10 ms·

I'm afraid you're repeating Uber's favorite talking point, which is that everyone should respect the worker's decision to be an employee or contractor. Nobody

• pbreit 6y ago
  Uber drivers literally need not even show up. What "control" are you referring to?
  • zaarn 6y ago
    Standard employees also can just not show up as they want. Entirely possible for both contractors and employees.
    • pbreit 6y ago
      Employee would be fired.
      • zaarn 6y ago
        No, there is plenty of employee arrangements where you can show up whenever you want, as long as you meet the weekly quota of hours.
        • pbreit 6y ago
          Uber/Lyft drivers have 0 quotas.
          • zaarn 6y ago
            And I don't see why that precludes being an employee, even if it's unconventional.
• stale2002 6y ago
  > The problem is that Uber currently exerts so much control over its "independent contractor" relationships that they have become, as a matter of law, employment relationships. Sure, this could be true. But people should recognize that a possible solution to this, is for companies to provide more flexibility and control to these people, such that they stay contractor but also get the additional contractor benefits, as opposed to forcing the employee relationship.
  • save_ferris 6y ago
    This would likely involve allowing drivers to set their own rates or handing over driver allocation responsibilities to another party. It’s really hard to envision a world where Uber hands over those kinds of abilities to someone. Companies like this rely on owning and setting the conditions of a market to keep prices competitive.
    • eru 6y ago
      Why? Uber could easily set up an auction system similar to how Google auctions off ad space. And Google is certainly happy with the amount of control they retain.
  • zaksoup 6y ago
    > Sure, this could be true To be fair, given that a judge has ruled on it, it now is true as a matter of law until repealed or otherwise changed by a higher court...
    • stale2002 6y ago
      I don't think a singular lower court decision is relevant in the context of large scale court cases like this. The real decision will be made many months, or years, from now once everything had made its way through the appeal process. The current one doesn't really mean much.
• danepowell 6y ago
  This is an argument against treating drivers as contractors, but it's not an argument against the OP's point, which is that a contractor relationship might be beneficial for some non-negligible part of the population, even if it's not beneficial more generally. And the fact that articles don't acknowledge this is notable.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• dfdz 6y ago
  >I'm afraid you're repeating Uber's favorite talking point True, but that does not mean rdgthree's argument has no merit. > Nobody disputes that Uber can have employees or contractors What about the California judge?
  • waheoo 6y ago
    I don't think they stated it does have merit on those points, but they certainly laid out a pretty solid argument that does. Maybe address that instead of hand wringing the conversational communication style used on every forum ever?
  • dan-robertson 6y ago
    The argument which won was not that there is some legal reason Uber can’t have both independent contractors and employees, but rather that the relationship between Uber and it’s drivers is de facto employment and should therefore be subject to employment law.
    • fastball 6y ago
      Huh? The whole point is that the California judiciary is literally saying that legally Uber cannot classify drivers as contractors. So no, they cannot have independent contractors, unless you mean for the operations side of their business, which nobody is talking about so I hope not.
      • gamblor956 6y ago
        There's correct, under CA law Uber would need to restructure its entire business model if it wants to treat drivers as contractors. (The ABC test in the other reply was codified into CA law.)
      • Gunax 6y ago
        I don't think so... The ruling is that the relationship as it is in employment. The test is: A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed. Of course you can argue about the minutia of each test (that's what lawyers are for) but there's nothing stopping the hiring of drivers as contractors per se. It's just that the judge thinks the current relationship as it is does not pass this test.
• Shivetya 6y ago
  Going to be the big reason is that is makes it easier to reach into their deep pockets when one of the drivers does something bad. Where there is an overtly obvious benefit to one group it usually means someone else is using it as a cover, that is going to be the trial lawyers. I am in the group that says if you want to be a contractor and the employer agrees so be it. I have a good number of friends doing uber after hours aimed at specific purchases and the flexibility is what sold them. Not the life for me but for some it is a good alternative. Plus the biggest benefit was the kick in the pants traditional taxi services got so they now how to treat their "drivers" better. How they get off with how that business is run and Uber and Lyft get called out should tell you the priorities here.
• dnautics 6y ago
  Having been a driver for 1.5 years my questions for you are these: 1. If Uber and Lyft allow their drivers to choose, would it be reasonable for them to make "having the other app on at the same time" cause for dismissal? I know of no other employee that is allowed to simultaneously bill time on a competitor. Contractors, absolutely. Employees, no. 2. What if Uber, instead, charged $1.00/mo for the drivers to use the app, thereby making them customers instead of contractors?
  • greggman3 6y ago
    AFAIK here is a "duty of loyalty" that requires you not to compete with your employer so working for a company that directly competes with them would be out. Like working for both Waymo and Uber self driving cars at the same time "as an employee". As a contractor no such standard exists.
