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

491–500 of 500 posts

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#491

Post by nybble41 »

WJW wrote: post #309
devcpp wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't harm others? Like what?

Not harming others is a condition you just added to the argument, and it is also a condition that Uber does not meet in the eyes of Dutch law. By not paying taxes on the wages of their drivers, Uber shifts the costs for the healthcare, pensions and general public services (dikes, fire services, etc etc) of those drivers onto the rest of society, thereby harming all those companies and citizens that do pay their taxes…

> … thereby harming all those companies and citizens that do pay their taxes as required.

The only one harming them is the tax collector. Taxes are the harm here; Uber is providing a means for some to avoid being harmed. It's just too bad that they can't help everyone else the same way.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#492

Post by ClumsyPilot »

nybble41 wrote: post #489
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with a real UBI system, having random fluctuations in earnings when you get a cold or break a leg is not reasonable. Additionally, this idea will incentivise employers to destroy human capital - like an employer could drive their employees to burnout and then discard them because they bear no consequences. This is already happening to a large extent thanks to gig economy- Uk employers have cut their investments…

> Even with a real UBI system, having random fluctuations in earnings when you get a cold or break a leg is not reasonable. You should have enough savings set aside that going without a paycheck for at least a week or two won't put you in dire straits—the official recommendation is actually several months. Anyone who is self-employed is already managing their own (unpaid) vacation time and medical leave. It is the ex…

"Just assume that an employer will take whatever an employee is willing to give regardless. It's the employees' responsibility to push back and manage their own work-life balance."

We have tried 'maximum capitalism' experiment in the 1800's: it gave us children in coal mines working 10 hours a day and dying of blacklung. It gave us people in workhouses losing their hands because the steam press malfunctioned and then starving to death because they have no way to support themselves.

Do you want goid old days back, or do you have good reason to believe it will be different this time?

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#493

Post by richwater »

ChicagoDave wrote: post #473
richwater wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

My ex-wife has worked in retail at all levels for 40 years. District managers intentionally force schedules to be broken up so breaks and lunches, outside of managers, are never needed. They intentionally over-hire to make sure they pay the absolute least amount. The average weekly schedule is 30-31 hours and those are broken up into 4 to 6 hour chunks. You may get a break if you're lucky. You may get a lunch if you'…

You can thank the ACA for that.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#494

Post by ChicagoDave »

richwater wrote: post #493
ChicagoDave wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My ex-wife has worked in retail at all levels for 40 years. District managers intentionally force schedules to be broken up so breaks and lunches, outside of managers, are never needed. They intentionally over-hire to make sure they pay the absolute least amount. The average weekly schedule is 30-31 hours and those are broken up into 4 to 6 hour chunks. You may get a break if you're lucky. You may get a lunch if you'…

You can thank the ACA for that.

The ACA has absolutely nothing to do with employer based healthcare.

The cost of healthcare is the direct result of the creation of the HMO laws during Reagan's presidency, allowing hospitals and doctors to make pre-arranged profit oriented agreements that increased insurance costs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/upshot/reagan-deregulatio...

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#495

Post by WJW »

nybble41 wrote: post #491
WJW wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not harming others is a condition you just added to the argument, and it is also a condition that Uber does not meet in the eyes of Dutch law. By not paying taxes on the wages of their drivers, Uber shifts the costs for the healthcare, pensions and general public services (dikes, fire services, etc etc) of those drivers onto the rest of society, thereby harming all those companies and citizens that do pay their taxes…

> … thereby harming all those companies and citizens that do pay their taxes as required. The only one harming them is the tax collector. Taxes are the harm here; Uber is providing a means for some to avoid being harmed. It's just too bad that they can't help everyone else the same way.

I don't know where you are from, but in the Netherlands our taxes actually pay for useful stuff. Corruption is low and public infrastructure is well maintained. Sure, it would have been even better if some things had been avoided (the F-35 springs to mind) but overall taxes bring more good than harm to the citizens here.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#496

Post by Matticus_Rex »

arenaninja wrote: post #391
Matticus_Rex wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many cases this will be a felony, FYI.

I appreciate the concern but I don't do it. What are the statutes against this?

