Live data from Hacker News

Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

nltimes.nl

291–300 of 500 posts

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#291
post #99

Wait, I live in the Netherlands and I wasn't even aware that Uber was around. Didn't they get banned years ago, with only Uber Black being allowed?

Whenever I order an Uber in NL, I seem to get a car that is a licensed taxi. Usually they have a taxi sign on top of the car, and always have blue license plates (which you can only get if you are a taxi). So, I think that the workaround must have been that they actually employ licensed taxi drivers. This is, however, only speculation.

Perhaps Uber's solution will be to employ a company that employs drivers and let that company be saddled with all the awful paperwork involved.

Methinks the flexibility of dealing with temporary workers is more pertinent than the added cost. Pure speculation of course.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#292
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason for this is that you can be compelled by your totally-not-employer to pretend to want to be a freelancer. That's why different countries have various guidelines, e.g. if you economically depend on 1 contrahent (you fill in one invoice a month to the same one company), you are not self-employed, if you can't organize your own work however you like you are not self-employed, and so on. So in general if you a…

I know some software consultants that have one major client but appreciate the work mobility and forcing them to get into a full employment contract would restrict their opportunities and payment. Forget definitions, why should we outlaw this?

Most places they don't prevent what you describe. There are usually just some extra hoops to jump through and/or some tax implications.

E.g. I'm in the UK. I've been a contractor with multiple contracts as well as with a single employer both in situations where they are obviously acting as an employer, and in situations where they were genuinely not.

Here there's specific legislation to handle this now - "IR35", which ensures that if your contract is equivalent to employment you'll be taxed accordingly, with an "umbrella company" acting as an employer on behalf of the company that you're contracting with if that is the case to prevent there from being a tax advantage from pretending to be freelance if you're in effect an employee. It doesn't stop you from doing it - it just takes away the tax advantage and creates some bureaucratic hurdles.

But it's easy to avoid as long as you're not trying to avoid taxes, by setting terms that ensures it doesn't match the criteria. Employers are often keen to do this, and it gives you extra negotiating power.

E.g. when I was doing this, key points involved the fact I had a small marketing budget to bring in additional work, I didn't usually work out of their office, I controlled my own hours, I determined how to carry out the work, I negotiated my day rate, the contract had a defined end-date (we could renew, but there are pitfalls there), and so on. Another strong sign you're genuinely not an employee is a right to substitution (e.g. if you can provide someone else to do the work, when you're not available and that right is genuine). UK tax authorities (HMRC) has a checklist as to what they consider "deemed employment" and or that falls under IR35 (it's not an absolute set of criteria, but basically the more you look like a business, the more likely you are to be considered one).

So for high earners like software consultants with an actual reasonable power balance vs. the other side, this is rarely a problem. It cost me a tiny proportion of my revenues to make sure that I met more than enough criteria to be able to do as I pleased.

But most of the people these regulations are there for are in a substantially weaker position. If you're a low enough earner to not be in a position to work around this, then you're not likely to have the power to genuinely negotiate either.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#293
post #289
post #285

Good. Uber is a unsustainable business built employee exploitation to effectively pay them less than minimum wage while flouting "freedom" to bait the people in the worst situations. This was known from the start. Meanwhile subsidising rides with investor-cash to effectively bait-and-switch society. The recent-ish price hikes are only a start. Anyone repeating their PR should be ashamed. "gigs" are cancer or wait, th…

What a terribly lopsided and blanket view on a business working over 50+ different ethical and regulatory environments/societies.

I don't care that they exist in many places. Corona is in 200+ different ethical and regulatory environments/societies, I think that that is likewise bad for society and hope we get rid of it.

There's enough other comments with the typical "nuance" you can read.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#294
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does there exist any company that allows their employees to work any number of hours they want, whenever they want?

Yes, Uber, since their gig workers are now employees. \s Under Dutch law, to be classified as an independent contractor you also need to be able to set your own prices and have a "significant" (the law is fairly specific but it is too long for a HN comment) say in exactly how you provide your services. The court ruled that Uber drivers do not meet this bar and are therefore not independent contractors. TBH, the "ZZP"…

Blablacar lets you set your own prices on trips, and they don't kick you off if you refuse fares

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#295
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know some software consultants that have one major client but appreciate the work mobility and forcing them to get into a full employment contract would restrict their opportunities and payment. Forget definitions, why should we outlaw this?

For exactly the reason, the parent post said, it makes all worker protection and benefits laws meaningless, and most people think these laws are a good thing. If this was possible then every company would say: "We don't want to have to bother to pay your vacation days, sick leave(for as long as you are sick), maternity/paternity leave(up to 12 months in most European countries), or to have to give you a permanent con…

All those things should actually be under the purview of the government, rather than businesses.

But that would increase government expenses because many more people would become eligible for the benefits. Using businesses as a proxy lets society implicitly restrict the quantity and quality of those benefits to certain people.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#296
post #226

Unfortunate consequence of a legacy legal system. Uber drivers are clearly neither quite like employees nor are they entrepreneurs, and the law should come up with a fitting category that ensures they are protected from exploitation but continue to enjoy some of the freedoms associated with the gig economy.

This ruling against Uber doesn't seem to affect Blablacar, a European competitor that lets you set your own prices.

If anything, Uber should let you set prices, and show a competitive market price.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish more people realized how anti-capitalist the current healthcare system is in the U.S. If you want to encourage business, then remove barriers. Governments should be taking care of healthcare, not businesses. Businesses should be focused on the core work they do: Running their business. Not on providing health care. (Same goes, really, for childcare, transportation, and similar benefits that large employers som…

Can the government take back all those sweet sweet tax deductions they provide in exchange?

Most of those seem decent [1] but mostly related to reducing taxes on income you put into the government social program instead of letting you invest somewhere else. Not sure employers would see the tax breaks as enough justification if they weren't forced.

[1] - https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/employer-and-individual...

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#298
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some consequences. If they will be hired as employees it will be first with a temporary contract. Since there is a limitation to renewal of fixed term contracts, after a certain period the employment is seen as an indefinite employment contract rather than a new fixed term agreement. Meaning then they could not be fired something Uber will not want. The limit is 3 years or 3 contract renewals: https://www.t…

I bet employers are wishing they never got involved in benefits. Now they're just the governments execution arm for social programs and they're stuck forever. Looking back, the only reason employers started getting involved in Healthcare was because the 1942 Stabilization Act restricted them from raising wages and they had to come up with a more creative way of competing for talent. Now the ACA forces companies to pr…

Yes, as a business owner, I'm very upset that I have to "follow the law". Things would be so much easier if I didn't.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#299

Rightly so. The 'gig economy' is abused by quite a few companies to create employment like situations without the required trappings (social security payments, employee protection, hourly minimums and so on). This was long overdue, let's hope it has precedent effect for other companies that abuse the ZZP construct.

They need to go after DesignLab as well. They treat their American workers like shit and will give preferential treatment to foreign workers.

It is time for Designlab mentors to unionize.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#300
post #226

Unfortunate consequence of a legacy legal system. Uber drivers are clearly neither quite like employees nor are they entrepreneurs, and the law should come up with a fitting category that ensures they are protected from exploitation but continue to enjoy some of the freedoms associated with the gig economy.

This ruling against Uber doesn't seem to affect Blablacar, a European competitor that lets you set your own prices. If anything, Uber should let you set prices, and show a competitive market price.

I wouldn't compare Blablacar with Uber. Most drivers use the service once a month to cover fuel cost and meet people during occasional trips.
Post reply on HN