17 ms·

São Paulo Labor Judge Rules Uber Must Pay Full Employee Benefits to Drivers

187 points by donsupreme 6y ago

rafaelturk 6y ago
This is preliminary decision and goes agains previous legal battles that where favorable to Uber. Given that São Paulo is a key City for Uber, according their prospectus Sampa is the second most active city This will be a long ongoing legal battle.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  I wouldn't hold out hope considering the other key cities Uber operates in (SF and LA in California, NYC in New York, New Jersey, and London [1], which account for 1/4 of their bookings) have made similar determinations. São Paulo was the holdout. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23713582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23713582
  - remote_phone 6y ago
    It’s too early to say that they were determined as employees in any of those cities. The cities WANT them to be employees because it takes the burden off them to get jobs for them, but the legality of those ruling haven’t been finalized. There are plenty of reasons why they shouldn’t be considered employees and there was a study released by Cornell this week that showed more than 75% of drivers are part-time anyway and want freedom, not full time employment.
    - throwanem 6y ago
      Would that be the Seattle-specific Cornell study [1] that came out on Monday? Aside from relying on data collected in a specific locality not under discussion, it doesn't appear to make any sort of assertion regarding what drivers want, contrary to your claim on its behalf. Where are you getting that information? You should cite your sources, so others in the conversation can evaluate them independent of the claims you make for them. [1] https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/reports/71/ https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/reports/71/
    - p49k 6y ago
      > there was a study released by Cornell this week Which was funded by the rideshare companies themselves and which has been heavily criticized for its methods, it should be pointed out.
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      >Cornell this week that showed more than 75% of drivers are part-time anyway 10 drivers working 1 hour a week contribute less to the platform than 1 driver working 40 hours a week. The study should adjust for the amount of time drivers are on the platform and not just sheer number of drivers. Just counting drivers seems an obviously flawed approach designed to make the part time count seem high.
    - michaelt 6y ago
      You mean this one? [1] > "Uber and Lyft covered the costs of the study [...] The study was priced as cost-plus, which covered the costs of the research plus overhead to the university. In total, study costs came to $120,000. [...] Driver earnings for all of our analyses came directly from Lyft and Uber. " Yeah, real convincing. [1] https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=reports https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
      - josinalvo 6y ago
        And, anyway, this would only argue for giving them an option, not for giving nobody the option of working full time. 25% is not a small number
  - pelasaco 6y ago
    Interesting, thank you for the link. Funny thing that one argument used against it, is that nowhere in the World, Uber is paying Employee Benefits.
  - irae 6y ago
    Even though this is still an ongoing legal battle, laws in each country are very different and might cause Uber business to be viable in some and not others. In Brazil labour laws are extreemly harsh and many say an employee costs between 50% and 150% more as compared to employment costs in other countries[1]. Also the social impact is different in different countries. Brazil is the only developing country in the list above. I live in São Paulo, and I can say before Uber, taxi cabs were a thing for rich people. Uber and it's competitors drove costs so low, poor people can now aford rides. I didn't find Sao Paulo stats, but in Rio, app drivers are 3x the number of cab drivers[2]. Uber estimates 1.9mi users might not be able to afford anymore if the law passes, amongst many other claims [3]. [1]: I won't pick specific sources, search 'custo brazil' if you are interested [2]: https://oglobo.globo.com/rio/pesquisa-mostra-que-aplicativos-ja-transportam-triplo-dos-passageiros-de-taxis-23912389 https://oglobo.globo.com/rio/pesquisa-mostra-que-aplicativos... [3]: https://www.uol.com.br/tilt/noticias/redacao/2020/03/09/nova-lei-nesta-semana-pode-afetar-apps-como-uber-em-sp-o-que-esta-em-jogo.htm https://www.uol.com.br/tilt/noticias/redacao/2020/03/09/nova...
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      You can’t argue consumer surplus as a benefit (“Everyone gets Uber now!” Versus taxis for just the rich) if you’re avoiding employment costs. Taxis were for rich people because they could afford the fully loaded costs. If the financial model is unsustainable because of employment law and the costs required by the law, the business is fundamentally flawed and unsustainable.
      - username90 6y ago
