What is the point of this comment?
You've effectively spend a few paragraphs adding nothing of value to the conversation.
You've effectively restated the grandparent's points, but tried to do so in an adversarial manner.
You've effectively spend a few paragraphs adding nothing of value to the conversation.
You've effectively restated the grandparent's points, but tried to do so in an adversarial manner.
You might want to check what you consider "adversarial" when it comes to a discussion forum.
The issue is that the comment I responded to seems to be under the false notion that workers (or employers, for that matter) get to "choose" how they want to be classified, and that's what this debate is about. My point is that, when it comes to employment law, a worker or employer's preference about how they are classified does not factor in at all about how the law classifies the job.
If I owned slaves and called them unpaid indefinite interns the law would rightly disagree. You can call the relationship whatever you like, but the law is there to keep the playing field level for everyone. That it's taken Uber so long to play by the same rules as everyone else is a travesty and should take a billion dollar law suit or two for damages to sort out.
They are independent contractors in the sense that they can choose how much and when to work.
They are employees in that they cannot negotiate rates.
I don't think it's so clear cut.
Hmm... How is an Uber driver different from a plumber here?
Let's say Google needs some pipes fixed at one of its offices and they tell me how much they'll pay, refusing to budge from that figure. That doesn't make me Google's employee. I can choose to do the work for that price, or I can go fix Apple's pipes instead. What am I missing?
The driver doesn't have the ability to turn up a dial and say "I'm going to charge more now".
(This isn't the only distinction between an employee and contractor though of course)
A licenced taxi driver cannot do that, either.
If instead, my analogy were that I was a general contractor who built water slides and a water park put out a bid on construction of a water slide and refused to negotiate, my only option is to take that bid or leave it. Why does it matter what the water park is going to charge the people to ride the slide?
Now that the app driving companies turned over the apple cart by essentially cyber-squatting on the legal system while backed by high power lawyers paid by VC cash, the driving companies themselves want to cry foul when they don’t get the way they bought and paid for. I guess what they didn’t foresee is the long view of judgeship, and their concomitant dim view of cheaters, no matter the problem domain.
It’s too ironic to be believed. The judges apparently agree with me.
What makes you think so?