Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees • Hacker News Board

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#421

Post by titanomachy » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 1:07 AM UTC

username90 wrote: post #354

Can anyone explain why we need separate laws for self employed people and employees? To me it seems like they should have the same criteria. So for example, if a self employed person don't bring in enough money to pay minimum wage and all benefits then he is no longer allowed to work and must file for unemployment and look for another job immediately so that he can get a better paying job. Then Uber would no longer b…

It seems to me like contractor rules were invented for a very different kind of person, i.e. a professional who voluntarily gives up certain protections in exchange for higher pay. As an engineer I can choose whether I want to enter an employeer-employee relationship or a business-to-business relationship. In the second, I take on a greater share of the risk and I am accordingly paid more. The freedom to choose either option is valuable to me.

The rule was not intended as a way for large corporations to hire workers for less than minimum wage, although so far we've had a hard time making laws that cleanly differentiate the two cases.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#422

Post by perfect_wave » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 1:08 AM UTC

suifbwish wrote: post #84

jakub_g wrote: post #34

Now it would be interesting to see the opinion of the court on fake IT contractors (SSII), where as a developer you are a full-time employee of company X, rented for years as full-time "consultant" to company Y, on premises of company Y, just with lower salary and no profit sharing & no bonuses that staff of company Y enjoys. (This has been a common practice of Microsoft in US in 1990s and they lost a lawsuit on that…

Oh you mean like fucking Google?

As one of those red badges, this post immediately made me think of my entire team.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#423

Post by 6510 » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 1:10 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #347

rpvnwnkl wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rideshare drivers are paid by the task, but that task is time-bound. Building a shed isn't. You can take on two shed contracts simultaneously, not so as a rideshare driver.

> Rideshare drivers are paid by the task, but that task is time-bound. Building a shed isn't. Why not? You could take a contract to build a shed by the end of the day and then not have time to build any others that day.

You are not forced to make de shed.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#424

Post by umvi » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 1:11 AM UTC

namdnay wrote: post #257

viklove wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So college kids shouldn't be allowed to offer a lower price for a service because someone else decided to finance their family through Uber?

If college kids on Uber are hurting families who rely on the income of a taxi/cab/whatever driver, why wouldn’t we step in? There’s no golden rule that says we can’t intervene in the market to ensure people can have a decent life.

Desperate people will always try to make a living on any money source. Say I live in an area with lots of litter. If I made a program that paid 5 cents per piece of litter picked up from the streets, some desperate person would try to do it full time to support their family, fail, sue me for not paying a living wage and providing full health benefits and a pension, etc.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#425

Post by kfarr » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 1:13 AM UTC

rahimnathwani wrote: post #24

pkaye wrote: post #13

Seems a fair judgement since all the restriction make the drivers effectively work as employees: > Drivers who use the Uber application do not build up their own clientele, do not freely set their rates, and do not determine the terms and conditions of providing their transportation service. The company imposes the itinerary and the driver’s fare is adjusted if this itinerary is not followed. The destination is unkno…

Doesn't all of this also apply to taxis? Taxis pick up at taxi ranks or off the street. Taxis have regulations set by an organisation. Taxis (in most places) have rules that say they must take the most efficient route. In most places, taxis aren't allowed to refuse a customer based on destination. Does that mean that a taxi driver is an employee? Of course not.

Depends on jurisdiction but practically, yes, and in fact in California the EDD was systematically suing local governments to convert taxi drivers into employees (and to recapture lost taxes they would have billed had they been employees) until Uber blew that system out of the water. Source: was taxi driver in SF / CA during that time. And as a practical matter, yes these folks met all the checkboxes of being employee despite the assertion otherwise by taxi companies and cities.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#426

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 1:13 AM UTC

alwayseasy wrote: post #416

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't ratings evidence of an expectation that the one side won't come back for more? The person who received the ride isn't recording their opinion of the driver for themselves -- they already know it. They're leaving it for some other third party. The existence of Yelp isn't evidence that building contractors are employees, it's the opposite. Actual employers typically don't rate their employees because they're not…

I'm not sure what point you're debating here, the question is about "either side" expecting to come back. In this case the drivers who provide the service are expected to come back, hence the vetting and rating. It establishes a relationship that extends beyond a single trip or "job". IF Yelp ever garners a dominant position in terms of qualified leads and monopoly on pricing to building contractors, French law could…

> "Employee of the Month" posters around America beg to differ.

