I'm not providing a source for this, given we can all Google, and I don't really know which news source to trust for this. But, the general idea, is that California has decided that Uber drivers are employees, not contractors, as they claim. This is based on how much control Uber exercises over the platform, and monitoring of drivers. This has massive implications for Uber, Lyft, and other companies that follow a similar model, clearly.
California Labor Commision Deems Uber Drivers Employees
- Iniciador del tema AnimuGinger
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 DDoS attack. Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/.
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack). -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 31 de Ene, 2014
My understanding is that the court ruled in the case of a single driver. This decision doesn't automatically apply to all Uber drivers. The implication is that companies like Uber and Lyft need to be wary of how they interact with their drivers.
Not a bad ruling. I've seen similar happening with something called co-employment. You outsource to a contractor, and it's their job to manage the staff and handle the usual liabilities of employing people. The idea is that you keep the staff at arms-reach, leaving it to the contractor to manage them. Crossing the line, often by getting too involved in working with the staff, can lead a court to decide that you in a co-employment relationship with the staff. Similar stuff can happen with individual contractors if you cross certain lines. Under co-employment, the staff of the contractor may be entitled to the benefits they'd enjoy if they were your direct employee.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 25 de Feb, 2015
well if the cars become self driving as they promise then it will likely not affect costs much in the long run (unless they experience legal trouble with the termination)
- Registrado
- 26 de Mar, 2014
The good thing about this is that Uber drivers will pay less taxes as a result. Independent contractors get boned when it comes to taxes.
SteelPlatedHeart
Not-So-New Guy
Miembro del personal
True & Honest Fan
🎤 VTuber Warden 🎤
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 3 de Dic, 2013
I drive for Uber in a different state. So what are the potential implications of this? Like how will it affect my job?
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
It's not a precedent, so it doesn't affect anyone other than the person in this case.
But it could mean you end up able to collect unemployment, or require Uber to pay payroll taxes so you don't get socked with the double self-employment tax, or that you're out of a job because Uber is out of business. At least if other courts come to the same conclusion that Uber is really just an unlicensed taxicab operation illegally operating in the jurisdiction. Or a racketeering criminal enterprise. But that's a different issue.
- Registrado
- 9 de Feb, 2013
Uber's been getting into legal slapfights with different jurisdictions. I'm not sure where I stand on it.
Like, practically speaking, it's definitely a taxi service. Them trying to dodge that label sounds like them just being pissy to me.
But, to be fair, if uber (or similar services) are the "future" of this industry, then it's probably smart to just let them have a little freedom. I've got a friend in Buffalo, NY, and he tells me about how the taxi companies almost amount to organized crime (I'm exaggerating, of course) in how they're pressuring politicians to keep uber out of there.
So yeah, to me, it's either uber dodging regulations or it's taxi companies refusing to change. I'm not sure which side is right.
Like, practically speaking, it's definitely a taxi service. Them trying to dodge that label sounds like them just being pissy to me.
But, to be fair, if uber (or similar services) are the "future" of this industry, then it's probably smart to just let them have a little freedom. I've got a friend in Buffalo, NY, and he tells me about how the taxi companies almost amount to organized crime (I'm exaggerating, of course) in how they're pressuring politicians to keep uber out of there.
So yeah, to me, it's either uber dodging regulations or it's taxi companies refusing to change. I'm not sure which side is right.
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
It's them being hugely profitable. They're coming into markets where the only entities that can do the same thing already are forced to comply with regulations and laws. Meanwhile, they just do whatever the fuck they feel like.
Including hiring rapists and criminals to drive their unlicensed cabs. Meanwhile they exert control over how that's done, for their own benefit.
Sure, it's easy to portray as the old mafia being mad the new mafia is horning in on their territory, but if we're just going to do away with all regulations on taxi services, it should be for everyone. Just let the real taxi companies hire rapists and serial killers to drive their cabs too.
Or, if they want to do this kind of business, maybe Uber should be subject to the same laws as everyone else.
- Registrado
- 15 de Abr, 2014
So, it's not safe to say "California's Uber's Allies?"
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
Delicious Stickmeat
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 17 de Mar, 2015
The whole independant contractor/employee slapfight happens quite a lot in the medical profession too. I've known more than a few hospitals who try to declare that all of their care providers are independent contractors in order to dodge taxes, only to have it bite them in the ass when said hospital exercises too much control over the providers.
Pretty much, if you exercise any sort of control over an IC, they can be classed as an employee. Work shifts, uniforms, tools, vehicle used.....if you try to mandate that on an IC, they can turn around and be get declared an employee.
Pretty much, if you exercise any sort of control over an IC, they can be classed as an employee. Work shifts, uniforms, tools, vehicle used.....if you try to mandate that on an IC, they can turn around and be get declared an employee.
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
Hospitals are usually in a better position to claim independent contractor status when it is contested, at least if they stay out of it to some degree. Professionals like doctors and lawyers are generally considered more competent to decide how to go about filling their contractual obligations.
As you point out, though, the hospital had best butt the hell out of the actual provision of services if they do that, unless they want to end up with a nice fat tax liability (as well as increased exposure to legal liability for malpractice of the doctors). Liability like that, which taxi companies are often forced to shoulder by law, is also something Uber is trying to dodge. (Taxi companies as well often try to dodge this liability with tricks like having each individual cab be run by a bogus "corporation" with no assets, something that doesn't always work depending how obvious a sham it is.)
- Registrado
- 23 de Jun, 2013
The best case scenario is that Uber has generated enough positive brand awareness during its time as a pirate service that they can weather the costs of complying with the regulations that they should, in all fairness, be subject to. This might make Uber cars more expensive as they pass those costs on to customers, but the prices are so ridiculously low right now that I don't think anybody can really legitimately feel bad about this.
The California ruling may not create a precedent, but I think it's extremely likely that similar rulings will follow in other jurisdictions, because it's pretty clear that Uber drivers are employees in every way that counts.
The California ruling may not create a precedent, but I think it's extremely likely that similar rulings will follow in other jurisdictions, because it's pretty clear that Uber drivers are employees in every way that counts.
Delicious Stickmeat
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 17 de Mar, 2015
Entirely true on all counts. Most hospitals know better, but there's always that one who fucks it all up.
It's just one of my pasttimes, watching idiots fuck up with the whole "independant contractor" routine. I've seen it a bunch locally with computer repair shops and satellite TV places. It never fails, the owner is some idiot lolbertarian who claims every one of his employees is an independant contractor, all while treating them exactly like employees (and often times, breaking labor laws along with). It's great fun to watch the explosion when a former employee rats them out to the IRS and such.
- Registrado
- 23 de Jun, 2013
The cute bit is that they all think they're the first person to have ever thought of this brilliant trick.
- Registrado
- 27 de Sep, 2014
In Boston, the taxis use a medallion system where each driver needs to either own or lease one out to officially operate. Apparently all the medallions were owned by a tiny handful of people who would charge exorbitant prices to lease them out to drivers, seriously eating into their margins.
Anecdotal evidence here, of course, but literally every Uber driver I've spoken to has strongly preferred it to driving taxis.
The idea behind the 'sharing economy' that services like Uber and Airbnb oh-so-optimistically envision is only feasible if someone can make a dependable living wage driving taxis part-time, leasing out their couch part-time, and doing other random freelance work. That requires some level of labour regulation that necessarily eats into the flexibility and ease of use that are these platforms' draw in the first place.