3 ms·

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

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).
abeppu 6y ago
Is there a reason that the (lower?) courts would keep producing these rulings if the supreme Labour Court has already made the issue clear? Do the judges at those lower courts have reason to believe each case is meaningfully different?
- hugocbp 6y ago
  They just do not agree with the Superior court's decision, so they keep giving those rulings knowing full well they will be reverted. Labour Justice is its own court in Brazil. They have their own structure that only judges labour issues and they are usually very protective of employees. My guess is that this is just a form of protest by the first instance judges that do not agree with the ruling. This, unfortunately, is very common in Labour cases in Brazil (at least it was when I stopped being a lawyer there about 3 years ago).

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).

abeppu 6y ago

Is there a reason that the (lower?) courts would keep producing these rulings if the supreme Labour Court has already made the issue clear? Do the judges at those lower courts have reason to believe each case is meaningfully different?

hugocbp 6y ago
They just do not agree with the Superior court's decision, so they keep giving those rulings knowing full well they will be reverted. Labour Justice is its own court in Brazil. They have their own structure that only judges labour issues and they are usually very protective of employees. My guess is that this is just a form of protest by the first instance judges that do not agree with the ruling. This, unfortunately, is very common in Labour cases in Brazil (at least it was when I stopped being a lawyer there about 3 years ago).