4 ms·

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

by 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.
    - CPLX 11y ago
      Uber, represented in the hearing by high-priced attorneys, did not apparently bring up the idea that the Plaintiff could have (or should have) worked simultaneously for other car service apps. Presumably there were legal reasons why that argument wasn't compelling. But taking a step back, though it does seem to be a vaguely mitigating factor, maybe, in the abstract, the fact is that this woman wasn't a contractor by the legal definition. The law doesn't say that employee/employer relationships are determined by what could have happened in some alternate universe. There are full time employee plumbers and carpenters and programmers, and contractor plumbers and carpenters and programmers. They use multi-part tests and precedent to determine which is which. The determination was that this woman was -- in fact - an employee, it was not a hearing to determine a hypothetical scenario. Somewhere in California there may be an Uber driver with a fact pattern that makes them a contractor, or not, but it'll take more cases to figure that out.
      - Vraxx 11y ago
        Hm.. I do see the distinction there, but it seems to have interesting consequences for other industries that operate with a contractor model. If this woman could be deemed an employee by essentially contracting for only one customer base, couldn't contractors in other industries essentially become employees without ever being formally hired by restricting their customer base? Of course this is assuming a similar situation with an organization that aggregates customers and connects them to contractors doing the work. The specific example that I saw elsewhere in the thread was the contracted chicken farmers[0] [0]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9733269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9733269
        daurnimator 11y ago
        > I do see the distinction there, but it seems to have interesting consequences for other industries that operate with a contractor model. If this woman could be deemed an employee by essentially contracting for only one customer base, couldn't contractors in other industries essentially become employees without ever being formally hired by restricting their customer base? Yes. infact that happens quite a lot (subject to jurisdiction). Many builders I know are very concerned about hiring the same contractor too often as they might accidently become an employee (and hence have to pay taxes on them).
pbreit 11y ago
McDonalds workers have required shifts, must wear uniforms, are provided with all the food they serve, etc, etc. Pretty poor analogy.
- neura 11y ago
  I build software applications for a living. I do not have required shifts. I do not have a uniform. I am not provided with all of the tools that I use to build said applications. These things have nothing to do with my status as an employee or contractor as you'd never guess which one I was based on these facts.
  - pbreit 11y ago
    What happens when you don't do any work?
  - smileysteve 11y ago
    Given your statement, your employer might be able to classify you as a contractor as long as you would stay on given the lessened benefits and self employment tax. In software, the tools are a big determination, i.e., do you provide your own laptop? You might be a contractor. Are you given benefits such as reasonable vacation days? You might be an employee. Mis-categorization of employees is a big issue for the IRS and few "contractors" are informed or in a position to threaten to challenge it. In the software business, I've had an employer who gave me an employment contract and then just decided to write me checks like a contractor each month until I raised a fuss.
tomp 11y ago
> Yes, and McDonalds has a business of connecting people who want hamburgers with people who are making hamburgers. I don't know for McDonald's, but for many fast food companies that's absolutely true: the main company (the brand) only sells the franchises, and the franchisers actually own and operate the restaurants. However, the main company holds very tight control over the experience (prices, branding, inspections, menus, ...).

by CPLX 11y ago

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.
  - CPLX 11y ago
    Uber, represented in the hearing by high-priced attorneys, did not apparently bring up the idea that the Plaintiff could have (or should have) worked simultaneously for other car service apps. Presumably there were legal reasons why that argument wasn't compelling. But taking a step back, though it does seem to be a vaguely mitigating factor, maybe, in the abstract, the fact is that this woman wasn't a contractor by the legal definition. The law doesn't say that employee/employer relationships are determined by what could have happened in some alternate universe. There are full time employee plumbers and carpenters and programmers, and contractor plumbers and carpenters and programmers. They use multi-part tests and precedent to determine which is which. The determination was that this woman was -- in fact - an employee, it was not a hearing to determine a hypothetical scenario. Somewhere in California there may be an Uber driver with a fact pattern that makes them a contractor, or not, but it'll take more cases to figure that out.
    - Vraxx 11y ago
      Hm.. I do see the distinction there, but it seems to have interesting consequences for other industries that operate with a contractor model. If this woman could be deemed an employee by essentially contracting for only one customer base, couldn't contractors in other industries essentially become employees without ever being formally hired by restricting their customer base? Of course this is assuming a similar situation with an organization that aggregates customers and connects them to contractors doing the work. The specific example that I saw elsewhere in the thread was the contracted chicken farmers[0] [0]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9733269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9733269
      - daurnimator 11y ago
        > I do see the distinction there, but it seems to have interesting consequences for other industries that operate with a contractor model. If this woman could be deemed an employee by essentially contracting for only one customer base, couldn't contractors in other industries essentially become employees without ever being formally hired by restricting their customer base? Yes. infact that happens quite a lot (subject to jurisdiction). Many builders I know are very concerned about hiring the same contractor too often as they might accidently become an employee (and hence have to pay taxes on them).

pbreit 11y ago

McDonalds workers have required shifts, must wear uniforms, are provided with all the food they serve, etc, etc. Pretty poor analogy.

neura 11y ago
I build software applications for a living. I do not have required shifts. I do not have a uniform. I am not provided with all of the tools that I use to build said applications. These things have nothing to do with my status as an employee or contractor as you'd never guess which one I was based on these facts.
- pbreit 11y ago
  What happens when you don't do any work?
- smileysteve 11y ago
  Given your statement, your employer might be able to classify you as a contractor as long as you would stay on given the lessened benefits and self employment tax. In software, the tools are a big determination, i.e., do you provide your own laptop? You might be a contractor. Are you given benefits such as reasonable vacation days? You might be an employee. Mis-categorization of employees is a big issue for the IRS and few "contractors" are informed or in a position to threaten to challenge it. In the software business, I've had an employer who gave me an employment contract and then just decided to write me checks like a contractor each month until I raised a fuss.

tomp 11y ago

> Yes, and McDonalds has a business of connecting people who want hamburgers with people who are making hamburgers. I don't know for McDonald's, but for many fast food companies that's absolutely true: the main company (the brand) only sells the franchises, and the franchisers actually own and operate the restaurants. However, the main company holds very tight control over the experience (prices, branding, inspections, menus, ...).