Uber Drivers Are Company Employees Not Self-Employed Contractors, Rules British Court (arstechnica.com)

A British court has ruled that Uber drivers have the same employment rights as other full-time employees in the country, which makes them entitled to a wide array of benefits. Ars Technica reports: The ruling (PDF) means that drivers are now entitled to earn the national minimum wage, holiday pay, sick pay, and other benefits, after the San Francisco-based taxi firm lost a case brought against them by two drivers backed by the GMB union. Uber had argued that it was a tech firm rather than a transport one, and that as its drivers were self-employed contractors it was not obliged to provide the kinds of statutory employment rights full-time workers would expect. According to the GMB, the Central London Employment Tribunal's decision will have ramifications in other industries which rely on casualized labor, and that "similar contracts masquerading as bogus self employment will all be reviewed." In the court's ruling, however, the judges insisted that "the notion that Uber in London is a mosaic of 30,000 small businesses linked by a common 'platform' is to our minds faintly ridiculous. Drivers do not and cannot negotiate with passengers... They are offered and accept trips strictly on Uber's terms." The tribunal panel reserved hefty criticism for the firm, claiming that it had used "fictions," "twisted language," and "brand new terminology" to hoodwink drivers and passengers alike. The GMB meanwhile denied that the majority of Uber drivers enjoyed the "flexibility" of their current contracts.

Comments

Ita about time!

[FlyingGuy]

However, this will bring about interesting wage negotiations, in the UK and abroad.

Re:Ita about time!

[MouseR]

It's easier to fine one company for operating an illegal taxi system than it is, going against individual drivers.

Re:Ita about time!

[h33t l4x0r]

Even with benefits, Uber drivers are still low wage workers in an industry that's going to be replaced by robots in 10 years. I can think of a worse job. Maybe coal miner.

Re:Ita about time!

[flyingfsck]

...and a very interesting tax bill for Uber.

Re:Ita about time!

[RogueyWon]

For those not familiar with the UK context, I'd point out that an Employment Tribunal is a first-line body. I would eat my hat if this decision isn't appealed and the higher courts do have a long track record of overturning Employment Tribunal decisions.

Don't assume this one is settled.

Re: Ita about time!

[Chrisq]

And nothing of value was lost...

In fact something of value would be gained, the principle that you can't circumvent laws on hours, holiday pay, maternity pay, redundancy pay simply by saying that someone is a self-employed contractor. It doesn't matter whether Uber stay or go

Re:Ita about time!

[Carewolf]

It's easier to fine one company for operating an illegal taxi system than it is, going against individual drivers.

It's easier to fine one company doing organized crime for organizing crime. Hope they apply the full weight of the law. Would be funny to see those assholes rot in jail for decades.

Re:Ita about time!

[Jon Peterson]

Given that a Tesla can't tell the difference between a white lorry and white cloud, I'd like to see what the next release does with an unlit cyclist wearing black in central London at 10pm on a wet November night.

Re:Ita about time!

[twokay]

Seems like this is ability should scare governments into action. Say Uber gets their wish and is the only taxi company in the world. Uber drivers in your country/district decide to try their luck and go on strike. Now Uber decides to check the box in the their web console to turn off all jobs in that area to show drivers who is boss, suddenly your country has almost no taxies.

Sounds like a banking "too big to fail" situation to me.

Currently most of the UK apart from London hipsters would be very happy to see the back of Uber, they can pull the plug now for all we care.

Re:Ita about time!

[Maritz]

Well tatty-bye then. Off you fuck. ;)

Re:Ita about time!

[Maritz]

You think 10 years? Ahahahaha. Wait, let me laugh harder, AHAHAHAHAHAH!

You do know that the Tesla 3, a fully self driving car, arrives in a year or two, right?

When it comes to self-driving cars, there's a whole lot besides technology to sort out.

Re: Ita about time!

[AmiMoJo]

It's not just benefits for the drivers either. As employees Uber has to make sure they take the legally required number of breaks during their shifts, don't do more than the legal maximum hours per week (do you really want to be driven around by someone doing 80 hours a week?) and are provided with safety equipment they need.

Re:Ita about time!

[Cajun Hell]

Say Uber gets their wish and is the only taxi company in the world. Uber drivers in your country/district decide to try their luck and go on strike. Now Uber decides to check the box in the their web console to turn off all jobs in that area to show drivers who is boss, suddenly your country has almost no taxies.

No. Uber is too easy to replace.

If the drivers in a country are capable of deciding to strike together, they're also capable of competing with Uber.

Don't get me wrong, everyone; I think Uber was a really great idea. But now we all know the idea! And unlike lots of seemingly-neat ideas, this one is market-tested. We know customers are ok with it.

If Uber ever were to ever do anything sufficiently hostile that society decides replace them, Uber has to worry that the replacement would likely be better. Maybe some government corruption could prevent that, but you can never be sure the replacement won't use some kind of open protocol, or that it doesn't spill out from just ride-sharing into general use where everything just gets bigger and more important. If that happens, then Uber leaving an area would be permanent, since no one would ever go back to them if they returned. And it would spread, too.

Uber is always on the precipice of utter, complete obsolescence. They're not going to do anything to piss people off.

Re:Ita about time!

[Sloppy]

I'd like to see what the next release does with an unlit cyclist wearing black in central London at 10pm on a wet November night.

I'd like to see what humans do! The possibility of a situation this dangerous, is why this "car" invention is never going to be allowed. Mark my words: by 1917 this fad is going to be history.

Re: Ita about time!

[cayenne8]

In fact something of value would be gained, the principle that you can't circumvent laws on hours, holiday pay, maternity pay, redundancy pay simply by saying that someone is a self-employed contractor. It doesn't matter whether Uber stay or go

Well, say goodbye to Uber.

And say hello to a rise in drunk driving with this viable means erased.

The problem is, for some reason, is that nowadays too many people are thinking EVERY damned job is a career that you can and should make a living at.....

NOT EVERY JOB IS A LIVING CAREER JOB!!

What's next? Are we doing to stop letting kids mow your yard for extra money? Are we doing to have to now hire the neighbor kids (example in US) as fucking W2 employee with benefits and vacation...?

C'mon.....people doing Uber aren't doing this for a living, it is a side gig to pick up some extra cash.

This regulation is a solution in search of a PROBLEM...these drivers don't seem to mind the set up. No one is holding a gun to someone's head to be a Uber contractor if they don't like the deal.

Geez people...if this mentality was prevelant n the past, we'd still have a viable buggy whip industry today.

Re: Ita about time!

[drsquare]

And say hello to a rise in drunk driving with this viable means erased.

Or say hello to all the other companies will which flood in to fill the gap.

Re: Ita about time!

[cayenne8]

Or say hello to all the other companies will which flood in to fill the gap.

I doubt that there will be much a flood of competitors if they have to deal with these onerous regulations...

This is a new industry, but they're trying to kill it with old industry terms and over regulation.

Not just Uber.

[Narcocide]

Dishonest employers fooling employees into thinking they're contractors has actually long been a mainstay of the technical industry. Seriously. If you think you're a contractor and are rejecting my assertion here but you still have to report to an office at a specific time determined by your employer, you're a sucker.

Re:Not just Uber.

[JoeyRox]

Yeah, let's have the government protect us from the the free-market and pre-decide that people aren't smart enough to evaluate opportunities presented by evil businesses.

Re:Not just Uber.

[Narcocide]

They're obviously not when their ignorance allows their employer to get away with egregious tax fraud at their own collective expense.

Re:Not just Uber.

[JoeyRox]

Perhaps they're ignorant, perhaps they're not, but the prospect of my peers and my government deciding whether or not I'm smart enough to enter into an economic arrangement of my own free choice is downright scary.

Re:Not just Uber.

[rtb61]

Well, 'er', yeah that's 100% correct. Just like we expect government to protect us from crap doctors or crap lawyers or crap teachers or crap dentists or crap pilots (I have the right to evaluate my own pilot, I don't need some stinking licence to tell me whether or not they can fly a plane properly https://www.google.com.au/sear..., same goes for licences plane mechanics, who needs them, I assume you rate them 0 out of 10 just before you hit the ground ;DDD).

Yes the government should go after employers who put their employees lives at risk, who do not pay them, who abuse their employees and that includes custodial sentences, fines and putting them out of business permanently.

Re:Not just Uber.

[JoeyRox]

What if the "employees" (contractors) don't want the government going after the businesses they voluntarily entered into a business arrangement with? Who protects their freedoms?

Re:Not just Uber.

[magarity]

Dishonest employers fooling employees into thinking they're contractors has actually long been a mainstay of the technical industry. Seriously. If you think you're a contractor and are rejecting my assertion here but you still have to report to an office at a specific time determined by your employer, you're a sucker.

For set time periods (defined in N months ahead of time), the contractor model makes sense for both employer and employee. What you're describing, I hope, is the open ended kind of "contractor".

Re: Not just Uber.

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple answer is that the employers have to obey the law by paying tax and give statutory minimum conditions and benefits to their employees. This prevents a race to the bottom where people are treated no better than intendured slaves, and defines the minimum acceptable standards of behaviour for society. Libertards always like to remove the "well regulated" part of the market and go for their own ideals that if realised would create the worst kind of hell hole imaginable.

Re:Not just Uber.

