U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees(reuters.com)
reuters.com
U.S. judge says Uber drivers are not company's employees
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-lawsuit/u-s-judge-says-uber-drivers-are-not-companys-employees-idUSKBN1HJ31I
101 comments
Ride-sharing, like a fry cook, was never meant to be a life’s career ambition. Jeez people. Folks are complaining that a fry cook can’t afford to buy a house and an Uber driver doesn’t get a 401(k). Wake up and smell the coffee. Let these positions continue to function as gap-filling opportunities for the young and those who need massive flexibility or want side-hustles. We drive up employment cost massively and wonder why less people get employed. We come up with creative opportunities like ride-sharing and then try to kneecap it. Guess what? Driving cars for hire has always been a shit way to make a living, ask anyone who’s driven cab. Now some dim people are shocked their career ambitions can’t end with Uber? Let them learn that lesson and move on. We don’t need to anihilate the awesomeness that is Uber and the benefit it has for drivers who use it with the proper expectations.
> Let these positions continue to function as gap-filling opportunities for the young and those who need massive flexibility or want side-hustles.
It seems pretty clear that instead of letting people be underpaid (which affects the economy badly anyway) they prefer people to be paid properly.
In Netherlands there's a proposal that employers who use flex workers should actually pay more social benefits for such people. This as these workers will likely need more social security. That cost needs to be on the employer, plus it'll encourage companies to hire people on a permanent contract.
It seems pretty clear that instead of letting people be underpaid (which affects the economy badly anyway) they prefer people to be paid properly.
In Netherlands there's a proposal that employers who use flex workers should actually pay more social benefits for such people. This as these workers will likely need more social security. That cost needs to be on the employer, plus it'll encourage companies to hire people on a permanent contract.
Or the costs push companies or of business and less jobs exist.
This is a common misunderstanding about the relationships between companies, employees, and markets.
Companies aren't the originators of jobs. Instead, demand for goods/services can reach a threshold that makes corporate organization for profit viable, and in so doing, requires that employees be hired to fill the demand. If there isn't demand for a good/service, then even a company that is providing it will be unable to pay people. On the other hand, if demand for that good/service exceeds the capacity of the company, they will hire more people (and/or more companies will be created to compete for business).
Companies aren't the originators of jobs. Instead, demand for goods/services can reach a threshold that makes corporate organization for profit viable, and in so doing, requires that employees be hired to fill the demand. If there isn't demand for a good/service, then even a company that is providing it will be unable to pay people. On the other hand, if demand for that good/service exceeds the capacity of the company, they will hire more people (and/or more companies will be created to compete for business).
That demand is not in a vacuum, it also depends greatly on price. Increasing prices will reduce demand, and thereby reduce viability.
Except that it is not that simple either, because prices don't live in a vacuum. Demand is also affected by people's ability to spend. People with insecure lifestyles are less likely to spend. People whose entire lives are spent working just to make a livable wage aren't likely to spend much beyond bare necessities.
Price increases to accommodate higher wages will drive down demand. The net result is fewer jobs, or replacing those jobs with other things... Robotic fry cooks aren't economical at current wages, but from what I've heard it's a near thing.
That's not a bad thing IMHO. I think the world could do with fewer underpaid jobs with no advancement opportunities.
Edit: Looks like some founders looking to create underpaid jobs with no advancement opportunities found my comment /s.
Edit: Looks like some founders looking to create underpaid jobs with no advancement opportunities found my comment /s.
less of that type of job
> Driving cars for hire has always been a shit way to make a living, ask anyone who’s driven cab.
Lol, nope.
My (single) mother drove a NYC taxi cab from 1978 through 1992 (after previous careers playing in orchestras, selling commercial real estate and being a corporate comptroller). The money she earned doing that raised two sons; she was able to invest in 6 medallions (though she was ripped off by her business partner, that's another story) and eventually helped her go back to nursing school.
Many, many cab drivers used to be able raise families on their income. In the 1980s it was a pretty decent, albeit dangerous, way to make a living. There were even whole city blocks, in Midtown, where all/virtually-all of the businesses were related to taxi service and repair (38th street on 10th avenue and another in the mid-60s on I think 3rd or 1st).
In the 90s, for whatever reason that started to become untenable and a rapid exodus of Sikh cab drivers began where they moved their families to New Jersey and started doing black car elsewhere.
Lol, nope.
My (single) mother drove a NYC taxi cab from 1978 through 1992 (after previous careers playing in orchestras, selling commercial real estate and being a corporate comptroller). The money she earned doing that raised two sons; she was able to invest in 6 medallions (though she was ripped off by her business partner, that's another story) and eventually helped her go back to nursing school.
Many, many cab drivers used to be able raise families on their income. In the 1980s it was a pretty decent, albeit dangerous, way to make a living. There were even whole city blocks, in Midtown, where all/virtually-all of the businesses were related to taxi service and repair (38th street on 10th avenue and another in the mid-60s on I think 3rd or 1st).
