14 ms·

I've had a quick read, the argument seems to be that because the driver is needed to fulfil Uber's rides that they become indistinct from Uber as a business its

by majc2 11y ago

I've had a quick read, the argument seems to be that because the driver is needed to fulfil Uber's rides that they become indistinct from Uber as a business itself; so they're employees. They make some references to Case law for a Yellow taxi case back in 1991. (at least that was my reading!)

kohanz 11y ago
Essentially: "No drivers, no Uber". Makes sense.
- CPLX 11y ago
  Also, "no Uber, no driver" in this specific case at least.
- k0 11y ago
  California Über Alles
- SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
  That's true for services like https://www.upwork.com https://www.upwork.com, too, though. Upwork offers to match people with specific skills to people who need to hire them. Upwork helps track the work being done, and collects the clients' payments, passing them along to the workers minus a percentage. I think providing a service to connect buyers and sellers should be able to be distinct from having employees.
  - kohanz 11y ago
    It's a very fair point. I would add that since you seem to be able to be a driver for Uber/Lyft, etc. simultaneously, that would seem to suggest contractor as well.
  - TheCoelacanth 11y ago
    > I think providing a service to connect buyers and sellers should be able to be distinct from having employees. It is, but the court decided that Uber exercised too much control over the conditions of the work to just be connecting buyers and sellers.
- woah 11y ago
  No sellers, no eBay?
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  No, it's: "No Uber/Lyft, no drivers"
  - kohanz 11y ago
    Sure, but I'm not sure what conclusion that helps us draw in regards to a contractor/employee distinction. The former is saying a business cannot exist without employees performing critical functions (I'm not saying that this is de facto truth, but just phrasing the argument). The latter is saying that without a business, you don't have employees/contractors, which makes sense, but seems obvious and inconsequential.
    - mfoy_ 11y ago
      I think it's more like "You can't have one without the other, therefore they aren't just contractors". A ride-sharer / driver needs the platform and the platform needs the driver, fundamentally. It's not like most contracting where it's not the end of the world if all the contracts end.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ericd 11y ago
  TaskRabbit?
Navarr 11y ago
I would imagine that Uber would argue that it's businesses isn't providing rides, but connecting people who need rides to people offering rides. But I think the Cali court may have had the right of it by going "that's bullshit."
- CPLX 11y ago
  Yes, and McDonalds has a business of connecting people who want hamburgers with people who are making hamburgers. As one can quickly see that line of argument is exceedingly thin. In order for it to make even a little sense it would have to be rephrased to something more like an argument that Uber's business isn't providing rides, but connecting people who need a ride to an independent business that offers rides to people.
  - viscanti 11y ago
    But McDonalds employees aren't also choosing to possibly flip a burger for BurgerKing in the same shift. One can quickly see your line of argument is exceedingly thing. The fact that alternatives exist and many drivers do operate for multiple services at the same time, shows that there is an independent business.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      No, it doesn't. Alternatives existing has no bearing on the argument.
    - CPLX 11y ago
      That argument has some merit to it, in the abstract, but this decision was regarding a Plaintiff who did not and had not ever driven for any other service, and that issue wasn't presented as a defense.
      - Vraxx 11y ago
        Which was entirely the plaintiff's choice, was it not? If I'm a contractor and I choose not to solicit jobs from a particular customer base, does that somehow mean that those other jobs didn't exist? If anything, the fact that some drivers do this and others do not shows some for of "managerial" skills that were cited as nonexistent.
meragrin 11y ago
What's the difference between a McDonald's franchisee and an Uber employee? This ruling would seem to indicate a franchise "owner" is nothing but an employee of McDonald.
- hiou 11y ago
  You might be interested in how California is dealing with the franchise relationship as well[0] There are specific rules about that relationship that separates it from an employee. [0] http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/240709 http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/240709
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  A franchisee exercises management control that can affect profit and loss, can subcontract work performed,etc. The lack of these features are among the things cited as making uver drivers employees rather than contractors, so I don't get how you can say that this ruling would make McD franchisees employees.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- viola11 11y ago
  For one, the franchise contains multiple people so there is most definitely managerial work going on. I also imagine franchise owners possess some freedom in how they manage stocking and of various supplies, and might be free to choose suppliers.
- emergentcypher 11y ago
  Seriously, read the above list of reasons, and the decision. Your question is already answered.
- cbr 11y ago
  A McDonald's franchisee has much more discretion in how they operate their business. They choose who to hire, how to manage them, where to run ads etc. They do have less freedom than someone running an independent restaurant, but it's very far from Uber's situation.

by majc2 11y ago

kohanz 11y ago

Essentially: "No drivers, no Uber". Makes sense.

