California Overturns Uber's Appeal: Its Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors

An anonymous reader writes: Uber's third attempt to overturn a California court ruling stating that its drivers are employees and not contractors has ended in failure, with the appeal dismissed by the California Employment Development Department (EDD). The California Labor Commission ruled in June on the matter, and in a later appeal one judge effectively decided that the difference between 'firing' a driver and deactivating their account is purely semantic.

Comments

Of course

[Archangel Michael]

California needs to tax the crap out of, drive the business out of California in order to make California the Liberal Utopian society.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

and Florida, right, that liberal state down there.. Or did you not read the article?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he didn't read the article. What god fearing, homophobic dittohead has time to read? He's too busy spewing.

Re:Of course

[bledri]

California needs to tax the crap out of, drive the business out of California in order to make California the Liberal Utopian society.

I've been hearing this crap my whole life. Yet it's still one of the strongest economies on the planet and it's always the "Liberal" governors that balance the budget. I hope you find a Libertarian/Conservative/Whatever utopia that floats your boat. Personally, I think regulations are like code. Bloat is bad, but good luck doing anything worthwhile with no-code.

GNAA for UBER. Gay niggers are contractors we fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

For money. We fuck for love. We fuck for Uber. The GNAA and the GAY NIGGERS and all fags of the world protest this communist californication fuck ruling. We want our uber rides legal and we want to rent our asses out as well. Fuck this shit. Freedom of ass fucking , freedom of twinks and male escorts and gay nigger ass and freedom to get cheap rides on uber. We The GAY NIGGERS protest fucking california's stupid ruling and FUCK that. time for felching and ass fucking gay nigger style.

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY ?
Are you a NIGGER ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it.

You can watch GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE on Youtube.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.easynews.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by Penisbird , a proud member of the GNAA

G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G
N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A
A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y
A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________*
G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N
N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I
A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G
A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G
G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E
N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R
A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S
A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________*
G________anaannana________________________________ ________A
N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S
A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#GNAA________ ________S
A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O
*_______aaaan______________

Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[Anonymous Coward]

A court ruling that helps labor! Better go buy a lottery ticket, these things come around only once every hundred years!

Re:Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[phantomfive]

If it makes you feel any better, the ruling only affects one employee in one situation, so it will probably result in a minor policy change by Uber to avoid that situation in the future, a donation to the campaigns of the proper public officials, and life will continue as before.

Re:Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[roman_mir]

No, it doesn't help labour. The people who are taking it upon themselves to be Uber drivers shouldn't want to be 'employees'. No company can afford employees who come and go as they please given the political reality of the USA and especially of California. This will reduce the number of people who will be able to work for Uber in California, thus it will hurt them, not help them.

There will be much fewer Uber drivers in California than without this ruling. Uber is not there to provide 'employees' with anything, they are there to make money by being the most efficient broker between supply and demand for rides.

Re:Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[Anonymous Coward]

If Uber doesn't want them to be employees, they need to stop treating them like employees; or did you not read the ruling?

Re: Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber would have been better off arguing that it's drivers are customers, who sign up for a service that allows them to earn money. The people who ride in the cars aren't the customers, they are the product.

Re:Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[Anonymous Coward]

You expect roman_mir to read anything? You must be new here. He's one of the worst shit-spewing sub-morons on here.

Re:Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't help labor at all; now there's nothing, at all, to separate a contractor from an employee, which destroys the freedoms of being an independent contractor instead of an employee. Taken to the logical conclusion, you will no longer expense that part of "your residence" that is used solely for business if you're an employee instead of an independent contractor. Particular for Uber drivers, the depreciation of their cars will no longer be a business expense. Their pay will necessarily go down as workman's comp and employment taxes will drop their salary, and their statutory ability to pick when and where they work disappears.

I completely agree with the argument that Uber drivers must be required to obtain a chauffer's license. However, nothing about their work is "employment" except the state of California's desire to levy additional taxes.

Re:Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[houghi]

If Uber doen't want then to be taxis, they need to stop treating them like taxis. I thing we see a pattern here.

Sounds like Tumblr entities who identify themselves as mayonnaise and not male or female.

OTOH a rose by any other name ...

Re:Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[bluefoxlucid]

Doesn't look like anything that would help labor.

Re:Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[slew]

Doesn't look like anything that would help labor.

Unless you are laboring as a taxi driver...
I think you might mean it doesn't look like anything that will help someone currently laboring as an Uber driver.

Re: Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[ShanghaiBill]

Uber would have been better off arguing that it's drivers are customers, who sign up for a service that allows them to earn money.

Any employer in the world could make the same argument.

Re:Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[bluefoxlucid]

You mean someone who doesn't want to be a taxi driver because being an Uber driver is better for labor?

Re: Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[downix]

Company store syndrome, ruled illegal ages ago.

Re: Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[rsborg]

Uber would have been better off arguing that it's drivers are customers, who sign up for a service that allows them to earn money. The people who ride in the cars aren't the customers, they are the product.

That'll go over like a lead balloon...

Re:Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true. This is California. The law is progressively pro-labor.

Re: Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[RingDev]

I'm curious though, is it at all similar to an individual who monetized their YouTube account?

They sign up for the YouTube service, they produce a transformative product/service, and they get paid for it.

Are successful YouTube users effectively Google employees as well?

-Rick

Re: Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if YouTube starts telling those people what videos to make, when to make them, etc. -- the way Uber controls people who drive for them.

Re: Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[david_thornley]

Depends. Can you put up your own videos without waiting for a request from Google? Uber drivers can't make money on a fare without Uber's say-so.

Re: Looks like the VCs found their unicorn

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh. Clever. Like TV. When my wife (a retired TV writer) told me that the advertisers are the customers and the viewers are the product, my mind was permanently, irrecoverably blown.

so when

[hypergreatthing]

Can i sue ebay for backpay since i'm an employee of theirs under california law now?
How about facebook? Youtube?
Can i sue slashdot for backpay as well?

Re:so when

[thaylin]

Does EBAY, facebook, or youtube prevent you from selling your products if they dont like who you are selling them too? Or dont use specific things? methinks you did not read the article.

Re:so when

[ndavis]

Only if eBay is telling you what computer to use, when to use it , when you can list and what you can charge. Oh and they can dictate that you are not allowed to use competitive services while listing an item on their site. Not sure how Facebook and YouTube fit into this as they are services that you use for free via advertising.

Re:so when

[GlennC]

[anarcho-capitalist]
But they're on the INTERNET, so they're the same thing and your normal laws don't apply.
[/anarcho-capitalist]

Re:so when

[nazrhyn]

What article?

Re:so when

[sabbede]

Does Uber prevent you from driving people around without using Uber?

If I were uber

[Anonymous Coward]

Which I'm not. But if I were, I would cease doing business in California and other markets with similar restrictions.

Re:If I were uber

[harshath.jr]

Easier said than done. If you stop doing business in California now, wouldn't you have to pay "severance" to all your "employees"? Besides, stopping doing business in protest is not the business-like thing to do. Working around the legislation is the business-like thing ;)

Re:If I were uber

[houghi]

So, like, everywhere as they seem to be having legal issues everywhere.

Re:If I were uber

[John Jorsett]

Working around the legislation is the business-like thing ;)

No, the business-like thing is to embrace regulation and turn it to your advantage, the way the taxi companies are seeking to do. Life's a lot easier if you can get government to shut down potential competitors.

What's the difference?

[TsuruchiBrian]

What's the difference between an employee and a contractor? The contractor doesn't receive any benefits. Since the uber drivers do not receive benefits, they are contractors. This seems like a problem of normative vs. descriptive (is vs. ought) claims. The uber drivers are contractors that don't recieve benefits vs. The uber drivers should receive benefits and therefore be employees.

Re:What's the difference?

[whoever57]

What's the difference between an employee and a contractor? The contractor doesn't receive any benefits. Since the uber drivers do not receive benefits, they are contractors.

False dichotomy. Many employees do not get benefits.

Re:What's the difference?

[Mr D from 63]

Benefits is not the only distinction. I don't know the laws, but there are things like working full time and working for (or providing service to) only one company that make it murky. If Uber drivers drove for other companies as well the case might be different. Also, Uber provides insurance, which might be considered a benefit.

Personally, I think if a person wants to be a contractor and sets up his own business, he should be a contractor no matter what. But the law seems to not operate that way.

Re:What's the difference?

[JaredOfEuropa]

According to the administrative law judge who heard the first appeal, Uber has sole discretion over fares, and can charge drivers a cancellation fee if they choose not to take a ride, prohibit drivers from picking up passengers not using the app and suspend or deactivate drivers' accounts. Based on that, "there was in fact an employer/employee relationship", according to the decision.

I don't know if that is sufficient argument to make someone an employee in the US (for purposes of taxation / benefits), but this is about there being an employer/employee relationship, which is not the same thing. There's a similar distinction here in the Netherlands, where freelancing is becoming rather popular. Internal Revenue considers someone to be a contractor ("entrepreneur") if they are free to set rates, and perform their assignments as they think best. If a client or an agency sets too many conditions and rules, the tax office may decide that there is in fact an employer-employee relationship. That doesn't make the contractor an actual employee, but it does entitle him for benefits, and also makes him and the employer liable for social security taxes.

Re:What's the difference?

[TechyImmigrant]

>What's the difference between an employee and a contractor?

1) The amount of tax paid by the payer and the worker.
2) Employer provided health insurance.
3) Local bureaucratic procedures differ a lot between employing an employee and paying a contractor (It's easier with a contractor).

Re:What's the difference?

[Locando]

Personally, I think if a person wants to be a contractor and sets up his own business, he should be a contractor no matter what.

The issue here isn't about the degree of freedom from government interference a person has — it's how the regulations work when the client/employer (whichever the case may be) imposes too many restrictions on how the contractor/employee can do his or her job. In this case, Uber has been dictating too many terms to their contractors, to the point where the state of California determined that they were playing semantic games by using the word "contractor," i.e. the relationship they imposed on their drivers was employer-employee.

If you believe that ideally the relationship should have been client-contractor, that's not an issue of the law but rather what Uber feels it is within its rights to restrict. And ultimately that would require increased government regulation to change the contracts Uber writes, given that it is apparently unwilling to treat its drivers like actual contractors with the liberties that come with actually operating one's own business.

Re:What's the difference?

[pr0fessor]

There are other differences as well. A contractor may hold many contracts simultaneously and sub-contract work. Would Uber allow me to have a fleet of vehicles and drivers or to provide services to both them and a local competitor?

Re:What's the difference?

[obenchainr]

You're applying the logic backwards. Contractors do not receive benefits *because they are contractors*. The definition of a contractor according to the state of California: " 1. Whether the person performing services is engaged in an occupation or business distinct from that of the principal; 2. Whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal or alleged employer; 3. Whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place for the person doing the work; 4. The alleged employee’s investment in the equipment or materials required by his or her task or his or her employment of helpers; 5. Whether the service rendered requires a special skill; 6. The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision; 7. The alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill; 8. The length of time for which the services are to be performed; 9. The degree of permanence of the working relationship; 10. The method of payment, whether by time or by the job; and 11. Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship may have some bearing on the question, but is not determinative since this is a question of law based on objective tests." Uber pretty clearly violates 1, 2, most of 3, 6, and 7. Arguments can be made on others. A follow-up states: "Even where there is an absence of control over work details, an employer-employee relationship will be found if (1) the principal retains pervasive control over the operation as a whole, (2) the worker’s duties are an integral part of the operation, and (3) the nature of the work makes detailed control unnecessary. (Yellow Cab Cooperative v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1288)" In this case, designating drivers as contractors is explicitly to get around legal requirements, such as needing to insure the drivers as commercial operators, being responsible for criminal actions of drivers during rides, paying employment taxes, etc. Some of those requirements are specifically created for exactly this kind of business activity (namely, taxi service), so in effect Uber wants to operate in a privileged position in an existing business environment for the reasons of "because". This is roughly analogous to so many companies designating IT workers (especially programmers) as "salaried exempt" in order to get around overtime laws. That went on for years until a few high-profile cases (specifically IBM) finally scared employers into obeying the law. Employers - or contract negotiators - don't get to decide these things unilaterally.

Re:What's the difference?

[cayenne8]

>What's the difference between an employee and a contractor?

1) The amount of tax paid by the payer and the worker.

2) Employer provided health insurance.

3) Local bureaucratic procedures differ a lot between employing an employee and paying a contractor (It's easier with a contractor).

Well, not 100% true.

1. You pay the same tax for the most part, the big difference is, as a contractor, you have to wear your Big Boy pants and plan to save to pay tax owed, since it is not taken immediately out of your paycheck before you get it. That being said, one benefit as a contractor is you can write off a lot of stuff, which in the long run, does enable you to keep more of your pay from the tax man...it does, however, require you to do a bit more paperwork and be responsible for records and money management. I personally find the effort more than justified.

2. As a contractor, you are an employee of your own company, therefore you provide your own insurance...you're company your insurance. The thing is, as a contractor, you negotiate your bill rate to count for this expense....much like a W2 employer pays you less per hour since they are picking up the benefits tab...as a contractor you CHARGE more so that you can pick up the tab.

3. Yes...I dunno why they make it so hard to be a contractor. Shouldn't it be up to the individual to be what they want to be? Personally, I find it best to negotiate my worth with the employer, and find a $$ amount we are both satisfied with. I also like the broader choice I get in how to manage my money, HSA, and retirement. I'm adult, I can make my own decisions thank you. Why not make it easier for folks that can take care of themselves to do just that?

Re:What's the difference?

[fred911]

Major differences are (at a minimum):

Employees have state, local, federal tax, FICA, and unemployment insurance tax, withheld from their compensation. Employees are covered by unemployment insurance. The employer has other liability issues they must cover themselves for (such as workman's comp).

  Additionally, the employer matches dollar amount of the FICA withheld and generally pays the majority of the costs associated with unemployment insurance.

  Most of the time an employee costs 30%-50% more than the amount you directly compensate them for.

 

Re:What's the difference?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I don't see how uber could stop you from also having another job.

Re:What's the difference?

[TsuruchiBrian]

You're applying the logic backwards.

That was intentional (although I don't agree that the "backwardedness" makes it incorrect).

(P implies Q) implies (!Q implies !P)

If being an employee implies that you have benefits, then not having benefits implies that you are not an employee.

All I am saying is that the *fact* that they do not receive benefits is different than whether they *ought* to receive benefits (which is what the court seems to be arguing).

This is roughly analogous to so many companies designating IT workers (especially programmers) as "salaried exempt" in order to get around overtime laws. That went on for years until a few high-profile cases (specifically IBM) finally scared employers into obeying the law. Employers - or contract negotiators - don't get to decide these things unilaterally.

I am currently a salaried exempt programmer, and as far as I know our company (which is a defense contractor) is operating within the law. Furthermore, I am quite happy with this arrangement. It focuses my attention on completing tasks rather than on working hours. I have a very flexible work schedule, and do not frequently need to work more than 40 hours per week. If I happen to pull a really long week (e.g. 48+ hours), it is customary to take a day off the following week. I like really like this arrangement as it gets more work done (when it needs to be done by) for basically the same amount of effort.

Re:What's the difference?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

What's the difference between an employee and a contractor? The contractor doesn't receive any benefits.

That's a difference between being classified as one or the other by a company. But the companies classification is not the determinant. There are rules that classify you as one or the other.

It's not normative vs. descriptive, it's declared vs. actual.

Re:What's the difference?

[TsuruchiBrian]

but this is about there being an employer/employee relationship, which is not the same thing.

I don't find the evidence for an employer/employee relationship as cited in the article to be more convincing than the evidence for a contractor relationship. Uber offers jobs to people explicitly as non-employees (and without any of the benefits employees are entitled to), and those people agree to those terms.

I agree that there is an incentive for employers to convert their workforce to contractors rather than employers (i.e. because you don't have to pay benefits), but traditionally employers also had to pay contractors more money to compensate for the lack of benefits, job security, etc. Are uber drivers better off being employees? Those benefits would likely come with a pay decrease, and maybe less flexible schedules.

Internal Revenue considers someone to be a contractor ("entrepreneur") if they are free to set rates, and perform their assignments as they think best.

An uber dirver is free to "set rates" in the sense that they can decide not to drive their car when rates are low. All actual "rates" are an agreement between 2 parties. If either side does not agree on the rates, then the contracted labor doesn't happen.

If a client or an agency sets too many conditions and rules, the tax office may decide that there is in fact an employer-employee relationship. That doesn't make the contractor an actual employee, but it does entitle him for benefits, and also makes him and the employer liable for social security taxes.

I agree that this is true, but it does seem rather arbitrary to me. I am a proponent of the free market, but I do accept that people are often irrational. That said, I think the "solutions" to the problem of the irationality of people are often poorly thought out and often just make things worse.

I like the idea of creating a special class of people (employees) that have a common mechanism in regards to taxes, benefits, etc. It theoretically should reduce paperwork and increase efficiency which is good for everyone, but if companies are trying to avoid this classification, that theoretically should be less work, something is wrong with the system.

Re:What's the difference?

[larkost]

While you are correct that not all employees get healthcare benefits (what is usually referred to as "benefits"), all employees get some benefits, which contractors do not. For example: social security contributions (which raise your rate in retirement), workers-comp insurance, and unemployment insurance. All of these things cost employers money, but the law assumes contractors will pay for themselves.

This is what Uber has been fighting so hard to avoid paying.

Re:What's the difference?

[luis_a_espinal]

What's the difference between an employee and a contractor? The contractor doesn't receive any benefits.

Oh wow, that was stupid. Using that line of argument a part-time employee is a contractor because he/she does not get benefits usually given under the law to full-time employees.

Re:What's the difference?

[luis_a_espinal]

While you are correct that not all employees get healthcare benefits (what is usually referred to as "benefits"), all employees get some benefits, which contractors do not. For example: social security contributions (which raise your rate in retirement), workers-comp insurance, and unemployment insurance.

Err no, unless we are talking as corp-to-corp contractors, contractors typically get those benefits through their contracting agencies. The majority of contractors in numbers similar to Uber's do not work corp-to-corp.

All of these things cost employers money, but the law assumes contractors will pay for themselves.

This is what Uber has been fighting so hard to avoid paying.

Correct. Uber's accounting/labor farce is over me thinks.

Re:What's the difference?

