3 ms·
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
by 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 agoRight, 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.