3 ms·
> "If drivers were classified as workers they would inevitably lose some of the freedom and flexibility that comes with being their own boss." Does the law act
by deogeo 8y ago
> "If drivers were classified as workers they would inevitably lose some of the freedom and flexibility that comes with being their own boss."
Does the law actually mandate that employers offer less freedom and flexibility if someone is classified as a worker? Because from my vague familiarity with it, it does nothing of the sort, and this statement by Uber is misleading well beyond the point of lying. After all, isn't it precisely the lack of said "freedom and flexibility" that got their contractors classified as workers in the first place?
- thatoneuser 8y agoGood point. I think the underlying message they’re conveying is “as an employee you don’t get freedom, and that comes with fair compensation/benefits”. The implication being that the pay/benefits for them is not as good, but compensated by “freedom and flexibility”. However as you astutely point out, they don’t actually provide those things.
- gpapilion 8y agoUltimately Uber would choose to limit workers in a wait state since an idle driver is not profitable and now a major direct cost.
- cjlars 8y agoI'm many US states, loss of flexibility is the likely outcome. For example, in California you cannot pay someone for a shift lasting less than two hours. You can send them home if there's no work, but you still owe them at least two, if not four hours worth of pay. So if a driver wants to knock out a few trips while he/she has some time to kill, that would functionally be illegal due to the cost burden. Current employment law assumes scheduled shifts, so the "drive when you want" option would likely fall apart when Uber is given the legal right to dictate that X number of drivers will be working peak hours.