[roman_mir]

No, the difference between an employee and a contractor is this: an employee works for one company most of the time. If you are working for a company over 30 hours a week for example, courts will likely consider you to be an employee regardless. Basically if you are mostly working just for one company / employer, then you will be considered an 'employee', not a contractor.

HOWEVER if you are given your tools at work, you are considered an employee as well, but in case of Uber people use their own cars, so it's not as cut and dry here either, but it's not as simple as 'not receiving benefits'.

Benefits are just a form of remuneration, they are not a special indicator of somebody being an employee. Many employees just get a salary and no benefits.

Re:What's the difference?

[TsuruchiBrian]

The rationale for the rules for worker classification are normative in nature (e.g. "A company who operates like A, B, C, should be forced to give it's workers X, Y, Z). Not only are those rules rather arbitrary, whether they are even being followed or not is fairly subjective.

It's not normative vs. descriptive, it's declared vs. actual.

Those 2 dichotomies are not mutually exclusive.

Re:What's the difference?

[TsuruchiBrian]

You really like to take your labels literally. I would suggest maybe trying to think about what is actually going on rather than just accepting labels at face value.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US many of the "tests" that determine whether someone is acting as a contractor or employee come down to how much influence one party has over the internal, day-to-day operations of the other party. It sounds similar to your description of the Netherlands. In this case, Uber is setting pricing, deciding which fares are assigned to which drivers, punishing drivers for not complying and, according to the judge, effectively firing them by disabling their accounts.

Employee-status certainly has huge tax implications, but would also require compliance with federal- and state- mandated employee rights and benefits like equal opportunity hiring practices, protection from discrimination, accommodation of disabilities, family medical leave, tracking and payment of overtime wages, worker's compensation for on the job injuries, unemployment insurance and in some cases health insurance. This ruling could, if expanded, force Uber to be a real business and compete on fair, legal terms with the legacy taxi services it derides so much as "obsolete".

Re:What's the difference?

[Firethorn]

I agree that this is true, but it does seem rather arbitrary to me. I am a proponent of the free market, but I do accept that people are often irrational. That said, I think the "solutions" to the problem of the irationality of people are often poorly thought out and often just make things worse.

The federal and California governments have a *general* policy that they want most workers to be employees, especially low level workers, because being a proper individual contractor is actually fairly complicated tax wise, and low level workers are the most likely to not realize things like the increased social security cost, meaning they're making less money than they thought they would, in addition to extra expenses like insurance.

Uber will probably be able to change this designation by changing up their terms of service a bit - giving more freedom to the drivers.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe this is a non-sequitur, but not a false dichotomy. If it was a false dichotomy, then there should be a 3rd category besides [employee|contractor] that uber drivers could belong to.

Re:What's the difference?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I don't disagree that there are probably a lot of people driving for uber that think they are making more money than they really are for the reasons you cited. But these are the same people that don't have savings accounts, use payday loan services, only pay the minimums on their many credit cards, etc. I don't know that more regulations is really going to do these people any more good. I feel like the best way to educate people is to let them learn a few lessons the hard way.

Furthermore, if uber can leverage the ignorance of people in regards to what is involved with being an independent contractor, it means the government is not doing a very good job in enforcing those regulations. I got tricked in my 20's when my employer switched me to being a contractor, and the IRS came after me for back taxes 3 years later.

Re:What's the difference?

[speedplane]

Many employees do not get benefits.

It's not a dichotomy. Benefits are one factor tending to show that a person is an employee. Employee and independent contractors is not a black-and-white status, it's a sliding scale.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Independent contractors are _supposed_ to pay the same amount into Social Security and Medicare. There's a parallel law, the SE Tax Act, which evens the contribution amount. Just like payroll taxes you're paying the same; the only difference is who is required to remit the money.

The average cost for workers compensation, state unemployment, and federal unemployment in the transportation industry is about $1/hr. See http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t05.htm

What Uber is really trying to avoid, in orders from most expensive is 1) negligence liability, 2) overtime, 3) basic employment regulations governing things like timely payment of wages (super simple, low cost stuff, but opens door to big law suits if they try to screw people over because the penalties are steep.

Not many people dispute that Uber should be responsible for #1. The entire distinction between employer/contractee arose because of the question of negligence liability, hundreds of years before the advent of workplace regulation and the workers rights movement. And from an economic perspective they're the least cost avoider, anyhow, meaning it's fairly indisputable that society benefits if Uber is exposed to that risk.

#2 is an issue worth discussing. Cab drivers have always worked long hours, and right or wrong it's problematic to burden Uber but not local franchises. OTOH monopoly franchises guaranteed more income to drivers than the Uber model.

Uber should have no problem with #3 as long as they don't play games remitting payment to drivers.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Liability is possibly an issue, when using a contractor, a company is indirectly libable for the actions of its contractor, but in most cases the contrator themselves is held liable. For an employee they are directly liable, even if the employee was not conforming to rules or regulations. For a litigation orientated society like the US that is a big big difference.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

" the law assumes contractors will pay for themselves " .. false. -convention- makes assumptions, but in these matters, the law makes none.

the contractors will pay or not pay, according to the terms of the contract they negotiate. the law does not require anything at all of the contractor other than they are to be granted full ability and power to negotiate at arms length every aspect of a contract into which they may enter. once executed, the contract set out the terms, conditions, and obligations for the parties involved. done.

absent a contract, the Fair Labor Standards Act provides -salaried worker- or -wage earner- as available classifications, with certain obligations apportioned to both parties, as provided in the definitions of the classification. pick one or the other, there are no other categories available.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

the insurance Uber provides is for the purpose of indemnifying Uber. Don't you believe for a minute it is a 'benefit', because it is not that.

Re:What's the difference?

[tehcyder]

What's the difference between an employee and a contractor? The contractor doesn't receive any benefits. Since the uber drivers do not receive benefits, they are contractors. This seems like a problem of normative vs. descriptive (is vs. ought) claims. The uber drivers are contractors that don't recieve benefits vs. The uber drivers should receive benefits and therefore be employees.

Let me guess, you're not a lawyer are you?

Re:What's the difference?

[tehcyder]

Personally, I think if a person wants to be a contractor and sets up his own business, he should be a contractor no matter what. But the law seems to not operate that way.

The point about employee status is that a lot of people WANT to be a contractor, because it has numerous tax advantages, and especially in the US there is no huge advantage in being an employee in terms of labour protection laws, entitlement to sick benefit, paid pension provision or sensible amounts of annual leave, and so on.

Setting up your own business in itself is a strong indication you will be a contractor for tax purposes, but not necessarily if you only work for one employer, and so on.

Re:What's the difference?

[DarkAce911]

Uber is about to get hit with unpaid employee taxes from the IRS because of this. The IRS has a list of 20 points that separates contractors from employees. Uber violates about half of them. Also, employees get mileage and overtime, some folks are about to get paid then fired when Uber goes out of business.

Re:What's the difference?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Let me guess, you're not a rocket scientist are you?

CA van drivers are contractors

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't many of the airport shuttle van drivers California "independent contractors". If they would be covered under something like this.

Changing landscape

[willworkforbeer]

A root of this issue is the 18th, 19th and 20th century concepts of employees / employers and an outdated set of definitions. Like so many modern issues near and dear, we will have to reassess out fundamental assumptions about all kinds of things, this being just one.

If I set my own schedule, and take as much time off as I choose, am I under an employer's control?
Can robots marry humans, and why would they want to aside from Scarlett Johansson?
Do women have the right to choose... how their FICA retirement savings is invested?

Re:Changing landscape

[speedplane]

A root of this issue is the 18th, 19th and 20th century concepts of employees / employers and an outdated set of definitions. Like so many modern issues near and dear, we will have to reassess out fundamental assumptions about all kinds of things, this being just one.

I disagree. The fundamental concepts of employee and employer are as true now as they were then. It may take some time, but modern-day legal tools are more than capable of sorting out uber's employment issues without any fundamental shift in thought.

Re:Changing landscape

[willworkforbeer]

Old mindset : Employee is someone I set hours for, provide all materials, put on a schedule, mandate production & performance requirements, allot specific amount of days off for vacation, days allowed for maternity, set days allowed for illness absence, provide workspace, and so forth.

New reality: A lot of gig jobs are on demand both ways; many people want the freedom to run themselves as a business, earn in a flexible / very few strings attached format, with an unlimited or unrestricted number of payment sources available.

It is not just Uber by a long shot, and a demographic shift is underway on many fronts. Uber is a highly visible symptom of a huge change.
Thanks for the civilized tone, btw; this is a highly charged subject for reasons I absolutely don't understand.

Re:Changing landscape

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a highly charged subject for reasons I absolutely don't understand.

Do you genuinely not understand? Most people have neither the trust fund nor the innate intelligence to experience relative financial security throughout their lives, so it is important to their psychological well-being that they can enjoy an amount of protection from their society they contribute to. While people in the US are unlikely to starve, it is not easy to handle eviction nor debt because one cannot afford essentials thanks to being in and out of sufficient work so often.

many people want the freedom to run themselves as a business, earn in a flexible / very few strings attached format,

Citation please. "Many people want..." is salesman talk.

with an unlimited or unrestricted number of payment sources available

In which jurisdiction is one restricted on the number of regular employment relationships one can form? I've worked mostly in England and in Virginia, USA as an employee and on a self-employed basis. The only hiccough I found in the former case is that National Insurance (think unemployment insurance, state pension) contributions require a minimum contribution from at least particular source of regular employment, rather than in aggregate. This could easily be fixed without denying the protections of regular employment relationships.

Re:Changing landscape

[willworkforbeer]

Hey AC! I just saw you posting on the Ashley Madison password hack thread, good stuff!

Look up the recent poll taken by the current Uber drivers, a large many wanted to remain free and independent, so there's one metric on "many people want..." It is not salesman talk, it is a sense I get from all the people moving that direction. Trending topic and all that. I wish they had asked those Uber drivers if they had trust funds. Imagine that, all those trust fund kids driving for Uber. 'Bout damn time, some might say.

I am sorry about your worldview of people being so dumb. Really. I think you are mistaken. People are pretty bright, and getting brighter. I refer you to another search: A TED talk about the reasons for the dramatic rise in IQ scores over the last few generations. All those preferring to remain independent were also geniuses I guess, so genius trust fund kids driving for Uber. Imagine that, what an age of wonders we live in.

As to your final comment: if I am your employer, controlling your primary working hours and schedule and days off, I'm also limiting your other employment options. Unless you plan to work a second extra job secretly from within the cube I paid for, during the working hours I am paying for. That would be wrong. I forbid it. Unless you are a rising Scott Adams and will feature me in your Dilbert-esque comic strip. Line art portrait available if requested.

There. That wasn't so hard now was it?

One aside: How many of your employers allowed you unlimited time off, work 10 minutes a month, none, or 150 hours, at any time of day.. And never tell them ahead of time? Leave and come back six months later if you like, or never, and with no notice? Those dudes were awesome, why did you leave again? And Is the guy who rakes your leaves from time to time your employee?

Re:Changing landscape

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just repeating a narrative that Uber has been pushing.

But people who argue against the the dichotomy don't appear to actually have any understanding of why it exists. They're the equivalent of people who say that marriage is just a contract (i.e. the "I don't like gay marriage so am taking my ball and going home" crowd).

The 18th century still has slavery, indentured servitude, and literally no concept of workers rights. Workers movement didn't begin until the about the 1820s. When it emerged, they piggybacked on the long-standing concepts of servant vs independent contractor. Those concepts emerged out of Tort law. See, if a worker accidentally hurts somebody the law wanted to know who else, if anybody, also bore legal responsibility. Which is why the touchstone of deciding the question of contractor or servant is supervisory control, not how many hours you've worked, etc.

Supervisory control means you have a right to dictate the fine details of the work on an on-going basis. If you do this, then under the law you're assuming legal liability for any acts of negligence of the worker. Whereas if you lacked this control, then presumably you had no role in the act of negligence.

The law invents legal statues (or roles) like this because they're useful presumptions. Without simplifying legal presumptions like this, every legal dispute would be exponentially more complex and contracted in time. Furthermore, it would create all the wrong incentives, allowing employers to shield themselves (and more specifically, they're assets) from the risks they take.

Anyhow, long story short I point this out because simplifying assumptions are also useful from a public policy perspective. Anybody who looks at this question as simply as one of employee flexibility hasn't even begun to understand all the ways that these distinctions actually matter. And doesn't actually understand why they matter to Uber specifically--negligence liability and employment regulations. Uber is obviously trying to avoid the former, for sure. This is probably The second is more tricky, but let's have a go at their biggest potential costs if they're an employer instead of contractee:

1) Workers' compensation insurance. They'd have to increase their cut of each fare.
2) Likewise, Uber would need to contribute to Social Security and Medicare, increasing their cut of each fare. From an purely economic perspective this is irrelevant, because drivers' _should_ be paying this anyhow.
3) Uber would need to collect a payroll tax. Again, increasing their cut of each fare.
4) There are a raft of laws which regulate the basics of how employers pay their employees. For example, they must cut a check every 2 (or 4 or whatever) weeks. This is really simple stuff. Not burdensome at all, especially for a large company. However, the penalties are steep and quick, and a slip up opens the door to huge class action suits. But they're very useful for preventing employers from holding back money from workers. If you've ever worked a low-wage job, you know missing a pay check by just a few days can be a _huge_ problem.
5) Workplace discrimination liability. If Uber is truly a meritocracy, then this really shouldn't matter. And Uber has enough lawyers to manage any influx of bad lawsuits.
6) Industry-specific regulations? It's possible that there are some locales where operating as an employer makes it more difficult to skirt taxi franchise regulations.

Really I don't see how being an labeled an employer would significantly impact Uber from a workplace regulation perspective. Ultimately I think it all comes down to negligence liability. And yet I don't see any economists arguing specifically that Uber _shouldn't_ be legally liable. I think most people would agree that Uber maintains more than enough control over its drivers that from a legal perspective they should bare the risk of negligence suits.

This narrative that Uber is pushing about the employee-contractor distinction being out-dated is just a fancy PR campaign, which plays on people's fears and fantasies about controlling their own livelihoods.

Re:Changing landscape

[Anonymous Coward]

1) I haven't posted in the AM password hack thread;

2) If you mean the blog.uber.com survey with self-selecting, compensated respondents, the question was way too vaguely phrased to be meaningful, and heavily loaded in favour of the desired response. Your hasty generalisation via "sense" is a non-starter;

3) "worldview of people being so dumb" - strawman? And a market economy doesn't deal in absolutes, but supply vs. demand. If everyone's IQ is going up, it might as well be that everyone's IQ is unchanged;

4) There is a mile of difference between having to work certain hours and having an employment contract, and you may be betraying your inexperience with the world of work to suggest otherwise. Most contractors are in practice restricted in times/places and don't get perpetual 0-to-infinity hours contracts - try offering an Uber taxi from 3 to 4 a.m. in the Scottish Highlands on Wednesday mornings and see how much money you make - while many employees work flexible hours;

5) I used to have a gardener, and yes - the guy who used to rake my leaves from time to time was legally my employee. Just like the woman who cared for an extended family member up to her death last year was her employee. This shit is bread and butter for accountants, and I'm trained (among other things) as one. Again, you're betraying your ignorance;

6) Your use of bold makes me think of apk. Thanks for the more passive-aggressive and less civilised tone, I guess.

Re:Changing landscape

[Anonymous Coward]

I also forgot to include minimum wage. But I didn't think it mattered because it's an _hourly_ minimum wage. If Uber drivers systematically have a problem pulling in an average of $5 (or $10 in some cities) per hour, then there's something wrong with the whole model. The minimum wage don't really matter in terms of employee flexibility. It's not like the law requires companies to assign X hours of work each week.

Regarding #5, workplace discrimination, people hold many myths of about discrimination law. It's actually very narrow. And Uber's automated scoring system almost completely shields them from any liability. The only risk is if riders systematically score certain minorities lower than average, but even then it's doubtful that would matter. And I doubt that's the case. Being driven around by a black man is pretty much the ideal situation from the perspective of white folk.

And every state follows the at-will employment rule, which is that employers can fire whoever, whenever they want, with or without cause, unless an employment contract says otherwise.

Re:Changing landscape

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber mindset: "contractor" is someone I put on a schedule, require use of materials no more than 4 years old (automobile), mandate dress code, mandate behavior and other performance requirements, set minimum availability for continued participation, and so forth.

oh, "oops" .. i guess we (Uber) misclassified our 'valued' "service team members". our bad.
let me write you a check for the penalties and interest funded by our VC sources.

Re:Changing landscape

[willworkforbeer]

This shit is bread and butter for accountants, and I'm trained (among other things) as one.

Um, trained as "one" what? That sentence has several nouns, and from your humourless reply (note the Brit-friendly superfluous "U" !) I'm guessing it's a "shit". :-)
Relax, I'm only serious.

All this evolution of employment definitions will be what it will be, so who knows, maybe we'll keep trying to squeeze the future into the old paradigms. You know, even the IRS still has a hard time with this question after all these years. They have a list of criteria to determine if you are possibly an employee, and if you meet a number of those criteria, you might be considered an employee, but maybe not. It is not a fixed quantity like 4 out of 10, or a fixed set, and they struggle with it to this day. It is up to an IRS reviewer to render an opinion... it is so vague that the opinion can be appealed.

I am sorry to hear about your sick relative. I may think you're an Anonymous Cowardly fossil when it comes to the new economy, but I'm not heartless.

It was great of you to provide employee status to the guy who raked your yard occasionally. The vacations, insurance plan, benefits package, and so forth must have been an accounting nightma.... Oh, wait, you do that stuff yourself. BTW, how much was workers comp insurance for that raking dude? Not high risk work exactly, but outdoor work rates are costly. Or so I have heard. When eavesdropping on people in suits.

Nevertheless, are you correct about something after all, I'm dumb as a brick. Guilty as charged, ignorant and inexperienced in business, whatever that is. And just like Barbie used to say, I also think math is hard.

Oh, and sorry you don't like my bold highlights, some friends of mine read News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters (TM) on their phones (don't worry, the phone/Internet thing is a fad, it'll pass) and they say it really helps break up the monotony of a phone-screen page's worth of regular narrow print as they scan for the main points.

