The thing is Uber drivers are independent contractors. The ability to work whenever the hell you want or to drop into any city and make money, at will, are fundamental motivators to driving for Uber. Regular benefits means minimum regular work hours. When that's it play it completely changes Uber's marketplace and value-add.
The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
21–30 of 71 posts
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#22An analog that sprang to my mind early in the article, and briefly raised with the comparison to Craigslist, but which I feel is more apt than Craigslist: eBay.
Some points:
* eBay can ban a seller for not following the rules.
* eBay absolutely requires its sellers to earn revenue.
* eBay can set expectations and incentivize behavior with its various seller-partner programs at different levels.
* An eBay seller may depend on eBay for their livelihood.
I am not proposing this as a slam-dunk against the case, but I'd love to see some discussion on these points.
I will state clearly and unambiguously, though, that I do not believe Uber should have to treat all of its drivers as employees. This does not imply that I am opposed to discussion or hearing opposing viewpoints.
Ninja Edit: Typoes (grammar-oes?).
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's kind of an entitled attitude. Society puts certain obligations on businesses, and providing certain benefits to employees is one of them. If you're too small to meet those obligations, then you shouldn't get a free pass on them. That just leaves the workers out in the cold.[1] I'm certainly willing to entertain the notion that we should pay for those benefits with taxes instead of pushing the burden on employe…
_American_ society puts those obligations on businesses, and those obligations have created an economy that rewards those who are either already wealthy, or the backing of those who are. This is very directly giving more power to the rich. I don't see how criticising the very necessity of health benefits, one of the biggest costs of hiring employees, is at all a separate argument. There are many other countries which…
In many European countries those looser requirements on employee classification are just used to get around their even tighter regulations on employee treatment.
It is almost impossible to fire employees in many European countries. Solution: only hire people as temp workers.
I think it is odd that you are calling out America for putting employment obligations on business when most decry the lack of protection America gives to employees. Only than a few Asian countries, American employer obligations are among the lightest compared to other first world nations.
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#24I love how lawyers and the gov assume what my preferences are and what's best for me. I work as an independent contractor and I don't want any benefits from the company I'm providing services. I want to provide my services and get paid. That's the only benefit I want.
And this: "..but the company also gave them strict guidelines for participation which made them look like employees according to the IRS’s 20-prong test. Uber screened and trained its drivers, and drivers could get deactivated by Uber for having their rating dip below what local managers set as a cut-off, for not accepting a certain percentage of trip requests, or for customer complaints."
How are those strict guidelines? So now contractors are exempt from any scrutiny in the services they provide? Makes no sense. Then Uber would be getting sued for putting passengers at risk by having zero QA.
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#25The thing is Uber drivers are independent contractors. The ability to work whenever the hell you want or to drop into any city and make money, at will, are fundamental motivators to driving for Uber. Regular benefits means minimum regular work hours. When that's it play it completely changes Uber's marketplace and value-add.
The most straightforward argument I can see against Uber drivers being "employees" legally are the ones who simultaneously do work for Uber and Lyft, picking and choosing whatever fares they they want to chain together from both.
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#26The thing is Uber drivers are independent contractors. The ability to work whenever the hell you want or to drop into any city and make money, at will, are fundamental motivators to driving for Uber. Regular benefits means minimum regular work hours. When that's it play it completely changes Uber's marketplace and value-add.
In the article it states that drivers have been fired for not taking a certain percentage of passengers. While it isn't a strict hours, it is firing someone for not meeting their determined amount of work.
As she says these companies are square pegs that are trying to be forced into round holes. Uber drivers are not normal independent contractors, but nor are they full employees. I really like Uber, but forcing employees to pay for gas, maintenance, insurance, etc is abusing their position. There needs to be a reclassification that can work for the on demand companies. Place these employees somewhere in between and require certain things be met, maybe pay for gas whilst they are driving passengers, or a stipend for maintenance costs.
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#27An analog that sprang to my mind early in the article, and briefly raised with the comparison to Craigslist, but which I feel is more apt than Craigslist: eBay. Some points: * eBay can ban a seller for not following the rules. * eBay absolutely requires its sellers to earn revenue. * eBay can set expectations and incentivize behavior with its various seller-partner programs at different levels. * An eBay seller may d…
The article points out some aspects that make this a not so great analogy - in particular, companies like Uber set the rates, and put the burden of costs on the workers for stuff like gas, wear and tear, etc. Uber in particular is taking half of the tips according to the article, which sounds unethical.
