>I'm afraid you're repeating Uber's favorite talking point
True, but that does not mean rdgthree's argument has no merit.
> Nobody disputes that Uber can have employees or contractors
What about the California judge?
True, but that does not mean rdgthree's argument has no merit.
> Nobody disputes that Uber can have employees or contractors
What about the California judge?
So no, they cannot have independent contractors, unless you mean for the operations side of their business, which nobody is talking about so I hope not.
A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and
B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
Of course you can argue about the minutia of each test (that's what lawyers are for) but there's nothing stopping the hiring of drivers as contractors per se. It's just that the judge thinks the current relationship as it is does not pass this test.
Said another way, what could Uber change from their current policies that would pass ABC if they don't at the minute?
This seems to be the insurmountable point; the judge seems to be inclined to see drivers as within the usual course of business, which means nothing changing on A and/or C would matter, and, assuming the strong statements in the injunction reflect the eventual ruling on the merits, Uber would have no means other than radically changing the business they are in to have drivers-as-contractors.
It's not (as a matter of what the law generally mandates), because it's a preliminary injunction, not summary judgement.
I have a friend that drives approximately 8 hours pw for Uber.
How are drivers not choosing their own hours, exactly? That seems to be exactly what they are doing.
And when I say "Uber", I actually mean Uber/Lyft. And obviously in some parts of the US there are other apps and drivers use those too.
I also don't know any employee who gets paid money by the customer to do a job, of which a small portion is taken by the company. For every "employee" I know, it works in exactly the opposite way.
Independence goes much further - can the driver assign someone else to do the job?
As with any other marketplace/platform: Amazon, Patreon, App Stores, Twitch, Steam, etc.
Stripe collects payments for me when I sell my app. The money does not drop directly into my bank account.
And I don't think Uber has any problem with drivers hiring other people to drive their car and do Uber for them. The people that take an issue with that are the municipalities that want to require background checks, etc. for drivers.
Part B is similarly challenging, because it requires that the contractor & the work they are doing not be in the same line of business as hiring entity
1. https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/unders...
Nothing about the ruling prevents Uber from having contractors. It prevents them from having employees (as determined by California law) that they label as contractors in order to skirt around legal requirements for employees.
For the record, I am not saying the ruling is incorrect, but it does make me feel uneasy because:
1) I think that Uber does provide a public good (increased efficiency compared to a taxi) 2) If all drivers are employees, the business does not seem sustainable
I think that new laws are needed rather than using pre-sharing-economy labels like employee, but that the ruling by the judge may be correct given the current laws.
This write-up from today sums up some of the story so far. https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/08/hubert-horan-can-ube...
> Uber was always less efficient than the traditional taxis it drove out of business
This is patent nonsense. I suspect he never rode taxis often before Uber appeared.
Also Uber’s core ride business was profitable before corona hit. Lots of businesses are hemorrhaging money right now, especially ones in travel.
The problem with taxis was the medallion system and other crazy regulations.
There is a middle ground. No medallions or other protectionist measures, but you have to treat your employees like employees.
The old system with medallions also had the drivers as independent contractors.
Your suggestion would be something different from both existing approaches.
Edit: no opinion implied on whether your suggestion is any good or not.
Uber lost $19,000,000,000 in 2019. It lost money last quarter. Uber is already unsustainable. Despite its labor practices, Uber has been unsustainable since its founding. And it’s not like Amazon’s early days where lack of profits was offset by acquisition of physical infrastructure. Uber loses money on via unit economics.
I don't think it is sensible to justify exploitation with "but the public benefits from it' and 'without it the business might go under'. By that logic we'd still have Victorian workhouses, 12-hour workdays, and there'd be no health & safety.
It's absurd to compare providing a service that hooks drivers up with clients to child labour.
Maybe they’re not losing their fingers in factory machines like child laborers are but I think they deserve employer provided healthcare at the very least.
What makes you think so? There's more than one reason for the demise of child labour. Society has gotten richer over time, and so families place a comparatively higher value on not having their children work.
Maybe address that instead of hand wringing the conversational communication style used on every forum ever?