Re:Changing landscape

[Anonymous Coward]

This is easy to solve, just let me be Uber workforce manager, or whatever that is called,
  - I would group "workers" in 9 person groups (since companies under 10 workers pay much less stuff to goverment and workers, and workers have much less protections), ask them for one of them to register as mini 9-person company and enter B2B service provider contract with Luft/Uber/Lunc/Skype/whatever company name is
  - ask all 9 employees to be payed minimal hourly wage+all (minimal) taxes + enough money to rent car from "uber fleet company" separate entity for maintaining, insuring and renting cars
  - ask for employees to work only 4 hours per day so they dont get all that extra medical/pension/whatever money like walmart does, also since now they are employees specify that those 4 hours have to be during that "surge/peak time" so that Uber/Luft can get double money/fare for them (and still pay them minimal wage)
  - pay exactly minimum legal requirement per worker/hour worked to this 9-man "company" so company is in positive zero
  - ask "workers" to make 5'000+ small companies, or whatever they need to cover their needs, and if you need to fire someone just cancel contract to whole 9man company and ask remaining 8 that were good enough to reopen new company

as result
  - goverment wins (they get just a bit more taxes for minimal wage workers working 20 hours/week)
  - Uber/Luft win (they spend even less on workers+cars than before and have much more relible workforce since now they can demand workers to come at specific time at specific place) also they have even lower liability and can demand even more from their "indirect workers"
  - current Uber/Luft/Walmart workers win since now they are "legal workers" and have minimal wage job (20 hours/week with fixed time) but dont need to use their private car or insurance, they wont be able to aford it with this "better" setup anyway

my email/paypall if Uber/Luft/Walmart wants to use my idea is devil.advocate@gmail.com all i ask is 1% of any money they save on "workers" and taxes using my idea, im sure it will save them millions :)

Re:Changing landscape

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, trained as "one" what? That sentence has several nouns, and from your humourless reply (note the Brit-friendly superfluous "U" !) I'm guessing it's a "shit". :-)

I didn't need to train for that.

It is up to an IRS reviewer to render an opinion... it is so vague that the opinion can be appealed.

So, like almost every matter of law. The real world is full of difficult judgment calls which merit an appeals process, but that doesn't mean we stop trying. Again, welcome to the real world. Again, you're betraying your ignorance.

The vacations, insurance plan, benefits package, and so forth must have been an accounting nightma....

For someone who talks about how clever everyone is, you sure seem to find everything difficult. But businesses exist in the UK if you need help calculating this sort of thing for home help, especially for people who need carers - although those businesses cater more for people who are severely disabled and cannot spend a few minutes studying the rules.

Oh, wait, you do that stuff yourself. BTW, how much was workers comp insurance for that raking dude?

In the UK there's no exact equivalent, but there was employer's liability insurance, and it ran around £80/year for gardener and cleaner, a while back now. You'll find that a few US states require the same thing even for a one-off job, e.g. California, if you're employing an individual rather than paying a business. Not that you'll notice if you pay in cash and nobody's ever injured. But you'll certainly notice if there is a mishap.

Guilty as charged, ignorant and inexperienced in business, whatever that is. And just like Barbie used to say, I also think math is hard.

...

they say [bold] really helps break up the monotony of a phone-screen page's worth of regular narrow print as they scan for the main points.

If people need to "scan for the main points" then you need to write more concisely.

Re:Changing landscape

[tehcyder]

New reality: A lot of gig jobs are on demand both ways; many people want the freedom to run themselves as a business, earn in a flexible / very few strings attached format, with an unlimited or unrestricted number of payment sources available.

Highly paid independent consultants are a small subset of society, whatever the worldview of Silicon Velley types.

Reality is more like the removal for everyone (including those on minimum wage in part time jobs who aren't computer programmers) of any remaining employee benefits such as paid sick leave, paid annual leave, health and safety laws and so on.

Re:Changing landscape

[tehcyder]

People are pretty bright, and getting brighter.

As a middle aged person with children, I beg to differ.

Re:Changing landscape

[tehcyder]

It was great of you to provide employee status to the guy who raked your yard occasionally.

To be honest, it seems unlikely anyone would count an occasional gardener as an employee (unless he lived on your premises or something).

The situation normally arises with permanent, live-in nannies, who are most definitely employees, and do need to be accounted for as such by the (rich) people who have them.

If the payments aren't up to date....

[mark-t]

.... because an employer wasn't charging them, how is a former employee supposed to collect EI?

Oh, so they are just a taxi company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knew. I thought they were from the cloud.

The law's the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you disagree with socialist legislation doesn't mean you can ignore it.

Yes, they are employees

[duckintheface]

There are many reasons why drivers should be classified as employees rather than as contractors. The most obvious is that drivers don't price their own services. The labor laws were specifically written to protect people who are working for much more powerful companies which will treat them as serfs if they can get away with it.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[monkeyzoo]

Any way you slice it, this is probably going to be a big deal to Uber!!

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

>The most obvious is that drivers don't price their own services.

Based on this reasoning, pretty much every franchisee ever is an employee, not an owner.

>The labor laws were specifically written to protect people who are working for much more powerful companies which will treat them as serfs if they can get away with it.

Your typical contractor for google is somehow in a different position than your typical contractor for uber in this regard?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[TimSSG]

There are many reasons why drivers should be classified as employees rather than as contractors. The most obvious is that drivers don't price their own services. The labor laws were specifically written to protect people who are working for much more powerful companies which will treat them as serfs if they can get away with it.

Does this mean that people who cut hair as contractors price their own services?
Or that if they do NOT that they are NOT really contractors?

Tim S.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[cayenne8]

Why should it NOT be up to the individual to classify themselves at contractor or employee?

I mean, if a person wants to be a contractor, and enjoy the benefit risks that offers vs W2 employee, why should they not be allowed to make their own choices?

Why does the Govt know better than the worker himself how they want to negotiate and work for their pay?

I would NEVER want to go back to the W2 world. Sure it is a PITA at times, doing the extra paperwork, but I enjoy writing off so much more, and with a bit of effort, saving more of my hard earned $$ from the tax man.

Hmm...perhaps that it? It isn't for the person wanting to work, it is ONLY for the govt folks wanting to drain more tax money out of the system, because obviously they know better how to spend your money than you do....?

The labor laws were specifically written to protect people who are working for much more powerful companies which will treat them as serfs if they can get away with it.

Err, you know, last time I looked, no one was holding a gun to the Uber drivers' heads to work for them. So far, all the Uber drivers I've met so far, seemed very happy with the set up, they specifically say they do when I've asked them.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on this reasoning, pretty much every franchisee ever is an employee, not an owner.

Take a close look at the ads sometime. See that asterisk? Follow it to the matching asterisk that says "prices may vary".

A franchiser often does set "recommended prices". And products, but the franchisee has some discretion, and that's the difference between them and employees.

Granted, when you're talking operations the size of McDonalds, there's not a whole lot of discretion allowed before they simply yank your franchise and give it to someone else, but that's the Free Market for you!

Re:Yes, they are employees

[edtice1559]

Because the worker doesn't have the negotiating power. The current case is the one that proves your point. Some Uber workers want to be contractors, others want to be employees. But it doesn't matter what they want. Uber declared them to be contractors and they have no recourse except the government. An easier example is if I hold a gun to your head and demand your wallet. Yes you voluntarily gave it to me, but it's still not acceptable. The government is simply defending the powerless here the same way as police defend mugging victims.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Your signature is so appropriate.

The government doesn't "know better". What it knows is that people have abused other people and that this is their attempt to minimize abuse.

If most people didn't have a figurative gun to their heads when it comes to making a living, they'd have forced the government to repeal those restrictions. Contrary to what some people may say, there are still a few shreds of democracy remaining in the USA today.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should it NOT be up to the individual to classify themselves at contractor or employee?

There are guidelines of when a person is a contractor and when they are an employee.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/...

It's pretty simple actually. For example, if your contractor must exclusively work for you as a person, then that is an employee, not a contractor. Contractors could replace themselves with someone else, their own employee, but that could be an issue in cases where contractor == person == employee.

If I hire a contractor to do my roof, I'm not hiring one person to smack nails through shingles. I'm hiring a company (which could be much more than 1 person), to do a job and I don't care who personally is on the roof.

The problem is not with people wanting to be contractors. The problem is with companies that want contractors for legal purposes, but treat them as employees internally. They want to skirt labor laws to squeeze extra money out of the employee.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[ShanghaiBill]

There are many reasons why drivers should be classified as employees rather than as contractors.

Yes. There are 20 reasons. Here is the list.

The most obvious is that drivers don't price their own services.

In some ways the drivers are treated like employees, and in other ways they are treated like contractors. Uber may be able to shift the balance enough to satisfy the courts, and the IRS.

Like employees:
- Uber sets the price
- Uber prohibits drivers from offering services outside of the Uber App
- Uber drivers are an integral part of Uber's business
- Uber drivers cannot subcontract
- Uber drivers are trained by Uber
- Uber drivers must follow specific procedures
- Uber drivers can quit or be fired at any time

Like contractors:
- Uber drivers set their own hours
- Uber drivers own their own equipment
- Uber drivers are not required to work full time, or a minimum or maximum number of hours
- Uber drivers do not work on Uber's premises
- Uber drivers are not directly supervised

Re:Yes, they are employees

[duckintheface]

Of course they have a gun held to their head. It's called hunger. It's called being able to pay the rent. Many of the drivers for Uber are in the business of converting equity in their cars into payments from Uber. That is not necessarily a profitable exchange and many drivers don't realize that until their car breaks down. Uber drivers are not paid for the time they spend sitting in their car waiting for the next gig. And if you include that time, they are paid below minimum wage in many cases. That is what the labor laws are designed to prohibit.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[duckintheface]

Uber will be moving to self-driving cars as soon as they can. They are just trying to string out the "contractor" subterfuge until the technology is ready.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

This!

Exactly this.

The purpose of government (not saying it works) is to prevent the powerful from exploiting the many.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the cable / satellite guy a lot of them are IC's pay per the job.

At least directv / att is move them over to union / employees.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[evilRhino]

Why should it NOT be up to the individual to classify themselves at contractor or employee?

I'll stop you right there. You can't have a contract if the terms are illegal, so it's not up to the individual at all. If Uber wants to have the state enforce their agreements with their drivers, they need to follow state laws.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[kwbauer]

Who was holding the "gun" to the head of the Uber drivers and demanding that they drive for Uber?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[GlennC]

Many of the drivers for Uber are in the business of converting equity in their cars into payments from Uber. That is not necessarily a profitable exchange and many drivers don't realize that until their car breaks down. Uber drivers are not paid for the time they spend sitting in their car waiting for the next gig. And if you include that time, they are paid below minimum wage in many cases.

You say that with the expectation that the "Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalists" who love Uber care about such things.

They don't.

They only care about getting what they want as cheaply as possible, screw everyone else and damn the consequences.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Who was holding the "gun" to the head of the Uber drivers and demanding that they drive for Uber?

Landlords, grocers, doctors, pharmacists, clothiers, electric company, water company, some cellphone company, public transit (well, actually, not that one...)

It costs a lot to continue to live

Re:Yes, they are employees

[houghi]

Indeed, it does mean that. There are many situations where people are "contractors" while in reality they are employees.

Even many IT contractors and/or consultants are really employees. The majority will not complain due to the fact that they earn more than enough as compensation. However when they get terminated with a dispute and the consultant goes to trial, often they are in their right.

However this often is not worth the risk, unless you tend not to work anymore.

I see this happen most often with people working several years for the same company in the same job. Obviously YMMV. I live in Europe Belgium and if you take legal advice from a website, you should be found guilty and pay for it, regardless if you are right or wrong.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I'm not sure where I stand on this--if anything, I sort of am inclined to think of Uber drivers as contractors, or at least, would rather have the government out of it.

However, on each point you mention, my position is exactly the same as each of those you list for the Uber drivers. I would definitely be considered an employee of my employing organization.

I suspect to a lot of professionals, Uber drivers would look a lot like them. I think Uber is going to have a difficult time arguing that the drivers are contractors, if these are the sorts of criteria involved, even though I sympathize with their position.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[danbob999]

from TFA:

According to the administrative law judge who heard the first appeal, Uber has sole discretion over fares, and can charge drivers a cancellation fee if they choose not to take a ride, prohibit drivers from picking up passengers not using the app and suspend or deactivate drivers' accounts.

Based on that, "there was in fact an employer/employee relationship", according to the decision.

I agree with the judge on one point: if they were independent contractors, they would be free to pickup passengers not using Uber.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[brunes69]

Many of the things you post above are false, because over 75% of drivers drive for Uber and Lyft simultaneously (source: http://therideshareguy.com/how...).

So yes, they can subcontract, and yes, they can offer services outside the Uber app. Furthermore, many (most?) contractors must follow specific procedures set forth by the contracting firm. I have in fact never heard of a contractor who can just deliver a deliverable in any form without following some type of procedure.

All of this is a moot point, because if it is true that 75% of Uber drivers are driving for Lyft at the same time, the idea they are Uber employees and not contractors is obviously nonsense.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[FlyHelicopters]

Actually, a McDonalds franchisee is allowed to set their own prices...

For awhile when the double cheese burger was on the dollar menu, a decent number of franchisees were removing it and moving it to $1.19.

Yes, they are allowed to do that.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Who was holding the "gun" to the head of the Uber drivers and demanding that they drive for Uber?

Landlords, grocers, doctors, pharmacists, clothiers, electric company, water company, some cellphone company, public transit (well, actually, not that one...)

It costs a lot to continue to live

Nobody is holding a gun to their head to work for Uber.

There are a lot of non-Uber jobs out there, nobody is forced to work specifically for Uber.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[FlyHelicopters]

Yep, 100%...

Lord you'd think Uber would have better lawyers than this...

Re:Yes, they are employees

[bluefoxlucid]

Hey, if contractors want to charge me 10% more than I want to pay, I won't hire them. I'll hire their competitors.

Most contractors work on work hours for pay; Uber contractors work on pay for work hours. Today Uber rates are higher? Today I'll work. They're low today? Not worth my time.

It's not only a contracting job; it's an extremely short-term contracting job with an unusual amount of contractor flexibility. How many employees can decide to only come to work when the pay is high enough, and only when they feel like showing up?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

All of this is a moot point, because if it is true that 75% of Uber drivers are driving for Lyft at the same time, the idea they are Uber employees and not contractors is obviously nonsense.

Because it's impossible to be an employee at two companies at the same time? Huh, that's a new one.....

Re:Yes, they are employees

[bev_tech_rob]

Great post! Where are my mod points when I need them??

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Who was holding the "gun" to the head of the Uber drivers and demanding that they drive for Uber?

Landlords, grocers, doctors, pharmacists, clothiers, electric company, water company, some cellphone company, public transit (well, actually, not that one...)

It costs a lot to continue to live

Nobody is holding a gun to their head to work for Uber.

There are a lot of non-Uber jobs out there, nobody is forced to work specifically for Uber.

If there were so many non-Uber jobs out there, why are people competing for shit-taxi-driver jobs. And yes, Taxi driver is a shit job.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Archangel Michael]

So, what you're saying is that everyone is a slave and nobody has any responsibility for the choices they make. Got it.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[bill_mcgonigle]

The most obvious is that drivers don't price their own services.

Yes, and this is probably a useful outcome, even if the central planners at Uber don't understand that yet - when drivers can compete on vehicles, prices, etc. and Uber just provides a robust market, everybody will profit more, especially those who are woefully underserved by the extant taxi regimes.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Archangel Michael]

Because the choice is only binary. In that case, the only alternative is to have full and complete regulation of everything controlled by a big central government and nobody has freedom to do anything, since everything is regulated.

Binary Choices are dumb, why do people who don't understand Libertarianism always thinking Anarchy = Libertarianism. ?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[bluefoxlucid]

Meaningless words. In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality," while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference of opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

Federal contractors working for the IRS, who ostensibly defines what a contractor is, meet your definition of "...are really employees."

You can't possibly argue that Uber drivers aren't contracting their services. They take bids for work; they're not employed by the company to go out as service providers, but rather take bids for services requested from the company by its clients. They can opt when to drive for Uber, and can decide to drive only where and when convenient for them, and only when the rates are sufficiently high or the job looks good (pick up cute girl at bar, take back home, jackpot!!!).

Your only argument is a bureaucratic argument: can you define "contractor" in some way that doesn't rely on if a person is taking bids for short contract work, but rather relies on some nebulous and flexible ideas of your own which may not exactly match up with any other person's ideas of what a contractor is? The first step, of course, is getting away from this idea that "contract work" means anything, and arguing that a person may take contract work but *technically* be a sort of "employee" even though he's really an obvious contractor.

It's a great way to mislead an argument for the purposes of your political agenda.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Except self-driving cars will never happen.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

False. As a former construction contractor, i have worked many jobs where the price was non negotiable. The real crime is hiring employees as contractors for a few years before hiring, to save 5% to the company and shorting 25% to the contractor... the contracting company makes the other 20. (Not adjusted for payroll taxes)

Re:Yes, they are employees

[CaptBubba]

Check out McLaughlin US v. Seafood Inc (5th Cir. 1989). It pretty much directly addresses your argument (Spoiler alert: letting unskilled piece workers set their own hours or work for others doesn't matter much. They are employees.).

http://openjurist.org/861/f2d/...

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what he's saying at all, nor do you believe that's what he's saying.

Strawman arguments are lies.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Archangel Michael]

Why don't we call them ... "Contracted Employees" ... a hybrid between Contractor and Employee.

And then, lets set up a new set of regulations of "pick and choose" that the company has to abide by.

Simple example: Set prices = set earnings = Company pays all employer taxes .. or .. negotiated rates = negotiable profits = employee/contractor pays all employer taxes.

The problem with Uber and its Contractors and Employees is that both are trying to skirt around legalities. And if you don't like Uber, you can try Lyft or one of the other companies.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Also what about task-based websites like amazon's mturk, microworkers, etc. All seem to be employees.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[quantaman]

Many of the things you post above are false, because over 75% of drivers drive for Uber and Lyft simultaneously (source: http://therideshareguy.com/how...).

Does their Uber contract allow that or has Uber simply not bothered to enforce the clause?

So yes, they can subcontract

Subcontracting is something different. Are you allowed to give your Uber phone to a friend and have them drive and use your account for a cut? Can you make a collective of drivers under a single account for a cut?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[ShanghaiBill]

over 75% of drivers drive for Uber and Lyft simultaneously

That may be true, but if so they are violating Uber's policy. Uber prohibits driving for Lyft. It is only relevant that Uber has this policy. It is not relevant that most drivers violate it.