CPLX 11y ago
Also, "no Uber, no driver" in this specific case at least.
k0 11y ago
California Über Alles
SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
That's true for services like https://www.upwork.com https://www.upwork.com, too, though. Upwork offers to match people with specific skills to people who need to hire them. Upwork helps track the work being done, and collects the clients' payments, passing them along to the workers minus a percentage. I think providing a service to connect buyers and sellers should be able to be distinct from having employees.
- kohanz 11y ago
  It's a very fair point. I would add that since you seem to be able to be a driver for Uber/Lyft, etc. simultaneously, that would seem to suggest contractor as well.
- TheCoelacanth 11y ago
  > I think providing a service to connect buyers and sellers should be able to be distinct from having employees. It is, but the court decided that Uber exercised too much control over the conditions of the work to just be connecting buyers and sellers.
woah 11y ago
No sellers, no eBay?
mfoy_ 11y ago
No, it's: "No Uber/Lyft, no drivers"
- kohanz 11y ago
  Sure, but I'm not sure what conclusion that helps us draw in regards to a contractor/employee distinction. The former is saying a business cannot exist without employees performing critical functions (I'm not saying that this is de facto truth, but just phrasing the argument). The latter is saying that without a business, you don't have employees/contractors, which makes sense, but seems obvious and inconsequential.
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    I think it's more like "You can't have one without the other, therefore they aren't just contractors". A ride-sharer / driver needs the platform and the platform needs the driver, fundamentally. It's not like most contracting where it's not the end of the world if all the contracts end.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ericd 11y ago
TaskRabbit?

Navarr 11y ago

I would imagine that Uber would argue that it's businesses isn't providing rides, but connecting people who need rides to people offering rides. But I think the Cali court may have had the right of it by going "that's bullshit."

CPLX 11y ago
Yes, and McDonalds has a business of connecting people who want hamburgers with people who are making hamburgers. As one can quickly see that line of argument is exceedingly thin. In order for it to make even a little sense it would have to be rephrased to something more like an argument that Uber's business isn't providing rides, but connecting people who need a ride to an independent business that offers rides to people.
- viscanti 11y ago
  But McDonalds employees aren't also choosing to possibly flip a burger for BurgerKing in the same shift. One can quickly see your line of argument is exceedingly thing. The fact that alternatives exist and many drivers do operate for multiple services at the same time, shows that there is an independent business.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    No, it doesn't. Alternatives existing has no bearing on the argument.
  - CPLX 11y ago
    That argument has some merit to it, in the abstract, but this decision was regarding a Plaintiff who did not and had not ever driven for any other service, and that issue wasn't presented as a defense.
    - Vraxx 11y ago
      Which was entirely the plaintiff's choice, was it not? If I'm a contractor and I choose not to solicit jobs from a particular customer base, does that somehow mean that those other jobs didn't exist? If anything, the fact that some drivers do this and others do not shows some for of "managerial" skills that were cited as nonexistent.

meragrin 11y ago

What's the difference between a McDonald's franchisee and an Uber employee? This ruling would seem to indicate a franchise "owner" is nothing but an employee of McDonald.

hiou 11y ago
You might be interested in how California is dealing with the franchise relationship as well[0] There are specific rules about that relationship that separates it from an employee. [0] http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/240709 http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/240709
dragonwriter 11y ago
A franchisee exercises management control that can affect profit and loss, can subcontract work performed,etc. The lack of these features are among the things cited as making uver drivers employees rather than contractors, so I don't get how you can say that this ruling would make McD franchisees employees.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
viola11 11y ago
For one, the franchise contains multiple people so there is most definitely managerial work going on. I also imagine franchise owners possess some freedom in how they manage stocking and of various supplies, and might be free to choose suppliers.
emergentcypher 11y ago
Seriously, read the above list of reasons, and the decision. Your question is already answered.
cbr 11y ago
A McDonald's franchisee has much more discretion in how they operate their business. They choose who to hire, how to manage them, where to run ads etc. They do have less freedom than someone running an independent restaurant, but it's very far from Uber's situation.