Assuming (which is very safe in most cases) that the employment contract has something in it that is being violated by double-dipping, it is both garden variety fraud (in many cases state and therefore dependent on the state laws in question), and in some cases federal depending on the circumstances. In the jurisdictions where fraud against an employer is based on the amount of money at play, it's still almost always going to be a felony because it takes very little time to reach the common thresholds (e.g. $1k) when double-dipping.

Additionally, it's a pretty obvious opening to a lawsuit in at least most jurisdictions for breach of fiduciary duty (under the duty of loyalty -- Google this + your own jurisdiction for more details on what it covers where you are) and breach of contract.

Now, the employer probably won't sue or prosecute in most circumstances, so you may get away with it. But that's some high-stakes roulette, especially since you're not going to get UI if you get fired for gross misconduct and you're not going to get a good recommendation.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#497

Post by tekknik »

simonh wrote: post #486
tekknik wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then what happens is these drivers move onto other employment, which then increases the rate they pay, which then attracts people back. This is also gig work, the person that made a full time job from gig work didn’t understand what gig work is in the first place.

Fair enough, but gig work is still work. They're still doing a job, and so the standard expectations of a liveable wage and fair treatment should apply, as for any job. I'm a lot more relaxed about minimum wages and such than I used to be. Here in the UK we've ramped up minimum wages over the last decade or so and the feared impact on jobs for low wage earners never materialised. I'm a conservative and free market li…

So kill the innovation Uber created so someone that misunderstood what gig work was can force a full time job out of it? Uber may as well shut down because they will be just the same as a taxi. Why would I use them if they’re more expensive?

It was meant to be something someone did on the side. It paid well so people turned it into a full time job.

Then if these people are really poor they can get free heath insurance right? And they have a retirement account through the gov right? What other benefits do they need? All those garbage/useless mental health services the code shops push around?

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#498

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

aeyes wrote: post #133
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In Italy paying a net salary of 2,000 euros will cost the company 6000+. I dispute this number. Do you have a source for this?

I don't know much about Italy but should be pretty similar to Germany where we generally say the employer pays double. Example person unmarried, no kids, 35. - net: 2000€ - gross: 3100€ - company cost: 3850€

Double is far of from what was mentioned for Italy.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#499

Post by nybble41 »

WJW wrote: post #495
nybble41 wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> … thereby harming all those companies and citizens that do pay their taxes as required. The only one harming them is the tax collector. Taxes are the harm here; Uber is providing a means for some to avoid being harmed. It's just too bad that they can't help everyone else the same way.

I don't know where you are from, but in the Netherlands our taxes actually pay for useful stuff. Corruption is low and public infrastructure is well maintained. Sure, it would have been even better if some things had been avoided (the F-35 springs to mind) but overall taxes bring more good than harm to the citizens here.

Taking what belongs to someone else and choosing how it will be used without the owner's consent is the purest essence of theft. It makes no difference whatsoever that—according to your own values and preferences, not theirs—you think the benefit outweighs the cost. You don't get to make that choice for them. Regardless of how the money is used the very fact that their choice was taken away is harmful in itself, and only by returning what was stolen—plus compensation for lost time and opportunities—can the victim be made whole.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#500

Post by nybble41 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #492
nybble41 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even with a real UBI system, having random fluctuations in earnings when you get a cold or break a leg is not reasonable. You should have enough savings set aside that going without a paycheck for at least a week or two won't put you in dire straits—the official recommendation is actually several months. Anyone who is self-employed is already managing their own (unpaid) vacation time and medical leave. It is the ex…

"Just assume that an employer will take whatever an employee is willing to give regardless. It's the employees' responsibility to push back and manage their own work-life balance." We have tried 'maximum capitalism' experiment in the 1800's: it gave us children in coal mines working 10 hours a day and dying of blacklung. It gave us people in workhouses losing their hands because the steam press malfunctioned and then…

You are describing corporatism, not capitalism. It is not "maximum capitalism" to always side with the employer in any dispute, ignoring the natural rights of the employee. If the employer causes harm to an employee, deliberately or through negligence, then the employer must make the victim whole. Non-aggression and strict liability for any harm done to others are integral aspects of a capitalist society. Employees have their own responsibilities, of course. If they knowingly take risks in pursuit of better pay then they ought to bear the consequences—the employer is not always at fault. This is a natural consequence of having the freedom to make your own choices.
Post reply on HN