[SirSlud]

Some people are scared of the general will. *shrugs*

Re:Not just Uber.

[mark-t]

Not any more than any other independent contractor that gets told in advance how much he'll make for the job. Uber drivers couldn't negotiate with passengers even if the drivers were independent contractors because the passengers would not be the drivers clients, Uber would be. An independent contractor can negotiate their rate of pay with the people who hire him at whatever agreed rate of pay, not with his boss's customers after his pay has already been agreed to.

Re:Not just Uber.

[MightyMartian]

Then they can lobby to get the laws changed. But until then they have no more right to ignore statute than does Uber.

Re:Not just Uber.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they're ignorant, perhaps they're not, but the prospect of my peers and my government deciding whether or not I'm smart enough to enter into an economic arrangement of my own free choice is downright scary.

God you sound like that guy that got taken down for running Girls Gone Wild. Get girls drunk, make them sign a contract, and then do sleazy things to them. He claimed the same defense as you are here.

Re:Not just Uber.

[91degrees]

Maybe, but as a contractor, I'm a sucker who gets paid substantially more and has a decent level of flexibility.

Re:Not just Uber.

[silentcoder]

Ignorant? No. If they were ignorant - nobody would bring this case.
Desperate ? Yes.

And when you get people to sign a bad deal out of desperation - that's not a free market, that's the very definition of exploitation, and indeed the government SHOULD prevent that.
Do you know why ? Because if they don't prevent it for the desperate, then very soon every employer is doing it -and nobody else has a choice anymore. The market has a tendency to settle on the cheapest option - and if exploitation is allowed, then that is the cheapest option - and very soon, the only option. Choices in the market are not a guarantee - they only happen when the market is big enough that you can benefit from offering something more expensive that some people will want.

Re:Not just Uber.

[silentcoder]

The kind of libertarianism shown above has no moral problem with indentured servitude, debt slavery, share-cropping or any other form of slavery-by-another-name - because that kind of slavery is apparently freedom to them...

Re:Not just Uber.

[Narcocide]

It's no longer really a free choice if the agreement itself is a lie. It's not about restricting employees from what deals they're allowed to enter, you shill. It's about restricting what employers are allowed to do to their employees and lie about and get away with. But you knew that, didn't you? You knew you weren't stating a counter-argument to my statement, but rather a desperate attempt to deflect the topic of conversation, and you're either happily paid by someone to post this drivel here, or else you're actually one of the aforementioned employers committing egregious tax fraud. Both of these scenarios, by the way, are far scarier to most normal people than your strawman argument about these mythical employees who are happy for the honor to pay their own employment tax just for an excuse to lick your boots every morning.

Re:Not just Uber.

[TheRaven64]

It's a question of game theory. It doesn't matter too much if one person does it: the corporation offloads some of its taxes onto the employee and avoids things like pension and sick leave obligations, but that may be fine for the individual. That corporation now has a competitive advantage though: they're paying less for staffing because they're cutting corners. Now they are in a position to fire staff and hire them back as contractors and their competitors have to follow suit to remain competitive. Suddenly you're in a world where most of the protections that the labour movement won are gone.

This isn't some hypothetical scenario, by the way: these laws exist in the UK because IBM and a few other big companies were using contractor arrangements to get around various employment laws: they weren't giving statutory leave, paying sick days, paying pension, giving reasonable notice periods and redundancy pay, and so on. The laws were tightened up so that if someone is doing a job that's indistinguishable from being an employee, they have the same rights as an employee.

Re:Not just Uber.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Maybe in their worldview the slaves "agreed" to be slaves by not running fast enough from the slavers, or didn't commit suicide but instead "allowed themselves to enter a work contract" by being captured alive.

Re:Not just Uber.

[jittles]

Yeah, let's have the government protect us from the the free-market and pre-decide that people aren't smart enough to evaluate opportunities presented by evil businesses.

The problem is that the cost is being externalized onto the government and certain other industries. I knew a guy who, in 1999, went to our boss and told him that he couldn't afford to live off his present salary and that he would quit if he didn't get a raise. He was a full-time employee with full benefits. The boss, who was part owner of the company, tricked him into becoming a contractor at a very small raise (about 30%) while stripping him, his wife, and newborn baby of healthcare. So what happens when that child gets sick? Well the state of California was paying for it. Trip to the emergency room? That cost gets shifted onto the hospital. The guy made a very short sided decision without even realizing that his social security tax was going to be doubled with a self employment tax and that he would have to pay for all of his medical care out of pocket. Was the guy an idiot? No, not generally, but he had no idea what kinds of expenses he was taking on when he agreed to become a contractor. There was nothing legal about his classification of contractor, either. He made a very poor choice.

Re:Not just Uber.

[JoeyRox]

Every day there are people who make bad decisions about important aspects of their lives. If we were to take each instance as an opportunity for the government to intervene in our lives then then country would be completely devoid of freedoms.

Re:Not just Uber.

[JoeyRox]

Your opinion of the arrangement is that it's a lie. There are many Uber drivers who might disagree with you. What makes you or the government the arbiter of whether other people are intelligent enough to make informed decisions for themselves? How would you feel if others made decisions about what decisions you were allowed to make? I'm neither paid by someone to post nor am I an employer - I'm just a run-of-the-mill libertarian and Friedrich Hayek admirer who believes the intelligence of the masses is far greater than the intelligence of a few.

Re:Not just Uber.

[JoeyRox]

Even if what you said was true, it's the responsibility of individuals to serve as an enforcement arm of the tax collection authority of their own government?

Re:Not just Uber.

[Maritz]

Perhaps I'm too cynical but it sounds like it's working as intended.

Re:Not just Uber.

[parkinglot777]

The majority of people are too stupid to hold down a good paying job and aren't worth what companies are paying them. ... However the government should stay out of it and employees should get a clue and quit.

If those people are too stupid to hold down a good paying job, what make you think that they will all of the sudden get a clue and quit bad paying job???

Companies don't like high turn over because it costs them money.

True. However, this is not the case for Uber, Lyft, etc because they do NOT care if you are going to quit. They can simply advertise and fill in the positions because there will always be people who, per what you said, stupid enough to work for them. Thus, there is no extra cost for Uber in replacement process.

Re:Not just Uber.

[jittles]

Every day there are people who make bad decisions about important aspects of their lives. If we were to take each instance as an opportunity for the government to intervene in our lives then then country would be completely devoid of freedoms.

So you don't think that the government should take steps to protect people from specific types of abuse? Remember that any position could be turned into a contractor position. You may not have any choice but to accept a contract position or start your own company if corporations are allowed to make whatever rules they want. They will always seek to externalize their costs and increase their profit margins.

Re:Not just Uber.

[thegarbz]

If you think you're a contractor and are rejecting my assertion here but you still have to report to an office at a specific time determined by your employer, you're a sucker.

And just what does one have to do with the other? When I hire a contract builder to build a house for me and he doesn't perform as per the contract (key word there) he would be in breach and I'd find myself another builder. That doesn't make them any less of a contractor.

Re:Not just Uber.

[JoeyRox]

The problem is that what some people interprets as "abuse", others interpret as opportunity. Which is why it's usually best to let people decide for themselves rather a centralized government agency.

Re:Not just Uber.

[jittles]

The problem is that what some people interprets as "abuse", others interpret as opportunity. Which is why it's usually best to let people decide for themselves rather a centralized government agency.

And that's exactly what typically happens in these cases. The corporations abuse the contractor relationship and someone sues them and all these former contractors get reclassified as employees. The IRS doesn't sit around auditing the employment status of every single contractor in the US. I imagine that it is the same in the UK. In the case of my experience from 1999 - no one stopped that guy from making a poor decision. No one is going to call shenanigans unless someone complains that the relationship is illegal. So feel free to partake in these opportunities to make poor decisions. I'm not going to stop you at all.

Re:Not just Uber.

[Half-pint HAL]

Yeah, let's have the government protect us from the the free-market and pre-decide that people aren't smart enough to evaluate opportunities presented by evil businesses.

Your local loan-shark sends his thanks for your support. As does your local kitchen with dubious hygiene and the cheap café that sometimes adds rat meat to their dishes.

Re:Not just Uber.

[JoeyRox]

Pick a personal freedom that you enjoy that others may not approve of. Then imagine it gone because someone else complained about it.

Re:Not just Uber.

[JoeyRox]

The only reason the government/IRS even cares is because it's harder to enforce the payment of self-employment tax for 5,000 individuals than it is for a single corporation. They're not doing it to protect people from evil corporations and abuse - they're in it for the money. The only difference is the IRS has the power of the state behind it.

Re:Not just Uber.

[Half-pint HAL]

Pick a personal freedom that you enjoy that others may not approve of. Then imagine it gone because someone else complained about it.

I pick the personal freedom not to be exploited. You're the one that's complaining and trying to take away stuff from me.

Re:Not just Uber.

[JoeyRox]

Your freedom to not be exploited already exists - nobody is forcing you to enter into a voluntary contract with Uber.

Re:Not just Uber.

[jittles]

The only reason the government/IRS even cares is because it's harder to enforce the payment of self-employment tax for 5,000 individuals than it is for a single corporation. They're not doing it to protect people from evil corporations and abuse - they're in it for the money. The only difference is the IRS has the power of the state behind it.

