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

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#251

Post by Aunche » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:19 PM UTC

dagw wrote: post #102

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.

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.

Both are features that Uber can implement, but you can't cheat the market. At the end of the day, if you're just driving someone from point A to point B, you're competing with everyone else at the moment doing the same. As a driver, your client in this case is either Uber, Lyft, or another ridesharing service. If they add the ability to decline riders, I don't see how it would be used for anything else besides discrimination.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#252

Post by rattray » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:21 PM UTC

rattray wrote: post #239

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.…

> Then you're not going to do it for the money that uber pays. Then, ah... who's driving the Ubers in the Netherlands and why? Is there some credible evidence of coercion at hand?

Elaboration: My impresssion is that rideshare driving is an incredibly liquid market, so its really hard to imagine a mechanism for long-term wage suppression other than external factors like an untrained workforce or poor economy overall.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#253

Post by colinmhayes » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

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 read an econ paper describing how uber drivers were making much less than they thought after taking into account gas and maintenance costs. I'm usually pretty against paternalism, but they made a really compelling case that uber drivers who were actually making less than minimum wage thought they were making $15-20. I'm not sure they know what's best for them.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#254

Post by goodpoint » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

belter wrote: post #59

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.

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.t…

> they really are freelancers/entrepreneurs not employees

Taxi drivers are not knowledge workers, or artists and clearly not entrepreneurs.

They are easily replaceable "cogs in the machine", like many non-specialised factory workers, office clerks, retail employees and so on.

There's a reason why humanity introduced protections for vulnerable workers in almost every society.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#255

Post by School-Cotton » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

unnouinceput wrote: post #242

devcpp wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Plenty of countries in Western Europe too have mandatory employee contributions to various social programs.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#256

Post by wwtrv » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:25 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #154

rapind wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest if there was government provided universal healthcare, basic income, and housing guarantees I would totally agree. It would create a ton more mobility, and take a lot of power away from employers.

That's what I'm talking about though. The government thinks people should have these things but doesn't have the political will to implement them so they demand that employers provide them rather than just paying cash. This is the reason that the category 'employee' exists in the first place.

‘so they demand that employers provide them..’ Yes, that’s the situation in the US, yes, not sure how relevant it’s to this discussion, though. In many European countries healthcare is funded through a payroll tax and provided by the government/a public agency.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#257

Post by d0gsg0w00f » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:26 PM UTC

belter wrote: post #59

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.

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.t…

I bet employers are wishing they never got involved in benefits. Now they're just the governments execution arm for social programs and they're stuck forever.

Looking back, the only reason employers started getting involved in Healthcare was because the 1942 Stabilization Act restricted them from raising wages and they had to come up with a more creative way of competing for talent.

Now the ACA forces companies to privide insurance by law. Under Biden's Covid plan they're now going to be the execution arm for vaccine mandates. It's crazy to think that to start a business you need to almost immediately be prepared to be a federal government franchisee.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#258

Post by kevincox » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:28 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.

Possibly a better option is to remove these categories together. What would happen if we struck the whole concept of "Employment" from the law. As a person you just had the chance to get income. We can retarget all of the laws and benefits previously using Employment to be about income instead. If you make an income you can pay into a pension, pay taxes... Everyone is entitled to some number of vacations and sick days that can not be taken away from a contract. (any contract)

I'm sure there are some complexities due to the weaker relationship between the two, but it seems like it would be beneficial to remove this somewhat artificial cliff between self-employed contractors or employees which is almost certainly more of a septum. (For example freelance picking up jobs posted to a public job board, to a contractor in frequent contracts with multiple companies, to a contractor working with a single company, to an employee which works with one company.)

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#259

Post by akrymski » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:29 PM UTC

What next? Upwork must employ it's workers? Where is the line drawn?

What if Uber didn't handle the money and riders paid cash?

The result is simply consumers paying the difference for more expensive taxi services.

Forcing this labour market underground trading in crypto or cash. Congratulations.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#260

Post by h1srf » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:29 PM UTC

brnt wrote: post #57

chrisseaton wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It depends on where you're going to/from and at what time. During rush hour, yeah the subway is faster than taking a cab for my pre-Covid 35 or so block commute. There are some routes that require a bus transfer or a lot of walking that may be faster by car even in rush hour traffic. For example going from East Harlem to Chelsea where you're either transferring a few times or walking quite a bit.