44 ms·

Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees

786 points by Aissen 7y ago

easytiger 7y ago
Really silly. There are loads of people who don't want to work as permanent employees. In Europe people often travel to work seasonally in different countries as suits them.
saykou 7y ago
why then the great taxi syndicate of paris is self employed?
aksss 7y ago
I'm not sure I follow. Uber drivers can also drive for Lyft, and independently, thereby building up their own clientele. Uber connects drivers to clients and takes a cut off the top. Drivers can (and have) passed out their cards to me with direct lines. They can also get dispatches from Lyft.. WHILE entertaining offers from Uber and direct calls. Uber drivers set their own rate by taking the job or not. The best analogy is a contractor and a GC. The GC needs work done at a certain rate, the contractor takes it or leaves it. Drivers avail themselves to take rides or not on their own schedule, which is them setting the terms and conditions for providing their services. They aren't obligated to offer rides on the Uber platform, and can concurrently entertain offers from other platforms (Lyft, independent, etc). We all know the intent of Uber was/is to connect people who want to ride-share in their spare time to people who need rides. It makes it easy for both parties and it's an improvement over taxis for all involved except taxi license holders. We shouldn't penalize progress because some Neanderthals want to make it their sole source of income (or eradicate ride sharing). This is people peeing in the Napster pool all over again.
richard78459 7y ago
This ruling should apply only to a company that has a revenue over say 10 million. That way it will provide competition to the market at the same time taking care of drivers not being exploited. win win scenario.
BrandoElFollito 7y ago
It classified that Uber driver as an employee. This does not change anything for others who still need to go to court in order to have their status changed (or not, they may loose. We do not have a legal system where precedents can be used in other cases)
datashow 7y ago
So if a driver works on both Uber and Lyft or whatever, the driver is an employee of all those companies?
- guerrilla 7y ago
  Yes, many people work more than one job.
  - datashow 7y ago
    Not at the same time.
    - cambalache 7y ago
      Is the driver driving 2 cars at the same time? Is he making two travels one for Uber one for Lyft at the same time?
      - darkwizard42 7y ago
        No, but at any given moment he is signed in and available on both platforms. Who should front the bill for the waiting time?
        cambalache 7y ago
        The same people who are fronting the bill right now. Nobody.
    - avianlyric 7y ago
      You can’t do jobs for two ride sharing companies at the same time. You just can’t take two different people to two different destinations in one car.
      - umeshunni 7y ago
        > You just can’t take two different people to two different destinations in one car. Yes you can - that's literally how carpooling (or UberPool, Lyft-line etc) work.
pkaye 7y ago
Seems a fair judgement since all the restriction make the drivers effectively work as employees: > Drivers who use the Uber application do not build up their own clientele, do not freely set their rates, and do not determine the terms and conditions of providing their transportation service. The company imposes the itinerary and the driver’s fare is adjusted if this itinerary is not followed. The destination is unknown to the driver, thereby revealing that the driver cannot freely choose the route that suits him/her...
- rahimnathwani 7y ago
  Doesn't all of this also apply to taxis? Taxis pick up at taxi ranks or off the street. Taxis have regulations set by an organisation. Taxis (in most places) have rules that say they must take the most efficient route. In most places, taxis aren't allowed to refuse a customer based on destination. Does that mean that a taxi driver is an employee? Of course not.
  - a_imho 7y ago
    I still don't understand how Uber is not a taxi service bar some nitpicking.
  - rickbutton 7y ago
    Why not? Sounds like they would also be an employee under this ruling.
    - rahimnathwani 7y ago
      Whose employee? That of the taxi organisation which regulates them, but doesn't actually pay them? That of each of individual customer, who are the ones who pay them?
      - munk-a 7y ago
        Does this reasoning mean that all waiters are independent contractors? They collect cash directly from the customer and reserve a portion of that before passing it on to their employer (the tip) - taxi drivers (who are members of a firm) due end up paying the firm dues for the service of having a pooled call center and possibly maintenance services. I think trying to determine if someone is an employee based on if they receive cash from customers is a pretty arbitrary line that seems to exclude some pretty valid definitions of independent contractors like temporary workers and sales consultants.
jonplackett 7y ago
Just in time for Corona Virus sick pay?
- jonplackett 7y ago
  Lots of downvotes. This was not meant to be a joke. I’m actually wondering if they will get sick pay now.
dahfizz 7y ago
So can Uber force French drivers to work certain hours? As an American, I have poor understanding of what employment entails in the EU. If the Uber drivers are just hourly employees, what changes for them? In the USA, you only see real employment benefits if you are a salaried employee. An hourly worker gets paid their wage and that's it (no sick days, retirement, etc).
- zwieback 7y ago
  I don't know if that's true. Our hourlies get benefits like health insurance, vacation, etc. Maybe not as good as salaried but it's not as clear cut as "hourly pay only."
  - atomoton 7y ago
    In Ontario (at least pre-Ford) you can get full-time benefits as an hourly worker, as long as you work 40h a week or more (or maybe 35?). It's been awhile though so I'm not super confident on the details here.
    - dahfizz 7y ago
      The same is true (at least in my experience) in America. Over 40 hrs/week means the employer has to pay out extra benefits. This is also why employers do not want you to work over 39 hours if you're not salaried.
      - lotsofpulp 7y ago
        In the US, over 40 hours simply means 1.5x your regular payrate after the 40th hour, if you're "non exempt", i.e. hourly. Some employers might offer something more. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/overtime https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/overtime
        ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
        If the company has more than 50 employees they are required to pay for healthcare if you work more than 30 hours a week [1]. https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/federal-employment-and-labor-laws/aca/ https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/federal-employment-and...
jonplackett 7y ago
Does anyone know if this is already the case Kapten, which seemed to be the main ride hailing service in Paris when we just went.
xenospn 7y ago
What now? Does this mean Uber can't afford to operate in France anymore?
- negrit 7y ago
  How did you jump to this conclusion?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      > unpopular with customers and the general public I doubt even 0.1% of people care at all.
  - xenospn 7y ago
    I was under the impression that the only way the Uber/Lyft business model is even remotely viable (without continuous VC subsidy) is classifying drivers as contractors, meaning they don't have to pay them minimum wage or benefits, which lets them undercut taxis.
    - nerfhammer 7y ago
      1) Uber is a public company now, it has not been VC funded for a long time 2) Regular taxi companies generally also treat drivers as contractors
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        > Uber is a public company now, it has not been VC funded for a long time I don’t think those two things are exclusive are they?
      - xenospn 7y ago
        And it has been losing tons of money for even longer. Without VCs to bail them out several times a year, how will they justify operating at a huge loss in France without a viable path to profitability?
jakub_g 7y ago
Now it would be interesting to see the opinion of the court on fake IT contractors (SSII), where as a developer you are a full-time employee of company X, rented for years as full-time "consultant" to company Y, on premises of company Y, just with lower salary and no profit sharing & no bonuses that staff of company Y enjoys. (This has been a common practice of Microsoft in US in 1990s and they lost a lawsuit on that. In France, this is still an open secret and a way to milk junior developers. The markup those contractor companies make is crazy.)
- curiousgal 7y ago
  It is a win-win situation, the majority of those junior devs are from North Africa and they still make way more than they would have back home.
  - freepor 7y ago
    With the “lose” being the US-based developers being paid less by virtue of working at HP instead of Microsoft.
  - as300 7y ago
    The losers are the local people who get fewer opportunities as a result. Not saying it's good or bad, just putting it out there.
    - CriticalCathed 7y ago
      I'll take the hit and say it's bad. A great purpose of nation states is to enrich and protect the lives of those who are from those respective nations, often and usually at the cost of others. A bunch of non-governmental entities undermining the nation state is undeniably untenable -- both cannot thrive. People, especially the rich, often pretend we don't live in nation states and that the global nation is here -- but it very much isn't. I think we ought to be afraid of what happens when nation states dissolve. The ultimate result doesn't seem to be unification but disunion.
freepor 7y ago
All of this is a legal system that has a square hole and a circular hole not knowing what to do with a triangular peg. Governments job is to realize that this is a new category of work and create laws specifically to address it.
- duxut_staglatz 7y ago
