4 ms·

Companies can't unionize -- it's called anti-competitive behaviour. Depending on who you ask, Uber drivers aren't necessarily workers; they might be independen

Companies can't unionize -- it's called anti-competitive behaviour. Depending on who you ask, Uber drivers aren't necessarily workers; they might be independent contractors, i.e., companies. EDIT: Also, depending on the definition of "allowed to unionize" here, it's possible that this goes beyond allowing collective bargaining to prohibiting Uber from hiring anyone who isn't "blessed" by the union.

baq 10y ago
california most definitely thinks they're workers, even if they think they're companies. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/business/uber-contests-california-labor-ruling-that-says-drivers-should-be-employees.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/business/uber-contests-ca...
- hueving 10y ago
  >california most definitely thinks California is a state, it doesn't think. Please be more precise with commentary like this (e.g. state judicial rulings vs local laws vs state laws). In this particular case it's the California Labor Commissioner's office and it's a ruling for one case. From your article: >The ruling does not apply beyond Ms. Berwick and could be altered if Uber’s appeal succeeds. So this is a long ways away from being a law in California.
  - bildung 10y ago
    Let me introduce you to a wonderful element of human language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche
    - hueving 10y ago
      I appreciate the condescension, but saying that a state thinks something when referring to an enforcement ruling from a particular office is very misleading. In particular you can say the state both simultaneously thinks that they are contractors (how the rest of the Uber employees are treated) and it thinks that they are not (the ruling outcome of this one case). So saying a state thinks something when there are many conflicting internal positions is worthless and just ends up being a tool to push a particular political agenda.
      - __realtime 10y ago
        why are both your comments greyed out?
        gambiting 10y ago
        That's what happens when comments get a lot of downvotes. You don't see a "karma" score on HN, but comments with negative number of votes get more and more grayed out until they are hardly visible.
        hnbroseph 10y ago
        very poor content, presumably.
        vinceguidry 10y ago
        It's not so much the content, it's the tone. People don't like being talked down to, even if the points are relevant.
        hueving 10y ago
        How about this comment that is both condescending and irrelevant in response to mine? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13856422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13856422
      - vertex-four 10y ago
        People actually think lots of apparently conflicting ideas - a common one being believing in religion and understanding science - and in fact the person you originally responded to pointed out the supposed "conflict" here - that individual contractors, despite being "independent" companies, may have collective bargaining rights.
        hueving 10y ago
        The comment I replied to made it sound as if the state had some kind of position on the matter, but the linked evidence was only that a particular office ruled on one single case. >california most definitely thinks they're workers, This is blatantly wrong.
    - mdpopescu 10y ago
      Or the reification fallacy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
slowmotiony 10y ago
It's not really depending on who you ask and it's very surprising for me to read comments like yours on HN of all places, the law is very clearly laid out and some protest signs in Sillicon Valley do not change the reality. You can check the IRS website if you're confused about what the distinction is between a contractor and a worker.
- cperciva 10y ago
  Sorry, I was unclear. I should have said "depending on the context and which law applies". The IRS definitions apply when you're dealing with the IRS (unless they don't, e.g., if you convince a court that the IRS is incorrectly applying the law) but they're not necessarily the same as the definitions which are legally relevant for antitrust purposes or for the purpose of Labour relations regulations.
- walshemj 10y ago
  Actually the worker / employee distinction is complex and not as cut and dried as you think. This is a big part of the Uber/Delivered style of companies business model that is dodging the employer social security taxes.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    The taxes are never dodged. Either Uber pays them (W2) or the independent contractor does (1040). The bigger issue, st least under Obamacare, was if they were elegiabke for group health insurance if they worked more than 30 hours.
    - walshemj 10y ago
      Depends on country often self employed get better tax breaks in return for less benefits - this is "real" self employed contractors not faux self employment like Uber et al
      - seanmcdirmid 10y ago

baq 10y ago

california most definitely thinks they're workers, even if they think they're companies. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/business/uber-contests-california-labor-ruling-that-says-drivers-should-be-employees.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/business/uber-contests-ca...

hueving 10y ago
>california most definitely thinks California is a state, it doesn't think. Please be more precise with commentary like this (e.g. state judicial rulings vs local laws vs state laws). In this particular case it's the California Labor Commissioner's office and it's a ruling for one case. From your article: >The ruling does not apply beyond Ms. Berwick and could be altered if Uber’s appeal succeeds. So this is a long ways away from being a law in California.
- bildung 10y ago
  Let me introduce you to a wonderful element of human language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche
  - hueving 10y ago
    I appreciate the condescension, but saying that a state thinks something when referring to an enforcement ruling from a particular office is very misleading. In particular you can say the state both simultaneously thinks that they are contractors (how the rest of the Uber employees are treated) and it thinks that they are not (the ruling outcome of this one case). So saying a state thinks something when there are many conflicting internal positions is worthless and just ends up being a tool to push a particular political agenda.
    - __realtime 10y ago
      why are both your comments greyed out?
      - gambiting 10y ago
        That's what happens when comments get a lot of downvotes. You don't see a "karma" score on HN, but comments with negative number of votes get more and more grayed out until they are hardly visible.
      - hnbroseph 10y ago
        very poor content, presumably.
        vinceguidry 10y ago
        It's not so much the content, it's the tone. People don't like being talked down to, even if the points are relevant.
        hueving 10y ago
        How about this comment that is both condescending and irrelevant in response to mine? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13856422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13856422
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      People actually think lots of apparently conflicting ideas - a common one being believing in religion and understanding science - and in fact the person you originally responded to pointed out the supposed "conflict" here - that individual contractors, despite being "independent" companies, may have collective bargaining rights.
      - hueving 10y ago
        The comment I replied to made it sound as if the state had some kind of position on the matter, but the linked evidence was only that a particular office ruled on one single case. >california most definitely thinks they're workers, This is blatantly wrong.
  - mdpopescu 10y ago
    Or the reification fallacy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

slowmotiony 10y ago

It's not really depending on who you ask and it's very surprising for me to read comments like yours on HN of all places, the law is very clearly laid out and some protest signs in Sillicon Valley do not change the reality. You can check the IRS website if you're confused about what the distinction is between a contractor and a worker.

cperciva 10y ago
Sorry, I was unclear. I should have said "depending on the context and which law applies". The IRS definitions apply when you're dealing with the IRS (unless they don't, e.g., if you convince a court that the IRS is incorrectly applying the law) but they're not necessarily the same as the definitions which are legally relevant for antitrust purposes or for the purpose of Labour relations regulations.
walshemj 10y ago
Actually the worker / employee distinction is complex and not as cut and dried as you think. This is a big part of the Uber/Delivered style of companies business model that is dodging the employer social security taxes.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  The taxes are never dodged. Either Uber pays them (W2) or the independent contractor does (1040). The bigger issue, st least under Obamacare, was if they were elegiabke for group health insurance if they worked more than 30 hours.
  - walshemj 10y ago
    Depends on country often self employed get better tax breaks in return for less benefits - this is "real" self employed contractors not faux self employment like Uber et al
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago