3 ms·

The French court doesn't buy your interpretation of "There is no expectation that either side will come back for more.", the mere existence of a vetting system

The French court doesn't buy your interpretation of "There is no expectation that either side will come back for more.", the mere existence of a vetting system and a rating system show Uber expected drivers to come back. The profession of driver isn't new and wasn't invented by Uber. Uber just found a way around local labour (and tax) laws and a European government, who's getting the downside of the tech company but no fiscal or technological upside, stepped in.

pishpash 7y ago
What of ratings or vetting forces someone to work more? If you sell once at a fleamarket and acquire a word-of-mouth reputation for your actions, are you forced/expected to come again? It's irrelevant why a government would act, political or fiscal reasons are always part of it, and protectionism. This doesn't have bearing on whether it is making sense or being illogical.
- alwayseasy 7y ago
  Vetting and ratings are about establishing longer term relationships and not just one trip using the app. It's only illogical in a vacuum and not based on how Uber behaved on the French market.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
Aren't ratings evidence of an expectation that the one side won't come back for more? The person who received the ride isn't recording their opinion of the driver for themselves -- they already know it. They're leaving it for some other third party. The existence of Yelp isn't evidence that building contractors are employees, it's the opposite. Actual employers typically don't rate their employees because they're not interested in having the best ones poached by competitors.
- vidarh 7y ago
  You're missing that there's an intermediary here. The expectation is that they will come back for more with Uber. Yelp doesn't hire the building contractors on its users behalf.
- alwayseasy 7y ago
  I'm not sure what point you're debating here, the question is about "either side" expecting to come back. In this case the drivers who provide the service are expected to come back, hence the vetting and rating. It establishes a relationship that extends beyond a single trip or "job". IF Yelp ever garners a dominant position in terms of qualified leads and monopoly on pricing to building contractors, French law could conceivably look into them. > Actual employers typically don't rate their employees because they're not interested in having the best ones poached by competitors. "Employee of the Month" posters around America beg to differ.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > "Employee of the Month" posters around America beg to differ. "Employee of the Month" posters are hung inside your own offices rather than anywhere a competitor would be likely to see them. > In this case the drivers who provide the service are expected to come back, hence the vetting and rating. It establishes a relationship that extends beyond a single trip or "job". The relationship between the driver and the rider generally doesn't extend beyond the single trip. They'll probably never see each other again. The relationship between the driver and Uber may continue, but so does the relationship between a plumber and Yelp. It seems like you're arguing that eBay sellers should be considered the employees of eBay if they do most of their sales through eBay.
    - pishpash 7y ago
      Parent seems to pivot to an argument about monopoly instead. That's a slick backslide that should be called out.
      - alwayseasy 7y ago
        I don't see how I'm pivoting to an argument when I'm explaining the decision. Call out the French judges who clearly lack your insights and deeper understanding of local laws. I'm giving the context of the French legal case, you're arguing from an American market stand point. Yelp or eBay are barely blips in France, Lyft doesn't even exist. Maybe Uber drivers are contractors in the US, but not according to French laws and market conditions as proven by the court decision today.

pishpash 7y ago

What of ratings or vetting forces someone to work more? If you sell once at a fleamarket and acquire a word-of-mouth reputation for your actions, are you forced/expected to come again? It's irrelevant why a government would act, political or fiscal reasons are always part of it, and protectionism. This doesn't have bearing on whether it is making sense or being illogical.

alwayseasy 7y ago
Vetting and ratings are about establishing longer term relationships and not just one trip using the app. It's only illogical in a vacuum and not based on how Uber behaved on the French market.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

Aren't ratings evidence of an expectation that the one side won't come back for more? The person who received the ride isn't recording their opinion of the driver for themselves -- they already know it. They're leaving it for some other third party. The existence of Yelp isn't evidence that building contractors are employees, it's the opposite. Actual employers typically don't rate their employees because they're not interested in having the best ones poached by competitors.

vidarh 7y ago
You're missing that there's an intermediary here. The expectation is that they will come back for more with Uber. Yelp doesn't hire the building contractors on its users behalf.
alwayseasy 7y ago
I'm not sure what point you're debating here, the question is about "either side" expecting to come back. In this case the drivers who provide the service are expected to come back, hence the vetting and rating. It establishes a relationship that extends beyond a single trip or "job". IF Yelp ever garners a dominant position in terms of qualified leads and monopoly on pricing to building contractors, French law could conceivably look into them. > Actual employers typically don't rate their employees because they're not interested in having the best ones poached by competitors. "Employee of the Month" posters around America beg to differ.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > "Employee of the Month" posters around America beg to differ. "Employee of the Month" posters are hung inside your own offices rather than anywhere a competitor would be likely to see them. > In this case the drivers who provide the service are expected to come back, hence the vetting and rating. It establishes a relationship that extends beyond a single trip or "job". The relationship between the driver and the rider generally doesn't extend beyond the single trip. They'll probably never see each other again. The relationship between the driver and Uber may continue, but so does the relationship between a plumber and Yelp. It seems like you're arguing that eBay sellers should be considered the employees of eBay if they do most of their sales through eBay.
  - pishpash 7y ago
    Parent seems to pivot to an argument about monopoly instead. That's a slick backslide that should be called out.
    - alwayseasy 7y ago
      I don't see how I'm pivoting to an argument when I'm explaining the decision. Call out the French judges who clearly lack your insights and deeper understanding of local laws. I'm giving the context of the French legal case, you're arguing from an American market stand point. Yelp or eBay are barely blips in France, Lyft doesn't even exist. Maybe Uber drivers are contractors in the US, but not according to French laws and market conditions as proven by the court decision today.