  What's the new category? Currently in France there is: - employment where you trade liberty (i.e. subordination) against protection (can't be fired at will, minimum wage, guaranteed income set in the contract...) from a company - being an independent worker where you keep your liberty and do not get protection If there is a third category like what Uber is currently doing, you trade your liberty (subordination) against no protection. It is not a new category, it is lowering the protection of employment. Which may or may not be a good thing, that's not my point, but I fail to see where's the new category of work.
  - freepor 7y ago
    The new category is that Uber is as controlling as an employer in some ways (manner of work) but not in others (time and place of work). There should be a legal framework to handle these hybrid scenarios.
- on_and_off 7y ago
  why does the government need to bend backwards to allow underpaid jobs ?
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    Presumably if sufficient participants in the process of that government prefer to work these jobs. What does 'underpaid' mean in this context?
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    If people voluntarily choose those jobs then doesn't that mean those jobs are better than the alternatives they have? It also provides a pretty nice service.
m11a 7y ago
> The criteria for self-employment include the possibility of building up one's own clientele, the freedom to set one's own rates, and the freedom to set the terms and conditions for providing one's services. Immediately I'd seem to agree with this statement. I think of typical self-employment businesses; hairdressers, freelance developers, etc and this seems to apply. You can set your own rate and your own terms, even if those may kill your chance at being competitive. But if you think deeper into this, then this criteria isn't always true. Here's a scenario: I publish an ad on a handyman site asking for a new shed built for £100. People can place their interest and their proposal. The price is fixed at £100, and I may set other terms and criteria. Nobody is going to argue that the builders are employees of the exchange site. Uber isn't entirely different (it just simplifies the process). Its drivers are allowed to deny a ride, and can see the cost upfront. Really the difference in these types of self-employment seems to be that the customer approached a set of potential suppliers, rather than vice versa, and the customer set the terms and the self-employed get to accept/deny. In the typical scenario (hairdressers, etc) they set the terms to potential customers who get to accept/deny. I don't agree or disagree with the classification of Uber drivers as employees, I just don't agree with the criteria of the court in this case.
- mcv 7y ago
  Does the customer set the price for an Uber trip? I thought Uber did that. I agree with the judge that Uber drivers have far too little control over their situation to count as self-employed. They're entirely dependent on Uber.
- alistairSH 7y ago
  In your shed example, a builder could contact you and negotiate the price (perhaps the $100 price you set is completely unrealistic). That's not possible with Uber - there is no price negotiation - only declining/accepting a ride. Similar argument for changing toppings on a cake - a caterer can negotiate changes to the cake - an Uber driver has no such flexibility. Regardless, given corporate (human?) nature is to leverage any power differential to self-benefit, it seems reasonable that regulations be interpreted in the most protective (of the party with less power) manner possible.
oarla 7y ago
I am not sure I understand why this is a win for Uber drivers(genuine question). Is it considered a win because now they are treated as employees, so they will have benefits like sick pay, vacation days etc? What was the policy when they were not employees? Would they be penalized(financially) if they took a sick day? France already mandates some of these for contractors, so not a huge benefit, I think. I doubt it'll mean more earnings, since employees are generally paid lower than contractors. This being in France, universal health care already covers everyone, so don't think that drivers are going to get a better healthcare coverage. Maybe now the drivers will have to be compensated for wear and tear of their vehicle, which I can see is a win.
- BitwiseFool 7y ago
  I have a hunch this is actually being done to hurt Uber drivers and save the already well-regulated Cab industry in France.
  - WanderPanda 7y ago
    Probably also an act of protectionism / hurting foreign companies
    - Jommi 7y ago
      Yep, you can already see it with the internet tax they are proposing. Well, European competitors like Bolt will prevail.
    - duxut_staglatz 7y ago
      Are you implying that French courts change their rulings to benefit the government policies (hurting foreign companies in this case) rather than simply basing them on the law?
  - jteppinette 7y ago
    This ^ it is always helpful to see who is doing the lobbying.
- 7y ago
coliveira 7y ago
Kudos for the French. If a driver works full time driving for Uber she should be compensated as a full time worker.
- smallgovt 7y ago
  In all likelihood, moving drivers from contractor to employee status will result in lower pay for drivers. Uber won't foot the larger employment tax bill. They'll just lower driver wages and increase customer prices.
  - darkwizard42 7y ago
    More likely they will enforce the hours that the employee can work. If you are idling around at 4 AM in the burbs, they aren't going to pay you full rate, they will just kick you out and set working hours. If you don't like the hours, you get fired. Less flexibility for drivers is probably a guaranteed outcome
- Jommi 7y ago
  If a contractor just happens to work for you at some point of time for 8 hours per day, are they suddenly an employee?
RocketSyntax 7y ago
"You're all fired."
mucholove 7y ago
Couldn’t Uber solve the problem if the drivers could accept / deny / bid up / bid down?
- rtkwe 7y ago
  Currently Lyft (haven't used uber in ages but I assume they do the same) gives an exact price as you're selecting a destination before you're assigned a driver, to allow driver price negotiation you can't give an accurate price before a driver accepts. At best you could give the driver more of the company cut but Uber is already lighting mountains of cash on fire as it is to increase driver income.
- duxut_staglatz 7y ago
  Yes. Changing the itinerary as well.
SergeAx 7y ago
I beleive France is a very socialist country. There was a story when France Telecom got private as Orange and new bosses put enormous pressure on employees to get them quit and not lay them off, because laying-off people is very expensive in France. It caused 35 (!!) suicides, and three bosses was jailed for that last December [1] I wonder, will Uber escape signing backdated contracts with all their drivers in France (and what if some of them are illegal migrants?) or will it have to properly lay them all off, with compensations etc? I also wonder what would be an economy of Uber in France with all their drivers being employees. Will it be 2x or 3x price? Even then it is somehow better than shameless official Paris taxi drivers. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50865211 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50865211
hnewsshadowbans 7y ago
With Uber want to work? Press a button. Want to take a break? Press a button. Want to work again? Press a button. Take as long a break as you want. Work as long as you want. No timecards. No obnoxious coworkers. No intrusive questions. No douchebag bosses making your life a living hell. In what other job do you have this sort of freedom without the instability of traditional selfemployment? What more could you ask for? Now it'll all be ruined for everybody because of the greed and entitlement of a few. Its side hustle money for bored college kids with some free time. They NEVER promised anything more. They're not forcing you to work for them. If you're a a single mother raising 5 kids on Uber alone you're doing it wrong.
- avianlyric 7y ago
  > Its side hustle money for bored college kids with some free time. Except it isn’t. If it was then Uber wouldn’t be trying to setup vehicle leasing schemes for their drivers. If it was true then I would actually meet some college kid drivers, rather that 30 year old migrants. If you’re a single mother raising 5 kids on Uber, then you probably have no choice. Telling them they’re “doing it wrong” won’t feed their kids. It’s just a callus relegation of someone you find undesirable and have no wish to help.
  - username90 7y ago
    Fact is that every time you create a new way to earn money some people will do it full time no matter the feasibility. So basically you argue that we should have the current wage-slave economy forever instead of giving workers more choice. The only reason Uber is even a hint of a problem today is that we only have a single occupation following this model, but if it was more widespread and you could pick between a plethora of different things to earn money by as easily as Uber then suddenly the problems with Uber today would disappear instantly. I understand that the current wage-slave model is better for employers, workers can't go home early if they feel tired that day for less pay since it would get them fired. Instead they have to tough out their hours every day. Similarly if a part time worker wanted a bit of extra money they could just choose to work more a few times, but that is also impossible in the current model. It assumes that workers are like machines who reliably work XX hours per week with no deviations. And even hourly jobs requires you to pick shifts beforehand and often you can't even get as many hours as you want or need, and you can still get fired for picking too few shifts etc. So I feel that Uber is a much more humane way to handle labor than current employment contracts.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bcheung 7y ago
The ruling makes sense to me, but the criteria do not. At least in this case. It almost seems like there needs to be a new category for the gig economy employees. They are somewhere in-between.
