9 ms·

An attorney suing Uber, Lyft, GrubHub and a dozen California tech firms

59 points by jackgavigan 11y ago

secondtimeuse 11y ago
Discounting the tripe "You go girl" tone of the article, there is no divine law asserting that there ought to be only two forms of (W2/1099) employees. The labor laws should change in tune with evolution in technology. However given the current dysfunctional congress, and from experience with other Patent/Immigration laws this won't happen any time soon. Had it been about Patent/IP litigation and any other lawyer the tone of the article would be different. This is parasitic legal rent seeking at its worst, let's call a spade a spade. Here is an WSJ article that calls for change in labor laws.[1] [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-if-there-were-a-new-type-of-worker-dependent-contractor-1422405831 http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-if-there-were-a-new-type-of...
- zzalpha 11y ago
  This is parasitic legal rent seeking at its worst, let's call a spade a spade. Or, its someone fighting organizations profiting illegally by flouting labour laws that have protected workers from corporate exploitation for decades. But potato, potahto, right?
  - secondtimeuse 11y ago
    "Fighting organizations" is a rhetorical device used by lawyers to fool general public and people like you. The reality today is that there is a large lobby of litigators actively trying to keep any change in labour/Patent laws from happening. [1] I own no shares of Uber Inc. and any other companies involved in these litigations. But the reality is that by framing this incorrectly as David (The attorney) vs Goliath (Uber et. al.) fight the article is just pushing your emotional buttons. At end of the day litigation is not going to magically create jobs out of thin air. Uber will eventually shift to autonomous cars or will go bankrupt or might end having chinese drive the cars via video conference. It's easy to blame Uber for the mess that is the employer provided insurance. Its not the Uber which created that problem, its the legislative gridlock which is at fault. But its cooler these days to hate Uber for all that ills the hapless middle class in USA. [1] http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/16/how-the-tech-lobby-got-beat http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/16/how-the-tech-...
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Employer provided insurance is a mess. Ideally, we would have only the most basic labor laws, but a guaranteed income or similar safety net to make up for it. But we don't have that. What we have is an awkward balance where employer provided benefits are a big part of the safety net. While that remains the case, it's really important to make sure that companies follow the rules.
    - lazerwalker 11y ago
      The fact that the core problem is more systemic than a specific company and set of grievances doesn't mean there isn't value in litigation. Would forcing Uber to pay into state disability and worker's comp fix all of the problems our country has with labor / insurance / etc? Absolutely not. But at an absolute minimum, would it improve life somewhat in the short term for current Uber drivers? Probably.
    - geofft 11y ago
      The way that inappropriate laws get fixed in the US is that new laws get passed, not that people violate the laws that seem irrelevant to them. I have no objection to Uber lobbying for laws to introduce a new class of employees (and I have absolutely no objection to Uber or anyone else making life hard for the taxi lobby). I do have a strong objection to Uber deciding to treat employees in a way prohibited by law because they, on their own, think it makes more sense. "Legislative gridlock" is a weak excuse. Plenty of legislation gets through, from PPACA (which had, and continues to have, widespread objection) to USA FREEDOM (even if you claim PATRIOT's expiration was the result of "deadlock", the replacement came a day later) to JOBS (specifically legalizing things that startups wanted to do!) to allowing people to unlock their cell phones (not really a Big Foo priority). If the people really want Uber and Airbnb -- which they seem to -- why can't they just get a law passed? And why can't all these innovative, well-funded startups figure out how to disrupt and fix something as obviously dysfunctional as our political system? My worry is not so much with these particular ways they're breaking the law; it seems like this is probably reasonable (though I'd still like someone other than Uber to consider it). My worry is with the loss of the rule of law, and the precedent that we're not going to care about whether the law is followed. It's certainly true that Uber et al. aren't the first companies to break laws, but this seems like a qualitative change in what laws are being broken and what the impact on society is, and a democratic society should be able to have an opinion on it.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- janesvilleseo 11y ago
  Let's call a spade a spade. Can anyone point to Uber showcasing their love for their employees? All I see is the opposite. I mean they are actively looking to replace them with self driving cars. They could care less about their 'contractors'.
