5 ms·

From TFA: Uber would likely have to reclassify tens of thousands of drivers in California as employees — something Uber drivers have been fighting for in court

From TFA: Uber would likely have to reclassify tens of thousands of drivers in California as employees — something Uber drivers have been fighting for in court, unsuccessfully, for years. "Fighting for in court" links to https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535367/uber-drivers-strike-2019-cities https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535367/uber-drivers-strike-20... - which includes these choice paragraphs: It’s worth reemphasizing this: Uber doesn’t want to pay drivers to take 15-minute rest breaks every few hours because it would cost too much, even though all US employers are required to give hourly workers paid breaks under federal law. In the filing, the company says that dissatisfied drivers could become a business liability, as recent protests in India, the United Kingdom, and the United States have interrupted business on the platform. Instead of outlining ways to make drivers happy, Uber suggests it will just get worse. “As we aim to reduce driver incentives to improve our financial performance, we expect Driver dissatisfaction will generally increase,” the company stated. Sssssooo this maybe sounds like something employees who have been doing these jobs have been wanting for a while...

manfredo 7y ago
Drivers want it, but drivers probably don't look at Uber's finances. Ask drivers this: You would get the benefits of employees, but now you would have to work at least 40 hours a week and now those hours will be set by Uber - you will not get to choose your own hours. Do you think they'd want that situation?
- e40 7y ago
  Benefits can be given at less than 40 hours per week. The policy of many companies is a 30 hour per week threshold for that.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  now you would have to work at least 40 hours a week and now those hours will be set by Uber Why would you have to work at least 40 hours a week? There is such a thing as a part-time employee In fact most low-rung jobs try to keep employees under full-time to avoid the extra benefits that FTEs qualify for. Or, put it another way, if Uber required its drivers to work 40 hours a week and this resulted in unhappy drivers, what makes you think anyone would want to drive for Uber in the first place?
  - Shivetya 7y ago
    I will have to ask my coworkers who drive for uber/lyft but my impression is they can turn off the app/take breaks when they want and there is no let up in rides once they turn it back on. As for the FTE quandary, blame the party who put themselves before the people and pushed the ACA out with a the twenty nine hour rule. That has done more damage to lower income workers than nearly any change before it. Now if Uber or Lyft penalize drivers for turning the app off that could be regulated but mandating a break time when the use of the app is wholly in the hands of the driver?
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > Why would you have to work at least 40 hours a week? Because if you work less than that then the employee does not generate enough revenue to pay for the overhead cost of benefits. > There is such a thing as a part-time employee In fact most low-rung jobs try to keep employees under full-time to avoid the extra benefits that FTEs qualify for. If that's the case with Uber drivers then they don't get benefits either. And on top of that, the company will probably have to cap drivers' hours in order to keep them from qualifying for benefits. > Or, put it another way, if Uber required its drivers to work 40 hours a week and this resulted in unhappy drivers, what makes you think anyone would want to drive for Uber in the first place? They wouldn't. That's my point. If this legislation goes into effect, then driving for Uber will not be a viable employment option for many current drivers because of the loss of work flexibility.
    - inferiorhuman 7y ago
      Because if you work less than that then the employee does not generate enough revenue to pay for the overhead cost of benefits. That's not how things work at a low wage job. Beyond a threshold (around 30 hours) employers are hit with extra mandates (e.g. health insurance). If that's the case with Uber drivers then they don't get benefits either. And on top of that, the company will probably have to cap drivers' hours in order to keep them from qualifying for benefits. That's not true either. Being classed as an employee will mean that the drivers qualify for unemployment insurance, that Uber will pay half of some of the taxes typically levied on wages, oh and having W2 wages will qualify you for a tax-advantaged IRA (retirement account). There are some other perks as well depending on the locality. Being an employee versus contractor comes with a number of benefits that aren't health insurance.
jypepin 7y ago
It's unclear how many drivers are actually fighting this and how many are actually happy in the current situation and do not want to be classified as employees. The article mentions "Last month, Uber settled the main court case with 13,600 Uber drivers". That doesn't seem like a lot of drivers (or the majority) of drivers.
- distances 7y ago
  The next sentence explained how 350,000 other employees are unable to fight this is courts due to mandatory arbitration clauses, another abomination that should have never existed.
wutbrodo 7y ago
Is there any particular reason (beyond lazy, motivated reasoning) that you think that these drivers represent an appreciable fraction of the Uber workforce? "Some drivers are unhappy" seems roughly as useful a data point as "every Uber driver I've talked to seems happy", which would be rightfully dismissed as unrepresentative by anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty.
maxerickson 7y ago
I wonder what federal law they are referring to there. I'm under the impression that there's no requirement for paid breaks. (There's a requirement that short breaks be treated as compensated time for the purposes of determining when overtime pay starts, but that's not what your quote is getting at.)
- wyre 7y ago
  Its most likely state law in California and not a federal law. A lot of states require employers to allow paid breaks.
andrei_says_ 7y ago
“If only we could have drivers work for free and be extremely satisfied...” I’m wondering if Uber will seek to collaboration with the correctional facilities which can provide staffing for similar scenarios.