- alwayseasy 7y ago
  French courts can't write labour laws, just interpretations of them. It's the legislative branch's job to create a gig economy framework.
c3534l 7y ago
Counterpoint (from the basis of what I know from how the US, not France, classifies independent contractors): 1. Uber drivers also drive for Lyft and other services 2. They can reject a passenger when the call comes in 3. They bring their own tools to the job (their car) 4. They provide their own training and technical qualifications (they're responsible for getting a drivers license, license plate, etc.) 5. They set their own hours 6. The choose where they work 7. They're paid by the job and the price is based on the job, not necessarily just hourly wages (like paying for a deck, or a custom paint job) 8. They work with limited supervision This sounds an awful lot to me like an independent contractor working for a small number of driving services. I do think that the fact that drivers have limited ability in a given app to set their own rates indicates employment, but very rarely does an independent contractor actually meet every single one of the criteria I listed. A house cleaner, for instance, brings their own tools, etc., but they're not paid by the job and they don't work with limited supervision. Meanwhile some construction work might mean that work can only be done during specific hours of the day using specialized equipment provided by the nuclear plant / factory / whatever. This is as opposed to someone like Microsoft or Intel that hires employees, but gives them a different badge and excludes them from certain meetings and then goes and pretends they're contractors when they're actually just poorly paid interns.
- corentin88 7y ago
  French law only requires a "relationship of subordination" to qualify someone as an employee. The press release is very short and explains why the French court considers that an Uber’s driver is in a relationship of subordinate. > Drivers who use the Uber application do not build up their own clientele, do not freely set their rates, and do not determine the terms and conditions of providing their transportation service. The company imposes the itinerary and the driver’s fare is adjusted if this itinerary is not followed. The destination is unknown to the driver, thereby revealing that the driver cannot freely choose the route that suits him/her.
  - c3534l 7y ago
    Sure. I did try to qualify my statement saying I was basing my argument on US law. French law is whatever a French court decides it is. But I do think that riding-app drivers are, as a matter of opinion, much more like hiring someone to paint your house than a regular employee relationship.
cmhnn 7y ago
Some of my favorite themes here. 1) People asserting that the court was right or wrong followed by some "argument". The court simply ruled. Anything beyond that is the same as people who use statistics to provide "evidence" about their preconceived notions. 2) Examples that mean one thing to someone and something else to another but both sides claim right or wrong. See 1. For fun, I'll do an example but not claim it proves something. Most well known professional wrestlers work for a tyrant. Until very recently when another billionare entered the game they didn't have a lot of choices. Just like uber drivers they are mostly told what to do and even have sold their real names. They can also be seriously injured and die just like uber drivers. They also are "independent" contractors. Despite those odds, some did leave and became well known outside of that tyrant's world and are now getting richer than ever before...Would any of the events above including the new billionare deciding they could compete by picking up those independent minded wrestlers ever have happened if they were employees all along? 3)Portrayal of evil corps and the downtrodden who are forced to serve them as stereotypical "underclass" victims. If you are in Redmond soon and you take an Uber don't be surprised if you are being driven around by a PM who is getting out of the house or trying to get an extra edge against the high cost of living there. My personal feeling here is I do not care either way. What I care about is from the consumer standpoint that Uber is accountable. My primary dislike of Uber, Airbnb, Vroom or similar enterprises is that they all claim to be of one stripe when things are going well but when things go wrong the company claims "Oh that's not us it is this entity we represented as part of the process but who we disclaim any responsibility for". As others have pointed out all the major tech companies use contractors. I don't know of any that would get away with the "oh that's not really us" defense.
jaked89 7y ago
Examining this case from a "similarity to employee" perspective neglects a crucial factor: the expectations between the parties at the time of contract. It's patently obvious no Uber driver expected to be treated as an employee, as no employment contract was signed, and the Uber model is known and clear. The court merely implements "social justice", which is nor social nither justice, destroying basic trust in society. Progressivism is cancer.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  Most employment law isn't about protecting people from being surprised by an employer it's about setting limits to what an employer can require of an employee. Both parties expecting at signing that you'll only get paid for half the hours you work or that you'll be paid below the required minimums doesn't make it any more legal for the business to do that.
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  A contract isn't law. I can write a piece of paper saying that you agree to work for me for $1 per hour and even if you sign it, you are still able to take legal action against me because this contract is illegal. Preventing megacorps from exploiting those with few options is obviously a net benefit.
  - jaked89 7y ago
    This has nothing to do with my point. Law exists to establish peace and consensus. Contacts are the most basic construct enabling modern life in a crowded society. Reinterpreting contracts in a liberal, unreasonable manner destroys peace and introduces chaos. It prevents members of society from ever trusting one another, and makes all agreements tentative, subjective to the retroactive whims of politicians and court. It serves the court, positioning it as an ultimate dictator, not the society.
    - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
      Law exists to ensure the best possibly outcome for society. Companies finding creative ways to redefine work so they get all the benefit while offloading any of the costs is not helpful for society. I might be inclined to agree with you on contracts if it wasn't for the huge imbalance of power here. An individual who works for these taxi companies has basically no negotiating power against uber so they will never be able to come to a fair contract. Employment protections exist to solve this and they have been rightfully applied to uber like they are to every other company. Laws should adapt to changing reality rather than let companies work around them.
manigandham 7y ago
How unfortunate. The vast majority of drivers don't want this. If they wanted full-time driving jobs, they would get one, yet they choose Uber for the flexibility. This is going to hurt most drivers than help. We can already see the results of this here in California because of AB5 and I doubt most proponents of this law have ever driven for Uber in the first place.
- m463 7y ago
  Wouldn't flexibility be: 3) the freedom to set the terms and conditions for providing one's services.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Nobody is stopping them from being independent drivers with their own customers. For example, I do this for with regular drivers for airport rides that I originally met on the app. Uber is a matchmaking service that comes with certain rules and objectives so the marketplace works better for everyone, and flexibility to work when and where you want is usually most important. Perhaps we need a 3rd category to account for this kind of work.
LatteLazy 7y ago
How many people cheering this are still paying the plumber that fixed their toilet a year ago a salary?
- duxut_staglatz 7y ago
  My plumber is an actual independent worker, setting his own rates, having his own clientele and free to organize his work as he sees fit.
  - LatteLazy 7y ago
    Uber doesn't stop people having their own clients. Quite the opposite, it's a great place to swap numbers with a driver you like. Uber even has a favourites button so you have a higher chance of getting the same driver/passenger. Also, your plumber doesn't set his rates, you do. He quotes and you accept (or not). That's exactly the same as the Uber driver. It seems pretty obvious to me that Uber drivers organise their own work. They start and stop when they want, pick the journeys they want, set their own hours etc. But maybe I've misunderstood you?
    - duxut_staglatz 7y ago
      You are conflating Uber and the Uber driver. The driver does not quote anything, Uber does and both the driver and the customer accept or not. They have a very limited way to choose the ride they take: they have to make the decision in a couple of seconds, they may not know the destination and they are punished for declining too many rides by Uber. Does not scream free choice of what ride to take. It is possible to bypass Uber and exchange numbers, yes. But the Uber platform itself does not let you build your own clientele, such as letting you look for the clients you want or the other way around. The question is not whether drivers can build their clientele outside of Uber but inside of Uber. They do indeed have flexible hours, something that is apparently - reading the comments of this thread - impossible as an employee in the US and thus a feature of being an independent worker, but in France you can be an employee and have flexible hours, so that does not make Uber drivers independent.
LatteLazy 7y ago
I'm self employed. I really strongly prefer it. I don't want to be an employee thanks. Yet my government (UK) are also trying to ban it (IR35). Why is it so hard for people to understand: I prefer cash to "secure employment", I'm old and mature enough to make that decision? I didn't even know I was this right wing...
