10 ms·

> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. Does the app give him the contact info for each of his pass

> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. Does the app give him the contact info for each of his passengers after every ride so that he can own the business relationship with them? If not then he's an employee, not an independent contractor. The number of hours worked per month is a complete red herring.

dannyw 6y ago
Should this binary classification, devised prior to this whole model of work was invented, still exist? It's like not updating your horse carriage road laws to accommodate automobiles; because everything is either a pedestrian or a horse carriage. If there's no horse, a car isn't a vehicle; it's a pedestrian. Makes no sense. If you think Uber drives deserve more than 120% of min wage, then you can argue that, but I don't see why you have to argue employee vs IC. P.S. Most Uber drivers, when independently polled, are for Prop 22. It's the unions that were pushing this, so they can collect union dues and grow their revenues.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  > P.S. Most Uber drivers, when independently polled, are for Prop 22. It's the unions that were pushing this, so they can collect union dues and grow their revenues. I wonder if this would remain true if you weighted by the number of drives given, there certainly seems to be a distinction between part time and full time drivers. The former could be more numerous while Uber depends on the latter to provide the bulk of their supply.
  - viscanti 6y ago
    Prop 22 allows for treating drivers differently based on how many hours per week they drive. Previously a gig economy company needed to decide how to classify their entire workforce (a single driver treated as an employee meant all need to be). It seems reasonable to be able to treat full time drivers like full time drivers and part time drivers like part time drivers. That's why CA voted for prop 22.
- xtian 6y ago
  Your automobile analogy is actually extremely apt because when the car was invented and "jay drivers" (the original term) began killing hundreds of thousands of people, public consensus began to form around strictly limiting the speed of cars. The auto industry successfully lobbied local legislatures and shifted public opinion through a massive marketing campaign in order to create the crime of "jaywalking". This is how our city streets went from shared spaces to the exclusive territory of drivers (much to the benefit of the auto industry). Same thing is happening here. Perhaps a new class of labor does need to be created, but in a just world that would be happening on the terms of the workers, not the corporations.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    I too wish roads could somehow be shared spaces again. But let's not fall into these simplistic black and white anti-establishment narratives. The automobile massively expanded personal liberty and employment options. Some of these effects were very pro-worker, like reducing the power of the dominant employers of localities, by letting workers more easily pull up stakes and find a new home in a different locality, or simply commute to a more distant employer. No conversation about the impact of the car is complete without mentioning the benefits it provided to society.
    - xtian 6y ago
      Labor market fluidity isn't pro-worker, it's an essential component of the commodification of labor. It simply means the shape of a person's life is more fully suborned to the demands of the market. It means competing on a national and often international market for wages. A workforce full of transplants is much less likely to organize and resist the agenda of capital than one with deep community roots and support structures. In any case, I wasn't attempting to present a complete analysis of the societal effects of the automobile. I was only pointing out that this is another case of corporations explicitly dictating the terms of our society and using a massive outlay of cash to facilitate that and market it to us.
      - CryptoPunk 6y ago
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >Most Uber drivers, when independently polled, are for Prop 22. It's the unions that were pushing this, so they can collect union dues and grow their revenues. The $200 million being discussed feels relevant to this claim. Didn't some companies even spread their take to their "employees" through their job apps and other direct communication? I bet even the "blame the union" came from information those companies paid for.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
If a furniture company gives you a contract to build them some chairs, do they give you the contact info for each person who buys a chair from them? Why would that make the chair manufacturer an employee of the retailer? Moreover, how is this not available to the driver? They're in the car with the passenger already. The driver and passenger could exchange contact info if they wanted to, how is Uber going to stop them? This doesn't happen not because Uber is preventing it but because the passenger is. The next time they need a ride they don't want to have to call five drivers to find one who is in the area and available, they want to open the app and have it find one for them.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >If a furniture company gives you a contract to build them some chairs, do they give you the contact info for each person who buys a chair from them No, you put your brand on the chairs and if the customer likes them they can buy from you again. And I imagine Uber does forbid selling other services during rides. If not, I feel like Uber rides would be full of people pushing multi-level marketing.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > No, you put your brand on the chairs and if the customer likes them they can buy from you again. In what way is this different than putting your phone number inside your car where the passenger can take it down if they want it? > And I imagine Uber does forbid selling other services during rides. If not, I feel like Uber rides would be full of people pushing multi-level marketing. I can't actually find the Uber driver agreement on the internet, but pyramid schemes are illegal, and drivers who peddle scummy garbage to passengers are liable to get bad reviews, so there is no reason to expect that a lack of this would have to be because Uber prohibits it.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >but pyramid schemes are illegal, and drivers who peddle scummy garbage to passengers are liable to get bad reviews, so there is no reason to expect that a lack of this would have to be because Uber prohibits it. Multi-level marketing is still common, and often the payoff might be worth your rating getting tanked. If nothing else, it seems like stories of this happening would be common. Even just "if you listen to my fifteen minute thing on timeshares, I'll pay for your ride."
Permit 6y ago
I was once hired as a contractor to help a web shop build websites for companies like Toyota. I didn't receive the contact information for Toyota so I could continue my business relationship with them independently.
- wolco2 6y ago
  You were an employee of some org that had a contract with Toyota. Or a contractor for an org who had a contract with Toyota. Whoever pays you is the entity you have a relation with.
thekyle 6y ago
Don't you think Uber giving out peoples contact information like that would be a gross violation of riders privacy? If the driver wants they can ask the rider for their contact info (although I would find that kinda creepy).
- tyre 6y ago
  That's their point. It would be creepy because the rider is not actually contracting with the driver. The driver is an employee of Uber, so it would be creepy for them to have your info. If they were someone you hired, that's not weird.
  - wolco2 6y ago
    Your relationship cannot be determined by this example. You could be an employee or contractor for uber. In either case driving someone is a service you provide to Uber customers.
    - Alex3917 6y ago
      > In either case driving someone is a service you provide to Uber customers. No. Look at https://arcade.city https://arcade.city. Their drivers are independent business operators, because they own the relationship with the riders. Uber drivers not only don't own the relationship with riders, but they're forbidden from owning it, which is what makes them employees. It's literally against the terms of service for Uber drivers to act as independent business owners, despite the expensive PR campaigns they run for regulators and the general public. The CEO of Uber was literally fired for getting caught on camera berating an employee who was complaining that Travis had lowered the amount of money he was earning after the employee had taken out a huge car loan. If this driver wasn't an employee, he would have been allowed to set his own prices, so that conversation never could have even happened.
      - wolco2 6y ago
        That could be a part of the contract between driver and uber. You cannot sell to our (uber) clients while offering a service for us. The driver can set his/her own prices. When they decide which rideshare to use many use price to determine who they want to work for. If they decide Uber they get a scaling scale / surge pricing. The driver doesn't set the customer price. They can only control the price Uber pays them.. some have asked for more and some have walked over it.
proc0 6y ago
We should let the market evolve on its own as long as no one is forcing someone else to do the job. How the hell is a lawmaker in charge of the definition of a job? Uber just wanted to define it for themselves. Someone else that hates that model can try and do something different, or run marketing ads against people becoming drivers if it's that dangerous.

