Slashdot Mirror
Uber Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors, Says California Labor Commission
siddesu writes: The California Labor Commission has ruled Uber drivers are employees and not independent contractors. The ruling has serious implications for Uber's business model, since it will now be required to offer its drivers benefits that meet the requirements of the Californian labor laws. "Uber had argued that its drivers are independent contractors, not employees, and that it is "nothing more than a neutral technology platform." But the commission said Uber controls the tools driver use, monitors their approval ratings and terminates their access to the system if their ratings fall below 4.6 stars." Uber has previously suspended drivers for registering their cars as commercial vehicles.
That's the place where they use water on almonds instead of people, right?
If each employee owns their own vehicle then they should be contractors.
Be a cab company and claim not to be.
Violate the law about cabs and pretend they don't apply to you.
Generally be a bunch of self-entitled assholes who think they magically get to decide what laws apply to them.
Act like whiny fucking spoiled children when the world doesn't see it your way.
Fuck Uber. The assholes who own it are just delusional dicks.
Here is an update to this ruling found in another article:
Update: Uber pointed out that the ruling only applies to one driver. “Reuters’ original headline was not accurate. The California Labor Commission’s ruling is non-binding and applies to a single driver,” a spokesperson said. “Indeed it is contrary to a previous ruling by the same commission, which concluded in 2012 that the driver ‘performed services as an independent contractor, and not as a bona fide employee.’ Five other states have also come to the same conclusion. It’s important to remember that the number one reason drivers choose to use Uber is because they have complete flexibility and control. The majority of them can and do choose to earn their living from multiple sources, including other ride sharing companies.”
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
There's only two reasons California would do this. 1) They are after more tax revenue. 2) Some bureaucrat wants to throw his weight around.
Sounds about right.
Does this mean by extension that the "bloggers" who contribute to the Huffington Post are employees?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
What delusional, drunken moneys could possibly claim Uber is worth $40 freaking billion dollars? What's that, like 4 centuries worth of projected income?
Who the hell makes up these stupid valuations?
They have an app, and a staunch belief they're exempt form laws.
But $40 billions dollars? That's complete fantasy that is. Real corporations with real assets and real income might be worth that.
Holy .com level of overvalued companies.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Can someone point me to the relevant oral argument in this case? There's something, when one listens to an oral argument, that you'll never get from anything written. Thanks.
They can't compete with Uber, so they're paying the legislature to outlaw their competition.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
In order to totally eliminate this as a concern, going forward Uber may require drivers to belong to more than one service - as a programming consultant I face the same issue with some clients were they demand to know I have other recent clients also so I cannot claim to be an employee, and there are often hard limits on length of work.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
FTA:
"But the commission said Uber controls the tools driver use,"
You mean the Uber app? That's what Uber is, isn't it? If you hire contractors to staff a phone bank, the contractors don't get to bring in their own phones to use, you can make them use your own phone system.
monitors their approval ratings and terminates their access to the system if their ratings fall below 4.6 stars.
So - performance reviews are forbidden when you are a contractor?
Last I checked, if you work for Uber you can work whenever and wherever you want, which is, pretty much, a textbook contractor arrangement.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Don't expect to make any money without us getting our fair share!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Uber pointed out that the ruling only applies to one driver.
Translation, "We're getting what we want as cheaply as possible, screw everyone else."
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
That makes more sense.
If FedEx drivers can be independent contractors, so can Ubers.
So by their logic I'm an employee of youtube, etsy, facebook, and twitter.
Fucking morons.
Uber is on it's way to the grave yard...
Services like Uber have a serious problem. They want to not be taxi services because of the regulations, but they want to do business as if they where a taxi service. So on one hand, they want to claim to be a means of arranging a private deal between two private citizens and claiming their commission in the process, but on the other hand they don't want to run a taxi service or have any of their "drivers" running a taxi service.