- unishark 7y ago
  As always the govt wants to protect you from corporations by forcing you to be dependent on them for your livelihood. A bit different situation, but relevant to the group here. In the US, software contracting started to become very big during an earlier tech bubble. This was crushed in the mid 80s by a new tax law that made a long list of requirements (12 or something) that must be satisfied to work as a contractor in tech. You practically had to operate as an independent company selling them a finished product. Otherwise they would fine both sides and make the company you contracted with pay back taxes. The law was so overreaching it had to exempt other professions like housekeeping and legal services which were "traditionally" operating via hourly billing or whatever, or those forms of operating would be completely eliminated too. The govt figured they would get more tax money with people paying through paycheck deductions, while businesses such as IBM were pushing for the law to turn the competition into employees.
username90 7y ago
Can anyone explain why we need separate laws for self employed people and employees? To me it seems like they should have the same criteria. So for example, if a self employed person don't bring in enough money to pay minimum wage and all benefits then he is no longer allowed to work and must file for unemployment and look for another job immediately so that he can get a better paying job. Then Uber would no longer be able to get any riders unless they paid better which would fix the problem. What is the problem with this model?
- titanomachy 7y ago
  It seems to me like contractor rules were invented for a very different kind of person, i.e. a professional who voluntarily gives up certain protections in exchange for higher pay. As an engineer I can choose whether I want to enter an employeer-employee relationship or a business-to-business relationship. In the second, I take on a greater share of the risk and I am accordingly paid more. The freedom to choose either option is valuable to me. The rule was not intended as a way for large corporations to hire workers for less than minimum wage, although so far we've had a hard time making laws that cleanly differentiate the two cases.
Lucadg 7y ago
The platform-provider relationship is a new thing. A new kind of regulation is needed. Trying to define drivers as employees or contractors is futile.
eruditegamer420 7y ago
Politically motivated trash just like the garbage bill in CA. Luddites and corruption will always attack and destroy innovation.
Frost1x 7y ago
The deteriorating relationship between what people widely consider 'employer' and 'employee' has put a lot of societal structures (businesses, democratic governments, etc.) at risk since income provides the abstraction most use (money) to provide necessities and wants. Most all of these institutions are able to continue to exist because people accept their artificial constructs and play the roles due to wide belief that it provides a better life. In many places, quality of life or at least perception of quality of life is deteriorating for large segments of the population. This is, IMO, causing wide rejection of modern institutional roles laborers are dealing with. Many employers are breaking the social contract and people aren't happy--this is a risky game to play. I propose much of the political unrest we're seeing in US politics is symptomatic of the population's general unrest and rejection of continued shifts against your typical laborer. We can play legal/semantic games about how we define 'employee,' 'employer,' and 'contractor' but ultimately, if the general population disagrees, no matter how well we construct our rules and arguments, the institutions will fail if people widely perceive they're being cheated/deceived.
krghosh 7y ago
Good!
tus88 7y ago
I wonder if an Uber could exist that posed itself as a service to drivers not passengers.
predictmktegirl 7y ago
I don't understand why this is so complicated. If someone works for you, they are an employee. If someone works with you, they are a contractor. I think the French definition of subordination is a great defining characteristic. However, my understanding is that US law doesn't make this distinction thus introducing a gray area.
- ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
  >I don't understand why this is so complicated. If someone works for you, they are an employee. If someone works with you, they are a contractor. Well, no, it's not that simple. For one, how many employees at your company could stop coming in tomorrow, and then six months from now go back to work like nothing happened? Being able to work whenever you want seems like a clear differentiator from real employees. There's no requirement from Uber for you to actually work.
nie100sowny 7y ago
More money goes to government. Less (or in the best case the same amount of) money will stay in Uber driver pockets because of the taxes Less money in people's wallets because of the higher transportation costs. Who have more money have more power :/ This is how we loose freedom
49531 7y ago
I used to work at a gig economy startup (uber for dog walking...) and we spent considerable resources lobbying local and national governments to expand the kinds of restrictions we put onto our independent contractors while still not labeling them as employees. We also had an entire team dedicated to preventing our contractors from going "off platform". Probably one of the more exploitative jobs I've had.
6510 7y ago
To appreciate the context one must consider the much higher standards for employment. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/employment-law/comparison-between-usa-and-france-employment-employment-law-essay.php https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/employment-law/co... > "...the French law regulates much more heavily all the aspects of employment conditions than the United States: Only a few forms of employment contracts exist in the French legal system, whereas the American law allows the two parties – the employer and the employee- to agree on almost every aspect of the contract freely, as soon as the contract is respecting the same principles and regulations set by the American law for contracts. > The French legal system also regulates more strictly the aspects related to the execution of an employment contract, the work duration, the remuneration and the contract termination. > The social tendency of the French legal system to protect the employees is in clear contrast here with the American employment, contracting and competing freedom principles." Uber is seen as an attempt to escape the relatively fixed labor agreement.
usr1106 7y ago
Wasn't it so that in France Ryanair pilots are not allowed to be self-employed subcontractors either? (A model that Ryanair prefers.) Both makes sense to me, neighter of them can really set their own prices, schedules or work-conditions.
jacquesm 7y ago
Excellent judgement, not only because I happen to agree with it but also because of how it was explained that they arrived at this conclusion. Uber drivers ended up with all of the downsides of being an employee but none of the upsides.
baron816 7y ago
Labor market regulation is tricky. All of Uber's drivers join as contractors under their own free will. No one is legally obligated to work for Uber. No one is threatening to do harm to anyone if they don't drive for Uber. If they don't like the terms of their employment, they can just stop driving for Uber. Now of course, that libertarian approach has some practical consequences. Humans are a little bit mushier than the "economic man". We get sick, and old, come of age under different environmental conditions, have certain family obligations, happen upon unexpected circumstances, etc. We can all appreciate that some people don't really have the option to just quit the job that's just barely keeping them afloat. But if a society decides that it values things like economic and human rights, then the burden of guaranteeing those rights for everyone should be spread across society as a whole, not just on the few whose business model depends on employing those at the bottom.
- dusted 7y ago
  "No one is legally obligated to work for Uber. No one is threatening to do harm to anyone if they don't drive for Uber. If they don't like the terms of their employment, they can just stop driving for Uber." This is an interesting position. On the surface it even seems reasonable. Just like "no one is FORCING you to eat that particular food, if you don't like it, just don't eat it". Well, hunger might force one to eat a particular food, even if one does not like it, even if one does not tolerate it well. It might well be, that that particular food is that one available to you, and you might not be in a position to select another food. Can you opt not to eat it, it it's what seems available to you? I think we tend to forget that not everyone has the kind of choice we have.
  - alexmingoia 7y ago
    People who disagree with having the fruits of their labor stolen and given to others (welfare), or prevented from laboring (employment restrictions like the ones for Uber), are well aware that people have different possessions, capabilities, and opportunities. They just don’t think two wrongs make a right or that the ends justify the means. They think the purpose of government should be to secure rights instead of violating them to benefit someone else.
dusted 7y ago
A solution to uber exploiting those with little other choice, might actually be to have more platforms like uber, that'd force them to compete, not only for customers, but for workers. I like the french version better though. If uber wants to be a taxi company, then do it on fair terms.
PeterStuer 7y ago
The real question is should Uber drivers get the same rights and protection as employees, and the company contracting them be held to the same responsabilities. My answer to that is yes, of course. Wether they are or are not 'employee' according to some last century definition is an uninteresting question.