Have you ever been self-employed? They will get their pound of flesh. Sure you can start your own corporation and use tax loopholes to avoid some portion of your taxes, even self-employment taxes, but, you'll end up paying your self-employment tax no matter how you get paid. And if you don't? The IRS will receive judgements against you and will place liens against your property and future income. The only way to escape the IRS is to die. As jaded as I am about some of our government policies, I do not believe this particular policy has anything to do with revenue. I think that these policies stem from labor abuses dating back into the founding of our country and were at their worst during the industrial revolution. It seems to me that you were born in the wrong century if you want to go back to the days where employers can demand whatever they want.

Re:Not just Uber.

[JoeyRox]

The IRS always goes after the corporation instead of the individual for employee/contractor misclassification, regardless of whether the individual paid his correct share of self-employment tax. First, it's much more cost effective to do so. Second, the penalties for the corporation are severe and provide an additional source of tax revenue.

Re:Not just Uber.

[jittles]

The IRS always goes after the corporation instead of the individual for employee/contractor misclassification, regardless of whether the individual paid his correct share of self-employment tax. First, it's much more cost effective to do so. Second, the penalties for the corporation are severe and provide an additional source of tax revenue.

So your claim is that the sole purpose of this law is so that corporations will (accidentally or otherwise) run afoul of it so that the IRS can charge them penalties and fees for violating the law? I would argue that the IRS goes after the employer because it was the employer that violated the law. The contractor does not typically classify their own employment status unless they are running an actual contracting service.

Re:Not just Uber.

[JoeyRox]

Well it is an IRS tax law we're talking about, so yes, the sole purpose of the law is to enforce the collection of employment taxes.

Re:Not just Uber.

[Half-pint HAL]

The thing with markets is that no-one is an independent agent.

Consider this: why is spaghetti almost always cheaper than linguine, when they're made of identical ingredients and the only difference in mass manufacture of the two is the shape of the hole they're squeezed through? Because more people buy spaghetti than linguine, which means there are more economies of scale. And because it's cheaper, we buy it, so it stays cheaper. Those of us who prefer linguine aren't equally catered for. Now if the spaghetti and linguine are us, and the price is our salaries, I can't compete because of the number spaghettis who are willing to work for less than it costs to feed and clothe a family.

Re:Not just Uber.

[JoeyRox]

It's called the free market, which is the basis for nearly every economic advance we enjoy in today's society. Unfortunately as participants in this free market we don't get to pick and choose which benefits we want while rejecting the aspects that don't personally help us.

Re:Not just Uber.

[Half-pint HAL]

It's called the free market, which is the basis for nearly every economic advance we enjoy in today's society.

What on Earth is an "economic advance"? Economics is a means to an end, not an end itself. Besides, we have not had a free market since the first kings were crowned. Hell, the last free markets we had were before we'd even invented money.

Re:Not just Uber.

[Half-pint HAL]

Oh, and it's worth noting that Alexander Fleming failed to get any private chemist to help him refine the process for harvesting penicillin. It was only thanks to state investment by the UK and US governments in the second world war that we have antibiotics today. The market is really bad at risking starting something new. The pharmaceutical companies are happy to research new antibiotics now that the principle of antibiotics is proven, but no-one was willing to take the risk to start with. The same is true of most genuinely new ideas -- companies won't do it.

Re:Not just Uber.

[JoeyRox]

Companies don't invent new things anymore? That's news to me. And to the patent office.

Re:Not just Uber.

[JoeyRox]

Advance as in the overall advance of the standard of living and economic development.

Re:Not just Uber.

[Half-pint HAL]

Companies don't invent new things anymore? That's news to me. And to the patent office.

As I said, companies invent variations on a proven theme, and patent them.

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell is working FOR Uber entrepreneurship. Can you Grow your Business?
Can you Also deal with competing Companies?
Deal Direct with Customers? Other them other services?
No You work for Uber.

What They're Actually Saying...

[BlueStrat]

What they're actually saying is that UK citizens are not free to enter into individual contracts for labor or service, they may only be employees of a business/corporation. Apparently the leaders in the UK must not believe UK citizens are intelligent enough to avoid signing themselves into slavery or something.

Strat

Re: What They're Actually Saying...

[fluffernutter]

Is there any other way to look at Uber employment?

Re:What They're Actually Saying...

[FlyingGuy]

No, what I believe they are saying is that if you work for a company, that collects the money, gives you your jobs, set standards for drivers, etc., then you are an employee of that company.
You can buy a car, advertise all over the place, have the correct insurance, and you are a one person company. It has been going on for a long time, its called "Car Service".

Re:What They're Actually Saying...

[whoever57]

The UK has effectively been this way for a while. The reason is that the total taxes paid with an employer/employee arrangement are greater than a contract arrangement would pay. Thus HM Revenue and Customs has been cracking down on "disguised emplyees" for decades, re-defining their employment arrangements as a traditional employment contract.

HMR&C also crack down on "fake intermediaries", where people set up their own company which employs them (and perhaps their spouse), while that company contracts with the original employer. However, I don't think the tax advantages of this are as great as they used to be.

Re:What They're Actually Saying...

[BlueStrat]

No, what I believe they are saying is that if you work for a company, that collects the money, gives you your jobs, set standards for drivers, etc., then you are an employee of that company.
You can buy a car, advertise all over the place, have the correct insurance, and you are a one person company. It has been going on for a long time, its called "Car Service".

Congratulations! We may not agree but you are, so far, the only one who has put forth a reasoned and logical argument rather than unreasoned, knee-jerk reactions and childlike insults.

So for you it depends on how much of the infrastructure (electronic payment transfers, ride requests, etc) that Uber/Lyft provides drivers?

If so, how much is too much and how much is too little?

*This* is the kind of discussion that should be occurring instead of an all out, scorched-Earth effort to ban services like Uber/Lyft. It's apparent there is a demand on both ends not being met, both passengers and drivers, for an alternative to traditional taxi/ride services. It needs to be addressed but those who profit from the status quo want it ignored and those who try to fill the demand punished.

Strat

Re:What They're Actually Saying...

[FlyingGuy]

Interesting question. "Car Service" is,at least in the US, have always been one of those business that are not defined as Taxi's. Car Service, have been 1 to many employee's. They are regulated by the limousine side of the Taxi and Limousine as a single payment ( including taxes and tolls ) per destination. But payment is made to the driver, after the trip, and those companies must pay drivers a salary, not a percentage of a fare. If the company has more than 50 employees ( including office, personnel, mechanics, drivers, etc.) then they have to also provide healthcare

Re:What They're Actually Saying...

[Malc]

No they're not. They're saying that you can act like a full time employer without abiding by the laws and rules and presumably taxes associated with full time employment. Uber drivers aren't free to do as they wish such as setting their own prices, which are controlled by Uber.

Re:What They're Actually Saying...

[BlueStrat]

Interesting question. "Car Service" is,at least in the US, have always been one of those business that are not defined as Taxi's. Car Service, have been 1 to many employee's. They are regulated by the limousine side of the Taxi and Limousine as a single payment ( including taxes and tolls ) per destination. But payment is made to the driver, after the trip, and those companies must pay drivers a salary, not a percentage of a fare. If the company has more than 50 employees ( including office, personnel, mechanics, drivers, etc.) then they have to also provide healthcare

In nearly every place in the US where taxi and car services operate under regulations, car services are forbidden from picking up street-side passengers (being hailed), and as Uber/Lyft are both "ride-hailing apps" that sort of leaves us back at square one with the government preventing the demand by passengers for a better and more modern alternative to the 19th century taxi company/employed-driver model that currently does not meet demands and expectations from passengers in multiple ways but who are left without choice, and from those currently un- or under-employed for additional income to make ends meet in a job market that's getting increasingly thin and wages stagnant.

There has to be a middle ground that doesn't basically destroy the ability for people to innovate solutions to their own problems with honest work outside of a crumbling 1940s/50s industrial-era hourly-wage/salary, bosses, HR departments, 401k savings plan, and medical insurance package employment model and help people & families living on the edge financially garner a bit more income, while simultaneously improving transportation infrastructure, further reducing the incentive to own automobiles.

There *can* be a 'win/win' in this, but I fear politics-as-usual from both extremes will end up handing everyone a 'lose/lose'...which, sadly, is also 'usual' these days.

I think some old dudes in silly white wigs a long time ago said something about political parties becoming dangerous. But who listens to dudes in silly white wigs, amirite?

Strat

Re:What They're Actually Saying...

[serviscope_minor]

*This* is the kind of discussion that should be occurring instead of an all out, scorched-Earth effort to ban services like Uber/Lyft. It's apparent there is a demand on both ends not being met, both passengers and drivers, for an alternative to traditional taxi/ride services. It needs to be addressed but those who profit from the status quo want it ignored and those who try to fill the demand punished.

Nope. We already have minicabs here: those are taxis which have few licensing requirements compared to taxis, but can't be hailed and can't use taxi ranks, etc. No one has banned uber, they fit exactly into the exising regulations just fine. There are and have been minicab setups ranging from individuals with a car up to large companies with a whole fleet and an app long before Uber arrived here.

Except that they're playing silly-buggers with an employment law specifically designed to stop companies playing silly-buggers. They're free to operate here, as long as they stick to the same laws as everyone else. What uber is being "punished" for is not providing for a demand, but doing it without sticking to the laws we have.

