16 ms·

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 betw

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.

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.