786 points by Aissen 7y ago

Really silly. There are loads of people who don't want to work as permanent employees. In Europe people often travel to work seasonally in different countries as suits them.

saykou 7y ago

why then the great taxi syndicate of paris is self employed?

aksss 7y ago

I'm not sure I follow. Uber drivers can also drive for Lyft, and independently, thereby building up their own clientele. Uber connects drivers to clients and takes a cut off the top. Drivers can (and have) passed out their cards to me with direct lines. They can also get dispatches from Lyft.. WHILE entertaining offers from Uber and direct calls. Uber drivers set their own rate by taking the job or not. The best analogy is a contractor and a GC. The GC needs work done at a certain rate, the contractor takes it or leaves it. Drivers avail themselves to take rides or not on their own schedule, which is them setting the terms and conditions for providing their services. They aren't obligated to offer rides on the Uber platform, and can concurrently entertain offers from other platforms (Lyft, independent, etc). We all know the intent of Uber was/is to connect people who want to ride-share in their spare time to people who need rides. It makes it easy for both parties and it's an improvement over taxis for all involved except taxi license holders. We shouldn't penalize progress because some Neanderthals want to make it their sole source of income (or eradicate ride sharing). This is people peeing in the Napster pool all over again.

richard78459 7y ago

This ruling should apply only to a company that has a revenue over say 10 million. That way it will provide competition to the market at the same time taking care of drivers not being exploited. win win scenario.

BrandoElFollito 7y ago

It classified that Uber driver as an employee. This does not change anything for others who still need to go to court in order to have their status changed (or not, they may loose. We do not have a legal system where precedents can be used in other cases)

datashow 7y ago

So if a driver works on both Uber and Lyft or whatever, the driver is an employee of all those companies?

guerrilla 7y ago
Yes, many people work more than one job.
- datashow 7y ago
  Not at the same time.
  - cambalache 7y ago
    Is the driver driving 2 cars at the same time? Is he making two travels one for Uber one for Lyft at the same time?
    - darkwizard42 7y ago
      No, but at any given moment he is signed in and available on both platforms. Who should front the bill for the waiting time?
      - cambalache 7y ago
        The same people who are fronting the bill right now. Nobody.
  - avianlyric 7y ago
    You can’t do jobs for two ride sharing companies at the same time. You just can’t take two different people to two different destinations in one car.
    - umeshunni 7y ago
      > You just can’t take two different people to two different destinations in one car. Yes you can - that's literally how carpooling (or UberPool, Lyft-line etc) work.

pkaye 7y ago

Seems a fair judgement since all the restriction make the drivers effectively work as employees: > Drivers who use the Uber application do not build up their own clientele, do not freely set their rates, and do not determine the terms and conditions of providing their transportation service. The company imposes the itinerary and the driver’s fare is adjusted if this itinerary is not followed. The destination is unknown to the driver, thereby revealing that the driver cannot freely choose the route that suits him/her...

rahimnathwani 7y ago
Doesn't all of this also apply to taxis? Taxis pick up at taxi ranks or off the street. Taxis have regulations set by an organisation. Taxis (in most places) have rules that say they must take the most efficient route. In most places, taxis aren't allowed to refuse a customer based on destination. Does that mean that a taxi driver is an employee? Of course not.
- a_imho 7y ago
  I still don't understand how Uber is not a taxi service bar some nitpicking.
- rickbutton 7y ago
  Why not? Sounds like they would also be an employee under this ruling.
  - rahimnathwani 7y ago
    Whose employee? That of the taxi organisation which regulates them, but doesn't actually pay them? That of each of individual customer, who are the ones who pay them?
    - munk-a 7y ago
      Does this reasoning mean that all waiters are independent contractors? They collect cash directly from the customer and reserve a portion of that before passing it on to their employer (the tip) - taxi drivers (who are members of a firm) due end up paying the firm dues for the service of having a pooled call center and possibly maintenance services. I think trying to determine if someone is an employee based on if they receive cash from customers is a pretty arbitrary line that seems to exclude some pretty valid definitions of independent contractors like temporary workers and sales consultants.

jonplackett 7y ago

Just in time for Corona Virus sick pay?

jonplackett 7y ago
Lots of downvotes. This was not meant to be a joke. I’m actually wondering if they will get sick pay now.

dahfizz 7y ago

So can Uber force French drivers to work certain hours? As an American, I have poor understanding of what employment entails in the EU. If the Uber drivers are just hourly employees, what changes for them? In the USA, you only see real employment benefits if you are a salaried employee. An hourly worker gets paid their wage and that's it (no sick days, retirement, etc).

zwieback 7y ago
I don't know if that's true. Our hourlies get benefits like health insurance, vacation, etc. Maybe not as good as salaried but it's not as clear cut as "hourly pay only."
- atomoton 7y ago
  In Ontario (at least pre-Ford) you can get full-time benefits as an hourly worker, as long as you work 40h a week or more (or maybe 35?). It's been awhile though so I'm not super confident on the details here.
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    The same is true (at least in my experience) in America. Over 40 hrs/week means the employer has to pay out extra benefits. This is also why employers do not want you to work over 39 hours if you're not salaried.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      In the US, over 40 hours simply means 1.5x your regular payrate after the 40th hour, if you're "non exempt", i.e. hourly. Some employers might offer something more. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/overtime https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/overtime
      - ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
        If the company has more than 50 employees they are required to pay for healthcare if you work more than 30 hours a week [1]. https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/federal-employment-and-labor-laws/aca/ https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/federal-employment-and...

jonplackett 7y ago

Does anyone know if this is already the case Kapten, which seemed to be the main ride hailing service in Paris when we just went.

xenospn 7y ago

What now? Does this mean Uber can't afford to operate in France anymore?

negrit 7y ago
How did you jump to this conclusion?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > unpopular with customers and the general public I doubt even 0.1% of people care at all.
- xenospn 7y ago
  I was under the impression that the only way the Uber/Lyft business model is even remotely viable (without continuous VC subsidy) is classifying drivers as contractors, meaning they don't have to pay them minimum wage or benefits, which lets them undercut taxis.
  - nerfhammer 7y ago
    1) Uber is a public company now, it has not been VC funded for a long time 2) Regular taxi companies generally also treat drivers as contractors
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      > Uber is a public company now, it has not been VC funded for a long time I don’t think those two things are exclusive are they?
    - xenospn 7y ago
      And it has been losing tons of money for even longer. Without VCs to bail them out several times a year, how will they justify operating at a huge loss in France without a viable path to profitability?

jakub_g 7y ago

Now it would be interesting to see the opinion of the court on fake IT contractors (SSII), where as a developer you are a full-time employee of company X, rented for years as full-time "consultant" to company Y, on premises of company Y, just with lower salary and no profit sharing & no bonuses that staff of company Y enjoys. (This has been a common practice of Microsoft in US in 1990s and they lost a lawsuit on that. In France, this is still an open secret and a way to milk junior developers. The markup those contractor companies make is crazy.)

curiousgal 7y ago
It is a win-win situation, the majority of those junior devs are from North Africa and they still make way more than they would have back home.
- freepor 7y ago
  With the “lose” being the US-based developers being paid less by virtue of working at HP instead of Microsoft.
- as300 7y ago
  The losers are the local people who get fewer opportunities as a result. Not saying it's good or bad, just putting it out there.
  - CriticalCathed 7y ago
    I'll take the hit and say it's bad. A great purpose of nation states is to enrich and protect the lives of those who are from those respective nations, often and usually at the cost of others. A bunch of non-governmental entities undermining the nation state is undeniably untenable -- both cannot thrive. People, especially the rich, often pretend we don't live in nation states and that the global nation is here -- but it very much isn't. I think we ought to be afraid of what happens when nation states dissolve. The ultimate result doesn't seem to be unification but disunion.

