can refuse. In practice, the power that Uber has on his drivers limits those choices a lot.

The inability to negotiate is the key point. On the point about choice, there are areas where drivers can drive for Uber or Lyft though so some drivers do have choice.

The inability to negotiate is the key point. On the point about choice, there are areas where drivers can drive for Uber or Lyft though so some drivers do have choice.

Where I drove for Uber, there were five platforms. But Uber had 90%+ of the rides. In a year, I think I got one Lyft request, and nothing from any of the others.

If there were plenty of customers on all platforms your statement might be valid, but that's not the reality.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#135

Post by meheleventyone »

awb wrote: post #116
boudin wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main differnce is that the handymem can easily look for other customers elsewhere to find an alternative job. Uber drivers don't have this choice. They can't do a counter-offer neither. Technically, as you said, they can refuse. In practice, the power that Uber has on his drivers limits those choices a lot.

The inability to negotiate is the key point. On the point about choice, there are areas where drivers can drive for Uber or Lyft though so some drivers do have choice.

Is a leap from a frying pan into a near identical frying pan with a slightly different four letter logo on it much of a choice?

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#136

Post by [deleted] »

reaperducer wrote: post #129
WalterBright wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since Uber drivers are using their own equipment (cars), that also means they are not employees.

Since Uber drivers are using their own equipment (cars), that also means they are not employees. This is not true. There are plenty of professions where employees bring some or all of their own equipment.

[deleted]

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#137

Post by mattw815 »

reaperducer wrote: post #126
m11a wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, this is key. If Uber has to class them as employees, it should also be able to deny them from working on other platforms. It should also be able to set working hours. And deny drivers the ability to refuse rides if they wish to keep their job. It could provide a daily salary and not let drivers decide or see fares. Because this is what employment typically entails.

If Uber has to class them as employees, it should also be able to deny them from working on other platforms. Why? In America, there are tens of millions of people who work more than one job. They're still employees; just employees of more than one company. Fred's Plastic Fork Factory can't tell me I can't moonlight at Alice's Diesel Cafe and Firing Range.

Fred's Plastic Fork Factory can tell you that you can't moonlight and can fire you if you do.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#138

Post by aqme28 »

ampdepolymerase wrote: post #123
oarsinsync wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having more than one job doesn't mean I'm necessarily self employed. I could work at a supermarket during the mornings, and a cornershop in the evenings, and still be an employee in both cases.

But you cannot simultaneously work for both.

Nor do you for Lyft/Uber. You're simply looking for work for both simultaneously.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#139

Post by ska »

ars wrote: post #118
ska wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their pay is higher to make up the difference. I thought part of the problem was that it isn't, in general.

People (especially California) would like you to believe that. Uber drivers are rational beings, they know exactly how much money they are making, and they are aware of their taxes. If Uber paid their Social Security and Medicare taxes, then Uber would just lower their base pay, and the net would stay the same. Or in other words the pay is higher because the driver has to pay those taxes.

I don't know one way or the other, but I have heard the argument that if you actually do all the math, particular with the reductions in pay more recently, it doesn't all net out.

Generally people do not act as fully rational economic actors, so we can't assume that this is not true based on the fact that people still choose to do it.

Which isn't to say they shouldn't have that option.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#140

Post by timwaagh »

m11a wrote: post #96

> The criteria for self-employment include the possibility of building up one's own clientele, the freedom to set one's own rates, and the freedom to set the terms and conditions for providing one's services. Immediately I'd seem to agree with this statement. I think of typical self-employment businesses; hairdressers, freelance developers, etc and this seems to apply. You can set your own rate and your own terms, ev…

The classification of uber drivers as employees mostly means they have to pay more tax and less money goes to drivers and uber. People will argue employees have more rights and this is good for them, but the primary benefit of someone being an employee is to the state and the benefit is financial. If too many people become self-employed, the state can't finance itself anymore. The line between 'employee' and 'self-employed' is vague and this kind of reclassification is not limited to Uber. If you try contracting as a coder for example, you are likely to get reclassified as an employee. And then you have to prove you are not. Which you aren't going to be able to, because a self-employed working through a brokerage isn't radically different from a consultant working through a consultancy. So in that case you are going to have to pay a lot of back taxes. The point is: if too many people start working for exchange sites, they will also get sued and be classified as employees, just so the state can get its dues.
Post reply on HN