The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#2Proponents of on-demand startups argue the Craigslist side of the analogy. In their view, these workers do have more independent agency than a typical employee, and therefore are properly classified as contractors. After all, Uber drivers and Homejoy cleaners aren’t required to work a certain number of hours per week, and they set their own schedules, even though some companies try to steer them to busy times by incentivizing them with “surge pricing.”
I have been an employee without being required to work a set amount of hours per week, is called a zero hours contract and didn't make me any less of an employee, it just meant it was really difficult to plan anything.
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#3Proponents of on-demand startups argue the Craigslist side of the analogy. In their view, these workers do have more independent agency than a typical employee, and therefore are properly classified as contractors. After all, Uber drivers and Homejoy cleaners aren’t required to work a certain number of hours per week, and they set their own schedules, even though some companies try to steer them to busy times by ince…
Zero hours contracts are just another method that companies use to avoid paying employee benefits. This is precisely the type of behaviour that is being targeted by this lawyer. You have the responsibilities of being an employee but the company does not have a corresponding duty to you as an employer.
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#4Proponents of on-demand startups argue the Craigslist side of the analogy. In their view, these workers do have more independent agency than a typical employee, and therefore are properly classified as contractors. After all, Uber drivers and Homejoy cleaners aren’t required to work a certain number of hours per week, and they set their own schedules, even though some companies try to steer them to busy times by ince…
I've had zero hours contracts as well. My working hours were still scheduled in. All it did for me was when I was sick for a few weeks, they just stopped scheduling me in so I would receive sick pay.
Uber drives can at any given point in time get in their car, log in and start accepting rides.
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#5Proponents of on-demand startups argue the Craigslist side of the analogy. In their view, these workers do have more independent agency than a typical employee, and therefore are properly classified as contractors. After all, Uber drivers and Homejoy cleaners aren’t required to work a certain number of hours per week, and they set their own schedules, even though some companies try to steer them to busy times by ince…
Zero hours contracts are just another method that companies use to avoid paying employee benefits. This is precisely the type of behaviour that is being targeted by this lawyer. You have the responsibilities of being an employee but the company does not have a corresponding duty to you as an employer.
I had a funny conversation when I left after they repeatedly failed to provide working equipment while still wanting the job done.
I told them I wouldn't be coming back and they told me that my contract required me to give notice and that I would have to turn up to work for two more weeks on whichever shifts they wanted.
I pointed out that the contract also stated that I had zero hours contracted and that shifts had to be agreed on a week by week basis, so if they really wanted I could give them 2 weeks notice but for that 2 weeks I would not be agreeing to do any more than the hours they had written on the contract.
I also asked if they could go and count them for me.
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#6Actually it seems to me like she is utterly correct and Uber is fucked if there's any justice in our legal system.
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#7Proponents of on-demand startups argue the Craigslist side of the analogy. In their view, these workers do have more independent agency than a typical employee, and therefore are properly classified as contractors. After all, Uber drivers and Homejoy cleaners aren’t required to work a certain number of hours per week, and they set their own schedules, even though some companies try to steer them to busy times by ince…
Thing is, the difference between this and zero-hours contracts is that with zero-hours, it tends to be the employer setting the hours, whereas with Uber, the driver sets their own hours. If you wanted to work a standard 9-6, you could. If you wanted to work longer, then you get paid for that too (unless there are zero passengers).
All of the Uber drivers I've talked too seemed really happy about it as it gave them the flexibility to do what they wanted.
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#8 If cases like Liss-Riordan’s are successful, on-demand
companies would have to pay overtime, deductions from
wages, and, in California, the expenses incurred by their
service providers. Those costs would mount into the
millions, and proponents of the on-demand economy worry
that they could force successful companies out of business.
I mean, either Uber pays an independent contractor $10, they pay $2 in tax and $3 in expenses and end up with $5 in their pocket; or Uber pays out $2 for tax, $3 for expenses, and pays the employee $5. In both cases, Uber pays $10 total and the driver takes home $5.
I assume Uber's business model doesn't rely on contractors tax-dodging or skimping on vehicle maintenance!
So why should they worry about the reclassification putting them out of business?
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#9If cases like Liss-Riordan’s are successful, on-demand companies would have to pay overtime, deductions from wages, and, in California, the expenses incurred by their service providers. Those costs would mount into the millions, and proponents of the on-demand economy worry that they could force successful companies out of business. Surely taxes and expenses still have to be paid, and the "independent contractors" se…
Well, it sounds like they maybe shouldn't be:
> “Uber and Lyft can survive classifying drivers as employees,” she says. “It might cost them a little more, but it’s a successful concept. It’s not going to go away because we are trying to enforce the rules
> And several on-demand companies, such as the house cleaning start-up MyClean and the food delivery service Munchery, already treat their workers as W-2 employees. These companies’ labor costs are higher than their 1099-dependent rivals, but they get additional benefits, such as being able to train their workers and hold them to consistent schedules.
I wonder if Uber is fighting this because it will cut into profit margins and raise overhead costs, rather than because it is an existential threat. There seems to be two different opinions presented in the article (though I'm not educated enough in this area to be able to tell which one is closer to being right).
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#10This right here is one of the driving forces behind American corporatism. While these cases are always launched claiming to be on the side of the angels, they ultimately ignore that all that extra legal overhead is not free, and only the currently large companies will be able to manage it, essentially barring any smaller competitors from entering the market. If a court rules that Uber drivers must be employees, then Uber can easily sue any competitors that try to enter the market unless they do the same. Uber will be able to prevent competitors from receiving the same advantages they did.
Also, look at:
> Deep-pocketed companies like Uber, which has raised nearly $5 billion in venture capital since launching, could surely afford the additional expense of putting drivers on its payroll.
The implications of this are decidedly harmful to both consumers and drivers. Once you set this precedent, it will only be the deep-pocketed companies that can afford to put drivers on their payroll. This is especially problematic in the States, where in spite of a substantial amount of their federal budget being for healthcare, lacks a comprehensive public healthcare system, so employee benefits can be quite expensive.
I've recently incorporated in Ontario, and working as/hiring people on contract is very easy. A big part of that is because, apart from issues relating to workplace safety, we're not responsible for paying for healthcare services for people who do work for us. It was also very easy to leave my cushy corporate job for a startup, because I didn't have to worry I'd be made destitute if I had to pay for a few nights in a hospital were I to contract a really bad flu or get hit crossing the street.
More and more I see the US turning into a country where you _must_ work for a large, established corporation. Lawyers like this are just helping those already on top stay there, at the expense of those in the middle or bottom.