"Employee of the Month" posters are hung inside your own offices rather than anywhere a competitor would be likely to see them.

> In this case the drivers who provide the service are expected to come back, hence the vetting and rating. It establishes a relationship that extends beyond a single trip or "job".

The relationship between the driver and the rider generally doesn't extend beyond the single trip. They'll probably never see each other again. The relationship between the driver and Uber may continue, but so does the relationship between a plumber and Yelp.

It seems like you're arguing that eBay sellers should be considered the employees of eBay if they do most of their sales through eBay.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#427

Post by 6510 » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 1:16 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #235

alistairSH wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that in the builder-app, the builder has now been transformed into an employee, same as an Uber driver. To me, "setting prices" is more than just refusing/accepting prices set by an algorithm/app, but the ability to negotiate those independently. In the cake example, a baker absolutely could attempt to negotiate for chocolate. They might not "win" the negotiation, but they have the option. Edit - in the tax…

Home Depot sets prices for services like carpet install. They sub it out to various installers. AAA subcontracts out to local tow operators to provide nationwide coverage. Huge segments of the economy would fall apart of we made all of those kinds of people employees.

IF we can't send kids into coal mines the economy will collapse.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#428

Post by sk5t » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 1:23 AM UTC

pishpash wrote: post #402

sk5t wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, those are the terms of the sometimes-lousy arrangement they have with the market-maker, which arrangement certain jurisdictions will construe as employment , due in large part to the builder/employee's lack of true contractor-like agency to consider and set a price for assignments. That some people are willing to participate in this zany scheme doesn't mean the court necessarily ought to view them as non-employ…

I think that's where the problem lies. A functioning market imposes certain restrictions on participants. A good regulator also adds requirements to ensure fairness, access, etc. One requirement (for instance) could be that you need to provide certain kinds of information about the work. Instead of doing this, what's the point of beating around the bush and inventing that one of the marks of employment is a "sometime…

> what's the point of beating around the bush and inventing that one of the marks of employment is a "sometimes-lousy arrangement"?

I don't think anyone seeks to apply such a test; the lousiness of the arrangement is incidental. I had attempted to argue that the mere fact that workers knowingly take a questionable or even bad deal does not mean they are contractors. The legal status of employee vs. contractor does not hinge on that.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#429

Post by elizabethholmes » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 1:23 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #347

rpvnwnkl wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rideshare drivers are paid by the task, but that task is time-bound. Building a shed isn't. You can take on two shed contracts simultaneously, not so as a rideshare driver.

> Rideshare drivers are paid by the task, but that task is time-bound. Building a shed isn't. Why not? You could take a contract to build a shed by the end of the day and then not have time to build any others that day.

What color is the shed? What is it made of?

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#430

Post by GuB-42 » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 1:24 AM UTC

bsaul wrote: post #356

GuB-42 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In France, there are 3 conditions that make you an employee: - pay - work - subordination The first two are relatively straightforward: you get paid to do work. They are important in order to distinguish between volunteers and employees. Obviously, Uber drivers are working for money, it matches. The last part is the most important. It means that the employer has power over the employee, as in: give orders, and punish…

Subordination is extremely weird, because one could argue this is also the basis of a customer / supplyer relationship. « Customer is the king » as they say. Once you’ve agreed in a deal, then your customer will give you « orders » ( in compliance with your contract, of course), and make decision to stop the deal if the contract allows him to, and he’s not satisfied.

The difference is that in a normal customer/supplier relationship, both parties decide on the price and what will be delivered beforehand. Then the supplier does his job anyway he wants, and in the end, hopefully, the customer will leave with a product matching what they agreed upon, and the supplier with the money. The customer doesn't stick his nose in the supplier's business or decide how the job has to be done.

Of course, the line can be blurred a bit. You may expect the supplier to follow a certain process, provision for changes, etc... But if you start messing with your supplier's business a little too much, it becomes what is called in french "délit de marchandage", which means you are treating your supplier like an employee, and it is illegal.

In France, contracts are much more constrained than in the US. In some cases, like when you rent a house, the contract you signed means almost nothing: most of what is not already a legal obligation is unenforceable.