In the 90s, for whatever reason that started to become untenable and a rapid exodus of Sikh cab drivers began where they moved their families to New Jersey and started doing black car elsewhere.
Not in Seattle or just about anywhere else the US.
Befofe Uber, unless you were at one of the few cabs stands, waiting 1 hour for a cab, that may or may not even show up was not uncommon.
Uber and Lyft have changed people's lives in most places they operate.
Befofe Uber, unless you were at one of the few cabs stands, waiting 1 hour for a cab, that may or may not even show up was not uncommon.
Uber and Lyft have changed people's lives in most places they operate.
lolwut
How long you had to wait for a cab has nothing to do with driving a cab being a good income.
I've been in cabs pre-Uber all across the US. In places like Buffalo, Albany (any college town, really), all over Long Island, DC, LA, etc., I've talked to loads of cab drivers pre-Uber and they were making okay money.
I used to take 20-minute cab trips in Long Island that cost $100. The zone and per passenger system in Albany made fares very expensive. I knew a student cabbie in Buffalo who paid his tuition and then some ferrying drunks between the campus' and the bars.
How long you had to wait for a cab has nothing to do with driving a cab being a good income.
I've been in cabs pre-Uber all across the US. In places like Buffalo, Albany (any college town, really), all over Long Island, DC, LA, etc., I've talked to loads of cab drivers pre-Uber and they were making okay money.
I used to take 20-minute cab trips in Long Island that cost $100. The zone and per passenger system in Albany made fares very expensive. I knew a student cabbie in Buffalo who paid his tuition and then some ferrying drunks between the campus' and the bars.
Airline pilots used to make more money too when airline pricing was regulated.
Cabs suck ass in most areas of the country because of government regulations granted them exclusive rights at the expense of the consumer. Turns out the consumer will use Uber or Lyft instead of cabs if given a choice. Nothing is stopping cabs from competing.
Also, see Cable TV/broadband Companies.
Cabs suck ass in most areas of the country because of government regulations granted them exclusive rights at the expense of the consumer. Turns out the consumer will use Uber or Lyft instead of cabs if given a choice. Nothing is stopping cabs from competing.
Also, see Cable TV/broadband Companies.
This was never up to debate.
My comments were purely based on the parent commenter saying that "driving a cab was never a decent living, ask any cabbie", which is false.
This is a derail. Does raise an interesting discussion of whether consumer convenience should always be optimized for though.
If you look at clothing, it's convenient and cheap because of an exploitative labor market built on appalling wages and child labor. Maybe I don't want the pilot of my plane or driver of my car working under those conditions though...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot
My comments were purely based on the parent commenter saying that "driving a cab was never a decent living, ask any cabbie", which is false.
This is a derail. Does raise an interesting discussion of whether consumer convenience should always be optimized for though.
If you look at clothing, it's convenient and cheap because of an exploitative labor market built on appalling wages and child labor. Maybe I don't want the pilot of my plane or driver of my car working under those conditions though...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot
What I will never understand is simply this:
1. A position is advertised as independent contractor
2. A person chooses to fill the job as an independent contractor while being compensated EXACTLY as agreed
3. The person sues to be considered an employee
In situations like that, it’s really difficult for me to side with anyone but the business.
1. A position is advertised as independent contractor
2. A person chooses to fill the job as an independent contractor while being compensated EXACTLY as agreed
3. The person sues to be considered an employee
In situations like that, it’s really difficult for me to side with anyone but the business.
Because labels don't really matter. If they walk and talk like employees it doesn't really matter what the company calls them.
Check out Exhibits 2/3 and decide for yourself what side you think Uber drivers fall on.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/01/art1full.pdf
Check out Exhibits 2/3 and decide for yourself what side you think Uber drivers fall on.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/01/art1full.pdf
you are totally failing to consider the coersive power employers have, especially at the low end of employment.
When every job you can get sucks, what are you going to choose to do if the terms are massively unfair and inequitable? starve to death?
When every job you can get sucks, what are you going to choose to do if the terms are massively unfair and inequitable? starve to death?
>Ride-sharing, like a fry cook, was never meant to be a life’s career ambition. Jeez people. Folks are complaining that a fry cook can’t afford to buy a house and an Uber driver doesn’t get a 401(k). Wake up and smell the coffee.
Wouldn't it be nice if you could make a living being a 'fry cook?' When you leave work you could just kiss off and go have dinner, go bowling or whatever.
Each day would be self contained. There wouldn't be bad dreams tossing and tuning you because your project isn't going well at work.
Why do we celebrate this race to the bottom? There have been such stunning increases in productivity, so in theory we could all work a few hours a week and enjoy 1950s living standards.
Would that be so bad?