    • jkaplowitz 6y ago
      That's an oversimplification. Uber could just as readily add an exclusivity provision in an independent contractor agreement as waive (or strengthen) any default duty of loyalty in their employment contract. The fact that this question is practically speaking unilaterally up to Uber and not the result of any meaningful negotiation between the parties makes the relationship even more employment-like, as there's usually much less negotiation around terms of employment (certainly some still happens) than in true independent contracting. What's more, it's not clear to me that courts would enforce the duty of loyalty (and maybe not even an express contractual provision depending on the state) against a part-time rank-and-file provider of comparatively unskilled labor, just as they wouldn't prevent a 20-hour-per-month sandwich shop employee from spending an additional 20 hours per month at a different sandwich shop in parallel. Maybe a guarantee from Uber of full-time pay would change that. I believe a federal trial court has even ruled that non-fiduciary employees in California have no duty of loyalty, though I don't know if that was overturned on appeal or whether state courts have agreed.
  • brightball 6y ago
    Point 1 is big. So many Uber drivers are also Lyft drivers.
• manfredo 6y ago
  The fact that it's Uber's talking point doesn't make it any less true. If rideshare drivers are employees, then there's going to be fixed overhead costs of hiring employees and drivers will not be able to set their own hours. The rideshare company would not recoup the costs of benefits for drivers that drive less than a certain number of hours per month, and so drivers would have to be required to work at least that many hours. Can you elaborate on what you mean by, "in practical terms drivers don't end up with the choice they ought to"? I know people who drive for Uber and Lyft less than 10 hours per week, and some do it nearly full time.
  • dragonwriter 6y ago
    > If rideshare drivers are employees, then there's going to be fixed overhead costs of hiring employees and drivers will not be able to set their own hours There will be less flexibility about hours, but less risk that an hour reserved for work will be unpaid. Within the need not to overbook available business, and laws requiring payment for scheduled time even if cancelled at the lat minute, there's no inherent reason rideshare companies couldn't provide scheduling flexibility, including a notice-of-availability system for immediate call-ups. (Optimizing decision algorithms for when to bring on additional staff becomes is a challenge that this opens up, also similar with when to accept the cost of short-noticd cancelling scheduled shifts.) > The rideshare company would not recoup the costs of benefits for drivers that drive less than a certain number of hours per month Nor would they be required to provide benefits for them; most benefit mandates apply only to full-time employees, not part-time employees.
  • gamblor956 6y ago
    Employees can set their own hours. White collar employees do it all the time... It's up to the employer what freedoms they allow. Generally, like with existing businesses, it would probably utilize a shift assignment system, where employees get assigned shifts but can swap them with other employees.
    • emiliobumachar 6y ago
      The aforementioned drivers opting to work 10 hours a week, what are their options? The way I see it, as employees, their employers will either give them benefits for 10 hour work, or force them to work 40 hours.
• kangaroozach 6y ago
  “I’m afraid your repeating _____‘S talking points.”is a logical fallacy that proves you’re brain has been corrupted. I bet you use this same fallacious argument in political discussion. Try refuting arguments directly rather and you will find the truth much faster by exiting the neurological loop you are stuck in.
• ideals 6y ago
  There is a very similar thing happening with UFC fighters. There are currently class action lawsuits ongoing for this topic. I wonder how this decision will play out to other businesses
• hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  This comment is just wrong on so many levels: "I'm afraid you're repeating Uber's favorite talking point, which is that everyone should respect the worker's decision to be an employee or contractor." I've never seen Uber argue that everyone should "respect the worker's decision to be an employee or contractor." I have seen them argue that drivers are contractors based on the flexibility in the job, but not that it should be "the worker's decision". "Nobody disputes that Uber can have employees or contractors (or both), or that drivers should, in principle, be able to choose what status they hold." Actually, pretty much all US employment law disputes that drivers should be able to choose what status they hold. Employee vs. contractor is not determined by what an employer says someone is, or what an employee says they are. Instead, it is determined by some key factors about the nature of the job, which (as you do point out) mainly centers around control of important aspects of the job. But it is important to understand that you never really get to "choose" whether you're a contractor or an employee, it's determined solely as a function of the type or work you do and the nature of your relationship to the employer.
  • TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    What is the point of this comment? You've effectively spend a few paragraphs adding nothing of value to the conversation. You've effectively restated the grandparent's points, but tried to do so in an adversarial manner.
    • hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
      > You've effectively spend a few paragraphs adding nothing of value to the conversation. You might want to check what you consider "adversarial" when it comes to a discussion forum. The issue is that the comment I responded to seems to be under the false notion that workers (or employers, for that matter) get to "choose" how they want to be classified, and that's what this debate is about. My point is that, when it comes to employment law, a worker or employer's preference about how they are classified does not factor in at all about how the law classifies the job.
      • 6y ago