Is “undisrupt” a word already?
It's called 'regulate.'
Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules
51–60 of 500 posts
Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules
#52Is “undisrupt” a word already?
"disruption" is basically newspeak for startups when they are weighting the ability and capacity of an administration or government to sue that startup for violating laws. It's legal arbitrage.
Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules
#53Rightly so. The 'gig economy' is abused by quite a few companies to create employment like situations without the required trappings (social security payments, employee protection, hourly minimums and so on). This was long overdue, let's hope it has precedent effect for other companies that abuse the ZZP construct.
Does there exist any company that allows their employees to work any number of hours they want, whenever they want?
Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules
#54We really need to review "employment" as a legal concept. Most of these systems were set up post ww2. They worked ok when everyone was working full time as employees of single large companies, in factories where their time was directed.
It no longer works in on demand economies, with variable hours and self employment and people working multiple jobs.
Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules
#55Why doesn't Uber employ them and guarantee minimum wage, anything extra is a bonus? Is it just the extra employee costs on the company side?
The most noticeable difference between Uber and other services in my city was the waiting time. 3-6 minutes versus 15-20 minutes.
This is achieved by having a lot of underpaid drivers idling or parked nearby.
Minimum wage kills that advantage.
Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules
#56Interesting wording of this headline, you would almost think Uber were fighting for the rights of their drivers if you read it out of context.
I was thinking a similar thought. As the word for obviously doesn't really apply here, the word over offers a nice "neutral" alternative to against.
Edit: the threads got merged now. At the time that I commented, the title was "Uber Loses Battle Over Drivers’ Rights in the Netherlands" and the link was going to Bloomberg.
Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules
#57Bit out of context but I just came back from US (living in Netherlands). Holy flipping hell that place is full of cars. Literally everywhere. I mean I understand using a car upstate New York where things are further apart and everyone has a huge isolated villa. But do you really need 4 lane roads in freaking manhattan? Seems like regulating "car stuff" in general is always a good thing if you ask me.
I can't understand who would want to drive in Manhattan. Like where are they coming from and where are they going? Where do they intend to park when they get there? It wouldn't occur to me in a million years to attempt to drive into a metropolis like that. I see normal private cars driving through New York and London and can't imagine who is in them and what they're attempting to do that means their best route is thr…
Isn't the car proven to be the slowest form of transport in Manhattan anyways? Or at least, not faster than the metro, and not (significantly) faster than a bike? I recall a similar study about London putting the average velocity of a car solidly on-par with the average cycle velocity.
Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules
#58Rightly so. The 'gig economy' is abused by quite a few companies to create employment like situations without the required trappings (social security payments, employee protection, hourly minimums and so on). This was long overdue, let's hope it has precedent effect for other companies that abuse the ZZP construct.
Must is just as wrong as won't . The ideal solution is, drivers being given the choice. Wanna earn more (but less predictable), pay less tax, have less social security, work whenever you want to? Or do you want to earn less (but completely predictable), pay more tax, have unemployment security, work fixed hours.
Not sure why this comment is down voted but it's spot on.
Honestly, it's pretty annoying that some people decide what others can do or can't do with their free time and their car.
Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules
#59Rightly so. The 'gig economy' is abused by quite a few companies to create employment like situations without the required trappings (social security payments, employee protection, hourly minimums and so on). This was long overdue, let's hope it has precedent effect for other companies that abuse the ZZP construct.
There are some consequences. If they will be hired as employees it will be first with a temporary contract. Since
there is a limitation to renewal of fixed term contracts,
after a certain period the employment is seen as an indefinite employment contract rather than a new fixed term agreement. Meaning then they could not be fired something Uber will not want. The limit is 3 years or 3 contract renewals:
https://www.tax-consultants-international.com/read/Changes_D...
Are some of these drivers not working for other companies also? In that case they really are freelancers/entrepreneurs not employees...I think the decision will be appealed.
Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules
#60Soviet Union also successfully required that everyone will be officially employed.