3 ms·

> It's not that the law dictates this shift, it's that the economics do. You can check their S-1 filing for the “economics” of it...Uber before going public wa

> It's not that the law dictates this shift, it's that the economics do. You can check their S-1 filing for the “economics” of it...Uber before going public was losing money and acknowledged the legal risk they had been misclassifying drivers as contractors and should drivers be reclassified as employees it’s an existential threat to Uber. That’s the economics of it...Uber knew they were in the wrong, they knew the day of reckoning was coming and investors took the damn thing public for maximum profits and to cash out and leave others holding the bag. But the reality is the whole employee/independent contractor issue is just a scapegoat for investors to point their finger at regulations and say that’s why the business failed, but the truth is even without the illegal classification of drivers Uber would never have turned a profit.

darkwizard42 6y ago
This isn't how their S-1 reads at all... they never say they misclassified drivers. The drivers were truly independent contractors under the law at the time they filed and they note that if they were converted to employees this would cause a GREAT increase in costs... You took a potentially objective point and added a ton of spin to it :/
- throwaway_kufu 6y ago
  > This isn't how their S-1 reads at all... Of course they don’t admit they misclassifying the drivers, but Under the S-1 risk factors: The independent contractor status of Drivers is currently being challenged in courts and by government agencies in the United States and abroad. We are involved in numerous legal proceedings globally, including putative class and collective class action lawsuits, demands for arbitration, charges and claims before administrative agencies, and investigations or audits by labor, social security, and tax authorities that claim that Drivers should be treated as our employees (or as workers or quasi-employees where those statuses exist), rather than as independent contractors... Nevertheless, we may not be successful in defending the independent contractor status of Drivers in some or all jurisdictions... any such reclassification would require us to fundamentally change our business model, and consequently have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition. In fact the IPO includes citations to multiple lawsuits including one they settled for $20M for improper classification.

darkwizard42 6y ago

This isn't how their S-1 reads at all... they never say they misclassified drivers. The drivers were truly independent contractors under the law at the time they filed and they note that if they were converted to employees this would cause a GREAT increase in costs... You took a potentially objective point and added a ton of spin to it :/

throwaway_kufu 6y ago
> This isn't how their S-1 reads at all... Of course they don’t admit they misclassifying the drivers, but Under the S-1 risk factors: The independent contractor status of Drivers is currently being challenged in courts and by government agencies in the United States and abroad. We are involved in numerous legal proceedings globally, including putative class and collective class action lawsuits, demands for arbitration, charges and claims before administrative agencies, and investigations or audits by labor, social security, and tax authorities that claim that Drivers should be treated as our employees (or as workers or quasi-employees where those statuses exist), rather than as independent contractors... Nevertheless, we may not be successful in defending the independent contractor status of Drivers in some or all jurisdictions... any such reclassification would require us to fundamentally change our business model, and consequently have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition. In fact the IPO includes citations to multiple lawsuits including one they settled for $20M for improper classification.