  - subatomic 11y ago
    *couldn't
  - fleitz 11y ago
    Which is kind of the point, they aren't warm fuzzy come work for us, we're a family, you're a valued employee. If you work as a driver for Uber you're a contractor, they could give a fuck whether you drive for them lyft, whatever, they don't care. Want to only work from 2am to 3am on Saturday nights? Knock yourself out. Didn't show up on time at 9am? Don't care. Oh, you're in South Africa this week and aren't taking any shifts? That's fine too. If there's work, work if not, fuck you. To Uber you are the 'self' in the self driving car a machine to be replaced by a slightly cheaper model. That smells an awful lot like contractor and not a lot like employee. The only reason developers are employees is because contract developers are more expensive than employees who don't realize sodas aren't actually that expensive for adults with real skills.
    - Sanddancer 11y ago
      > The only reason developers are employees is because contract developers are more expensive than employees who don't realize sodas aren't actually that expensive for adults with real skills. Uh, no. Being an employee has a lot of rights that a 1099 person doesn't have, like the right to unionize, the ability to collect unemployment insurance if the company you're working for goes under, being a part of a health insurance pool for lower medical costs, access to the Family and Medical Leave Act rights, etc. There are a lot of things that employees get that aren't just "free sodas".
      - fleitz 11y ago
        I've contracted and had access to all those things, though I don't see the point of unionizing as the sole employee in my own business... Nor would I see any point in rights under the 'Family and Medical Leave Act' when I could take as much time off as I liked and pay myself whatever I wanted to during said leave.
- Fomite 11y ago
  Maybe labor laws should change, but they haven't changed. "Regulation is for other people" as a business model is a bad way to effect that change.
  - secondtimeuse 11y ago
    Yes, I completely agree. Travis Kalanick should have just watched and followed "I am just a bill"[1] video for instructions regarding changing labor law, prior to founding Uber. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-eYBZFEzf8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-eYBZFEzf8
    - Apocryphon 11y ago
      Unironically agreed.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- rayiner 11y ago
  Rentseeking refers to trying to get compensation for economic activity that would happen without you. What this lady is doing is not rent seeking, because the economic transactions at issue (treating workers as employees), would not happen without her lawsuits. More generally, just because new technology exists doesn't mean that the law needs to change. Technology in this case has made engaging in certain work relationships easier, but hasn't created new work relationships. People have been freelancing as maids or drivers long before you could use an app to hire them to do those jobs. And the factors that fact typically used to figure out the treatment of workers still make perfect sense in the Uber context. E.g., Uber's drivers do have a lot of schedule flexibility. On the other hand, they impose tight service standards and tie them to their brand. How Uber's employees should be treated can thus be decided by applying the existing principles and factors. The labor protection versus employment freedom debate is much older than Silicon Valley, and the debate today doesn't really involve any new concepts. The WSJ was pushing for weaker labor laws decades ago, for the same reasons as it is now. Of course they're donning the mantle of disruption now--that's standard procedure when you're trying to relitigate a settled debate. But that's just a rhetorical device.
- SilasX 11y ago
  I agree that the labor laws have an "impedance mismatch" with the on-the-ground reality and I tried to spell out what that was in another comment [1]. Basically, laws shouldn't be discontinuous like this -- where all the rules sharply change when you just 50.001% look like a contractor (or the opposite). It should be more like "as you start to look more like an employee, you must adhere to more of a certain requirement". Don't know why you're getting voted down so hard. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10717768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10717768
gnodar 11y ago
It would have been nice if this article addressed the negative consequences of these companies skirting labor laws. The only mention of this is here: "she alleges that these firms exert the kind of control that employers would have over employees — without providing any of the benefits employees, by law, are entitled to." But it doesn't explain what specific benefits are being withheld from employees, so I don't know what bad thing she is trying to prevent, or the magnitude of the problem, if there really is one.
- supercanuck 11y ago
  State Disability and Unemployment Insurance
- 100k 11y ago
