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

451–460 of 500 posts

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#451

Post by bko »

st1ck wrote: post #390
bko wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'd expect entrepreneur to have a freedom to set own rate and market own brand, for example.

You can choose when and where to work. Most businesses don't have pricing power. There's a market price. They can charge more or less sure but in theory there's a market clearing price, and anything above/below that price will yield suboptimal returns. You're romanticizing the discretion individual businesses have.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#452

Post by kazen44 »

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.

you know the reason these things are payed for by bussiness right?

most social welfare programs are created after world war 2, because the alternative was the workers simply seizing the wealth of their former bosses by force.

OP seems to greatly understimate how close most countries in europe came to a mass revolt of civil war after world war 1 and world war 2. (1848 revolutions are also an important time in history for civil rights).

the dutch for instance, have a constitution thanks to the threat of revolution in 1848. The alternative was the threat of revolution and the violent end of the monarchy.

The same is basically true for labour rights. In most european countries these got implemented after world war 1 and during the great depression, a time in which a lot of people got destitute and had acces to weaponry.(World war 1 also left a massive social trauma in many nations, leading to revolutions because of its effects on society).

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#453

Post by maslam »

aqsalose wrote: post #379
ChicagoDave wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Now if people are worried about employment practices, why not look at Walmart, Amazon, Target, and most retail stores. They intentionally staff people with erratic weekly hours, keeping shifts to 4 hours (no breaks or lunches required) and no one reaches 35 hours to enforce benefits. Is there Target in the Netherlands?

No. We respect our workers too much.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#454

Post by asdff »

hmate9 wrote: post #118
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autonomous cars are more expensive than drivers; the only reason they dislike having real drivers is that they have a voice.

Over the long run there is no way that autonomous cars are more expensive

Often times an expensive machine with an expensive service contract that requires an expensive technician is often a lot more expensive than just hiring someone for minimum wage and offering zero benefits. It's why McDonalds has had technology to automate burger flipping since the invention of the integrated circuit but prefers to use cheaper part time labor instead to this day, and why car factories only started using more automation and reducing headcounts in factories only after labor unions began demanding better pay and benefits.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#455

Post by impute »

hungryforcodes wrote: post #69
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.

But what if I legitimacy want to be a freelancer? Lifestyle reasons, freedom, whatever. I should have a choice.

Then find your own clients who want to be driven around.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#456

Post by qntty »

maccolgan wrote: post #336
sktrdie wrote: post #6

Bit out of context but I just came back from US (living in Netherlands). Holy flipping hell that place is full of cars. Literally everywhere. I mean I understand using a car upstate New York where things are further apart and everyone has a huge isolated villa. But do you really need 4 lane roads in freaking manhattan? Seems like regulating "car stuff" in general is always a good thing if you ask me.

You absolutely do need 4 lane roads in Manhattan.

Really you don't even really need cars in Manhattan, except for delivery trucks and other exceptional cases. They should ban them.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#457

Post by vidarh »

dahfizz wrote: post #441
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extraordinary claim, this has never been a problem in a major city in recorded history. The idea that Uber would pay drivers so much to have extra drivers just sitting around doing nothing is absurd. The idea that there would be no suitable drivers left to other firms to hire is absurd. If any of this claim made sence, then this would have happened 50 years ago, we've had drivers around for a while. Yet it…

> this has never been a problem in a major city in recorded history. This _has_ been the case in major cities around the world before Uber took over. NYC has the yellow cab monopoly. London had the black cab monopoly. These companies grew large enough to buy up all available labor (this was made easier by the medallion system). Uber is no different. It _already_ has a dominant market position. Other rideshare compani…

There is no "black cab monopoly". Black cabs are not operated by a single company.

It's a number of companies, and a huge number of individual operators, competing with dozens of private hire companies.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#458

Post by kazen44 »

maccolgan wrote: post #449
isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your convenience does not matter if employees are being exploited.

Who decides what's exploitation? Me? You? The drivers? Uber? The court system? Who may be right or wrong?

usually the legal branch of a country.

You know, the legal definition of what is exploitative labour and what isn't.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#459

Post by ChicagoDave »

aeturnum wrote: post #446
ChicagoDave wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 100% refute that story. After taxes I’m still making close to $30/hr. I get to write off mileage at $.58/mile so my taxes get lowered. I can show anyone my weekly driver log that shows how many hours I drove and how much I was paid. It is at least $42/hr and on weekends it can be $50/hr.

The take away here is not that you are wrong or that Uber is a bad choice for everyone. It's that some number of people provide diving services to Uber at a rate lower than we generally allow. So it's about if we want to let companies hire individuals to do contract work that would be below the level we would allow someone to hire an employee. And, if we do (which I think we should) how do we set the standards of suc…

Uber reported a profit in the last quarter. Turns out, the food delivery business is really profitable.

Re: Uber must employ its drivers, Dutch court rules

#460

Post by aembleton »

adventured wrote: post #148
Jochim wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are some of these drivers not working for other companies also? In that case they really are freelancers/entrepreneurs not employees...I think the decision will be appealed. That's a pretty bad test on it's own. Plenty of people working in restaurants work for multiple companies, they're still employees.

> Plenty of people working in restaurants work for multiple companies, they're still employees. And do they cook one food order at a restaurant they work for, then 15 minutes later walk across the street and cook for a competing restaurant for 30 minutes, and then immediately walk back across the street and cook a food order for the other restaurant? No, of course that's not normal. This will ultimately accelerate th…

> Monopolize the market, consume the labor supply, raise passenger fees, lean in to killing off the competition. It's super simple.

What does "lean in to killing off the competition" mean? I don't understand what you mean by lean in.

Post reply on HN