3 ms·
Essentially: "No drivers, no Uber". Makes sense.
by kohanz 11y ago
Essentially: "No drivers, no Uber". Makes sense.
- CPLX 11y agoAlso, "no Uber, no driver" in this specific case at least.
- k0 11y agoCalifornia Über Alles
- SomeCallMeTim 11y agoThat'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 agoIt'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 agoNo sellers, no eBay?
- mfoy_ 11y agoNo, it's: "No Uber/Lyft, no drivers"
- kohanz 11y agoSure, 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 agoI 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 agoTaskRabbit?