  W2 employees have all kinds of protections that 1099 contractors don't. Paid sick time, FMLA leave, retirement plan contributions...A big difference is that 1099 contractors must pay their own self-employment taxes (15%) to cover Social Security and Medicare whereas W2 employees have half of that paid for by their company. (Economists would say that comes out of wages, but it still means $15/hour W2 is not directly comparable to $15/hour 1099.)
  - ProAm 11y ago
    >still means $15/hour W2 is not directly comparable to $15/hour 1099 of course not that is why contractors get paid more than salary employees. If contractors dont ask for more money per hour then its their own fault.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Can you show me how "independent contractor" Uber employees can ask more per hour?
      - zzalpha 11y ago
        Which is, incidentally, one of the points this case will hinge on. Being able to set your own rates is one of the key differentiators between contract and employee labour, and Uber drivers clearly do not have that ability.
100k 11y ago
The most recent issue of Mother Jones also has an article about Liss-Riordan and her employment law lawsuits. According to the article, she got her start suing restaurants that were skimming tips from employees -- which Uber is also accused of. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/uber-lawsuit-drivers-class-action-shannon-liss-riordan http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/uber-lawsuit-dri...
- SilasX 11y ago
  Oy gevalt! That again? It's the modern version of counting angels on a pin. Uber said, "drivers get this percent from the fee, Uber gets this much". Uber claimed "tip's included". Modern philosophers claimed this makes a difference because the law prohibits taking a cut of tips. But there is no difference! Any allocation of the fee can be rephrased as being "with" or "without' a tip in such a way that the money flows are all the same. There is no "fact of the matter" as to what part of the fee is a tip! Any phrasing can be correct! Let's say Uber took 25%. You can say that the fee breaks down as: 1) 25% to Uber, 50% driver payment, 25% driver tip 2) 25% to Uber, 75% driver payment, no tip 3) 25% driver payment, 75% tip to driver, which Uber takes a 1/3 cut off (illegal). If the law treats observationally equivalent situations differently because of how they're labeled, that law is meaningless, and basically just taxing you on angel pinheads. (I call the property of passing this test "nominal invariance".) (The exception of course is when a customer gives a cash tip on top of the fee directly to the driver. But Uber definitely doesn't take a cut of that!
la6470 11y ago
Millenials are unknowingly signing up for slavery and throwing away all the hard earned labour rights in the name of being more agile.
- aggieben 11y ago
  ...or simply trading those "rights" for the freedom to be responsible for their own lives. One gives up a lot of freedom to be an employee. That tradeoff might be worth it for some people, and not as much for others.
  - skrause 11y ago
    > One gives up a lot of freedom to be an employee. As an employee I can walk away from my job any time I want and just get another. If I had my own business that would be way harder. Because of that I feel actually more free and independent as an employee. You just need to make sure to have a good financial buffer so that losing/switching a job won't hurt very much. Then your employer also can't pressure you too much.
    - aggieben 11y ago
      I feel exactly the opposite: I'm independent now, and I can walk away from my current gig without all that much disruption in my life because I don't depend on an employer for benefits or what have you. While I'm not walking away, I've got more flexibility than I might with an employer (depending on the employer). You're 100% right about having a buffer, though. That's a pretty immovable prerequisite no matter what your professional situation is.
  - intopieces 11y ago
    They can trade that right after they change California's labor laws.
- diogenescynic 11y ago
  Can it really be blamed entirely on millennials?
gpsx 11y ago
And when it is all over I can see each driver getting a check for $2.37 and Liss-Riordon getting a check for $60,000,000.00. (OK, this maybe a slight exaggeration, but only a slight one.)
- rayiner 11y ago
  In the Fed Ex settlement she won $223m for 2,600 class members. Even if she gets a 1/3 cut that's, $60,000 on average per class member for mis-classification over a seven-year period.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    I assume that doesn't include back taxes and fines due to the IRS.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Yeah, that's just the fund for claims from employees.
  - gpsx 11y ago
    Without much research on my part as to accuracy, Google said Uber has 167,000 employees. So in a $200M payout she gets her $60,000,000 and Uber employees average $838.
- themartorana 11y ago
  So, making her money on the backs of the little guy, then? It's how class-action lawsuits usually work. I wonder if they do for her lawsuits as well.
- xbmcuser 11y ago
  It's not about the money but change if she settles out of court without making companies change how they treat their workers then you can complain about how much she made.