Re:What They're Actually Saying...

[Carewolf]

No what they are saying is that UK actually understand how contract law works, and slavery is still illegal. You can not sell yourself into slavery no matter what you sign.

Re:What They're Actually Saying...

[orgelspieler]

I'm really confused. I haven't seen an insightful back-and-forth exchange of ideas in so long. Am I still on Slashdot?

Re:What They're Actually Saying...

[orgelspieler]

I don't agree with your oversimplification, and I'm pretty sure you are trying to be a little provocative. Bear in mind that by deciding to shirk laws, Uber is putting other services that do follow the rules at a disadvantage. I think your argument is that a completely laissez-faire approach would eventually sort itself out. That may be true, but it would probably be a race to the bottom. There will always be somebody willing to give somebody a ride for just a bit more than the price of gas. Without anti-slavery laws, there can develop an underclass of people willing to do unsavory work for unsavory pay, just because it's better than nothing. (American food industry, I'm looking at you!)

Off-topic: I've really enjoyed reading your comments, and I find it striking how there are some people who just resort to name-calling rather than take issue with your points.

Re:Irrelevant

[FlyingGuy]

As much as it pains me to respond to an AC, your wrong.

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[magarity]

It's entrepreneurship because you get to decide when, where, and how much you work.

That is the definition of flexible work hours. The definition of entrepreneur is someone who establishes a business.

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[FlyingGuy]

How the hell is working FOR Uber entrepreneurship.
Can you Grow your Business?
Can you Also deal with competing Companies?
Deal Direct with Customers? Offer them other services?
No You work for Uber.

You are making a false assumption.

Why is everyone against Uber?

[neoRUR]

I mean really, what is the deal? Do they not provide a service that everyone enjoys and uses and a much lower rate with better service than the local taxi service that doesn't even have an app? I don't understand why drivers expect to get all these benefits for working part time, they signed on to work for them, they can get another job if they don't like the situation, or they just expect that because it's a big company they should get more? then the prices for fares will rise. I think this is more political, and the lobbyists are not getting their kickbacks like they do from local taxi companies. Change is always hard when your the one getting squeezed out..

Re:Why is everyone against Uber?

[ZenShadow]

On its face, Uber is an end-run around laws restricting taxi companies (it may not have started that way, but it definitely is now). Uber's whole scheme is analogous to patenting something that's already been done before by adding the phrase "on the internet". They're using weasel words to do things they're not supposed to be able to do by law.

Whether you think the law is fair or not is a different issue.

Because I feel that the laws there are too restrictive, I'd normally not really care. But then they get petulant. Did you know that Austin doesn't have Uber service? Austin wants all ridesharing services to fingerprint their drivers (which I believe the taxi companies are already required to do). The voters voted, and the law passed. Uber's response?

They took their ball and went home.

I use Uber fairly regularly. I love the service. I think it was needed, and for that reason I give them a pass on the medallion laws or whatever; the taxi companies needed a kick in the ass, and many of those laws probably exist due to corruption. But I [i]do not[/i] think it's unreasonable to comply with requests from municipalities that go to the safety of passengers -- or, for that matter, mandates to treat their employees fairly.

And when they're so petulant that they'll pull out of a municipality instead of complying with the laws there, well... That just makes it clear that those whiners think they're special snowflakes, and have no qualms about punishing their customers in an attempt to obtain the special treatment they think they deserve.

Re:Why is everyone against Uber?

[jbn-o]

No, not everyone "enjoys and uses" these services particularly because that lower rate you refer to comes at the cost of a profound dishonesty, as the legal case points out. Another aspect of this dishonest accounting, I suspect, is in the form of car insurance as I've pointed out in another recent post. Low prices at the cost of exploitation is no bargain, it's hiding the real cost of providing the good or service.

Re:Why is everyone against Uber?

[LordLucless]

I actually think they're to be commended for pulling out of a market rather than compromising their principles.

Mandatory fingerprinting just for being employed in a particular industry sounds horrifically intrusive. Kudos to Uber for sacrificing the potential profit of the Austin region in order to protect the privacy of their drivers. They're not punishing their customers - if their customers want Uber services, then their customers can not vote for bullshit, abusive laws.

Re:Why is everyone against Uber?

[AthanasiusKircher]

And when they're so petulant that they'll pull out of a municipality instead of complying with the laws there, well... That just makes it clear that those whiners think they're special snowflakes, and have no qualms about punishing their customers in an attempt to obtain the special treatment they think they deserve.

I think Uber has been disingenuous and is asking for "special treatment" in various ways too, but I think this characterization is a little off.

It's probably not Uber saying "we're special snowflakes and we're going to take our toys and go home rather than playing by your rules" and more like Uber's lawyers saying, "Well, if you give in to this demand in X city, then cities Y and Z are probably going to expect you to give into their new systems too."

Whereas by actually pulling out of a municipality, they are sending a message to other city councils -- "Mess with us, and we'll just leave." Given that Uber has a lot of fans in major cities these days, most city councils don't want to deal with that bad press, so they may think twice about demanding too much of Uber.

Or at least I imagine that's Uber's logic. Taxi companies mostly don't tend to have this problem, because they are often locally owned fleet companies (and sometimes even individually operated), so they pretty much have to deal with local government demands. Uber is more centrally structured, so its behavior in one city may impact how it's treated elsewhere.

Re:Why is everyone against Uber?

[Ash-Fox]

I don't understand why drivers expect to get all these benefits for working part time

In the UK, companies are required to provide certain things to employees, part time or not. The issue here is the organisation is supposed to be employing these people as employees and not "self employed contractors", likely brought about with the similarity to how these are like zero-hour contracts.

they signed on to work for them

Just like someone employed under a zero-hour contract, however that doesn't mean the company is not responsible for them as an employee still.

they can get another job if they don't like the situation

And they can take the organisation to court if they don't believe it's following proper employment practices.

or they just expect that because it's a big company they should get more?

Small companies don't really make their employees declare that they're self employed contractors.

I think this is more political, and the lobbyists are not getting their kickbacks like they do from local taxi companies.

"Kickbacks" are illegal for politicans in the UK thanks to the Bribery act. If you have evidence of this, I would suggest you publish it so the British government and public can address it.

Re:Why is everyone against Uber?

[Oxygen99]

Quite right. The only thing these companies disrupt is 200 years of hard fought employment protections. If you use their services you're enabling that and your job is next on the line.

Re:Why is everyone against Uber?

[JonnyCalcutta]

I mean really, what is the deal? Do they not provide a service that everyone enjoys and uses and a much lower rate with better service than the local taxi service that doesn't even have an app?

No, they don't. They provide exactly the same service as the minicabs* which have been operating here for as long as I've been alive - most have also had apps for many, many years. From my experience the pricing is pretty much on a par as well (ignoring the fact that Uber keeps running specials/free rides for new customers).

*minicabs are similar to taxis but they cannot be hailed on the street and they can't use taxi ranks. Which is probably why they have generally been early adopters of apps. Just because Anytown, USA has a shite taxi system does not mean the rest of the world is the same.

Re:Why is everyone against Uber?

[swillden]

Uber is a parasite sucking blood from customers and the surroundings, it has no principles, no dogma, and you're just the convenient food.

Compared to paying twice as much money to ride in a dirty taxi? Here's my arm, suck away.

Any number of Uber drivers I've spoken with feel the same way about driving an Uber vs a taxi, too.

What kind of parasite makes all of its "victims" better off? That sounds like a symbiote, not a parasite.

Re:Why is everyone against Uber?

[jittles]

I actually think they're to be commended for pulling out of a market rather than compromising their principles.

Mandatory fingerprinting just for being employed in a particular industry sounds horrifically intrusive. Kudos to Uber for sacrificing the potential profit of the Austin region in order to protect the privacy of their drivers. They're not punishing their customers - if their customers want Uber services, then their customers can not vote for bullshit, abusive laws.

Well, obviously the people living in Austin believe that it is reasonable to make sure that people who run a livery service have been vetted for certain types of criminal behavior. I don't personally blame them. What are you going to suggest now, that it's unreasonable to fingerprint elementary school teachers and daycare workers to make sure they aren't convicted pedophiles? That it's perfectly okay for a CPA to have a long history of embezzlement? I don't think you're going to get much sympathy from 90% of the world. That's not to say that you should bar someone for driving an Uber if they once got busted for pot but a background check is not unreasonable.

Re:Why is everyone against Uber?

[plopez]

Yes why should we ensure teachers, police, members of the military, etc. do not have criminal records?

Re:Why is everyone against Uber?

[plopez]

They fact that they pulled out in the face of a reasonable safety requirement tells you all you need to know about their business model. They make money by skirting regulation, not by creating value.

Re:Why is everyone against Uber?

[LordLucless]

Well, obviously the people living in Austin believe that it is reasonable to make sure that people who run a livery service have been vetted for certain types of criminal behavior.

And it's obvious that Uber disagrees. Because Austin and Uber can't come to an agreement, Uber doesn't operate in Austin. That's not "taking their ball and going home", any more than it is Austin kicking them out of the city - it's simply a "contract" whose terms are not suitable to both parties, and thus isn't taken up.

What are you going to suggest now, that it's unreasonable to fingerprint elementary school teachers and daycare workers to make sure they aren't convicted pedophiles?