        Uber works thanks to greed. When a driver knows he earns as much as he gets customers he will try to optimize his driving patterns. This cuts down a lot of overhead you otherwise need managing when, where and who should be able to drive for money. Making people employees with minimum hourly wages ruins this dynamic and suddenly Uber would need to add that extra overhead as well.
        josinalvo 6y ago
- personlurking 6y ago
  >according their prospectus Sampa is the second most active city Sampa is a nickname for the city of São Paulo, in case anyone was slightly confused.
sschueller 6y ago
Good. Uber is trying to weasel out of this in Switzerland by letting drivers set price but it won't fly.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  I don't think of that as "weaseling out of" at all. If anything, I've been arguing that the single primary thing that nullifies Uber's "they're all just contractors!!" argument is that drivers have no involvement in setting the price. If drivers can set the price though, and actually put in fair bids that they believe are necessary to pay their costs and make an acceptable profit, then it does become much more of a true marketplace and the "all drivers are employees" argument holds a lot less water IMO.
  - Klinky 6y ago
    Then why isn't this the policy across all territories? Weaseling out sounds correct if they are only doing it to get around local laws.
    - manquer 6y ago
      If the laws are not strong enough for them to be forced to do this in bigger markets, then perhaps the laws should be changed? Depending on companies to self govern is not sustainable even if Uber does not exploit this, the next company will. Such loopholes need to be closed, putting on pressure on some companies is just band aid if they actually change, if not just effort wasted on the wrong thing. I don't buy regulatory capture as a valid argument either. To make sure companies do the right thing strong regulations and laws need to be in place, to make sure regulatory bodies and lawmakers are not influenced, people should have more power in government than money does.
      - Klinky 6y ago
        I agree with pretty much all you said. Mainly, I do not find it very genuine that they only implemented this policy, likely with extra effort, in one territory. This feels like a play to capture market share and increase growth, even if it doesn't match their existing business model.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
syshum 6y ago
I dont know what people think the result this will be, but I can tell you what will not happen, they will not just magically make all the drivers full time employee's one or more these things will happen if this stands 1. Hours will be limited to part time only 2. Rates for rides will explode, which will likely cause a reduction in revenue probably to the point to mass layoffs 3. Drivers will have to sign Exclusivity and not be allowed to work for any other RideShare service 4. Drivers will have to work a set schedule, set by uber I am not saying any of these are necessary bad but it seems to me that many of the people "fighting for employee status" seem to think that a change in that status means everything about the service stays the same but now they get vacation, paid sick time and health insurance. That is very very unlikely to be the result
- rock_hard 6y ago
  This!
- MiroF 6y ago
  Non-competes in Brazil require employees to be paid salary for the duration of the non-compete clause, so doubt that's what Uber would turn to. > 4. Drivers will have to work a set schedule, set by uber > 1. Hours will be limited to part time only This undermines Uber's contractor argument, I also doubt they would do this.
  - syshum 6y ago
    If they are classified as employee's then they are by definition not contractors So yes today Uber, as contractors, will not do that, the second the law requires them to be classified as employees then they will
- karlakush 6y ago
  3 and 4 are all but guaranteed to occur. There is no way Uber is going to let drivers only work 10 hours a week for them if they have to pay them full benefits for it. 2 also seems likely although your phrasing is a bit hyperbolic. There is no doubt this will make the taxi market less efficient resulting in higher prices and fewer rides. I doubt it will result in mass layoffs though. Probably more like 10% of current Uber drivers will have to change careers. Overall, this is a net harm for drivers.
mrfusion 6y ago
Would a good compromise be if you work less than say 15 hours a week you don’t get all the employee benefits and if you work closer to a full time schedule you do? I hate the idea of closing it off to people that just want to side income.
- simple_phrases 6y ago
  People work side jobs all the time where they're considered employees. Nothing is preventing them from doing the same with Uber.
  - theptip 6y ago
    If Uber drivers become employees, I'd expect Uber would have them work fixed schedules rather than have free working hours. They try to incentivize drivers to work during off-hours, but can't specify shifts and have their workers remain classified as ICs. This would make Uber less useful for the workers that want to dip in for an hour or two. Net utility from the change might still be positive as I suspect these days most drivers work something closer to full-time / shifts, but I'd want to see more data on this.
    - csa 6y ago
      > If Uber drivers become employees, I'd expect Uber would have them work fixed schedules rather than have free working hours. In California, this is one of the tests of whether someone is an independent contractor or an employee — who dictates the hours worked. I wouldn’t be surprised if this ends up biting many drivers in the hurt. Uber can easily say “You want employee benefits? No problem. We tell you when to work, and you probably won’t like your schedule.” And the crappy schedule may not be because Uber is being ornery — it may just be when they need drivers.
      - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
        Bizarre thought experiment: if Uber drivers are employed by Uber; shouldn't independent taxi drivers be employed by the city that licenses them on the same basis? A significant fraction of taxi drivers (>25%) are self-employed. They own their own vehicles and set their own hours of work. In many cases, they're actually obliged by the terms of their licenses to take fares (actually less independent than Uber drivers). The fares they charge are set by their licensing authorities, rather than being negotiable.
mrfusion 6y ago
I’m all for employee protections but I also worry we are nipping the emerging gig economy in the bud.
- cultus 6y ago
  The gig economy should be nipped in the bud. It's nothing but bad for workers. It lets companies do complete end-runs around employment regulation, with many earning below minimum wage. Society needs to confront the fact that capitalist control of government has removed the ability for a huge segment of society to care for themselves and their families.
- ebiester 6y ago
  If the gig economy relies on the suffering of others, then it should be nipped in the bud. If the gig economy cannot compete on a level playing field, keeping the benefits stable, it is just a race to the bottom.
  - mrfusion 6y ago
    You guys have some strong opinions on this. I feel bad I’m kind of on the fence. I see the merits of both sides so I’m not sure what to do.
  - d0100 6y ago
    > suffering of others I always ask Uber drivers why they are driving. The reasons are alway to the tune of: * Part-time (sick family member, needs extra cash, etc) * He can drive 14h/day and make bank (up to 5 times the minimum wage) * He is unemployed * Previously worked a blue collar, minimum wage jog with a shitty boss. Makes almost double minimum wage with no shitty boss The "suffering of others" isn't caused by the gig economy. Simply removing the gig economy does nothing to help those in need. It serves only to pat yourself on the back and think you are ridding the world from capitalist oppression. Focus on removing the suffering of others first, and the gig economy will collapse on its own.
    - phaemon 6y ago
sna1l 6y ago
All of these laws leading to full employment/benefits seem like a good thing on paper, but I wonder if it will lead to regulatory capture by the existing ride sharing companies, making it impossible for new entrants to join? Also what will be the long term consequences? Also let's say you didn't want Uber/Lyft/whoever to dictate your working hours, could you reject the full benefits for flexibility?
- MiroF 6y ago
  Not all regulations lead to regulatory capture, and this is not generally the pathway to capture.
gjvnq 6y ago
This is almost surely going to be reversed on appeal because the Superior Labour Court has already decided that Uber drivers are not employees
- hugocbp 6y ago
  This is very important. I also posted my own comment about this. There were dozens of rulings like this in Brazil already. They all got reversed in upper instances.
haolez 6y ago
I'm from São Paulo and I'm embarrassed about this decision. Brazil's labor laws treat the "workers" as stupid people, unable to negotiate good terms by themselves. It's much better for them to have an intermediary - the government! - to handle this, and then pay 50% of everything that you make in taxes for this wonderful protection. It's ridiculous.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >I'm from São Paulo and I'm embarrassed about this decision. Strange, I'm from Europe and I'm proud of this decision. >Brazil's labor laws treat the "workers" as stupid people, unable to negotiate good terms by themselves. No, it just treats them as regular people that deserve the same rights as everyone, but which (as poor people in need of work and individuals) don't have the same negotiating power as a multionational employer to enforce them...
  - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
    I'm from Brazil and Brazil is one of the most regulated places on Earth regarding labor laws and it costs the country a lot of productivity. You shouldn't assume that every country is like the average European country and thus what's good for Europeans will be good for the rest of the world.
    - sgt 6y ago
      Exactly my thoughts as well. I think we shouldn't be so quick to pass judgement on decisions made in Brazil without hearing the various points of views. I get the impression is that there's a lot of bureaucracy and internal tension in Brazil. Is this getting at all better over time, or is it spiraling out of control?
      - pcstl 6y ago
        Spiraling out of control and accelerating. Brazil is dominated by very powerful interest groups, some of them corporate, some of them unions, which lobby for laws mostly in order to ensure they keep their power. The unions keep wanting stronger labor laws, but these tend to apply in practice only to high-class workers in very unionized professions, while everyone else is lucky to even get a job at all, because the obligations our labor laws create are so insane that most smaller employers need to use legal loopholes just to be able to pay the bills at the end of the month (one of the most common ones is asking workers to open a personal company and paying their company for "services rendered" instead of the worker - labor courts hate this, but they know if they closed the loophole half of the country would be out of a job the next week) The corporations keep trying to make labor laws weaker, but they tend to do so in ways that screw over the lower-class workers while the high-class, unionized workers are able to maintain most of their privileges. It's a terrible situation. To make it worse, our legislative representatives and a large part of the electorate are very much infatuated with the (false) idea that our labor laws actually "protect" all workers, which makes it very hard to reform them. They are kind of a sacred cow to a lot of Brazilians. I don't see it getting better any time soon. (I'm a US-raised Brazilian who currently lives in Brazil, by the way)
Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
Is Uber asking for donations to help drivers during COVID-19 lockdown in your country? It does so via push notifications in India, so does its rival Ola but news report says that funds weren't distributed to the drivers properly[1]. [1]https://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/uber-ola-hyped-relief-fund_in_5eb40f7ac5b652c56473c954 https://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/uber-ola-hyped-relief-fu...
- thatoneuser 6y ago
  Well that's hardly a surprise. At this point idk why anyone would assume Uber wouldn't at least take a cut, if not the whole thing. Look how they treat drivers any other time.
hugocbp 6y ago
Just to put this in context, this is a first instance ruling. There were dozens of those already in Brazil, but they are all reverted in upper instances because the supreme Labour Court has already decided they are not employees (Brazilian labour laws have very specific requirements to be considered so and Uber drivers definitely fail a couple of those objective requirements). I understand that there is a need to protect those drivers (and other gig economy workers), but trying to bend the law's definition is not the right way to do it. This will get reversed as all other cases did.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Bending the law's definition is exactly how Uber and other companies avoid employee benefits and taxes.
  - speeder 6y ago
    In Brazil the worker protections laws are very, VERY regid, and Uber is not bending them, what they do literally fits our legal definition of contract work. That said... our laws get bent a lot, specially by tech companies, for example often I see offers for "Flexi" jobs, that is euphemism for registering the worker legally in one job, but paying him outside the legal framework for another job, this is obviously illegal, but is wildly popular, because our labor laws are waaaaaay too much.
  - hugocbp 6y ago
    In Brazil's case, they don't need to do that. The law establishes that to be considered an employee/employer relationship, there needs to be a level of control from the employee's journey/hours, etc. That control simply does not exist between Uber and Uber drivers and that is why it is considered that they fail the legal employee definition. Obviously there is disagreement, as with everything in Law, but in this case you really need to bend the definition to make it fit the requirement. As I said before, I fully agree that Uber drivers and other gig workers need some protection, but I also fully agree with the ruling that they do not fit the current legal objective definition of a employee/employer relationship. It simply does not. We need new laws for those cases, or to change the legal definition (which is unlikely). Judges giving those rulings is basically having judges creating laws, which is not how it is supposed to be (by the way, Brazil does not have Common Law, so other rulings do not have the same power as in US/UK and other Common Law states).
megaman821 6y ago
Doesn't this move hurt ride seekers in under-served areas? If every driver now has fixed cost for Uber, each driver needs to be scheduled and positioned to maximize Uber's revenue. A driver's health insurance costs the same whether the driver is driving during prime hours or at 3 in the morning. Uber has every incentive to not schedule many drivers off hours. For riders this mean either no ride or a very high-cost ride, whereas before Uber had no problem with letting as many drivers who wanted drive whenever they wanted.
WalterBright 6y ago
Employer paid benefits always wind up coming out of the employee's pocket. The advantage, though, to the employer paying them is they are paid out of the employee's pre-tax income.
- klyrs 6y ago
  There's another advantage: large employers have huge bargaining power compared to individual employees, so a dollar just goes farther when the employer spends it.

