Judge Rules 160,000 Uber Drivers Can Sue in a Class Action | Hacker News Reader

Judge Rules 160,000 Uber Drivers Can Sue in a Class Action

motherboard.vice.com

47 pointsbdcravens84 comments

Copied from an HN user who said much better than I could: [1] [EDIT: I'm now questioning, is it appropriate to repost their words without their knowledge or consent?]

Human labor is not a commodity.

This was the common sense amongst all working people for most of the 20th century. Samuel Gompers, maybe the most conservative labor leader of his time, said "You cannot weigh the human soul on the same scales as piece of pork." And working people, along with the management class for the most part, understood this to be an undeniable truth. In fact, this piece of common sense was enshrined into US law with the Clayton Act of 1914, which stated "The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce." But in the last 20 years, as capital has gained the firm upper hand, the common sense understanding has shifted towards the idea that labor is in fact a commodity.

The ideas behind the so-called "on-demand workforce" further solidify the notion that labor is a commodity. After all, you can order an uber ride just as easily as you can order vitamins online.

It's so pervasive that even I, someone born into a union family and a firm believer in the idea of worker solidarity, have to force myself to believe that labor is not a commodity. Why? The business class treated labor as expendable in 1915, just as they do in 2015. Why did working people understand this truth in 1915 but not today? I don't know.

I read a recently released sociology book earlier this year (going crazy looking for the title/author, can't find it), that posits millennials are far more likely than any recent generation to blame themselves for the problems they face. It's part of the reason that the self-help industry is bigger business than it's ever been. It's not always your fault. Our modern economy is built on rotten ideas like labor = commodity. If we want to do something about inequality, it's time that we subject fundamentally unjust ideas like these to a serious critique.

[1] Thank you maceo: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9502757

>The ideas behind the so-called "on-demand workforce" further solidify the notion that labor is a commodity. After all, you can order an uber ride just as easily as you can order vitamins online.

How does this make Uber drivers any more or less of a commodity than the taxi drivers they replace?

2024 Headline

Class action lawsuit in California: Uber not allowed to replace 360,000 drivers with self driving cars

idk why people are instinctively downvoting. If Uber drivers are really classified as employees, and the NLRB decides that whatever category this is has a right to force collective bargaining, they could very easily prevent self-driving cars from being rolled out by Uber.

Many unions, famously automotive ones at GM, have blocked the closures of plants which were running at 10% capacity.

Umm no. They couldn't.

Uber, today, is (probably) breaking the law by hiring contractors but treating them as employees. It's actually a very easy line to cross and any contractor or business working with contractors should know those laws well, as crossing that line without reporting it is, among other things, a violation of tax law (and I guarantee you if Ubers contractors are classified as employees, they'll be hearing from the IRS).

Roboticizing the workforce does not involve breaking labour and tax laws. It's simply replacing labour with automation, something that's been going on since the cotton gin was invented.

Actually, false. The NLRB could not decide not to allow self driving cars. What could happen is local or state governments could acquire self driving cars and then provide rides to citizens (as they do with other mass transit systems), and legislate private self driving car companies out of existence (as the roads are government-owned).

? I never claimed the NLRB could prevent it. I said that Uber's drivers could unionize, and through collective bargaining, that union could prevent the rollout (from their point of view, prevent Uber from laying off any drivers). Which is absolutely true.

Is it bad that all I care about is getting a self driving Uber-like?

Considering how much pressure Uber gets from governments around the world this doesnt surprise me.

Obvious reading between the lines: Uber arrests in France were more to protect Uber employees from being assassinated. [0]

French Taxi drivers can fuck some shit up. [1]

0: http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/29/uber-france-leaders-arreste...

1: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/violence-erupts-in-france-during...

The case docket is available online as well: https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/cand/269290/

This could have turned out so differently if it were forced into mandatory arbitration.

Is this only Uber drivers or does it effect all ride sharing services?

well it sets a precedent, obviously.

That's unfortunate for Uber because thats sets them up for a competitive disadvantage. Most lawyers would be interested in class actions suits with the potential to yield the most amount of money.

Laws might implemented under the guise of fairness but they're rarely upheld with the same vigor and intent.

So, Uber might become taxi company soon, just bit more modern?