- andygates 11y ago
steven2012 11y ago
I don't think they will win. Every single uber driver I talk to loves it. They love that they can work whenever they want, that they can choose to work for Lyft or uber, etc. I don't know how you can say they are anything like an employee. There is no negative consequences for not working except less money.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > I don't think they will win. Every single uber driver I talk to loves it. That's not quite how the law works. Whether you enjoy being subjugated or not doesn't effect if the law can be enforced against the entity violating the law.
  - steven2012 11y ago
    How are drivers being subjugated and what law is being violated. What evidence is there that they are actually employees besides the fact that lawyers and union activists want them to be?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
      - steven2012 11y ago
        Well, yes, that's the whole point of this article. My point is that I don't believe there is enough evidence for the judge to make this ruling.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - secondtimeuse 11y ago
      You are watching a classic 21st century robbery in action, where lawyers are robbing corporations and employees under some pretense of magical justice. Counting the downvotes on comments, HN has sharply taken a socialist turn and lawyers are the new superheroes saving people from Evil startups. In other news Bernie Sanders hates Uber despite using it nearly 100% of time.[1] [1] http://thehill.com/policy/technology/250480-bernie-sanders-says-he-has-serious-problems-with-uber http://thehill.com/policy/technology/250480-bernie-sanders-s...
bluefinity 11y ago
Uber is the world's most highly valued private company? Somebody better tell Saudi Aramco.
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  Or Koch Industries..
  - zzazzdsa 11y ago
    or Cargill, or Mars....
benbowden 11y ago
If she does win the case then wouldn't Uber and Lyft simply give less of a percentage of earnings per ride to their drivers to compensate for the change of cost? Would Uber and Lyft make more if they had their drivers on a similar model to a pizza delivery driver ($4.50/h + tips)?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > If she does win the case then wouldn't Uber and Lyft simply give less of a percentage of earnings per ride to their drivers to compensate for the change of cost? Uber and Lyft would need to pay hourly wages, along with all of the associated taxes due. > Would Uber and Lyft make more if they had their drivers on a similar model to a pizza delivery driver ($4.50/h + tips)? Uber and Lyft's entire business model is built on the independent contractor model. I don't believe they could reach profitability in any scenario with human drivers if they have to pay them as stipulated by IRS regulations.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    >Uber and Lyft would need to pay hourly wages, along with all of the associated taxes due. Not true. You can be an employee with a non-hourly pay structure. Just one of many misconceptions batted around about the implications of driver reclassification, along with (these aren't all false per se, just not-necessarily-true): - Drivers would have to get the Uber-paid lavish health care plan that developers there get. - Driver cash payments would remain the same and not be reduced. - Drivers would get fixed work schedules. - Drivers would value the compensation package that includes employee benefits but has lower cash pay, over the compensation they get now. - Uber would have to provide the vehicles. - The economic incidence of FICA taxes would shift to Uber (not how economic incidence works[1]). Again, the employee/contractor distinction depends on a number of factors; you can be classified as an employee without meeting all of criteria. [1] Good explanation: https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/422av5/some_good_old_fashioned_101level_errors_on/cz73e8g https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/422av5/some_g...
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
eugenekolo2 11y ago
Reminds me of Microsoft's contractor lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsof... http://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-dont-treat-c-idUSTRE53063S20090401 http://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-d...
Karunamon 11y ago
One thing I never see addressed in these Uber stories is how, precisely, the drivers got classified as employees. The only test I'm aware of refers to things like set hours, dictated methods of working, company equipment, payment, and so on[1]. Just by that those tests alone, I don't see how an Uber driver is realistically anything other than a contractor. So either a judge screwed up somewhere, or I'm really missing something. Would anyone have some more information on the particulars? [1]: https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Independent-Contractor-Self-Employed-or-Employee https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Emplo...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