187 points by donsupreme 6y ago

This is preliminary decision and goes agains previous legal battles that where favorable to Uber. Given that São Paulo is a key City for Uber, according their prospectus Sampa is the second most active city This will be a long ongoing legal battle.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
I wouldn't hold out hope considering the other key cities Uber operates in (SF and LA in California, NYC in New York, New Jersey, and London [1], which account for 1/4 of their bookings) have made similar determinations. São Paulo was the holdout. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23713582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23713582
- remote_phone 6y ago
  It’s too early to say that they were determined as employees in any of those cities. The cities WANT them to be employees because it takes the burden off them to get jobs for them, but the legality of those ruling haven’t been finalized. There are plenty of reasons why they shouldn’t be considered employees and there was a study released by Cornell this week that showed more than 75% of drivers are part-time anyway and want freedom, not full time employment.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    Would that be the Seattle-specific Cornell study [1] that came out on Monday? Aside from relying on data collected in a specific locality not under discussion, it doesn't appear to make any sort of assertion regarding what drivers want, contrary to your claim on its behalf. Where are you getting that information? You should cite your sources, so others in the conversation can evaluate them independent of the claims you make for them. [1] https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/reports/71/ https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/reports/71/
  - p49k 6y ago
    > there was a study released by Cornell this week Which was funded by the rideshare companies themselves and which has been heavily criticized for its methods, it should be pointed out.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    >Cornell this week that showed more than 75% of drivers are part-time anyway 10 drivers working 1 hour a week contribute less to the platform than 1 driver working 40 hours a week. The study should adjust for the amount of time drivers are on the platform and not just sheer number of drivers. Just counting drivers seems an obviously flawed approach designed to make the part time count seem high.
  - michaelt 6y ago
    You mean this one? [1] > "Uber and Lyft covered the costs of the study [...] The study was priced as cost-plus, which covered the costs of the research plus overhead to the university. In total, study costs came to $120,000. [...] Driver earnings for all of our analyses came directly from Lyft and Uber. " Yeah, real convincing. [1] https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=reports https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
    - josinalvo 6y ago
      And, anyway, this would only argue for giving them an option, not for giving nobody the option of working full time. 25% is not a small number
- pelasaco 6y ago
  Interesting, thank you for the link. Funny thing that one argument used against it, is that nowhere in the World, Uber is paying Employee Benefits.
- irae 6y ago
  Even though this is still an ongoing legal battle, laws in each country are very different and might cause Uber business to be viable in some and not others. In Brazil labour laws are extreemly harsh and many say an employee costs between 50% and 150% more as compared to employment costs in other countries[1]. Also the social impact is different in different countries. Brazil is the only developing country in the list above. I live in São Paulo, and I can say before Uber, taxi cabs were a thing for rich people. Uber and it's competitors drove costs so low, poor people can now aford rides. I didn't find Sao Paulo stats, but in Rio, app drivers are 3x the number of cab drivers[2]. Uber estimates 1.9mi users might not be able to afford anymore if the law passes, amongst many other claims [3]. [1]: I won't pick specific sources, search 'custo brazil' if you are interested [2]: https://oglobo.globo.com/rio/pesquisa-mostra-que-aplicativos-ja-transportam-triplo-dos-passageiros-de-taxis-23912389 https://oglobo.globo.com/rio/pesquisa-mostra-que-aplicativos... [3]: https://www.uol.com.br/tilt/noticias/redacao/2020/03/09/nova-lei-nesta-semana-pode-afetar-apps-como-uber-em-sp-o-que-esta-em-jogo.htm https://www.uol.com.br/tilt/noticias/redacao/2020/03/09/nova...
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    You can’t argue consumer surplus as a benefit (“Everyone gets Uber now!” Versus taxis for just the rich) if you’re avoiding employment costs. Taxis were for rich people because they could afford the fully loaded costs. If the financial model is unsustainable because of employment law and the costs required by the law, the business is fundamentally flawed and unsustainable.
    - username90 6y ago
      Uber works thanks to greed. When a driver knows he earns as much as he gets customers he will try to optimize his driving patterns. This cuts down a lot of overhead you otherwise need managing when, where and who should be able to drive for money. Making people employees with minimum hourly wages ruins this dynamic and suddenly Uber would need to add that extra overhead as well.
      - josinalvo 6y ago
personlurking 6y ago
>according their prospectus Sampa is the second most active city Sampa is a nickname for the city of São Paulo, in case anyone was slightly confused.

