15 ms·

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) ha

• 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.
      • chrisseaton 7y ago
        Waiters can be employees of a restaurant. Who can taxi drivers be an employee of?
        • munk-a 7y ago
          The dispatch company - the company which, generally, has their name painted on the side of the taxi.
          • chrisseaton 7y ago
            I don’t think most taxi drivers have a connection to any ‘dispatch company’ they just pick up fares as they drive around.
            • munk-a 7y ago
              I am purely speaking from my own experience and I can't speak absolutely... but every city I've ever lived in has had a few random cabbies driving around that are far outnumbered by the cab companies - whether this is yellow cab or something random like Boston's Metro Cab[1]. If you ever need to call and schedule a cab to the airport you'll be calling into a dispatch center - rather than just arranging it with a dude. My impression is that street hires are a pretty small proportion of the taxi market. 1. http://metro-cab.com/ http://metro-cab.com/
          • dnautics 7y ago
            No, you don't understand. They are customers of the dispatch company. They pay the dispatch company licensing fees and rent. Totally different, way more exploitative and way more legal arrangement.
            • Frenziefrenz 7y ago
              Where, in France? Considering they are employees in the Benelux I find that implausible. Especially considering that the OP is about a French court saying that Uber was just trying to find a loophole so they wouldn't have to treat their employees like any normal taxi company.
    • rtkwe 7y ago
      There's the obvious choice of the dispatch company they work for.
      • chrisseaton 7y ago
        I don’t think all taxi drivers work with a dispatch company. Most just pick people up at the side of the road don’t they?
        • munk-a 7y ago
          I think that's a mis-categorization - I do agree that these exist (and a lot of them fall into the "airport taxi" class since that's a reliable place to get business) and a cab operating in such a manner sounds plausible to be an independent contractor. But organizations like Yellow Cab exist and is the way most folks hail a cab, even at hotels - when you ask the concierge to get a cab for you they'll almost certainly call a local company and ask for a cab to be sent over - someone actually needs to be monitoring that phone, and the logistics of each cabbie having a phone in the car is kinda crazy "Oh ernie is currently driving someone, bart might be available I'll call him" so there is a central dispatching center with a few employees that just help make sure that the cabs are well distributed to quickly respond to calls.
          • chrisseaton 7y ago
            > they'll almost certainly call a local company and ask for a cab to be sent over In my experience they just step outside and wave one down.
            • rtkwe 7y ago
              Those mostly also belong to a bigger company that handles call in dispatches.
              • chrisseaton 7y ago
                I don't think they've ever had radios in though, doesn't seem likely that they also take dispatches.
    • Frenziefrenz 7y ago
      Are you arguing from the framework provided by a presumably not Western European legal system?
  • chrisseaton 7y ago
    An employee of who?
  • himinlomax 7y ago
    Taxis are paid directly by their customers, so one of the criterions does not apply. (Note that some taxis are employees of taxi companies, but they need not be, as far as the regulation at hand is concerned.)
• floatingatoll 7y ago
  Traditional taxi drivers own their taxi medallions and may transfer those medallions to other drivers, which provides one key aspect of their "independent" contractor state: If the cab company mistreats them, they can take their medallion elsewhere. Uber's model prohibits drivers from subcontracting (transferring) their rides to others, which pierces the veil of 'independent contractor': either a contractor can subcontract, or they're not a contractor. Caveat: This is not at all a complete argument for or against taxis or gig economy, but is meant to show how a division exists between the two to permit further consideration of the ruling.
  • djrogers 7y ago
    > Traditional taxi drivers own their taxi medallions That's not really the case in a lot of places - drivers 'rent' medallions from Taxi companies, as the medallions cost many times the annual income of a driver. Although, their value is droppnig due to ridesharing apps. [1]
    • squiggleblaz 7y ago
      Why say "ride sharing"? It's not sharing a ride. You can't use uber to basically organise carpooling. It's buying a ride.
      • reaperducer 7y ago
        "Ride sharing" is a common term for Uber and similar companies because when Uber first started you did, indeed, share rides. Now it's more correct to call it a "ride hailing" platform, but the original term still sticks.
      • ericd 7y ago
        You certainly can, at least in some of their markets. The vast majority of my Uber/Lyft rides are carpool rides, frequently there are 3 of us in the car with the driver. It's called Uber Pool, and Lyft Line.