If Uber wants to shift their "employees" back to classification as contractors, they might want to dump this policy, since it doesn't seem to be working for them anyway.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[cayenne8]

Because the worker doesn't have the negotiating power.

Sure they do, they can either offer their services to work for them or not.

As a contractor, if someone isn't giving me the money I request or we can't come to a dollar amount we can both agree on, I just pass that employment opportunity by.

Just because one party won't budge, doesn't mean the 2nd party HAS to agree. If they do, fine, as in with this case with Uber.

No one is forcing anyone to work for Uber.

Geez...why is the individual assumed to be powerless? Hey can vote with their fucking feet by walking out the door for other opportunities. If enough people didn't like the uber rate, other similar services and and will open up as competition. At which point, Uber likely will need to re-access their billing rates.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

And neither will computers in the home.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

The drivers are contractors who are reselling/providing Uber services. The price of the service comes from Uber, the service is outsourced to contractors. That does not make them employees, merely resellers.

As far as I know, drivers can offer services on their own in addition to reselling Uber services. In any event, a contract that prevents an outsourced contractor from engaging in competing contracts is not uncommon and certainly does not make them employees. Most contracts in fact have NDA and similar clauses to prohibit the contractor from engaging in actions that would result in a conflict of interests for the contractor and any entities that they engage as contractors. It is a standard clause in most contracts.

Being an integral part of the implementation of someone's business plan does not make one an employee. Plenty of business plans rely on outsourcing to contractors (in fact, pretty much every consulting firm is based on such a plan - that is why they are called "consulting" firms - the owners bring in work and maintain a pool of contractors to do the work).

Training does not imply that one is an employee. If the contractors need training to use/resell/understand a vendor's requirements, that is simply part of the contract. Anyone who has outsourced development efforts to contractors has to train the contractors on their technology stack, for example.

All contractors must follow specific procedures. It is an integral part of any contract.

Anyone can quit or be fired at anytime - that has nothing to do with being a contractor. In fact, being a contractor makes it *easier* to be terminated without notice and without recourse. Terminating an employee without cause has repercussions on the employer - there are no such repercussions for terminating a contractor beyond any terms that may or may not have been written into the contract.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[cayenne8]

Of course they have a gun held to their head. It's called hunger. It's called being able to pay the rent.

And..there are PLENTY of other jobs out there that don't have UBER in the name of the employer. Work somewhere else maybe?

I know it seems strange, but people somehow supported their families, paid rent and bought food before the concept of Uber was ever conceived.

Why not leave it up to the individual to decide what they will do for what money? If they want to contract with Uber, why not let them....if not, they can work somewhere else.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[ShanghaiBill]

Because it's impossible to be an employee at two companies at the same time? Huh, that's a new one.....

Many companies have a "no moonlighting" policy, that prohibits second jobs. Other companies have non-compete or "All your IP belong to us" policies that effectively prohibit you from working a second job in the same field. Some states prohibit or restrict these policies, but most do not.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[mark-t]

I''d dispute that employers set a price point as being a differentiating factor... why can't a business decide exactly how much they want to pay a contractor before hiring them? You can allege that contractor can still "set his own price", but if he wants more than what the business was willing to offer, then he won't be working for them at all... so in the end, that's no different than if the business just sets the price they were paying in the first place.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[cayenne8]

I'll stop you right there. You can't have a contract if the terms are illegal, so it's not up to the individual at all. If Uber wants to have the state enforce their agreements with their drivers, they need to follow state laws.

I agree with you.

The company and person should follow the laws.

I'm saying the laws are wrong and shouldn't exist to hinder free will of those wanting to work or hire folks to work for them.

I'm saying the State (and federal) laws should NOT force a company or a person to not be able to agree on what form of working relationship they have (W2 or 1099), nor should it have a law saying these two parties are not 100% able to negotiate the fees between worker and employee/contractor.

We're supposed to be adults here, why can we not as adults choose to work for company A for $x...negotiated by the two parties. The state should not have laws the hinder the freedom of employer and employed.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Less than hundred years ago in the US, not only did they hold guns against their heads... They actually pulled the triggers, killing lots of workers.

While the guns might not be 'guns', the dynamic of the interaction between employers and employees have not fundamentally changed.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[drinkypoo]

Geez...why is the individual assumed to be powerless? Hey can vote with their fucking feet by walking out the door for other opportunities.

That argument works when there's jobs available. But the number of people looking for work (unemployed or underemployed) has been holding steady for years, and it's a big number.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[edtice1559]

This is true if people have other opportunities. The problem with your scenario is that from the time they turn down being a contractor until the time that somebody comes along and offers a better deal, people will starve to death. But that's not really what's at issue here. People can be contractors (as you've chosen to be) or they can be employees. What they can't do is be employees who are treated as contractors to avoid employment laws. I'm not saying those laws are perfect, but we certain are better off than before employment laws existed, so I have a tough time with the idea of going back. Nobody is saying that you can't hire contractors. Just that you can't hire employees and call them contractors. Next California will maybe address running a taxi service and calling it car sharing, but don't hold your breath.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as they set the price and prohibit them from running their own business as they see fit there is no chance of that.
The Courts got this one right -- by setting their rate, prohibiting them from hiring sub-contractors and/or working for competing services or offering their own independent service, they are indeed treating their drivers as employees and need to be hit hard with fines and start paying employment tax and offering Insurance.

What? Uber wont be viable if they need to start following laws? Then shut it the fuck down.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[John Jorsett]

I agree with the judge on one point: if they were independent contractors, they would be free to pickup passengers not using Uber.

If Uber allowed that, they'd be allowing street hails, which would in effect make them a taxi company. Regulators have been operating stings lately where somebody will wheedle their way into an Uber car without using the app, and then regulators fine the hell out of everyone for violating the law.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers in the home don't accidentally kill you when they mistake that rock in the road for a paper bag.

I love tech, but I also live in the real world, not the imagination land that is currently Silicon Valley. I love to dream as well, but I know where to draw the line between my awesome dreams and what's practical today. Self driving cars are still in the "awesome dream" category. Sadly, they'll probably go the way VR and neural nets did in the 80s and be destroyed by the hype cycle and become toxic topics for a few decades before the realists return to them and make them practical. (pro tip: if you're in tech, it helps to know history and become a good pattern matcher for trends)

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> - Uber drivers are not required to work full time, or a minimum or maximum number of hours

That is really the controlling consideration here, if you ask me. I'm not gonna argue details of California law, but if "here is an opportunity: work as much or as little as you want" is the offer, it is not a classical employee.

My uncle was a dyed blue auto worker unionist "Hey, isn't (Bill Clinton) 'electable'?", he said way back when, parroting what would years later be described as a talking point.

But he also rolled string on fishing rods in his basement for extra money (attaching guide loops). Same damned thing. Work for units, as much or as little as you want.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Their lawyers get paid either way... Just like their investors will get to cash out before the shit really hits the fan as long as they can string this along until the IPO.

Lawyers and finance guys never lose.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

"Many of the things" ??? You cited just one.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/04/technology/uber-lyft/index.html ... seems to dispute that you can work for Uber and Lyft. At the very least, it shows that Uber does not want you to, and they do have the power to shut you off.

Think about it, take 1 ride from Uber, get the driver's name and number, then always call them directly and offer to split the Uber fee/differential ... Uber can't allow that or they'll be out of business.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[mlw4428]

The need to have food, water, shelter, clothes, etc. The need for money is the proverbial gun being used...but you're being a bit pedantic and missing the point. People are forced to work or they literally can wind up with nothing but the clothes on their back. No individual employer anywhere forces any employee to work for them, but in a capitalist society the determination of success is highly dependent upon money (it may not be the only factor, but it's a large one). This action helps protect the rights of others in other companies by setting legal precedence. I realize it goes against the Libertarian hive-mind at Slashdot, but reality isn't Libertarian.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[cayenne8]

That argument works when there's jobs available. But the number of people looking for work (unemployed or underemployed) has been holding steady for years, and it's a big number.

There are PLENTY of jobs out there.

You just might have to learn to be flexible in what you are willing to do. Maybe get out and retrain yourself while you are on unemployment...maybe you need to move to where the damned jobs ARE.

You don't have the "right" to the exact job you want where you want it...life doesn't work that way and cater to you. There are jobs to be had if you're at all willing to do what it takes to get them or get to them.

Life has no "easy" button guarantee.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[danbob999]

If Uber allowed that, they'd be allowing street hails, which would in effect make them a taxi company.

Not the judge problem.
I would also say that they are already a taxi company.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[ShanghaiBill]

Why don't we call them ... "Contracted Employees" ... a hybrid between Contractor and Employee.

American labor law was formed in the Great Depression of the 1930s, when the distinction was much more clear. Since then, government management of the employee-employer relationship has become a HUGE part of both our system of taxation, and our political system.

In the 1930s, the Republicans represent the interests of big business, and the Democrats represented the interests of big labor. Today, the Democrats still represent the interests of big labor, the Republicans represent the interest of small business owners and independent workers, and BOTH parties represent the interests of big corporations.

Good luck getting any of this reformed. Way too many organizations have a vested interest in the current system, and they (big corps and big unions) control the campaign dollars.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[cayenne8]

This is true if people have other opportunities. The problem with your scenario is that from the time they turn down being a contractor until the time that somebody comes along and offers a better deal, people will starve to death. But that's not really what's at issue here. People can be contractors (as you've chosen to be) or they can be employees. What they can't do is be employees who are treated as contractors to avoid employment laws. I'm not saying those laws are perfect, but we certain are better off than before employment laws existed, so I have a tough time with the idea of going back. Nobody is saying that you can't hire contractors. Just that you can't hire employees and call them contractors. Next California will maybe address running a taxi service and calling it car sharing, but don't hold your breath.

The govt shouldn't be in the "business" of defining employee or contractor is what I'm saying.

Let companies and potential workers be fully free to define the terms of employment. Let the govt stay 100% out of the way.

There should be no legal "employee" or "contractor" definition....just two parties negotiating the terms of business for a working relationship.

There are plenty of jobs out there, you just have to be willing to do what it takes or move to where the jobs ARE.

No one owes you the ideal job you want in the location you want for the money you want.

You need to do what it takes to get out there and work. And there is plenty of work out there.

If you made serious vocational errors growing up, that's your tough luck, and you need to start now to sacrifice and do whatever to try to make up for that. But we shouldn't hold everything in business to the lowest common denominator enforced by govt regulation.

The govt should have no place in the negotiation of working pay, etc. I see the govt making sure working conditions and all are safe, but as far as the relationship on what is paid, what is expected, hours, etc...that should be between the employer and the employee (generically speaking). Frankly everyone should be "contractors"...voting with your feet where you want to work, who offers you the best deal, etc.

Get the State and Feds out of the middle of that relationship.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[plopez]

Franchisees are more like co-investors or co-owners. They buy in by providing start up capital to join a business network. They then have some oversight and control of their investment. This is a huge difference.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are my mod points when I need them??

They were right here, but when you posted, they just vanished!

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying definition of contractor vs employee depends on availability of jobs in the market?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber drivers are directly supervised to a point that was unheard of even twenty years ago. Uber knows exactly where they are during every second of their work, and exactly how every single client feels about them. Just because the supervisor is a computer shouldn't matter.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't say 'no' to your employer if their terms are unacceptable, then yes, they are slaves.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I know big words scare you, but try to read them.

Self driving cars need only be better than the irresponsible and easily distracted meatbags currently behind the wheel of three thousand pound clubs. They don't need to be perfect. They just need to be better than you. Doesn't seem to be that hard, from what I've read.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[pnutjam]

You must not have heard the recent use, franchise employees and contractors are now considered "joint employees".
http://www.insurancejournal.co...

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we are slaves, that is why we work to make ourselves free.

Why don't you want to break the chains that bind you? Do you think God has given you freedom?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Wycliffe]

I agree with the judge on one point: if they were independent contractors, they would be free to pickup passengers not using Uber.

If Uber allowed that, they'd be allowing street hails, which would in effect make them a taxi company. Regulators have been operating stings lately where somebody will wheedle their way into an Uber car without using the app, and then regulators fine the hell out of everyone for violating the law.

How does this affect Uber? If someone gets in a "uber" car without using the uber app then how does this have anything to do with uber and what makes it a "uber" car?
Yes, the individual could be fined for picking up someone but without it being with the uber app, I don't see it any difference than a random person who's never used uber picking up someone.
They are basically "moonlighting" as an independent person with no association with uber at that point.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Actually, I do RTFA]

There are a lot of non-Uber jobs out there, nobody is forced to work specifically for Uber.

There's an oligopsony for non-skilled shitty jobs.

Better than/easier to get than flipping burgers is a really low standard./P

Re:Yes, they are employees

[pnutjam]

How many employees can decide to only come to work when the pay is high enough, and only when they feel like showing up?

Every employee in the U.S.?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sjames]

Because then employers would use their superior bargaining position to force people to accept the downsides of both contractor and employee relationships while keeping the upsides for themselves.

In fact, most of the legally defined differences were defined as a result of exactly that behavior.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[monkeyxpress]

Who was holding the "gun" to the head of the Uber drivers and demanding that they drive for Uber?

Nobody specifically, but this is a tragedy of the commons situation. If all employers are free to not have to provide any sorts of labour protections to their workers, then competitive forces (and/or greed) will ensure none of them do. That means we can all look forward to a return to six day work weeks, little health and safety (your own responsibility as a contractor), and people being valued like performing animals, discarded the day they go lame. So basically what it was like for workers around the 1900s.

Society needs agreed government protections such as employee rights to prevent absurd and unproductive situations from occurring. Sure some of those rights might have gone too far today, but Uber isn't fighting to knock a few things back - they want to get around the whole employee thing altogether. Good on the courts for stamping that out.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Although Franchisees might not be employees, the people they employ are likely now to be considered joint employees of the Franchisee business and the Franchiser business. The recent Browning-Ferris ruling by the NLRB makes this more likely than not.

If the Franchisee is a sole proprietor (even if they had no employees), it seems like the franchisee would be jointly employed by her own company and the Franchiser business. Probably the only way to avoid this would be if the Franchisee was not an employee of their own business. It is possible to be an owner w/o being an employee (e.g., you are the sole owner of a C-corporation), but then the owner wouldn't be a sole proprietor, and wouldn't be able to perform any actual business operation (essentially forced to hire sub-contractors for all operations) or be able to deduct any of the expenses of running the business w/o being hired herself for that purpose.

If a "Franchisee" would somehow avoid any of this, they perhaps could be considered an investor in a division of the original company, but that's not a common thing in the Franchisee world (unless it was truly a pyramid scheme and not a business opportunity.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sjames]

So would that be the soul crushing jobs where you still need food stamps to live in spite of your 39.99 hour week? Of is that the jobs that you can only do for a year before it actually causes medical problems that you can't afford to get treated?

When the unemployment figures go negative, there will be enough jobs available to eliminate the need for employee/contractor protection.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[duckintheface]

This is a dodge. All the "bids" come from Uber itself, not directly from clients. No negotiation takes place on the individual "bids"... it's take it or leave it. This is the typical management/employee tension. Management tries to keep all the authority and pass all the responsibility to the employee. In this case, the filter for doing that is called an app, but it's the same raw deal for the employee.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sjames]

So you support the basic income? Because that's what it will take for the employee/contractor to actually be free to define the terms of employment.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[cayenne8]

So would that be the soul crushing jobs where you still need food stamps to live in spite of your 39.99 hour week?

Hey, the world needs ditch diggers too.

If you fucked up and pay attention in class or value an education, or whatever...well, you kinda deserve what you get in life, no?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

>Actually, a McDonalds franchisee is allowed to set their own prices...

Yes. And, actually, McDonald's requires them to install signage that explains to customers upfront that "This is a Non-Participating McDonald's". And corporate sets who can and can't do this.

Without that exception, when you see an AD on TV that Big Macs are $2, you can walk into any McDonald's without that sign (and very few have it) and ask for a $2 Big Mac.

I mention that specific promotion because stores were poorly informed of it. Many managers and owners were blissfully unaware of it. Since participating McDonald's cash registers are updated by corporate, if they didn't know about it, you could still order a Big Mac by itself and the employee would look surprised when it rang up at $2.

The only Non-Participating McDonald's I've ever seen were on the NY Thruway, though I imagine in any location where rent is high, but the value of the location is high to McDonald's, the franchisee is allowed this variance.

Anyways, back to franchises as a general idea, not just McDonald's. Here's more proof of franchisees typically being bound to pricing rules:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subway_$5_footlong_promotion

>For awhile when the double cheese burger was on the dollar menu, a decent number of franchisees were removing it and moving it to $1.19.

I would have called corporate to confirm they are a Non-Participating McDonald's and requested to see signage of that fact. If they are a participating McDonald's, corporate would love to know that they've overridden the prices downloaded to their registers.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[cayenne8]

So you support the basic income?

Good God no!!

You act like society owes everyone a basic level of lifestyle? Life is tough, and it is up to YOU to make your way through it.

I don't mind basic safety nets, like for the informed or old, or disabled, but if you're able bodied, you're on your own, user your wits and your means to succeed.

But it isn't up to me or anyone else to support you on any basic level of quality of life. I don't owe you anything. Why should I?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming they don't get to choose from multiple potential rides. They can decline the pickup, an employee would not be able to do so. They get to chose when, where and how they work to a large extent. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a dodge. All the "bids" come from Uber itself, not directly from clients.

So when I hire a contractor to fix my bathroom, he's not a contractor because my neighbor didn't offer bids to fix my bathroom?

No negotiation takes place on the individual "bids"... it's take it or leave it.

Leaving it is a form of negotiating.

This is the typical management/employee tension. Management tries to keep all the authority and pass all the responsibility to the employee. In this case, the filter for doing that is called an app, but it's the same raw deal for the employee.

No one is forcing them to drive for Uber.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal contractors working for the IRS, who ostensibly defines what a contractor is, meet your definition of "...are really employees."

Perhaps. You've failed to give an example of this, but then there are procedures where that can be handled. Just like with Uber. And why it is a good thing that the Federal government has minimum standards for its contractors then, and the company's that employ them.

You can't possibly argue that Uber drivers aren't contracting their services.

Yes, that would be hard. Fortunately for the state of California, they don't have to make that argument. They have to make a different argument to show that these were treated more as employees than free contractors, so your assertion is meaningless.