I don't think we've seen the last of these kinds of issues for Uber and the like. Somehow, I'm figuring that things like this (Uber is actually an employer in some cases) or some of the other issues of needing commercially registered vehicles, commercial drivers licenses and associated medical certificates to go along with the required "on duty" and "rest" time regulations will eventually catch up with Uber and others.
Eventually, for Uber to stay in business the laws will need to change for taxi services in general. I don't think regulators will just go out, throw up their hands and say "Forget it, let Uber roll on". I think they will use stuff like this decision and enforcement of existing commercial transportation laws and force Uber drivers into a more traditional Taxi business with all that uncomfortable regulation and overhead that Uber so wishes to avoid. Hopefully, regulators will see the value of Uber and move to eliminate some of the more difficult regulations, but somehow I figure the local government is more likely to respond to that taxi service in their voting district than the ramblings of some internet company in Cali who cannot vote for anything.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Will California now say that anyone renting out their spare bedroom is an Airbnb employee? Why stop there? Aren't full-time eBay sellers doing the same thing, and shouldn't eBay have to make them employees too?
If you have a problem with it, start your own company and do it yourself, you stupid cunt.
Uber replaces all their drivers with H1-B visa workers.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Or they might actually care a smidgeon about the labor in their state rather than simply deepthroating corporate cock like you do?
Apparently you were not in California when prop 30 went through, and the state came after everyone for retroactive income tax, which applied to the labor in the state as well as small businesses operating on a cash flow basis, to be paid with money they no longer had in hand.
This is just another money grab. Someone has to pay to gold plate the public buildings, you know, instead of spending the money on the people of California.
I supposed that your vision and intelligence have made you fabulous wealthy?
I don't understand this analogy.
Car analogy anyone?
I'd post one, but... most small shop car mechanics are independent contractors. They own their own tools (like Uber drivers own their own cars), they carry their own insurance (like Uber drivers carry their own insurance), they set their own hours (like Uber drivers set their own hours), they can decline a specific job (like Uber drivers can decline a specific job), they can work for other shops (like Uber drivers can work for other car services or elsewhere), and they have a written contract (like Uber drivers have a written contract).
So really, there is no car analogy that supports the GP's proposition.
Ebay: Hey we're not an auction site. (Dodges county by county laws against auctions)
Paypal: We're not a bank either. (Dodges many laws about banks everywhere).
Uber: Hey we're just doing what everyone else has in terms of dodging laws.
God spoke to me
Central thesis ("artificial limits is bad") is unsupported. Does not describe system prior to medallion system. Please see me after class
from dusters and drones to there the always will be ........... phrases to describe any economic down turn, we are all going to be cast on our anvils for what has occured with these guidance i/c components. be wary in the next few years the all new schooling to sell will be small craft pilots licences.
Let's be honest, Uber is a cab company in everything but name. So, it's no surprise that governments treat Uber like a cab company -- something governments have the power to do.
Many commenters (understandably) don't like the regulations for cab companies and thus don't want to see Uber treated like one -- leading to the senseless denial that Uber is cab company (which it is).
What these commenters suggest is not how the legal system should work. The executive branch of government should enforce the laws. Commenters should instead take issue with the legislative branch for writing the laws in the first place.
And you know what? In some places the legislative branch does listen. Here in WI, the state legislature passed a law last month preempting local ordinances and allowing Uber to operate state wide (with some regulation). As a consequence, Uber is extending service to 5 new areas in Wisconsin. (Believe it or not, that means Uber will operate in 8 Wisconsin locations. Apparently there's demand. Who knew?)
Really,
If the courts can deem Uber drivers NOT to be contractors. Then first off, that calls into question ALL taxi services since most drivers lease their cars/taxi permit from the owner.
But more so, what does this decision say for ALL of us IT folks? Hundreds of thousands of whom are hired as contractors.
This decision will pretty much shake up all the Silicon Valley corps if left to stand. Once the courts realize how much big $$$ money they jeopardized, they'll recant this decision.
And frankly, I think Uber more than almost all contractors, is clearly a contracting service.
