301–310 of 602 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But do general contractors in your example punish plumbers if they are found to be working for multiple general contractors?
When does that happen? Almost every Uber/Lyft driver I've seen lately has both logos on their car...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there such a thing as an employee with random hours? Isn't the whole point of an employee that there is an expectation of regular work?
I think a certain regularity of work is not a necessity for an employer-worker relationship to be exactly that. And at a second thought, AFAIK Uber does even expect drivers to perform "regular" work - not "regular" as in "we write 9-to-5 every day into the contract", but "regular" as in "of course you can work as much as you like, BUT if we see you driving too little time for Uber, below a certain threshold that we s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You absolutely can refuse a customer as long as it's not descriminatory, like most other businesses. Are you sure this is the law in France? And remember that Uber operates in several countries. When discussions about this happens we have to remember that each country have it's own rules and laws, and we cannot expect that the law in your country is the only law exists.
>we cannot expect that the law in your country is the only law exists. I doubt federal law covers taxi regulations in any country, it's generally local by-law or equivalent. The regulations are going to be different in Paris than they are in Lyon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
That some people are willing to participate in this zany scheme doesn't mean the court necessarily ought to view them as non-employees.
Were there a bidding process with a reasonable and sufficient amount of transparency to the worker--what and where exactly is the job, what does it pay?--then the scales could tilt towards contractor-dom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK all of these apply to Uber drivers in France as well.
Taxi drivers can pick up anyone on their own terms (with some limitations from local laws). Uber drivers on the other hand can only legally pick up rides dispatched from Uber or another ride-sharing app. That's all they're insured for and that's all local laws will allow because they don't have status as licensed taxi drivers in a licensed vehicle. A customer can hand me cash and nobody gets a piece except the govern…
> 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…
-Mobile users
This is going to hurt most drivers than help. We can already see the results of this here in California because of AB5 and I doubt most proponents of this law have ever driven for Uber in the first place.
So can Uber force French drivers to work certain hours? As an American, I have poor understanding of what employment entails in the EU. If the Uber drivers are just hourly employees, what changes for them? In the USA, you only see real employment benefits if you are a salaried employee. An hourly worker gets paid their wage and that's it (no sick days, retirement, etc).
They cannot force French drivers to work certain hours (under their current contracts), but this is not relevant to their work status: > The fact that the driver is not obliged to connect to the platform and that this absence of connection, irrespective of its duration, does not expose the driver to any penalty, are not taken into consideration when characterising the relationship of subordination. > The criteria for…
Now that subordination has been established, using the criteria you list, what's stopping Uber from forcing the drivers to work regular shifts? The drivers are legally subordinate to Uber now, after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If target allowed you also work for Walmart that wouldn't transform their employees into contractors.
Target pays workers hourly wages. It would be quite something if they allowed you to work at Walmart during the hours you're being paid an hourly wage by Target.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Medallions are a US permit, this article is about a ruling in France.
The same system exist in France: taxi driver must own a medallion ('plaque') which they purchase from someone retiring, rent from a taxi company, or get issued by the city (this is theoretical in large cities: very few new medallions are created). Anecdotally, the taxi company owning the medallion are not allowed to rent them: so instead they rent cars to their contractors, and lend the medallions to their renters.