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

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#311

Post by avsteele » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

throwawaycities wrote: post #76

avsteele wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does there exist any company that allows their employees to work any number of hours they want, whenever they want?

What does that matter? Just because you can pick your own hours/work schedule, that doesn’t make you an independent contractor. At least it’s not determinative in the US under federal law nor any state that I am aware, but maybe that is the Dutch law and the court just got it wrong here

To determine if they are employees we look for ways the Uber/driver relationship is similar and different to other businesses using the employee model.

To determine if they are contractors we look for ways the user/driver relationship is different from other businesses using the employee model.

If no other businesses allow employees to set their number of hours with such flexibility then that is evidence the relationship doesn't fall under the employee model.

This need not be all or nothing but it is (obviously) a factor.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#312

Post by etchalon » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:36 PM UTC

d0gsg0w00f wrote: post #306

etchalon wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, as a business owner, I'm very upset that I have to "follow the law". Things would be so much easier if I didn't.

My point is that it didn't used to be a law. Why can't the government enforce it's own social program and let businesses focus on their primary goal instead of healthcare compliance.

The government does enforce its own social programs. It's found the most efficient/popular way to do that is through businesses.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#313

Post by pyrale » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:39 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?

Who is "we" in this situation? For this specific case, it seems different countries have different opinions about what is the right tradeoff between allowing freelancers with leverage to enjoy their situation, and protecting workers with less bargaining power from being locked out of worker protection systems.

It's unavoidable, since different countries have different worker protection systems. For instance, some of these countries have to pick up the tab when employers cheat their way out of paying their dues.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#314

Post by yawaworht1978 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:40 PM UTC

kazen44 wrote: post #215

fallingknife wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Employment' is abused by the government to provide social benefits that it doesn't want to pay for. A job should trade work for cash and no more.

sadly, that is not how capitalism works in practice. employers have a vastly higher amount of leverage at the negotiation table compared to employees. Dutch society (and most of western Europe) has made an explicit choice to create a social contract in which employees and employers are bound by the law of the government in question. and that law contains rules about employment. mind you these rules exists because of…

You can include southern and eastern Europe as well, it's just bit different there. When society was still less mobile and many jobs were meant to be forever(when I started to work, this was coming to an end slowly), workers took their jobs very seriously(none of that we are family messaging on intranets like these days) and everyone knew their place, workers respected a managers authority and I have seen on more than one occasions how attempted manager power play was shut down right on the spot, often with let's say credible promises of sever aggression. Some parts of Europe have a population that's a bit short tempered, such things like some coked up Uber manager touching someone's gf or wife would be dealt with swiftly and personally.

There are many such social contracts, written, unwritten and I am proud that Europe has them and is keeping them.

Interestingly, having spent plenty of time in LATAM, many people consider themselves leftists, but it's very, very different, the social system is bad due to lack of money, or impractical allocation of funds, but the will and spirit is there.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#315

Post by bko » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:41 PM UTC

goodpoint wrote: post #254

belter wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Of course they're entrepreneurs. They have to own or finance a car. They choose when and where to work and for what company to drive for. They can also work for black car in addition to ride share and can even manage private rides. They have some ability to accept or reject fares.

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

No one is restricting "knowledge workers" from being able to strike a contract. Why can't we afford the same dignity and respect to "cogs in the machine"? You ever thing these "protections" that "humanity" places on "cogs" can end up hurting them? Like how immigrant taxi drivers in NYC were encouraged to rack up 100k debt to buy medallions

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#316

Post by campl3r » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:41 PM UTC

gjulianm wrote: post #168

Jxl180 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do drivers for grubhub/doordash/uber eats. They see the final payout and have the choice to skip the order if it doesn't pay well enough.

Except for the part that the companies will punish them for rejecting orders, and that they can't negotiate the price of the orders nor set any price themselves.

Are you saying if I hire a contractor with a price set by me and I would "punish" (i.e. never hire them again) when they don't agree, they are suddenly my employee?

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#317

Post by starfallg » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:42 PM UTC

Ansil849 wrote: post #307

goodpoint wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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. I appreciate the point you're making, but I also think you are grossly undervaluing the specia…

>In the UK, the Knowledge [1] is a notoriously arduous exam which certainly makes cab drivers anything but "replaceable 'cogs in the machine'".

