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

551–560 of 602 posts

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#551

Post by Consultant32452 »

lexs wrote: post #519
Consultant32452 wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 us…

You don't see a difference between an independent carpenter or tow truck company and an uber driver?

The primary difference is the state generally doesn't allow poor people to legally offer basic carpentry/roadside services at a rate commensurate with their skill. Things like licensing requirements create a barrier to entry unavailable to the poor, not unlike what traditional taxi companies are fighting for in their war against gig economy drivers. Such laws do help the wealthy incumbents because they have the ability to overcome those barriers, but it's at the expense of the poor.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#552

Post by wnkrshm »

viklove wrote: post #245
namdnay wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its side hustle money for bored college kids with some free time So a side hustle for bored college kids is undercutting people who need a real job to feed a real family. Hardly an argument in favour of Uber?

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?

College kids should very well be allowed to offer a lower price for a service that someone else does at a higher price point - the problem is a multi-billion-USD-valued company trying to weasel around laws to profit off of both of them.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#553

Post by Consultant32452 »

wnkrshm wrote: post #530
Consultant32452 wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 us…

It's not only about opportunity for gig economy workers, it's about us all paying the price of gig economy business operations. Uber's business model can be extended to virtually any job, if we lower the barrier to entry just like Uber is trying to do for the taxi business. Their model is to be a gatekeeper to customers via their platform - if they are successful, none of those blue collar workers trying to climb out…

I think you've created a false narrative where workers have no power to demand wages or benefits. If that were true then Google engineers would be making the legal minimum wage. When you understand why Google engineers don't make minimum wage, you'll understand the flaw in your analysis on wage pricing.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#554

Post by mac01021 »

Jommi wrote: post #365
sixstringtheory wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have in fact delivered pizzas as a W2 employee, and had to use my own car. While I didn't ask if they'd provide a car for me, because I've never heard of such an arrangement, I highly doubt the answer would've been yes.

You should be compensated for that. Sounds illegal, at least in Europe.

I've done the same job. They pay the employee per mile, an amount that is intended to cover fuel and maintenance for a typical car. The rate they pay is presented to you before you accept the position at the company and if it is not agreeable to you then you don't have to take the job.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#555

Post by manigandham »

CydeWeys wrote: post #455
manigandham wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This regulation is specifically about Uber, and it's also easy to forget what regulations can harm and the unintended consequences they create. Balance is key, and that seems to be have been entirely missed here. > 9 year old have worked in mines before working age was regulated. I know. They weren't forced to work, they were hired because it was legal and families back then depended on their income. Children still w…

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.

Times were different. The alternative was the family starving, and it gets worse the farther you go back in history. It's not very relevant to today.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#556

Post by manigandham »

madsbuch wrote: post #497
pishpash wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, nobody said anything against that. How is that relevant to this discussion?

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#557

Post by wccrawford »

sk5t wrote: post #247
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…

To cast your shed-building example in the Uber model: * You submit a desire to build a shed to a market-making company that controls much of the market * The market-maker sets a price you will be billed * The market-maker alerts nearby builders of a construction project - without the location - without the project cost - without the project plans * A builder (capriciously) clicks "accept project" and travels to your…

That formatting isn't just bad for mobile users. The end of that last sentence is cut off on desktop.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#559

Post by scirocco »

andrewla wrote: post #188
alistairSH wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Imagine ride-sharing companies bidding for different drivers in real-time where drivers would set their minimum fare.

Re: Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

#560

Post by mac01021 »

WalterBright wrote: post #124
danboarder wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But people I know who are trying this gig economy part-time can pick their own "clientele": Uber, Lyft, Postmates, Door Dash, etc... they work for whichever client they want, on their own schedule. As an "employee" of Uber, I doubt they will want you working for competitors.

Since Uber drivers are using their own equipment (cars), that also means they are not employees.

I've worked as a W2 employee delivering pizzas in my own car.

I was definitely an "employee", if anyone is.

Crucially, this meant that I had to work the hours specified by my boss and make whatever deliveries he specified during that time period, else risk being fired.

In my opinion this was a very sensible arrangement. It was a good job and paid my college tuition. And pizza demand varies widely from time to time. It would be silly for the company to maintain a fleet of cars large enough for peak demand and then leave them in storage most of the time.

I've also worked as a software engineer, on salary, with a contract forbidding concurrent employment elsewhere, but done all the work on my own computer.

In light of the above, I don't think ownership of equipment is necessarily a meaningful consideration.

Post reply on HN