Wouldn't it be nice if you could make a living being a 'fry cook?' When you leave work you could just kiss off and go have dinner, go bowling or whatever.
Each day would be self contained. There wouldn't be bad dreams tossing and tuning you because your project isn't going well at work.
Why do we celebrate this race to the bottom? There have been such stunning increases in productivity, so in theory we could all work a few hours a week and enjoy 1950s living standards.
Would that be so bad?
> Wouldn't it be nice if you could make a living being a 'fry cook?'
There's no law preventing you (or anyone else) from opening (or co-investing in) a food establishment that pays high salaries and provides benefits to fry cooks.
There's no law preventing you (or anyone else) from opening (or co-investing in) a food establishment that pays high salaries and provides benefits to fry cooks.
Exactly. It's a nice thing to say until someone proposes it being done.
I think most people don't realize how thin the margins really are on food services stuff. Or even most services.
To increase salary of fry cooks and drivers to be better. You need to charge more. But if everyone else is already on tight budgets then they also need increases in salary as well.
And now it becomes a bigger economical issue. I know it's not a zero sum game and I'd like to see everyone's wages increase. But it's a hard bigger problem.
I think most people don't realize how thin the margins really are on food services stuff. Or even most services.
To increase salary of fry cooks and drivers to be better. You need to charge more. But if everyone else is already on tight budgets then they also need increases in salary as well.
And now it becomes a bigger economical issue. I know it's not a zero sum game and I'd like to see everyone's wages increase. But it's a hard bigger problem.
If society was interested in maximizing the sheer quantity of fried cooks, society would’ve created those incentives. Instead three sets of incentives exist nowadays:
1) Improve your skill set and move up within restaurant industry, hopefully towards high-end cuisine or managerial position.
2) Get out of the industry altogether and acquire some specialization like a plumber’s or electrician’s license.
3) Use the paid gig to acquire skills, remain in the industry but readjust your stake to equity instead of salary, by running a food truck, a burger stand or a pop-up taco spot.
All venues pretty much scream “Get out of this fry cook gig as soon as you can. There’s no outcome where you’re guaranteed a happy retirement and a golden watch”.
1) Improve your skill set and move up within restaurant industry, hopefully towards high-end cuisine or managerial position.
2) Get out of the industry altogether and acquire some specialization like a plumber’s or electrician’s license.
3) Use the paid gig to acquire skills, remain in the industry but readjust your stake to equity instead of salary, by running a food truck, a burger stand or a pop-up taco spot.
All venues pretty much scream “Get out of this fry cook gig as soon as you can. There’s no outcome where you’re guaranteed a happy retirement and a golden watch”.
it would be bad for the profit margins of the 1%
My question is: what do people think a "fair" hourly earnings level should be for a ridesharing driver? Given that it is a job which requires no educational or professional qualifications or experience, (only a driver's license and a clean background check), has an acceptance rate of basically 100%, and has flexibility to work any # of hours whenever you want (which surely has some $ utility) -- the $18-20 earnings per hour and $10-12 profit per hour averages that we've seen from multiple studies seems about right to me. That works out to $35k-50k a year, but without benefits.
I strongly believe everyone below ~$50-60k a year in the US should be paid more, but that's a separate conversation. In a world where teachers, firefighters, policemen, social workers etc. earn $35-50k a year + benefits, it feels wrong to complain about ridesharing drivers making $35k-50k a year without benefits.
I strongly believe everyone below ~$50-60k a year in the US should be paid more, but that's a separate conversation. In a world where teachers, firefighters, policemen, social workers etc. earn $35-50k a year + benefits, it feels wrong to complain about ridesharing drivers making $35k-50k a year without benefits.
Teachers, firefighters and policemen make about $100K/yr after expenses for full time work in ur an areas like SF.
> Driving cars for hire has always been a shit way to make a living
There are plenty of drivers who made a good living. I had a friend in college from britain. His father was a taxi driver and who was able to provide for his stay at home wife, send his 3 kids to college ( one to NYC ) and buy a vacation home in spain. A solid middle class living as a taxi driver. So your premise about drivers always making shit pay is verifiably false.
But I do agree with you that uber is a disruptive technology and a middle class life as a driver is not something that can be maintain in today's environment.
There are plenty of drivers who made a good living. I had a friend in college from britain. His father was a taxi driver and who was able to provide for his stay at home wife, send his 3 kids to college ( one to NYC ) and buy a vacation home in spain. A solid middle class living as a taxi driver. So your premise about drivers always making shit pay is verifiably false.
But I do agree with you that uber is a disruptive technology and a middle class life as a driver is not something that can be maintain in today's environment.
Isn't all of this true for a lot of jobs?
Janitor, picking up fruits, garbage man and so on and so on.
These are all jobs, these are people working, of course in this day and age everyone should make a decent living wage.
