441–450 of 602 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Well one can't simultaneously drive a passenger obtained via Uber, and a passenger obtained via Lyft either.
> 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…
None of that applies to drivers who can either choose to take what they're given or quit.
I can't find a reason why that the court's criteria isn't sound. Can you find one?
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/employment-law/co...
> "...the French law regulates much more heavily all the aspects of employment conditions than the United States: Only a few forms of employment contracts exist in the French legal system, whereas the American law allows the two parties – the employer and the employee- to agree on almost every aspect of the contract freely, as soon as the contract is respecting the same principles and regulations set by the American law for contracts.
> The French legal system also regulates more strictly the aspects related to the execution of an employment contract, the work duration, the remuneration and the contract termination.
> The social tendency of the French legal system to protect the employees is in clear contrast here with the American employment, contracting and competing freedom principles."
Uber is seen as an attempt to escape the relatively fixed labor agreement.
> 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 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can also get kicked off for not accepting enough rides. When you're online and available you can't ignore what comes along.
Do you have any evidence for that? Kicking people off for accepting rides and then canceling them makes perfect sense because once you accept the ride, the customer is waiting and they're not looking for another driver. It also discourages drivers from looking at the destination and then refusing rides that legally they're not supposed to, like trips into black neighborhoods. Accepting in the first place either happe…
> 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…
There's no method whatsoever in Uber for drivers to actually set their prices, which is a key difference.
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.
As for taking the most efficient route, a driver purposely taking a longer route you didn't ask for to scam you out of your money is just that, a scam. So it's illegal on that basis alone.
They key difference with a lot of these taxi restrictions is they are set by the government to protect consumers. The government imposing uniform standards on taxi drivers through legislation is not at all the same thing as private companies doing so on drivers while weaseling out of employment requirements. The government can set lots of restrictions on how jobs are done without requiring employment contracts with those workers; private companies do not have those same powers. Hell, the government can execute people; there's no expected parity here whatsoever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what point you're debating here, the question is about "either side" expecting to come back. In this case the drivers who provide the service are expected to come back, hence the vetting and rating. It establishes a relationship that extends beyond a single trip or "job". IF Yelp ever garners a dominant position in terms of qualified leads and monopoly on pricing to building contractors, French law could…
> "Employee of the Month" posters around America beg to differ. "Employee of the Month" posters are hung inside your own offices rather than anywhere a competitor would be likely to see them. > In this case the drivers who provide the service are expected to come back, hence the vetting and rating. It establishes a relationship that extends beyond a single trip or "job". The relationship between the driver and the ri…
Uber pretends to find clients for contractors but treats them like employees due to three proven powers they hold over drivers: the power to give instructions, the power to control the execution, the power to sanction non-compliance with the instructions given.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Rather, the employee relationship is between that of the painters and the painting company that is paying them out to do numerous painting jobs. That is the closest analog in the Uber situation. And yes, these painters would be classified as employees under French law too, as they should be.