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

271–280 of 500 posts

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#271

Post by goodpoint »

bthrn wrote: post #217
shimonabi wrote: post #97

Great to see that over 100 years of labour laws won by the workers' movements can't be innovated away in SOME countries.

The other side of this is that many laws do not neatly accommodate advances in technology. There are currently laws in place that predate cars, predate the internet, predate electricity. At some point, in some contexts, they will be a hinderance rather than a benefit.

> At some point, in some contexts, they will be a hinderance rather than a benefit.

This is extremely vague. The legal system changes continuously and quickly, especially when under pressure from big money.

If something doesn't either it's because it's not important or somebody is benefiting from it.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#272

Post by ur-whale »

ihalip wrote: post #39
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.

No way taxes are 66% of the gross salary.

> No way taxes are 66% of the gross salary.

In EU countries, there are many taxes that do not carry the official name "tax".

Much easier that way to get the people to swallow the pill.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#273

Post by rattray »

azeirah wrote: post #269
rattray wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm Dutch but not particularly knowledgeable about this, but as far as I understand it the reason being a ZZP'er is so popular is precisely because you don't have to hand in a lot of money to required stuff like retirement and insurance and stuff. The types of zzzp'ers I'm most familiar with are in construction and they are cheaper than traditional businesses. They're outcompeting traditional businesses because they…

Exactly!

If ZZP outcompetes more "socially responsible" options, it's a buggy system and should be fixed. Freedom as a freelancer should probably be the only/primary benefit of such a designation, not the ability to dodge responsibilities.

Thank you for the color!

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#274

Post by nemo44x »

> FNV called the ruling a major victory for drivers' rights.

No, it's a major victory for the administrative arm of the FNV trade union. Look beyond the formal argument here (workers rights) and look at what this actually is about - power. The FNV wants to get their cut so they can collect more dues paying members and further enrich the admins. The workers here will probably not benefit at all.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#275

Post by ByteWelder »

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.

The regulations in The Netherlands in this regard have recently (May 20160) been updated to prevent fake freelance/independent status.

There are a bunch of guidelines, but the main factors generally boil down to these questions: Is the employee working for a single employer? How much independence do they have? (e.g. holidays, working hours, etc.) Were the contract details mandated by the employer? etc.

Sources (in Dutch): - https://www.ondernemenmetpersoneel.nl/orienteren/dienstverba... - https://noestadvocatuur.nl/zzper-werknemer/

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#276

Post by timwaagh »

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.

Not in the Netherlands anymore according to this judgement. You won't have that choice anymore unless there are some very specific circumstances (an interior decorator working for clients would not be in an inferior position to some kind of organisation, for instance).

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#277

Post by syshum »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #90
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.

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.…

You will if it not your primary income, but used to supplement or do when you have nothing else to do.

Too many people think that the only people that drive for Uber are people that need it for Full Time employment.

There are lots of people that use it for extra income, that is who these types of laws hurt the most

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#278

Post by yawaworht1978 »

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?

Coercion is a bit a radical expression, I would call it dire economic straits, make a quick buck on the side.

Whatever the reason, good on the Dutch and the union not letting them trample on their values by these "honorable" folks and their values, here is the hall of shame: Wednesday February 22: Cocaine and groping. Thursday February 23: Investor betrayal and accusations of stolen technology.

Fowler, a former engineer at the company, alleged in a blog post that she was sexually harassed at Uber and experienced gender bias during her time at the company. She claimed that one manager propositioned her and asked for sex, but her complaints to HR were dismissed because the manager was a high performer. She said Uber continued to ignore her complaints to HR, and then her manager threatened to fire her for reporting things to HR.

Isolated incident? Not so Employees did cocaine during a company retreat and a manager had to be fired after groping multiple women, according to the report. Former employees said they'd notified Uber's leadership, including Kalanick and CTO Thuan Pham, of the workplace harassment.

Google, another Uber investor(!!!!), sued the company for intellectual property theft.

Uber's SVP of engineering stepped down over sexual-harassment allegations at his former job at Google.Singhal went through the standard background checks before his employment at Uber and that the sexual-harassment allegations during Singhal's time at Google never came up.

The New York Times revealed that Uber has been secretively deceiving authorities for years with a tool called 'Greyball'

Escort karaoke bar visit in Seoul, After the evening, a female Uber employee told HR that the trip made her uncomfortable.

Uber delays the investigation into workplace harrasment after information pours in from "hundreds" of its employees

Apple CEO had threatened to yank Uber from the App Store if it continued to violate the App Store's terms and conditions. As an act of fraud prevention, Uber had affixed a small piece of code that could tell if someone was using the same phone over and over again and then wiping it to take advantage of promo codes

Waymo accuses Uber of creating a shell company to bring on a former Google engineer.

Disruptive business practices, eh?

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#279

Post by devcpp »

WJW wrote: post #88
tasubotadas wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That doesn't harm others? Like what?

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#280

Post by devcpp »

riffraff wrote: post #93
tasubotadas wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

because it ignores the reality of european society: it's not a libertarian utopia, it's a society where the states do dictate things. More specifically, it's blind to the fact that the parent comment is about existing regulation which is being abused. It's like arguing with someone saying "you can't drive at 100 km/h in a residential area" with "well I am a CAN person myself, and I don' think we should say CAN'T".

Driving at 100km/h in a residential area harms others with a high probability. Can you say that of someone working the way they want to with transactions consented between two adults?
Post reply on HN