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

Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

courdecassation.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 602 posts

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#491

Post by Slartie »

true_religion wrote: post #302
Slartie wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a certain regularity of work is not a necessity for an employer-worker relationship to be exactly that. And at a second thought, AFAIK Uber does even expect drivers to perform "regular" work - not "regular" as in "we write 9-to-5 every day into the contract", but "regular" as in "of course you can work as much as you like, BUT if we see you driving too little time for Uber, below a certain threshold that we s…

That seems like it is fair. They are preferring to handout rides to drivers using Uber as their primary income.

I'd only call that "fair" if they assume the position of an actual employer at the same time, offering all the usual benefits of an employment to their employee drivers, especially including a minimum income. If they did, they were free to distribute work as they like, by any crude criteria imaginable, because it's not at all illegal to fully pay an employee for essentially doing nothing. But that's exactly what they don't want to do.

They want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#492

Post by manmal »

m11a wrote: post #96

> The criteria for self-employment include the possibility of building up one's own clientele, the freedom to set one's own rates, and the freedom to set the terms and conditions for providing one's services. Immediately I'd seem to agree with this statement. I think of typical self-employment businesses; hairdressers, freelance developers, etc and this seems to apply. You can set your own rate and your own terms, ev…

In Austria, another checkbox „pseudo self employment“ has to tick in order to get recognized as such, is the fact that the freelancer only has one client. So, I think, here it would be decided on a case by case basis. Which to me still seems overzealous - as a freelancer I always have to worry to take on 2-3 clients per year to not get reinterpreted as an employee after the fact.

Technically, this problem doesn’t apply to Uber in Austria because only rental car companies are allowed to provide this kind of service. The problem here rather lies with the cheap labor those rental car companies are employing (reportedly, those engagements sometimes border on modern slavery).

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#493

Post by koreth1 »

manmal wrote: post #492
m11a wrote: post #96

> The criteria for self-employment include the possibility of building up one's own clientele, the freedom to set one's own rates, and the freedom to set the terms and conditions for providing one's services. Immediately I'd seem to agree with this statement. I think of typical self-employment businesses; hairdressers, freelance developers, etc and this seems to apply. You can set your own rate and your own terms, ev…

In Austria, another checkbox „pseudo self employment“ has to tick in order to get recognized as such, is the fact that the freelancer only has one client. So, I think, here it would be decided on a case by case basis. Which to me still seems overzealous - as a freelancer I always have to worry to take on 2-3 clients per year to not get reinterpreted as an employee after the fact. Technically, this problem doesn’t app…

> as a freelancer I always have to worry to take on 2-3 clients per year to not get reinterpreted as an employee after the fact.

I had a similar situation in the US when I was a contractor many years ago; during periods when one client had me working on a large project I wanted to focus on, I had to take on a couple of token tiny projects periodically to keep my clients from getting into trouble with employment agencies.

I agree with the end goals of those rules but as a generously-paid technology consultant, I was in no danger of exploitation and it was just added hassle benefitting nobody.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#495

Post by [deleted] »

6510 wrote: post #427
Consultant32452 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#496

Post by Consultant32452 »

6510 wrote: post #427
Consultant32452 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is this category of worker is not just made of a small fringe of poor victims. Many of these people are legitimate entrepreneurs who become millionaire small business owners. You're going to destroy an important path to wealth creation for the poor and middle class by forcing them to be mega corp drones. This is an awful idea. You will destroy their lives by pulling up the ladders blue collar workers are using to climb out of poverty because you're upset that some Uber drivers are poor.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#497

Post by madsbuch »

pishpash wrote: post #480
CydeWeys wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh come on, of course those kids were forced to work in those mines. They weren't allowed to refuse. They had to do whatever their parents told them to. The alternative was being a homeless street urchin.

I believe the alternative to driving Uber is serving at McDonald's, not becoming a homeless street urchin, so vivid imagery of this strawman notwithstanding, the argument for regulation isn't nearly as convincing.

Whether people work at McDonald's or Uber, or are homeless, everybody should be able to lead lives with dignity.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#498

Post by ghaff »

jrumbut wrote: post #461
andrewla wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the strongest argument against this point of view is that the drivers can opt to work for multiple car services to get a handle on their price structures. It's certainly possible for a traditional employer to allow that arrangement, but you have to admit it is an uncommon thing. It's much more analogous to a contractor working for a general contractor -- if I'm a plumber I can take gigs from multiple general…

If people were taking home $100k driving for Uber I would accept this argument, since I wouldn't want to interrupt the good opportunity with regulations. As it is, I see the preponderance of arguments on the side of it being regular employment without the expected benefits. For what it's worth every Uber ride I've taken I would have taken at double the price, it's possible they could afford to pay their full time dri…

>For what it's worth every Uber ride I've taken I would have taken at double the price

I would have taken a ride at double the price. But, for example, on the rare occasions I've used a ride-share from my house to the airport for personal travel, it's purely been because of price. Were it double the price, I'd just book a private car like I do for business travel.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#499

Post by sytelus »

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…

Most of the contract work is of this nature. The major differentiation between contract worker and employee is "work at will" i.e. there are no expectations for fixed hours indefinitely. If you can't get fired because of not showing up at work, then you are not really employed.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#500

Post by unishark »

alistairSH wrote: post #102
m11a wrote: post #96

> The criteria for self-employment include the possibility of building up one's own clientele, the freedom to set one's own rates, and the freedom to set the terms and conditions for providing one's services. Immediately I'd seem to agree with this statement. I think of typical self-employment businesses; hairdressers, freelance developers, etc and this seems to apply. You can set your own rate and your own terms, ev…

In your shed example, a builder could contact you and negotiate the price (perhaps the $100 price you set is completely unrealistic). That's not possible with Uber - there is no price negotiation - only declining/accepting a ride. Similar argument for changing toppings on a cake - a caterer can negotiate changes to the cake - an Uber driver has no such flexibility. Regardless, given corporate (human?) nature is to le…

> In your shed example, a builder could contact you and negotiate the price (perhaps the $100 price you set is completely unrealistic).

The argument presupposed that you refuse to negotiate. To say "but you can negotiate" sidesteps the whole thought experiment. You post the job at a fixed price. It's in writing on your posting, "fixed price". A builder accepts it. Or maybe they try to negotiate and you refuse and they do it anyway, or someone else accepts it. Either way someone ends up doing the job at your fixed price. Does the builder now have grounds to sue you for benefits and maybe a pension plan because you don't like haggling?

Anyway I think price negotiation is a bad criterion to use. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove anything.

Post reply on HN