Slashdot Mirror
Uber Class-Action Case May Hinge On What the Drivers Want
New submitter shanemccarthy writes with a story at Forbes that lays out a non-intuitive factor in the ongoing class-action suit over alleged labor law violations filed in the name of Uber drivers. Namely: how Uber drivers see themselves in relation to the company. While some drivers consider themselves, or would like to be considered, employees, and accrue the conventional benefits of employee status at a large company (and Uber, for all its crowd-sourcing, disintermediating origin story, is large enough to garner a valuation in the billions), a considerable number of the drivers do not want to give up their status as independent contractors. The rules of class action lawsuits, though, mean that if Uber's drivers are classed as employees, those who would like to remain independent won't have that option -- so the company is lining up examples of drivers who would seem by no one's definition to be employees, and who want to keep it that way. See also this earlier story about workplace classification for these drivers and others in non-traditional work arrangements.
From the article, "Can they be forced to go along with the litigation anyway? Congress tackled this question with lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act a long time ago and in 1947 required plaintiffs to opt in to collective wage-and-hour suits.The idea was to prevent lawyers from pursuing litigation on behalf of employees who didn’t know about or consent to it." So, Uber, lawyers, and/or emplyees wanting a 3rd type of worker, not 1099 nor W2, has precedent of not being accepted by courts before.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
The agent lines up work options, the actor decides to take it or not.
- Actor pays her own expenses
- Actor works whenever she chooses (or not)
- Actor gives a percentage of her earnings to the agent for successful gigs.
Is the agent her employer?
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
Well, when they will have lost basically all lawsuits in all countries, the company will be worth about 1 dollar.
for each "independent" driver Uber trots out, i show you a pieceworker who is serially unemployed. Uber requires many things of the worker (vehicle can't be "too old", conduct and dress standards, etc.), collects time and attendance data, maintains umbrella insurance for the worker, and issues paychecks. All work products remain the property of Uber. Uber is an employer, and the drivers are employees.
Uber has too much control and say over how the transaction occurs. The drivers are employees. Uber needs to pay benefits and etc. About time.
Won't someone think of the taxi drivers?!? What is going to happen when thousands of immigrants loose there jobs???
% whois llrlaw.com ... ...
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: 100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
Registrant City: Boston
Registrant State/Province: Massachusetts
Registrant Postal Code: 02114
Registrant Country: United States
Registrant Phone: 6179945800
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: ssimpson@llrlaw.com
% lynx llrlaw.com ... ...
Welcome to Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
The Labor, Employment & Class Action Specialists
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. is a plaintiffs’-side employment and union-side labor law firm, whose attorneys have achieved national recognition for their work representing employees and unions in wage and hour, discrimination, and other employment-related litigation.
So.
Is it an ambulance chaser that's trying to assemble a class for a class action lawsuit?
Not sure. But indications from the original link are that they are not stating the primary plaintiffs, they aren't stating a docket number, and they aren't stating the percentage they will be taking of any settlement.
They also, as madsenj37 has previously pointed out, made claims on forced class membership based on a misinterpretation of the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
But it will be fun to sit back and watch them go fishing in deep pockets that don't exist in terms of Uber not yet having IPO'ed, but the timing is a bit coincidental, isn't it?
This case hinges on exactly the same thing as all other cases, the judge. If patent litigation has revealed anything, it's that the law is exactly what the judge wants it to be.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Uber requires many things of the worker (vehicle can't be "too old", conduct and dress standards, etc.), collects time and attendance data, maintains umbrella insurance for the worker, and issues paychecks. All work products remain the property of Uber.
Car analogy...
OK, I lied, it's not an analogy. It's specifically about cars.
This is exactly how the service departments work at automobile dealerships, down to the requirement that the mechanic provide a certain class of tools, codes of conduct towards customers, wear a dealership logo'ed coverall, collects time and attendance data (contractors are paid by hours worked in the contract, so this has to be collected), attendance data (reserving a bay is expensive, and you want contractors who are eager to be present; you also have to collect this information to know how much liability insurance to carry), maintains umbrella insurance for the worker based on worker liability for faulty repairs, or injury while on the dealer premises), and issues checks (they aren't actually paychecks unless the worker is on a payroll; they're just checks). All work products remain the property of the contracting agency (in this case, the auto dealership).
Congress should make a decision about which laws should apply: I think probably some laws about employees and some laws about independent contractors should apply.
I list an item on eBay. eBay shows my item to a customer's search result. Customer bought my item. eBay got commission from the transaction. Does it make me an eBay employee?
Consider also the case of a franchise owner of a restaurant like McDonalds or Subway. The corporate franchise parent sets very strict rules on appearance, service, quality, procedures, product purchasing, marketing etc, but the owners pay for the facilities, equipment, product, fees, licenses, etc. Would this ruling potentially reclassify all of them as employees of the franchise parent? It may come down to convenience for the IRS to collect payroll taxes - they'd much rather just deal with Uber and not 10,000 independent contractors.