Especially since "Contract" FedEx Drivers are much more tightly controlled by FedEx than Uber Drivers are by Uber.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Yeah, there are labor laws for a reason and if you're using "contractors" you don't have to pay minimum wage for example. There are some Uber drivers that have learned how to game the system and earn OK money, but they work hard and hustle customers.
The average Uber driver probably makes less than minimum wage, - especially once their expenses are factored in. Uber pays a premium for working certain hours, accepting 90% of rides, taking at least one ride per hour in that time frame, etc. It's hard to qualify for the premium all the time.
So really what it amounts to is that Uber is dancing around labor laws so that they can offer a cheaper and more convenient service. There may or may not be evil intentions, but that's the end result.
I guess the question is when does an arrangement for services cross the line into exploitation? It's not always obvious. I may be perfectly happy to do something for a few bucks on the side or even for free just for the experience or the kicks. But what if someone else is trying to earn a living doing the same thing?
For example, let's say you'd think it be great to sail across the Atlantic on a 70 foot keel boat but you lack experience and a boat. You run across someone advertising the need for crew on a two month sailing tour, - no experience necessary. You have to help pay for food and supplies, plus you have to help sail and maintain the boat along the way. But otherwise there's no charge AND no pay. Sounds like quite an adventure right? Well, a week into it you discover that there's a whole lot of work to do and the "captain" isn't doing much of it. In fact, he's got paying guests that aren't doing anything at all. You want off but the best he'll do is drop you at the next island and you've got pay for your own way home.
Well, there are laws that govern this kind of thing because it is very easy to exploit people.
not just benefits
pay for waiting for a ride time
mileage reimbursement (No deductions may be taken from any amounts paid to employees as mileage reimbursements)
car insurance
cell phone reimbursement (in CA you can't force a employee to rent a phone you must make it free or pay them to use there own phone)
Not sticking up for Uber which I don't believe is any real business model. Just another Dot Com startup trying to skirt basic regulations in a mature business such as cab service. But I have to ask California labor board. If Uber drivers are not contractors and are employee's. How come you ignore so many other labor laws?
Gee, how many illegals are working in CA? Not classified as employee's or contractors? I totally get that many companies are now seeing the advantage of non employee labor. But its certainly nothing new.
Airbnb are the same as Uber in every sense of the business model that the CA labor department argues against.
In a case where a person's primary source of income is renting out space on Airbnb, yes. However that is likely a very rare occurrence, and certainly not the intended usage of Airbnb. Uber on the other hand functions on the premise that drivers drive primarily for Uber
FexEx drivers are not independent contractors.
The real world is complex, often too complex to define without introducing tonnes of loopholes. So instead of making an unenforceable law that mega corps run roughshod over you set broad standards defined by legal presidence. If your goal is a just society with a high quality of life it's great. If your after slaves in everything but name? Not so much.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yep. And that's the end of Uber in California!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Of so, they are independent contractors, to the best of my understanding.
If one is an employee, then they are subject to things like minimum wage laws, which requires at least some participation by the employer to affect what hours the employee works.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Thought all this was settled with Microsoft calling lots of workers contractors although they only worked for one company, long hours, etc. Isn't all this settled case law?
They aren't employees if they don't get paid.
I guess Californians will just have to get along without Uber.
I'd like to get along without California being part of these United States, but that's not possible, is it?
First thing that went though my mind was, "What about people selling things on Ebay or Esty like sites?" Those websites take a cut of each sale. Could this not consider them employees as well?
Posting to cancel incorrect moderation.
California FedEx drivers are employees.
FedEx was sued in 2007 in California Superior Court that they had misclassified their ground drivers based on state employment law. The company lost and appealed. They lost again and went to the California Supreme Court which reaffirmed the Appeals Court. FedEx appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit and that court agreed with the state in 2014, that FedEx controlled the drivers and they were independent in name only. The company has finally agreed to settle the case for $228 million.
