Live data from Hacker News

Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

nltimes.nl

421–430 of 500 posts

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#421
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working part time for Uber won't have less freedom than working as a free lancer for Uber.

Absolutely it will. Everytime you try and force a labor law, companies have people who are smart and figure out a way around it. Now they can tell Uber drivers when they will work and where they will work. So if you don’t want to work the night shift, too bad. They will keep the part time hours to just the minimum needed and whatever shortfall they have to hit their yearly plan will be supplemented by releasing drive…

Part time workers get fewer benefits than full time ones, so Uber will be incentivized to encourage part time workers.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#422
post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the conundrum is that either Uber pays for downtime (employee model) or it doesn't (contractor model). It's literally impossible to be actively driving passengers for a solid 40 hours a week while maintaining reasonable work hours. For the model that pays for downtime, it needs to make it up somehow since it wouldn't be able to afford people just sitting around doing nothing in the middle of nowhere. Typicall…

What's blocking them from doing metrics based payment, but with employee like protections? Pay people for the time they mark themselves "available" (regardless of if there's any rides), and require that drivers take anything you give them while they are available. I imagine you could put in a cap and a floor if you really wanted to. You could even allow drivers to reject a certain percentage of rides if you felt like…

Ultimately there is no such thing as driver protections. Either they bring in more money than they are paid or they are going to be out of work (either by being fired, or the company going under).

A company isn't going to let people just do whatever if the company is assuming risks. For example, say demand peaks at 7-9am and 4-6pm. The company could simply dictate that that's the only times you can work (because the full time old-timer high earners already took all other time slots). But maybe you're a stay-at-home parent and only have free time during school hours, so for you, that's objectively a worse deal, since you get to take home $0 as opposed to whatever you could make under a work-at-any-time model.

Or maybe the company tells you that you can't work on-and-off around your town like you used to, due to existing driver saturation, and they tell you that you have to drive to the downtown of the nearby metropolitan city for a shift (many full time drivers I've talked to actually do this today to get better on-the-clock volume).

Or maybe you just can't work at all because there's enough drivers on the road today already.

There's a million scenarios like these.

As a thought exercise, you could go out and drive an Uber casually for a couple of hours, and simultaneously pay yourself whatever amount you think is fair, out of your own pocket. The gist is to track your on-the-clock time and mileage (which is fairly easy w/ the app), and then work out the math to figure out how much the rides should've cost to pay the amount you decided. If the exercise comes out to charging $40 for 10 min rides to account for suboptimal downtime, or you're finding that you need to work a 12 hour day to hit a similar income threshold as a full timer elsewhere, you can be sure that you've neglected some important aspect of the unit economics math and you would've failed at being Uber.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A recent study suggests Chicago drivers earn less than minimum wage. > After accounting for driving expenses and self-employment taxes, the average TNP driver in Chicago earns about 3% to 5% less than minimum wage. In 2019, drivers earned $12.30 per hour, or 5% less than the city’s minimum wage of $13 per hour at the time. In 2020, drivers earn slightly above minimum wage, but the hourly rate of pay was artificially…

Well good thing independent contractors are exempt from minimum wage laws! And union protections, mandatory breaks, sick days, workers compensation, health insurance, overtime pay, discrimination law, unemployment insurance, employer liabilities to social security pay... Wait a minute, I think this is intentional! Can you imagine an employer trying to subvert the gains of the labor movement?!

Uber isn't subverting the labor movement. It's a very small part of the overall economy. Go look at bigger industry practices to find the bad guys.

The Uber model will never translate to Retail, Tech, Banking, Finance, Healthcare.