Uber drivers are no more contractors than factory workers, they're not ride-sharing anything, they are (exploited) taxi drivers.
This contractor/temp bullshit thing reeks of dark age mentality -- mistress vs wife, bastard vs legal heir.
It's the aspect of personal choice that you're skipping over. Uber drivers made the choice to apply to work as "independent contractors" and agreed to the terms. A bastard child has no agency in the arrangement, but a mistress likely did agree to the arrangement. There's no fair expectation of the latter to be retroactively or otherwise considered a legal spouse, nor is it just for a contractor to sue to force others to change classification.
These people did not choose to be born poor.
They chose to accept Uber's deal. Don't strawman
Heartless and out of touch with the needs of the general public. Guess that happens when you forget what it means to struggle to pay both rent and health insurance.
When you see a poor person struggling, remember that your public arguments contributed to their plight. If that even resonates with you.
When you see a poor person struggling, remember that your public arguments contributed to their plight. If that even resonates with you.
We're not accountable for others choices. It's not on the private sector to play parent
Uber chose to open its business in a country with labor laws. It could have opened in China instead.
Unsurprising, but luckily only applicable to the US however undoubtedly will be referred to on other trials in other economies.
We've always had the 'gig' economic problem.
It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of savings, depressed lifetime income and absense of 401 self funded retirement.
We've always had the 'gig' economic problem.
It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of savings, depressed lifetime income and absense of 401 self funded retirement.
> It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of savings, depressed lifetime income and absense of 401 self funded retirement.
Yes. However the venn diagram of people who know/learned this, and people who are willing to change it, and those who have influence requisite to make change do not overlap enough at present.
I get most surprised that this is the steady state of things in a large supposedly democratic republic like America -- if the country was reckless in hopes for growth and selling Special Economic Zones and stuff OK, there's clearly a large problem maybe even a short-sighted goal issue (oh they're trading worker's lives for short term maybe long-term economic growth), but that just isn't the case with the US.
Yes. However the venn diagram of people who know/learned this, and people who are willing to change it, and those who have influence requisite to make change do not overlap enough at present.
I get most surprised that this is the steady state of things in a large supposedly democratic republic like America -- if the country was reckless in hopes for growth and selling Special Economic Zones and stuff OK, there's clearly a large problem maybe even a short-sighted goal issue (oh they're trading worker's lives for short term maybe long-term economic growth), but that just isn't the case with the US.
Even as a fairly educated decently paid software engineer I got screwed over by a somewhat similar situation..
I took a job where I was paid through an international company (well 3/4 of my pay was that way, and the rest was a normal contract) here in Spain.
When I saw my pay go in before taxes it looked significantly more than what I had seen before, and I though I was doing well out of the deal. Of course I had to pay all the taxes anyway. It was only a year later when I got changed to a full Spanish contact I started checking numbers (to make sure they were equivalent) that it occurred to me that I would only have been getting 1/4 of the pension payments before then, which in Spain is a significant amount.
I doubt most Uber employees are seeing noticing anything like that (though to be fair I have no idea how those extra are paid in the US).
I took a job where I was paid through an international company (well 3/4 of my pay was that way, and the rest was a normal contract) here in Spain.
When I saw my pay go in before taxes it looked significantly more than what I had seen before, and I though I was doing well out of the deal. Of course I had to pay all the taxes anyway. It was only a year later when I got changed to a full Spanish contact I started checking numbers (to make sure they were equivalent) that it occurred to me that I would only have been getting 1/4 of the pension payments before then, which in Spain is a significant amount.
I doubt most Uber employees are seeing noticing anything like that (though to be fair I have no idea how those extra are paid in the US).
It's anti-worker, except for those who wish to work who would otherwise be outside the workforce. In this case, there is no employer of one-off drivers. Cities with medallions are deliberately anti-worker to all but a few.
But that's the fundamental issue, it's not actually employment. Why does everyone seem to ignore that the job of "professional driver" already exists so anyone who does want full-time employment can already do it?
Every single driver I've ever asked (in 1000s of rides taken over 7 years) has always said they prefer the freedom of being able to work when and where they want. Students, retirees, stay at home parents, and others who specifically do not want to have a FT job.
Every single driver I've ever asked (in 1000s of rides taken over 7 years) has always said they prefer the freedom of being able to work when and where they want. Students, retirees, stay at home parents, and others who specifically do not want to have a FT job.
> Every single driver I've ever asked (in 1000s of rides taken over 7 years) has always said they prefer the freedom of being able to work when and where they want. Students, retirees, stay at home parents, and others who do specifically do not want to have a FT job.
I always hear this line about the sheer variety of backgrounds of the drivers, and that an Uber job is a way to collect a bit of extra cash. That they have something going on that is far more preoccupying, and that the Uber job is a mere sideline.