      • aianus 7y ago
• boudin 7y ago
  Some taxi drivers are employees, it really depends. Some taxi companies have abused the independent contractor status as well and went through the same kind of trial in court. Here's an example: https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2017/12/12/taxi-drivers-employees-independent-contractors/ https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2017/12/12/taxi-drivers-emplo...
• timdiggerm 7y ago
  ...aren't taxi drivers employees?
  • speeder 7y ago
    I am from Brazil, here taxi drivers usually own the medallion and the cab... The medallions is suppposed to be nontransferrable and free, you would only need to pass some certification tests, but there are ridiculous levels of corruption, and a pinch of violence here and there (For example drivers in certain spots violently banning others from using the same spots, even with guns if they think is needed). Here Taxi Mafia runs strong, but is still made of individuals, not companies.
  • rsj_hn 7y ago
    no, most are independent contractors who lease the cab and the medallion from the taxi company. If you have your own medallion, you lease that to the cab company (so you are making money from it even when you are not working, which you can't do 24/7). Cabbies have always been independent contractors with very few exceptions. The cab company leases the medallions and has some store of medallions it owns. It buys and maintains the cars and runs the dispatching service.
• munk-a 7y ago
  Taxi drivers are almost certainly mostly employees. "Contactor" is a kinda arbitrary employee status which has some theoretical usages - but most of the time it's just abused to deny employment benefits from employees.
  • spullara 7y ago
    All of the taxi drivers I knew in SF when I lived there rented their taxi for the night, up front.
    • munk-a 7y ago
      That sounds pretty strong as an indicator they were legitimately contractors - but it's always a complex question. Specifics like: would the drivers be punished or penalized for not showing up for work?, is there an employee conduct agreement the dispatch center enforces and how does it enforce that?, how does a driver qualify for eligibility to rent - can anyone with a cab license freely rent or is there an interview beyond that? Independent contractor status is a really finicky thing to define and, in the end, it's a status that mostly deprives employees of rights in favor of an employer so any "grey" usage of it should be highly suspect.
• Enginerrrd 7y ago
  >Does that mean that a taxi driver is an employee? Of course not. Not disagreeing with the absurdity of this, but aren't taxi drivers usually employees when there's a centralized call number to hail a cab? That, or they are truly independent. So I don't see the argument here.
• dnautics 7y ago
  Aren't most taxi drivers customers? They rent the car and the privilege of branding their vehicles from the taxi company.
• def8cefe 7y ago
  >Taxis pick up at taxi ranks or off the street. 'Radio' calls and calls they've privately arranged with customers as well. >Taxis have regulations set by an organisation. That would be local by-law in most cases. >Taxis (in most places) have rules that say they must take the most efficient route. You can't intentionally ripoff customers but the fastest route and the cheapest are often different. You can take whatever route you want as long as the customer is cool with it. >In most places, taxis aren't allowed to refuse a customer based on destination. You absolutely can refuse a customer as long as it's not descriminatory, like most other businesses. >Does that mean that a taxi driver is an employee? Some drivers are employees, some are best compared to franchisees and others are totally independent.
  • Jommi 7y ago
    AFAIK all of these apply to Uber drivers in France as well.
    • def8cefe 7y ago
      Taxi drivers can pick up anyone on their own terms (with some limitations from local laws). Uber drivers on the other hand can only legally pick up rides dispatched from Uber or another ride-sharing app. That's all they're insured for and that's all local laws will allow because they don't have status as licensed taxi drivers in a licensed vehicle. A customer can hand me cash and nobody gets a piece except the government. An Uber driver cannot accept cash or payment outside the Uber app or they will be fired.
      • throwaway744678 7y ago
        (French) VTC may actually pick up anyone on their own terms providing the ride was booked in advance by the customer (ie. they can't pick someone in the street). The customer may order through a ride-sharing app, or through any other means, eg. by phone, email, whatever. What Uber forbids is building up such a clientele from customers it brought through the app.
      • Jommi 7y ago
• Barrin92 7y ago
  >Does that mean that a taxi driver is an employee? In Europe? (or France in this particular case) yes absolutely. I've never been to a European country where taxi drivers are not employees of regular taxi companies receiving salaries.
  • throwaway744678 7y ago
    In Paris, ~60% own their medallion, ~30% are independent and rent it from a taxi company, the rest are employees.
• iamaelephant 7y ago
  > Does that mean that a taxi driver is an employee? Of course not. Why not?
• smileysteve 7y ago
  Most taxi drivers in the U.S. should be classified as employees. Where they drive a company managed car (under a company owned medallion), work certain hours.