dannyw 6y ago

Should this binary classification, devised prior to this whole model of work was invented, still exist? It's like not updating your horse carriage road laws to accommodate automobiles; because everything is either a pedestrian or a horse carriage. If there's no horse, a car isn't a vehicle; it's a pedestrian. Makes no sense. If you think Uber drives deserve more than 120% of min wage, then you can argue that, but I don't see why you have to argue employee vs IC. P.S. Most Uber drivers, when independently polled, are for Prop 22. It's the unions that were pushing this, so they can collect union dues and grow their revenues.

rtkwe 6y ago
> P.S. Most Uber drivers, when independently polled, are for Prop 22. It's the unions that were pushing this, so they can collect union dues and grow their revenues. I wonder if this would remain true if you weighted by the number of drives given, there certainly seems to be a distinction between part time and full time drivers. The former could be more numerous while Uber depends on the latter to provide the bulk of their supply.
- viscanti 6y ago
  Prop 22 allows for treating drivers differently based on how many hours per week they drive. Previously a gig economy company needed to decide how to classify their entire workforce (a single driver treated as an employee meant all need to be). It seems reasonable to be able to treat full time drivers like full time drivers and part time drivers like part time drivers. That's why CA voted for prop 22.
xtian 6y ago
Your automobile analogy is actually extremely apt because when the car was invented and "jay drivers" (the original term) began killing hundreds of thousands of people, public consensus began to form around strictly limiting the speed of cars. The auto industry successfully lobbied local legislatures and shifted public opinion through a massive marketing campaign in order to create the crime of "jaywalking". This is how our city streets went from shared spaces to the exclusive territory of drivers (much to the benefit of the auto industry). Same thing is happening here. Perhaps a new class of labor does need to be created, but in a just world that would be happening on the terms of the workers, not the corporations.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  I too wish roads could somehow be shared spaces again. But let's not fall into these simplistic black and white anti-establishment narratives. The automobile massively expanded personal liberty and employment options. Some of these effects were very pro-worker, like reducing the power of the dominant employers of localities, by letting workers more easily pull up stakes and find a new home in a different locality, or simply commute to a more distant employer. No conversation about the impact of the car is complete without mentioning the benefits it provided to society.
  - xtian 6y ago
    Labor market fluidity isn't pro-worker, it's an essential component of the commodification of labor. It simply means the shape of a person's life is more fully suborned to the demands of the market. It means competing on a national and often international market for wages. A workforce full of transplants is much less likely to organize and resist the agenda of capital than one with deep community roots and support structures. In any case, I wasn't attempting to present a complete analysis of the societal effects of the automobile. I was only pointing out that this is another case of corporations explicitly dictating the terms of our society and using a massive outlay of cash to facilitate that and market it to us.
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
boomboomsubban 6y ago
>Most Uber drivers, when independently polled, are for Prop 22. It's the unions that were pushing this, so they can collect union dues and grow their revenues. The $200 million being discussed feels relevant to this claim. Didn't some companies even spread their take to their "employees" through their job apps and other direct communication? I bet even the "blame the union" came from information those companies paid for.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