freepor 7y ago

All of this is a legal system that has a square hole and a circular hole not knowing what to do with a triangular peg. Governments job is to realize that this is a new category of work and create laws specifically to address it.

duxut_staglatz 7y ago
What's the new category? Currently in France there is: - employment where you trade liberty (i.e. subordination) against protection (can't be fired at will, minimum wage, guaranteed income set in the contract...) from a company - being an independent worker where you keep your liberty and do not get protection If there is a third category like what Uber is currently doing, you trade your liberty (subordination) against no protection. It is not a new category, it is lowering the protection of employment. Which may or may not be a good thing, that's not my point, but I fail to see where's the new category of work.
- freepor 7y ago
  The new category is that Uber is as controlling as an employer in some ways (manner of work) but not in others (time and place of work). There should be a legal framework to handle these hybrid scenarios.
on_and_off 7y ago
why does the government need to bend backwards to allow underpaid jobs ?
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Presumably if sufficient participants in the process of that government prefer to work these jobs. What does 'underpaid' mean in this context?
- Mirioron 7y ago
  If people voluntarily choose those jobs then doesn't that mean those jobs are better than the alternatives they have? It also provides a pretty nice service.

m11a 7y ago

> The criteria for self-employment include the possibility of building up one's own clientele, the freedom to set one's own rates, and the freedom to set the terms and conditions for providing one's services. Immediately I'd seem to agree with this statement. I think of typical self-employment businesses; hairdressers, freelance developers, etc and this seems to apply. You can set your own rate and your own terms, even if those may kill your chance at being competitive. But if you think deeper into this, then this criteria isn't always true. Here's a scenario: I publish an ad on a handyman site asking for a new shed built for £100. People can place their interest and their proposal. The price is fixed at £100, and I may set other terms and criteria. Nobody is going to argue that the builders are employees of the exchange site. Uber isn't entirely different (it just simplifies the process). Its drivers are allowed to deny a ride, and can see the cost upfront. Really the difference in these types of self-employment seems to be that the customer approached a set of potential suppliers, rather than vice versa, and the customer set the terms and the self-employed get to accept/deny. In the typical scenario (hairdressers, etc) they set the terms to potential customers who get to accept/deny. I don't agree or disagree with the classification of Uber drivers as employees, I just don't agree with the criteria of the court in this case.

mcv 7y ago
Does the customer set the price for an Uber trip? I thought Uber did that. I agree with the judge that Uber drivers have far too little control over their situation to count as self-employed. They're entirely dependent on Uber.
alistairSH 7y ago
In your shed example, a builder could contact you and negotiate the price (perhaps the $100 price you set is completely unrealistic). That's not possible with Uber - there is no price negotiation - only declining/accepting a ride. Similar argument for changing toppings on a cake - a caterer can negotiate changes to the cake - an Uber driver has no such flexibility. Regardless, given corporate (human?) nature is to leverage any power differential to self-benefit, it seems reasonable that regulations be interpreted in the most protective (of the party with less power) manner possible.

oarla 7y ago

I am not sure I understand why this is a win for Uber drivers(genuine question). Is it considered a win because now they are treated as employees, so they will have benefits like sick pay, vacation days etc? What was the policy when they were not employees? Would they be penalized(financially) if they took a sick day? France already mandates some of these for contractors, so not a huge benefit, I think. I doubt it'll mean more earnings, since employees are generally paid lower than contractors. This being in France, universal health care already covers everyone, so don't think that drivers are going to get a better healthcare coverage. Maybe now the drivers will have to be compensated for wear and tear of their vehicle, which I can see is a win.

BitwiseFool 7y ago
I have a hunch this is actually being done to hurt Uber drivers and save the already well-regulated Cab industry in France.
- WanderPanda 7y ago
  Probably also an act of protectionism / hurting foreign companies
  - Jommi 7y ago
    Yep, you can already see it with the internet tax they are proposing. Well, European competitors like Bolt will prevail.
  - duxut_staglatz 7y ago
    Are you implying that French courts change their rulings to benefit the government policies (hurting foreign companies in this case) rather than simply basing them on the law?
- jteppinette 7y ago
  This ^ it is always helpful to see who is doing the lobbying.
7y ago

coliveira 7y ago

Kudos for the French. If a driver works full time driving for Uber she should be compensated as a full time worker.

smallgovt 7y ago
In all likelihood, moving drivers from contractor to employee status will result in lower pay for drivers. Uber won't foot the larger employment tax bill. They'll just lower driver wages and increase customer prices.
- darkwizard42 7y ago
  More likely they will enforce the hours that the employee can work. If you are idling around at 4 AM in the burbs, they aren't going to pay you full rate, they will just kick you out and set working hours. If you don't like the hours, you get fired. Less flexibility for drivers is probably a guaranteed outcome
Jommi 7y ago
If a contractor just happens to work for you at some point of time for 8 hours per day, are they suddenly an employee?

RocketSyntax 7y ago

"You're all fired."

mucholove 7y ago

Couldn’t Uber solve the problem if the drivers could accept / deny / bid up / bid down?

rtkwe 7y ago
Currently Lyft (haven't used uber in ages but I assume they do the same) gives an exact price as you're selecting a destination before you're assigned a driver, to allow driver price negotiation you can't give an accurate price before a driver accepts. At best you could give the driver more of the company cut but Uber is already lighting mountains of cash on fire as it is to increase driver income.
duxut_staglatz 7y ago
Yes. Changing the itinerary as well.

SergeAx 7y ago

I beleive France is a very socialist country. There was a story when France Telecom got private as Orange and new bosses put enormous pressure on employees to get them quit and not lay them off, because laying-off people is very expensive in France. It caused 35 (!!) suicides, and three bosses was jailed for that last December [1] I wonder, will Uber escape signing backdated contracts with all their drivers in France (and what if some of them are illegal migrants?) or will it have to properly lay them all off, with compensations etc? I also wonder what would be an economy of Uber in France with all their drivers being employees. Will it be 2x or 3x price? Even then it is somehow better than shameless official Paris taxi drivers. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50865211 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50865211

hnewsshadowbans 7y ago

With Uber want to work? Press a button. Want to take a break? Press a button. Want to work again? Press a button. Take as long a break as you want. Work as long as you want. No timecards. No obnoxious coworkers. No intrusive questions. No douchebag bosses making your life a living hell. In what other job do you have this sort of freedom without the instability of traditional selfemployment? What more could you ask for? Now it'll all be ruined for everybody because of the greed and entitlement of a few. Its side hustle money for bored college kids with some free time. They NEVER promised anything more. They're not forcing you to work for them. If you're a a single mother raising 5 kids on Uber alone you're doing it wrong.

avianlyric 7y ago
> Its side hustle money for bored college kids with some free time. Except it isn’t. If it was then Uber wouldn’t be trying to setup vehicle leasing schemes for their drivers. If it was true then I would actually meet some college kid drivers, rather that 30 year old migrants. If you’re a single mother raising 5 kids on Uber, then you probably have no choice. Telling them they’re “doing it wrong” won’t feed their kids. It’s just a callus relegation of someone you find undesirable and have no wish to help.
- username90 7y ago
  Fact is that every time you create a new way to earn money some people will do it full time no matter the feasibility. So basically you argue that we should have the current wage-slave economy forever instead of giving workers more choice. The only reason Uber is even a hint of a problem today is that we only have a single occupation following this model, but if it was more widespread and you could pick between a plethora of different things to earn money by as easily as Uber then suddenly the problems with Uber today would disappear instantly. I understand that the current wage-slave model is better for employers, workers can't go home early if they feel tired that day for less pay since it would get them fired. Instead they have to tough out their hours every day. Similarly if a part time worker wanted a bit of extra money they could just choose to work more a few times, but that is also impossible in the current model. It assumes that workers are like machines who reliably work XX hours per week with no deviations. And even hourly jobs requires you to pick shifts beforehand and often you can't even get as many hours as you want or need, and you can still get fired for picking too few shifts etc. So I feel that Uber is a much more humane way to handle labor than current employment contracts.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bcheung 7y ago

