Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 102 posts

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#21

Post by icantdrive55 »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #3

> The drivers work when they want to and are free to nap, run personal errands, or smoke cigarettes in between rides, Baylson said. Interesting. If that makes you not an employee then half the flexible working time companies don't have employees :)

They have to secure a expensive Uber approved vechicle. (I have known people who declared their first bankruptcy because of this pustule of a company.)

Minimum requirements:

"Model year 2006 or newer unless otherwise stated (NOTE: Some vehicle models have a higher minimum year requirement) 4-door car or minivan Seats and seatbelts for at least 4 passengers and a driver Good condition with no cosmetic damage No commercial branding See below for a list of eligible vehicles."

1. This Uber requirement to drive has always struck me the wrong way--when you claim Independent Contractor status. (I believe they recently lowered the age of the required vechicle?)

2. If a vechicle is safe to drive, and carry passengers according to the state it's in; Uber shouldn't have a say to what vechicle shows up. If the state says my vechicle is safe, Uber needs to just add the vechicle to the app, if they are truly hiring Independent Contractors? I have no problem with a safety check. I have a problem when they tell drivers what vechicle is necessary. And it's a aesthetic requirement--usually.

The Nervous Nelly, "Oh my goodness--what if a ugly/unsafe vechicle arrives?"

1. That's why most states have a regulated taxi laws. End of debate. (It's just when you have money, and something people like; you usually get your way, usually at the Side Hustler's detriment? But why are they signing up? The real economy is horrid, and this is a step up from begging.)

2. Plus, Uber definetly has the tech to allow the customer to view the vechicle before hiring the drivers. Swip--swip--until a Independent Contractor's vechicle strikes the customers fancy?

3. The strict vechicle requirement is my biggest gripe when they claim Independent Contractor status.

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#23

Post by icebraining »

ggm wrote: post #7

Unsurprising, but luckily only applicable to the US however undoubtedly will be referred to on other trials in other economies. We've always had the 'gig' economic problem. It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of…

luckily only applicable to the US

Not even that, it's only binding in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

This ruling is mostly inconsequential, in my opinion; it's mostly a formality to get to the Third Circuit.

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#24

Post by rtpg »

db48x wrote: post #10
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #3

> The drivers work when they want to and are free to nap, run personal errands, or smoke cigarettes in between rides, Baylson said. Interesting. If that makes you not an employee then half the flexible working time companies don't have employees :)

If that were all that mattered, then sure. There are a dozen or so other considerations.

The thing is that when you go down the list of employee classifications, Uber looks in a worse off, not a better off, position.

Uber basically decides the interaction with the client. They place relatively strict conditions on how to deliver the service (can only use these kinds of cars, etc). Uber guides almost all parts of the service.

Another that doesn't get talked about a lot: This is Uber's main business. Uber is essentially a car-rental service. The fact that the drivers are providing the primary service of Uber is another potential indicator that the drivers are, in fact, employees.

The very flexible schedule + commission-based payments are more evidence of a contractor relationship, of couse.

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#25

Post by collyw »

ggm wrote: post #7

Unsurprising, but luckily only applicable to the US however undoubtedly will be referred to on other trials in other economies. We've always had the 'gig' economic problem. It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of…

Otherwise known as a race to the bottom.

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#26

Post by jjoonathan »

db48x wrote: post #15
ggm wrote: post #7

Unsurprising, but luckily only applicable to the US however undoubtedly will be referred to on other trials in other economies. We've always had the 'gig' economic problem. It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of…

Being a contractor does not automatically put you in a bad position relative to your client, because you can negotiate the details of that contract. As a result it can be both lucrative and extremely rewarding. Of course I'm sure Uber will simply not agree to any modifications of their standard contract, but they do have competitors that the drivers could go to. Oh, and contractors should always set up an individual…

Uber drivers are in a bad position relative to their client. The contractor loophole lets Uber exploit that fact much farther than it would otherwise be able to, effectively undoing a century of hard-won labor rights progress. We are blaming contracting law for the latter, not the former.