Sure. I dunno if it's the same in the US, but here in Australia, you can get a background check without needing to fingerprint someone. The problem isn't the background check, it's the collection (and presumably storing) of biometric information on someone. That sort of stuff usually needs a warrant.

Re:Why is everyone against Uber?

[jittles]

Well, obviously the people living in Austin believe that it is reasonable to make sure that people who run a livery service have been vetted for certain types of criminal behavior.

And it's obvious that Uber disagrees. Because Austin and Uber can't come to an agreement, Uber doesn't operate in Austin. That's not "taking their ball and going home", any more than it is Austin kicking them out of the city - it's simply a "contract" whose terms are not suitable to both parties, and thus isn't taken up.

Well I don't think anyone can possibly win an argument one way or the other in this regard. This is a matter of perception.

What are you going to suggest now, that it's unreasonable to fingerprint elementary school teachers and daycare workers to make sure they aren't convicted pedophiles?

Sure. I dunno if it's the same in the US, but here in Australia, you can get a background check without needing to fingerprint someone. The problem isn't the background check, it's the collection (and presumably storing) of biometric information on someone. That sort of stuff usually needs a warrant.

That depends on how good of a background check you want, I suppose. I can easily steal an identity for a background check if no biometric data is required. I'm not saying that you need a fingerprint background check for an Uber driver, however, I strongly suspect that Uber objects to having to perform any sort of (legally mandated - therefore liability assuming) background checks period. I know of no jurisdiction under which they have agreed to require background checks. I could be entirely wrong about this all, of course. It is apparent, however, that Uber's entire business model requires them to have an uneven playing field by not meeting the same insurance and other legal requirements as other livery services.

Good luck fucking that chicken

[Uberbah]

What they're actually saying is that UK citizens are not free to enter into individual contracts for labor or service, they may only be employees of a business/corporation.

Nice straw man. What they're saying is that if a company is benefiting from workers as if they are employees....then they're employees and should be treated as such by the company. Not prey on people desperate to make next months rent, so they spend their free time driving for Uber....even if gas and maintenance costs push their annual earnings well below minimum wage.

Apparently the leaders in the UK must not believe UK citizens are intelligent enough to avoid signing themselves into slavery or something.

Nobody chooses to be a low paid serf, you Randian nutjob, any more than you've "chosen" not to be a billionaire.

Re:Good luck fucking that chicken

[BlueStrat]

Not prey on people desperate to make next months rent, so they spend their free time driving for Uber....even if gas and maintenance costs push their annual earnings well below minimum wage.

So if they are unable to find a regular job as an employee at government mandated minimum wage then they should not be allowed to earn *anything at all* then? When you're already desperate and starving anything is better than nothing. It's very possible they could make more working a couple of these "abusive" self-employment gigs than they could working a minimum-wage job. Why do you think you have any right to tell others how to make a living if the activity/product is not illegal?

Nobody chooses to be a low paid serf, you Randian nutjob, any more than you've "chosen" not to be a billionaire.

I disagree, when we're talking about a place with as much opportunity as the US or UK. If you choose to goof off and skip school, can't read or do math above a 3rd-grade level, etc, then don't be surprised you dig ditches for a living and are unemployed a lot. I chose not to be a billionaire because I didn't want to put in the kind of effort, dedication, and in these times, stoop as low as one needs to acquire such a fortune.

Strat

Re:Good luck fucking that chicken

[SirSlud]

I chose not to be a billionaire because I didn't want to put in the kind of effort, dedication, and in these times, stoop as low as one needs to acquire such a fortune.

Bwhahahaha. That's incredibly cute.

Re:Good luck fucking that chicken

[BlueStrat]

Bwhahahaha. That's incredibly cute.

Hey cute AND accurate, just like me! What's not to love, eh? ;)

Strat

Re:Good luck fucking that chicken

[MightyMartian]

No, cute and moronic.

Re:Good luck fucking that chicken

[BlueStrat]

No, cute and moronic.

...And we hear from Cap'n Ad-Hom who has nothing at all constructive or factual to add but simply couldn't resist demonstrating his teenage level of maturity for the world to witness in all it's glory!

Thanks Cap'n!

Strat

Re:Good luck fucking that chicken

[MightyMartian]

No, cute and moronic.

...And we hear from Cap'n Ad-Hom who has nothing at all constructive or factual to add but simply couldn't resist demonstrating his teenage level of maturity for the world to witness in all it's glory!

Thanks Cap'n!

Strat

What's there to say to someone who thinks making a billion dollars is just something produced by force of will?

Re:Good luck fucking that chicken

[serviscope_minor]

So if they are unable to find a regular job as an employee at government mandated minimum wage then they should not be allowed to earn *anything at all* then? When you're already desperate and starving anything is better than nothing.

Are there no prisons? ... And the Union workhouses... Are they still in operation?"

Why would they be desperate and starving? We have a thing called a social safety net here. If you can't find a job, you can go and sign up for jobseeker's allowance. The thing is we have a societal memory of the Victorian era. In many ways it was exactly like what you seem to want. People were free to sign up to whatever contracts they wanted, no matter how abusive, and people were free to starve. So we tried your way already and decided it wasn't very good.

It's very possible they could make more working a couple of these "abusive" self-employment gigs than they could working a minimum-wage job

Then do so. You're allowed to pay yourself less than the minimum wage, so start a company (or operate as a sole trader) and go nuts. What you can't do is employ other people under those conditions. Neither can you pretend your employees are actually contracting companies in order to escape those rules.

Why do you think you have any right to tell others how to make a living if the activity/product is not illegal?

The activity---of not paying people enough---is illegal. So that's a moot point. Not only that, it's legal for you to be paid less than the minimum wage, but it is illegal for them to do it. Only the employer is committing a crime. On legal matters, one must be precise.

I chose not to be a billionaire because I didn't want to put in the kind of effort, dedication, and in these times, stoop as low as one needs to acquire such a fortune.

Ha, no. Just because you are choosing not to pursue it, doesn't mean you could achieve it if you pursued it. There are more than enough a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinners who have spent a lifetime trying to get that far and have not achieved it.

Re:Good luck fucking that chicken

[AmiMoJo]

Back in the 90s, before the minimum wage came in, you would see job adverts like "Security guard, £100/week, 100 hours, bring own dog". When someone took up that job it had two effects. Firstly the government had to keep paying them benefits, because £100/week isn't enough to pay rent or have both food and electricity at the same time, all while feeding the dog. Secondly that person was trapped, 100 hours/week leaving them little time to look for better jobs and if they quit their benefits would stop because they "voluntarily" gave up work.

On top of that, it's blatant exploitation of the individual.

So the government realized that it would be better to set some limits. A minimum wage, a maximum number of hours worked per week. Chances are the company simply paid what was required, since they needed a security guard no matter what. But even if they just replaced that person with a CCTV camera or two, at least the benefits that the government would have had to pay anyway were now enabling the ex-employee to spend time looking for a better job, improving their CV or getting more education and training. Just shoving people into dead-end, subsistence wage jobs was a false economy.

Re:Good luck fucking that chicken

[serviscope_minor]

Interestingly though, my view on things changes if there was a basic income scheme. I think in that case, one could argue for scrapping the minimum wage.

The difference being, I think, that there's none of the problem getting trapped because you can't quit. And there's also no desperation where people have to take awful, low paid jobs just to quit.

I'm sort of in two minds. On the one hand it may enable companies to sponge off the tax payers (like they don't already!) by offering sub living wage jobs and having the taxpayer top it up. But on the other hand, there'd be much less incentinve to take those jobs.

Re:Good luck fucking that chicken

[AmiMoJo]

I think the only way to really know with a basic income is to try it and tweak as issues become apparent. I have a feeling companies would still try their best to exploit people, but as you say if the basic income was high enough people would be able to resist.

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[JoeyRox]

But what if the business you establish is to provide a service to another company? What's the difference between someone devising a service idea on their own vs another company deciding they need someone to fulfill that service?

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[MightyMartian]

I can't speak to British law, but in many jurisdictions there are actually legal definitions of employment to prevent what Uber appears to be doing, namely hiring people but calling them independent contractors to evade labor laws. It isn't like this is the first time that a company has tried a contractor scam to get around minimum wage and other worker protections.

The IRS Test

[TuballoyThunder]

The IRS (which I assert is consistent with other tax authorities) has a series of tests that fall into three categories:

• Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
• Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)
• Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

The questions (from Synergistech Communications, which also provides additional information), with the answers in bold based on my understanding of how Uber works:

1. Are you required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how the work is to be done? Yes
2. Does your client provide you with training to enable you to perform a job in a particular method or manner? No
3. Are the services you provide integrated into your client's business operation? Yes
4. Must the services be rendered by you personally? Yes
5. Do you have the capability to hire, supervise, or pay assistants to help you in performing the services under contract? Yes
6. Is the relationship between you and the person or company you perform services for a continuing relationship? No
7. Who sets the hours of work? The driver
8. Are you required to devote your full time to the person or company you perform services for? No
9. Is the work performed at the place of business of the potential employer? No
10. Who directs the order or sequence in which the work must be done? Uber
11. Are you required to provide regular written or oral reports to your client? No
12. What is the method of payment — hourly, commission or by the job? By the job
13. Are your business and/or traveling expenses reimbursed? No
14. Who furnishes tools and materials used in providing services? The driver and Uber
15. Do you have a significant investment in facilities used to perform services? It depends
16. Can you realize both a profit or a loss? Yes
17. Can you work for a number of firms at the same time? Yes
18. Do you make your services available to the general public? It depends
19. Are you subject to dismissal for reasons other than nonperformance of contract specifications? Unknown
20. Can you terminate your relationship without incurring a liability for failure to complete a job? Yes

By my count the Uber-Driver relationship does not pass 4 of the tests and two more are borderline. The key point that makes the relationship tip towards employee is that the driver has no direct price control (they cannot quote a price to perform the service).

