Amazon Prime Now Delivery Drivers Sue Over Classification As Contractors (itworld.com)

itwbennett writes: A proposed class-action suit filed by 4 delivery drivers for the app-based Amazon Prime Now service alleges that the company misclassifies its workers as contractors when the terms the drivers follow 'fit many of the hallmarks that would classify them as employees,' according to Leonard Carder, the law firm representing the drivers. Among those terms: The drivers reported to and worked exclusively out of an Amazon warehouse, were scheduled to work fixed shifts during Amazon's Prime Now service hours, and were required to wear shirts and hats bearing the Amazon Prime Now logo and carry a smartphone preloaded with the app, according to the complaint.

Comments

Re:FedEx

[olsmeister]

Employees have certain rights and protections that contractors do not have. This web page has some additional information that may interest you.

Re:FedEx

[Spazmania]

What IS the difference between a contractor and an "employee",

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/co...

The most important one is: "6) The nature and degree of control by the employer. Analysis of this factor includes who sets pay amounts and work hours and who determines how the work is performed, as well as whether the worker is free to work for others and hire helpers"

If the allegations are true, Amazon sets the hours, sets the pay, requires uniforms and interacts only with individuals. That makes the workers misclassified employees, not independent contractors.

Goolge fiber next.

[Joe_Dragon]

They have uniforms that say independent contractor on them.

Real independent contractor can not be forced to use or buy uniforms.

Re:Goolge fiber next.

[kamakazi]

wow! talking through hat much?

Independent contractors most certainly can be forced to use and buy uniforms. If the contract says "provide service X while wearing uniform Y" and you accept the contract you most certainly are required to wear uniform Y. Just like a contractor can be required to use specific materials for a job.

A contract can also require when a job is done, such as "paint the walls of our building using [specific brand and color code] paint, work will be performed after hours between 5PM and 8AM, to be completed by November 15th 2015.

The difference between a contractor and an employee is rooted in the negotiation and powers of the parties.

If the worker answers to a boss for day to day instructions, has little or no say in the compensation level, is contractually prevented from working for others, paid on a regular time basis and is scheduled by the employer then they are pretty much sure to be considered an employee.

If the worker is just required to meet deadlines, is paid by the job, has freedom to work elsewhere, and freedom to hire their own help then they are generally going to be considered an independent contractor.

A contractor cannot be fired. They can lose the job if they fail to meet the terms of the contract, but for the length of that contract they are not susceptible to the whims of a grumpy PHB, and the contractor has the same right to initiate a breach of contract suit as the company who hired them.

The grey areas that are showing up in recent class actions are pretty much all the result of companies wanting to avoid the responsibilities of employees, such as unemployment insurance, workers comp, disability, etc, but wanting to regulate the worker/customer interface to preserve a consistent corporate image.

Because these are large corporations contracting individuals to a large extent the contractor does not have any power of negotiation, the corporation writes the contract, and contractors can take it or leave it. This does introduce a bias against the independent contractor classification.

I think in many of these cases the workers will win, because the company is really trying to say "you don't work for me, but you have to represent me in a strictly defined way".

If a company really wanted to do this with contractors the right way they could write a contract that regulated the workers as strictly as they wanted, then put the contract out for bid. This would shift the negotiation power toward the worker, let them name their own price, but it would also cost the company a lot more money, because people bidding on a contract are either going to name a price that actually reflects their money/time investment, or if they grossly underbid to get the job, they will not be able to actually fulfill the contract requirements.

An actual example:

Your mailman is a government employee, benefits, insurance, the whole kit and caboodle. In rural areas he is actually required to provide his own vehicle, but is an employee.

The truck that takes your mail between sorting centers is probably an independent contractor. That particular contract has pretty strict time requirements, and a bunch of hoops to jump through (after all, it is a government contract) but the government is not concerned about that contractor representing them, because they do not interact with the customer. The contractor provides and maintains the equipment, hires their own drivers, and bids competitively to get the contract every time it comes to an end. They run some pretty ratty trucks sometimes. I have seen U.S. Mail painted on trailers that have other logos just painted over, being pulled by tractors that look like they were purchased third hand.

If the contractor underbids the job he will either suck it up and lose money (if they have the capital to do that) or will be forced to break the contract.

But any way you look at it a contract can be so specific as to specify the brand of toothpaste the contractor uses. The specificity of the contract is not the primary differentiator between the employee and contractor classification

Re:FedEx

[mysidia]

What IS the difference between a contractor and an "employee"

Workers who have to work at specific times at specific places, perform specific employer-required tasks to accomplish a job, and wear specific clothing are likely to be classed as employees. More so, if the contract requires the person personally do the work, rather than a project they have been awarded, that they can hire subcontractors or employees to complete.

Moreso, if the company pays for expenses, such as trucks, fuel or tools, or reimburses the employee, and/or provides benefits typical of an employer, such as retirement, or other personal benefits as a portion of pay.

The structure of the arrangement.

But for employment law and tax purposes:

• Behavioral: Does company have any control what worker does and how worker does his or her job? Employers control employees work conditions. Contractors have wide latitude in how they get the work done, for example, they can hire one or more employees to complete the work.
• Financial: Are the business aspects of the job controlled by the company? For example: Who covers the expense of vehicle, tools, etc, when and how does the worker get paid?
• Business Relationship: Are there contracts, or employee-like benefits (e.g. insurance, vacation)? Is the work performed a key aspect of the business, and is this a continuing relationship?

Re:If you don't like the job...

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

so, all businesses get together and say that they'll pay you a buck a day oh and you need to breathe asbestos without a mask, because we ain't paying for that shit. Oh, and if you don't like that job? go get another. But it will have the same requirements.

Seems fake? no, things were kind of like this in the early 1900s. Oh and if you complained there was a nonzero chance of you getting killed. Unions and work laws didn't come out of nowhere. They came out of abuses where companies used their large power as leverage. If you have thousands of people applying for a handful of jobs at amazon fulfillment centers where you do nothing but walk all day carrying heavy stuff just so maybe you can be one of the 10% that get full-time jobs, the "purchasing power" of labor is pretty weak. Saying "just go get another job" ignores this.

When corporations do illegal stuff, we oddly don't say "go get another line of work" and make the banks that financed drug lords start selling oranges by the side of the road. But for some reason people are expected to.

Re:What country do you live in?

[kqs]

I can do that. You can probably do that. Someone without a good skillset, who went to a high school where less than half the kids graduated, cannot do that. Well, they can go to lots of employers but all the employers have the same crappy policies.

Last time we had lots of employers all treating they employees like disposable crap, we got unions. Think about that: there are many, many problems with unions, and most people (even their members) hate them. But they were considered a far lesser evil than the employers of the time. And unless the government gets involved and starts making companies behave, we're heading back towards unions.

So pick your poison: strong unions or strong government regulations. Because we're trying strong companies now, and they've proving to be a very bad choice for all but the most skilled.