Your only argument is a bureaucratic argument: can you define "contractor" in some way that doesn't rely on if a person is taking bids for short contract work, but rather relies on some nebulous and flexible ideas of your own which may not exactly match up with any other person's ideas of what a contractor is?

Yes, that's how you are characterizing how the distinction is made, however what you're failing to do is demonstrate any particular reason why there's a problem with what is being done.

Certainly the ideas are nebulous and flexible, but that's how justice is done, that's how the court system works, rather than bright-line indicators, it has a lot of room for human consideration and judgment.

Don't like it? Go live in a world run by computers.

It's a great way to mislead an argument for the purposes of your political agenda.

Yes, what you're doing is exactly that.

Really, you're attacking not on an issue of substance, but on your own politically driven agenda that somehow the government is doing wrong, while poor Uber is suffering, and these drivers are being oppressed by the government in some way.

But you're failing to offer any particular reasoning for your beliefs, whereas the actual standards for differing between an employee and a contractor?

Do have that reasoning offered.

Provide yours.

Otherwise you might as well be that judge who refused to grant a divorce because boo-hoo the Supreme Court said some distinctions in marriage weren't sustainable under the Constitution. He didn't have any merit to that complaint, but he made it, and acted all superior about it.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[bluefoxlucid]

You mean their opening bid is the most generous term they'll accept?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

If the government can't define who is a contractor or who is an employee, then the government can (by logical deduction) not protect employees.

- Since contractors do not get much protection.
- Since employers do not want the hassle of protecting employees
- it follows that employers rather only have contractors
- if the government can not define when someone is an employee
- Then all employers, due to market forces, would define everyone as a contractor
- Then no one will be protected anymore.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sjames]

If the "contractors" were actually contractors, then it would be them and not Uber serving street hails.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[duckintheface]

"there are PLENTY of other jobs out there that don't have UBER in the name of the employer. Work somewhere else maybe?"

If Uber and other "share services" get away with their violation of labor laws, there won't be other kinds of jobs. Uber and similar companies are very efficient at extracting money from both their clients and their employees. If they get away with this "contractor" fraud, then every other company will be forced to play the same game. We will be an economy of serfs, all taking "bids" for piecework.

Prior to labor laws, many people did try to subsist on this kind of piecework. Many of them suffered and starved in the process. So what kind of country do you want to live in?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

When corporate entities do what they do best in the absence of regulation, which is maximize profit without regard for externalities (which is a nice way fo saying "fuck the peasants, the hell with the human toll"), they ship jobs out of areas and leave whole geographic areas denunded of jobs.

So, a significant reduction in jobs.

So the libertarian capitalist response is "start your own business!"

Everyone can NOT be an entrepreneur. Some people aren't smart enough. Some people aren't healthy enough. Some people are both but lack knowledge, and can't afford the time to get up the curve; they'll sink under the surface.

So yeah, sometimes, in a crappy market, service jobs like Uber are all that there are. McD's BK, Walmart, etc, are about all that's available. And when that happens, and a person doesn't have the wherewithal to go into business for themselves in a way that works economically, then, yes, you HAVE to work for the service companies. And the service companies know this, and like it - it's a ready supply of low-wage labor who are effectively trapped in the service economy. They often don't earn enough for school - without scholarships, they often can't go to college. Even if they become knowledgeable, lack of credentials is a block - good luck getting a really well-paying tech job without a degree, and I don't mean a boot-camp certificate.

The whole pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps argument is undermined by the ability of corporations to tilt the board in their favor against the workers, Those who argue against organized labor conveniently ignore the extreme power imbalance created by a lack of organized labor, and either implicitly or explicitly exploit that power delta in favor of capital.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sjames]

So, you do NOT actually support the contractor/employee being free to set their own definition.

Or do you suggest we undo the enclosure so people can truly choose.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[HornWumpus]

Because they majored in philosophy and have no skills.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[konohitowa]

Did you run out of Enzyte?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sjames]

If employees weren't constrained by the absolute need for a job, the un-distorted free market for labor would force wages up.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Damarkus13]

A franchisee and a franchisee employee are not the same thing.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[speedplane]

Self-driving cars will need to be compellingly more safe than human drivers before any politician allows them on their roads. It will happen, but these 5 and 10 year predictions we keep hearing are far off.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

The hours you work, are very much about safe working conditions.

And not just for you, but for people around you. That's why truck drivers, airline pilots, doctors, etc, all have limits on the hours they can work.

It's just not safe otherwise.

But no, your arguments were rejected after the Lochner mindset was shown not to work. The Freedom to Contract was a lie, and West Coast Hotel v. Parrish was decided long ago. People found that it caused too much suffering, and absent unicorns and fairy dust, they weren't able to fix it.

I suspect you don't care though, you boisterously go on about freedom, and tell people to suck it up, their tough luck otherwise.

How considerate of you.

What else do you want?

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the old article...

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/06/17/california-labor-commission-rules-uber-drivers-are-employees-not-independent-contractors/

“Reuters’ original headline was not accurate. The California Labor Commission’s ruling is non-binding and applies to a single driver. 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.”

My old post from the previous Slashdot story.

I think it's the level of control Uber has over the drivers that's the problem. Read my previous post about this. I am not a lawyer by the way. But when it comes to that, and crowdsourcing-type sites, I don't think it's an issue. Well, maybe, some, depending on how involved the middleman gets into it.

Oh, one more thing. Uber (the supposed middleman) sets the prices, right? Whereas those crowdsourcing sites, the middleman only collects a fee I believe. If the passenger could control the price, and the driver could either accept/deny the price, then that's probably more in the independent contractor category.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[edtice1559]

I don't agree with your point philosophically but I think there is some validity to that argument from a moral perspective. However, from an economic standpoint, this doesn't work. We just went through a very large recession where many people lost their jobs. There simply wasn't enough work. Now we seem to be in a situation where there may be jobs but the skills aren't necessarily lining up. If we let large quantities of people starve to death during a downturn we won't have the necessary labor force when the economy rebounds. We need to provide everybody with a basic existence. A full weeks worth of honest work should yield enough rewards for food, functional clothing, and shelter. Partially out of fairness and partially out of economic necessity, the government protects the weakest members of our society from the strongest. This is fundamentally necessary. One of those protections is certain minimum treatment for employees. There is huge room for debate on what the *right* level of protection is. Make it too low and people die needlessly damaging the economy. Make it too high and there aren't enough incentives. But there isn't a good argument for zero protection. In this particular case, though, nobody is saying that Uber can't use contractors. The ruling is that the current situation qualifies as employment.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Grim Beefer]

It's nice how you try and package those two concepts together as though you can't have one without the other. Yes, we are slaves to labor, given that it's a situation of life-long forced dependance. If you don't believe that, take your soon to be homeless ass out into the street and quit working. American-style chattel slavery is not the only form of slavery, you know, despite standing out as a situation of unimaginable horror. It's very similar to way that the term "holocaust" is almost exclusively associated with the mass extermination of the Jews, when Native Americans suffered far greater casualties in the American holocaust.

That being said, why would you then think we don't have responsibility for the choices we make? Choice and slavery are not dichotomous. In a situation of slavery, the consequences can be dire for the choices you make, but you still have them - and you are still responsible for them. For example, in history, chattel slaves have had the choice to attempt rebellions. Sometimes, like with Haiti, it actually worked out for them. They weren't on some form of fatalistic autopilot, every one of those people had a choice to rebel, and enough heroically chose to do so to overthrow the French enslavers.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[mjm1231]

So then they are either a taxi company, or their drivers are employees. Having neither of those be true is not one of the available options.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because of all of the posters here going on about how the government shouldn't be involved at all, rather than looking into the possible choices and options, were just given a screed on the horrors of government stealing our freedom.

Haven't you noticed how the conversation goes?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Robert A. Heinlein - "Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

Used the term "Contracted Employees" as equivalent to a nice way of calling them slaves.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Locando]

You can't possibly argue that Uber drivers aren't contracting their services. They take bids for work; they're not employed by the company to go out as service providers, but rather take bids for services requested from the company by its clients.

You're playing the exact same semantic games that the judge in this case found Uber to be playing. We could just as easily say this is an employer-employee relationship in which the employer requires its employees bid to get paid. Making it more difficult for your employees to get paid does not make them contractors! You talk about their freedom to work when they choose, but there are many other important freedoms that Uber has denied them (e.g., the ability to work for other clients). Whether they have the authority to do so is not in question here — it is only about whether denying their drivers these freedoms constitutes a relationship that is not one of a client and contractor.

These definitions are complex, which is precisely why we have lawyers and judges to make it as clear as possible what is legal and what is not. We have a central authority, the government, which we have enshrined with the power to make laws — this entails also giving them the power to create a process by which terms are defined, in a manner contrary to that of academia as referenced in your long, tangential quote. That this is how the meanings of legal terminology are hashed out is what's most sensible to me. Making it sound like it's as cut and dry as you represent makes it sound much more like you have some particular political agenda you're trying to push.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[ShaunC]

Doesn't seem to be that hard, from what I've read.

You're being quite optimistic. This isn't autopilot or TCAS where you're separated from traffic by miles horizontally and thousands of vertical feet with plenty of time for human intervention. A self-driving car will have to respond in millisecond time to unexpected threats (tire blowout, deer darting into the roadway, etc.) and instantly coordinate that response with dozens of vehicles in immediate proximity. We'll get there eventually, but it's going to be many years in the making.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Locando]

So, what you're saying is that everyone is a slave

There's a whole branch of political thought that says just that. It's not dismissible offhand just because you perceive it as absurd.

and nobody has any responsibility for the choices they make.

I don't see how responsibility, legal or moral, follows from the first half of the sentence. Historically slaves have often derived meaning in their lives from belief systems that centered around their moral integrity. Legal responsibility is more complicated, but usually more unilaterally defined in a given society, so I don't see how it would apply here.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[downix]

Actually, if an Uber driver declines a ride, they are penalized or terminated. So, by your own argument, they are an employee.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Every McDonald's commercial ends the same way, right? "Prices and participation may vary." Well, I wanna open a McDonald's and not participate in anything. I wanna be a stubborn McDonald's owner. Cheeseburgers? Nope. We got spaghetti! And blankets! -- Mitch Hedberg

Re:Yes, they are employees

[bluefoxlucid]

You're playing the exact same semantic games that the judge in this case found Uber to be playing. We could just as easily say this is an employer-employee relationship in which the employer requires its employees bid to get paid.

So we come back around to the primary point: we have this word, "Contractor", which is ill-defined. It's legally defined by the IRS, and legally defined by various states; to different legal entities, it has different meanings; and we are arguing as lay-people about its meaning, which we take dozens of views on, producing an immense variation of meanings behind the word "Contractor".

It is plain to see that Uber drivers are contracting their services: they aren't employees, they don't have an employment obligation, they aren't supposed to come to work at particular times, they aren't under the direction of management; they simply select available work and perform it. This is the same as the Amazon Mechanical Turk, which nobody has argued is using employees to carry out tasks; indeed, most people would think it ludicrous to call someone who takes a bid established at a fixed rate per unit work an "employee" of Amazon's Mechanical Turk or of the person who put in the work order.

So now we're at a point where we have people who are contracting, but they're not *really* contracting, wink wink, nudge nudge. and all that. We have arguments over what a contractor *is*, and we have people falling back to legal positions, falling back to moral positions, and falling back to their own ever-changing "common sense" that produces different definitions based on the person and the challenge put to them.

We're looking at dishonest, meaningless political banter.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Bartles]

No, Taxi driver is a shit job. Many people are choosing to work for Uber because it is less shitty.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers in the home don't accidentally kill you when they mistake that rock in the road for a paper bag.

The question isn't if driverless cars will be deadly (they will be).

The question is if driverless cars will be more deadly than the current alternative - which happens to be distracted bags of mostly water, sitting behind a steering wheel. In 2013, cars with drivers killed over 32,000 people.

That's the comparison you should be making. Instead, you're comparing driverless cars with the ideal situation (zero deaths), rather than the real situation (tens of thousands of deaths each year).

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Self driving cars need only be better than the irresponsible and easily distracted meatbags currently behind the wheel of three thousand pound clubs.

Don't be daft. The accident caused by a distracted meatbag will blamed on the meatbag; the one caused by the self-driving car will be blamed on the maker of the car. That's a massive difference.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

lol

Re:Yes, they are employees

[aaarrrgggh]

The only one I take issue with is premises argument; they are working in a region of service so I don't think that is applicable. Arguably, the equipment issue is more effect than cause, but I would take it as a sign of a contractor as well. Some of the financing deals that Uber made could cause issues though.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

The world has excavators now, no need for those ditch diggers. Of course, you do need the hundreds of thousands of dollars to get one. Or the cotton harvester. But then, if you do, you can dfo the work of hundreds.

But no, not all of us had quality schools. Or we did well in school, but can't get good work for some reason.

What then? What then?

But you don't care. You're in the mindset where if a person doesn't succeed they must be at fault. If they had the true will to power, they would succeed. Nothing else is a factor.

Too bad for you, the rest of us see the world very differently. We see the freedom you offer is really a chain.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Coren22]

A self-driving car will have to respond in millisecond time to unexpected threats (tire blowout, deer darting into the roadway, etc.) and instantly coordinate that response with dozens of vehicles in immediate proximity.

Again...how is this any different than a human driver? Why does the computer have to outperform humans so significantly in your mind?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[mark-t]

And..there are PLENTY of other jobs out there that don't have UBER in the name of the employer. Work somewhere else maybe?

Jobs might exist.... that doesn't mean that you'll get hired for any of them, because there are always more applicants than there are jobs. A good many people, not all of whom are necessarily unskilled, have to take whatever they can get or risk missing out on having something as basic as a place to live... or eating.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

> over 75% of drivers drive for Uber and Lyft simultaneously

So they should get full benefits from both corporations. That is unless you're one of those Republicans that hates families and hates people that have to work for a living even more. These corporations are taking advantage of people that work for a living. Republicans hate people that work for a living. That is the way of their kind. If the Republicans got what they wanted, everyone that isn't rich and white would be dead. They want us to die.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[peterofoz]

To make Uber driver more like contractors, address the Like Employees list point by point:

• Uber sets the price - Change the model to let drivers bid on work by adjusting their margins. Uber computes the demand vs cost vs price to optimize.
• Uber prohibits drivers from offering services outside of the Uber App. Drivers sign a non-compete clause. They're free to do anything else other than drive for hire in Uber's markets.
• Uber drivers are an integral part of Uber's business. Not necessarily unique to employees. There are plenty of IT businesses (and farms) which high percentages of contractors.
• Uber drivers cannot subcontract. Just the difference between a freelance contractor and a company. When companies farm out contractors or provide staff, they are often bound to specific individuals and cannot just swap them out without customer approval.
• Uber drivers are trained by Uber. Farm workers are trained by the farm on what to pick, IT contractors have to follow company procedures and methods. So what.
• Uber drivers can quit or be fired at any time. Ditto for contractors.

It seems like for Uber to change their model a bit on the first point should solve the dilemma.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[mark-t]

.... and still have a job to come back to later when they decide the pay *IS* high enough?

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Not until the can handle making a left hand turn at a four way stop.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that will be blamed on the meatbag for not intervening. You expect big business to accept responsibility. Hah, talk about dreamland.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Taxi driver is a shit job. Many people are choosing to work for Uber because it is less shitty.

If that was true, why would there be any taxi drivers right now? Why aren't medallions worth almost nothing.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Locando]

It is plain to see (...)

No, it isn't. A lot of people see things differently than you do, myself and multiple judges in California included.

indeed, most people would think it ludicrous (...)

Irrelevant. This is about legal definitions, not societal ones. Justice is not meted out by popular opinion.

Your absolutist viewpoint is the hallmark of someone who can't separate out his personal politics from intellectual positions. Words have multiple meanings. The meanings are often contradictory. Your political ideology apparently finds this distasteful.

We're looking at dishonest, meaningless political banter.

It all seems perfectly honest, meaningful, and non-political to me. Why do you write like you're the final arbiter of these things? Do you have any idea why people see things differently from you? Do you have any idea how you come across to people who disagree with you? If you can't figure these things out, your attempts to prove yourself right are always going to fail.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Yoda222]

"Work to make ourselves free"? Arbeit macht frei?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[DaMattster]

So would that be the soul crushing jobs where you still need food stamps to live in spite of your 39.99 hour week? Of is that the jobs that you can only do for a year before it actually causes medical problems that you can't afford to get treated?

When the unemployment figures go negative, there will be enough jobs available to eliminate the need for employee/contractor protection.

I am fairly well educated and now working as a security guard. I guess that would count as a soul-crushing job that doesn't pay enough money to live on without food stamps. But, I guess the alternative is infinitely worse. The world doesn't want a 38 year old desktop support guy and be damned if I'm going to do customer support at a place like Comcast. The upshot of where I'm at is that the perpetual state of fear we live in, for now, guarantees me a job.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

good example

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Bartles]

Because until Uber came around, there were no alternatives. Medallions cost a fortune because their supply is artificially limited.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

We're supposed to be adults here, why can we not as adults choose to work for company A for $x...negotiated by the two parties.

Such a facetious representation.

Let's start with not all adults are in equal situations, let's consider how not all contracts are allowed, let's consider how even when a contract may be allowed, it may not be enforceable.

Let's keep going, and see why your free will offering is basically complaining that you don't have the freedom to have others sell themselves into servitude for you, how there are protections to keep you from exploiting others, and why that exists.

At best, I can accept you claiming to be a naive philosopher who thinks that you can always dodge that arrow, but I find it really difficult to believe.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sabbede]

What about preventing the many from exploiting or dictating to the few?

Come to think of it, I heard somewhere that governments are instituted to protect certain unalienable rights, not one particular group from another.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sabbede]

And here I thought driving for Uber was intended to be something people did to make a little extra money in their free time. Are they supposed to change their business model to accommodate those who wish to use it for other than the intended purpose?

If it was furniture polish, that would be illegal.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sabbede]

Are you saying all those drivers voluntarily signed up to be abused? Was Uber abusive from the start, or did it become abusive when people decided to depend upon it for their livelihood?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sabbede]

Was Uber intended to be a driver's sole source of income? I could have sworn it was meant to be a way to facilitate making money in your spare time.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[rossz]

Because it's impossible to be an employee at two companies at the same time? Huh, that's a new one.....