It does translate to transportation, food and package delivery. Let the disruption make capitalism more efficient. Focus on areas where a balance is important, like making healthcare and college universally free.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of the problem is the market, for some markets. The new law would not affect NYC or dense urban areas because there is lots of order liquidity there. But what about rural Pennsylvania? (Ask me how I know? Hint: management consulting air dropped to remote client location) When i'm in rural areas, there are often no taxis and one will show up an hour after you call, maybe. Without order liquidity, it is in…

> Without order liquidity, it is infeasible to maintain supply. Which company (or person) would stand ready to ride just in case an order came thru once every 4 or 5 hours? The only solution here is if the ride is absurdly high, to the point where you break even with drivers in the nearest high-population city, which people also don't want since they'd be paying multiple hundreds of dollars for a ride. At that point,…

I think even absurdly priced rides dont work beyond a certain level of illiquidity. Matching price to order is just too spotty. A perfect example is landing in an airport on a late flight -- i've waited 45min for a taxi at Delta Terminal in NYC. As a business customer, I would have paid $100 or even $200 for a ride that cold night. Most business travelers are cost elastic, esp post-travel. Except there is no way to broadcast that willingness to pay to cab companies, esp at an off-terminal like Delta Terminal. I dont think people realize how truly game-changing Uber and surge pricing was.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#425

I am torn on this issue, maybe I don't see the whole picture. Uber was never meant to be a taxi company. It was a means for people with cars to share their gas expenses. I don't know how could they ever prevent this gig from becoming a full-time job for most drivers, but I think forcing employment is not a solution.

Was Uber ever actually ridesharing platform that is way to find someone going from near location to an other location for singular shared trip?

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#426
post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drive Uber for a few months. I hate the idea of "hourly minimums". Maybe we can have that for full time drivers. But, I would go out on "unprofitable times" (when my hourly pay was substantially less than minimum wage due to a lack of rides) and read books (that I would have read anyway). Doing this I made small amounts of money while doing a leisure activity. I loved the ability to drive less than full time in exc…

> But please no hourly pay. You might be willing to work for less than minimum wage, but in reality minimum wages exist because without them they create a race-to-the-bottom for workers, and it's very hard to write a policy that's something like "you can pay a person less if they are enjoying it and are reading a book and not really doing that much". Waiting time is a regular part of jobs and we pay for it in other c…

This is basically the line of reasoning that changed my opinion on this issue. Previously I thought, well it's up to people when they want to work and how much for.

The problem with that is these services are only viable because there is a core of drivers that work long hours and have this as their primary source of income. Part time casual drivers are also an important part of what makes services like this effective, but without the core drivers there's no service. What's happening at the moment is that the low expectations of the casual drivers is under cutting the livelihoods and bargaining power of core drivers. That's not an equitable state of affairs.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drive Uber for a few months. I hate the idea of "hourly minimums". Maybe we can have that for full time drivers. But, I would go out on "unprofitable times" (when my hourly pay was substantially less than minimum wage due to a lack of rides) and read books (that I would have read anyway). Doing this I made small amounts of money while doing a leisure activity. I loved the ability to drive less than full time in exc…

It sounds like you have another source of income. If you were in the middle of a good chapter you could turn down a ride. I don't think you're exactly the kind of driver these companies are looking for, but if they were I think they'd have a hard time finding enough of you. I feel like being able to monetize your freetime is a luxury a society can't afford when your leisure activity could be someone's job. You could…

[deleted]

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

When you are hiring contractor you offer a price the contractor can come back and say I can do it for this higher price. Clearly not employee. On other hand the gig workers can't lets say offer to bring your food for 1000€ this one time. They should be able if they are independent.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#429
post #214
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.

You want to be forced to take clients you don't want. You want someone else to decide a price you might not want. You want to be unable to get employment benefits you might want.

I mean, that's some niche requirements there, I would categorise it as serfdom.

I am onboard in principle - I want try all the psychedelics, fly a plane without a licence and experiment with explosives for education purposes, but as R v Copeland shows, the law can't cater to everyone - tradeoffs have to be made.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you just want no health care at all then?

Nope, how about you just buy insurance outside of the workplace like any other thing.

So you meant 'employers' rather than 'companies'?
Post reply on HN