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

361–370 of 500 posts

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#361

Post by ChicagoDave »

ChicagoDave wrote: post #354

If this ever happens in the U.S. I won't bother with driving Uber anymore and this would probably put them out of business. The Taxi industry will win back from the disruption that Uber caused. This has nothing to do with worker's rights. No one gave a crap about Taxi driver's work standards and they are/were treated worse than Uber drivers. This is all about the Taxi industry fighting back. 75% of all ride share dri…

I also have never heard a proven argument against Uber.

- Uber passengers LOVE the service. Way more than taxi service or public transportation. - Since Uber started, drunk driving injuries/fatalities are down 30%-35%. - Drivers can be anyone with a working car. There is no "interview". You get background checked and your car is inspected. - Drivers get to write off miles. - Drivers get discounts on service at Jiffy Lube and tire stores.

Now if people are worried about employment practices, why not look at Walmart, Amazon, Target, and most retail stores. They intentionally staff people with erratic weekly hours, keeping shifts to 4 hours (no breaks or lunches required) and no one reaches 35 hours to enforce benefits.

You can't compare Uber to Retail.

I'm 100% liberal and support progressive worker protection, but Uber isn't actually hurting anyone. Only the Taxi industry and the cities that used to make a fortune on selling "medallions" to license taxis. In Chicago those were $400k and in NYC they were even more. So imaging you're a Taxi company with 200 medallions. Uber basically just shredded your net worth.

That's who has really seen pain. Not workers.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#362

Post by mattmanser »

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…

Not sure what country you are, but most also have the Employer pay on top of that too.

So you might pay a 10% social security tax, and the employer might be paying an additional 15% that doesn't appear on your payslip.

That's what Amazon, etc. are talking about when they say they pay a load of employment taxes.

That's also why a lot of countries are eying the gig economy with skepticism, it's actually often just a massive tax dodge for the company to not pay employment taxes.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#363

Post by lhorie »

yawaworht1978 wrote: post #278
rattray wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 engin…

Uber is about as close to a ship of theseus as it gets.

All this stuff you're talking about is ancient news from like 4 years ago. Since then, the entire C-suite left, including Kalanick and Thuan (Singhal spent virtually no time at Uber), not to mention crazy high attrition rates at all levels, and several rounds of layoffs to top it all off.

Since then, greyball and its ilk got shutdown, the CSO got fired for hiding a leak, HR ramped up from its comically understaffed numbers, and Uber even "fired" a board member for making a sexist joke.

The only high profile scandal under new management that I recall was the Tempe SDV death, and that division got sold off to Aurora...

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#364

Post by paulcole »

hmate9 wrote: post #118
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Over the long run there is no way that autonomous cars are more expensive

autonomous cars have to exist before we can debate which is less expensive.

right now it's like debating which is less expensive unicorns or leprechauns.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#365

Post by cblconfederate »

teekert wrote: post #106
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.

It’s happening in the year of Linux on the desktop.

and apple web notifications

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#366

Post by CryptoPunk »

Ah yes, the war against the free market continues, unabated. Certain tenets of socialist ideology - like the idea that large companies exploit the masses if afforded contract liberty - are so deeply ingrained in the collective psyche, that they are never even questioned.

The beliefs of fringe groups rest on a set of absurd conspiracy theories, like vaccines being harmful to public health, and pushed on the population merely to profit Big Pharma. But the beliefs of the mainstream rest on a set of equally absurd conspiracy theories, and all of them based on socialist class warfare narratives. It is in the interests of a critical mass of special interest groups, who hold political power, for people to believe in these conspiracy theories.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#367

Post by cblconfederate »

grenoire wrote: post #51
thejackgoode wrote: post #30

Is “undisrupt” a word already?

It's called 'regulate.'

but they disrupted the regulations in the first place

Oh i see, we ll soon have a wave of startups who are disruptors-of-the-regulated-disruptors-of-the-regulations

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#368

Post by kwhitefoot »

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…

> he Knowledge

Only applies in London.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#369

Post by dahfizz »

mattmanser wrote: post #358
dnautics wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mor…

Does Lyft even operate in Holland? Here in the UK Uber drivers have Uber stickers on their cars. I rarely get picked up by a driver without them. What imaginary other company are they working for that would tolerate that? It might not be the case in America, but over here it certainly seems most drivers are working for one company.

Is Uber the only rideshare company available in Europe? In America, every rideshare car has uber and lyft stickers, at a minimum. Just about every driver keeps both apps open and takes rides from wherever they come in.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#370

Post by dahfizz »

arenaninja wrote: post #323
dnautics wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mor…

> 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? IMO this is a no-brainer, the answer is yes, double-bill. The same applies if you get two remote jobs, you bill both.

> The same applies if you get two remote jobs, you bill both.

That's definitely illegal.

Post reply on HN