> Oh, and contractors should always set up an individual 401k

You say that like you think they don't know the option exists. That's not why they don't do it. They don't do it because they don't have the money to do it, which is the real problem.

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#27

Post by collyw »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #14
ggm wrote: post #7

Unsurprising, but luckily only applicable to the US however undoubtedly will be referred to on other trials in other economies. We've always had the 'gig' economic problem. It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of…

> It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of savings, depressed lifetime income and absense of 401 self funded retirement. Yes. However the venn diagram of people who know/learned this, and people who are willing to…

Even as a fairly educated decently paid software engineer I got screwed over by a somewhat similar situation..

I took a job where I was paid through an international company (well 3/4 of my pay was that way, and the rest was a normal contract) here in Spain.

When I saw my pay go in before taxes it looked significantly more than what I had seen before, and I though I was doing well out of the deal. Of course I had to pay all the taxes anyway. It was only a year later when I got changed to a full Spanish contact I started checking numbers (to make sure they were equivalent) that it occurred to me that I would only have been getting 1/4 of the pension payments before then, which in Spain is a significant amount.

I doubt most Uber employees are seeing noticing anything like that (though to be fair I have no idea how those extra are paid in the US).

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#28

Post by bkor »

chrischen wrote: post #5
lokopodium wrote: post #2

You'd think minimum wage should be observed even if you're allowed a nap.

Recent studies released show Rideshare drivers do make more than minimum wage (per hour).

A Dutch journalist drove for Uber for various months. They advertise that drivers can make loads of money. After expenses, the journalist barely made more than minimum wage.

He also found that drivers often handed out business cards to encourage repeat customers to pay them directly (avoid taxes+Uber, etc). Further, customers abused drivers various times (e.g. it's used as a cheap moving service incl expecting you to carry boxes), etc.

Entire article (use Google Translate): https://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/2017/uber/

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#29

Post by namdnay »

icantdrive55 wrote: post #21
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #3

> The drivers work when they want to and are free to nap, run personal errands, or smoke cigarettes in between rides, Baylson said. Interesting. If that makes you not an employee then half the flexible working time companies don't have employees :)

They have to secure a expensive Uber approved vechicle. (I have known people who declared their first bankruptcy because of this pustule of a company.) Minimum requirements: "Model year 2006 or newer unless otherwise stated (NOTE: Some vehicle models have a higher minimum year requirement) 4-door car or minivan Seats and seatbelts for at least 4 passengers and a driver Good condition with no cosmetic damage No commer…

That requirement is quite common in the "branded chauffeur" space though... Take the drivers that Emirates send when you fly business - They're never employed by Emirates (either employees or subcontractors of the cab company that has the Emirates deal for that airport), and yet the requirements are very strict: Black E or S class, less than 3 years old, magazines and water bottles etc.

Re: U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees

#30

Post by roenxi »

jon_richards wrote: post #17
db48x wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a contractor does not automatically put you in a bad position relative to your client, because you can negotiate the details of that contract. As a result it can be both lucrative and extremely rewarding. Of course I'm sure Uber will simply not agree to any modifications of their standard contract, but they do have competitors that the drivers could go to. Oh, and contractors should always set up an individual…

I think the primary issue is that Uber provides incentives in the contract for "employee-like" behaviour. Imagine an extreme case where minimum wage is $8/hour and I'm offering a contracting job that comes out to $0/hour before incentives. If people work 8 hours a day on the schedule I want and do everything else that employees have to do, I give them $4/hour. Now most of my workers will be just as good as employees,…

The situation is an interesting case of economic realities quietly trumping political ideology.

Uber thinks they are offering a reasonable deal. The people doing the work obviously think that it is the best deal they have available. The government is going to need to stamp down pretty heavily to stop that, because the actors in this situation have no particular incentive to change anything.

Post reply on HN