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

251–260 of 387 posts

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

#251

Post by snarf21 »

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 don't understand your point #1. Uber could still set a baseline price of X as a suggested price for this trip. Each driver gets a chance to offer Y that what they will accept for the trip (maybe it is way outside of downtown so they want a lot more to compensate driving back). All it does it slow down Uber giving you an instant price. It would be trivial to have an instant online auction mechanism in the app. You start it at $5 and it goes up $.17 until a driver says yes. This doesn't really change much of the experience in my mind. It seems like your main criticism is that this might make ride-share more expensive and less convenient for you. Do you think this is actually worse for the drivers?

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

#252

Post by pmyteh »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #222
Mauricebranagh wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have the (corrupt and failed) medallion system in the UK and we certainly don't have "city" managed "taxi" drivers. This is the UK supreme court (the one where the judges have real world experience)

London famously has one of the strictest requirements for licensing taxi drivers, and the rest of the Uk seems to have city managed licenses as well.

For taxis (which you can hail on the street) the fares are fixed. For private hire vehicles (which you can't) they aren't. In both cases there are 'fit and proper person' requirements to get a licence, and in London there is a famously difficult test of the driver's knowledge of city streets and routes to get a taxi (but not a private hire) licence.

In no cases do we have a medallion system, though. Licences are not transferable and have no monetary value.

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

#253

Post by kube-system »

fallingknife wrote: post #242
dgellow wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conced…

Does Uber communicate ABC entirely before a driver accepts? I have not used the app as a driver, but the screenshots I've seen suggest they might not?

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

#254

Post by cbozeman »

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…

In regards to point 1:

A safe driver who knows the area well and has an immaculate vehicle should be allowed to set their own rate. You talk about "customers having no idea what a trip will cost" like that isn't a supremely easily fixed problem.

You simply filter out by cost per mile, no different than filtering results on eBay or another website. You tell the Uber app you're only willing to pay $0.80 per mile, or whatever that number is. Maybe you end up in 2012 Honda Civic on your ride back... or you crank it up to $2.00 per mile and you end up in an Audi A6.

Power to the people?

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

#255

Post by sillysaurusx »

slfnflctd wrote: post #245
sillysaurusx wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I've driven for Uber.

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

#256

Post by FeepingCreature »

Jochim wrote: post #229
FeepingCreature wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The same could be said for child labour or health and safety regulation. If a child is desperate enough to work why shouldn't we let them? Why don't we allow workers to choose to work for companies that put their wellbeing at risk? The reason is that it ends up not being a choice of the worker at all, incentives align in such a way that these are no longer an "option" but instead a replacement of existing work/choice…

I mean, I think there's two possible situations, depending on whether something is due to worker choice or company choice. I agree that in a situation where everyone is offering shitty conditions, outlawing shitty conditions makes sense. But in a situation where some companies offer shitty conditions, and lots of people decide to go away from their existing companies and work for the shitty companies, then you have to at least entertain the notion that you were wrong about what makes a job shitty.

In that sense, having some companies with shitty conditions offers an important safety valve to learn that regulations were misguided.

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

#257

Post by FeepingCreature »

maxsilver wrote: post #207
FeepingCreature wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't make a circumstance illegal.

You can, actually, make a circumstance illegal. The vast majority of regulation explicitly make circumstances illegal. "That ladder just happened to be placed there" . "The forklift happened to be parked that way" . "The room happened to have too many people in it" . "The fire extinguisher happened to be expired and failed to fire" -- all illegal circumstances (in various parts of the US, based on Federal/State/Local…

You can make actions illegal, and you can make not taking an action illegal, but you can't make not having enough money illegal, because "having money" is not an action that you can mandate people take.

> "They needed to sue, but couldn't get a lawyer" is absolutely a circumstance we could make illegal.

I mean -- I guess, technically you can, but it's one of the most insulting things I have ever heard. What are you gonna do, sue them for not having the money to have a lawyer to defend themselves? Maybe take them to court for damages, caused by them not having money? Kafka would have a field day with this.

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

#258

Post by anonymousab »

zthrowaway wrote: post #250

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…

>They will basically cease to exist

If their business is unprofitable even with their exploitation of workers, then it was never a viable business to begin with.

There are endless potential businesses that would become equally VC cash-vacuum-viable with specific worker deregulations and affordances. We do not do so simply because we see those values and protections as more important to societal good than those businesses (and their jobs) existing. If Uber ends up joining that set then so be it.

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

#259

Post by sgift »

sdoering wrote: post #139
csunbird wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not having access to the justice because of shortage of money should be illegal instead.

Replying to sister comment. In Germany, if you can't afford a lawyer you are entitled to the government paying legal aid in civil cases [1]. As you are - I just realize - in many countries. Problem is, that a restaurant owner isn't entitled to that so that even if you are a small company (self employed restaurant owner) you are toast. You could hope to have a legal insurance covering stuff like that, but not sure, if…

The Wikipedia article doesn't tell this (which is okay, it's not the main topic), but you have to be really poor to get legal aid in Germany. When I needed this years ago I wasn't eligible because my parents had paid into a pension insurance for me and it was worth more than 5k. This is a common problem with these schemes here in Germany. If you are really rich you have no problems, if you are really poor there exist some systems (I wouldn't say they are good, but that's also another topic). People in between? Tough luck.

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

#260

Post by gjulianm »

refurb wrote: post #233
gjulianm wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the contractors who do full time work are paid by a placement agency to be a full-time employee, that's possibly fraud... In the case of Uber, it's very clear that the contractors work for Uber, as it's Uber the one that sets the conditions of the job.

Meh... this was a big multinational so I doubt they are committing fraud. They were paid by the placement agency and the contractor was responsible for all self-employment taxes.

> Meh... this was a big multinational so I doubt they are committing fraud.

I actually think that a big multinational is more likely to commit these kinds of frauds. In fact, a full time employee that works only for one company and who's sent by a placement agency sounds a lot like fake self-employment.

Post reply on HN