8 ms·

>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

by 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.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Right, but the issue is that there doesn't seem to be any clear way Uber as an entity with the business model that it has (make an app that connects drivers with riders, take a portion of proceeds) can ever have drivers that are contractors. Said another way, what could Uber change from their current policies that would pass ABC if they don't at the minute?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; This seems to be the insurmountable point; the judge seems to be inclined to see drivers as within the usual course of business, which means nothing changing on A and/or C would matter, and, assuming the strong statements in the injunction reflect the eventual ruling on the merits, Uber would have no means other than radically changing the business they are in to have drivers-as-contractors.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The whole point is that the California judiciary is literally saying that legally Uber cannot classify drivers as contractors. It's not (as a matter of what the law generally mandates), because it's a preliminary injunction, not summary judgement.
zaksoup 6y ago
I don't think the CA Judge disputed that Uber could have a relationship with drivers that was legally structured as "independent contractor" but rather that the relationship Uber currently has with drivers does not meet the legal requirements to be classified as "independent contractor". If Uber wanted to change the requirements they place on drivers nobody is saying they couldn't be contractors under different circumstances.
crooked-v 6y ago
> What about the California judge? Nothing about the ruling prevents Uber from having contractors. It prevents them from having employees (as determined by California law) that they label as contractors in order to skirt around legal requirements for employees.
- dfdz 6y ago
  True, but when 100k uber drivers (contractors) in California are reclassified as employees, it seem fair to say a "dispute" is happening. For the record, I am not saying the ruling is incorrect, but it does make me feel uneasy because: 1) I think that Uber does provide a public good (increased efficiency compared to a taxi) 2) If all drivers are employees, the business does not seem sustainable I think that new laws are needed rather than using pre-sharing-economy labels like employee, but that the ruling by the judge may be correct given the current laws.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    1) In Victorian Britain, child labour provided a great many public goods. 2) After it was outlawed, many of businesses that relied on it became unsustainable. I don't think it is sensible to justify exploitation with "but the public benefits from it' and 'without it the business might go under'. By that logic we'd still have Victorian workhouses, 12-hour workdays, and there'd be no health & safety.
    - logicchains 6y ago
      >I don't think it is sensible to justify exploitation with "but the public benefits from it' and 'without it the business might go under'. It's absurd to compare providing a service that hooks drivers up with clients to child labour.
      - reidjs 6y ago
        driving is one of the most dangerous things you can do nowadays. most Uber drivers have to support themselves and possibly others. Many drivers can’t afford private healthcare so in the case of an accident it would really suck for them and their family. Maybe they’re not losing their fingers in factory machines like child laborers are but I think they deserve employer provided healthcare at the very least.
sangnoir 6y ago
The Carlifornia judge also agrees, just that the definition of a contractor is based on more than flexible hours. If Uber truly wants to have contractors, they'll have to cede more decision-making/autonomy to drivers; or alternatively have 2 classes of drivers and have them choose to be employees or honest-to-goodness contractors with full autonomy (or enough autonomy to cross the line between employee and contractor).
- TheColorYellow 6y ago
  What autonomy would Uber need to provide?
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    One part of the "ABC test"[1] used to check the "contractorness" under law requires that "...the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work..." - Uber controls every minute of drivers work time, so this will be a high hurdle to clear. Part B is similarly challenging, because it requires that the contractor & the work they are doing not be in the same line of business as hiring entity 1. https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/understanding-the-abc-test-for-independent-contractors-in-california/ https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/unders...
  - fastball 6y ago
    Yes I would like to know this too. I know a guy that drives more than full-time for Uber (50+ hours pw). I have a friend that drives approximately 8 hours pw for Uber. How are drivers not choosing their own hours, exactly? That seems to be exactly what they are doing. And when I say "Uber", I actually mean Uber/Lyft. And obviously in some parts of the US there are other apps and drivers use those too.
    - hypersoar 6y ago
      Being an independent contractor is about more than "choosing your own hours". you can be an employee and have flexible hours. You can be a contractor and have fixed hours. There are plenty of examples of both in the tech industry.