• himinlomax 7y ago
  Taxis are paid directly by their customers.
• kfarr 7y ago
  Depends on jurisdiction but practically, yes, and in fact in California the EDD was systematically suing local governments to convert taxi drivers into employees (and to recapture lost taxes they would have billed had they been employees) until Uber blew that system out of the water. Source: was taxi driver in SF / CA during that time. And as a practical matter, yes these folks met all the checkboxes of being employee despite the assertion otherwise by taxi companies and cities.
• CydeWeys 7y ago
  Lots of taxi drivers are owner-operators, and many others lease medallions/vehicles but otherwise do their own thing. As for taking the most efficient route, a driver purposely taking a longer route you didn't ask for to scam you out of your money is just that, a scam. So it's illegal on that basis alone. They key difference with a lot of these taxi restrictions is they are set by the government to protect consumers. The government imposing uniform standards on taxi drivers through legislation is not at all the same thing as private companies doing so on drivers while weaseling out of employment requirements. The government can set lots of restrictions on how jobs are done without requiring employment contracts with those workers; private companies do not have those same powers. Hell, the government can execute people; there's no expected parity here whatsoever.
• 205guy 7y ago
  Conceptually, a taxi is a regulated industry. The regulation created by the government sets the work conditions, and the taxi medallion is the contract between the taxi provider and the government. In a way, it's different from both the contractor and employee status which is usually between 2 private parties. The owner/recipient of the medallion agrees to certain work conditions/obligations (non-discrimination, destination-blindness, accept credit cards, sometimes provide wheelchair amenities, etc.) and receives certain privileges (limited monopoly, right to pick up anyone on the street, right to use taxi lanes and taxi files, etc.). Whether the drivers actually meet the obligations is often a matter of lack of enforcement and what the driver can get away with, but it really is a quid-pro-quo of rights and responsibilities. Medallions ended up being owned by taxi companies who rented them out to contractors or employees, so the relationship between the medallion owner and the driver (2 private parties) depended on how they set up the contract (and both kinds exist). And of course, private parties abuse independent contractors and employment contracts all the time, so it's really a gray area in practice. But regardless of who is paying whom, the driver should adhere to the medallion rules while driving/waiting on fares. When looking at taxi and ride sharing, it helps to have a brief history of the industry: - Before medallions, anyone could call themselves a driver, and pick up anyone for any price--true market competition. Of course, abuse and discrimination was rampant, riders were vulnerable, and too many drivers would drive the offered price so low only the desperate in dilapidated/dangerous vehicles would compete. - Regulation in the form of medallions and meters came along with the idea of promoting mobility. Limit the number of drivers and set the fares so that someone working full-time can make a decent living, make sure they have safe vehicles and not criminal drivers, mandate shortest routes and non-discrimination. In the best of all worlds, there is a competent fleet of drivers, and people can get around the city and suburbs as needed. - Because this is not the best of all worlds, taxis became sleazy and abusive, the medallion owners exploited their drivers (both employees or contractors), and regulatory capture ensured that the customer protection obligations were no longer enforced. - Uber and others exploited the loophole of the radio-taxi: you phone in and get a taxi dispatched to your location. Except with mobile phones, that's like standing on the curb and hailing a taxi, which was the artificial monopoly given to taxi medallions. Frankly, I think ride-hailing apps should've been regulated on that alone, but because the whole industry had such a bad reputation and entrenched interests, everyone was happy to find a way around them. - As the middle-men, the ride-hailing companies are trying to set themselves up to get the best of both worlds: set prices and make sure drivers aren't really free, but also not have any of the responsibilities of keeping ride-for-hire on the road or promoting mobility. Another side of this whole contractor/employee debate is the destination-blindness. As a driver, you don't want to drive the unprofitable fares, either too short or too long to the suburbs without a return fare. In order to be appealing to riders, Uber et al. have to hide this from the drivers, otherwise the drivers would refuse more rides. If all drivers became true contractors free to set rates and pick-and-choose any ride, we'd be back to the original unregulated situation (race to the bottom). So the companies get why the regulations exist, but if the drivers were employees, then the companies would have to bear the cost of the unprofitable fares. So they make the drivers feel like contractors to bear that cost for them.
• realusername 7y ago
  > Does that mean that a taxi driver is an employee? Of course not. Yes it does, and a lot of them are employees.
• rmc 7y ago
  Would Uber be happy to be classified as a taxi company?