So,
Simply put, in the U.S., employees use the company's tools and are told when and how to work. Contractors use their own tools and chose which tasks to accept and how to accomplish them. Uber drivers are not, under any federal statute, employees; they're clearly contractors. Fed-Ex drivers drive Fed-Ex's trucks on a route picked by Fed-Ex to destinations selected by Fed-Ex. Clearly employees. The only current ambiguities are in IT contractors who use corporately owned software.
you are insisting on blaming the victims for not stopping your owners from screwing everyone else over.
Businesses commonly use the independent contractor scam to steal public funds as well as stealing from an employee. The Feds have controlled the definition for years. In essence the person is an employee if the business regulates them in any way or supplies them with anything at all. As a rule businesses do control their workers. For example you are given a desk and a phone and required to be at work at 9 AM. that makes you an employee. Perhaps you are given sales leads. You are an employee. If you are truly an independent contractor you will provide your own leads, furnish your own supplies, work whatever hours you wish, and behave as you wish. And being an independent contractor you must also have a valid business license. And no,, you can not work "under" someone else's license. Workman's Comp is defrauded, mandatory federal pensions are defrauded, Unemployment compensation is defrauded. Yet this is how sick this nation is : We almost never see a business seriously punished for the crime of falsely calling someone an independent contractor. And if you are an employee you can get a lot of revenge. You cans sue. You can also refuse to terminate your contract and bind the business to catastrophic agreements. And if the business tries to shut you down ask to see the contract you supposedly signed so you can see if the termination meets the contract.
I think the point was that California favors nuts over normal people, but I could be mistaken.
And contractors need to take special precautions as well. Uber basically needs to work out a fixed term contract, then kick the driver off Uber for some time - it must be clearly obvious they are contractors and not employees, and are completely free to pursue other jobs in the meantime.
It's on a per-driver basis, yes, so Uber needs to make sure drivers know they cannot work for Uber for more than X months without taking time off, or finding alternate work (e.g., for Lyft) because they need to show independence from Uber.
Excellent point on the term of the contract.
I'm not sure about their contract terms, or if this is part of their general contract, or if the contract has a "right to change terms" clause on behalf of Uber.
California desperately likes to convert contractors to employees on technicalities wherever it can, and the usual target is high income contractors, since it nets them tax revenue, payment to the workers comp fund, and so on. The higher the income the contractor, the higher the take on the part of California.
They also have to be looking at the sunset provisions on the federal subsidy of the ACA, and are realizing that they are going to have to come up with that money themselves from somewhere, and given prop 13, and the commercial property tax dodge (thanks, Kaiser Family Foundation!) that makes almost all commercial property immune from having the property tax rebased, that money is not going to come from property taxes.
They are not commercial drivers. They are contractors.
They are not a taxis service. They are sharing a ride in their personal vehicle.
This is, in fact, one of the reasons I think Uber will never go "driverless cars": it will sink their rideshare-not-taxi business model, if Uber owns the vehicles.
So who is being screwed here? Uber is happy, Uber drivers seem happy, Uber customers seem happy. The only people being screwed are the Taxi cartels who have deliberately gone out of their way to stifle competition to maintain a monopoly of poor and over-priced services. Fuck them, they deserve it.
it's just more evidence that the sharing economy is a scam, and moving to "independent contractors" is simply an attempt to do an end run around labor laws that haven't yet caught up to modern abuses.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
In Germany, this is called "Scheinselbständigkeit".
"controls the tools driver use, monitors their approval ratings and terminates their access to the system if their ratings fall..." So I'm a Slashdot employee now?
Assuming that the people selling on eBay work hours more or less set by eBay, use eBay-provided equipment, and are told at least in general terms what they're to sell, yes, then they're probably employees. Since Uber drivers work at their own discretion and supply their own cars, it looks an awful lot like a contract relationship to me.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Paypal: We're not a bank either. (Dodges many laws about banks everywhere).
Bank: We're a bank. (Dodges many laws about banks everywhere).