59 points by jackgavigan 11y ago

Discounting the tripe "You go girl" tone of the article, there is no divine law asserting that there ought to be only two forms of (W2/1099) employees. The labor laws should change in tune with evolution in technology. However given the current dysfunctional congress, and from experience with other Patent/Immigration laws this won't happen any time soon. Had it been about Patent/IP litigation and any other lawyer the tone of the article would be different. This is parasitic legal rent seeking at its worst, let's call a spade a spade. Here is an WSJ article that calls for change in labor laws.[1] [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-if-there-were-a-new-type-of-worker-dependent-contractor-1422405831 http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-if-there-were-a-new-type-of...

zzalpha 11y ago
This is parasitic legal rent seeking at its worst, let's call a spade a spade. Or, its someone fighting organizations profiting illegally by flouting labour laws that have protected workers from corporate exploitation for decades. But potato, potahto, right?
- secondtimeuse 11y ago
  "Fighting organizations" is a rhetorical device used by lawyers to fool general public and people like you. The reality today is that there is a large lobby of litigators actively trying to keep any change in labour/Patent laws from happening. [1] I own no shares of Uber Inc. and any other companies involved in these litigations. But the reality is that by framing this incorrectly as David (The attorney) vs Goliath (Uber et. al.) fight the article is just pushing your emotional buttons. At end of the day litigation is not going to magically create jobs out of thin air. Uber will eventually shift to autonomous cars or will go bankrupt or might end having chinese drive the cars via video conference. It's easy to blame Uber for the mess that is the employer provided insurance. Its not the Uber which created that problem, its the legislative gridlock which is at fault. But its cooler these days to hate Uber for all that ills the hapless middle class in USA. [1] http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/16/how-the-tech-lobby-got-beat http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/16/how-the-tech-...
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Employer provided insurance is a mess. Ideally, we would have only the most basic labor laws, but a guaranteed income or similar safety net to make up for it. But we don't have that. What we have is an awkward balance where employer provided benefits are a big part of the safety net. While that remains the case, it's really important to make sure that companies follow the rules.
  - lazerwalker 11y ago
    The fact that the core problem is more systemic than a specific company and set of grievances doesn't mean there isn't value in litigation. Would forcing Uber to pay into state disability and worker's comp fix all of the problems our country has with labor / insurance / etc? Absolutely not. But at an absolute minimum, would it improve life somewhat in the short term for current Uber drivers? Probably.
  - geofft 11y ago
    The way that inappropriate laws get fixed in the US is that new laws get passed, not that people violate the laws that seem irrelevant to them. I have no objection to Uber lobbying for laws to introduce a new class of employees (and I have absolutely no objection to Uber or anyone else making life hard for the taxi lobby). I do have a strong objection to Uber deciding to treat employees in a way prohibited by law because they, on their own, think it makes more sense. "Legislative gridlock" is a weak excuse. Plenty of legislation gets through, from PPACA (which had, and continues to have, widespread objection) to USA FREEDOM (even if you claim PATRIOT's expiration was the result of "deadlock", the replacement came a day later) to JOBS (specifically legalizing things that startups wanted to do!) to allowing people to unlock their cell phones (not really a Big Foo priority). If the people really want Uber and Airbnb -- which they seem to -- why can't they just get a law passed? And why can't all these innovative, well-funded startups figure out how to disrupt and fix something as obviously dysfunctional as our political system? My worry is not so much with these particular ways they're breaking the law; it seems like this is probably reasonable (though I'd still like someone other than Uber to consider it). My worry is with the loss of the rule of law, and the precedent that we're not going to care about whether the law is followed. It's certainly true that Uber et al. aren't the first companies to break laws, but this seems like a qualitative change in what laws are being broken and what the impact on society is, and a democratic society should be able to have an opinion on it.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
janesvilleseo 11y ago
Let's call a spade a spade. Can anyone point to Uber showcasing their love for their employees? All I see is the opposite. I mean they are actively looking to replace them with self driving cars. They could care less about their 'contractors'.