manfredo 7y ago

Drivers want it, but drivers probably don't look at Uber's finances. Ask drivers this: You would get the benefits of employees, but now you would have to work at least 40 hours a week and now those hours will be set by Uber - you will not get to choose your own hours. Do you think they'd want that situation?

e40 7y ago
Benefits can be given at less than 40 hours per week. The policy of many companies is a 30 hour per week threshold for that.
inferiorhuman 7y ago
now you would have to work at least 40 hours a week and now those hours will be set by Uber Why would you have to work at least 40 hours a week? There is such a thing as a part-time employee In fact most low-rung jobs try to keep employees under full-time to avoid the extra benefits that FTEs qualify for. Or, put it another way, if Uber required its drivers to work 40 hours a week and this resulted in unhappy drivers, what makes you think anyone would want to drive for Uber in the first place?
- Shivetya 7y ago
  I will have to ask my coworkers who drive for uber/lyft but my impression is they can turn off the app/take breaks when they want and there is no let up in rides once they turn it back on. As for the FTE quandary, blame the party who put themselves before the people and pushed the ACA out with a the twenty nine hour rule. That has done more damage to lower income workers than nearly any change before it. Now if Uber or Lyft penalize drivers for turning the app off that could be regulated but mandating a break time when the use of the app is wholly in the hands of the driver?
- manfredo 7y ago
  > Why would you have to work at least 40 hours a week? Because if you work less than that then the employee does not generate enough revenue to pay for the overhead cost of benefits. > There is such a thing as a part-time employee In fact most low-rung jobs try to keep employees under full-time to avoid the extra benefits that FTEs qualify for. If that's the case with Uber drivers then they don't get benefits either. And on top of that, the company will probably have to cap drivers' hours in order to keep them from qualifying for benefits. > Or, put it another way, if Uber required its drivers to work 40 hours a week and this resulted in unhappy drivers, what makes you think anyone would want to drive for Uber in the first place? They wouldn't. That's my point. If this legislation goes into effect, then driving for Uber will not be a viable employment option for many current drivers because of the loss of work flexibility.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    Because if you work less than that then the employee does not generate enough revenue to pay for the overhead cost of benefits. That's not how things work at a low wage job. Beyond a threshold (around 30 hours) employers are hit with extra mandates (e.g. health insurance). If that's the case with Uber drivers then they don't get benefits either. And on top of that, the company will probably have to cap drivers' hours in order to keep them from qualifying for benefits. That's not true either. Being classed as an employee will mean that the drivers qualify for unemployment insurance, that Uber will pay half of some of the taxes typically levied on wages, oh and having W2 wages will qualify you for a tax-advantaged IRA (retirement account). There are some other perks as well depending on the locality. Being an employee versus contractor comes with a number of benefits that aren't health insurance.

jypepin 7y ago

It's unclear how many drivers are actually fighting this and how many are actually happy in the current situation and do not want to be classified as employees. The article mentions "Last month, Uber settled the main court case with 13,600 Uber drivers". That doesn't seem like a lot of drivers (or the majority) of drivers.

distances 7y ago
The next sentence explained how 350,000 other employees are unable to fight this is courts due to mandatory arbitration clauses, another abomination that should have never existed.

wutbrodo 7y ago

Is there any particular reason (beyond lazy, motivated reasoning) that you think that these drivers represent an appreciable fraction of the Uber workforce? "Some drivers are unhappy" seems roughly as useful a data point as "every Uber driver I've talked to seems happy", which would be rightfully dismissed as unrepresentative by anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty.

maxerickson 7y ago

I wonder what federal law they are referring to there. I'm under the impression that there's no requirement for paid breaks. (There's a requirement that short breaks be treated as compensated time for the purposes of determining when overtime pay starts, but that's not what your quote is getting at.)

wyre 7y ago
Its most likely state law in California and not a federal law. A lot of states require employers to allow paid breaks.

andrei_says_ 7y ago

“If only we could have drivers work for free and be extremely satisfied...” I’m wondering if Uber will seek to collaboration with the correctional facilities which can provide staffing for similar scenarios.