8 ms·

> Are some of these drivers not working for other companies also? In that case they really are freelancers/entrepreneurs not employees...I think the decision wi

by Jochim 5y ago

> Are some of these drivers not working for other companies also? In that case they really are freelancers/entrepreneurs not employees...I think the decision will be appealed. That's a pretty bad test on it's own. Plenty of people working in restaurants work for multiple companies, they're still employees.

adventured 5y ago
> Plenty of people working in restaurants work for multiple companies, they're still employees. And do they cook one food order at a restaurant they work for, then 15 minutes later walk across the street and cook for a competing restaurant for 30 minutes, and then immediately walk back across the street and cook a food order for the other restaurant? No, of course that's not normal. This will ultimately accelerate the ability of the strongest companies to destroy their competition and potential competition. If Uber doesn't bleed to death financially first, that will be Uber due to their global scale. Uber may not realize it because they're stupid, but this bolsters survival of the strongest in the segment. They can easily kill off competition using this by eating the labor supply. Someone that would have previously worked for multiple companies - trivially flipping between services as it was most ideal for the driver to grab a fare - will no longer be available for multiple companies at the same time. They'll now largely hold a normal job and will not want to work for multiple companies, pulling two shifts per day. Sure, there may be exceptions of drivers that want to pull a weekend job with another service or work two jobs per day, but exceptions is all they'll be. This will narrow the market winners dramatically and quickly. Monopolize the market, consume the labor supply, raise passenger fees, lean in to killing off the competition. It's super simple. If I were Uber I'd abuse the stock market for funding to pay artificially high wages to the labor supply (get all the best drivers), and I'd hire more drivers than I absolutely need (deprive the competition), and begin this killing process immediately. I'd go one market to the next, using Uber's market cap as the funding base to monopolize each market. This type of ruling makes labor supply a competitive advantage to whichever company can acquire the most and best drivers. A global ride hailing app will be advantaged over the smaller local/regional competition accordingly. The next ride hailing app in the market that wants to get started will find no available labor supply to compete with. Welcome to competition stagnation. And of course then the moronic regulators will come back around, having created a monster, and they'll have to pursue anti-trust (or the equivalent) against the market winner they helped to cause.
- belter 5y ago
  Speaking about financials...The court ruled that in certain cases drivers can claim overdue salary. Uber had according to statistics approximately 5,200 drivers in NL on December 2019.
- dnautics 5y ago
  > And do they cook one food order at a restaurant they work for, then 15 minutes later walk across the street and cook for a competing restaurant for 30 minutes, and then immediately walk back across the street and cook a food order for the other restaurant? No, of course that's not normal. As a former Lyft/uber driver this is absolutely correct. It gets even hairier: suppose you are sitting on both apps (or even more) waiting for a ride. Do you get to double-bill two companies for minimum wage hours? I think what is going happen is if Uber and Lyft are forced to recategorize as employees, they get to do something like "compel drivers to wear a uniform", so like a polo with the brand on it, and prohibit wearing of competitors logo. Or prohibit displaying competitor logo on the car (displaying is a legal requirement in many jurisdictions). In the end the take-home for the driver is going to be worse. I'm quite frankly surprised that Uber didn't preempt the legislation by creating a class of driver that is an employee, putting these sorts of onerous restrictions on the driver, plus other ones like "you must start and end at central processing center, drive an uber-owned car", "requiring shifts on ADA-compliant vehicles", "being required to comply with an uber-generated shift schedule", in exchange for bare minimum wage and benefits.
  - arenaninja 5y ago
    > It gets even hairier: suppose you are sitting on both apps (or even more) waiting for a ride. Do you get to double-bill two companies for minimum wage hours? IMO this is a no-brainer, the answer is yes, double-bill. The same applies if you get two remote jobs, you bill both.
    - dahfizz 5y ago
      > The same applies if you get two remote jobs, you bill both. That's definitely illegal.

by Jochim 5y ago

adventured 5y ago

> Plenty of people working in restaurants work for multiple companies, they're still employees. And do they cook one food order at a restaurant they work for, then 15 minutes later walk across the street and cook for a competing restaurant for 30 minutes, and then immediately walk back across the street and cook a food order for the other restaurant? No, of course that's not normal. This will ultimately accelerate the ability of the strongest companies to destroy their competition and potential competition. If Uber doesn't bleed to death financially first, that will be Uber due to their global scale. Uber may not realize it because they're stupid, but this bolsters survival of the strongest in the segment. They can easily kill off competition using this by eating the labor supply. Someone that would have previously worked for multiple companies - trivially flipping between services as it was most ideal for the driver to grab a fare - will no longer be available for multiple companies at the same time. They'll now largely hold a normal job and will not want to work for multiple companies, pulling two shifts per day. Sure, there may be exceptions of drivers that want to pull a weekend job with another service or work two jobs per day, but exceptions is all they'll be. This will narrow the market winners dramatically and quickly. Monopolize the market, consume the labor supply, raise passenger fees, lean in to killing off the competition. It's super simple. If I were Uber I'd abuse the stock market for funding to pay artificially high wages to the labor supply (get all the best drivers), and I'd hire more drivers than I absolutely need (deprive the competition), and begin this killing process immediately. I'd go one market to the next, using Uber's market cap as the funding base to monopolize each market. This type of ruling makes labor supply a competitive advantage to whichever company can acquire the most and best drivers. A global ride hailing app will be advantaged over the smaller local/regional competition accordingly. The next ride hailing app in the market that wants to get started will find no available labor supply to compete with. Welcome to competition stagnation. And of course then the moronic regulators will come back around, having created a monster, and they'll have to pursue anti-trust (or the equivalent) against the market winner they helped to cause.

belter 5y ago
Speaking about financials...The court ruled that in certain cases drivers can claim overdue salary. Uber had according to statistics approximately 5,200 drivers in NL on December 2019.
dnautics 5y ago
> And do they cook one food order at a restaurant they work for, then 15 minutes later walk across the street and cook for a competing restaurant for 30 minutes, and then immediately walk back across the street and cook a food order for the other restaurant? No, of course that's not normal. As a former Lyft/uber driver this is absolutely correct. It gets even hairier: suppose you are sitting on both apps (or even more) waiting for a ride. Do you get to double-bill two companies for minimum wage hours? I think what is going happen is if Uber and Lyft are forced to recategorize as employees, they get to do something like "compel drivers to wear a uniform", so like a polo with the brand on it, and prohibit wearing of competitors logo. Or prohibit displaying competitor logo on the car (displaying is a legal requirement in many jurisdictions). In the end the take-home for the driver is going to be worse. I'm quite frankly surprised that Uber didn't preempt the legislation by creating a class of driver that is an employee, putting these sorts of onerous restrictions on the driver, plus other ones like "you must start and end at central processing center, drive an uber-owned car", "requiring shifts on ADA-compliant vehicles", "being required to comply with an uber-generated shift schedule", in exchange for bare minimum wage and benefits.
- arenaninja 5y ago
  > It gets even hairier: suppose you are sitting on both apps (or even more) waiting for a ride. Do you get to double-bill two companies for minimum wage hours? IMO this is a no-brainer, the answer is yes, double-bill. The same applies if you get two remote jobs, you bill both.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    > The same applies if you get two remote jobs, you bill both. That's definitely illegal.