- subatomic 11y ago
  *couldn't
- fleitz 11y ago
  Which is kind of the point, they aren't warm fuzzy come work for us, we're a family, you're a valued employee. If you work as a driver for Uber you're a contractor, they could give a fuck whether you drive for them lyft, whatever, they don't care. Want to only work from 2am to 3am on Saturday nights? Knock yourself out. Didn't show up on time at 9am? Don't care. Oh, you're in South Africa this week and aren't taking any shifts? That's fine too. If there's work, work if not, fuck you. To Uber you are the 'self' in the self driving car a machine to be replaced by a slightly cheaper model. That smells an awful lot like contractor and not a lot like employee. The only reason developers are employees is because contract developers are more expensive than employees who don't realize sodas aren't actually that expensive for adults with real skills.
  - Sanddancer 11y ago
    > The only reason developers are employees is because contract developers are more expensive than employees who don't realize sodas aren't actually that expensive for adults with real skills. Uh, no. Being an employee has a lot of rights that a 1099 person doesn't have, like the right to unionize, the ability to collect unemployment insurance if the company you're working for goes under, being a part of a health insurance pool for lower medical costs, access to the Family and Medical Leave Act rights, etc. There are a lot of things that employees get that aren't just "free sodas".
    - fleitz 11y ago
      I've contracted and had access to all those things, though I don't see the point of unionizing as the sole employee in my own business... Nor would I see any point in rights under the 'Family and Medical Leave Act' when I could take as much time off as I liked and pay myself whatever I wanted to during said leave.
Fomite 11y ago
Maybe labor laws should change, but they haven't changed. "Regulation is for other people" as a business model is a bad way to effect that change.
- secondtimeuse 11y ago
  Yes, I completely agree. Travis Kalanick should have just watched and followed "I am just a bill"[1] video for instructions regarding changing labor law, prior to founding Uber. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-eYBZFEzf8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-eYBZFEzf8
  - Apocryphon 11y ago
    Unironically agreed.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 11y ago
Rentseeking refers to trying to get compensation for economic activity that would happen without you. What this lady is doing is not rent seeking, because the economic transactions at issue (treating workers as employees), would not happen without her lawsuits. More generally, just because new technology exists doesn't mean that the law needs to change. Technology in this case has made engaging in certain work relationships easier, but hasn't created new work relationships. People have been freelancing as maids or drivers long before you could use an app to hire them to do those jobs. And the factors that fact typically used to figure out the treatment of workers still make perfect sense in the Uber context. E.g., Uber's drivers do have a lot of schedule flexibility. On the other hand, they impose tight service standards and tie them to their brand. How Uber's employees should be treated can thus be decided by applying the existing principles and factors. The labor protection versus employment freedom debate is much older than Silicon Valley, and the debate today doesn't really involve any new concepts. The WSJ was pushing for weaker labor laws decades ago, for the same reasons as it is now. Of course they're donning the mantle of disruption now--that's standard procedure when you're trying to relitigate a settled debate. But that's just a rhetorical device.
SilasX 11y ago
I agree that the labor laws have an "impedance mismatch" with the on-the-ground reality and I tried to spell out what that was in another comment [1]. Basically, laws shouldn't be discontinuous like this -- where all the rules sharply change when you just 50.001% look like a contractor (or the opposite). It should be more like "as you start to look more like an employee, you must adhere to more of a certain requirement". Don't know why you're getting voted down so hard. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10717768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10717768

gnodar 11y ago

It would have been nice if this article addressed the negative consequences of these companies skirting labor laws. The only mention of this is here: "she alleges that these firms exert the kind of control that employers would have over employees — without providing any of the benefits employees, by law, are entitled to." But it doesn't explain what specific benefits are being withheld from employees, so I don't know what bad thing she is trying to prevent, or the magnitude of the problem, if there really is one.

