Uber’s march across America’s regulatory landscape
qz.com
qz.com
For example, in Austin, Ann Kitchen's proposal passed 9-2 and fingerprints are required. Austin already had horse-and-buggy rides for the tourists so relabeling it was a funny tactic but not substantive. What's more, Uber/Lyft lost the fight over fingerprints in Houston and San Antonio.
Overall, it looks less like a giant coup and more like responsible regulation change to protect public safety.
Uber/Lyft are effectively saying is that so many of their drivers lie about their names because they have minor criminal records that Uber/Lyft can't recruit enough drivers if they have to do effective background checks. That's not going to fly.
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/whats-next-for-ub...
"In 2014 at least 600 people in San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco—all cities that require taxi drivers to go through Live Scan—who previously drove taxis failed our background check. (2) These drivers were not given access to Uber’s platform, but may continue transporting passengers by taxi. Their records included convictions for sex offenses or rape (19 potential drivers), DUIs (36 potential drivers), child endangerment or abuse (seven potential drivers), and assault or battery (51 potential drivers)." - https://newsroom.uber.com/details-on-safety/
EDIT: I don't have any claims as to the accuracy of the system they use vs fingerprint systems but I can say that the backgrounds we get from the same system they use are just fine for our insurance underwriters and our background checks are for people operating vehicles as well.
What is an "effective" background check? Either the broker has criminal records for you, or they do not.
Personally I'm all for them unionizing so they can get a fair wage and have some bargaining power, rather than being a bunch of individuals who have to take every change Uber makes, or leave.
> Employees are often trained by a more experienced employee or are required to attend meetings or take training courses. An Independent Contractor uses his or her own methods and thus need not receive training from the purchaser of those services.
Uber drivers are responsible for their own training.
> An Employee's business and travel expenses are either paid directly or reimbursed by the employer. Independent Contractors normally pay all of their own business and travel expenses without reimbursement.
> Employees are furnished all necessary tools, materials, and equipment by their employer. An Independent Contractor ordinarily provides all of the tools and equipment necessary to complete the job.
> An Employee generally has little or no investment in the business. Instead, an Employee is economically dependent on the employer. True Independent Contractors usually have a substantial financial investment in their independent business.
Uber drivers pay their own business expenses, vehicle and gas. Drivers are expected to provide their own vehicles and often have an independent driving business.
> An Employee does not make his or her services available to the public except through the employer's company. An Independent Contractor may advertise, carry business cards, hang out a shingle, or hold a separate business license.
Many drivers also have their own private car business and make their services available publicly.
> An Employee does not ordinarily realize a profit or loss in the business. Rather, Employees are paid for services rendered. An Independent Contractor can either realize a profit or suffer a loss depending on the management of expenses and revenues.
Uber drivers absolutely have profit/loss.
> An Employee is typically paid by the employer in regular amounts at stated intervals, such as by the hour or week. An Independent Contractor is normally paid by the job, either a negotiated flat rate or upon submission of a bid.
> An Employee may work "on call" or during hours and days as set by the employer. A true Independent Contractor is the master of his or her own time and works the days and hours he or she chooses.
> An Employee ordinarily works for one employer at a time and may be prohibited from joining a competitor. An Independent Contractor often works for more than one client or firm at the same time and is not subject to a non-competition rule.
> An Employee may be required to submit regular oral or written reports about the work in progress. An Independent Contractor is usually not required to submit regular oral or written reports about the work in progress.
> An Employee ordinarily devotes full-time service to the employer, or the employer may have a priority on the Employee's time. A true Independent Contractor cannot be required to devote full-time service to one firm exclusively.
Drivers are paid by job and are masters of their own time. Drivers may and often do work for multiple driving companies. Working full time or exclusively for Uber is not required -- some drivers work for both Uber and Lyft.
That's 11 out of the IRS's 20 employment/contracting tests.
While Uber drivers also meet a few of the tests for being an employee, many of the employee/contractor tests suggest the latter. Anyone who is intellectually honest about the contractor/employee debate will acknowledge that there are good reasons to believe drivers are contractors.
If you're still not convinced, try to imagine a Google employee who: makes his services available to the public, also works for Apple, sets his own hours completely, provides his own tools (computer etc.), is paid by the job rather than monthly, earns revenue from his work with Google and other clients which against his business expenses can turn a profit, never provides written reports about his work, does not receive training/mentoring from Google, etc. That would never happen because what I'm describing in this paragraph is not an employee.
2nd: It is worrisome that my previous comment got a -1 when it is respectful and it shows a point of view in accordance with the law. First time ever that I got a negative on any of my comments. And is for criticizing Uber.
Sorry, but I see Uber business model as an abuse of employees rights. It is a shift on all responsibility to the individual workers while the company gets the money.
So they should be considered to be contractors because they have to pay their own expenses? But they wouldn't be paying their own expenses if Uber classified them as employees. This is circular logic.
So for this test: do Uber drivers pay their expenses, have they made their own investment in the infrastructure they use? If they do, it suggests they are contractors, and if not, it supports them being employees.
Yes, if drivers were employees then it would be unusual for them to bring and operate their own vehicle in the context of their employer's business, and pay for its expenses. Employees don't tend to do that, because the company owns the infrastructure and pays directly. Uber grew quickly because it tapped into this big pre existing network of private black car drivers who were small business owners and needed a good dispatching system. So it brought all those drivers on as contractors.
Portsmouth, NH made Uber illegal and even went so far as to have the police charge the most vocal critic of this policy for felony wiretapping (http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20151106/NEWS/15110936...).
In Philadelphia, the Parking Authority has gone after Uber, stopped/seized cars, and issued hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines.
So very many people can't tell the difference between "x is wrong, therefore illegal" and its converse.
Did the reporter go door to door and ask if anyone noticed X? There have been many stories in the last year regarding Uber's regulatory woes and how the company is fighting back. Out of all the many recurring clickbait tactics, "hardly anyone noticed" has to be one that immediately raises the most red flags for me, not to mention how insulting it is.
Submitters: please remember that the HN guidelines ask you to change the original title when it is linkbait. We changed this one to a representative phrase from the article.
A slightly disingenuous piece, IMO, considering the role of consumers in Uber's proactive approach to challenging the status quo.
(I've been watching too much narcos)