In my experience, 9 out of 10 Uber drivers in London are 25-60 years old, from East Africa or the Middle East, and do the job full time if you include working for other mini cab companies. It's their main occupation.
Might well be different elsewhere and probably is, but I can see why Uber might prefer to push a certain story that doesn't reflect reality.
I always hear this line about the sheer variety of backgrounds of the drivers, and that an Uber job is a way to collect a bit of extra cash. That they have something going on that is far more preoccupying, and that the Uber job is a mere sideline.
In my experience, 9 out of 10 Uber drivers in London are 25-60 years old, from East Africa or the Middle East, and do the job full time if you include working for other mini cab companies. It's their main occupation.
Might well be different elsewhere and probably is, but I can see why Uber might prefer to push a certain story that doesn't reflect reality.
Just because you do something full-time doesn't make it full-time employment. I'm sure there are people who use these options as their main occupation but would still rather have the flexibility instead of showing up to work on a schedule because, as I said, there are actual jobs available if they want that.
A part time job is still a job.
> tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of savings, depressed lifetime income and absense of 401 self funded retirement.
Yes. At this point we have to assume it's intentional.
Yes. At this point we have to assume it's intentional.
Being a contractor does not automatically put you in a bad position relative to your client, because you can negotiate the details of that contract. As a result it can be both lucrative and extremely rewarding.
Of course I'm sure Uber will simply not agree to any modifications of their standard contract, but they do have competitors that the drivers could go to.
Oh, and contractors should always set up an individual 401k; it has the same tax benefits as you'd get as an employee, and then some.
Of course I'm sure Uber will simply not agree to any modifications of their standard contract, but they do have competitors that the drivers could go to.
Oh, and contractors should always set up an individual 401k; it has the same tax benefits as you'd get as an employee, and then some.
Uber drivers are in a bad position relative to their client. The contractor loophole lets Uber exploit that fact much farther than it would otherwise be able to, effectively undoing a century of hard-won labor rights progress. We are blaming contracting law for the latter, not the former.
> Oh, and contractors should always set up an individual 401k
You say that like you think they don't know the option exists. That's not why they don't do it. They don't do it because they don't have the money to do it, which is the real problem.
> Oh, and contractors should always set up an individual 401k
You say that like you think they don't know the option exists. That's not why they don't do it. They don't do it because they don't have the money to do it, which is the real problem.
I think the primary issue is that Uber provides incentives in the contract for "employee-like" behaviour.
Imagine an extreme case where minimum wage is $8/hour and I'm offering a contracting job that comes out to $0/hour before incentives. If people work 8 hours a day on the schedule I want and do everything else that employees have to do, I give them $4/hour. Now most of my workers will be just as good as employees, but at half minimum wage. They say "I'm working like an employee, I should get minimum wage." I say "They have all the freedom a contractor has, they aren't employees."
Sure, in this scenario there are still people happy to work an hour here and there and earn the $2/hour or whatever it comes out to, but this isn't about whether those people exist or in what proportion. This is about the people who feel compelled by Uber's incentives to treat themselves as employees of Uber without receiving the legally mandated protections and benefits afforded to employees.
This also isn't about supply/demand, the free market, and whether people want to work for that $4/hour or not. The fact that we have minimum wage in the first place is proof that the country has made a decision to not leave employment terms to natural equilibria.
Imagine an extreme case where minimum wage is $8/hour and I'm offering a contracting job that comes out to $0/hour before incentives. If people work 8 hours a day on the schedule I want and do everything else that employees have to do, I give them $4/hour. Now most of my workers will be just as good as employees, but at half minimum wage. They say "I'm working like an employee, I should get minimum wage." I say "They have all the freedom a contractor has, they aren't employees."
Sure, in this scenario there are still people happy to work an hour here and there and earn the $2/hour or whatever it comes out to, but this isn't about whether those people exist or in what proportion. This is about the people who feel compelled by Uber's incentives to treat themselves as employees of Uber without receiving the legally mandated protections and benefits afforded to employees.
This also isn't about supply/demand, the free market, and whether people want to work for that $4/hour or not. The fact that we have minimum wage in the first place is proof that the country has made a decision to not leave employment terms to natural equilibria.
The situation is an interesting case of economic realities quietly trumping political ideology.
Uber thinks they are offering a reasonable deal. The people doing the work obviously think that it is the best deal they have available. The government is going to need to stamp down pretty heavily to stop that, because the actors in this situation have no particular incentive to change anything.
Uber thinks they are offering a reasonable deal. The people doing the work obviously think that it is the best deal they have available. The government is going to need to stamp down pretty heavily to stop that, because the actors in this situation have no particular incentive to change anything.
In general, I don't think I want the government to be in the business of stamping out the best deal that individuals have available.
I know in this case, the assumption is that the deal offered will magically get substantially better. I don't think that generally works nearly as well as the abstract arguers argue.
