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

Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

nltimes.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 500 posts

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#81

Post by chefkoch »

tasubotadas wrote: post #58
tomp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, no street racing, drunk driving.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#82

Post by drstewart »

axkdev wrote: post #75

I hope über goes bankrupt and we forget about all of this insanity. In Germany where I live the taxi service is amassing, at least in my city can't say for whole country. They are quick clean the drivers are professionals and not some randos who will break rules to get there faster or drive so insanely that you want to puke. They know the city by heart and don't use navigators. Due to being professionals they are com…

I hope all the taxi drivers in Germany go bankrupt and we forget they ever existed.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#83

Post by Jxl180 »

gargs wrote: post #5

“Drivers don’t want to give up their freedom to choose if, when and where to work.” Drivers might have the freedom to turn off their phones and choose not to work, but they don't have the freedom to choose which routes/destinations. Seems to me that their argument is one-sided and deceptive.

If I hire a contractor to renovate my home to my exact specifications, by your logic they are my employee because they couldn't choose the "route" or "destination?"

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#84

Post by tomp »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #65
tomp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And then you fall ill. Who looks after you then? Hospitals paid for by taxation? Or are you just left on the street to die?

Same as any independent contractor / self-employed person. In a sane country, they'd be required to pay into social security system themselves. In many countries, however, being self-employed is a tax loophole.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#86

Post by gjulianm »

avsteele wrote: post #53
jacquesm wrote: post #27

Rightly 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?

It's funny that Uber decided to force employment laws to avoid paying social security, taxes and other obligations related to regular employment, but won't force employment laws to allow employees to work any number of hours they want whenever they want.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#87

Post by sbilstein »

chrisseaton wrote: post #20
sktrdie wrote: post #6

Bit 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…

I dunno, I liked living in Manhattan and driving into nature every other weekend with my dog and wife. Turns out Zipcar is pretty shit overall if you actually like going to places.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#88

Post by WJW »

tasubotadas wrote: post #58
tomp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Welcome to society. I'm not sure where you live but in every country I know of there are plenty of things you can't do with your car and/or your free time.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#89

Post by dang »

pjmlp wrote: post #2

I love when US companies get to learn our unions and work laws are actually to be followed upon.

Please don't post shallow provocations to HN, and especially don't take HN threads into political or (god help us) nationalistic flamewar. None of that is what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#90

Post by GekkePrutser »

hungryforcodes wrote: post #69
jacquesm wrote: post #27

Rightly 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.

But what if I legitimacy want to be a freelancer? Lifestyle reasons, freedom, whatever. I should have a choice.

Then you're not going to do it for the money that uber pays.

As a ZZP you're meant to provide for your own pension, sick leave, disability insurance. No way what Uber pays is going to cover that.

This is why they're doing it of course, to avoid having to provide those things. But those are statutory rights in the Netherlands. And for good reason, otherwise if someone becomes disabled it ends up on the state's plate. We don't leave people by the side of the road if we can help it.

Post reply on HN