Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#241

Post by brnt » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:06 PM UTC

devcpp wrote: post #214

dagw wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then it's stopping you from working for a company that forces you to take clients at a given price without an employment contract and all its implications. What if that's what I want? I think some Uber drivers appreciate the work mobility.

I know that there are circles in which it is argued freedom means being allowed to sell yourself into slavery, but you'd hope the vast majority of us have come to understand the danger of that interpretation of freedom.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#242

Post by unnouinceput » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:06 PM UTC

devcpp wrote: post #205

GekkePrutser wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Why aren't these payments taken from the employee then? In my country retirement and social security appear right in my paycheck. Why isn't it the same for freelancers (when they declare taxes)? If their wage is too low as you claim, this isn't something that will change when they become employees, so this solves nothing. If this is about a minimum wage, then the real solution is forcing freelancers to work a minimum…

What country is that? US, the only country that its politicians actively lobbies against universal healthcare, healthcare that is successfully implemented in every! f*ing! other! Western country?!! (and quite a few other countries that are not Western, such as my full of corruption Eastern Europe one)

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#243

Post by belter » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:11 PM UTC

kazen44 wrote: post #207

belter wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. With a BV in the Netherlands, you get immediately the fiscal Calvinism of the Dutch tax office at play. Despite the fact that: - You work for yourself so you get 100% of the risk - You have no benefits - If you are sick you get no pay, unless you make a very expensive work sickness/income insurance the Dutch tax office, judges that they do not want you to be in a "too advantageous fiscal position" ...( Not m…

the reason they use this salary is for tax purposes. otherwise doing tax fraud would be easy with a BV. by simply not paying yourself a wage and living of the BV instead.

The BV has to pay taxes. And costs have to be business related. Since when living from your own work is considered fraud?

There is a fundamental principle here, and that is the tax office considering that, unlike a permanent employee who cannot be fired and has almost no liability, an entrepreneur, despite taking all the risk and having non of the benefits, is judged that it should be forced into the same tax position. Where is the upside then?

This coming from the same tax office, that has enabled some of the biggest tax dodgers in the planet:

"Netherlands earned €25 mil. from Google's tax avoidance"

https://nltimes.nl/2021/01/13/netherlands-earned-eu25-mil-go...

"Forget about the Gates Foundation. The world's biggest charity owns IKEA—and is devoted to interior design"

https://www.economist.com/business/2006/05/11/flat-pack-acco...

"Netherlands world's 4th biggest tax haven"

https://nltimes.nl/2021/03/09/netherlands-worlds-4th-biggest...

"The Netherlands is still one of the world's main tax havens, coming in fourth place on Tax Justice Network's biennial ranking of tax havens. Only the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda scored worse than the Netherlands when it came to tax avoidance."

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#244

Post by Broken_Hippo » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:12 PM UTC

paul_f wrote: post #181

airza wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a great youtube channel called "Not just bikes" which talks about urban planning in the netherlands and how it results in much more livable cities than the US.

Keep in mind, the Netherlands is the flattest country on Earth. If livable == mostly bicycles, it might be a somewhat unique situation. I am from Atlanta, GA, which is literally built on top of the Eastern Continental divide. There are no flat spots.

I'm in Trondheim, Norway. There are few flat spots. It is livable - livable doesn't mean mostly bicycles.

I walk most places: There are walking paths and crosswalks lots of places. I have nearby grocery stores in a short walking distance (10 minutes or less). Lots of folks ride bikes, and an amount of those folks put on studded tires in the winter. I simply do not as it is literally an uphill battle and I didn't grow up in a mountainous region. I can rent a manual bicycle or an electric scooter and be safe while riding.

I can take public transport both across town and out of town. I have choices: There is a small tram line for some parts of town. Busses go both in town and between towns. I can take a train through much of Norway (from up north to Oslo) or over to Sweden if I want. Taxis exist, too, and they are clean. (Illegal taxis are here too, but I've never used them).

And sure, there are cars and they are convenient - and like the US, you probably need one if you live in the countryside. But I can get by just fine without a license, too.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#245

Post by rattray » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

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?

I like the "hospitals paid for by taxation" option, myself (with tweaks and caveats).

