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

441–450 of 500 posts

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#441

Post by dahfizz »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #404
dahfizz wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are meaningful alternatives for your examples. If you didn't want to work at Applebees, you could work at Chilis. Right now, I would be willing to bet that a large majority of Lyft drivers also drive for Uber. Uber is so much larger that there is no real alternative. If the law makes it so that drivers can choose only one rideshare app, they will all choose Uber because its bigger.

This is an extraordinary claim, this has never been a problem in a major city in recorded history. The idea that Uber would pay drivers so much to have extra drivers just sitting around doing nothing is absurd. The idea that there would be no suitable drivers left to other firms to hire is absurd. If any of this claim made sence, then this would have happened 50 years ago, we've had drivers around for a while. Yet it…

> this has never been a problem in a major city in recorded history.

This _has_ been the case in major cities around the world before Uber took over. NYC has the yellow cab monopoly. London had the black cab monopoly. These companies grew large enough to buy up all available labor (this was made easier by the medallion system).

Uber is no different. It _already_ has a dominant market position. Other rideshare companies _already_ share their drivers. The amount of drivers who drive for Lyft only is vanishingly small. If you force all those drivers to choose, they will choose Uber and Lyft will die.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#442

Post by ClumsyPilot »

dahfizz wrote: post #441
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extraordinary claim, this has never been a problem in a major city in recorded history. The idea that Uber would pay drivers so much to have extra drivers just sitting around doing nothing is absurd. The idea that there would be no suitable drivers left to other firms to hire is absurd. If any of this claim made sence, then this would have happened 50 years ago, we've had drivers around for a while. Yet it…

> this has never been a problem in a major city in recorded history. This _has_ been the case in major cities around the world before Uber took over. NYC has the yellow cab monopoly. London had the black cab monopoly. These companies grew large enough to buy up all available labor (this was made easier by the medallion system). Uber is no different. It _already_ has a dominant market position. Other rideshare compani…

"YC has the yellow cab monopoly. London had the black cab monopoly."

Exactly, legislative monopoly - they didn't run out of people with cars willing to drive. You are talking about labour shortage, that's a completely different argument

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#443

Post by lhorie »

joshuahaglund wrote: post #412
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…

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…

> It sounds like you have another source of income. [...] I don't think you're exactly the kind of driver these companies are looking for

Uber/Lyft have said on various occasions that the majority of drivers are part-timer/casual. While being able to read books between trips might seem a bit of a privileged situation, many who do Uber for supplemental income don't have room to engage in luxury.

I personally know of someone who does deliveries as a side gig from a restaurant job (which is already grueling on its own) because they really need the extra cash and there's literally nothing else on the job market with the flexibility of gig economy stints.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#444

Post by jorblumesea »

BLanen wrote: post #285

Good. Uber is a unsustainable business built employee exploitation to effectively pay them less than minimum wage while flouting "freedom" to bait the people in the worst situations. This was known from the start. Meanwhile subsidising rides with investor-cash to effectively bait-and-switch society. The recent-ish price hikes are only a start. Anyone repeating their PR should be ashamed. "gigs" are cancer or wait, th…

How is the "gig economy" any different from the usual tricks that employers get around benefits?

Walmart, for example, will schedule employees My confusion is that the gig economy companies get a large share of the hate (justified or unjustified) but much of the criticism seems to boil down to unregulated capitalism.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#445

Post by tw20212021 »

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…

Everybody pays retirement, the public one, you pay it through taxes. They probably don't pay a private pension. And insurance yes, some don't pay disability insurance which pays you for a while if you're injured and can't work (don't underestimate here the lobby of the insurance companies who pay the press to complain that people don't buy their insurance policies. In the end they are the ones who profit most). One benefit of being a zzper is that you don't have overhead. When you're employed the company gets 100/hr for your work and pays you 25/hr, some of that money may be there to keep you employed when there's less work to do, although when a company is in trouble they will find a way to fire you. The most part goes to the owner of the company, who can take it out, or grow the company, but in the end for their own benefit. There's other dynamics of course, take construction companies, projects come and go, sometimes one company gets a big project, then sometimes another one gets it. These are different companies. They couldn't always employ the same number of people, but they benefit that they can quickly scale the workforce by hiring zzp-ers.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#446

Post by aeturnum »

ChicagoDave wrote: post #402
blueboo wrote: post #372

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…

I 100% refute that story. After taxes I’m still making close to $30/hr. I get to write off mileage at $.58/mile so my taxes get lowered. I can show anyone my weekly driver log that shows how many hours I drove and how much I was paid. It is at least $42/hr and on weekends it can be $50/hr.

The take away here is not that you are wrong or that Uber is a bad choice for everyone. It's that some number of people provide diving services to Uber at a rate lower than we generally allow.

So it's about if we want to let companies hire individuals to do contract work that would be below the level we would allow someone to hire an employee. And, if we do (which I think we should) how do we set the standards of such an arrangement? Being an app driver is clearly different from being a traditional independent contractor (handyman, etc), but it is also different from being an employee. What a fair and just version of this relationship looks like is, to me, obviously unsettled.

P.s. Uber lost ~$4.5B last year on ~$11B revenue. It does not seem reasonable to say that the payment rates you've been getting represent what Uber 'will be' in a long term way. The economic situation is not sustainable.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#447

Post by kazen44 »

markus92 wrote: post #434
judge2020 wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

when people are on 0 hour contracts, the company still has to pay social insurance for the employee. Some of which are not bound to the hours worked.

Also, a 0 hour contract is a iffy construct. If someone can show they worked N hours on the regular, they have the right to get a contract on the amount of hours they worked. Also, 0 hour contracts are only allowed for a limited number of times afaik. (2x up to one year i believe).

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#448

Post by bko »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #415
bko wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"Of course they're entrepreneurs. They have to own or finance a car." When we were taught business in school, it was about setting the price, hiring staff, choosing a target market. You know, thigs that make a business a business. I am willing to bet my house that there isn't a single business or economics testbook where maintaining a car is even a consideration.

> When we were taught business in school, it was about setting the price, hiring staff, choosing a target market. You know, thigs that make a business a business.

You have a very narrow understanding of business and entrepreneurship. Not all businesses have employees. Every business book will tell you almost all businesses are price takers, not price setters. You can't wave a wand and say "I want to charge X".

The target market could be Uber, Lyft, black car, limo or personal. Maintaining equipment and accounting for depreciation is very important

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#449

Post by maccolgan »

isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote: post #410
maccolgan wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in the background, consumers get fucked.

Your convenience does not matter if employees are being exploited.

Who decides what's exploitation? Me? You? The drivers? Uber? The court system? Who may be right or wrong?

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#450

Post by lotsofpulp »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #418
lotsofpulp wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those things should actually be under the purview of the government, rather than businesses. But that would increase government expenses because many more people would become eligible for the benefits. Using businesses as a proxy lets society implicitly restrict the quantity and quality of those benefits to certain people.

"All those things should actually be under the purview of the government, rather than businesses." How does this make sence - are we meant to move you on government payroll for the 1 week you have the flu and can't work? Should the government pay for your annual leave?

Sort of, although the most efficient and effective implementation in my opinion would basically result in a universal basic income.
Post reply on HN