I know in this case, the assumption is that the deal offered will magically get substantially better. I don't think that generally works nearly as well as the abstract arguers argue.
> In general, I don't think I want the government to be in the business of stamping out the best deal that individuals have available.
That's interesting framing. What if the "best deal that individuals have available" is objectively bad for them, exploitative, or one more step down in a "race to the bottom"?
IIRC, The Grapes of Wrath described several "best deal[s] that individuals [had] available."
That's interesting framing. What if the "best deal that individuals have available" is objectively bad for them, exploitative, or one more step down in a "race to the bottom"?
IIRC, The Grapes of Wrath described several "best deal[s] that individuals [had] available."
I'd prefer that, to the extent that they get involved, government work to provide better options rather than attempt to legislate away (what some people judge to be) bad options. [1]
An analogy that I think fits is the availability of abortions. For an individual pregnant woman who wishes to terminate the pregnancy, many people [likely including her] would view the option of having an abortion as an objectively bad yet best deal available outcome. It would be preferable to a wide swath of people's opinion had she never become pregnant in the first place, via education, wider availability of free/trivial cost birth control, whatever. In aggregate, the world would be a better place if the rate of abortion was reduced via these means (less physical and emotional stress, etc).
That doesn't extend to banning abortions, for that doesn't help the particular individual woman.
[1] - It is chiefly for this reason that I prefer something like a UBI over a minimum wage law. If someone's labor is only able to create $4 of value per hour, I would rather let them choose to do that than not be allowed or be forced to do that only as an entrepreneur. To reduce the amount of desperation that might "force" someone to do that, UBI takes some of the economic pressure off.
An analogy that I think fits is the availability of abortions. For an individual pregnant woman who wishes to terminate the pregnancy, many people [likely including her] would view the option of having an abortion as an objectively bad yet best deal available outcome. It would be preferable to a wide swath of people's opinion had she never become pregnant in the first place, via education, wider availability of free/trivial cost birth control, whatever. In aggregate, the world would be a better place if the rate of abortion was reduced via these means (less physical and emotional stress, etc).
That doesn't extend to banning abortions, for that doesn't help the particular individual woman.
[1] - It is chiefly for this reason that I prefer something like a UBI over a minimum wage law. If someone's labor is only able to create $4 of value per hour, I would rather let them choose to do that than not be allowed or be forced to do that only as an entrepreneur. To reduce the amount of desperation that might "force" someone to do that, UBI takes some of the economic pressure off.
Not the parent commenter, but I've often thought it's the government's job to prevent the tragedy of the commons. That's pretty much explicitly "stamping out the best deal that individuals have available".
The people suing are the drivers. They have great incentive to change. You can see how this plays out by reading up on the history of unionization.
If the companies that offer their employees enough to live on are driven out of business by companies like Uber, then of course it will be the best deal they have available.
Aside from the 401k, you need health insurance too.
I can tell you from experience that your cost per month as a tiny company is MUCH higher than being an employee at a larger company.
I can tell you from experience that your cost per month as a tiny company is MUCH higher than being an employee at a larger company.
In Europe, UberPOP is considered a transport company and not an IT service company which has different rules.https://tweakers.net/nieuws/137241/eu-hof-lidstaten-mogen-ub...
I was in france several months ago and i canceled my uber & paid the driver the same price in cash. The driver was a nice guy, struggling to make enough.
Sounds good, and I feel more people should do this. But how often can you cancel a ride before you get banned from the platform?
Also, are there any negative consequences for the driver when a ride is canceled, even before the start of the ride? I can imagine that Ueber can detect when driver and client are within talking distance (from cellphone GPS coordinates), so they can detect and penalize this form of "gaming".
Also, are there any negative consequences for the driver when a ride is canceled, even before the start of the ride? I can imagine that Ueber can detect when driver and client are within talking distance (from cellphone GPS coordinates), so they can detect and penalize this form of "gaming".
Im honestly not sure how they prevent people from trolling. There might be a cancelation fee for repeat offenders. One uber driver told me that he estimates that uber takes half of the fare. I wish there was a platform for drivers to pay a low monthly sub, but get to keep 100% of ride fares.
luckily only applicable to the US
Not even that, it's only binding in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
This ruling is mostly inconsequential, in my opinion; it's mostly a formality to get to the Third Circuit.
Not even that, it's only binding in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
This ruling is mostly inconsequential, in my opinion; it's mostly a formality to get to the Third Circuit.
Otherwise known as a race to the bottom.
Applicable only on one District, not the whole US.
> It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of savings, depressed lifetime income and absense of 401 self funded retirement.
No, you get it.
No, you get it.
> The drivers work when they want to and are free to nap, run personal errands, or smoke cigarettes in between rides, Baylson said.
Interesting. If that makes you not an employee then half the flexible working time companies don't have employees :)
Interesting. If that makes you not an employee then half the flexible working time companies don't have employees :)
If that were all that mattered, then sure. There are a dozen or so other considerations.