Many companies have a "no moonlighting" policy, that prohibits second jobs.

Not in California. Your employer has absolutely no say in what you do outside of their work hours other than you can't do something that would be considered a conflict of interest.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

your argument that Uber drivers are "contractors" since they "take bids for work" hinges on your assignment of a variable meaning for the word "bids".

shame on you.

there is no variable value negotiation for the work. it is not an auction process. Uber sets a price and the driver may only accept or deny (and risk account termination if they do not accept often enough).

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You answered why there were taxi drivers and why medallions were worth a fortune. This is now, today. Why are there any taxi drivers, if driving for Uber is better. Are you telling me it's harder to get an Uber job than a taxi job?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

"the state should not have laws" [that] "hinder the freedom .." it does not. what makes you think that it does?

what exists is a Federal Regulation which sets out three categories to encompass all manner of employer/employee/vendor/client relationships everywhere within US jurisdiction: 1. Wage earner. 2. Salaried worker. 3. Contractor.

Each of the given categories is defined with responsibilities and obligations for both parties -- generally the employee/vendor responsibilities increase from 1 -> 3 while the employer/client obligations decrease from 1 -> 3 but the ability and power to negotiate is comprehensive for the contractor. Limiting the arms length negotiation demotes a Contractor to at least the second category.

No relationship is hindered. Proper classification is a substantial benefit for the nation.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

One point, is if they are free to pick up drivers not using the app ... then they are a taxi company that uses an app. Uber is trying to be something different, good or bad i don't know.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

what makes a car a "uber" car? It is the required "Ü" sticker in the rear passenger side window. thus, someone wheedling their way into the vehicle is being provided a taxi service by an Über car.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sjames]

So, let's test your negotiation power. If you and your boss go all-out in negotiating anything to do with your compensation, who is in a worse position if the end result is that you walk?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

There's a 20 factor test, I don't know how current it is, but one of the stipulations inside of it is:

The extent to which services performed by the worker are a key aspect of the regular business of the company. If a worker provides services that are a key aspect of the company's regular business activity, it is more likely that the company will have the right to direct and control his or her activities. For example, if a law firm hires an attorney, it is likely that it will present the attorney's work as its own and would have the right to control or direct that work. This would indicate an employer-employee relationship.

Now in the case of Uber, driving someone to their destination to me seems like a major part of Uber's business.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Are they supposed to change their business model to accommodate those who wish to use it for other than the intended purpose?

When most of their people don't use it like that, it's disingenous to claim that's what they built. A ride-share app isn't worth $50B, so investors agree.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[cayenne8]

So yeah, sometimes, in a crappy market, service jobs like Uber are all that there are. McD's BK, Walmart, etc, are about all that's available. And when that happens, and a person doesn't have the wherewithal to go into business for themselves in a way that works economically, then, yes, you HAVE to work for the service companies.

So, you're arguing that EVERYONE else has to suffer not having choice and ability to work as they please to cater to the lowest common denominator??

Re:Yes, they are employees

[cayenne8]

If you and your boss go all-out in negotiating anything to do with your compensation, who is in a worse position if the end result is that you walk?

Well, if you know your worth in the market place and ARE worth that value in the market place...if your current employer isn't paying your enough, then of course YOU win.

If you are already getting paid enough or more for your current skill set and worth, then you are best served by shutting up, being happy with what you have, while you on the side, strive to study or do whatever it takes to increase your value over others in the workforce so that you quality and are worth more $$$.

Ideally, a grown adult would know and negotiate based on this prior to employment, no?

We are talking about grown, adults responsible for their own lives and actions, right?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[cayenne8]

f Uber and other "share services" get away with their violation of labor laws, there won't be other kinds of jobs. Uber and similar companies are very efficient at extracting money from both their clients and their employees. If they get away with this "contractor" fraud, then every other company will be forced to play the same game. We will be an economy of serfs, all taking "bids" for piecework.

Hey, not ALL jobs are meant to be full time, earn a living at jobs!!

Things like Uber and even burger flippers are meant for extra income on the side, or maybe even a first entry job to learn the foils and merits of having a job.

Never EVERY job out there merits or is supposed to be a job a grown fucking adult earns a living for a family with.....

Re:Yes, they are employees

[evilRhino]

... We're supposed to be adults here, why can we not as adults choose to work for company A for $x...negotiated by the two parties. The state should not have laws the hinder the freedom of employer and employed.

So if I wanted to take out a contract to have someone break your legs, it should be legal? This arrangement is quite respectful to both me and Bruno, who likes to break legs almost as much as he likes money.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[mjwx]

Like contractors:
- Uber drivers set their own hours
- Uber drivers own their own equipment
- Uber drivers are not required to work full time, or a minimum or maximum number of hours
- Uber drivers do not work on Uber's premises
- Uber drivers are not directly supervised

These are not exclusive to contractors. This makes them casual employees. As a full time employees I was able to set my own hours at a job that didn't require me to be public facing, no one even questioned my hours as long as al my work was done.

Its not unusual for full time employees to own some or all of their own equipment. Mechanics tend to own all of their own tools even if they're employees.

Nor are they required to work on an employees premises. They can work on client sites or from home (telecommuting).

Finally, I've seen many jobs stating "must be able to work without supervision".

The only thing that separates them from full time and part time employees are no minimum hours, in most parts of the world this just changes them to casual employees (like almost every fast food employee).

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Bartles]

Your reading comprehension stinks.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Solandri]

- Uber sets the price
- Uber prohibits drivers from offering services outside of the Uber App
- Uber drivers are an integral part of Uber's business
- Uber drivers cannot subcontract
- Uber drivers are trained by Uber [I assume you mean "must be trained by Uber"]
- Uber drivers must follow specific procedures
- Uber drivers can quit or be fired at any time

I'm pretty conservative when it comes to business. But if the points I've highlighted are true, then I completely agree with this ruling. I thought Uber was just running the equivalent of a dating service - hooking up drivers with passengers. But the more I read, the more it sounds like they're running a taxi company.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

It will take many decades to work out all the issues where truly autonomous cars can drive without a pre-planned route and in inclement weather. In the meantime, Uber will need to learn to play by the rules.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody's going to give you your freedom anyway!

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sribe]

Federal contractors working for the IRS, who ostensibly defines what a contractor is, meet your definition of "...are really employees."

Federal contractors working for the IRS are in fact statutory employees, of the agency which hires them out. There's no such thing as an independent contractor working for the IRS, and the employees' employer is subject to all the normal rules, including paying 1/2 of FICA/Medicare taxes, withholding the other 1/2, submitting, etc, and all the normal rules regarding wages, hours, workers' comp, etc.

They take bids for work; they're not employed by the company to go out as service providers, but rather take bids for services requested from the company by its clients. They can opt when to drive for Uber, and can decide to drive only where and when convenient for them, and only when the rates are sufficiently high or the job looks good...

As was pointed out, they are not at all as free as you try to pretend there. Nor do they "take bids" in the usual sense.

It's a great way to mislead an argument for the purposes of your political agenda.

;-)

Re: Yes, they are employees

[theCzechGuy]

You say you live in the real world.... But real world is the place where self-driving cars have: a) Been on the roads for years, their widespread deployment being limited by legislature. b) Been shown to be way safer than human drivers.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sjames]

Market negotiations only work the way you imagine when both parties are able to afford to leave the bargaining table. Let's face it, if the employer loses you, they are down perhaps 1% or less but there's a line forming in HR to fill the position (due to lack of jobs). OTOH, you are 100% out of income and with unemployment above zero, nobody's lining up to hire you.

Essentially, it's another form of rent seeking.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

They already are statistically safer than an average human driver. They dont get sleepy, cocky, nor stupid.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Richard_at_work]

Like contractors:
- Uber drivers set their own hours
- Uber drivers own their own equipment
- Uber drivers are not required to work full time, or a minimum or maximum number of hours
- Uber drivers do not work on Uber's premises
- Uber drivers are not directly supervised

Quite a few employees would meet some or even all of those criteria.

Working long enough to finish the current job is common. Variable or flexible working hours is common. Bring Your Own Device is becoming common. Working from home is becoming common. Not having an office or a desk is already common for many many classes of employees, as is commuting to a customers location direct from home (there was even an EU court ruling on this just this week). Uber drivers are indeed directly supervised, as they are rated and can be blacklisted by the company.

I don't see anything in your list which cannot also apply to existing employees the world over.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Uber started in NYC the price of Medallions has dropped by 30%.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[tehcyder]

Uber will be moving to self-driving cars as soon as they can. They are just trying to string out the "contractor" subterfuge until the technology is ready.

Yeah, because that will be less than five years, right?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[bluefoxlucid]

No, it isn't. A lot of people see things differently than you do, myself and multiple judges in California included.

Wrong.

Everyone sees Uber drivers are contracting their services: they're external to the organization, seeing bids for work and taking them. Uber says, "Work available, $2/mile," and they take the bid or pass on it.

The dispute is over whether they're employees or contractors. California judges only work on legal definitions IN CALIFORNIA, which differ from legal definitions IN NEBRASKA, or even Federal definitions: the "California Judges" argument suggests these people are contractors in California, but not in Vermont, which then means Contractor is an imaginary term with no meaning.

Irrelevant. This is about legal definitions, not societal ones.

Ah, the fallback of the bureaucrat who must justify his existence.

Justice is not meted out by popular opinion.

Well in Arizona it was legal in the 90s for a man to have homosexual sexual contact with a 13-year-old boy, but the heterosexual age of consent was 17. Arizona is a weird state; they've since changed those laws.

It seems imprisoning a man for buttfucking a middle school boy is "justice" in Maryland, but is utterly *wrong* in Arizona. Obviously "right" an "Wrong" are legal constructs, not societal ones.

Oh wait, no. No, justice doesn't have to do with legal bureaucracy; it's another one of those meaningless words that nobody can agree on the definition for, but that everyone uses to suit their argument.

Why do you write like you're the final arbiter of these things?

Because I'm right and other people are wrong. I've explained this quite clearly, and I've done it repeatedly, and I've cited great historical philosophers like George Orwell, and I've illustrated the point directly.

Do you have any idea why people see things differently from you?

Political reasons. You see how some people are arguing purely legal basis, others are talking about labor rights, and others are bantering about what makes a contractor a contractor--all with different points of view? Some of them are taking their positions out of convenience--especially the argument that what the *law* defines as a contractor *is* what a contractor is--because that gives them a way to cite some outside definition that suits their purpose. Others are just directly claiming specific facts, dictating themselves as "Final Arbiter" of what a contractor *is*.

In all cases, they have a political agenda--they have an ideal on how the situation should resolve and, specifically, on whether or not Uber drivers should be called contractors or employees, and thus if they should have things like benefits and W2 tax services--and they make their argument to support that. The definition of "contractor" is made flexible to suit this.

Do you have any idea how you come across to people who disagree with you?

Inconvenient, to the sharp, calculating ones.

Most people are base and live in a delusion: they have an agenda, and wrap it in a belief that what they're doing is righteous, just, philanthropic, and correct. Even criminals who murder police will claim what they were doing wasn't wrong--to themselves!--because they honestly believe they didn't do anything bad. Criminals will rob stores because society is so damn *bad* to them, they're poor and hungry and everyone around them is rich as fuck, and honestly believe they're taking what's rightfully theirs.

That being the case, most people honestly believe just about everything they say; so of course anyone who disagrees with you is a moron.

If you can't figure these things out, your attempts to prove yourself right are always going to fail.

Oh I'm aware; but what makes you think I'm trying to persuade? Logic and facts an

Re:Yes, they are employees

[tehcyder]

Why does the Govt know better than the worker himself how they want to negotiate and work for their pay?

Why does the government interfere in anything at all?

Obviously everyone was better off in the Nineteenth Century with laissez faire economics, and things like Trade Unions, the abolition of child labour, the provision of a social security safety net, health and safety laws and all the rest is just pure evil socialism for its own sake.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[tehcyder]

Come to think of it, I heard somewhere that governments are instituted to protect certain unalienable rights, not one particular group from another.

The concept of "unalienable rights" does not have any real meaning.

If "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are unalienable rights (for instance) you can't justify jailing criminals, never mind executing them, nor could you justify killing someone in self defence. But these don't seem to be problems in the US.

If you say that someone has more of a right to life than another person (which is true in practice) then you can't say that the right to life is "unalienable".

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Bless. This is the most waywardly self-confident writing I've seen in months; on the Internet, that's quite impressive.

Just FYI, Orwell was a journalist, a novelist, a commentator and a left-wing political activist, but not a philosopher. And you're coming across as a misguided adolescent, not a pawn-stomper.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[tehcyder]

Because they majored in philosophy and have no skills.

Someone who majored in philosophy has the same skills as someone who majored in biology or computer science (critical thinking, ability to process disparate information and organise their thoughts into written form, etc).

They might not have directly relevant job experience, but that is not what degree courses were ever intended to be for. And most graduates are relatively useless until they've been working for a few years and had some of the self entitlement knocked out of them anyway.

Yes, I know everyone else on slashdot got their PhD at 16 and was a millionaire by 18, but the real world doesn't work like that for most people.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[tehcyder]

There are a lot of non-Uber jobs out there, nobody is forced to work specifically for Uber.

There's an oligopsony for non-skilled shitty jobs.

Better than/easier to get than flipping burgers is a really low standard./P

For dullards like myself who had never heard this word before and had to google it, an oligopsony is a market where the number of buyers is small and the number of sellers is large.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[tehcyder]

No, Taxi driver is a shit job. Many people are choosing to work for Uber because it is less shitty.

In the UK at least (where the barriers to entry for being a minicab driver are pretty low, i.e. you don't need to spend a million quid on a "medallion" as appears to be the case in the US) taxi driving is a fairly shitty job in terms of the number of hours you generally have to do, but a relatively well paid shitty job since you can take a big chunk of your earnings as cash and not pay tax on them. Apparently.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[tehcyder]

As a contractor, if someone isn't giving me the money I request or we can't come to a dollar amount we can both agree on, I just pass that employment opportunity by.

That is fine if you are a highly skilled contractor with limited competitors, as seems to be the case with most people on slashdot.

It doesn't apply in employment situations where the skills required to do the job are limited, and the pool of potential employees is large. Since pretty much anyone with a car can be an Uber driver, you have a very limited bargaining position. Same with stacking shelves in a supermarket or flipping burgers.

It is pure fantasy to pretend that all jobs are at the highly paid consultant level, or that everyone can somehow reach that level.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean react to an unknown situation? Insurance companies may beg to differ on your analysis underlying tone that humans are more capable drivers. Thousands of injuries and deaths prove otherwise.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[tehcyder]

There are PLENTY of jobs out there.

So everyone who is unemployed chooses to be?

Re:Yes, they are employees

[tehcyder]

But if your market value is the minimum wage, then you have no leverage in terms of negotiating with your (potential) employer. They will offer you the minimum wage, the same as every other equally skilled/unskilled applicant.

An lot of jobs are basically minimum wage type, and the more people get educated, the more well educated people will be forced into taking these minimum wage jobs.

Not everyone can or will become a software consultant.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[tehcyder]

Because the choice is only binary. In that case, the only alternative is to have full and complete regulation of everything controlled by a big central government and nobody has freedom to do anything, since everything is regulated.

Binary Choices are dumb, why do people who don't understand Libertarianism always thinking Anarchy = Libertarianism. ?

Because pure libertarianism would be indistinguishable from anarchy in practice.

You need to qualify pure libertarianism/no government by having a military and court/contract system (at least) in order to stop things degenerating immediately into dog-eat-dog anarchy based purely on who has the most guns.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[tehcyder]

Was Uber intended to be a driver's sole source of income? I could have sworn it was meant to be a way to facilitate making money in your spare time.

So what? Part time jobs don't operate under a different set of laws than full time ones.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[bluefoxlucid]

That makes sense; but, if we want to be all lawyery about it:

For example, if a law firm hires an attorney, it is likely that it will present the attorney's work as its own and would have the right to control or direct that work. This would indicate an employer-employee relationship.

Uber doesn't hire drivers and present their work as its own; Uber presents itself as a firm which connects independent drivers to ride seekers. Its entire marketing position is that anyone--you, me, Donald Trump--can be an Uber driver RIGHT NOW by getting the app and accepting hails. Before this whole "Are Uber drivers employees or contractors?" thing, the biggest information campaign against Uber was "Are Uber drivers safe and sufficiently insured, being as they're just random jackasses driving cars and not professional cab drivers hired by a cab company?"

It seems to me that this line of argument doesn't support Uber drivers as employees, and more presents Uber as something akin to Ashley Madison on BDSM: it doesn't sell you whores; it just matches bondage people up based on linking whoever wants to be on top with whoever wants to be on the bottom, and charges a small fee. Uber's letting drivers and passengers find each other, and taking a cut of their services as a finder's fee.

Now, of course, lots of finders have rules and regulations about the clientel they deal with and the products they'll move. Hell, even social clubs specify a field of interest and a code of decorum: sports or fine wines, high-brow or redneck. No frilly-pants liberals here. It seems reasonable to me that Uber could require its drivers to have their cars in proper working order, clean, and so forth; and to not hit on their customers; and to charge the fee schedule Uber is currently charging.

So here we stand in this muddle of people shouting about who is and is not a contractor.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[bluefoxlucid]

Federal contractors working for the IRS are in fact statutory employees, of the agency which hires them out. There's no such thing as an independent contractor working for the IRS, and the employees' employer is subject to all the normal rules, including paying 1/2 of FICA/Medicare taxes, withholding the other 1/2, submitting, etc, and all the normal rules regarding wages, hours, workers' comp, etc.

You raise an interesting point which hadn't occurred to me.

When I was a contractor, we subcontracted at times, frequently to independent contractors. Some of my coworkers were, in fact, 1099 independent contractors paid by the contracting agency contracting to the government; we paid them no benefits and didn't do their taxes. We did sponsor them for clearance, maintain their clearance, dictate what they must wear, where they must work, and sometimes even that they must be at their desk from 7-9am until 4-6pm, for 8 hours, with a mandatory 30-minute lunch (if you worked all day without a break, that's your fault; you work 8.5 hours and get paid for 8), using an agency-issued laptop or desktop.

That is, of course, once-removed from the situation I described. I didn't differentiate between contractors as a contracting agency and the employees thereof, and contractors as an individual functioning as his own business--essentially a contracting agency with one contractor.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[joelito_pr]

Coding is hard, coding a robot that can mimic human instincts is even harder.