I really do not understand. If you want to be classified as an employee, it's simple, don't drive for Uber. They're offering a particular type of job for particular people, it's clear up front. You have a choice.

"I really do not understand. If you don't want to work 14 hours a day, it's simple, don't work for these factories. They're offering a particular type of job for particular people, it's clear up front. You have a choice." - Opponents of the 8 hour work day during the industrial era.

Regulations on employment are there for a reason -- you cannot say that an employer is free to ignore them because people 'don't have to work there'.

It's a bit of a stretch to imply that Uber is ignoring its drivers. I can understand that employment laws need to be strict when there isn't enough competition for employers to keep there employees.

But given that Uber is a strong choice for many, to most, drivers, I'd argue that its detrimental to have such strong regulations favoring employees.

> given that Uber is a strong choice for many, to most, drivers

I've heard this from Uber and some anecdotes (part of Uber marketing, I suspect); is there data? Maybe the drivers feel they need to work for whoever controls the most customers, for example.

> I've heard this from Uber and some anecdotes (part of Uber marketing, I suspect);

O_o Well this a first. No I simply like Uber as a service and model.

> is there data?

No. So you're right. I probably can't claim "most drivers". But it being the biggest ride sharing service by far, it's difficult to argue that it isn't a strong choice.

It's not ride-sharing. That's a marketing term, and totally non-descriptive of how Uber works.

Ride-sharing seems more like what you'd see in developing countries, the private (unlicensed) taxis where someone with a car picks up a passenger from the side of the road for a few cents' (negotiated on the spot) fare.

Uber is just a taxi service with a really fancy app and really dodgy employment (i.e. "you employees, you're all contractors!") practices.

>> I've heard this from Uber and some anecdotes (part of Uber marketing, I suspect);

> Well this a first. No I simply like Uber as a service and model.

Sorry! I did not intend to imply you are doing marketing. I'm referring to, for example, op-eds in newspapers by happy Uber drivers.

> It's a bit of a stretch to imply that Uber is ignoring its drivers.

The reference to "ignoring them" in the post you were responding to had "regulations" not "drivers" as the antecedent of "them".

The antecedent in question:

> Regulations on employment are there for a reason

I assume that reason being so employees are not ignored there basic rights, as the law sees it.

I am saying that that there should not be an interference from a third party into a consensual contract between two parties.

And as a result we now outsource all of our manufacturing to China.

> They're offering a particular type of job for particular people, it's clear up front.

The reason this is in court is that some people think that the particular job they are offering and the working conditions actually experienced in that job meet the legal requirements for employee (vs. contractor) status in US labor law, triggering the legal protection according to that status.

I hear what you're saying, but labor laws have had their place historically, on the other hand!

Let's warp back in time to Industrial Revolution England. "If those children kids don't want to be exploited, working fourteen hour shift in the factory, they can find something else to do."

People sometimes have choices only in theory: like when we consider one particular choice, versus some unspecified others.

No. I don't care if they don't have to drive for Uber or not. That does not mean Uber gets to ignore employment law.

> I really do not understand. If you want to be classified as an employee, it's simple, don't drive for Uber.

Yes you really do not understand that workers have rights and corporations are not some kind of nobility that can make up their own laws.

Human nature is incredibly easy to understand and predict: on average people want to work the least hours necessary, for the most income possible. They will also always want the most benefits possible, and will take as many things tilted in their favor as possible. The same is true for businesses. Nothing about that constant tug-of-war will ever change.

In this case, it's Uber drivers wanting their cake and wanting to eat it too. It's an universal behavior of trade, whether from the labor side or the business side. At some point everyone angles for more, using whatever leverage they have.

> At some point everyone angles for more, using whatever leverage they have.

Because, you know, a country is governed by citizens, not corporations. And citizens' rights are paramount.

Which country are you talking about, because the US is certainly governed by corporations, just who do you think the lobbyists crafting the legislation work for?

Uber is preparing for this by building one of the best robotics divisions in the world, be careful what you wish for Uber drivers, you may just quicken your obsolescence

And then we just tax Uber and their robotics-generated revenue (note I said revenue, not profit; profit can be gamed).

That's what Hacker News doesn't get. You're not entitled to a profit. You're not entitled to "disrupt". And if we change laws so you squeeze technology-heavy companies in order to support people displaced who no longer can find jobs, that's how it goes (does "eminent domain" ring a bell? if intellectual property is "property", what stops taking that?).

