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

Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 387 posts

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#21

Post by Xunjin »

rogual wrote: post #6

The court made very specific arguments: 1. Uber set the fare which meant that they dictated how much drivers could earn 2. Uber set the contract terms and drivers had no say in them 3. Request for rides is constrained by Uber who can penalise drivers if they reject too many rides 4. Uber monitors a driver's service through the star rating and has the capacity to terminate the relationship if after repeated warnings t…

If you look at these arguments really looks like more an employee-worker relationship instead of any other trendy word about "be your own boss"

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#22

Post by fallingknife »

rogual wrote: post #6

The court made very specific arguments: 1. Uber set the fare which meant that they dictated how much drivers could earn 2. Uber set the contract terms and drivers had no say in them 3. Request for rides is constrained by Uber who can penalise drivers if they reject too many rides 4. Uber monitors a driver's service through the star rating and has the capacity to terminate the relationship if after repeated warnings t…

This doesn't make sense to me. I did some contract work a couple years ago and:

1. The company set the hourly rate which meant they dictated how much I could earn

2. The company set the contract terms

3. The company told me what features to build and could penalize me if I decided not to build some

4. The company could evaluate my performance any way they wanted and terminate the contract at any time for no cause

If this company could do all of these things, which I think are pretty standard, why can't Uber?

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#23

Post by kjakm »

aminozuur wrote: post #15

"This is a win-win-win for drivers, passengers and cities. It means Uber now has the correct economic incentives not to oversupply the market with too many vehicles and too many drivers," Doesn't "oversupply" lower the prices for passengers? I myself often check the Uber price, and decide if I want to take it, or use public transport if Uber's too expensive.

Oversupply might mean lower prices (or easier to get a ride) but it also means it's almost impossible for any driver to make a living. That leaves you with drivers who can only drive part time/as a second job while old fashioned full-time/one job taxi drivers slowly get driven out of the market. What's good for some consumers isn't always good for society.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#24

Post by austhrow743 »

habosa wrote: post #10

Really interested to see what this does to Deliveroo. I live in central London on a pretty busy street and it's really wild how many Deliveroo drivers there are. In front of most of the popular takeaway restaurants there are 3-5 drivers waiting at any given time. The increase in delivery and decrease in normal foot traffic during the pandemic has made this really stick out. Deliveroo already totally robs these restau…

20-30% to not have to have a dining area and be in a trendy location sounds pretty good.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#25

Post by lordnacho »

I don't know anything about how the law works, but it seems to accord with the reality of how people tend to think of jobs.

Have you ever met an Uber driver who didn't give the impression that this was what he did all the time? I haven't, though I imagine not everyone is full time. It's quite a way from the idea that anyone with a car can give someone else a ride. For instance, I've never met a driver who happened to be going where I was going, or someone who thought they'd just make few extra bucks on their day off. They must exist but it seems to not be the norm.

At the same time, we're shoehorning old ideas of what's work into a modern setting, because it's reasonably quick to become a driver, and communications with the employer are minimal. Uber doesn't seem like the kind of firm where drivers might have a teambuilding excursion, though perhaps I'm wrong.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#26

Post by apexalpha »

fallingknife wrote: post #22
rogual wrote: post #6

The court made very specific arguments: 1. Uber set the fare which meant that they dictated how much drivers could earn 2. Uber set the contract terms and drivers had no say in them 3. Request for rides is constrained by Uber who can penalise drivers if they reject too many rides 4. Uber monitors a driver's service through the star rating and has the capacity to terminate the relationship if after repeated warnings t…

This doesn't make sense to me. I did some contract work a couple years ago and: 1. The company set the hourly rate which meant they dictated how much I could earn 2. The company set the contract terms 3. The company told me what features to build and could penalize me if I decided not to build some 4. The company could evaluate my performance any way they wanted and terminate the contract at any time for no cause If…

If you truly are a contractor you have the opportunity to negotiate over your hourly rate and terms of works.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#28

Post by bjoli »

dt3ft wrote: post #3

The title of the article is something I'd expect to see in a comedy movie. Yet, this is real.

Why? I would argue this ruling is a good thing, since in countries with labour laws the "gig economy" seems like a great way for employers to avoid responsibility. People end up doing the same job as they did before, but with worse conditions.

I applaud the gig idea in many respects. Connecting people that want services with people that want to work is positive, however I am not sure that is all Uber did. Taxi market regulation has a purpose, and doing it the way Uber does is what got us the rules in the first place.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#29

Post by [deleted] »

5evOX5hTZ9mYa9E wrote: post #12
WannaFly wrote: post #9

They so clueless, they think that companies have a money tree and evil CEO just refuse to give them a piece of money. Uber it's an unprofitable company and workers demand more benefits, from the company that can't pay than current salary without external investments. "If we had these rights today, those drivers could at least earn a minimum wage to live on". No, you will be fired.

If your business model cannot exist without massive exploitation and perpetual VC money, then you don't have a viable business model

[deleted]

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#30

Post by TomGullen »

fallingknife wrote: post #22
rogual wrote: post #6

The court made very specific arguments: 1. Uber set the fare which meant that they dictated how much drivers could earn 2. Uber set the contract terms and drivers had no say in them 3. Request for rides is constrained by Uber who can penalise drivers if they reject too many rides 4. Uber monitors a driver's service through the star rating and has the capacity to terminate the relationship if after repeated warnings t…

This doesn't make sense to me. I did some contract work a couple years ago and: 1. The company set the hourly rate which meant they dictated how much I could earn 2. The company set the contract terms 3. The company told me what features to build and could penalize me if I decided not to build some 4. The company could evaluate my performance any way they wanted and terminate the contract at any time for no cause If…

The difference is yours would of been a short defined period, Uber is open ended. You would be entitled to sick pay, holiday etc if you are a worker in effect (if the contract is too long).
Post reply on HN