by dfdz 6y ago

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.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Right, but the issue is that there doesn't seem to be any clear way Uber as an entity with the business model that it has (make an app that connects drivers with riders, take a portion of proceeds) can ever have drivers that are contractors. Said another way, what could Uber change from their current policies that would pass ABC if they don't at the minute?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; This seems to be the insurmountable point; the judge seems to be inclined to see drivers as within the usual course of business, which means nothing changing on A and/or C would matter, and, assuming the strong statements in the injunction reflect the eventual ruling on the merits, Uber would have no means other than radically changing the business they are in to have drivers-as-contractors.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The whole point is that the California judiciary is literally saying that legally Uber cannot classify drivers as contractors. It's not (as a matter of what the law generally mandates), because it's a preliminary injunction, not summary judgement.

zaksoup 6y ago

I don't think the CA Judge disputed that Uber could have a relationship with drivers that was legally structured as "independent contractor" but rather that the relationship Uber currently has with drivers does not meet the legal requirements to be classified as "independent contractor". If Uber wanted to change the requirements they place on drivers nobody is saying they couldn't be contractors under different circumstances.

crooked-v 6y ago

> What about the California judge? Nothing about the ruling prevents Uber from having contractors. It prevents them from having employees (as determined by California law) that they label as contractors in order to skirt around legal requirements for employees.

dfdz 6y ago
True, but when 100k uber drivers (contractors) in California are reclassified as employees, it seem fair to say a "dispute" is happening. For the record, I am not saying the ruling is incorrect, but it does make me feel uneasy because: 1) I think that Uber does provide a public good (increased efficiency compared to a taxi) 2) If all drivers are employees, the business does not seem sustainable I think that new laws are needed rather than using pre-sharing-economy labels like employee, but that the ruling by the judge may be correct given the current laws.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  1) In Victorian Britain, child labour provided a great many public goods. 2) After it was outlawed, many of businesses that relied on it became unsustainable. I don't think it is sensible to justify exploitation with "but the public benefits from it' and 'without it the business might go under'. By that logic we'd still have Victorian workhouses, 12-hour workdays, and there'd be no health & safety.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    >I don't think it is sensible to justify exploitation with "but the public benefits from it' and 'without it the business might go under'. It's absurd to compare providing a service that hooks drivers up with clients to child labour.
    - reidjs 6y ago
      driving is one of the most dangerous things you can do nowadays. most Uber drivers have to support themselves and possibly others. Many drivers can’t afford private healthcare so in the case of an accident it would really suck for them and their family. Maybe they’re not losing their fingers in factory machines like child laborers are but I think they deserve employer provided healthcare at the very least.

sangnoir 6y ago

The Carlifornia judge also agrees, just that the definition of a contractor is based on more than flexible hours. If Uber truly wants to have contractors, they'll have to cede more decision-making/autonomy to drivers; or alternatively have 2 classes of drivers and have them choose to be employees or honest-to-goodness contractors with full autonomy (or enough autonomy to cross the line between employee and contractor).

TheColorYellow 6y ago
What autonomy would Uber need to provide?
- sangnoir 6y ago
  One part of the "ABC test"[1] used to check the "contractorness" under law requires that "...the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work..." - Uber controls every minute of drivers work time, so this will be a high hurdle to clear. Part B is similarly challenging, because it requires that the contractor & the work they are doing not be in the same line of business as hiring entity 1. https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/understanding-the-abc-test-for-independent-contractors-in-california/ https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/unders...
- fastball 6y ago
  Yes I would like to know this too. I know a guy that drives more than full-time for Uber (50+ hours pw). I have a friend that drives approximately 8 hours pw for Uber. How are drivers not choosing their own hours, exactly? That seems to be exactly what they are doing. And when I say "Uber", I actually mean Uber/Lyft. And obviously in some parts of the US there are other apps and drivers use those too.
  - hypersoar 6y ago
    Being an independent contractor is about more than "choosing your own hours". you can be an employee and have flexible hours. You can be a contractor and have fixed hours. There are plenty of examples of both in the tech industry.