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

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

#331

Post by wonderwonder » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

snarf21 wrote: post #251

wonderwonder wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I am saying that if Uber does not set the price, what is to stop desperate drivers from setting their prices at 15% lower than the next driver, other drivers would be forced to do the same and then the rate per trip actually goes down, not up.

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

#332

Post by wonderwonder » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 5:14 PM UTC

hrktb wrote: post #249

wonderwonder wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If its a generic employer/employee relationship then should uber not require 40 hours a week per driver? I am not opposed to that but it does kill the gig concept of the job. It will drastically remove the ability of people to just pick up shifts on the fly.

Uber is currently very much a loss generating company, adding additional cost to their business plan will accelerate that. If they go out of business, even if just in specific markets, then that helps no one.

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

#333

Post by socksy » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 5:18 PM UTC

devoutsalsa wrote: post #51

austhrow743 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20-30% to not have to have a dining area and be in a trendy location sounds pretty good.

You just described a ghost kitchen, a restaurant without a store front. Honestly, I don’t like delivered food that much. It’s usually cold, often gets screwed up (e.g. regular Pepsi instead of Diet Pepsi), and maybe low quality in general. I’m already hesitant to order with Deliveroo most of the time anyway, and if prices go up, I might just finally learn to cook.

Deliveroo pulled out of Germany when it was decided that their drivers weren't self employed. In their absence, we were left with a terrible service called Lieferando ("deliver-ando"), which were not more expensive, but have an unimpressive app, with little incentive to keep you updated on a timescale or deliver things in a very timely manner (leading to colder, soggier food).

However, in the last year or so, that's all changed (in Berlin at least) with the introduction of the Finnish "Wolt" (which everyone here is pronouncing like "volt", but come to think of it, perhaps should be pronounced the English way). Like lieferando, they have salaried employees, but the app is much more akin to the deliveroo experience, with people who are on-time and great pictures/food etc. Prices are comparable with what deliveroo had before.

I'm sure VC money has something to do with the ability to execute, but assuming that deliveroo had the same, it doesn't seem impossible to run a food delivery service with real employees without huge price hikes.

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

#334

Post by vitus » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 5:18 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #265

vitus wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trademark infringement is a big one, and yes, it can be applied even if the trademark isn't registered. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125#a 1125(a)(1) is pretty unambiguous in this context. If Grubhub is using a restaurant's name to "deceive as to ... the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods", that's cause for civil action. California also has a new law explicitly addressing this issue:…

You're allowed to use trademarks to factually describe what a product is. Your linked law suit is about something entirely different to what's being discussed in this thread - that's about describing restaurants as shut when they aren't.

Whoops, the Grubhub class action lawsuit in this context is

https://www.classlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/Grubhub-Cla...

You're not allowed to use trademarks to masquerade as the other party, especially if you're then trying to conduct business as if you were that other party.

Taking a step back: is there any trademark usage that you view as infringing?

Using an example from another side discussion: I hope we can agree that if you made a laptop and called it a Macbook Pro, Apple would sue the heck out of you, and they'd be in the right. Where we seem to disagree is whether it's infringement if you set up a storefront, name it "Apple Store", and exclusively sell products that you've purchased from an Apple-run Apple Store.

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

#335

Post by Mauricebranagh » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 5:18 PM UTC

secfirstmd wrote: post #328

Mauricebranagh wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No its not - why should some one doing a 9 month cover for maternity leave be treated as an employee. When "self employed" lawyers can work on the same case for years. Note that ir35 is not uniformly applied - unfortunately its bad employers like Uber et all that fuck it up for professionals like us.

That's different. FAANG has thousands of contractors doing roles that are internal and integral to their company deliberately on 11 month contracts and then rolling them over. The same positions existing for years and not meeting IR35 requirements. What you describe is totally something else.

That would be in the USA where yes this is absolutely disguised employment.

But in the UK if say came in and did a 1 year engagement to sort out a major brands web presence - I would be considered inside ir35 (unless of course I was mate of Dominic Cummings)

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

#336

Post by xwolfi » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

habosa wrote: post #10

Really interested to see what this does to Deliveroo. I live in central London on a pretty busy street and it's really wild how many Deliveroo drivers there are. In front of most of the popular takeaway restaurants there are 3-5 drivers waiting at any given time. The increase in delivery and decrease in normal foot traffic during the pandemic has made this really stick out. Deliveroo already totally robs these restau…

Poor restaurant, having all these people lining up to buy food at the price they specify themselves. What a robbery ...

Dude I don't know what you think business is, but restaurants aren't slaves: they mark whatever price they're comfortable with on their menu, generate margin, and if they don't like it, they close the door, or heh, refuse service to Deliveroo. It's not robbery if the client would never even have heard of you without it, and god the indian restaurant two streets away I discovered after 5 years missing it thanks to Deliveroo knows who they owe this new addicted client to :)

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

#337

Post by emteycz » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

baq wrote: post #236

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.

only being able to accept or refuse is hardly negotiation - and if you refuse enough times, they kick you, so you can't really refuse.

Consider that employee can't negotiate at all - you do what your boss tells you or you are fired, even in Europe - not performing assigned work is specifically written in the law as fireable offense. Accepting or declining terms certainly is negotiation, even if it seems limited.

It's not true that you can't refuse to ride! I have driven many Uber rides as driver (and about 100x more as a passenger) - what will get you kicked out is marking yourself available and then declining rides - because it makes the customer experience much worse. You know the minimal rate per mile beforehand and it can only get better for you, never worse. You're free to turn it off at any time and for as long as you wish and you won't be kicked out - that's absolutely impossible for employees.

The IT contracting firm I work with would kick me out the first time I said I am available and then declined.

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

#338

Post by pmyteh » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #332

hrktb wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If its a generic employer/employee relationship then should uber not require 40 hours a week per driver? I am not opposed to that but it does kill the gig concept of the job. It will drastically remove the ability of people to just pick up shifts on the fly. Uber is currently very much a loss generating company, adding additional cost to their business plan will accelerate that. If they go out of business, even if ju…

Lots of businesses in the UK operate with employees not working 40 hours a week. Some of them have 'zero hours' contracts where work is at the discretion of the employer, at hours of their choosing, and with little notice.

If it makes more economic sense for Uber to have a pool of full-time drivers to send to jobs, then that's a model they can move to. If not (because demand is inconsistent, or not evenly spread throughout the day, or whatever) then I have no doubt they'll continue with flexible rostering (perhaps taking more control as to timetabling).

And the UK is not in any way short of private hire companies or drivers. Many of them have apps, and Uber is not consistently cheaper than other cab companies. Frankly from a customer point of view it doesn't make a lot of difference whether they go out of business or not in England.

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

#339

Post by 908B64B197 » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

Mauricebranagh wrote: post #201

dexen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

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)

How did traditional taxi work then?

Does the city auction the permits every year?

Uber was absolutely great in the US because it replaced the medallion system that was more of less a pyramid scheme. That's one of the big reason, I think, it worked so well.

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

#340

Post by 908B64B197 » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 5:34 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #331

snarf21 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I am saying that if Uber does not set the price, what is to stop desperate drivers from setting their prices at 15% lower than the next driver, other drivers would be forced to do the same and then the rate per trip actually goes down, not up.

If drivers are getting desperate, it's because there's an oversupply.

What will stop drivers is simply that they won't be able to drive forever if they lose money on rides. That sets a minimal price.