The thing is that when you go down the list of employee classifications, Uber looks in a worse off, not a better off, position.
Uber basically decides the interaction with the client. They place relatively strict conditions on how to deliver the service (can only use these kinds of cars, etc). Uber guides almost all parts of the service.
Another that doesn't get talked about a lot: This is Uber's main business. Uber is essentially a car-rental service. The fact that the drivers are providing the primary service of Uber is another potential indicator that the drivers are, in fact, employees.
The very flexible schedule + commission-based payments are more evidence of a contractor relationship, of couse.
Uber basically decides the interaction with the client. They place relatively strict conditions on how to deliver the service (can only use these kinds of cars, etc). Uber guides almost all parts of the service.
Another that doesn't get talked about a lot: This is Uber's main business. Uber is essentially a car-rental service. The fact that the drivers are providing the primary service of Uber is another potential indicator that the drivers are, in fact, employees.
The very flexible schedule + commission-based payments are more evidence of a contractor relationship, of couse.
The drivers also provide the cars (a necessary and quite substantial capital asset), and it's very easy for a driver to work for multiple ride-sharing companies at once. A driver could easily lose money by accepting rides that don't earn them enough to pay for gas and maintenance. (On the other hand, the laws around here don't allow a taxi driver to reject a hire based on the destination, which is why the price has a per-mile component.)
What are flexible working time companies?
You don't have set hours.
In my experience (as a software engineer) most companies take a hybrid approach, where they define a few core hours a day when you are supposed to be working (to assure that everyone is in at the same time for at least part of the day), but let you decide when to put in the majority of your hours.
In my experience (as a software engineer) most companies take a hybrid approach, where they define a few core hours a day when you are supposed to be working (to assure that everyone is in at the same time for at least part of the day), but let you decide when to put in the majority of your hours.
Which is the basis of all salaried jobs ie you don't have fixed hours of work
A salaried structure is not the same thing as unset hours. This is a pretty standard misconception of people new to the workforce.
It is in the UK and my last contract it explicity said "no fixed hours of work".
You can't be unprofessional about it and take the piss an not get sacked for cause but you cant micro mange and try and fire some one for being 5 mins late.
You can't be unprofessional about it and take the piss an not get sacked for cause but you cant micro mange and try and fire some one for being 5 mins late.
my guess is most (by far) salaried jobs are not flex time. certainly flex hours is not the basis of all salaried jobs.
to pick a job at random: teachers are salaried. they certainly have fixed working hours.
to pick a job at random: teachers are salaried. they certainly have fixed working hours.
That's picking a rather specialised nich career which doesn't prove the point.
I guess the parent meant come in between 8-10 leave 8hrs later?
Or "As long as you've clocked 40 hours in a week, we don't care when".
Yes, the Reuters article deeply mischaracteried the actual ruling, sadly.
icantdrive55(1)
> The case is Razak v. Uber Technologies Inc, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:16-cv-00573.
I would just like to commend Reuters for giving an explicit, concrete citation of the case in question.
We should really hold journalists to the minimal standard of actually pointing us the the primary source. It's not hard; they know what it is they are referring to. All they need to do is to put it into the article, as was done here. Good job.
(The same goes not just for "some court has ruled that X", but also for "a new study found that Y".)
I would just like to commend Reuters for giving an explicit, concrete citation of the case in question.
We should really hold journalists to the minimal standard of actually pointing us the the primary source. It's not hard; they know what it is they are referring to. All they need to do is to put it into the article, as was done here. Good job.
(The same goes not just for "some court has ruled that X", but also for "a new study found that Y".)
I don’t think they leave out citations due to laziness or difficulty. It’s because the general public glazes over as more of the detail is presented. Which hurts revenue.
The "general public" that reads an article about a specific court case until the very end would be too scared by a case number appearing in the last sentence or in an end note? I don't quite believe that.
When writing for diverse audiences there are ways of dealing with this.
Footnotes.
'Click for conments'
etc
Footnotes.
'Click for conments'
etc
It's especially great because if you search the actual ruling, you can see that Reuters summary is BS.
Oops, I missed this late answer. In case you wonder by here again, would you mind providing a link and maybe a brief summary of what parts of the Reuters article is BS?
Not surprising, and probably the right decision.
But...
If you’re fighting for the ability to not pay your front-line people minimum wage, I have to wonder if you’ve got a viable business.
These are the people who interact directly with your paying customers and the ones who actually provide the service your customers value.
Keeping costs down is great, but you cannot squeeze the life-blood out of your business.
But...
If you’re fighting for the ability to not pay your front-line people minimum wage, I have to wonder if you’ve got a viable business.
These are the people who interact directly with your paying customers and the ones who actually provide the service your customers value.