Re:The IRS Test

[mark-t]

Actaully, Uber drivers can't negotiate the price with passengers because the passengers aren't actually the driver's clients, Uber is, and the passengers are Uber's customers, not the drivers, so driver has absolutely no authority to negotiate a different rate of pay with them. The driver can either accept the rate that Uber said they will pay... or not. Accepting what a client said they would pay does not make the contractor who agreed to work for that amount an employee.

There may be other reasons to consider Uber drivers employee's, but how the drivers are paid is definitely not one of them. If that, as you say, is really the tipping point, then Uber drivers would definitely be independent contractors.

Re:The IRS Test

[TuballoyThunder]

That is the exact point I was making. The driver has no ability to quote a price to Uber (the client) for the work they perform. From my understanding, not having the ability to quote a price is a major indicator (though not a 100% true rule) that you are an employee and not a contractor.

Re:The IRS Test

[mark-t]

An independent contractor has no useful ability to quote their own price to a client who has already said how much they will pay for a job either. They can try, but they'll be summarily rejected. The contractor must either accept the rate offered or not work for that client at all. So how does Working for Uber differ in this regard, exactly?

Re:The IRS Test

[MancunianMaskMan]

• Who sets the hours of work? The driver

I understand you have to accept a certain amount of work or you'll be struck off their Uber's list. You have less than full control over the hours of work.

Re:The IRS Test

[Anonymous Coward]

As a contractor I quote to the client the price that I charge (keeping in mind market rates for CCIEs) and it is the customer that determines whether to accept or to counter-offer. The ability to counter-offer is important, as it indicates the negotiation part of the contract is indeed between the two parties.

In Uber's case, the real contract is between the customer and Uber, and the limited options of the Uber driver indicate that the relationship between Uber and the driver more or less works on Uber's terms. This is indicative of a employee-employer relationship.

Re:The IRS Test

[silentcoder]

False, I've been a contractor and have quoted prices - and negotiated them. It gets particularly nice when you are offering a service nobody else can provide (or cannot provide on the same level - like customizations to a program you originally wrote, nobody else could do it better than the person who knows the code inside and out).

Re:The IRS Test

[AmiMoJo]

In the UK there isn't a hard set of criteria to test against. It's the judgement of a court based on the principals set out in the law, which is better because companies can't find loopholes so easily just by breaking one of the tests on a technicality.

In this case Uber clearly controls its drivers to a large extent, sets standards for them, evaluates their performance, sets pricing etc. In the UK about the closest thing is a zero hour contract, which is a contract of employment that does not guarantee to actually provide any employment, but when someone does work they do at least get all the rights and benefits.

Re:The IRS Test

[swillden]

Actaully, Uber drivers can't negotiate the price with passengers because the passengers aren't actually the driver's clients, Uber is, and the passengers are Uber's customers, not the drivers, so driver has absolutely no authority to negotiate a different rate of pay with them. The driver can either accept the rate that Uber said they will pay... or not. Accepting what a client said they would pay does not make the contractor who agreed to work for that amount an employee.

I wonder if a tweak to Uber's business model might fix that... and also mitigate the "surge pricing" complaints.

Rather than Uber setting the prices, why not allow the drivers to? Let drivers set their own rates, and have the app show the rider the list of available drivers and how much each would charge to transport the rider (estimated), along with the estimated time of arrival? A market would quickly develop with drivers competing against one another for riders. Surge pricing would still happen, but it would happen naturally; during periods of high demand when riders exceed rides, drivers could raise their prices. Uber could track the distribution of prices accepted by riders and see the surges happening -- or even predict them -- and notify off-duty drivers accordingly.

Uber could go a step further and allow riders to offer prices if they felt the drivers' prices were too high, or if they wanted a fixed-price trip rather than an estimate. Drivers could see a list of offers near them, alongside time & mileage estimates for the entire trip (including travel to the pickup point), and they could choose to accept, reject or counter. To avoid acceptance by drivers who were too far away, the rider could also specify a maximum pickup time, and only drivers that are close enough would see the offer.

To make it a bit more sophisticated yet, drivers could set "auto-accept" rates, perhaps as a percentage of their ask rates, and Uber could automatically notify them when they're the closest automatic accept at the offered rate. They'd still have the right to reject the trip, just as they do now (and subject to being rejected by Uber if they reject too many rides, just as now), and then the system would go to the next closest automatic accept. If none exist or all reject then the offer would go up on the offer board.

Drivers who want could also indicate that they will never reject a trip that meets their auto-accept rates, and if they're not busy, and then Uber could actually automatically schedule drivers who are currently transporting a rider but will be dropping the rider off near the location of a rider making an offer. This could work very well for drivers who want to stay busy.

Low offers aren't all riders could make, though. Riders who find that they're having difficulty getting a ride could offer higher than normal rates and Uber could broadcast that information to off-duty as well as on-duty drivers who are close enough to respond within the rider's time limit. It might provoke a driver who is far enough away that it wouldn't normally make sense to pick up that rider to accept the offer, or one who isn't currently working but has time to go get that fare. Uber could wait a minute or so after the first acceptance comes in and then choose the closest driver, to avoid making it a buzzer race and to get the rider their ride quicker.

Bottom line, Uber could turn itself into a real-time auction, removing itself from controlling the pricing. If that's all that's required to make the drivers self-employed contractors, it seems like a no-brainer.

Re:The IRS Test

[jittles]

Based on my understanding of how Uber driving works (both as someone who has tried it, and who has friends who have driven for Uber), some of your answers are definitely incorrect.

1. Do you have the capability to hire, supervise, or pay assistants to help you in performing the services under contract? Yes

The answer is no. You cannot hire someone to drive for you. In what way would an assistant provide any help to you when all you do is open a mobile app and wait for someone to request a ride from you that you must give personally? Any assistant you hired would be tangential to your relationship with Uber in that they might manage your bookkeeping from Uber.

Are you required to provide regular written or oral reports to your client? No

Uber drivers "make a report" after every single ride. They report that they picked the person up, dropped the person off, and rate the passenger. You can even see your passenger rating inside of the app. If you did something dangerous or unruly, this would be the time the Uber driver mentions it to Uber.

Can you work for a number of firms at the same time? Yes

Again I would not consider this to be significant. Can I have a job at Wendy's and McDonald's? Absolutely. But I can't work both at the same time. It's almost impossible to work for two ride sharing service at the exact same time - you'd end up declining rides and that would result in you getting kicked out of the service.

Are you subject to dismissal for reasons other than nonperformance of contract specifications? Unknown

The answer to this is yes. Uber treats you as an at-will employee in this regard. They can terminate your agreement at any time and for any reason.

Re:The IRS Test

[mark-t]

So if someone wants to hire you and tells you how much they will pay, does that automatically make you an employee if you accept that rate?

Re:The IRS Test

[parkinglot777]

Yes, Uber could; however, doing so right now will reduce their revenue. Remember that Uber is taking a portion of the service charged to the clients (passengers)? If they follow what you are explaining, even though they could avoid the employer-employee relationship, it could hit their revenue quite hard. Business people (or corporations) do not like to lose their earning and will try to drag it out as long as they can...

Re:The IRS Test

[mark-t]

Does a would-be client telling you how much they want to pay you before you accept a job, and being unwilling to negotiate the amount, automatically make you their employee if you accept it?

Re:The IRS Test

[SuiteSisterMary]

What you're describing would be a person seeking a ride posting to Uber's app a message saying 'I want to travel from Point A to Point B, ride to take no more than X amount of time, no stopovers, and I'm willing to pay Y amount', which individual drivers would then be free to accept or not accept.

What the system would look like with 'independent contractors' would be that a person looking for a ride would log into Uber's app, and would be presented with a list of available drivers, and what those drivers were charging per KM or whatever, as well as a list of value-adds (nicer car, say, experience with traffic patterns in the area, user-controlled sound system, whatever) which the ride-seeker would then choose from.

Re:The IRS Test

[silentcoder]

If you aren't making a profit on the deal it makes you either an idiot or a slave.
If you are, then you're still an entrepenuer - provided it's a one-time deal for a one-time job. If it's a long-term open-ended contract - then yes, you are an employee.

Re:The IRS Test

[Joe_Dragon]

Just as long as the fixed-price and other rates still have tolls and airport fees done in the same way as now.

Re:The IRS Test

[mark-t]

If you aren't making a profit on the deal it makes you either an idiot or a slave.

I'm not arguing that... I'd suggest that the people who hadn't figured out that they couldn't make as much profit as they wanted driving for Uber would fit into the former category.

But that doesn't mean that some people weren't entirely satisfied with the amounts they were getting for the work for Uber, however... especially if they saw it as just extra income and not as a job that they expected to make $X doing.

