3 ms·

> I don't think that a common sense definition of what an "employee" is includes "show up to work whenever you want, take whatever breaks you want, knock off wh

by zzzeek 7y ago

> I don't think that a common sense definition of what an "employee" is includes "show up to work whenever you want, take whatever breaks you want, knock off whenever you want, show up wherever you want, from the article: > Uber and lyft have hung their legal hat on the idea that drivers are not workers because they have flexibility. This has never been the criteria on which courts have ruled if workers are employees.

sokoloff 7y ago
That the article which makes a claim to which I object makes an additional (unsubstantiated/uncited) claim that their former claim is true is not independent evidence, IMO. (see also: proof by repeated assertion) Excerpts from the IRS "20 questions" test of employee vs contractor [0]: Work for multiple companies. People who simultaneously provide services for several unrelated companies are likely to qualify as independent contractors. Flexibility of schedule. People whose hours or days of work are dictated by a company are apt to qualify as its employees. Demands for full-time work. Full-time work gives a company control over most of a person's time, which supports a finding of an employment relationship. Need for on-site services. Requiring someone to work on company premises— particularly if the work can be performed elsewhere—indicates a possible employment relationship. Method of payment. Hourly, weekly, or monthly pay schedules are characteristic of employment relationships, unless the payments simply are a convenient way of distributing a lump-sum fee. Payment on commission or project completion is more characteristic of independent contractor relationships. Provision of tools and materials. Workers who perform most of their work using company-provided equipment, tools, and materials are more likely to be considered employees. Work largely done using independently obtained supplies or tools supports an independent contractor finding. Realization of profit or loss. Workers who receive predetermined earnings and have little chance to realize significant profit or loss through their work generally are employees. I acknowledge that there are other tests which lean towards employee, but it's far from slam dunk, settled law IMO, and flexibility is quite obviously one factor that courts consider. [0] - https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/NaturalResources/20FactorTestforIndependentContractors.pdf https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/Nat...
- smaddox 7y ago
  In my reading, basically every one of those points to Uber/Lyft drivers being contractors...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- narag 7y ago
  A question: are those criteria part of a definition or hints? Possesion of certain amounts of illegal drugs hints that someone's a dealer, but it's not the definition. Selling is. The real definition of employee seems more related to a higher dependence on the employer. Looking closer at the points you quote gives a different vision. As an example: owning of tools and materials is actually a burden for the worker. A car, including maintenance, is a significant financial investment. Forcing workers to provide them doesn't make them less dependent on the company, on the contrary. Similar objections can be put on the rest of criteria. With realization of profit I agree, but are you sure that works well everywhere and for everybody? I suspect that's not the case outside rich areas.
- stefan_ 7y ago
  Please read the article, which discusses a California Supreme Court ruling on this very topic. Right now, you got like a paragraph in and went to commenting. That's not helpful.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    (I did read the entire article before commenting.) A California Supreme Court ruling seems to have no bearing on whether Uber and Lyft "have a right to exist". At most, that ruling would affect whether or not they can operate as today within California.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Don’t accuse people of not reading the article. It’s against the site guidelines.
- 7y ago
ryankupyn 7y ago
I didn’t quite get that paragraph, because flexibility of schedule is an important criteria for determining if someone is an employee or a contractor in most of the the US! (In California this isn’t true as of fairly recently, but most of the rest of the country still uses a 20-point set of factors that includes schedule flexibility) https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/NaturalResources/20FactorTestforIndependentContractors.pdf https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/Nat...

by zzzeek 7y ago

sokoloff 7y ago

That the article which makes a claim to which I object makes an additional (unsubstantiated/uncited) claim that their former claim is true is not independent evidence, IMO. (see also: proof by repeated assertion) Excerpts from the IRS "20 questions" test of employee vs contractor [0]: Work for multiple companies. People who simultaneously provide services for several unrelated companies are likely to qualify as independent contractors. Flexibility of schedule. People whose hours or days of work are dictated by a company are apt to qualify as its employees. Demands for full-time work. Full-time work gives a company control over most of a person's time, which supports a finding of an employment relationship. Need for on-site services. Requiring someone to work on company premises— particularly if the work can be performed elsewhere—indicates a possible employment relationship. Method of payment. Hourly, weekly, or monthly pay schedules are characteristic of employment relationships, unless the payments simply are a convenient way of distributing a lump-sum fee. Payment on commission or project completion is more characteristic of independent contractor relationships. Provision of tools and materials. Workers who perform most of their work using company-provided equipment, tools, and materials are more likely to be considered employees. Work largely done using independently obtained supplies or tools supports an independent contractor finding. Realization of profit or loss. Workers who receive predetermined earnings and have little chance to realize significant profit or loss through their work generally are employees. I acknowledge that there are other tests which lean towards employee, but it's far from slam dunk, settled law IMO, and flexibility is quite obviously one factor that courts consider. [0] - https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/NaturalResources/20FactorTestforIndependentContractors.pdf https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/Nat...

smaddox 7y ago
In my reading, basically every one of those points to Uber/Lyft drivers being contractors...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
narag 7y ago
A question: are those criteria part of a definition or hints? Possesion of certain amounts of illegal drugs hints that someone's a dealer, but it's not the definition. Selling is. The real definition of employee seems more related to a higher dependence on the employer. Looking closer at the points you quote gives a different vision. As an example: owning of tools and materials is actually a burden for the worker. A car, including maintenance, is a significant financial investment. Forcing workers to provide them doesn't make them less dependent on the company, on the contrary. Similar objections can be put on the rest of criteria. With realization of profit I agree, but are you sure that works well everywhere and for everybody? I suspect that's not the case outside rich areas.
stefan_ 7y ago
Please read the article, which discusses a California Supreme Court ruling on this very topic. Right now, you got like a paragraph in and went to commenting. That's not helpful.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  (I did read the entire article before commenting.) A California Supreme Court ruling seems to have no bearing on whether Uber and Lyft "have a right to exist". At most, that ruling would affect whether or not they can operate as today within California.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Don’t accuse people of not reading the article. It’s against the site guidelines.
7y ago

ryankupyn 7y ago

I didn’t quite get that paragraph, because flexibility of schedule is an important criteria for determining if someone is an employee or a contractor in most of the the US! (In California this isn’t true as of fairly recently, but most of the rest of the country still uses a 20-point set of factors that includes schedule flexibility) https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/NaturalResources/20FactorTestforIndependentContractors.pdf https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/Nat...