My only opinion on this is that the balance should probably be tilted a little more in the workers' favor for these arrangements, although I am not sure full categorization as an employee would be the correct approach.
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#28The thing is Uber drivers are independent contractors. The ability to work whenever the hell you want or to drop into any city and make money, at will, are fundamental motivators to driving for Uber. Regular benefits means minimum regular work hours. When that's it play it completely changes Uber's marketplace and value-add.
In the article it states that drivers have been fired for not taking a certain percentage of passengers. While it isn't a strict hours, it is firing someone for not meeting their determined amount of work. As she says these companies are square pegs that are trying to be forced into round holes. Uber drivers are not normal independent contractors, but nor are they full employees. I really like Uber, but forcing emplo…
> In the article it states that drivers have been fired for not taking a certain percentage of passengers. While it isn't a strict hours, it is firing someone for not meeting their determined amount of work.
Drivers are only fired for not taking a certain percentage of rides offered while the driver is logged in and active. That's an enormous distinction.
Drivers don't have be active, and they can go inactive at any time. In fact, over half of the drivers with whom I've ridden are logged into both Uber and Lyft while waiting for a fare, and then log out of the other app when they accept a fare from one. (Yes, I quiz my drivers on the particulars of driving for these services and keep track of what they tell me).
The whole point of threatening to fire (and actually firing) drivers for not meeting acceptance rates seems to be to incentivize them to log out during the times they aren't actually willing to take a fare.
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#29An analog that sprang to my mind early in the article, and briefly raised with the comparison to Craigslist, but which I feel is more apt than Craigslist: eBay. Some points: * eBay can ban a seller for not following the rules. * eBay absolutely requires its sellers to earn revenue. * eBay can set expectations and incentivize behavior with its various seller-partner programs at different levels. * An eBay seller may d…
eBay doesn't require any mandatory training, nor are eBay sellers compelled to make a minimum amount of listings. However, the biggest difference is this: eBay doesn't set prices. It charges fees to sellers for the use of its service, but doesn't dictate the price of the items you sell.
Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy
#30An analog that sprang to my mind early in the article, and briefly raised with the comparison to Craigslist, but which I feel is more apt than Craigslist: eBay. Some points: * eBay can ban a seller for not following the rules. * eBay absolutely requires its sellers to earn revenue. * eBay can set expectations and incentivize behavior with its various seller-partner programs at different levels. * An eBay seller may d…
The article points out some aspects that make this a not so great analogy - in particular, companies like Uber set the rates, and put the burden of costs on the workers for stuff like gas, wear and tear, etc. Uber in particular is taking half of the tips according to the article, which sounds unethical. My only opinion on this is that the balance should probably be tilted a little more in the workers' favor for these…
>The article points out some aspects that make this a not so great analogy - in particular, companies like Uber set the rates, and put the burden of costs on the workers for stuff like gas, wear and tear, etc. Uber in particular is taking half of the tips according to the article, which sounds unethical.
These are very good points and I am glad you brought them up.
I think the rates and tips are very valid concerns here, but categorically different from one another.
I think that offloading costs to drivers still fits the eBay analogy, though it is certainly weaker. A seller must store goods, prepare them for shipping, and in many cases add value to the product in some way (e.g. refurbishing is common, which includes cost for all related equipment). Again, not a perfect analogy, but offloading costs to the seller/driver seems to bear some resemblance between the two.
Setting the rates is a strong argument in favor of a relationship more toward the traditional employee end of the spectrum. I think I need to think about this more.
As to the tips, I glossed over that section so I am glad you've raised it here. I do not know the exact details of the agreement between Uber and drivers as regards tips, but this seems at first glance to be a pretty severe violation of any relationship between driver and Uber. I agree this needs to be addressed, and a class-action suit does seem appropriate here. I think this can and should be viewed independently from any classification as partner/employee.
>My only opinion on this is that the balance should probably be tilted a little more in the workers' favor for these arrangements, although I am not sure full categorization as an employee would be the correct approach.
I think you're right on this point. I am still unsure as to what I think is best to achieve this. My initial reaction is to ensure that there is an environment where competitors are likely; I believe a strict requirement on the type of relationship between company and driver will only hamper this (limit the type of relationships => limit the viable business models => limit the possible solution space).