The ruling makes sense to me, but the criteria do not. At least in this case. It almost seems like there needs to be a new category for the gig economy employees. They are somewhere in-between.

alwayseasy 7y ago
French courts can't write labour laws, just interpretations of them. It's the legislative branch's job to create a gig economy framework.

c3534l 7y ago

Counterpoint (from the basis of what I know from how the US, not France, classifies independent contractors): 1. Uber drivers also drive for Lyft and other services 2. They can reject a passenger when the call comes in 3. They bring their own tools to the job (their car) 4. They provide their own training and technical qualifications (they're responsible for getting a drivers license, license plate, etc.) 5. They set their own hours 6. The choose where they work 7. They're paid by the job and the price is based on the job, not necessarily just hourly wages (like paying for a deck, or a custom paint job) 8. They work with limited supervision This sounds an awful lot to me like an independent contractor working for a small number of driving services. I do think that the fact that drivers have limited ability in a given app to set their own rates indicates employment, but very rarely does an independent contractor actually meet every single one of the criteria I listed. A house cleaner, for instance, brings their own tools, etc., but they're not paid by the job and they don't work with limited supervision. Meanwhile some construction work might mean that work can only be done during specific hours of the day using specialized equipment provided by the nuclear plant / factory / whatever. This is as opposed to someone like Microsoft or Intel that hires employees, but gives them a different badge and excludes them from certain meetings and then goes and pretends they're contractors when they're actually just poorly paid interns.

corentin88 7y ago
French law only requires a "relationship of subordination" to qualify someone as an employee. The press release is very short and explains why the French court considers that an Uber’s driver is in a relationship of subordinate. > Drivers who use the Uber application do not build up their own clientele, do not freely set their rates, and do not determine the terms and conditions of providing their transportation service. The company imposes the itinerary and the driver’s fare is adjusted if this itinerary is not followed. The destination is unknown to the driver, thereby revealing that the driver cannot freely choose the route that suits him/her.
- c3534l 7y ago
  Sure. I did try to qualify my statement saying I was basing my argument on US law. French law is whatever a French court decides it is. But I do think that riding-app drivers are, as a matter of opinion, much more like hiring someone to paint your house than a regular employee relationship.

cmhnn 7y ago

Some of my favorite themes here. 1) People asserting that the court was right or wrong followed by some "argument". The court simply ruled. Anything beyond that is the same as people who use statistics to provide "evidence" about their preconceived notions. 2) Examples that mean one thing to someone and something else to another but both sides claim right or wrong. See 1. For fun, I'll do an example but not claim it proves something. Most well known professional wrestlers work for a tyrant. Until very recently when another billionare entered the game they didn't have a lot of choices. Just like uber drivers they are mostly told what to do and even have sold their real names. They can also be seriously injured and die just like uber drivers. They also are "independent" contractors. Despite those odds, some did leave and became well known outside of that tyrant's world and are now getting richer than ever before...Would any of the events above including the new billionare deciding they could compete by picking up those independent minded wrestlers ever have happened if they were employees all along? 3)Portrayal of evil corps and the downtrodden who are forced to serve them as stereotypical "underclass" victims. If you are in Redmond soon and you take an Uber don't be surprised if you are being driven around by a PM who is getting out of the house or trying to get an extra edge against the high cost of living there. My personal feeling here is I do not care either way. What I care about is from the consumer standpoint that Uber is accountable. My primary dislike of Uber, Airbnb, Vroom or similar enterprises is that they all claim to be of one stripe when things are going well but when things go wrong the company claims "Oh that's not us it is this entity we represented as part of the process but who we disclaim any responsibility for". As others have pointed out all the major tech companies use contractors. I don't know of any that would get away with the "oh that's not really us" defense.

jaked89 7y ago

Examining this case from a "similarity to employee" perspective neglects a crucial factor: the expectations between the parties at the time of contract. It's patently obvious no Uber driver expected to be treated as an employee, as no employment contract was signed, and the Uber model is known and clear. The court merely implements "social justice", which is nor social nither justice, destroying basic trust in society. Progressivism is cancer.

rtkwe 7y ago
Most employment law isn't about protecting people from being surprised by an employer it's about setting limits to what an employer can require of an employee. Both parties expecting at signing that you'll only get paid for half the hours you work or that you'll be paid below the required minimums doesn't make it any more legal for the business to do that.
Polylactic_acid 7y ago
A contract isn't law. I can write a piece of paper saying that you agree to work for me for $1 per hour and even if you sign it, you are still able to take legal action against me because this contract is illegal. Preventing megacorps from exploiting those with few options is obviously a net benefit.
- jaked89 7y ago
  This has nothing to do with my point. Law exists to establish peace and consensus. Contacts are the most basic construct enabling modern life in a crowded society. Reinterpreting contracts in a liberal, unreasonable manner destroys peace and introduces chaos. It prevents members of society from ever trusting one another, and makes all agreements tentative, subjective to the retroactive whims of politicians and court. It serves the court, positioning it as an ultimate dictator, not the society.
  - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
    Law exists to ensure the best possibly outcome for society. Companies finding creative ways to redefine work so they get all the benefit while offloading any of the costs is not helpful for society. I might be inclined to agree with you on contracts if it wasn't for the huge imbalance of power here. An individual who works for these taxi companies has basically no negotiating power against uber so they will never be able to come to a fair contract. Employment protections exist to solve this and they have been rightfully applied to uber like they are to every other company. Laws should adapt to changing reality rather than let companies work around them.

manigandham 7y ago

How unfortunate. The vast majority of drivers don't want this. If they wanted full-time driving jobs, they would get one, yet they choose Uber for the flexibility. This is going to hurt most drivers than help. We can already see the results of this here in California because of AB5 and I doubt most proponents of this law have ever driven for Uber in the first place.

m463 7y ago
Wouldn't flexibility be: 3) the freedom to set the terms and conditions for providing one's services.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Nobody is stopping them from being independent drivers with their own customers. For example, I do this for with regular drivers for airport rides that I originally met on the app. Uber is a matchmaking service that comes with certain rules and objectives so the marketplace works better for everyone, and flexibility to work when and where you want is usually most important. Perhaps we need a 3rd category to account for this kind of work.

LatteLazy 7y ago

How many people cheering this are still paying the plumber that fixed their toilet a year ago a salary?

duxut_staglatz 7y ago
My plumber is an actual independent worker, setting his own rates, having his own clientele and free to organize his work as he sees fit.
- LatteLazy 7y ago
  Uber doesn't stop people having their own clients. Quite the opposite, it's a great place to swap numbers with a driver you like. Uber even has a favourites button so you have a higher chance of getting the same driver/passenger. Also, your plumber doesn't set his rates, you do. He quotes and you accept (or not). That's exactly the same as the Uber driver. It seems pretty obvious to me that Uber drivers organise their own work. They start and stop when they want, pick the journeys they want, set their own hours etc. But maybe I've misunderstood you?
  - duxut_staglatz 7y ago
    You are conflating Uber and the Uber driver. The driver does not quote anything, Uber does and both the driver and the customer accept or not. They have a very limited way to choose the ride they take: they have to make the decision in a couple of seconds, they may not know the destination and they are punished for declining too many rides by Uber. Does not scream free choice of what ride to take. It is possible to bypass Uber and exchange numbers, yes. But the Uber platform itself does not let you build your own clientele, such as letting you look for the clients you want or the other way around. The question is not whether drivers can build their clientele outside of Uber but inside of Uber. They do indeed have flexible hours, something that is apparently - reading the comments of this thread - impossible as an employee in the US and thus a feature of being an independent worker, but in France you can be an employee and have flexible hours, so that does not make Uber drivers independent.