If a furniture company gives you a contract to build them some chairs, do they give you the contact info for each person who buys a chair from them? Why would that make the chair manufacturer an employee of the retailer? Moreover, how is this not available to the driver? They're in the car with the passenger already. The driver and passenger could exchange contact info if they wanted to, how is Uber going to stop them? This doesn't happen not because Uber is preventing it but because the passenger is. The next time they need a ride they don't want to have to call five drivers to find one who is in the area and available, they want to open the app and have it find one for them.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>If a furniture company gives you a contract to build them some chairs, do they give you the contact info for each person who buys a chair from them No, you put your brand on the chairs and if the customer likes them they can buy from you again. And I imagine Uber does forbid selling other services during rides. If not, I feel like Uber rides would be full of people pushing multi-level marketing.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > No, you put your brand on the chairs and if the customer likes them they can buy from you again. In what way is this different than putting your phone number inside your car where the passenger can take it down if they want it? > And I imagine Uber does forbid selling other services during rides. If not, I feel like Uber rides would be full of people pushing multi-level marketing. I can't actually find the Uber driver agreement on the internet, but pyramid schemes are illegal, and drivers who peddle scummy garbage to passengers are liable to get bad reviews, so there is no reason to expect that a lack of this would have to be because Uber prohibits it.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >but pyramid schemes are illegal, and drivers who peddle scummy garbage to passengers are liable to get bad reviews, so there is no reason to expect that a lack of this would have to be because Uber prohibits it. Multi-level marketing is still common, and often the payoff might be worth your rating getting tanked. If nothing else, it seems like stories of this happening would be common. Even just "if you listen to my fifteen minute thing on timeshares, I'll pay for your ride."

Permit 6y ago

I was once hired as a contractor to help a web shop build websites for companies like Toyota. I didn't receive the contact information for Toyota so I could continue my business relationship with them independently.

wolco2 6y ago
You were an employee of some org that had a contract with Toyota. Or a contractor for an org who had a contract with Toyota. Whoever pays you is the entity you have a relation with.

thekyle 6y ago

Don't you think Uber giving out peoples contact information like that would be a gross violation of riders privacy? If the driver wants they can ask the rider for their contact info (although I would find that kinda creepy).

tyre 6y ago
That's their point. It would be creepy because the rider is not actually contracting with the driver. The driver is an employee of Uber, so it would be creepy for them to have your info. If they were someone you hired, that's not weird.
- wolco2 6y ago
  Your relationship cannot be determined by this example. You could be an employee or contractor for uber. In either case driving someone is a service you provide to Uber customers.
  - Alex3917 6y ago
    > In either case driving someone is a service you provide to Uber customers. No. Look at https://arcade.city https://arcade.city. Their drivers are independent business operators, because they own the relationship with the riders. Uber drivers not only don't own the relationship with riders, but they're forbidden from owning it, which is what makes them employees. It's literally against the terms of service for Uber drivers to act as independent business owners, despite the expensive PR campaigns they run for regulators and the general public. The CEO of Uber was literally fired for getting caught on camera berating an employee who was complaining that Travis had lowered the amount of money he was earning after the employee had taken out a huge car loan. If this driver wasn't an employee, he would have been allowed to set his own prices, so that conversation never could have even happened.
    - wolco2 6y ago
      That could be a part of the contract between driver and uber. You cannot sell to our (uber) clients while offering a service for us. The driver can set his/her own prices. When they decide which rideshare to use many use price to determine who they want to work for. If they decide Uber they get a scaling scale / surge pricing. The driver doesn't set the customer price. They can only control the price Uber pays them.. some have asked for more and some have walked over it.

proc0 6y ago

We should let the market evolve on its own as long as no one is forcing someone else to do the job. How the hell is a lawmaker in charge of the definition of a job? Uber just wanted to define it for themselves. Someone else that hates that model can try and do something different, or run marketing ads against people becoming drivers if it's that dangerous.