Re: Yes, they are employees

[Bartles]

Yeah, now they only cost $700,000 to $900,000.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[david_thornley]

You're missing the point here. When I was a contractor, the business and I agreed on a price (mostly, they said how much they'd pay, and I could accept or refuse, it wasn't much of a negotiation). That was a price for my services. In this case, Uber is not only governing how much the driver gets from a ride, it governs how much the customer pays. What's more, Uber collects the money.

If the driver were a true independent contractor, the driver would be able to negotiate with passengers.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[metrix007]

Well, that's idiotic.

You are basically saying do away with welfare for anyone who can work.

You don't seem to understand the real world is nuanced, and that isn't always an option.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sabbede]

No. By point:

Are most of the drivers using it like that?

It's not disingenuous. They built what they built. It's theirs, they decide how it works.

It is a ride share app, it was always a ride share app, and what investors have done is agree that a ride share app is indeed worth $50B.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sabbede]

Have you read Hobbes? Locke? Rousseau? Kant? Your questions were answered centuries ago. I have neither the time nor the patience to educate you in Classic Liberal political theory and philosophy.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sabbede]

That is incorrect. Different categories of employment are treated differently.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Do they take the way that the driver plans to go? DO they prevent people from making 6 trips from NYC to Newark a day? No to wither. It's not a ride sharing app, either in principle (where si the ride being offered shared to) or in practice (profressionals can use it).

What they decide to call it is kinda irrelevant for purposes of what it really is.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sribe]

That is, of course, once-removed from the situation I described.

And an interesting one. They were taking some chances regarding the IRS rules about employee classification, and I wasn't aware any contractors to the federal government did that.

Re:Yes, they are employees

[bluefoxlucid]

It's all above-board. The IRS rules actually say something about "some of" a list of 20 or so rules, so the definition is left flexible. It's another reasonable person thing. "We know it when we see it, or when you've cheated on your taxes or pissed off the Commissioner."

Re:Yes, they are employees

[sabbede]

So, the problem is that Uber gives users too much freedom?

Uber has an out going forward...

[davidwr]

... "no Uber for you" - they can simply stop operating in California. They'll still owe all of their former "contractors", er, I mean, former employees back pay and may have to pay unemployment compensation, but it will eliminate the problem going forward, at least in California.

As far as other states and countries, "lather, rinse, repeat" and only stay in business in places that allow you to function using your business model.

Re:Uber has an out going forward...

[Anonymous Coward]

... "no Uber for you" - they can simply stop operating in California. They'll still owe all of their former "contractors", er, I mean, former employees back pay and may have to pay unemployment compensation, but it will eliminate the problem going forward, at least in California.

The only problem is California (specifically places like LA, SF, etc) is exactly the type of market Uber needs to survive. You have the younger, "hip" crowd that likes to use things like Uber and Air BnB because it's new, cool, and technologically "disruptive"-besides, you can't ride around in the rain on a fixie, you get water in your eyes because your 1950s Army birth control glasses don't have any lenses in them. And in the case of LA there is a ready pool of drivers in the form of "actors" who need to make some extra money between their shifts waiting tables at Applebees.

Re:Uber has an out going forward...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they can't do that. Because, mass layoffs are illegal in California, and the NRLB will step in and order Uber not to cease operations because the act of "laying off a mass number of workers with the effect of shifting business revenue to another state" is against federal labor laws. This is why Boeing is being sued for building a factory in South Carolina. They "would have" hired union workers in Washington if not for the fact they built their factory somewhere else, and that's a federal crime.

Re:Uber has an out going forward...

[Anonymous Coward]

mass layoffs are illegal in California

Shut the fuck up. If they're leaving California for good, then California law has no hold over them.

laying off a mass number of workers with the effect of shifting business revenue to another state" is against federal labor laws

Shut the fuck up. No it is not. It only counts as a "mass layoff" if over 30% of your employees work at "that location" and those employees are working over 20 hours a week and those employees have been employed for over 6 months.

Eat shit, union boy.

"semantic"

[davids-world.com]

If the distinction "is purely semantic", then it is actually meaningful. That's not what you're trying to say, is it?

Re:"semantic"

[sabbede]

Good point! Semantics is literally the study of meaning. It is simply impossible for a semantic difference to be meaningless. I find what people usually mean when they say, "oh that's just semantics", is, "I don't like what that means, so I'm going to pretend I can ignore it."

burden

[shentino]

This is probably an attempt to make Uber bear a bigger burden in terms of being forced to include the drivers on their payroll.

Re:burden

[sabbede]

Taxi companies exerting influence in order to quash competition? Heavens no!

Economy

[fluffernutter]

Anyone who accepts restrictions from a company and yet doesn't want full labor protection of an employee is either totally naive about how tenuous their situation really is, or is experiencing desperation brought on by a totally shitty economy. Either way, I applaud the California decision, because corporations should not be taking advantage of either.

Re:Economy

[Anonymous Coward]

or is experiencing desperation

So, everyone that's unemployed.

Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the uber drivers do not receive benefits, they are contractors.

Durr.

No, the law - inherently tax law in this case - isn't whatever batshit idea you personally come up with, sorry.

Good but could use improvement

[blue9steel]

It's the right decision under current law, but it's obvious that what we need is laws setting up a third class of workers between contractors and employees.

Re:Good but could use improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad we made slavery illegal. That would be handy here.

Re:Good but could use improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the right decision under current law, but it's obvious that what we need is laws setting up a third class of workers between contractors and employees.

Why?

Re:Good but could use improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber sounds like a saint compared to other "legal" employers out there. I had several siblings who tried out door to door kitchen knife/vacuum/magazine sales (yes, such things still exist) for a summer job when they couldn't find other employment between collage cycles. All of the employers who they encountered in those jobsets were basically scams, you had to sell out all of your family/friends/friends of family/etc in order to make any headway and unless you made a nearly unachievable quota you basically didn't get paid or fully compensated for fueling your personal vehicle used for business purposes. THAT is slave labor, not failing to receive unemployment after you stop taking Uber fares.

Re:Good but could use improvement

[Major Blud]

AC brings up a good question. If I'm selling for Mary Kay, Avon, or god forbid AmWay, I'm not employed by those companies (?)....but they do set the guidelines on the price of their products and the guidelines. How does Uber differ in this situation according to California law?

Re:Good but could use improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

AC brings up a good question. If I'm selling for Mary Kay, Avon, or god forbid AmWay, I'm not employed by those companies (?)....but they do set the guidelines on the price of their products and the guidelines. How does Uber differ in this situation according to California law?

Maybe they simply haven't been sued yet.

Re:Good but could use improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, my name is Steve. I come from a rough area. I used to be addicted to crack but now I am off it and trying to stay clean.

Re:Good but could use improvement

[aaarrrgggh]

With those scams, you are independent because you are responsible for finding the customer.

Re:Good but could use improvement

[tehcyder]

It's the right decision under current law, but it's obvious that what we need is laws setting up a third class of workers between contractors and employees.

You want a special category of person because they are an Uber driver?

How about conee?

Re:Good but could use improvement

[blue9steel]

No, I'm suggesting that those like uber drivers, task rabbit workers, etc. are more attached than contractors but not really as attached as full employees. They should get a set of benefits and protections somewhere between the two. The same could be said for teenagers, they're not really children, but they're not really adults either and the law should reflect that.

Re:Good but could use improvement

[david_thornley]

In general, if you sell for Avon, you decide on your own operations. You are free to sell anything at any time to anyone. As I understand it, you buy the stuff from Avon and sell it, so that you run the finances. (This changes with the MLM operations, which are typically scams.) A Uber employee sets his or her own hours, but within that context operates as instructed by Uber and is paid by Uber.

In Other Words

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not free to make agreements and contracts on your own without government interference.

Note that all Taxi Drivers in California are still contractors, driving their own personally-owned vehicles, but paying dues to the unions, government, and other busybodies who have their hands in the cookie jar.

Is the gig economy a good thing?

[ErichTheRed]

There are all sorts of arguments about why Uber should or shouldn't have to act like a traditional taxi company. But in my opinion, that's less important than this question, for the broader economy and labor force. Social media, tech publications, and even the MBA rags have had all sorts of glowing stories about the "gig economy." Basically, they argue that the flexibility offered to workers by allowing them to string together contract jobs to make income outweighs the stability of traditional employment. Uber is cited as an example on the low end, day laborer style side, and of course, high flying "technology consultants" making $150+ an hour are put up as shining examples of why this should be the future of employment.

I'm far from a Luddite, but I'm a big believer in stability. Especially as you acquire a family and grown-up responsibilities, life in the US revolves around a steady income, health insurance and a way to save for retirement. The high-flying tech consultants can arrange for these things, but lately I've been seeing more of these cheerleading articles advocating for all employees to switch to this model. Most average employees don't have the motivation or skills to market themselves the way these consultants do, and they may lack the skills that would make them good contractor candidates.

It just seems to me that companies want a disposable labor force that they don't need to pay benefits, vacation, etc. for. Basically, they want to go back to a pre-Depression era where workers just turn up at the factory gates every morning and hope to get work. That may be appealing to Millenials who don't have any family ties and will move at the drop of a hat. If we have to go this way, then things like real estate transactions need to be streamlined, life has to be restructured around variable income levels, etc. and I think society isn't ready for it yet.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[vpness]

IF I had mod points, and IF there was a 6 for insightful, this'd win. This post takes an Insightful view on the impacts to change of this style of economy, from a broader societal view, not from a 'f-uber , or f-socialism, or f-taxis' perspective. Cool

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[drinkypoo]

It just seems to me that companies want a disposable labor force that they don't need to pay benefits, vacation, etc. for. Basically, they want to go back to a pre-Depression era where workers just turn up at the factory gates every morning and hope to get work.

The last backlash led to unions, worker's rights, etc. Will the next one lead to a Minimum Guaranteed Income? If we had that (and working national health care, not just health insurance) then we could work for any amount which suited us.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Minimum Guaranteed Income
Do you know where that money will come from? It will not be the 1% or the companies. I can assure you that. It will come out of the pockets of the people making that money. It will be spread around so those doing slightly better get stamped down to be the same as everyone else. If you think for one second someone at the 1% level will not jump all over that to make it so they are 'better than everyone' you have not been paying attention.

http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap17p1.html
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap18p1.html
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap19p1.html

What you are seeing is the market trying to work around the idea of min wage. There are jobs out there that need to be done. But min wage is too high for those jobs. So the idea of 'part time' comes about. Meaning you are paid for part of the job. But you will have someone standing there saying 'do the whole job or you get nothing'. Part time and 'on demand' is just a symptom of the market being twisted with an increasing supply of workings but a lowering of demand for them.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality is things have been shifting in this direction for a long time. For better or worse, piecemeal work is the direction the world is headed, and IMHO it is for the better. Contracted labor, in many cases, is simply more efficient, which in the end is better for both the employer and the employee. Stability in a "permanent job" is a myth. Talk about stability to the American auto worker, or the steel worker, or the coal miner. Tower Records, Circuit City, The Chicago Tribune, or the LA Times. Many people want to grasp at some romanticized time when you got a job and stayed in it for the remainder of your working life, but unfortunately things happen; factories close, markets shift, new technologies render old industries completely obsolete. The pace of technological change has resulted in an era in which no industry is free from the possibility of obsolescence, no job, no employee. The remedy is for us all to have the ability to hold as many jobs as we want, and to easily and quickly move from one job to the next. Classifying every worker in every job as an employee makes that next to impossible. The labor rules "employers" are subject to, make employee choice next to impossible to allow. You cannot as an employer allow someone to work 10 hours one week then 45 the next if you are obligated to provide them with health insurance, and sick pay. For employers the complexity of tracking when and where people are working becomes and entire job in itself. Ensuring as an employer that you are not running afoul of hiring and dismissal laws mandates that you limit the size and scope of your workforce, witch itself mandates you limit the flexibility of your worker's schedule. This makes it next to impossible for the employee to set their own schedule to allow for school, or a new skills training program, or another job, and is obviously not in the best interest of employees. Unfortunately I predict that the first thigh to come out of this ruling is that all drivers (at least in California) will soon be limited to no more than 20 hours of work for any given service / week, which will make the job untenable for many of the "employees" who now depend on it as their primary source of income.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[plopez]

I have worked gigs and as a true 1099 contractor, not an employee of a contract house (aka body shop), and liked it. I liked setting my own hours, selecting the jobs, setting the rates, etc. This "you're a contractor but we own your ass" thing that Uber does is BS. And I would call BS if it were any other company, not just an internet company.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[plopez]

"But min wage is too high for those jobs"

Huh? Are so clueless?
1) Min. wage is in no way a living wage
2) If we can continue to give huge pay increases to CEOs and pay dividends to investors of companies that lose money then we have plenty of money to go around.

Stop with propaganda.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole "gig economy" thing is trying to play the working force for a bunch of idiots. Give the companies what they want, with no strings attached and low wages - yeah, that's good for the rest of us.

I know many people who do technical or high-skill contracting work, and it is entirely unlike "stable". Everyone will tell you that it is a feast or famine scenario. While you have a contract, woohoo! Then you spend the rest of your time frantically looking around for the next contract hoping that you made enough from the last one to tide you over until you find another contract. It is much higher risk than a salaried, 40-hour-per-week job. Not to mention that you are then on the hook for health care, social security payments, etc, etc, etc. There are people for who dislike commitment sufficiently to be attracted to contracting, but it is not stable nor secure and for those who are raising families and have made commitments it is much higher risk.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[ErichTheRed]

This is what I've found too. I know lots of contractors who parachute in someplace, get paid a huge hourly rate to fix a problem, but then disappear shortly. Most I have talked to agree that it's feast or famine and unless you're willing to accept body shop rates, you need to do your own sales and marketing constantly. And while you may be above the most petty of office politics, you still have to play the game to keep the gravy train rolling, but this time at a higher level politicking with the executives. I've heard a mix of opinions, some people say they like the money and freedom, some have such a niche skillset that they can't get "permanent" jobs anywhere, and some were forced into it because of age discrimination or similar.

It is attractive (high pay, ability to write off everything you own and buy as a business expense, etc.) I'd say any single person who loves to travel and has some significant savings would fit ideally. One guy I know does so well doing his particular thing over and over again at different companies that he just lives in hotels all year because he's never home long enough. I just don't think it's for everyone. Number one, you need to be highly skilled. Even typical BS artist consultants are skilled BSers. Second, unless you have a mail order bride or similar accommodating spousal relationship, spouses and family require attention; you can't be on the road 48 weeks out of the year. Like I said above, I like stability, knowing that I'm going to be paid in regular installments as long as I keep working hard.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[tlhIngan]

It just seems to me that companies want a disposable labor force that they don't need to pay benefits, vacation, etc. for. Basically, they want to go back to a pre-Depression era where workers just turn up at the factory gates every morning and hope to get work. That may be appealing to Millenials who don't have any family ties and will move at the drop of a hat. If we have to go this way, then things like real estate transactions need to be streamlined, life has to be restructured around variable income levels, etc. and I think society isn't ready for it yet.

And there you have it, the reason why everyone is championing the "sharing" economy.

Because those who work for Uber don't do things like pay for EI, or worker's comp insurance, or many other things that regular contractors pay for.

It's all about getting cheaper labor.

And if you think that's a good thing - see China. I'm sure if you like working for Uber, then Foxconn and the like aren't terribly bad either. Heck, those Foxconn workers for Apple probably have more rights and everything than anyone in the "sharing" economy. And of course, we blast Apple for the slave labor, while cheer on those Uber drivers...

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[HornWumpus]

It's a simple thought process:

People work. That work has value. If the value of the work is lower than the value of minimum wage the person will not be hired.

Minimum wage==minimum work skill.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

you know you can say "fuck" on /., yes?

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[Damarkus13]

The labor rules "employers" are subject to, make employee choice next to impossible to allow. You cannot as an employer allow someone to work 10 hours one week then 45 the next if you are obligated to provide them with health insurance, and sick pay.

Where in the US are employers required to provide sick pay or health insurance, other than federal contractors? And sick leave for workers with flexible hours is simple. You accrue a set fraction of a hour for each hour worked. A similar compensation could be worked out for health insurance as well.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[aaarrrgggh]

Technically the companies are looking for a scalable workforce. Train staff for peak demand, and only pay them when demand exists, making them bid for a "market" pay.

We used to call it moonlighting. Difference being it was a supplement to a full time job, not a substitute. Moonlighters were usually better than temps because they were trained, but when you hit a certain threshold temps (via an agency) made more sense.

Gigs help compensate for underemployment rather than unemployment.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. "The market' also tries to work around taxes, regulations, competition, and everything else. So what?

A minimum guaranteed income is considered by most economists to be the least economically disruptive approach. Those who propose a minimum guaranteed income are also assuming that most other social safety nets would be abandoned, including the minimum wage. And it would lessen or obviate the need for many other commercial regulations.

Also, there's no such thing as "the market". That's a reification, a method of conceptualization that is especially prone to poor reasoning. For example, using the term "the market" allows you to artificially distinguish business interests from public policy interests, skirting the whole question of whether and how those things can actually be distinct in the real world. It's a rhetorical slight of hand.

P.S. That economics lesson is _horrible_. Yes, applying the basic economic laws of supply to a static model would cause one to predict that minimum wages are inefficient (i.e. reduce overall wealth). But _real_ text books on economics will also tell you that there's scant empirical evidence that this occurs, despite this being one of the oldest and biggest issue in applied economics. On balance there's slightly more evidence that minimum wages increase overall wealth, but there's certainly not enough solid evidence to say anything definitive. Real world economics involves extremely complex feedback effects, and any economist (they're a dime a dozen these days) who tries to tell you conclusively that a minimum wage is a net loss is either an idiot or a liar.

I studied economics (though didn't major in it) in both undergrad and graduate school. My graduate school had, I think, two Nobel laureate economists, and the whole department was _very_ conservative. But even my conservative professor was honest enough to admit that it's an open question.

Everybody should learn economics. Just like everybody should learn algebra. But as in every field, trying to apply the basic laws to complex real world issues can be a very difficult task, because the real world is a complex, dynamic place divorced from the static models that are used to explain and explore the basic concepts.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[sabbede]

And here I thought it was supposed to be a way to make a little extra on the side.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[sabbede]

That's not up to you. You don't get to decide someone else isn't using their money properly, and certainly don't get to take it away. If you don't think a CEO should be making what they do, or that the company they run shouldn't pay dividends, buy up all the stock and fire the CEO. Until then, mind your own business and let them ruin theirs.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Minimum Guaranteed Income? What hogwash is that?