sschueller 6y ago

Good. Uber is trying to weasel out of this in Switzerland by letting drivers set price but it won't fly.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
I don't think of that as "weaseling out of" at all. If anything, I've been arguing that the single primary thing that nullifies Uber's "they're all just contractors!!" argument is that drivers have no involvement in setting the price. If drivers can set the price though, and actually put in fair bids that they believe are necessary to pay their costs and make an acceptable profit, then it does become much more of a true marketplace and the "all drivers are employees" argument holds a lot less water IMO.
- Klinky 6y ago
  Then why isn't this the policy across all territories? Weaseling out sounds correct if they are only doing it to get around local laws.
  - manquer 6y ago
    If the laws are not strong enough for them to be forced to do this in bigger markets, then perhaps the laws should be changed? Depending on companies to self govern is not sustainable even if Uber does not exploit this, the next company will. Such loopholes need to be closed, putting on pressure on some companies is just band aid if they actually change, if not just effort wasted on the wrong thing. I don't buy regulatory capture as a valid argument either. To make sure companies do the right thing strong regulations and laws need to be in place, to make sure regulatory bodies and lawmakers are not influenced, people should have more power in government than money does.
    - Klinky 6y ago
      I agree with pretty much all you said. Mainly, I do not find it very genuine that they only implemented this policy, likely with extra effort, in one territory. This feels like a play to capture market share and increase growth, even if it doesn't match their existing business model.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

syshum 6y ago

I dont know what people think the result this will be, but I can tell you what will not happen, they will not just magically make all the drivers full time employee's one or more these things will happen if this stands 1. Hours will be limited to part time only 2. Rates for rides will explode, which will likely cause a reduction in revenue probably to the point to mass layoffs 3. Drivers will have to sign Exclusivity and not be allowed to work for any other RideShare service 4. Drivers will have to work a set schedule, set by uber I am not saying any of these are necessary bad but it seems to me that many of the people "fighting for employee status" seem to think that a change in that status means everything about the service stays the same but now they get vacation, paid sick time and health insurance. That is very very unlikely to be the result

rock_hard 6y ago
This!
MiroF 6y ago
Non-competes in Brazil require employees to be paid salary for the duration of the non-compete clause, so doubt that's what Uber would turn to. > 4. Drivers will have to work a set schedule, set by uber > 1. Hours will be limited to part time only This undermines Uber's contractor argument, I also doubt they would do this.
- syshum 6y ago
  If they are classified as employee's then they are by definition not contractors So yes today Uber, as contractors, will not do that, the second the law requires them to be classified as employees then they will
karlakush 6y ago
3 and 4 are all but guaranteed to occur. There is no way Uber is going to let drivers only work 10 hours a week for them if they have to pay them full benefits for it. 2 also seems likely although your phrasing is a bit hyperbolic. There is no doubt this will make the taxi market less efficient resulting in higher prices and fewer rides. I doubt it will result in mass layoffs though. Probably more like 10% of current Uber drivers will have to change careers. Overall, this is a net harm for drivers.

mrfusion 6y ago

Would a good compromise be if you work less than say 15 hours a week you don’t get all the employee benefits and if you work closer to a full time schedule you do? I hate the idea of closing it off to people that just want to side income.

