Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees • Hacker News Board

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#141

Post by m11a » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 8:54 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #131

m11a wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tax…

>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.

I think it's ambiguous too. Though I disagree with the criteria set by this court, I'm not entirely sure on what the right criteria is. I think Uber play a line between employment and self-employment to keep it ambiguous, and I certainly agree it's to make sure they don't have to provide full employment benefits to their drivers, but I still think the classification/distinction is tricky.

If drivers are indeed employees, as I mentioned in my other comment, I think Uber gain a lot of rights over their drivers that they don't currently have.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#142

Post by incadenza » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 8:54 PM UTC

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.

Such a clause is pretty common in employment contracts.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#143

Post by mongol » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 8:55 PM UTC

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…

Another difference is that the Uber app is not an ad board. It also manages the monetary transactions. This effectively removes the ability to negotiate the price. If you in your example include that aspect it starts to resemble the Uber situation.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#144

Post by dpwm » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 8:55 PM UTC

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…

> Now, would you say that builder is employed by this website?

Probably yes. The terms are being set by the platform.

> It's a limitation of the platform (limitations made to improve customer experience - imagine if you had to negotiate for every taxi ride, you don't do this for local companies).

I've never used Uber. Does the customer get to choose the driver? On this hypothetical platform, does the customer get to choose the builder?

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#145

Post by Aunche » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 8:55 PM UTC

pkaye wrote: post #13

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…

I don't think that allowing drivers to freely set their rates is necessarily a good thing. It "costs" money for an Uber driver to wait for a ride, so they're incentivized to undercut the competition in order to get more rides.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#146

Post by reaperducer » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 8:56 PM UTC

def8cefe wrote: post #91

rahimnathwani wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Taxis pick up at taxi ranks or off the street. 'Radio' calls and calls they've privately arranged with customers as well. >Taxis have regulations set by an organisation. That would be local by-law in most cases. >Taxis (in most places) have rules that say they must take the most efficient route. You can't intentionally ripoff customers but the fastest route and the cheapest are often different. You can take whatever…

You absolutely can refuse a customer as long as it's not descriminatory, like most other businesses.

Depends on your jurisdiction.

For example, taxi drivers in Chicago were notorious for refusing to take people on trips that were too short, or too far out of the CBD. Sometimes they'd even refuse to take people from downtown to the airport because if traffic is bad, or there was a long wait in the staging area at the airport, it would cut into their profits.

Chicago made that behavior illegal. It still happens occasionally. But if you know the law, you can do what I do and sit in the cab and refuse to get out while offering to call the police to have an officer explain the rules to the driver.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#147

Post by sigstoat » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 8:59 PM UTC

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.

> In America, there are tens of millions of people who work more than one job.

not simultaneously, or even interleaved in 30 minute increments.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#148

Post by reaperducer » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 8:59 PM UTC

squiggleblaz wrote: post #92

djrogers wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Traditional taxi drivers own their taxi medallions That's not really the case in a lot of places - drivers 'rent' medallions from Taxi companies, as the medallions cost many times the annual income of a driver. Although, their value is droppnig due to ridesharing apps. [1]

Why say "ride sharing"? It's not sharing a ride. You can't use uber to basically organise carpooling. It's buying a ride.

"Ride sharing" is a common term for Uber and similar companies because when Uber first started you did, indeed, share rides.

Now it's more correct to call it a "ride hailing" platform, but the original term still sticks.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#149

Post by WanderPanda » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 9:01 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #131

m11a wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tax…

- 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.

The customer demand (customer being the drivers) tells a completely different story of people being more productive than legacy taxi systems by taking responsibility themselves.

I think a lean "gig economy" without the full load of bureaucracy is largely positive and really dislike how it is torn down here in Europe...

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#150

Post by nerdponx » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 9:01 PM UTC

timwaagh wrote: post #140

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-em…

This depends heavily on the tax laws in a particular jurisdiction.