Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by sokoloff » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

Shish2k wrote: post #200

chrisseaton wrote: post #163

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. 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”?)

So Deliveroo is helping these restaurants survive the pandemic is your main argument?

Or that they’d do just fine if no one had a website offering their food, but the Deliveroo website is an arms-race bleed-them-dry move?

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

#242

Post by fallingknife » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

dgellow wrote: post #144

fallingknife wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make sense to me. I did some contract work a couple years ago and: 1. The company set the hourly rate which meant they dictated how much I could earn 2. The company set the contract terms 3. The company told me what features to build and could penalize me if I decided not to build some 4. The company could evaluate my performance any way they wanted and terminate the contract at any time for no cause If…

1. As a contractor I negotiate my rates with the companies I work with. Uber drivers cannot do this. 2. I also negotiate contract terms. Uber drivers cannot do this. 3. Uber drivers are penalized for not taking rides, which is more akin to refusing a paid opportunity than building a feature. Again as a contractor I do negotiate the work I can and want to do. 4. For this point I agree with you. I can also terminate th…

The driver absolutely can negotiate, but Uber is not under any obligation to compromise. The following is a perfectly valid negotiation:

company: Our payment terms are ABC.

contractor: Can we do XYZ instead?

company: Sorry, but we are not willing to do XYZ. It will need to be ABC, can you accept that?

contractor: OK

You are mistaking the right of the contractor to negotiate with an obligation on the company to concede, which does not exist in any situation.

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

#243

Post by sokoloff » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

cloudfifty wrote: post #199

yomly wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Drivers aren’t likely to sustainably earn a livable wage by delivering cold food two hours after it was expected either.

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

#244

Post by Blikkentrekker » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

Uber as a company has really seen a variety of semantics challenges to laws in various jurisdictions that really show how much many legal frameworks can be issues of semantics until the courts settle the semantic debates.

There is little doubt in my mind that a different court, and most of all a court whose members have different political leanings, would have settled the semantics debate differently given the exact same letter of the law.

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

#245

Post by slfnflctd » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #237

michaelt wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every Uber driver I speak to tells me how they prefer Uber to their previous job Of course they do - they're not going to get many five-star reviews if passengers leave the car feeling bad or complicit in exploitation.

What's a rating have to do with them complaining about the job? If someone gives them a low rating because of their thoughts on how they work, that person is a jerk.

You have obviously never driven rideshare or talked much with drivers when they're not working.

Passengers will give low ratings for all kinds of insane things, from the cost of the trip (which the driver has no control over), to not agreeing with some random opinion they had, to refusing to do something illegal and/or dangerous. It's nuts. The rideshare companies side with passengers in these cases by default, and there is usually no way to dispute them.

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

#246

Post by simias » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #116

simias wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disguised employees are generally advantageous for the company, not the worker.

For low paid drivers yes, but I know a lot of high paid software developers who would say otherwise.

For sure, but it's always higher risk/higher reward. If you're young and healthy you can probably earn more working that way, but if you're older, have a mortgage, have health issues, need maternity leave, have children in a nearby school and you don't want to move etc... The security and benefits of a salaried position can be worth more in the long run.

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

#247

Post by snarf21 » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

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…

Wow, I'm surprised they actually show some sense. Of course, these are the very exploitative practices that make the business possible anyway. I agree that this will cause the rare person who just drives an hour a night to maybe not be on payroll but Uber actually might need them anyway or they lose too much capacity.

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

#248

Post by IdoRA » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:10 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #111

orlp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be straight up illegal and the companies sued to hell for. If I opened a site claiming to be a bank and accepting money on behalf of that bank, and keeping 20% I'd be behind bars for fraud in no time.

It's not fraud though, is it? They advertise that you'll get food from Restaurant X and that's indeed what you get. It's not fraud to resell product, you don't need permission from the original seller to do it (in fact I think that's a specifically protected right), and it's not fraud or any kind of trademark violation to describe a product as being from Restaurant X if that is a fact.

Several of the factors considered in trademark infringement are the use of the mark in commerce, that use being connected to the sale (including distribution or advertising) of the marked product, and naturally, likelihood of consumer confusion.

A pro-restaurant argument might be that these alternative websites are interfering with new and extant restaurant-customer relationships, falsely implying a restaurant-delivery co. affiliation, and that the use by the delivery co. of the restaurant trademarks exceeds nominative use. The restaurants might also argue that the distribution of food, how and under what conditions, is part of their product: a delivery company taking too long to deliver an order could harm the quality of their product.

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

#249

Post by hrktb » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:10 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #230

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…

These 4 points are all pretty critical to Uber's business though. 1. If the drivers set the fair, then customers have no idea what a trip will cost or if uber shows the drivers fair then why would the customer not always choose the cheapest causing a rush to the the bottom for pricing. 2. This one is open ended and I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on it. 3. If a driver is constantly rejecting rides this is go…

I think the argument is less to stop doing the 4 above, than to accept it's a employer/employee relationship and behave accordingly.

If there is actual value in the service, they should be able to adjust to the decision.

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

#250

Post by zthrowaway » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

Did we all forget Uber operates at a massive revenue loss every year? This whole thread is filled with virtuous cheering yet not realizing Uber isn’t an endless stream of money. This will impact their business severely if it happens in the US. They will basically cease to exist, or become as shitty as regular taxi services where you have to wait an hour for one. I remember when everyone on here cheered that they were disrupting the taxi system and making it better. For some reason we want now hold them to the rules of that legacy industry, and the cost of such will change what made them popular to begin with. All with the virtuous idea of defending the drivers. You aren’t helping the drivers, you’re going to hurt them the most.