simple_phrases 6y ago
People work side jobs all the time where they're considered employees. Nothing is preventing them from doing the same with Uber.
- theptip 6y ago
  If Uber drivers become employees, I'd expect Uber would have them work fixed schedules rather than have free working hours. They try to incentivize drivers to work during off-hours, but can't specify shifts and have their workers remain classified as ICs. This would make Uber less useful for the workers that want to dip in for an hour or two. Net utility from the change might still be positive as I suspect these days most drivers work something closer to full-time / shifts, but I'd want to see more data on this.
  - csa 6y ago
    > If Uber drivers become employees, I'd expect Uber would have them work fixed schedules rather than have free working hours. In California, this is one of the tests of whether someone is an independent contractor or an employee — who dictates the hours worked. I wouldn’t be surprised if this ends up biting many drivers in the hurt. Uber can easily say “You want employee benefits? No problem. We tell you when to work, and you probably won’t like your schedule.” And the crappy schedule may not be because Uber is being ornery — it may just be when they need drivers.
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      Bizarre thought experiment: if Uber drivers are employed by Uber; shouldn't independent taxi drivers be employed by the city that licenses them on the same basis? A significant fraction of taxi drivers (>25%) are self-employed. They own their own vehicles and set their own hours of work. In many cases, they're actually obliged by the terms of their licenses to take fares (actually less independent than Uber drivers). The fares they charge are set by their licensing authorities, rather than being negotiable.

mrfusion 6y ago

I’m all for employee protections but I also worry we are nipping the emerging gig economy in the bud.

cultus 6y ago
The gig economy should be nipped in the bud. It's nothing but bad for workers. It lets companies do complete end-runs around employment regulation, with many earning below minimum wage. Society needs to confront the fact that capitalist control of government has removed the ability for a huge segment of society to care for themselves and their families.
ebiester 6y ago
If the gig economy relies on the suffering of others, then it should be nipped in the bud. If the gig economy cannot compete on a level playing field, keeping the benefits stable, it is just a race to the bottom.
- mrfusion 6y ago
  You guys have some strong opinions on this. I feel bad I’m kind of on the fence. I see the merits of both sides so I’m not sure what to do.
- d0100 6y ago
  > suffering of others I always ask Uber drivers why they are driving. The reasons are alway to the tune of: * Part-time (sick family member, needs extra cash, etc) * He can drive 14h/day and make bank (up to 5 times the minimum wage) * He is unemployed * Previously worked a blue collar, minimum wage jog with a shitty boss. Makes almost double minimum wage with no shitty boss The "suffering of others" isn't caused by the gig economy. Simply removing the gig economy does nothing to help those in need. It serves only to pat yourself on the back and think you are ridding the world from capitalist oppression. Focus on removing the suffering of others first, and the gig economy will collapse on its own.
  - phaemon 6y ago

sna1l 6y ago

All of these laws leading to full employment/benefits seem like a good thing on paper, but I wonder if it will lead to regulatory capture by the existing ride sharing companies, making it impossible for new entrants to join? Also what will be the long term consequences? Also let's say you didn't want Uber/Lyft/whoever to dictate your working hours, could you reject the full benefits for flexibility?

MiroF 6y ago
Not all regulations lead to regulatory capture, and this is not generally the pathway to capture.

gjvnq 6y ago

This is almost surely going to be reversed on appeal because the Superior Labour Court has already decided that Uber drivers are not employees

hugocbp 6y ago
This is very important. I also posted my own comment about this. There were dozens of rulings like this in Brazil already. They all got reversed in upper instances.

haolez 6y ago

I'm from São Paulo and I'm embarrassed about this decision. Brazil's labor laws treat the "workers" as stupid people, unable to negotiate good terms by themselves. It's much better for them to have an intermediary - the government! - to handle this, and then pay 50% of everything that you make in taxes for this wonderful protection. It's ridiculous.

