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

Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

nltimes.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 500 posts

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#411

Post by judge2020 »

apexalpha wrote: post #371
blendergeek wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drive Uber for a few months. I hate the idea of "hourly minimums". Maybe we can have that for full time drivers. But, I would go out on "unprofitable times" (when my hourly pay was substantially less than minimum wage due to a lack of rides) and read books (that I would have read anyway). Doing this I made small amounts of money while doing a leisure activity. I loved the ability to drive less than full time in exc…

In your case they would give you a "0 hour contract". You choose your hours but still have protections like an enployee. As independent contractor Uber was handing off every risk associated with running a business to their drivers.

In that situation a "0 hour contract" would mean Uber has to pay for all of their benefits even if they don't work at all. A net negative for uber, so the 0 hour contract isn't created. The only way this changes while not ensuring uber loses money on their drivers is if they operate like a regular company and have both part-time and full-time employees, with 20 hour minimums for part-timers.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#412

Post by joshuahaglund »

blendergeek wrote: post #326
jacquesm wrote: post #27

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.

I drive Uber for a few months. I hate the idea of "hourly minimums". Maybe we can have that for full time drivers. But, I would go out on "unprofitable times" (when my hourly pay was substantially less than minimum wage due to a lack of rides) and read books (that I would have read anyway). Doing this I made small amounts of money while doing a leisure activity. I loved the ability to drive less than full time in exc…

It sounds like you have another source of income. If you were in the middle of a good chapter you could turn down a ride. I don't think you're exactly the kind of driver these companies are looking for, but if they were I think they'd have a hard time finding enough of you.

I feel like being able to monetize your freetime is a luxury a society can't afford when your leisure activity could be someone's job. You could spent time volunteering, like meals on wheels or something. But instead you're driving down the labor rate, as a hobby.

That sounds harsh and I don't want you to feel personally attacked, so I'll just it's cool, no one's perfect. But jobs need to pay live able wages, IMHO.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#413

Post by MomoXenosaga »

hobom wrote: 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.

I fully agree but I don't believe Uber has the best interests of society in mind and care more about their investors. Exploitation of workers would be a feature to them not a bug.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#414

Post by w-j-w »

nickff wrote: post #378
BLanen wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "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." COVID has killed over four and a half million people; about four million people have driven for Uber (worldwide). Do you really think that doing some driving for Uber and dying of COVID are "likewise bad"?

They're both bad, and the comparison points out why the parent comment had a garbage argument. Being able to swindle many sets of employment laws is not the same thing as "being good"

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#415

Post by ClumsyPilot »

bko wrote: post #315
goodpoint wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they really are freelancers/entrepreneurs not employees Taxi drivers are not knowledge workers, or artists and clearly not entrepreneurs. They are easily replaceable "cogs in the machine", like many non-specialised factory workers, office clerks, retail employees and so on. There's a reason why humanity introduced protections for vulnerable workers in almost every society.

> Taxi drivers are not knowledge workers, or artists and clearly not entrepreneurs. Of course they're entrepreneurs. They have to own or finance a car. They choose when and where to work and for what company to drive for. They can also work for black car in addition to ride share and can even manage private rides. They have some ability to accept or reject fares. > There's a reason why humanity introduced protections…

"Of course they're entrepreneurs. They have to own or finance a car."

When we were taught business in school, it was about setting the price, hiring staff, choosing a target market. You know, thigs that make a business a business.

I am willing to bet my house that there isn't a single business or economics testbook where maintaining a car is even a consideration.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#416

Post by judge2020 »

TuringNYC wrote: post #408
delusional wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but Uber is a 76 billion dollar company, I'm sure they can come up with something better and a way of operating within labour laws. That's a good point. If those 10x engineers can't figure out a way to make it legal and ethical, maybe it's not good.

I think part of the problem is the market, for some markets. The new law would not affect NYC or dense urban areas because there is lots of order liquidity there. But what about rural Pennsylvania? (Ask me how I know? Hint: management consulting air dropped to remote client location) When i'm in rural areas, there are often no taxis and one will show up an hour after you call, maybe. Without order liquidity, it is in…

> Without order liquidity, it is infeasible to maintain supply. Which company (or person) would stand ready to ride just in case an order came thru once every 4 or 5 hours?

The only solution here is if the ride is absurdly high, to the point where you break even with drivers in the nearest high-population city, which people also don't want since they'd be paying multiple hundreds of dollars for a ride. At that point, people will just get a car.

The issue with uber is that it's compensating for a lack of public transportation that takes you exactly where you want to end up at (or public transportation at all in most of the U.S.). Maybe the only way car-on-demand is profitable is if (A) we get self-driving cars, or (B) the government creates their own system with lower fares and runs it at a pure loss with no profitability in mind.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#417

Post by w-j-w »

ChicagoDave wrote: post #361
ChicagoDave wrote: post #354

If this ever happens in the U.S. I won't bother with driving Uber anymore and this would probably put them out of business. The Taxi industry will win back from the disruption that Uber caused. This has nothing to do with worker's rights. No one gave a crap about Taxi driver's work standards and they are/were treated worse than Uber drivers. This is all about the Taxi industry fighting back. 75% of all ride share dri…

I also have never heard a proven argument against Uber. - Uber passengers LOVE the service. Way more than taxi service or public transportation. - Since Uber started, drunk driving injuries/fatalities are down 30%-35%. - Drivers can be anyone with a working car. There is no "interview". You get background checked and your car is inspected. - Drivers get to write off miles. - Drivers get discounts on service at Jiffy…

Customers love Uber for the same reason they loved pets.com: the prices are artificially low. A fair comparison between Uber and traditional taxis hasn't happened yet because Uber is hysterically unprofitable.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#418

Post by ClumsyPilot »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #295
jonp888 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

How does this make sence - are we meant to move you on government payroll for the 1 week you have the flu and can't work? Should the government pay for your annual leave?

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#419

Post by gargs »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #36
gargs wrote: post #5

“Drivers don’t want to give up their freedom to choose if, when and where to work.” Drivers might have the freedom to turn off their phones and choose not to work, but they don't have the freedom to choose which routes/destinations. Seems to me that their argument is one-sided and deceptive.

They could reject based on the drop/pickup location at least in my area.

Only if they're rated high enough. This is not available to every driver.

https://www.reddit.com/r/uber/comments/lzl3xp/why_doesnt_ube...

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#420

Post by yarabarla »

axkdev wrote: post #409
bserge wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They know the city by heart and don't use navigators Questionable pro, but OK

They don't waste valuable time asking how do you spell the street and so on. Also it indicates that they are working in the area for a long time, so to me it adds credibility. With uber drivers it's always a gamble. Most people are nice, but that <1% of psychopaths can really ruin your day.

Why are they asking how the street should be spelled? They can get your destination from the app.
Post reply on HN