Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 387 posts

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#191

Post by chrisseaton »

varjag wrote: post #185
chrisseaton wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't just use another company's logo and name without their permission. I'm afraid I think you're mistaken. You're allowed to use someone's trademark to factually describe the product you're selling. You don't need the owner's permission to do that. If you're selling an actual Apple laptop, you can use the trademarks 'Apple' and the Apple logo to describe it. If you're selling an actual Bob's Burger, you can u…

It could be eye opening to create an applestore-sf.com and try selling apple laptops there.

Or macrumors.com for a website about Macintosh computers! They'd surely shut that down since it uses a registered trademark! Oh no wait...

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#192

Post by [deleted] »

WannaFly wrote: post #9

They so clueless, they think that companies have a money tree and evil CEO just refuse to give them a piece of money. Uber it's an unprofitable company and workers demand more benefits, from the company that can't pay than current salary without external investments. "If we had these rights today, those drivers could at least earn a minimum wage to live on". No, you will be fired.

[deleted]

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#193

Post by emteycz »

vidarh wrote: post #94
emteycz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're negotiating with Uber, not with customers. Uber says take it or leave it, and you can work with another company if it has better terms/rate.

Uber pretends you're working for the customer, not them. That is a key element in their attempt to pretend they're not an employer.

Negotiating with Uber, not working for Uber. Uber is a middleman/platform connecting customers with providers, guaranteeing terms of contract to both parties. It works just the same with most IT contracting firms (and the same is true in other sectors too - construction, medical, etc).

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#194

Post by graeme »

lordnacho wrote: post #25

I don't know anything about how the law works, but it seems to accord with the reality of how people tend to think of jobs. Have you ever met an Uber driver who didn't give the impression that this was what he did all the time? I haven't, though I imagine not everyone is full time. It's quite a way from the idea that anyone with a car can give someone else a ride. For instance, I've never met a driver who happened to…

Actually yeah a substantial number of my Uber drivers do it as a side gig while doing other things or while driving around. Food delivery was a big one but a lot had businesses and used Uber for extra cashflow.

This was in Montreal, maybe it’s different in the US. Though most of the drivers I talked to there delivered for Lyft too.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#195

Post by maxehmookau »

rrrazdan wrote: post #97
maxehmookau wrote: post #33

Of course they are. Everyone knows this. Uber just had good enough lawyers to put this moment off for as long as possible. They had to know it was coming.

I don’t know this. I have chatted with plenty of Uber drivers who are part timers who don’t know this or think this way about them as well.

You can be a part-time worker and still be protected by your employer and paid a minimum wage for your labor.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#196

Post by FeepingCreature »

Jochim wrote: post #109
kukx wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Let's pay them." Ok, with whose money? I am all for good pay for everyone. The problem begins when we detach the pay from the value created by the worker. In many cases worker may become too expensive to hire. So trying to force business to pay more may result in less people having job.

Lots of businesses aren't viable due to the costs of business being greater than the price people would be willing to pay. Pay isn't being detached from the value of the worker, what's being said is that if you're unable to produce enough value from the worker in order to pay them well enough to live then your business isn't viable. Gig economy companies like Deliveroo are particularly hostile to their labour force.…

I mean, I don't really see where the harm to the worker is by offering them the option.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#197

Post by pessimizer »

dexen wrote: post #92
rogual wrote: post #6

The court made very specific arguments: 1. Uber set the fare which meant that they dictated how much drivers could earn 2. Uber set the contract terms and drivers had no say in them 3. Request for rides is constrained by Uber who can penalise drivers if they reject too many rides 4. Uber monitors a driver's service through the star rating and has the capacity to terminate the relationship if after repeated warnings t…

>1. Uber set the fare which meant that they dictated how much drivers could earn 2. Uber set the contract terms and drivers had no say in them 3. Request for rides is constrained by Uber who can penalise drivers if they reject too many rides 4. Uber monitors a driver's service through the star rating and has the capacity to terminate the relationship if after repeated warnings this does not improve I sure hope they'l…

Are you seriously asking how the relationship is different between a driver and Uber and a driver and the city they live and work in? The difference is both Uber and drivers are subject to the rule of law, whereas the rule of law isn't subject to Uber or the drivers except through the legislative process, which this is an article about.

Nobody is saying that Uber can't apply whatever terms they want to the relationship if they're in international waters and not under any particular flag.

edit: the city can require that people who live in it must work under the exact same terms as Uber, and will not be treated as employees of the city (if they can get this enacted in legislation and it has been found not to conflict with higher laws or treaties.) Uber doesn't get to require anything of local law.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#199

Post by cloudfifty »

yomly wrote: post #173
twoslide wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An owner of a local restaurant told me he pays about 30% revenue to share to Deliveroo, as part of his agreement with them. He also runs his own delivery service, and encourages customers to use that (phoning in) rather than Deliveroo.

A Chinese restaurant in Lambeth tried disabling uber eats a few years back and running their own delivery service. Our food arrived TWO HOURS after ordering and cold. I'd really rather NOT go back to the old way.

This comes across to me as very self-centered. Perfect service over having the drivers earning a livable wage?

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#200

Post by Shish2k »

chrisseaton wrote: post #163
twoslide wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An owner of a local restaurant told me he pays about 30% revenue to share to Deliveroo, as part of his agreement with them. He also runs his own delivery service, and encourages customers to use that (phoning in) rather than Deliveroo.

> An owner of a local restaurant told me he pays about 30% revenue to share to Deliveroo, as part of his agreement with them. If they've agreed to it, what's the problem? The parent comment was complaining about Deliveroo setting up without an agreement. When they do that they have to mark up - they can't take a 30% cut of the restaurant's price as the restaurant charges Deliveroo full price.

> If they've agreed to it, what's the problem?

They’re in a position where the options are pretty much “agree to this” or “go out of business”

(To which I guess the free-market response is “That’s not a problem - an independent restaurant SHOULD go out of business if they can’t compete with a website company when it comes to websites”?)

Post reply on HN