5 ms·

I really do not understand. If you want to be classified as an employee, it's simple, don't drive for Uber. They're offering a particular type of job for partic

I really do not understand. If you want to be classified as an employee, it's simple, don't drive for Uber. They're offering a particular type of job for particular people, it's clear up front. You have a choice.

s73v3r 11y ago
No. I don't care if they don't have to drive for Uber or not. That does not mean Uber gets to ignore employment law.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> They're offering a particular type of job for particular people, it's clear up front. The reason this is in court is that some people think that the particular job they are offering and the working conditions actually experienced in that job meet the legal requirements for employee (vs. contractor) status in US labor law, triggering the legal protection according to that status.
kazinator 11y ago
I hear what you're saying, but labor laws have had their place historically, on the other hand! Let's warp back in time to Industrial Revolution England. "If those children kids don't want to be exploited, working fourteen hour shift in the factory, they can find something else to do." People sometimes have choices only in theory: like when we consider one particular choice, versus some unspecified others.
mmanfrin 11y ago
"I really do not understand. If you don't want to work 14 hours a day, it's simple, don't work for these factories. They're offering a particular type of job for particular people, it's clear up front. You have a choice." - Opponents of the 8 hour work day during the industrial era. Regulations on employment are there for a reason -- you cannot say that an employer is free to ignore them because people 'don't have to work there'.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  I am saying that that there should not be an interference from a third party into a consensual contract between two parties.
- closetnerd 11y ago
  It's a bit of a stretch to imply that Uber is ignoring its drivers. I can understand that employment laws need to be strict when there isn't enough competition for employers to keep there employees. But given that Uber is a strong choice for many, to most, drivers, I'd argue that its detrimental to have such strong regulations favoring employees.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > It's a bit of a stretch to imply that Uber is ignoring its drivers. The reference to "ignoring them" in the post you were responding to had "regulations" not "drivers" as the antecedent of "them".
    - closetnerd 11y ago
      The antecedent in question: > Regulations on employment are there for a reason I assume that reason being so employees are not ignored there basic rights, as the law sees it.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > given that Uber is a strong choice for many, to most, drivers I've heard this from Uber and some anecdotes (part of Uber marketing, I suspect); is there data? Maybe the drivers feel they need to work for whoever controls the most customers, for example.
    - closetnerd 11y ago
      > I've heard this from Uber and some anecdotes (part of Uber marketing, I suspect); O_o Well this a first. No I simply like Uber as a service and model. > is there data? No. So you're right. I probably can't claim "most drivers". But it being the biggest ride sharing service by far, it's difficult to argue that it isn't a strong choice.
aikah 11y ago
> I really do not understand. If you want to be classified as an employee, it's simple, don't drive for Uber. Yes you really do not understand that workers have rights and corporations are not some kind of nobility that can make up their own laws.
adventured 11y ago
Human nature is incredibly easy to understand and predict: on average people want to work the least hours necessary, for the most income possible. They will also always want the most benefits possible, and will take as many things tilted in their favor as possible. The same is true for businesses. Nothing about that constant tug-of-war will ever change. In this case, it's Uber drivers wanting their cake and wanting to eat it too. It's an universal behavior of trade, whether from the labor side or the business side. At some point everyone angles for more, using whatever leverage they have.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > At some point everyone angles for more, using whatever leverage they have. Because, you know, a country is governed by citizens, not corporations. And citizens' rights are paramount.
  - ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
    Which country are you talking about, because the US is certainly governed by corporations, just who do you think the lobbyists crafting the legislation work for?

s73v3r 11y ago

No. I don't care if they don't have to drive for Uber or not. That does not mean Uber gets to ignore employment law.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> They're offering a particular type of job for particular people, it's clear up front. The reason this is in court is that some people think that the particular job they are offering and the working conditions actually experienced in that job meet the legal requirements for employee (vs. contractor) status in US labor law, triggering the legal protection according to that status.

kazinator 11y ago

I hear what you're saying, but labor laws have had their place historically, on the other hand! Let's warp back in time to Industrial Revolution England. "If those children kids don't want to be exploited, working fourteen hour shift in the factory, they can find something else to do." People sometimes have choices only in theory: like when we consider one particular choice, versus some unspecified others.

mmanfrin 11y ago

"I really do not understand. If you don't want to work 14 hours a day, it's simple, don't work for these factories. They're offering a particular type of job for particular people, it's clear up front. You have a choice." - Opponents of the 8 hour work day during the industrial era. Regulations on employment are there for a reason -- you cannot say that an employer is free to ignore them because people 'don't have to work there'.

dylanjermiah 11y ago
I am saying that that there should not be an interference from a third party into a consensual contract between two parties.
closetnerd 11y ago
It's a bit of a stretch to imply that Uber is ignoring its drivers. I can understand that employment laws need to be strict when there isn't enough competition for employers to keep there employees. But given that Uber is a strong choice for many, to most, drivers, I'd argue that its detrimental to have such strong regulations favoring employees.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > It's a bit of a stretch to imply that Uber is ignoring its drivers. The reference to "ignoring them" in the post you were responding to had "regulations" not "drivers" as the antecedent of "them".
  - closetnerd 11y ago
    The antecedent in question: > Regulations on employment are there for a reason I assume that reason being so employees are not ignored there basic rights, as the law sees it.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > given that Uber is a strong choice for many, to most, drivers I've heard this from Uber and some anecdotes (part of Uber marketing, I suspect); is there data? Maybe the drivers feel they need to work for whoever controls the most customers, for example.
  - closetnerd 11y ago
    > I've heard this from Uber and some anecdotes (part of Uber marketing, I suspect); O_o Well this a first. No I simply like Uber as a service and model. > is there data? No. So you're right. I probably can't claim "most drivers". But it being the biggest ride sharing service by far, it's difficult to argue that it isn't a strong choice.

aikah 11y ago

> I really do not understand. If you want to be classified as an employee, it's simple, don't drive for Uber. Yes you really do not understand that workers have rights and corporations are not some kind of nobility that can make up their own laws.

adventured 11y ago

Human nature is incredibly easy to understand and predict: on average people want to work the least hours necessary, for the most income possible. They will also always want the most benefits possible, and will take as many things tilted in their favor as possible. The same is true for businesses. Nothing about that constant tug-of-war will ever change. In this case, it's Uber drivers wanting their cake and wanting to eat it too. It's an universal behavior of trade, whether from the labor side or the business side. At some point everyone angles for more, using whatever leverage they have.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> At some point everyone angles for more, using whatever leverage they have. Because, you know, a country is governed by citizens, not corporations. And citizens' rights are paramount.
- ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
  Which country are you talking about, because the US is certainly governed by corporations, just who do you think the lobbyists crafting the legislation work for?