Keeping costs down is great, but you cannot squeeze the life-blood out of your business.
Uber works by suckering drivers into a huge up front investment so they have to work for a "decent" wage to pay back the sunk cost, so the overall average pay is terrible. It's a simple scam akin to Groupon and MLMs (but not multilevel). Eventually they will run out of suckers and flop like Groupon did. That's why they are so desperate to fake self driving tech to prop up their valuation.
Note that this is just for the purposes of one federal law, and it is not dispositive for the question of taxation.
> U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson on Wednesday said San Francisco-based Uber does not exert enough control over drivers for its limo service, UberBLACK, to be considered their employer under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
The factors for the FLSA determination are not identical to the factors that the IRS considers for the purposes of making their employee/contractor determination. [1]
Also, of course, this is just one US District Court judge, so it's not binding on other District Courts or Courts of Appeal. Basically, we're still in the early days.
1: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=062eba8d-8fad...
> U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson on Wednesday said San Francisco-based Uber does not exert enough control over drivers for its limo service, UberBLACK, to be considered their employer under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
The factors for the FLSA determination are not identical to the factors that the IRS considers for the purposes of making their employee/contractor determination. [1]
Also, of course, this is just one US District Court judge, so it's not binding on other District Courts or Courts of Appeal. Basically, we're still in the early days.
1: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=062eba8d-8fad...
Wouldn't that screw drivers both ways? Not an employee IR purposes but not a contractor for tax purposes? We have two different definitions?
I was thinking the exact same thing.
In the eyes of the State you are ONE or the OTHER. Can't have only the good halves of the bad halves. If the State hasn't figured out what 'Uber drivers' are, then this discussion will lead only to more confusion and pain.
In the eyes of the State you are ONE or the OTHER. Can't have only the good halves of the bad halves. If the State hasn't figured out what 'Uber drivers' are, then this discussion will lead only to more confusion and pain.
Don't confuse what makes sense with what the law says.
Which is the problem IT contractors and IR35 in the Uk.
Funnily IR35 is written so that self employed barristers don't get caught - even though they work on the same case for the same employer for over a decade.
Funnily IR35 is written so that self employed barristers don't get caught - even though they work on the same case for the same employer for over a decade.
If it turns out to be the case that Uber drivers fall between the cracks, so to speak, that’s kind of the legislature’s job to solve. Not that they will, of course.
They are users too, what's the surprise?
[deleted]
You'd think minimum wage should be observed even if you're allowed a nap.
Recent studies released show Rideshare drivers do make more than minimum wage (per hour).
After you take depreciation, wear-and-tear, insurance, and maintenance into account?
A Dutch journalist drove for Uber for various months. They advertise that drivers can make loads of money. After expenses, the journalist barely made more than minimum wage.
He also found that drivers often handed out business cards to encourage repeat customers to pay them directly (avoid taxes+Uber, etc). Further, customers abused drivers various times (e.g. it's used as a cheap moving service incl expecting you to carry boxes), etc.
Entire article (use Google Translate): https://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/2017/uber/
He also found that drivers often handed out business cards to encourage repeat customers to pay them directly (avoid taxes+Uber, etc). Further, customers abused drivers various times (e.g. it's used as a cheap moving service incl expecting you to carry boxes), etc.
Entire article (use Google Translate): https://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/2017/uber/
I like Dutch people. I really do. They have this sense of honesty, that if they don't like something, they'll blatanly tell you "that sucks, throw it away and make a new one". No sugar-coating involved.
That said, Dutch people tend to be (let me say it nicely) 'very considerate on their spending patterns'.
The biggest object I've moved with Uber was a 40" TV which I carried and placed in/removed from the trunk.
That said, Dutch people tend to be (let me say it nicely) 'very considerate on their spending patterns'.
The biggest object I've moved with Uber was a 40" TV which I carried and placed in/removed from the trunk.
The thing is he was a clueless journalist. Uber drivers with experience know where to hangout and which rides to take to maximize profit, know where drive to skip the traffic. They often drive when there is a surcharge and know when to take breaks. They know which car would be best for driving e.g. Skoda Rapid with factory LPG can reduce the cost of the fuel. They often share a car between 2 or 3 people. You can drive in New Year's Eve for 4x the price. There are a lot of ways to optimize.
What I know from talking to people is that the Uber drivers used to make above average wage after taxes and expenses. Now Uber takes a bigger cut and there is competition, so it's below average. Also you get a car with all expenses paid.
I think the problem is that in Europe the state covers healthcare and other benefit so Uber drivers are doing alright here.
What I know from talking to people is that the Uber drivers used to make above average wage after taxes and expenses. Now Uber takes a bigger cut and there is competition, so it's below average. Also you get a car with all expenses paid.
I think the problem is that in Europe the state covers healthcare and other benefit so Uber drivers are doing alright here.
Can you substantiate that? Thanks in advance.