Not that it matters now... if Uber drivers are employees, then Uber will be placing rather hard restrictions on the exact times and how many hours the drivers can work, which will in general will likely result in many of the drivers making even *less* money overall than they were before, probably leading to most of them quitting, increasing customer wait times.

It's not hard to see where this is heading.

Re:The IRS Test

[mark-t]

You are still under the impression that the passengers would be the driver's clients or customers. They are not. The passengers and Uber's customers, and the driver, particularly as an independent contractor and not as an actual representative of Uber, would have *NO* authority to negotiate a different price with them. Under an independent contractor system, Uber is the driver's client. A client who is not willing to negotiate with a contractor for a different rate of pay does not make a contractor who accepts that rate of pay, even if they do so repeatedly, an employee. The contractor is, of course, free to decline a rate that they consider unacceptable, and a would-be client is not under obligation to continue to even offer jobs to a contractor anyways, especially if the contractor already has a history of rejecting job offers.

My point remains... Uber drivers have exactly as much freedom over their rate of pay as any independent contractor who accepts a rate that was given by the person who hired them, even if that person was unwilling to negotiate the amount. One can argue that an independent contractor who accepts a rate of pay below what they need to make a fair profit is an idiot, but that doesn't mean that they aren't independent contractors.

Re:The IRS Test

[swillden]

Yes, Uber could; however, doing so right now will reduce their revenue. Remember that Uber is taking a portion of the service charged to the clients (passengers)? If they follow what you are explaining, even though they could avoid the employer-employee relationship, it could hit their revenue quite hard. Business people (or corporations) do not like to lose their earning and will try to drag it out as long as they can...

Nothing in my suggestion would change that aspect of the model. Uber would still take a portion of the final price, whatever it might be.

Re:The IRS Test

[Bigjeff5]

By my reckoning, Uber drivers has half or less as much freedom over their rate of pay as any other independent contractor. Uber drivers have zero ability to negotiate their rate. They can't see a customer saying "I will pay $10" and come back with an offer like "I will do it for $13". Their only option is to reject the job.

It's more like an employee paid by the hour. My boss may not care if I work 3 hours or 8 hours, but if I choose not to work 5 of those hours I'm not going to get paid for those hours. I don't get to re-negotiate my hourly rate because one project is a lot more difficult than another project. The only twist here is that, instead of changing the hours worked, Uber changes the compensation for each project.

Is a contractor who can't negotiate a rate really a contractor?

Re:The IRS Test

[mark-t]

Uber drivers have zero ability to negotiate their rate.

That's only because Uber has said what the rate is.... if I hire an independent contractor, and I tell him what rate I want to pay him, that doesn't make him an employee if he accepts because he's not under any obligation to work for me in the first place. He may be free to make a counter offer, but I am free to reject it, and even the fact that this might be known in advance of trying to make a counter offer does not change anything. The contractor can either accept the rate of pay offered, or simply not work for that client at all. This is 100% identical to the driver's situation with Uber.

They can't see a customer saying "I will pay $10" and come back with an offer like "I will do it for $13". Their only option is to reject the job.

That's because the customers aren't the driver's customers or clients. They are Uber's, and the driver has no authority to negotiate with them.

An independent contract who is being told by the person who wants to hire him how much they will pay and is not willing to negotiate gives exactly as much room for the contractor to select their own rate of pay as Uber does. Further, you can't say that drivers are employees because if they refuse too many jobs they won't get called onto jobs any more because a person who wants to hire a contractor is not under any obligation to keep coming back to that contractor when they refuse to do certain jobs just because of how much money they will make.

As I said... there may be other entirely legitimate reasons to consider Uber drivers employees, but how they are paid is definitely not one of them.

Re: The IRS Test

[mark-t]

Perhaps you need to read the original comment, where I said that there could be other reasons that Uber drivers should be employees. My assertion here is only that how they are paid is not one of them because there is absolutely NO difference between them and how an independent contractor is paid by somebody who said how much they were willing to pay, and simply happened to be unwilling to negotiate it. The contractor accepting a rate of pay, even if that rate is not sufficient for the contractor to make a profit, does not make that contractor an employee. At most, it only makes that contractor foolish. Uber drivers are entirely free to reject offers they don't want, and although if this happens often enough, it can result in Uber not offering them any more jobs, an independent contractor could just as easily find himself in the same situation with a client that they repeatedly reject jobs from as well.

As reasons go for Uber drivers to supposedly be considered employees, how they are paid is among the worst of them.

Re:Don't like it, quit, prices are artificially hi

[MightyMartian]

The Americas have a long history of grandiose idealists forming communities. Few of them ever lasted. Even the Mormons guaranteed Congress they would pursue polygamists to get Utah admitted as a state.

In the 90s it was a good deal

[rsilvergun]

you didn't get benefits but you got a good chunk of the pay. A lot of young guys with no need for health insurance I knew loved it because it was free money. When you're 20 there's not a lot of risk.

When the outsourcing and H-1B abuse started it changed. The employers where no longer splitting the savings from the benefits, they pocketed them all. The H-1Bs worked 60-80 hour work weeks pushing wages down since companies could cut their IT staff by 50-75% thanks to the increased productivity. Wages were depressed in a classic race to the bottom.

But the old guard that remembered the good 'ole days of contracting can't seem to recognize that. Had a nice chap today arguing with me over the hours the Indians work even while we all see the emails coming from the guys at all hours of the day.

Re:In the 90s it was a good deal

[AmiMoJo]

Is it humanly possible to work 80 hours a week and be 2x as productive as someone working 40 hours a week?

I'd say it's more like those companies just let the quality decline but didn't care as long as they had someone on hand to cover issues as their arose.

Re:In the 90s it was a good deal

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Sure it is! Just keep slipping adderall into your Indian "employees" coffee / tea. Keep it up until the have a heart attack, replace them, and repeat. PROFIT! No one will ever catch you, because since their foreigners they won't ever go to the hospital, seek out any medical attention, or even have an autopsy done.

the cable co's have been doing this for years with

[Joe_Dragon]

the cable co's have been doing this for years with all of the subcontracted workers that are controlled way to much to be Self-Employed Contractors,

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[ShanghaiBill]

Can you Also deal with competing Companies?

Many drivers drive for both Uber and Lyft. They have both apps on their phone, and go to whichever gives them a fare first.

Be careful what you ask for...

[bradley13]

There's the old saying: "Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it". The Uber drivers who want to be classified as employees may think that they are suddenly going to have all the benefits of employees with none of the disadvantages. They may be rather unhappy, when they suddenly discover that they:

- must meet productivity targets

- cannot work for the competition

- must work particular hours

- must service particular areas

- generally are told exactly what/when/how they must do their work

Drivers will be ranked by productivity, with the least productive being fired. In other words, they will be treated like employees - just like they wanted. I rather doubt that this will please most of the people who drive for Uber...

Re: Be careful what you ask for...

[Chrisq]

You do realise some of the practises mentioned there are also illegal under UK employment law, right?

The only one that could be illegal would be "Drivers will be ranked by productivity, with the least productive being fired". Obviously in ranking someone must be bottom, but providing that the lowest are performing adequately then it could be unfair dismissal.

There would be limits on some of the others, for example on driving hours and "how they must do their work" couldn't include any instructions contravening law (i.e. no rules like "must speed, must use a mobile device while driving"), but I don't think any are intrinsically illegal.

Re: Be careful what you ask for...

[bradley13]

Um, no? AFAIK, nothing I mentioned would be illegal.

Within the parts of Europe I am familiar with, the UK has the worst protection for workers, because of "temps". I know of companies where - aside from the top managers - everyone is a "temp", i.e., an employee with no benefits whatsoever. It's frankly a stupid way to run a business, since it means that employee turnover is high, and employee loyalty essentially zero.

Subjectively, this seems to tie into the UK class consciousness: the managers don't want employees to be loyal to the business, or to take on much responsibility, because they might turn out to be more competent that the managers find comfortable. You have to keep the lower classes in their place.

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[serviscope_minor]

It's certainly the case over here too: it's called IR35, or at least that's the segment of it which has potentially applied to me when I've been contracting.

On the off chance you're interested: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ir...

It turns out that the part of the civil service responsible for putting legal information online is really really REALLY top notch. First thought when encountering it is "who are you and what have you done with my government??". I expect they'll be cut soon.

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[silentcoder]

That is NOT the definition of entrepeneurship, hell it's not even the primary benefit - which is 'keeping the profits'.
If you don't get to keep the profits - you are an employee not an entrepeneur. It is really that simple.

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[silentcoder]

If it's a real business, you can provide that service to more than one company.

I'm pretty sure both lyft and uber prohibit people from driving for both.

Even then, you're missing the key definition of entrepeneurship: establishing a business for proft. Uber drivers do not get to keep the profits, those go to Uber, they get a cut - which makes them employees, not owners.

Am surprised by this

[91degrees]

Uber drivers can work when they choose, turn down jobs, get paid based on work done, and provide their own equipment. They can decide to just stop being Uber drivers or take on other work at the same.

The level of control doesn't seem substantially different from that of a franchisee for any other business.

Can't say I feel too badly for Uber here. Still, am a little concerned that this might have ramifications for other freelancers.