Fairer wealth distribution is in the end a good thing for the economy and definitely needs improvement in the US. However something like that guarantees a raise in prices to where whatever the minimum guaranteed income is an unsustainable living wage, leading to an ever increasing cycle of raising the minimum.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[shutdown -p now]

I don't know. We're seeing popular political candidates in the primaries openly endorsing higher taxes on capital gains for the first time in god knows how long. This alone would likely be sufficient to fund a reasonable basic income program.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[shutdown -p now]

And then, when they can't find a job, we put them on welfare, which requires them to prove that they're looking for a job.

Basically, the existing combination of minimum wage and unemployment insurance is effectively basic income in disguise, except that it has very non-transparent funding and a lot of unnecessary bureaucratic overhead.

Once we have UBI, we can drop minimum wage requirements altogether, and probably get rid of progressive income taxation, as well.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[shutdown -p now]

We do get to decide to tax them higher and redistribute the wealth, though.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber is just going to double down on self driving cars that much faster.

Uber's in it for the long term. The 'drivers' are just data collection points. A self driving car garage, EVs and auto charging and Uber will be managing fleets built on data that they're collecting right now.

Uber could replace drivers in a lot of cities in a year or two.

It just seems to me that companies want a disposable labor force that they don't need to pay benefits, vacation, et

If your job is disposable labor force you are one step away from being automated.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

averaGE LOW LEVEL workers would stay\rve if evaluated on a job by job needed basis as they are the ones who are the just filling a hole in your shift schedule the ones the manager doesnt have to keep an eye on them constantly but are trusted to manage themselves by a long shot

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a high end tech contractor (with good rates), and vocal libertarian. But basically there are two types of self contractors.

* Those who choose their hours, their clientS (emphasis on the plural), their rates and regularly decline some gigs
* Those who are de facto salaried, and should enjoy every bit of protection the status entails

Whether tech consultants or not, the criteria I set up above is both crystal clear and relevant, therefore Uber drivers are obviously emplyees

The more I think of it, another more blurry criteria should be added : any "contractor" who gets increased rate if he provides ABOVE a certain amount of hours, or gets backfire from either declining a gig or accepting one with another client should gain both employee status + full benefit + punitive damage

In the 3rd millenium, our society should fight any push back towards indentured servitude, and hang the slavers with the intestines of their children.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[HornWumpus]

To get unemployment you have to have worked previously and you benes are based on your income.

Free handouts are always a bad idea. Getting rid of minimum wage is however a good idea.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[drinkypoo]

To get unemployment you have to have worked previously and you benes are based on your income.

And insufficient to live upon. If you don't have savings it is a joke. If you do have savings, you probably don't need it to begin with.

Re:Is the gig economy a good thing?

[sabbede]

Don't forget that they are part of "We".

This is great!

[MarkvW]

Uber wants all the benefits of being an employer with none of the responsibilities.

If you listen to Uber, every worker is an independent contractor and all the employee protection laws we fought so hard for over the last century don't apply any more.

Re:This is great!

[fluffernutter]

This makes me wonder if schools are even teaching about how American society was before the great depression. Perhaps millennials are so wrapped up in themselves or so disallusioned by the lack of jobs that history is doomed to repeat itself.

Re:This is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

all the employee protection laws we fought so hard for over the last century don't apply any more.

Are you a fucking retard?

Seriously, have you been tested for retardation?

Uber contractors/employees have far more RIGHTS than any union provides. How many jobs REALLY let you set your own hours? How many contract jobs are on-demand for the CONTRACTOR?

WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! I ONLY WORK 5 HOURS A WEEK, WHERE ARE MY DENTAL BENEFITS!?!?!?!?!

Shut the fuck up. I would trade ALL of your stupid, shitty-ass, dumb-fuck "labor protection laws" that "don't apply to Uber, huhhhhrhrrr" for the ability to keep a steady job while setting my own hours for higher pay.

Re:This is great!

[Anil]

...

Uber contractors/employees have far more RIGHTS than any union provides. How many jobs REALLY let you set your own hours? How many contract jobs are on-demand for the CONTRACTOR?

...

This type of work has existed centuries. (non-retail) Sales jobs have this option to set your own hours - and if you are good, you get better pay.

One big differentiating factor however is price. The franchised or independent sales person can alter their prices to their competitive (or financial) advantage. The independent Uber driver can not do this.

Re:This is great!

[fluffernutter]

It's interesting that you call Uber a steady job. Is there anything preventing them from locking your account on a whim and preventing you from driving? By anything, I mean do you have any legal recourse if it happens and you are the driver. In a steady job, the employer is prevented from doing that. It saddens me that you think the right to create your own hours is an adequate tradeoff for all other legal protections.

Re:This is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! I ONLY WORK 5 HOURS A WEEK, WHERE ARE MY DENTAL BENEFITS!?!?!?!?!

Strawman arguments are lies.

Re:This is great!

[slew]

It's interesting that you call Uber a steady job. Is there anything preventing them from locking your account on a whim and preventing you from driving? By anything, I mean do you have any legal recourse if it happens and you are the driver. In a steady job, the employer is prevented from doing that.

It saddens me that you think the right to create your own hours is an adequate tradeoff for all other legal protections.

Actually, in most states in the US employment is at-will so, in any so-called steady job, your employer can give you your last paycheck, walk you out the door immediately for no reason and allow you to collect unemployment insurance. The fact that they usually don't do that doesn't mean that they can't and won't (given the right circumstances).

There are only a few thing that prevents this from happening...
1. Employer wants to avoid discrimination lawsuits (and their associated costs)
2. Employer doesn't want to piss off other current employees that they want to keep.
3. Employer is large enough to meet terms of the *WARN-Act* or other similar legal requirements for large companies.
4. Employer needs to fulfill the terms of an non implied employment contract (e.g., an individual, or collective bargained contract).

Sometimes employers attempt to mitigate #1, #2, with some sort of severance payment (even thought they aren't legally required), and can generally avoid #3 by just paying their employees for 60 days (known as "pay in lieu of notice").

So unless you are saying only jobs with contracts are "steady" jobs, you may have a point, but that doesn't cover the majority of jobs out there today, so by that definition, an average job by most of the workforce is not a "steady" jobs even though many feel that way.

Re: This is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they teach a random amalgamation of facts, but the way people lived?

Not a chance.

Good luck learning about the abuses in factories, you can't even teach about slavery without somebody complaining about the people happy to be kept as slaves.

Re:This is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing Uber will also need to start paying out for unemployment insurance. (Mandatory for employers.)

They might just go out of business.

Re:This is great!

[wyHunter]

Unfortunately, Americans want CHEAP over GOOD every time. Libertarian I am, but I CHOOSE to pay more to shop at mom+pop stores etc. because I want these things in my community. Most folks? If (say) a USA made product is $.01 more than an import from a third world country that treats its workers like slaves, they will say "Oh, I can't afford that!" So, no, nobody wants actually to have anything other than bare bones as cheap as possible. And we're declining so rapidly it's astounding - millennials aren't voluntarily not buying domiciles, cars, getting married even if they are being brainwashed into believing that biking everywhere is the thing and so on. They simply can't afford it because jobs don't pay anything. (Never mind that too many of them don't know anything despite 50K in student loans).

Re:This is great!

[fluffernutter]

The thing is, you can't really blame the consumer for looking for the best price as that is their role in capitalism. As much as it is the corporations role to make as much profit as possible. It is the government that is supposed to keep a reasonable balance between these two opposing forces and ensure citizens are able to enjoy a good quality of life and they are failing miserably.

Re:This is great!

[shutdown -p now]

I don't know about schools, but laissez-faire economic libertarians have gotten to the point where they actually praise the Gilded Age as the great era of capitalist achievement - or, alternatively, presenting it as "still too much government". I'm not kidding.

Re:This is great!

[tehcyder]

Actually, in most states in the US employment is at-will so, in any so-called steady job, your employer can give you your last paycheck, walk you out the door immediately for no reason and allow you to collect unemployment insurance

This is not the case in most other, civilized countries.

Re:This is great!

[david_thornley]

AIUI, employers wind up paying for unemployment insurance, and therefore would prefer not to lay people off. This means there's an economic drag on laying off an employee, but not a contractor. (On one gig, I was called into the office, told my work was appreciated but they could no longer afford me, and told me I'd be gone in two weeks. First time in months I was confident I'd be working the next week.)

Unless you are a rapist

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you are instantly a contractor, as soon as penetration is achieved.

self-driving cars will have them own liability iss

[Anonymous Coward]

self-driving cars will have them own liability issues ones that can't be pushed away with a EULA.

McDonalds franchisee used to have a lot of freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

McDonalds franchisee used to have a lot of freedom to due stuff there own way now they have very little.

Are they not free to pick up non-Uber passengers?

[Firethorn]

I agree with the judge on one point: if they were independent contractors, they would be free to pickup passengers not using Uber.

I've heard of drivers keeping 3 phones and having Uber, lyft, and sidecar all up and running at the same time. With a driver doing that you would indeed have a good argument that he's a contractor.

But many/most don't do that.

Fixed the Glitch

[Mr. Droopy Drawers]

They simply fixed the glitch..

Make the same ruling for Papa John's Pizza

[Khyber]

The company and its franchisees pull the independent contractor status all the goddamned time while doing all they can to violate California law - charging you for uniforms (illegal under CA law) deduction of tips from credit card purchases (illegal just about anywhere) refusal to pay mileage reimbursement (IRS law violation) and much, much more.

John Schnatter is a class-A business criminal and needs to be taken to task by the courts.

Re:Make the same ruling for Papa John's Pizza

[tlambert]

John Schnatter is a class-A business criminal and needs to be taken to task by the courts.

Have you ever considered stopping bitching long enough to file a lawsuit, assuming you have standing to do so, having been personally wronged by the company, as opposed to, you know, being an unsuccessful union organizer expressing sour grapes?

Re:Make the same ruling for Papa John's Pizza

[Khyber]

I went to the DLSE here in California and filed a complaint. Nothing ever happened out of it, and I'm currently getting a bunch of other former drivers together to get the ball rolling in a real suit.

Re:Make the same ruling for Papa John's Pizza

[Anonymous Coward]

Khyber,
  Papa johns is in Bankruptcy Court, you Ignorant, dim-witted, deadbeat alcoholic & you know it, too! Consequently, they're immune from any civil action; or did this not occur to your "superior reasoning abilities", you fucking idiot!
Khyber, Tough Guy & Mr. "Shit Drunk", don't you agree, an adult should be responsible for his or her conduct, right? even an alcoholic... like you! Or can you handle it?
Remember that you "have no regrets" and "don't care..." when called upon to answer for your own conduct.

Friends of the Prosecution

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Re:Make the same ruling for Papa John's Pizza

[aaarrrgggh]

If DSLE didn't take your claim, you likely don't have a case. From an employer perspective you are guilty until proven innocent, which is quite difficult to prove.

Re:Make the same ruling for Papa John's Pizza

[Anonymous Coward]

"Papa johns is in Bankruptcy Court"

Revenue Increase US$ 1.439 billion
Operating income Increase US$ 106.5 million
Net income Increase US$ 69.537 million
Total assets Increase US$ 464.291 million

Yep, sure as fuck looks like bankruptcy to me. Or are you too stupid to realize that the bankruptcy is in other states, and not California?

LOL @ an AC trying to be tough. Try getting some balls and putting a name behind those words.

~Victor Rosaquillas

Re:Make the same ruling for Papa John's Pizza

[Khyber]

The DLSE took the claim. They could not come to a decision, mediation failed, and thus they said "Leave this up to the courts since there's a similar case working through the system right now. After that, you should have more clarity and recourse through the courts."

That case was this Uber case. Now that this has been settled with various things clarified, it's time to file.

Re:Make the same ruling for Papa John's Pizza

[Anonymous Coward]

ask Khyber if he posted a photo of Papa Johns Pizza in Riverside Ca of their front door with a poster on it stating: Papa Johns is n bankruptcy...
it's in a federal bankruptcy, if not the entire franchise at least the one franchises is.
Khyber thinks he's going to sue them, ... he thinks he's going to sue everybody. He thinks he's a "Global Research Director"

   

Re:Make the same ruling for Papa John's Pizza

[Anonymous Coward]

There are six PJ stores in that city that I can see.

Every single one is franchised.

Only mention of anything recent in a google search for Papa Johns Federal Bankruptcy turns over...

http://rhrealitycheck.org/arti...

Which is only in New York. Not California, and not Federal.

You are most certainly a sadly informed shitstain of a stalker. Don't you have anything better to do than lie? If you're so hung up on Khyber, grow a pair of balls and go face him in person. You seem to know everything else about him.

Nope, just another Anonymous Coward that won't do jack shit.

Re:Make the same ruling for Papa John's Pizza

[Anonymous Coward]

, Khyber.,you're a complete idiot You'll never accomplish anything!

Re:Are they not free to pick up non-Uber passenger

[danbob999]

Also if they get caught by Uber they may be fired.

New market

[fluffernutter]

When did America go from the land of opportunity to the land of jobs we are forced to settle for?

Re:New market

[tlambert]

It started in 1980 under Jimmy Carter, when MFN status was restored to China, after its suspension in 1951 under Harry Truman. It became permanent in 2000 when it was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

At that point, it was only a matter of time between then and all blue collar manufacturing jobs being exported to China, since they are not burdened with the same labor and environmental standards that are imposed in the U.S., and there is no way to impose those standards on China by way of conditional tariffs, due to our agreements within the WTO as to the meaning of MFN status.

Definitions:

MFN - Most Favored Nation
WTO - Word Trade Organization
Harry Truman - Democratic President of the U.S.
Jimmy Carter - Democratic President of the U.S.
Bill Clinton - Democratic President of the U.S.
blue collar manufacturing jobs - jobs which used to be held by unskilled labor, who are now competing with millennials for McDonalds and Starbucks jobs

Re:New market

[Anonymous Coward]

It started in the 1980s under Ronnie Ray-Guns, when "trickle down economics" became the policy of the day and workers started being severely punished for trying to assert their rights.

At this point, it was only a matter of time between then and the middle class evaporating, with the wealthiest Americans hoarding ever more money instead of "trickling it down," and with corporations continuing to gain more rights and more power as the individual consumers and employees lost the same.

Definitions:

Ronnie Ray-Guns - Republican President, Lord, Savior, and Dear Leader Ronald Reagan
"Trickle-Down Economics" - Braindead economic theory that if the rich get richer, they'll inject that money into the economy instead of hoarding it, somehow benefiting poor people
workers - people like air traffic controllers who went on strike and Lord Ray-Guns fired them all to send a message that labor unions won't be tolerated

Re:New market

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not.

It's the land of the jobs the Government allows you to have. All hail the Wisdom of Big Brother!

Re:New market

[Anonymous Coward]

The day you were sold the "American Dream".

Re:New market

[DaMattster]

Arguably, the new market came about with the rise of the MBA in the 1970s. MBAs look at the company strictly as a profit/loss model. Also, we started valuing quarterly profits over the long run. Now, a lot of companies are ridden hard to profit in the short term at the expense of the long term. Investors have unrealistic growth and profit expectations, and in their greed, disregard the precarious position of people employed. It's not any single thing but a cavalcade of conditions that put us where we are now. NAFTA decimated manufacturing in the US. I could go on ....

Re:New market

[Anonymous Coward]

When the government created a system where people with bad credit could get mortgages they couldn't afford leading to a housing bubble. When those loans were spread to other financial groups through the use of mortgage backed derivatives and then the housing bubble burst, the economy tanked and brought down everyone leading to a global recession and increasing unemployment, something we've kind of but never fully recovered from.

Gypsy cabs are illegal.

[tlambert]

If the "contractors" were actually contractors, then it would be them and not Uber serving street hails.

Gypsy cabs are illegal. Answering street hails would make them a gypsy cab. As long as they are a contractor, they are shielded.

Re:Gypsy cabs are illegal.

[sjames]

Not if they were not contracted to pick up street hails. That would leave them on the hook for doing that, but it wouldn't be any of Uber's business.

Re:Gypsy cabs are illegal.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the "contractors" were actually contractors, then it would be them and not Uber serving street hails.

Gypsy cabs are illegal. Answering street hails would make them a gypsy cab. As long as they are a contractor, they are shielded.

When Viz magazine published a cartoon called "The Thieving Gypsy Bastards" they received criticism from gypsy groups. But the cartoon was inspired by the theft of the author's bike by gypsies and pretty much everyone else in the UK was familiar with the crime that follows 'travelling people' around. They travel for a reason. So no one else complained about the cartoon.

I wouldn't get in a Gypsy cab. You wouldn't get out with your possessions.

   

Re:Gypsy cabs are illegal.

[tlambert]

I wouldn't get in a Gypsy cab. You wouldn't get out with your possessions.

It's a colloquialism meaning an unlicensed taxi driver. It has nothing to do with Irish Travelers or Romany people.

The summary is BS. This is *one driver*.

[tlambert]

The summary is BS. This is *one driver*. Not "Uber drivers".

The decision is also BS. for other reasons, but there's a $12.50 per driver way to work around the ruling, and I expect Uber will vail itself of that option.

I must be an E-bay employee

[goombah99]

Seems like I meet the criteria.

Re: Are they not free to pick up non-Uber passenge

[Anonymous Coward]

How can they be fired if they aren't employees?

Re:Are they not free to pick up non-Uber passenger

[Anonymous Coward]

if they are "fired" then they were employees prior to the adverse action.

if one tears away the thicket of the law to get at the Devil, then one may no longer claim protection from that very same thicket of law.

This is incongruous with past decisions

[Jmollema]

So, in 2009, the drivers of USA Cab in California were not qualified for a class action status lawsuit since they acted like independent contractors and their damages were not universal enough to qualify for Class Action. http://www.vtzlawblog.com/2009... Yet, Uber drivers are even less under the control of Uber, and they're considered Employees. The whole thing smells funny.

odd

[Anonymous Coward]

funny afaik the cabbies working for traditional cab companies are contract workers least here in Texas in NYC while a strong union state given you have to buy the medallion or work for the medallion investor it sounds like your not a traditional employee either.