LatteLazy 7y ago

I'm self employed. I really strongly prefer it. I don't want to be an employee thanks. Yet my government (UK) are also trying to ban it (IR35). Why is it so hard for people to understand: I prefer cash to "secure employment", I'm old and mature enough to make that decision? I didn't even know I was this right wing...

unishark 7y ago
As always the govt wants to protect you from corporations by forcing you to be dependent on them for your livelihood. A bit different situation, but relevant to the group here. In the US, software contracting started to become very big during an earlier tech bubble. This was crushed in the mid 80s by a new tax law that made a long list of requirements (12 or something) that must be satisfied to work as a contractor in tech. You practically had to operate as an independent company selling them a finished product. Otherwise they would fine both sides and make the company you contracted with pay back taxes. The law was so overreaching it had to exempt other professions like housekeeping and legal services which were "traditionally" operating via hourly billing or whatever, or those forms of operating would be completely eliminated too. The govt figured they would get more tax money with people paying through paycheck deductions, while businesses such as IBM were pushing for the law to turn the competition into employees.

username90 7y ago

Can anyone explain why we need separate laws for self employed people and employees? To me it seems like they should have the same criteria. So for example, if a self employed person don't bring in enough money to pay minimum wage and all benefits then he is no longer allowed to work and must file for unemployment and look for another job immediately so that he can get a better paying job. Then Uber would no longer be able to get any riders unless they paid better which would fix the problem. What is the problem with this model?

titanomachy 7y ago
It seems to me like contractor rules were invented for a very different kind of person, i.e. a professional who voluntarily gives up certain protections in exchange for higher pay. As an engineer I can choose whether I want to enter an employeer-employee relationship or a business-to-business relationship. In the second, I take on a greater share of the risk and I am accordingly paid more. The freedom to choose either option is valuable to me. The rule was not intended as a way for large corporations to hire workers for less than minimum wage, although so far we've had a hard time making laws that cleanly differentiate the two cases.

Lucadg 7y ago

The platform-provider relationship is a new thing. A new kind of regulation is needed. Trying to define drivers as employees or contractors is futile.

eruditegamer420 7y ago

Politically motivated trash just like the garbage bill in CA. Luddites and corruption will always attack and destroy innovation.

Frost1x 7y ago

The deteriorating relationship between what people widely consider 'employer' and 'employee' has put a lot of societal structures (businesses, democratic governments, etc.) at risk since income provides the abstraction most use (money) to provide necessities and wants. Most all of these institutions are able to continue to exist because people accept their artificial constructs and play the roles due to wide belief that it provides a better life. In many places, quality of life or at least perception of quality of life is deteriorating for large segments of the population. This is, IMO, causing wide rejection of modern institutional roles laborers are dealing with. Many employers are breaking the social contract and people aren't happy--this is a risky game to play. I propose much of the political unrest we're seeing in US politics is symptomatic of the population's general unrest and rejection of continued shifts against your typical laborer. We can play legal/semantic games about how we define 'employee,' 'employer,' and 'contractor' but ultimately, if the general population disagrees, no matter how well we construct our rules and arguments, the institutions will fail if people widely perceive they're being cheated/deceived.

krghosh 7y ago

Good!

tus88 7y ago

I wonder if an Uber could exist that posed itself as a service to drivers not passengers.

predictmktegirl 7y ago

I don't understand why this is so complicated. If someone works for you, they are an employee. If someone works with you, they are a contractor. I think the French definition of subordination is a great defining characteristic. However, my understanding is that US law doesn't make this distinction thus introducing a gray area.

ApolloFortyNine 7y ago
>I don't understand why this is so complicated. If someone works for you, they are an employee. If someone works with you, they are a contractor. Well, no, it's not that simple. For one, how many employees at your company could stop coming in tomorrow, and then six months from now go back to work like nothing happened? Being able to work whenever you want seems like a clear differentiator from real employees. There's no requirement from Uber for you to actually work.

nie100sowny 7y ago

More money goes to government. Less (or in the best case the same amount of) money will stay in Uber driver pockets because of the taxes Less money in people's wallets because of the higher transportation costs. Who have more money have more power :/ This is how we loose freedom

49531 7y ago

I used to work at a gig economy startup (uber for dog walking...) and we spent considerable resources lobbying local and national governments to expand the kinds of restrictions we put onto our independent contractors while still not labeling them as employees. We also had an entire team dedicated to preventing our contractors from going "off platform". Probably one of the more exploitative jobs I've had.

6510 7y ago

To appreciate the context one must consider the much higher standards for employment. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/employment-law/comparison-between-usa-and-france-employment-employment-law-essay.php https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/employment-law/co... > "...the French law regulates much more heavily all the aspects of employment conditions than the United States: Only a few forms of employment contracts exist in the French legal system, whereas the American law allows the two parties – the employer and the employee- to agree on almost every aspect of the contract freely, as soon as the contract is respecting the same principles and regulations set by the American law for contracts. > The French legal system also regulates more strictly the aspects related to the execution of an employment contract, the work duration, the remuneration and the contract termination. > The social tendency of the French legal system to protect the employees is in clear contrast here with the American employment, contracting and competing freedom principles." Uber is seen as an attempt to escape the relatively fixed labor agreement.

usr1106 7y ago

Wasn't it so that in France Ryanair pilots are not allowed to be self-employed subcontractors either? (A model that Ryanair prefers.) Both makes sense to me, neighter of them can really set their own prices, schedules or work-conditions.

jacquesm 7y ago

Excellent judgement, not only because I happen to agree with it but also because of how it was explained that they arrived at this conclusion. Uber drivers ended up with all of the downsides of being an employee but none of the upsides.

baron816 7y ago

Labor market regulation is tricky. All of Uber's drivers join as contractors under their own free will. No one is legally obligated to work for Uber. No one is threatening to do harm to anyone if they don't drive for Uber. If they don't like the terms of their employment, they can just stop driving for Uber. Now of course, that libertarian approach has some practical consequences. Humans are a little bit mushier than the "economic man". We get sick, and old, come of age under different environmental conditions, have certain family obligations, happen upon unexpected circumstances, etc. We can all appreciate that some people don't really have the option to just quit the job that's just barely keeping them afloat. But if a society decides that it values things like economic and human rights, then the burden of guaranteeing those rights for everyone should be spread across society as a whole, not just on the few whose business model depends on employing those at the bottom.

dusted 7y ago
"No one is legally obligated to work for Uber. No one is threatening to do harm to anyone if they don't drive for Uber. If they don't like the terms of their employment, they can just stop driving for Uber." This is an interesting position. On the surface it even seems reasonable. Just like "no one is FORCING you to eat that particular food, if you don't like it, just don't eat it". Well, hunger might force one to eat a particular food, even if one does not like it, even if one does not tolerate it well. It might well be, that that particular food is that one available to you, and you might not be in a position to select another food. Can you opt not to eat it, it it's what seems available to you? I think we tend to forget that not everyone has the kind of choice we have.
- alexmingoia 7y ago
  People who disagree with having the fruits of their labor stolen and given to others (welfare), or prevented from laboring (employment restrictions like the ones for Uber), are well aware that people have different possessions, capabilities, and opportunities. They just don’t think two wrongs make a right or that the ends justify the means. They think the purpose of government should be to secure rights instead of violating them to benefit someone else.

dusted 7y ago

A solution to uber exploiting those with little other choice, might actually be to have more platforms like uber, that'd force them to compete, not only for customers, but for workers. I like the french version better though. If uber wants to be a taxi company, then do it on fair terms.

PeterStuer 7y ago

The real question is should Uber drivers get the same rights and protection as employees, and the company contracting them be held to the same responsabilities. My answer to that is yes, of course. Wether they are or are not 'employee' according to some last century definition is an uninteresting question.