I can't fathom why so many people on this thread think it's a good thing for workers to depend on their employer for essentials like healthcare.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#246

Post by jonp888 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:14 PM UTC

devcpp wrote: post #213

isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason for this is that you can be compelled by your totally-not-employer to pretend to want to be a freelancer. That's why different countries have various guidelines, e.g. if you economically depend on 1 contrahent (you fill in one invoice a month to the same one company), you are not self-employed, if you can't organize your own work however you like you are not self-employed, and so on. So in general if you a…

I know some software consultants that have one major client but appreciate the work mobility and forcing them to get into a full employment contract would restrict their opportunities and payment. Forget definitions, why should we outlaw this?

For exactly the reason, the parent post said, it makes all worker protection and benefits laws meaningless, and most people think these laws are a good thing.

If this was possible then every company would say:

"We don't want to have to bother to pay your vacation days, sick leave(for as long as you are sick), maternity/paternity leave(up to 12 months in most European countries), or to have to give you a permanent contract with limited termination grounds, so 'choose' to become Freelancer that works 40 hours a week for us or we will fire you".

It's true there are some people who like to work as you describe, I know some myself, but experienced software developers are a outlier case who are in an extremely fortunate position, not something the law should be optimised for at the expense of the majority.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#247

Post by dahfizz » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:17 PM UTC

hobom wrote: post #226

Unfortunate consequence of a legacy legal system. Uber drivers are clearly neither quite like employees nor are they entrepreneurs, and the law should come up with a fitting category that ensures they are protected from exploitation but continue to enjoy some of the freedoms associated with the gig economy.

This is also my stance. Everyone debates whether Uber drivers and gig workers are employees or contractors: They are clearly neither. But people love a dichotomy, I guess.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#248

Post by Frost1x » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:17 PM UTC

hobom wrote: post #226

Unfortunate consequence of a legacy legal system. Uber drivers are clearly neither quite like employees nor are they entrepreneurs, and the law should come up with a fitting category that ensures they are protected from exploitation but continue to enjoy some of the freedoms associated with the gig economy.

And after you define this mid-point employment classification between traditionally employed and self employed, businesses who hold the leverage will look at the segments from traditionally employed to the new mid-point as we as self-employed to the new midpoint.

They'll then choose which classification gymnastics they can perform under the legal language and optimize on to minimize their labor costs. That'll take a couple years and the law change to catchup to this abusive behavior avoiding the intent of the law will take another 10-30 years, and we'll repeat the process.

We need better definitions for the labor relation that make it difficult to play these optimization games created simply to optimize on labor and more significant consequences for that behavior to encourage businesses to innovate in other areas (like, I don't know, technology, new products, improved products, etc.) instead of simply extracting wealth from their own workforces.

To be fair to Uber they did create new value in finding and scheduling rides/taxies and I think that is a valuable service. That infrastructure and convenience has a cost though. No longer do you need to hail a taxi and deal with trying to pass directions, miscommunication of destination and charge rates and so on. But it seems they've passed many of those costs onto the drivers themselves and probably consumers to assure a certain sort of profit margin per transaction.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#249

Post by rattray » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:17 PM UTC

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.

I'm unfamiliar with Dutch ZZP, and it sounds like there are indeed specific rules that preclude Uber drivers from neatly fitting into the category.

But why would a better fix not be to require ZZP contractors to pay into government-matched/supported funds for healthcare, retirement, etc?

Many people really prefer to not be an employee. Why tether their health and old age to a big employer with a ball and chain?

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#250

Post by lstodd » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:18 PM UTC

brnt wrote: post #179

hungryforcodes wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you're a freelancer, a client could not be enforcing the demand that you don't work for other similar employers, nor demand that you take every single gig that they ask you to do. Uber wants it both ways, and correctly, the courts have stopped them from doing so.

> demand that you don't work for other similar employers, nor demand that you take every single gig

That's news for me.

Where I live, every single taxi driver has an app open for every uber-like company in the city, including Uber (there are at least four that I know of, most certainly more).

They just pick what they feel like at the moment.

How this is not freelancing I cannot fathom.