supercanuck 11y ago
State Disability and Unemployment Insurance
100k 11y ago
W2 employees have all kinds of protections that 1099 contractors don't. Paid sick time, FMLA leave, retirement plan contributions...A big difference is that 1099 contractors must pay their own self-employment taxes (15%) to cover Social Security and Medicare whereas W2 employees have half of that paid for by their company. (Economists would say that comes out of wages, but it still means $15/hour W2 is not directly comparable to $15/hour 1099.)
- ProAm 11y ago
  >still means $15/hour W2 is not directly comparable to $15/hour 1099 of course not that is why contractors get paid more than salary employees. If contractors dont ask for more money per hour then its their own fault.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Can you show me how "independent contractor" Uber employees can ask more per hour?
    - zzalpha 11y ago
      Which is, incidentally, one of the points this case will hinge on. Being able to set your own rates is one of the key differentiators between contract and employee labour, and Uber drivers clearly do not have that ability.

100k 11y ago

The most recent issue of Mother Jones also has an article about Liss-Riordan and her employment law lawsuits. According to the article, she got her start suing restaurants that were skimming tips from employees -- which Uber is also accused of. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/uber-lawsuit-drivers-class-action-shannon-liss-riordan http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/uber-lawsuit-dri...

SilasX 11y ago
Oy gevalt! That again? It's the modern version of counting angels on a pin. Uber said, "drivers get this percent from the fee, Uber gets this much". Uber claimed "tip's included". Modern philosophers claimed this makes a difference because the law prohibits taking a cut of tips. But there is no difference! Any allocation of the fee can be rephrased as being "with" or "without' a tip in such a way that the money flows are all the same. There is no "fact of the matter" as to what part of the fee is a tip! Any phrasing can be correct! Let's say Uber took 25%. You can say that the fee breaks down as: 1) 25% to Uber, 50% driver payment, 25% driver tip 2) 25% to Uber, 75% driver payment, no tip 3) 25% driver payment, 75% tip to driver, which Uber takes a 1/3 cut off (illegal). If the law treats observationally equivalent situations differently because of how they're labeled, that law is meaningless, and basically just taxing you on angel pinheads. (I call the property of passing this test "nominal invariance".) (The exception of course is when a customer gives a cash tip on top of the fee directly to the driver. But Uber definitely doesn't take a cut of that!

la6470 11y ago

Millenials are unknowingly signing up for slavery and throwing away all the hard earned labour rights in the name of being more agile.

aggieben 11y ago
...or simply trading those "rights" for the freedom to be responsible for their own lives. One gives up a lot of freedom to be an employee. That tradeoff might be worth it for some people, and not as much for others.
- skrause 11y ago
  > One gives up a lot of freedom to be an employee. As an employee I can walk away from my job any time I want and just get another. If I had my own business that would be way harder. Because of that I feel actually more free and independent as an employee. You just need to make sure to have a good financial buffer so that losing/switching a job won't hurt very much. Then your employer also can't pressure you too much.
  - aggieben 11y ago
    I feel exactly the opposite: I'm independent now, and I can walk away from my current gig without all that much disruption in my life because I don't depend on an employer for benefits or what have you. While I'm not walking away, I've got more flexibility than I might with an employer (depending on the employer). You're 100% right about having a buffer, though. That's a pretty immovable prerequisite no matter what your professional situation is.
- intopieces 11y ago
  They can trade that right after they change California's labor laws.
diogenescynic 11y ago
Can it really be blamed entirely on millennials?

gpsx 11y ago

And when it is all over I can see each driver getting a check for $2.37 and Liss-Riordon getting a check for $60,000,000.00. (OK, this maybe a slight exaggeration, but only a slight one.)

