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

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#461

Post by com2kid » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 8:41 PM UTC

etchalon wrote: post #312

d0gsg0w00f wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's found the most efficient/popular way to do that is through businesses.

Not at all, look up the history of health insurance in America, companies providing it was not by design, it was in fact done to get around government laws on wage caps during the great depression.

Now days the system is entrenched, there are a large # of corrupt players who leech of the healthcare ecosystem in America, and they pay good $ to lobbyists and PR firms to keep things that way.

Right now 1/3rd of health care costs go to working out billing. That type of insane inefficiency would not be tolerated in a true capitalist marketplace. Imagine if Visa charged 33% commission on every sale and then had a law passed saying all purchases had to be done with a Visa card! That'd be an insane drag on the economy, America's GDP would plummet.

But we literally accept that exact scenario with health care costs. (Except for cosmetic procedures, which have a competitive market that has driven technology forward and prices down!)

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#462

Post by vidarh » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 8:44 PM UTC

greatpatton wrote: post #144

dagw wrote: 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.

But the same rules applied to all taxi drivers before Uber. In a lot of place taxi driver were forbidden to not accept customer hailing them, and the price is controlled almost everywhere. The logic would be that all taxi drivers have to been employed.

The difference here is that these requirements are not set by a company contracting you to drive for them.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#463

Post by vidarh » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 8:54 PM UTC

iso1631 wrote: post #240

cinntaile wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably because it makes it difficult to dodge taxes when Uber registers all the transactions ;)

Last time I got a taxi in Belgium the card machine (advertised on the window) was "broken". C'est la vie, I just walked off. Had that in Washington DC once, but magically the machine fixed itself when I said I had no cash and he'd have to get the police.

In London you can now report the driver if they're on the road with a "broken" card machine, as that makes the car considered "unfit".

A lot of drivers still use unapproved card devices, though (TFL points out handheld terminals are explicitly not approved, yet I regularly have taxi drivers insist their fixed terminal isn't working, and to use a handheld one), which I'm taking means there's assorted tax fraud going on.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#464

Post by Someone » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 8:55 PM UTC

kristopolous wrote: post #380

hmate9 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Who's liable if the driver crashes? Who's liable if the automated car crashes? Uber doesn't want to be responsible for the risks associated with their reward.

> Who's liable if the driver crashes?

Depends. If the driver is judged to be an employee, the employer can be liable, depending on circumstances.

Extreme ends of the spectrum:

- Company didn’t and couldn’t know that the driver was too drunk/tired to drive

- Employee complained about working hours and traffic conditions; employer threatened employee with dismissal.

> Who's liable if the automated car crashes?

Again, depends. Could be the taxi company, the car owner, the manufacturer, even the driver (if they ignored zillions of warnings from the car, for example)

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#465

Post by arenaninja » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 9:09 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #397

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many cases this will be a felony, FYI.

IANAL, but my understanding is: Double-billing hours is probably illegal, but many remote programmers likely have two "full time", salaried, jobs with no stipulation about "you must work X hours"... at the very least a legal grey area, and if you breach some contract clause, you are most likely in breach of contract, which is a civil suit, and most likely you'll just be dismissed, no severance will be offered, and th…

This is not just programmers by the way. I know of people in other professions doing this. And as long as there isn't a conflict based on anything you signed or company policy I'm not sure a company has recourse beyond terminating you

Again, I don't do it because I can't handle the stress of two jobs, but I don't begrudge those who can

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#466

Post by lovich » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 10:04 PM UTC

lhorie wrote: post #422

delusional wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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).

If we’re starting off with that as a belief why have any regulations at all?

> A company isn't going to let people just do whatever if the company is assuming risks.

Companies routinely do that. Hell sometimes that is the entire reason for employing a specific person, is to let them do what they want and then reap the economic benefit from owning the outcome.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#467

Post by richwater » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 10:11 PM UTC

aqsalose wrote: post #379

ChicagoDave wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. Is there Target in the Netherlands?

> They intentionally staff people with erratic weekly hours, keeping shifts to 4 hours

I literally have family members who work full shifts. You're taking anecdotal examples and extrapolating that to the entire retail force. dumb opinion.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#468

Post by Closi » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 10:14 PM UTC

Dracophoenix wrote: post #440

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…

>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 th…

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

Well in the case of commissions for employees in Europe you still have to guarantee a minimum wage and fill any gap between commission payments and the minimum wage.

> Making a comparison between a security guard and an Uber driver is like making a comparaison between a limo chauffer and a bounty hunter.

Well, the bounty hunter comparison depends on if you are an employee or if you are self-employed. Let's remember the precedent for uber drivers being employees has already been established in European/Dutch courts.

If a bounty hunter is an employee in Europe (i.e. working for a bounty hunting firm rather than owning one), if any commissions don't make their wage up to the minimum wage they will have to be paid the difference by the employer. The worked hours for bounty hunting include any waiting time on the job. I don't see why Uber should be exempt from this rule when every other industry, including the traditional taxi industry, has to follow it.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#469

Post by Closi » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 10:29 PM UTC

TuringNYC wrote: post #408

delusional wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but Uber is a 76 billion dollar company, I'm sure they can come up with something better and a way of operating within labour laws. That's a good point. If those 10x engineers can't figure out a way to make it legal and ethical, maybe it's not good.

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…

> I cannot imagine Uber will sponsor idle wages in rural regions where you get an order or two a day.

If Uber can't operate while paying minimum wage then maybe they shouldn't be operating.

Every other company has to work out how to pay minimum wage. An unprofitable rural convenience store doesn't get to pay its clerks less because the sales aren't high enough, so I fail to see why it should be different for Uber and their drivers.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#470

Post by lhorie » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 10:44 PM UTC

lovich wrote: post #466

lhorie wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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). If we’re starting off with that as a belief why have any regulations at all? > A company isn't going to let people just do whatever if the company is assuming risks. Companies routinely do that. Hell sometimes that is the…

Regulations or no regulations, that's just a fact. You can't have a company paying out more than it intakes, that's just basic math.

People are so quick to say "oh just raise wages" as if Uber/etc never contemplated the idea (recall we're talking about the company that popularized the idea of surge pricing for rides), but I don't think many of the armchair analysts have put an ounce of thought into what actually happens when you dictate monetary factors (let alone the gradient of effects relative to different degrees of change). Uber/Lyft were fairly clear about potential impact of employment mandates on service reliability when prop 22 was making the rounds, and I find it curious that there's simultaneously a sentiment that pre-uber service availability was crap and a sentiment that one just ought to raise prices and somehow people will get to eat their cake and have it too.

> Companies routinely do that

You're giving an apples-to-oranges example and you know it. Hiring Rob Pike vs letting unskilled drivers sit idly on company dime are completely different scenarios. The latter group doesn't even generate leads (unlike cabs being hailed off the street).