coldtea 6y ago
>I'm from São Paulo and I'm embarrassed about this decision. Strange, I'm from Europe and I'm proud of this decision. >Brazil's labor laws treat the "workers" as stupid people, unable to negotiate good terms by themselves. No, it just treats them as regular people that deserve the same rights as everyone, but which (as poor people in need of work and individuals) don't have the same negotiating power as a multionational employer to enforce them...
- adnzzzzZ 6y ago
  I'm from Brazil and Brazil is one of the most regulated places on Earth regarding labor laws and it costs the country a lot of productivity. You shouldn't assume that every country is like the average European country and thus what's good for Europeans will be good for the rest of the world.
  - sgt 6y ago
    Exactly my thoughts as well. I think we shouldn't be so quick to pass judgement on decisions made in Brazil without hearing the various points of views. I get the impression is that there's a lot of bureaucracy and internal tension in Brazil. Is this getting at all better over time, or is it spiraling out of control?
    - pcstl 6y ago
      Spiraling out of control and accelerating. Brazil is dominated by very powerful interest groups, some of them corporate, some of them unions, which lobby for laws mostly in order to ensure they keep their power. The unions keep wanting stronger labor laws, but these tend to apply in practice only to high-class workers in very unionized professions, while everyone else is lucky to even get a job at all, because the obligations our labor laws create are so insane that most smaller employers need to use legal loopholes just to be able to pay the bills at the end of the month (one of the most common ones is asking workers to open a personal company and paying their company for "services rendered" instead of the worker - labor courts hate this, but they know if they closed the loophole half of the country would be out of a job the next week) The corporations keep trying to make labor laws weaker, but they tend to do so in ways that screw over the lower-class workers while the high-class, unionized workers are able to maintain most of their privileges. It's a terrible situation. To make it worse, our legislative representatives and a large part of the electorate are very much infatuated with the (false) idea that our labor laws actually "protect" all workers, which makes it very hard to reform them. They are kind of a sacred cow to a lot of Brazilians. I don't see it getting better any time soon. (I'm a US-raised Brazilian who currently lives in Brazil, by the way)

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago

Is Uber asking for donations to help drivers during COVID-19 lockdown in your country? It does so via push notifications in India, so does its rival Ola but news report says that funds weren't distributed to the drivers properly[1]. [1]https://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/uber-ola-hyped-relief-fund_in_5eb40f7ac5b652c56473c954 https://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/uber-ola-hyped-relief-fu...

thatoneuser 6y ago
Well that's hardly a surprise. At this point idk why anyone would assume Uber wouldn't at least take a cut, if not the whole thing. Look how they treat drivers any other time.

hugocbp 6y ago

Just to put this in context, this is a first instance ruling. There were dozens of those already in Brazil, but they are all reverted in upper instances because the supreme Labour Court has already decided they are not employees (Brazilian labour laws have very specific requirements to be considered so and Uber drivers definitely fail a couple of those objective requirements). I understand that there is a need to protect those drivers (and other gig economy workers), but trying to bend the law's definition is not the right way to do it. This will get reversed as all other cases did.

jacquesm 6y ago
Bending the law's definition is exactly how Uber and other companies avoid employee benefits and taxes.
- speeder 6y ago
  In Brazil the worker protections laws are very, VERY regid, and Uber is not bending them, what they do literally fits our legal definition of contract work. That said... our laws get bent a lot, specially by tech companies, for example often I see offers for "Flexi" jobs, that is euphemism for registering the worker legally in one job, but paying him outside the legal framework for another job, this is obviously illegal, but is wildly popular, because our labor laws are waaaaaay too much.
- hugocbp 6y ago
  In Brazil's case, they don't need to do that. The law establishes that to be considered an employee/employer relationship, there needs to be a level of control from the employee's journey/hours, etc. That control simply does not exist between Uber and Uber drivers and that is why it is considered that they fail the legal employee definition. Obviously there is disagreement, as with everything in Law, but in this case you really need to bend the definition to make it fit the requirement. As I said before, I fully agree that Uber drivers and other gig workers need some protection, but I also fully agree with the ruling that they do not fit the current legal objective definition of a employee/employer relationship. It simply does not. We need new laws for those cases, or to change the legal definition (which is unlikely). Judges giving those rulings is basically having judges creating laws, which is not how it is supposed to be (by the way, Brazil does not have Common Law, so other rulings do not have the same power as in US/UK and other Common Law states).

megaman821 6y ago

Doesn't this move hurt ride seekers in under-served areas? If every driver now has fixed cost for Uber, each driver needs to be scheduled and positioned to maximize Uber's revenue. A driver's health insurance costs the same whether the driver is driving during prime hours or at 3 in the morning. Uber has every incentive to not schedule many drivers off hours. For riders this mean either no ride or a very high-cost ride, whereas before Uber had no problem with letting as many drivers who wanted drive whenever they wanted.

WalterBright 6y ago

Employer paid benefits always wind up coming out of the employee's pocket. The advantage, though, to the employer paying them is they are paid out of the employee's pre-tax income.

klyrs 6y ago
There's another advantage: large employers have huge bargaining power compared to individual employees, so a dollar just goes farther when the employer spends it.