4 ms·

If you don't have that freedom, you're an employee, which is what this conflict is about. Because if they're an employee, their employer must pay social insuran

by brnt 5y ago

If you don't have that freedom, you're an employee, which is what this conflict is about. Because if they're an employee, their employer must pay social insurance. The self-employed are exempted from this insurance (although highly encouraged, because, not surprisingly, the vast majority of self-employed people don't become lucky billionaires). Uber wanted to have it both ways, and, not surprisingly, it can't. Self-employed people do whatever they like, including choosing the rides they drive for Uber.

chii 5y ago
but from what i recall, an uber driver do have the choice to accept or reject a ride. There's a penalty for rejecting too many rides - but i think that's a fair outcome. Ideally, uber also allows a driver to set the price, and allow a customer to see price comparisons between all offered drivers (and wait times etc), to truly make it a competitive market place.
- lozenge 5y ago
  Ideally for who? According to this article drivers weren't given information on fare or destination when they were offered fares, until legally required in California. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/uber-changes-rules-drivers-adjust-strategies/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/uber-change... They won't be letting drivers set fares until legally obligated. They are a taxi service that cosplays as a "ride sharing" "marketplace" in the legal system. Uber is all about keeping maximum control of the driver while denying them the rights of employees (or in the UK, "worker" status, which is a halfway house between employee and self employed)
- dagw 5y ago
  According to the article: "a driver may only refuse a few trips before being logged out by the system", that plus the fact that they can't set their own fares and Uber can retroactively lower drivers fares, was the main reason Uber lost the case. If Uber let drivers reject as many rides as they wanted and allowed drivers to set their own fares and negotiate directly with their clients, then they may very well have won the case. But then they would also be a very different company.

by brnt 5y ago

chii 5y ago

but from what i recall, an uber driver do have the choice to accept or reject a ride. There's a penalty for rejecting too many rides - but i think that's a fair outcome. Ideally, uber also allows a driver to set the price, and allow a customer to see price comparisons between all offered drivers (and wait times etc), to truly make it a competitive market place.

lozenge 5y ago
Ideally for who? According to this article drivers weren't given information on fare or destination when they were offered fares, until legally required in California. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/uber-changes-rules-drivers-adjust-strategies/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/uber-change... They won't be letting drivers set fares until legally obligated. They are a taxi service that cosplays as a "ride sharing" "marketplace" in the legal system. Uber is all about keeping maximum control of the driver while denying them the rights of employees (or in the UK, "worker" status, which is a halfway house between employee and self employed)
dagw 5y ago
According to the article: "a driver may only refuse a few trips before being logged out by the system", that plus the fact that they can't set their own fares and Uber can retroactively lower drivers fares, was the main reason Uber lost the case. If Uber let drivers reject as many rides as they wanted and allowed drivers to set their own fares and negotiate directly with their clients, then they may very well have won the case. But then they would also be a very different company.