Years ago, I worked for an IT consulting company that gave its workers the option of being full employees (with a standard benefits package including 401K, health insurance, paid time off, etc.) OR contractors who received no benefits, but a significantly higher wage. The client paid the same rate either way, the workers got to choose which arrangement worked best for them, and the consulting company (presumably) got their cut ... a true win-win.
I'm sure the trade-offs with Uber aren't exactly the same, but I still don't see why they can't offer their workers more than one option.
Consider also the case of a franchise owner of a restaurant like McDonalds or Subway..... Would this ruling potentially reclassify all of them as employees of the franchise parent?
I suspect not... franschise owners have employees and are not necessarily the "small man", this matters because the spirit of the law/regulation is to protect people who needs it.
One of the things people seem to forget is the "common sense" argument that labor laws are here to protect employees.
If you try to make an organizational-construct where by the small people (who needs this protection) is denied status as employee, you are working against the spirit of the law/regulation.
It's common sense to argue that the regulation was meant to protect your "contractors".
So all the technical arguments about hours, paid by task/hours etc. might not be important at all.
Ideally, though regulation could be clarified to avoid lawsuits like this.
The whole pizza delivery driver thing has been the subject of many, many lawsuits and labor department complaints. Pizza stores were definitely taking advantage of drivers by means of various and sundry strategies like piecework pay, penalties for slow delivery (your pizza in 30 min or it's free/paid for by delivery person), on-call for free, etc.
For the most part now,pizza delivery people are *employees* subject to minimum wage, reimbursement of expenses, restrictions on docking of pay, liability insurance, etc.
A bunch of people want to give up all the benefits of being an employee, in exchange for nothing? It's not as if Uber will be forced to make everyone work 8:00-5:00 if the lawsuit declares them employees. And it's not as if Uber can't split their workforce into employees and contractors by changing a few things. They just can't pretend their employees are contractors to avoid giving them employee benefits.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Uber will drop you. Also you have to have an Uber phone. Calling it a "lease" does change a thing.
Uber just wants to get out of paying the employer expenses everyone else has to. As a society we've built our entire quality of life around our employers, so I can't see that ending well. Plus without trashing their employees quality of life their business model doesn't really work.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'm not so certain that Uber could survive if the drivers were considered employees. If they were then any injuries to them or their passengers would be held against Uber. That would make the scheme an economic failure. Further why would employees be supplying the car? The IRS defines who is or is not an independent contractor and things like providing a desk or certainly a car make you an employee. The drivers would also need a business permit and you can bet the insurance would bring it all to a screeching halt. But let's go full circle with this. The government has begged us to share rides for decades. Now we have a way to share rides and the government says oh no! It reminds me of the house wife who confronts a prostitute and calls her names. the prostitute calmly replies so I get paid to do what you do for free. The human mind is all too weird. But somehow when money is added to a situation it somehow is seen as being entirely different. But in fact it is the same thing.
Did eBay tell you which item to list and when to list it? Did eBay set the price? Did eBay dictate that you couldn't be in your pajamas when you listed the item? Did eBay refuse to let you sign up because the item you wanted to list was old and looked like a piece of junk? Did eBay structure their platform so the only way your items get bids is if you spend 50 minutes of every hour logged in to eBay?
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
That means Uber would be able to require the driver to be available for certain times, prevent the driver from working over 40 hours per week (overtime), require certain quotas of picking up rides, direct drivers to specific rides even if they really don't want to pick someone up, ...
I call bullshit on this. There are thousands upon thousands of companies out there whose employees work alongside contractors in the computing industry on the same projects. There is nothing in the law that dictates that if one person is an employee, all workers must be employees. Nor is the reverse true.
It is up to the company and the future labour resource to decide which relationship they're going to pursue at the start of employment.
They even get to change their mind later, and offer to turn a contractor into an employee.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I thought Uber was a ride-sharing app? Or have that given up any remaining pretense of that and are now happily admitting that that are an un-regulated taxi service?
Does the payer provide the tools and equipment for the worker to use, or does the worker provide his or her own?
How much ability, authority, or right does the payer have to exercise control (even if they do not they ever exercise it as such) over a worker concerning what work is to be done, and the manner in which it is done?
Does the payer assume responsibility for any regular operating expenses, or is does this responsibility fall to the worker?
Uber drivers are independant conractors. Obviously. Why is there even any question?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The US has a long and deep history of low income workers being suckered into fighting against their own good in favor of powerful monied interests.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
That's a whacked sense of symmetry.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Uber wants to have all the benefits of having independent contractors, but all the advantages of being able to dictate the terms of their performance. It's that simple.