3 ms·

Or Uber wants to provide a reliable ride to riders, and they have to make certain assumptions in their dispatching algorithms in order to do that. Or they want

Or Uber wants to provide a reliable ride to riders, and they have to make certain assumptions in their dispatching algorithms in order to do that. Or they want to make sure that anyone can get a ride in any neighborhood in a city and drivers aren't discriminating for pickups (which is why they're often much more reliable than taxis).

s73v3r 11y ago
Then if they want that, they should be hiring employees. I honestly fail to see why what Uber wants is in any way relevant here.
- rco8786 11y ago
  > I honestly fail to see why what Uber wants is in any way relevant here. Seriously? What Uber wants constitutes exactly half of the argument.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    No, it doesn't. Not when it comes to the question of whether someone is an employee or contractor.
vkou 11y ago
Or Uber wants to employ contractors, only pay them for the minutes of the hour that their labour is required, and forbid them from moonlightning. This is not so dissimilar from the McDonalds manager that gives his employees an unpaid two-hour break in the middle of their shift, but fires them if they leave the franchise during it. If you want people to be available for a period of time, pay them by the hour. If you want to only pay people when they are working for you, don't call them a contractor, but prevent them from moonlighting.
- morgante 11y ago
  > forbid them from moonlightning. How does Uber forbid moonlighting? I know tons of drivers on both Lyft and Uber. Uber is not paying people to be available and does not require you to work a certain schedule. They're paying you only for rides you pick up. There are arguments for classifying drivers as employees, but time isn't one of them.
  - vkou 11y ago
    If you don't ack enough Uber rides, they will fire you. The drivers are exactly in the McDonalds situation described above - for practical intents and purposes, they can't leave the shop, but they are also not being paid to stay there. There is only one reason for this policy - discouraging moonlighting.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]

s73v3r 11y ago

Then if they want that, they should be hiring employees. I honestly fail to see why what Uber wants is in any way relevant here.

rco8786 11y ago
> I honestly fail to see why what Uber wants is in any way relevant here. Seriously? What Uber wants constitutes exactly half of the argument.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  No, it doesn't. Not when it comes to the question of whether someone is an employee or contractor.

vkou 11y ago

Or Uber wants to employ contractors, only pay them for the minutes of the hour that their labour is required, and forbid them from moonlightning. This is not so dissimilar from the McDonalds manager that gives his employees an unpaid two-hour break in the middle of their shift, but fires them if they leave the franchise during it. If you want people to be available for a period of time, pay them by the hour. If you want to only pay people when they are working for you, don't call them a contractor, but prevent them from moonlighting.

morgante 11y ago
> forbid them from moonlightning. How does Uber forbid moonlighting? I know tons of drivers on both Lyft and Uber. Uber is not paying people to be available and does not require you to work a certain schedule. They're paying you only for rides you pick up. There are arguments for classifying drivers as employees, but time isn't one of them.
- vkou 11y ago
  If you don't ack enough Uber rides, they will fire you. The drivers are exactly in the McDonalds situation described above - for practical intents and purposes, they can't leave the shop, but they are also not being paid to stay there. There is only one reason for this policy - discouraging moonlighting.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]