>In fact, I think the fact that people view these jobs as being replaceable is what leads to their deterioration.

Uber and the online routing within the app made this obsolete. The jobs that gig economy jobs may be skilled, but these gigs now aren't. The platform took the skill away from the job. The workers are just drones now.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#318

Post by bitdivision » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:44 PM UTC

Ansil849 wrote: post #307

goodpoint wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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. I appreciate the point you're making, but I also think you are grossly undervaluing the specia…

I agree uber drivers =/= black cab drivers, but I'd also argue that most people don't want or need a black cab driver today.

What extra services does a black cab driver provide over an Uber driver in London?

  - Better knowledge of traffic patterns?
  - Ability to recommend places, give you local knowledge

That's all I can really think of. I agree that local knowledge is sometimes useful, but the vast majority of the time I know exactly where I want to go, and if I'm looking for recommendations I'm likely to trust the internet more than a taxi driver.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#319

Post by Lev1a » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:45 PM UTC

CaptainZapp wrote: post #210

jacquesm wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a lot of freelance software engineers in the Netherlands and quite a few of them do. BV starts to make sense from about 100K turnover because you gain some tax advantages, it also makes working for larger entities easier and it allows you to charge a higher rate and to be in an easier position to work with subcontractors. It all depends on what you want, there are plenty of ZZP'ers in software development on t…

In Switzerland and Germany there's a difference between an AG (Aktiengesellschaft) and a GmbH (Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung). Both have more or less the same tax and structural advantage (like limited liability, a far easier time to get acknowledged by social security, etc) The main difference is capital requirements and more formality for the AG. For example: The law requires yearly external audits for an A…

> It could be different in Germany.

Nice overview(s) for Germany and most other countries with comparisons where appropriate.

Regarding the AG in Germany and required regular external auditing, in my university course where I learned about the charasteristics of the most common German legal entities [0], there was no such requirement listed or talked about, maybe that's only for Switzerland?

The GmbH on the other hand requires a minimum capital of 25.000€ and is expensive to form (from the course mentioned above >1.000€ in fees for notarizations etc.) which is one reason why the "UG (haftungsbeschränkt)" (essentially "baby's first GmbH") was established a while ago. A UG only has to have a minimum of 1€ in starting capital but has to

> "enlarge its capital by at least 25% of its annual net profit (with some adjustments), until the general minimum of €25,000 is reached (at which point the company may change its name for the more prestigious GmbH)."

Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_company_(Germa... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesellschaft_mit_beschr%C3%A4n...

[0]: as part of the subject "Finanzwirtschaft"/"Managerial finance?"

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#320

Post by dnautics » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 3:45 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #148

Jochim wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are some of these drivers not working for other companies also? In that case they really are freelancers/entrepreneurs not employees...I think the decision will be appealed. That's a pretty bad test on it's own. Plenty of people working in restaurants work for multiple companies, they're still employees.

> Plenty of people working in restaurants work for multiple companies, they're still employees. And do they cook one food order at a restaurant they work for, then 15 minutes later walk across the street and cook for a competing restaurant for 30 minutes, and then immediately walk back across the street and cook a food order for the other restaurant? No, of course that's not normal. This will ultimately accelerate th…

> And do they cook one food order at a restaurant they work for, then 15 minutes later walk across the street and cook for a competing restaurant for 30 minutes, and then immediately walk back across the street and cook a food order for the other restaurant? No, of course that's not normal.

As a former Lyft/uber driver this is absolutely correct. It gets even hairier: suppose you are sitting on both apps (or even more) waiting for a ride. Do you get to double-bill two companies for minimum wage hours?

I think what is going happen is if Uber and Lyft are forced to recategorize as employees, they get to do something like "compel drivers to wear a uniform", so like a polo with the brand on it, and prohibit wearing of competitors logo. Or prohibit displaying competitor logo on the car (displaying is a legal requirement in many jurisdictions). In the end the take-home for the driver is going to be worse.

I'm quite frankly surprised that Uber didn't preempt the legislation by creating a class of driver that is an employee, putting these sorts of onerous restrictions on the driver, plus other ones like "you must start and end at central processing center, drive an uber-owned car", "requiring shifts on ADA-compliant vehicles", "being required to comply with an uber-generated shift schedule", in exchange for bare minimum wage and benefits.