Hacker News Reader

Comment by pessimizer | Hacker News Reader

Are you seriously asking how the relationship is different between a driver and Uber and a driver and the city they live and work in? The difference is both Uber and drivers are subject to the rule of law, whereas the rule of law isn't subject to Uber or the drivers except through the legislative process, which this is an article about.

Nobody is saying that Uber can't apply whatever terms they want to the relationship if they're in international waters and not under any particular flag.

edit: the city can require that people who live in it must work under the exact same terms as Uber, and will not be treated as employees of the city (if they can get this enacted in legislation and it has been found not to conflict with higher laws or treaties.) Uber doesn't get to require anything of local law.

View on HN

I am unhappy with your mis-representation of my post. I'm not asking beyond a clear "rhetorical question" used to emphasize the incredulity of the situation, quite the opposite: I am pointing out that the points, as described, are equivalent. That's not a contentious issue here.

Obviously different points could be raised and argued - as per other posts in this thread. However the specific points on which the court decision was based do match the relationship between cities and (regular) taxi drivers. If UK was a nation of laws, this ruling would also change the relationship between cities and taxi drivers.

But we know that won't happen - because public entities get an extra leeway with laws.

I'm saying that they're not in any way equivalent other than they are both sets of rules.

The government gets to determine whether you are an employee, because Uber is subject to laws. The government is also subject to its own laws, but there's no requirement that a government be subject to the same rules that it applies to a company that operates within its jurisdiction. Otherwise, why would we even try this in court? If Uber is entitled to identical treatment as the government, this case could have been tried in Uber's own court.'

I'm not misrepresenting you, I'm disagreeing with a false statement. The government's medallion system is not the same as Uber's structure with respect to drivers because drivers are considered citizens in their relation to the government, while they are considered employees in their relationship to Uber. The medallion holders are not entering into either an independent contractor or employee relationship with the government, they're following the law as all citizens (and companies) are required to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com