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

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#271

Post by pishpash » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 10:30 PM UTC

alwayseasy wrote: post #262

pishpash wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If so, then the "employment relationship" would last only as long as the job. When employment is specific to one job, it's a contracted job, which is a much better criterion than whatever France came up with. There is no expectation that either side will come back for more.

The French court doesn't buy your interpretation of "There is no expectation that either side will come back for more.", the mere existence of a vetting system and a rating system show Uber expected drivers to come back. The profession of driver isn't new and wasn't invented by Uber. Uber just found a way around local labour (and tax) laws and a European government, who's getting the downside of the tech company but…

What of ratings or vetting forces someone to work more? If you sell once at a fleamarket and acquire a word-of-mouth reputation for your actions, are you forced/expected to come again?

It's irrelevant why a government would act, political or fiscal reasons are always part of it, and protectionism. This doesn't have bearing on whether it is making sense or being illogical.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#272

Post by cmhnn » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 10:31 PM UTC

Some of my favorite themes here.

1) People asserting that the court was right or wrong followed by some "argument". The court simply ruled. Anything beyond that is the same as people who use statistics to provide "evidence" about their preconceived notions.

2) Examples that mean one thing to someone and something else to another but both sides claim right or wrong. See 1. For fun, I'll do an example but not claim it proves something. Most well known professional wrestlers work for a tyrant. Until very recently when another billionare entered the game they didn't have a lot of choices. Just like uber drivers they are mostly told what to do and even have sold their real names. They can also be seriously injured and die just like uber drivers. They also are "independent" contractors. Despite those odds, some did leave and became well known outside of that tyrant's world and are now getting richer than ever before...Would any of the events above including the new billionare deciding they could compete by picking up those independent minded wrestlers ever have happened if they were employees all along?

3)Portrayal of evil corps and the downtrodden who are forced to serve them as stereotypical "underclass" victims. If you are in Redmond soon and you take an Uber don't be surprised if you are being driven around by a PM who is getting out of the house or trying to get an extra edge against the high cost of living there.

My personal feeling here is I do not care either way. What I care about is from the consumer standpoint that Uber is accountable. My primary dislike of Uber, Airbnb, Vroom or similar enterprises is that they all claim to be of one stripe when things are going well but when things go wrong the company claims "Oh that's not us it is this entity we represented as part of the process but who we disclaim any responsibility for". As others have pointed out all the major tech companies use contractors. I don't know of any that would get away with the "oh that's not really us" defense.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#273

Post by aianus » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 10:31 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.

Yes you can, I turn on Uber Driver every night on my commute home from work and they only give me riders heading in the same direction. You can do this up to twice a day on Uber.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#274

Post by asjw » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 10:33 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…

As a counter example I bring you the Italian taxi system

Cab drivers have to receive a public license from the city to work in that city (and can only have one)

They can't decide the price, which is fixed according to some rules and are all the same for every cab in the city

The shouldn't sell the licence even if most of them do (gray legal area)

But they are not considered employees of the city but as freelancers

How do they "negotiate" the price?

They try to follow the most rewarding route for them and, unless the customer knows which is the fastest route, they get away with it

I'm not a fan of the gig economy either, but Uber drivers look to me are willing to work at their rules, their hours and on the gigs they like, which is different from what we consider being regular employees in Italy

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#275

Post by duxut_staglatz » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 10:33 PM UTC

oarla wrote: post #101

I am not sure I understand why this is a win for Uber drivers(genuine question). Is it considered a win because now they are treated as employees, so they will have benefits like sick pay, vacation days etc? What was the policy when they were not employees? Would they be penalized(financially) if they took a sick day? France already mandates some of these for contractors, so not a huge benefit, I think. I doubt it'll…

A significant part of health care expenses are covered by _mutuelles_, (now mandatory) employer-provided, non-profit health insurance 'companies'. According to wikipedia [0], about 75% of health spending goes through the government[1], 15% through mutuelles and 10% paid directly by households. So being reclassified as an employee means:

- your employer will pay a large part of your public health contributions ; unless your gross wage is much lower as an employee than your income as an independent worker, this results in higher after-tax after-social-contributions income.

- you have access to a mutuelle, and the employer must pay at least 50% of its cost by law

In the end, the difference in health coverage between being an employee vs an independent worker is not life-or-death like in the US, but it's quite stark still.

[0] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutuelle_de_sant%C3%A9_en_Fran...

[1] Technically, the "social security", which include pensions, healthcare, work injuries, most family and child benefits, is not part of the government and has its own budget.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#276

Post by alwayseasy » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 10:34 PM UTC

throwaway744678 wrote: post #177

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.

In the case of a driver, they get the ability to dynamically pick their rides in real time, and choose from the different apps the one that pays the most. There's a paradox in this: Uber and its competitors would ideally like their drivers to be 100% committed; yet they also need the drivers to be able to work for several apps as a defense against requalification as an employee.

No, they simply don't allow drivers to work for competitors with a simple trick: designated routes. Working within the same day on different apps is not enough, it has to be different apps => multiple clients => one trip. If an Uber driver were to pickup a Lyft user on a trip and to drop them off away from the main algorithmicly imposed road. Uber would warn the driver within a few days, regardless of client reviews.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#277

Post by pishpash » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 10:37 PM UTC

sk5t wrote: post #247

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…

To cast your shed-building example in the Uber model: * You submit a desire to build a shed to a market-making company that controls much of the market * The market-maker sets a price you will be billed * The market-maker alerts nearby builders of a construction project - without the location - without the project cost - without the project plans * A builder (capriciously) clicks "accept project" and travels to your…

Pray tell, why does the builder capriciously click "accept project", repeatedly, knowing that some projects are more worthwhile than others, other than that they are compensated adequately for the risk?

On what basis should someone presume to contradict the builder's calculus on this kind of tradeoff?

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#278

Post by c3534l » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 10:37 PM UTC

corentin88 wrote: post #268

c3534l wrote: post #260

Counterpoint (from the basis of what I know from how the US, not France, classifies independent contractors): 1. Uber drivers also drive for Lyft and other services 2. They can reject a passenger when the call comes in 3. They bring their own tools to the job (their car) 4. They provide their own training and technical qualifications (they're responsible for getting a drivers license, license plate, etc.) 5. They set…

French law only requires a "relationship of subordination" to qualify someone as an employee. The press release is very short and explains why the French court considers that an Uber’s driver is in a relationship of subordinate. > 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 serv…

Sure. I did try to qualify my statement saying I was basing my argument on US law. French law is whatever a French court decides it is. But I do think that riding-app drivers are, as a matter of opinion, much more like hiring someone to paint your house than a regular employee relationship.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#279

Post by jaked89 » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 10:41 PM UTC

Examining this case from a "similarity to employee" perspective neglects a crucial factor: the expectations between the parties at the time of contract.

It's patently obvious no Uber driver expected to be treated as an employee, as no employment contract was signed, and the Uber model is known and clear.

The court merely implements "social justice", which is nor social nither justice, destroying basic trust in society. Progressivism is cancer.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#280

Post by alwayseasy » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

bcheung wrote: post #249

The ruling makes sense to me, but the criteria do not. At least in this case. It almost seems like there needs to be a new category for the gig economy employees. They are somewhere in-between.

French courts can't write labour laws, just interpretations of them. It's the legislative branch's job to create a gig economy framework.