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

101–110 of 500 posts

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#101

Post by _abox »

brnt wrote: post #66
kfk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Uber might be right here. EU labor laws protect a few but over a certain salary they are not very appealing. In Italy paying a net salary of 2,000 euros will cost the company 6000+. Things included like pension are not worth their cost, a private pension is better and cheaper, same for health services. It’s unfortunate but it’s true.

I've never heard anyone here in the EU argue this. Including people over a certain salary. It is, after all, in the interest of the wealthy too that everyone is OK and doesn't need to live in the streets and cause crime, necessitating guns and whatnot as they do in the US. Paying your tax and premiums is way cheaper and much more pleasant.

Yes this.. We don't want ultracapitalism here. I make more than average but I'm totally fine with paying taxes. The safety net is there for me too. Capitalism is good but there must be a balance.

To an American it may sound communist (though technically it's more socialist) but it's our country, we can choose the system we want. And we've done an OK job IMO (In fact I wish things were a bit more socialist - this abuse of the ZZP concept has been going on for far too long).

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#102

Post by dagw »

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.

Nothing is stopping you from being an actual freelancer. A large point of this ruling was that people working for Uber aren't actually freelancers, since they're not free to pick their clients or set/negotiate their own prices.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#103

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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.

You should also have a choice to not use Uber; besides customer discovery, what does Uber offer you that's worth their bad pay and commission?

Plenty of old fashioned taxi companies that operate via a phone number or text messages. You don't need Uber if you want to be a freelancer. And as a court ruled, you're not actually a freelancer if you work for Uber.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#104

Post by mqus »

Jxl180 wrote: post #83
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?"

They do get to set the prices (the part gp forgot to mention).

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#105

Post by phicoh »

bserge wrote: post #40
aikinai wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then Uber would have to decide who works when and for how long. Right now it’s controlled by supply and demand through pricing algorithms.

OK, bear with me here. Same system as now, but if you make less than minimum hourly wage (calculated every month), the company covers the difference. I am pretty sure the drivers would nearly always make more than that. Or is it illegal to just have employees set their own time/targets?

It gets expensive when drivers game the system. What happens when a driver just stops driving? You have to fire them. Which can take quite a bit of effort. What if a driver calls in sick? You have to check that.

If a driver is an employee, who provides the car?

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#107

Post by Cthulhu_ »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #47

I remember quite well some people here claiming that Uber was just about to replace all their drivers with autonomous cars. It was back in 2015... we're in 2021.

Autonomous cars are more expensive than drivers; the only reason they dislike having real drivers is that they have a voice.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#108

Post by GekkePrutser »

kfk wrote: post #10
elgfare wrote: post #7

Uber says the majority of drivers don't want this, which I'd call bs on, but has anyone heard from actual drivers what they want?

I think Uber might be right here. EU labor laws protect a few but over a certain salary they are not very appealing. In Italy paying a net salary of 2,000 euros will cost the company 6000+. Things included like pension are not worth their cost, a private pension is better and cheaper, same for health services. It’s unfortunate but it’s true.

That may be the case but you can't just decide as an employer that you don't want to honour an employee's rights.

If things don't add up or can be done a cheaper way, talk to the government. Don't stop obeying the law.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#110

Post by FartyMcFarter »

chrisseaton wrote: post #100
FartyMcFarter wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't understand who would want to drive in Manhattan. I think the idea is that people will drive if their tolerance level for slowness is satisfied. So the amount of traffic will always be high enough to look acceptable for some people, unacceptable for others. As for parking, in London there are definitely parking lots scattered around the city - can't speak for New York though. > Like where are they coming fro…

> Probably going between their homes and family / friends / shops / entertainment venues / restaurants. But in cities these places don't have parking outside. So where are they parking?

> But in cities these places don't have parking outside.

You won't always be able to park right outside your destination, but between street parking and garages there's definitely parking in many places.

Post reply on HN