4 ms·

I hope Uber self-driving cars come and these people get unemployed.

by fiatjaf 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago
Why do you hope that? They simply disputed their status in open court and the judge seems to agree with them, whether or not Uber self-driving cars will come has no bearing on this case, and if and when they become un-employed it still will not be because of this case or any others. Of course employers the world over would love to get rid of their #1 cost, but that's no reason to break the law by pretending you don't have any employees when actually you do.
- fiatjaf 10y ago
  Of course they didn't "simply disputed their status", they KNEW their status since the day they decided to become Uber drivers, after that they tried to use the law to steal money from Uber, probably advised by some lawyer and by the devil himself.
  - JonFish85 10y ago
    "law to steal money from Uber" Wow, that's impressive. Are you an Uber or Lyft shareholder? Because damn, this is a pretty strong sentiment, especially for a company that basically has flouted the law on it's way to a lofty valuation.
    - fiatjaf 10y ago
      You (and others in this thread) have a lot of respect for laws that are clearly unjust. Perhaps you just don't see how these laws are unjust, but it is wrong to assume that because it is a law it must be respected. The fact that the majority of laws are just maybe have induced you to this wrong view of what is a law. I bet, however, that you would understand the difference between what is good and what is lawful if you were faced with something like a law that demanded you to abandon your family, or kill your friends.
  - cphoover 10y ago
    "they KNEW their status" ... and what's that to you? Dog shit? Everyone knows Uber and similar companies entice workers through referral/sign-up bonuses, and are notorious for reducing pay-out when markets allow. There is a reason indentured-servitude is no longer possible. First-world countries have labor-laws, and rightfully so. Why should Uber be allowed to skirt around these laws? What makes them special? People have rights.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Not only that, these 'disintermediators' tend to be structured in such a way that they get all (or even more) of the benefits of having employees without having the employers responsibilities towards these de-facto employees.
    - thesimon 10y ago
      >. Why should Uber be allowed to skirt around these laws? What makes them special? They have an app and are cheaper. Same reason why airbnb obviously should be allowed to skirt around these laws.
    - fiatjaf 10y ago
      People have rights? Are you sure of that? From where do these rights came from? I don't think Uber should be allowed to skirt around these laws, I think it is a moral duty for everyone that is able to to only engage in voluntary contracts and fulfill them, never to breach a contract by calling an external force to change its terms.
geofft 10y ago
That's funny, I thought it was the worst crime possible on Hacker News to hope that someone gets fired for their political views. Or are our sympathies only with Mozilla CEOs and people who make dongle jokes at conferences?
- mst 10y ago
  I think the rest of this subthread has made it fairly clear that HN is unimpressed with the sentiment you're replying to as well. I'm not sure what you thought your comment was intended to achieve but I strongly suspect it wasn't the most effective way to get your point across.
2398cwidnjl 10y ago
If a multinational operates in Europe, they should (and almost certainly did) know the status of the drivers. The reality is that you have to meet a couple of criteria to avoid the "fake self-employment" laws, and the drivers don't. You can work for a single client as a freelancer for extended periods of time, but you have to demonstrate that the project requires significant creative input and you're not just following orders (or a dispatch system in this case).

I hope Uber self-driving cars come and these people get unemployed.

by fiatjaf 10y ago

I hope Uber self-driving cars come and these people get unemployed.

Why do you hope that? They simply disputed their status in open court and the judge seems to agree with them, whether or not Uber self-driving cars will come has no bearing on this case, and if and when they become un-employed it still will not be because of this case or any others. Of course employers the world over would love to get rid of their #1 cost, but that's no reason to break the law by pretending you don't have any employees when actually you do.

fiatjaf 10y ago
Of course they didn't "simply disputed their status", they KNEW their status since the day they decided to become Uber drivers, after that they tried to use the law to steal money from Uber, probably advised by some lawyer and by the devil himself.
- JonFish85 10y ago
  "law to steal money from Uber" Wow, that's impressive. Are you an Uber or Lyft shareholder? Because damn, this is a pretty strong sentiment, especially for a company that basically has flouted the law on it's way to a lofty valuation.
  - fiatjaf 10y ago
    You (and others in this thread) have a lot of respect for laws that are clearly unjust. Perhaps you just don't see how these laws are unjust, but it is wrong to assume that because it is a law it must be respected. The fact that the majority of laws are just maybe have induced you to this wrong view of what is a law. I bet, however, that you would understand the difference between what is good and what is lawful if you were faced with something like a law that demanded you to abandon your family, or kill your friends.
- cphoover 10y ago
  "they KNEW their status" ... and what's that to you? Dog shit? Everyone knows Uber and similar companies entice workers through referral/sign-up bonuses, and are notorious for reducing pay-out when markets allow. There is a reason indentured-servitude is no longer possible. First-world countries have labor-laws, and rightfully so. Why should Uber be allowed to skirt around these laws? What makes them special? People have rights.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Not only that, these 'disintermediators' tend to be structured in such a way that they get all (or even more) of the benefits of having employees without having the employers responsibilities towards these de-facto employees.
  - thesimon 10y ago
    >. Why should Uber be allowed to skirt around these laws? What makes them special? They have an app and are cheaper. Same reason why airbnb obviously should be allowed to skirt around these laws.
  - fiatjaf 10y ago
    People have rights? Are you sure of that? From where do these rights came from? I don't think Uber should be allowed to skirt around these laws, I think it is a moral duty for everyone that is able to to only engage in voluntary contracts and fulfill them, never to breach a contract by calling an external force to change its terms.

geofft 10y ago

That's funny, I thought it was the worst crime possible on Hacker News to hope that someone gets fired for their political views. Or are our sympathies only with Mozilla CEOs and people who make dongle jokes at conferences?

mst 10y ago
I think the rest of this subthread has made it fairly clear that HN is unimpressed with the sentiment you're replying to as well. I'm not sure what you thought your comment was intended to achieve but I strongly suspect it wasn't the most effective way to get your point across.

2398cwidnjl 10y ago

If a multinational operates in Europe, they should (and almost certainly did) know the status of the drivers. The reality is that you have to meet a couple of criteria to avoid the "fake self-employment" laws, and the drivers don't. You can work for a single client as a freelancer for extended periods of time, but you have to demonstrate that the project requires significant creative input and you're not just following orders (or a dispatch system in this case).