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

341–350 of 602 posts

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#341

Post by rpvnwnkl »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #320
nicoburns wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well one can't simultaneously drive a passenger obtained via Uber, and a passenger obtained via Lyft either.

Neither can a contractor build a gazebo for one client at the same time as they're building a gazebo for a different client. But there is a difference between getting paid for hours and getting paid for tasks.

Rideshare drivers are paid by the task, but that task is time-bound. Building a shed isn't. You can take on two shed contracts simultaneously, not so as a rideshare driver.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#342

Post by smileysteve »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #24
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…

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.

Most taxi drivers in the U.S. should be classified as employees. Where they drive a company managed car (under a company owned medallion), work certain hours.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#343

Post by Jommi »

def8cefe wrote: post #326
Jommi wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Maybe you are referencing how Uber works in the some American state? This is France and that's not how the regulation works there. US-centrisism at it's finest.

Uber drivers can't pick up hailed rides anywhere. That has nothing to do with the jurisdiction, it's simply not a function of the app. If they did, they would be taxi drivers.

I think you're coming from a completely wrong view point. There are no "Uber drivers" these are taxi drivers that choose to (at times) use the Uber app to get clients.

Depending on the local jursidiction, they might be absolutely free to do street pickups.

For example in Finland someone driving for Uber could pickup someone from the street.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#344

Post by waheoo »

netcan wrote: post #270
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…

Laws are, kinda by definition, highly legible. Reality is fuzzier. Whether or not Uber drivers fall under current legal definitions of "employee," I think they obviously do fall into the common sense definition that should be regulated under labour laws. Reality doesn't fall neatly into categories, which is why laws tend to have tons of details and exceptions. Some labour is day labour, piecemeal, etc. Labor laws do…

The amount of hang wringing in this thread to ignore this simple reality and defend their darling uber is kind of disgusting.

Now id just wish law makers wake up and regulate paypal et al as banks.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#345

Post by Polylactic_acid »

jaked89 wrote: post #319
Polylactic_acid wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A contract isn't law. I can write a piece of paper saying that you agree to work for me for $1 per hour and even if you sign it, you are still able to take legal action against me because this contract is illegal. Preventing megacorps from exploiting those with few options is obviously a net benefit.

This has nothing to do with my point. Law exists to establish peace and consensus. Contacts are the most basic construct enabling modern life in a crowded society. Reinterpreting contracts in a liberal, unreasonable manner destroys peace and introduces chaos. It prevents members of society from ever trusting one another, and makes all agreements tentative, subjective to the retroactive whims of politicians and court.…

Law exists to ensure the best possibly outcome for society. Companies finding creative ways to redefine work so they get all the benefit while offloading any of the costs is not helpful for society.

I might be inclined to agree with you on contracts if it wasn't for the huge imbalance of power here. An individual who works for these taxi companies has basically no negotiating power against uber so they will never be able to come to a fair contract. Employment protections exist to solve this and they have been rightfully applied to uber like they are to every other company. Laws should adapt to changing reality rather than let companies work around them.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#346

Post by duxut_staglatz »

jaked89 wrote: post #279

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 societ…

Labour law (in France at least, I do not know about the US) is based on - for the lack of a better expression - reals over feelz: what matters is the actual relationship between the driver and Uber, not whether either party felt surprise at some point.

The court merely implements "French labour laws", as it should.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#347

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rpvnwnkl wrote: post #341
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither can a contractor build a gazebo for one client at the same time as they're building a gazebo for a different client. But there is a difference between getting paid for hours and getting paid for tasks.

Rideshare drivers are paid by the task, but that task is time-bound. Building a shed isn't. You can take on two shed contracts simultaneously, not so as a rideshare driver.

> Rideshare drivers are paid by the task, but that task is time-bound. Building a shed isn't.

Why not? You could take a contract to build a shed by the end of the day and then not have time to build any others that day.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#348

Post by wjmao88 »

munk-a wrote: post #47
rahimnathwani wrote: post #35

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…

And that is part of the reason many people also criticizes the tipping system in US/Canada. An arguably broken system from another industry doesn't make for a good comparison.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#349

Post by himinlomax »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #24
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…

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 are paid directly by their customers.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#350

Post by himinlomax »

rickbutton wrote: post #30
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.

Why not? Sounds like they would also be an employee under this ruling.

Taxis are paid directly by their customers, so one of the criterions does not apply. (Note that some taxis are employees of taxi companies, but they need not be, as far as the regulation at hand is concerned.)
Post reply on HN