You can serve bits from anywhere. Physical infrastructure? Good luck profiting off of that from another jurisdiction.

EDIT: HN, you make me chuckle. A US court is about to slam the hell out of Uber for violating labor law, and everyone here is up in arms about how their match-driver-to-passenger unicorn couldn't possibly be required to bow to "mere mortal" law.

> A US court is about to slam the hell out of Uber for violating labor law

The class action suit will be tied up in the courts for another decade. FedEx has been fighting this same fight for years and the vast majority of its drivers remain independent contractors.

Info on the Fedex court case is below; note, the IRS can move quicker, and can extract far harsher penalties (as they should).

"FedEx has settled a long-running dispute with FedEx Ground California drivers. The class settlement will create a $228 million fund to resolve claims by over 2,000 FedEx Ground and FedEx Home Delivery pickup and delivery drivers. Some claims date back to 2000 and some extend through 2007. The settlement must still be approved by the Ninth Circuit, but assuming court approval, will end one chapter in a bitter dispute.

The settlement comes in the wake of a 2014 Ninth Circuit ruling that FedEx misclassified drivers as independent contractors. FedEx has long maintained that it didn’t misclassify anyone. Yet independent contractor status was a key component of how FedEx does business. In the case of the 2,300 FedEx Ground drivers, for years, FedEx called them—and paid them—as independent contractors."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/06/16/fedex-sett...

That seems to encourage, rather than discourage, efforts to assure that current drivers get the most while they can.

Until it becomes an effort that inevitably leads current drivers to becoming luddites so they can keep their jobs.

It's interesting how many people are upset by the inevitability of self driving cars and what that means to current "professional drivers". Oh well the future is what it is

Yup. Fuck people who want to be treated fairly. Profits are more important, amirite?

Sadly just another reason why employers in the future would prefer a robot worker over a human one.

I honestly can't understand this. Why would you make it harder for your own employer to do business. Call Uber whatever you like, but these guys have changed many things, they have helped make a lot of people's lives better.

They also caused a fair amount of grief? Buying a 2008(2011 in NY?), or newer Uber approved four door automobile only to find that driving for Uber doesn't pan out economicaly?

Yes--we have free will, but they promised a bit too much, while micromanaging employees--oops Independent Contrators?

If the enticing employment opportunity doesn't work out as advertised; selling a used four door car is harder than two door sedans, at least when I was flipping cars? And those poor people who went out and bought nice, expensive Toyota hybrids on their once good credit?

And I have never figured out the reasoning behind this list of Uber approved vechicle:

http://www.driveubernyc.com/vehicles/full-list

I wish the company well, but they are an employer. Don't tell me what car I need to drive in order to give you money? You don't like my vechicle, don't hire me? I'm paying for this vechicle(A vechicle I wouldn't buy, but thought Uber was a good opportunity?). I'm paying the insurance? I'm taking the risks?

(I liked this company in the beginning, but with every new demand/fussy requirement, they lost my respect. I'm still a fan of Lyft--kind of--for now.)

idk, maybe Uber shouldn't be allowed to operate illegally by declaring all its employees as contractors. I'm not allowed to do this so I don't really understand why Uber can.

If you have a job how would you like being reclassified as a contractor right now. It would only double your tax burden.

Uber's entire business is based around about exploiting a contract labor force with no collective bargaining rights. They should be forced to stop externalizing their operating costs onto their workers, especially in light of how tightly they control the pay.

I'm confused. Don't Uber drivers decide to work for Uber voluntarily? Does Uber have a monopsony in California? How are the drivers being exploited when they choose to leave their current employment to work at Uber?

I would be willing to entertain your premise if Uber had put Taxi companies out of business before drivers had left Taxis to work at Uber in droves, but that's not what happened.

The fundament behind "at will employment" is that people decide to work for their employers voluntarily. That doesn't mean they forfeit the protections afforded by law to workers. The point of this case is that Uber controlled their workers to the point where their relationship with the company should be considered an employer / employee relationship, and thus the workers are entitled to benefits they did not receive. Your comparison to taxi companies is not relevant, especially since Uber swears they're not a taxi service.

