5 ms·

They existed and fed themselves before Uber existed; they freely chose to join Uber as contractors; now they want to break the contract they have and be employe

by zeveb 11y ago

They existed and fed themselves before Uber existed; they freely chose to join Uber as contractors; now they want to break the contract they have and be employees. How does this seem right?

zajd 11y ago
Because it's illegal for companies like Uber to treat contractors like employees and then not classify them that way. > He added that the ways in which Uber controlled its drivers - including the provision of initial training, guides as to which routes to take and requirements for minimum hours - meant they were not just self-employed.
aikah 11y ago
> They existed and fed themselves before Uber existed; they freely chose to join Uber as contractors; now they want to break the contract they have and be employees. How does this seem right? What's wrong with fighting for ones rights and interests ? corporations do that all the time. It's not like people should just submit and shut their mouth. If they feel Uber is cheating them well, they should sue Uber.
- SilasX 11y ago
  What caused you to characterize anyone as opposing "fighting for one's interests"? The issue here is that someone is claiming that it violates their rights but keep doing it. Is there a case of a corporation that thinks a certain deal is bad but keeps making it? "Doctor, it hurts when I do this ..."
  - aikah 11y ago
    > The issue here is that someone is claiming that it violates their rights but keep doing it. Keep doing what? drivers have the right to sue , period. And they should do exactly that if it benefits them, they owe no servitude to Uber which wouldn't exist if not for these drivers that do all the actual work.
jackgavigan 11y ago
It's not about a contract, it's about their rights. Rights can't be signed away by just clicking "Accept".
- SilasX 11y ago
  Obviously, some rights can. Every transaction involves signing away a right. (A simple trade of money for goods involves one party signing away their rights to the money and the other to the goods.) Why are these particular rights deservedly unwaivable? And why is the remedy "work and sue" rather then "stop doing it" or "don't take the offer"? Can someone articulate the worldmodel that leads to this distinction?
  - throwaway2048 11y ago
    The rights are unwaivable because the power ballance in an employee/employer relationship is almost without exception massively tilted in the favour of the employer. If these rights could be waived, you can be certain that virtually every single employment contract would waive them. Except perhaps in the case of unionized workshops, where the employers and employees can negotiate on actual equal terms.
    - SilasX 11y ago
      >The rights are unwaivable because the power ballance in an employee/employer relationship is almost without exception massively tilted in the favour of the employer. Appealing to a power imbalance as invalidating any rights waiver, would likewise prove that workers shouldn't be able to transact with employers at all. As before, all transactions are going to involve giving up some rights.
      - throwaway2048 11y ago
        that really does not follow at all, unless you make the assumption that all rights are equally important, which is nonsense. Giving up my "right" to unemployed free time is a lot less important than giving up my right to not be sold into slavery.
celticninja 11y ago
UBERs business model is the same the world over, it doesn't consider drivers employees. That is regardless of local laws it doesn't consider drivers employees. If the requirements of the role match what a local/national law says is an employee, then it doesn't matter what UBER thinks of their model. Perhaps these drivers have found that things operate differently or the requirements from UBER are getting more onerous, in which case they may feel they are being treated by employees now and wish to protect themselves as such.

by zeveb 11y ago

They existed and fed themselves before Uber existed; they freely chose to join Uber as contractors; now they want to break the contract they have and be employees. How does this seem right?

zajd 11y ago

Because it's illegal for companies like Uber to treat contractors like employees and then not classify them that way. > He added that the ways in which Uber controlled its drivers - including the provision of initial training, guides as to which routes to take and requirements for minimum hours - meant they were not just self-employed.

aikah 11y ago

> They existed and fed themselves before Uber existed; they freely chose to join Uber as contractors; now they want to break the contract they have and be employees. How does this seem right? What's wrong with fighting for ones rights and interests ? corporations do that all the time. It's not like people should just submit and shut their mouth. If they feel Uber is cheating them well, they should sue Uber.

SilasX 11y ago
What caused you to characterize anyone as opposing "fighting for one's interests"? The issue here is that someone is claiming that it violates their rights but keep doing it. Is there a case of a corporation that thinks a certain deal is bad but keeps making it? "Doctor, it hurts when I do this ..."
- aikah 11y ago
  > The issue here is that someone is claiming that it violates their rights but keep doing it. Keep doing what? drivers have the right to sue , period. And they should do exactly that if it benefits them, they owe no servitude to Uber which wouldn't exist if not for these drivers that do all the actual work.

jackgavigan 11y ago

It's not about a contract, it's about their rights. Rights can't be signed away by just clicking "Accept".

SilasX 11y ago
Obviously, some rights can. Every transaction involves signing away a right. (A simple trade of money for goods involves one party signing away their rights to the money and the other to the goods.) Why are these particular rights deservedly unwaivable? And why is the remedy "work and sue" rather then "stop doing it" or "don't take the offer"? Can someone articulate the worldmodel that leads to this distinction?
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  The rights are unwaivable because the power ballance in an employee/employer relationship is almost without exception massively tilted in the favour of the employer. If these rights could be waived, you can be certain that virtually every single employment contract would waive them. Except perhaps in the case of unionized workshops, where the employers and employees can negotiate on actual equal terms.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    >The rights are unwaivable because the power ballance in an employee/employer relationship is almost without exception massively tilted in the favour of the employer. Appealing to a power imbalance as invalidating any rights waiver, would likewise prove that workers shouldn't be able to transact with employers at all. As before, all transactions are going to involve giving up some rights.
    - throwaway2048 11y ago
      that really does not follow at all, unless you make the assumption that all rights are equally important, which is nonsense. Giving up my "right" to unemployed free time is a lot less important than giving up my right to not be sold into slavery.

celticninja 11y ago

UBERs business model is the same the world over, it doesn't consider drivers employees. That is regardless of local laws it doesn't consider drivers employees. If the requirements of the role match what a local/national law says is an employee, then it doesn't matter what UBER thinks of their model. Perhaps these drivers have found that things operate differently or the requirements from UBER are getting more onerous, in which case they may feel they are being treated by employees now and wish to protect themselves as such.