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

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#431

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

Ansil849 wrote: post #355

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nice. They should continue to offer this premium service at premium prices, then, for the few people who are willing to pay the premium.

My point up-thread was that this tier of service used to be more or less the de facto standard of service that you would get for a standard, not a premium, fee. Over time, it has deteriorated and is now the domain of specialty car hire services. I'm not sure that that's a good thing.

My point is that the "standard" fee is premium when compared to Uber which tends to cost half as much in the countries where I tried it.

Aside from solving the trust/scam problem, that's one of the reason why people like Uber - it made 'car as a service' affordable. Without Uber, I might have bought a car, because a factor of 2 completely changes the picture.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#432

Post by Ekaros » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

freemint wrote: post #136

drstewart wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope all the taxi drivers in Germany go bankrupt and we forget they ever existed.

Why? Also Taxi Driver can't really go bankrupt since they are employees. Taxi companies however can.

Some taxi drivers in some countries are sole proprietorship, technically companies, but still I would call such driver going bankrupt for failing to pay lease a not a employee.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#433

Post by judge2020 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 7:33 PM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #399

dahfizz wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that would be technically possible. But it will not happen because of how the incentives are set up. If Uber now has to bear the cost of being an employer, it will need to exercise its power over the employee drivers and force them to work.

Will need to, or will feel justified in doing so?

Well, 'need' can be synonymous with 'not burn money in a way that leads to bankruptcy'. Uber is largely an uneconomical business that won't work if they end up having to keep their <10 hours a week drivers AND pay benefits.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#434

Post by markus92 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 7:33 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #411

apexalpha wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your case they would give you a "0 hour contract". You choose your hours but still have protections like an enployee. As independent contractor Uber was handing off every risk associated with running a business to their drivers.

In that situation a "0 hour contract" would mean Uber has to pay for all of their benefits even if they don't work at all. A net negative for uber, so the 0 hour contract isn't created. The only way this changes while not ensuring uber loses money on their drivers is if they operate like a regular company and have both part-time and full-time employees, with 20 hour minimums for part-timers.

What kind of benefits do you mean? It’s a very common construction in The Netherlands.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#435

Post by zouhair » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

blendergeek wrote: post #326

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.

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…

No, rules should be made so people doing it full time for a living should get a living.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#436

Post by markus92 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #369

mattmanser wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bolt has a tiny bit of market share, Lyft is all but existent. Uber has a de facto monopoly in The Netherlands.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#437

Post by Ekaros » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 7:36 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #303

mrsuprawsm wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I order an Uber in NL, I seem to get a car that is a licensed taxi. Usually they have a taxi sign on top of the car, and always have blue license plates (which you can only get if you are a taxi). So, I think that the workaround must have been that they actually employ licensed taxi drivers. This is, however, only speculation.

This is 100% the case in Sweden. Since Uber is a ride service/taxi they are just like any other taxi company, of which there are hundreds (Taxi has one simple definition and it's to offer rides to the public for money). Since there are no artifical caps on number of taxis such as medallions, all that's required to run a taxi is to have a special drivers' license and a certified vehicle. So all Uber drivers are taxi d…

For Finland it is same. But it seems removing controls of licenses and pricing lead to worse service availability and higher prices... Who would have thought that operating taxi in country like Finland is pretty expensive...

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#438

Post by judge2020 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

arenaninja wrote: post #393

dahfizz wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The same applies if you get two remote jobs, you bill both. That's definitely illegal.

I appreciate the concern but I don't do it. What are the statutes against this? Is it a felony or misdemeanor?

I don't think it'd be strictly illegal, they'd just have grounds to fire you if you ever refused a ride (that goes for both Uber/Lyft).

Maybe fraud and breach of contract if, in the full-time contract, it says "you affirm you do not have another full-time job that will interfere with this job".

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#439

Post by Ekaros » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #426

Closi wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Yeah, its the comparison between those who are there to skim of the limited hours of top demand or don't care about making reasonable living out of it. And those that can't find other work and want to earn reasonable living doing reasonable hours.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#440

Post by Dracophoenix » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

Closi wrote: post #375

blendergeek wrote: post #326

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…

>Can you imagine if everyone only had to pay security guards for the time spent apprehending thief's and they got no pay for all the waiting around reading newspapers they do?

Yes, it's called a commission. Many jobs pay that way.

Making a comparison between a security guard and an Uber driver is like making a comparaison between a limo chauffer and a bounty hunter. It's an unnecessary and convoluted analogy given the differences in goals. Regular taxi drivers are paid per ride (i.e. a commission) and Uber drivers are taxi drivers without the medallions. I don't see how one would take issue with Uber drivers doing what taxi drivers do while simultaneously operating as rational actors by undercutting the competition on price.