The comparison to taxi companies is relevant to show that Uber does not have a labor monopsony. These legal protections are supposed to be used to prevent companies from exploiting monopsony power in labor markets. Uber does not have monopsony power in the driver labor market except by virtue of offering better working conditions and better pay. The government's role as a regulator should be to prevent Uber from abusing its power in the labor market. In this case, I do not believe Uber has enough power in the labor market to warrant government intervention.

Uber's role in the labor market at large and Uber's relationship with their workers are two separate issues. The lawsuit only deals with the latter. Your analogies to taxi services relate to the former and are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

To clarify, the labor protections I speak of relate to giving employees the proper benefits, not to overall labor market protections. The lawsuit (which is the topic for this discussion) alleges that Uber miscategorized their workers as contractors to avoid paying these benefits.

> Don't Uber drivers decide to work for Uber voluntarily?

I would expect that, to the extent that is true, they largely do so in a context in which Uber's adherence in that employment relationship to applicable labor law is presumed in that decision.

If mcdonalds or walmart started paying below minimum wage would that be exploitative?

Walmart has a labor monopsony in much of the rural United States. It would be exploitative for them to pay below a reasonable wage because their employees have no other options for employment.

That is not the case for Uber in California and will likely not be the case in the future. Uber mainly operates in heavily populated areas where alternative employment is available. Additionally, Uber drivers are not geographically restricted in their employment by the nature of the job. They have a car and drive all over town for Uber, so they would be able to find a job "driving distance" away from where they live.

Exactly. People might agree to work for peanuts but it's not going to sustain them.

None of that matters if Uber is not adhering to labor laws.

If my current job were as a taxi driver and my choices were retain my current job or become a contractor at Uber, I would switch to Uber.

Uber would not have been able to succeed early on if it didn't classify its drivers as contractors. The drivers are better off for it. That doesn't mean the drivers shouldn't sue Uber to be employees now that Uber is successful. It's in their self-interest to do so. However, everybody including current Uber drivers would likely be better off long term if they could not sue.

"If my current job were as a taxi driver and my choices were retain my current job or become a contractor at Uber, I would switch to Uber."

Why? I don't think it is very clear that being a Uber driver is better than a taxi driver.

I had a long chat to a taxi driver medallioned in Chico, Sacramento and SF the other day.# It seems Uber is doing good to bring the fight to the pay-to-play bureaucracy, but it doesn't seem to be showing enough demonstrative acts that their drivers are making more/have better conditions than non-Uber drivers.

# This summer, it seemed there were only 1-2 Uber X drivers in Chico which didn't work weekends. If they did, I had a credit to use which would've meant a free ride. Also, the rules in Chico is that a Paradise (a nearby town) company can't pickup in Chico and vice-versa.

So basically you're saying that if they didn't cheat, they wouldn't be where they are?

I'm not seeing anything in your post that justifies them ignoring labor laws.

No, I'm saying that if they hadn't "cheated", none of the jobs that Uber drivers currently have would exist. Many of them would be employed by Taxi companies, many would be doing something else entirely, some would be unemployed. I just don't see how Uber's existence could have been possible if they strictly followed employment law, nor do I see how Uber drivers would be better off if Uber didn't exist. Therefore Uber drivers are better off because Uber did not strictly follow employment laws.

By the same logic I should be able to open up sweat shops in the US and employ a bunch of migrants to work at them.

Like why are there any employment laws at all? I should be able to pay below minimum wage and employ children of destitute families.

I understand it differently. Labor laws aren't inherently good for either parties, employers or employees, necessarily.

Perhaps the labor laws need to be reformed and/or scaled back.

> Perhaps the labor laws need to be reformed and/or scaled back.

Perhaps if you want to suggest specific alterations and arguments for them, that would be productive.

Well in this case, the need to classify Uber drivers as employees.

I do not see how labor laws are not good for employees. Unless you're an apologist who says that unless we let employers fuck people over, they won't bless us with their benevolence and jobs.

I hope this is just a pretext for negotiating an unionization deal. Because short-term $ extraction by ambulance-chasing lawyers might provide a little relief for the past, but it can't quickly solve other sorts of working condition grievances in the future.

PS: Does anyone have an update on VICE's two reporters arrested on trumped-up charges of "aiding terrorists" in Turkey? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/vice-news-jou...

Because screw people who want to be treated fairly, right? All they should care about is making their employer more money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com