rayiner 11y ago
In the Fed Ex settlement she won $223m for 2,600 class members. Even if she gets a 1/3 cut that's, $60,000 on average per class member for mis-classification over a seven-year period.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I assume that doesn't include back taxes and fines due to the IRS.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Yeah, that's just the fund for claims from employees.
- gpsx 11y ago
  Without much research on my part as to accuracy, Google said Uber has 167,000 employees. So in a $200M payout she gets her $60,000,000 and Uber employees average $838.
themartorana 11y ago
So, making her money on the backs of the little guy, then? It's how class-action lawsuits usually work. I wonder if they do for her lawsuits as well.
xbmcuser 11y ago
It's not about the money but change if she settles out of court without making companies change how they treat their workers then you can complain about how much she made.
andygates 11y ago

steven2012 11y ago

I don't think they will win. Every single uber driver I talk to loves it. They love that they can work whenever they want, that they can choose to work for Lyft or uber, etc. I don't know how you can say they are anything like an employee. There is no negative consequences for not working except less money.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> I don't think they will win. Every single uber driver I talk to loves it. That's not quite how the law works. Whether you enjoy being subjugated or not doesn't effect if the law can be enforced against the entity violating the law.
- steven2012 11y ago
  How are drivers being subjugated and what law is being violated. What evidence is there that they are actually employees besides the fact that lawyers and union activists want them to be?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - steven2012 11y ago
      Well, yes, that's the whole point of this article. My point is that I don't believe there is enough evidence for the judge to make this ruling.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - secondtimeuse 11y ago
    You are watching a classic 21st century robbery in action, where lawyers are robbing corporations and employees under some pretense of magical justice. Counting the downvotes on comments, HN has sharply taken a socialist turn and lawyers are the new superheroes saving people from Evil startups. In other news Bernie Sanders hates Uber despite using it nearly 100% of time.[1] [1] http://thehill.com/policy/technology/250480-bernie-sanders-says-he-has-serious-problems-with-uber http://thehill.com/policy/technology/250480-bernie-sanders-s...

bluefinity 11y ago

Uber is the world's most highly valued private company? Somebody better tell Saudi Aramco.

mikeyouse 11y ago
Or Koch Industries..
- zzazzdsa 11y ago
  or Cargill, or Mars....

benbowden 11y ago

If she does win the case then wouldn't Uber and Lyft simply give less of a percentage of earnings per ride to their drivers to compensate for the change of cost? Would Uber and Lyft make more if they had their drivers on a similar model to a pizza delivery driver ($4.50/h + tips)?

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> If she does win the case then wouldn't Uber and Lyft simply give less of a percentage of earnings per ride to their drivers to compensate for the change of cost? Uber and Lyft would need to pay hourly wages, along with all of the associated taxes due. > Would Uber and Lyft make more if they had their drivers on a similar model to a pizza delivery driver ($4.50/h + tips)? Uber and Lyft's entire business model is built on the independent contractor model. I don't believe they could reach profitability in any scenario with human drivers if they have to pay them as stipulated by IRS regulations.
- SilasX 11y ago
  >Uber and Lyft would need to pay hourly wages, along with all of the associated taxes due. Not true. You can be an employee with a non-hourly pay structure. Just one of many misconceptions batted around about the implications of driver reclassification, along with (these aren't all false per se, just not-necessarily-true): - Drivers would have to get the Uber-paid lavish health care plan that developers there get. - Driver cash payments would remain the same and not be reduced. - Drivers would get fixed work schedules. - Drivers would value the compensation package that includes employee benefits but has lower cash pay, over the compensation they get now. - Uber would have to provide the vehicles. - The economic incidence of FICA taxes would shift to Uber (not how economic incidence works[1]). Again, the employee/contractor distinction depends on a number of factors; you can be classified as an employee without meeting all of criteria. [1] Good explanation: https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/422av5/some_good_old_fashioned_101level_errors_on/cz73e8g https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/422av5/some_g...
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago

eugenekolo2 11y ago

Reminds me of Microsoft's contractor lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsof... http://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-dont-treat-c-idUSTRE53063S20090401 http://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-d...

Karunamon 11y ago

One thing I never see addressed in these Uber stories is how, precisely, the drivers got classified as employees. The only test I'm aware of refers to things like set hours, dictated methods of working, company equipment, payment, and so on[1]. Just by that those tests alone, I don't see how an Uber driver is realistically anything other than a contractor. So either a judge screwed up somewhere, or I'm really missing something. Would anyone have some more information on the particulars? [1]: https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Independent-Contractor-Self-Employed-or-Employee https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Emplo...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]