Re:Am surprised by this

[plopez]

Can they set their own rates? Negotiate the terms of the contract? Negotiate fares? Can the driver define how th work will be done? Etc. There are a number of areas where it is more of an employee/employer relationship.

Re:Am surprised by this

[91degrees]

Can they set their own rates?

No. Uber is offering an invitation at an agreed price. They can accept or reject it at will. They could demand more. Uber will say "no"

Negotiate the terms of the contract?

Can a McDonalds Franchisee? An employee is in a much stronger position to do so. Any contract can be negotiated. The driver is a subcontractor here so can't negotiate with the end client but they can negotiate with Uber. Uber just has a much stronger position making this ineffective.

Can the driver define how th work will be done? Etc.

Yes. They choose a car, determine the quality of service, choose a route. They determine which passengers to pick up and which to ignore.

Hatchet job

[earnil]

This has obviously nothing to do with employee rights but is a hatchet job by GMB to get rid of Uber. This will harm the drivers, it will harm the customers, only one who will gain are the unions. Shame on you UK for protecting the particular interests of certain pressure groups against your citizens.

Re:Hatchet job

[tehcyder]

This has obviously nothing to do with employee rights but is a hatchet job by GMB to get rid of Uber. This will harm the drivers, it will harm the customers, only one who will gain are the unions. Shame on you UK for protecting the particular interests of certain pressure groups against your citizens.

Yeah, it's that evil taxi-company-trade-union-muslim-marxist-lizard-people conspiracy again.

Re:Hatchet job

[earnil]

Yeah, it's that evil taxi-company-trade-union-muslim-marxist-lizard-people conspiracy again.

No, it's a pressure group using tools at it's disposal to crush competition with legal obstruction rather then providing superior service. There's nothing conspiratory about that.

Re:Hatchet job

[plopez]

As Uber is screwing people I see nothing wrong with them banding together to fight back.

Re:Hatchet job

[earnil]

As Uber is screwing people I see nothing wrong with them banding together to fight back.

Except they are not banding together. Two drivers out of thousands that drive for Uber is not at all representative. I wonder why they managed to convince only two of them to sue. Maybe because the rest is happy with the conditions they willingly accepted. Uber is screwing nobody. You CAN choose not to drive for them if you don't like the conditions. You can drive for unionized taxi if you like the conditions better. Why would you want to force everybody else is beyond me.

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[stephanruby]

How the hell is working FOR Uber entrepreneurship.
[...]
Can you Also deal with competing Companies?

Yes. I know some people who've worked for Uber, Lyft, Postmates, TaskRabbit, and Caviar, all at the same time.

They go online on all the apps. Then they accept requests from the highest bidder. So if Uber is surging, they shut off all their other apps. Or vice versa, if Lyft is having special boost, they shut off the Uber app. Or if TaskRabbit needs a phone repair near where they're located, they'll go do that instead because it usually pays better than Uber (assuming it's not too far).

Deal Direct with Customers?

For that, you'd need your own commercial insurance.

Uber covers you with its commercial insurance, but I doubt they would cover you if you started giving rides to people for money without going through them. The same with Lyft and all the other ones. It makes sense that they would only cover you during the time you accept requests from them.

Offer them other services?

You can give an Uber customer in your car a $50 Lyft promo code, or a Juno promo code.

Uber can't complain about that. Initially, Uber tried deactivating a driver over that, but after a lawsuit, it was found that Uber couldn't interfere since its drivers were self-employed. The same goes for tips. Uber is not longer allowed to say "No Tips Necessary" on the app for that very reason.

Re:"Uber had argued that it was a tech firm"

[twokay]

Actually the first version of the Uber platform was an outsourced job in PHP, according to one of their lead developers in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?... The founders saw a business opportunity and kudos there, but they are a "tech" company in the vain of Facebook -- more a fancy website rather than any real contribution to computer science.

As for the rest of the video, I'm not sure what the hell they are doing with that crazy infrastructure and the number of developers they have hired. Some people are getting played for fools in all this, probably the investors with money to burn in this case. It has the feel of the US banks selling all those junk securities to the Europeans and anyone else stupid enough to take the bate pre 2008.

And Uber isn't a taxi cab company either

[Baleet]

I think it was in "Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist", by Roger Lowenstein, there is a sort of parable that goes something like this.

Q: How many legs would a cat have if you called its tail a leg?

A: Four. Just because you call its tail a leg doesn't make it one.

AFAIC, Uber is a cab company. It can call itself a tech company all it wants, but it provides the same service as the local Yellow Cab franchise without complying with the same regulatory process.

Re:And Uber isn't a taxi cab company either

[PPH]

Uber is a cab company.

How many cabs does it own?

Re:And Uber isn't a taxi cab company either

[Baleet]

You make a good point, but I believe my point stands as well: They provide a comparable service to the local taxi cab companies. Your statement, in fact, speaks to the point I did not make very well--that they have found a way to provide a comparable service with none of the overhead of a regular cab company. I still consider Uber and Lyft more of a transportation provider than a tech company.

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[Ol Olsoc]

It's entrepreneurship because you get to decide when, where, and how much you work.

Do you have a newsletter? Your ideas are intriguing....

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[JoeyRox]

The drivers have established a business for profit - it just happens to be someone else's business idea. If the driver's weren't making profits then they wouldn't be voluntarily choosing to drive.

Re:"Uber had argued that it was a tech firm"

[plopez]

They use computers so they are a tech firm. Right? ;)

But anyway as a aside, you have touched upon the two categories of software I have; software as a product vs. software as an enablement. Uber produces software but only to enable their business model, they are a taxi service not a software company.

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[JoeyRox]

What's the difference between a one-man business "keeping the profits" and him paying himself a salary out of the profits?

Uber is going down

[plopez]

It's bleeding cash so look to them to become more desperate as time goes on. Their model does not work. See Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

Re:Don't like it, quit, prices are artificially hi

[oh_my_080980980]

Hey ass-hole, Uber REGULATES the drivers. This isn't some sort of app the people can use to hail rides and the passenger and rider negotiate a fare. Uber controls everything. Read the fucking ruling moron.

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[Half-pint HAL]

What's the difference between a one-man business "keeping the profits" and him paying himself a salary out of the profits?

The difference would be "where does the rest of the profit go?" At the end of the day, if the entrepreneur who pays himself a salary winds up the company, the profit he hasn't already paid out to himself is his as capital, which means the difference is pretty much minimal. That makes him an entrepreneur simultaneous to his employment, even if he draws no "entrepreneurial" income and only "employee" income. It's all a pretty academic distinction that leads to a minor difference in tax liability.

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[Half-pint HAL]

It's entrepreneurship because you get to decide when, where, and how much you work.

Do you have a newsletter? Your ideas are intriguing....

His newsletter is printed in a retro Roman-themed format. It's a scroll, available for your perusal in all good public restrooms....

liability insurance and some kind of mini wage sys

[Joe_Dragon]

liability insurance and some kind of mini wage system are needed for the fake 1099's

There needs to be some kind of mini wage so they can't be pulled under it by.

Can't be pulled down by being forced to rent / buy tools or software needed for them to work.
Can't be forced to come into some place in hopes there being work for them with them being sent home or forced to wait with no pay.
Can't be on call with you must be open to come with in a short time with no pay
Can't be forced to buy / rent uniforms.
Can't be charged pay roll fees and other back office fees.
Can't be forced to only use an very limited range of trucks / cars / other tools at there own cost.
Can't be forced to work with no / very low Mileage / parking / tolls reimbursement.
Can't be charged for any damage over any amount that would pull someone under min wage for damage to company cars / tools / lost costumers / etc.
Can't be forced to bear full liability for any lawsuits / damages to others.

Re:Don't like it, quit, prices are artificially hi

[Half-pint HAL]

Driving is an unskilled job

No. No. A thousand times no. Driving is a skill. Most people learn to do it at some point in their lives, but they're not very good at it. The standard we expect of someone who uses the roads for an hour or two a day is not what we expect of people who spend their entire working day on the roads. Considering the number of hours they're out, isn't it a bit surprising how few accidents are caused by taxi drivers? That's because in most places, there are standards for professional drivers that aren't expected of amateurs.

but what happens when someone comes out with a decentralized free software ('open source') app to do basically the same thing? Maybe it'll enable customers to put out a pickup point, drop off destination, and amount they are willing to pay. The app then connects them with drivers. The customers can leave reviews similar to eBay. Now who do you hold accountable for employment? The customer?

No, that would be an open marketplace and the drivers would be able to work as self-employed contractors. It's the negotiation, the market, that is missing in the case of Uber.

We need to eliminate stupid legislation regulating wages and employment.

Yes we do, because otherwise the desperate will drive wages down to an unsustainable level. The unregulated market becomes a tragedy-of-the-commons situation, with companies killing long-term viability in a grab for short-term competitive advantage (lower prices).

Would you give up government if your income would double? Well, that's exactly how things stand today.

But it would be pretty expensive transporting my own rubbish to the tip instead of leaving it on the kerbside to be collected... oh but wait, there wouldn't be a tip, as that's a municipal facility too. Most people would leave garbage all over the place, and in the long-term it would result in pollution of the ground. If I did try to get to the tip, I'd probably bugger up my car driving on unmaintained roads.

Re:Don't like it, quit, prices are artificially hi

[Half-pint HAL]

Hey ass-hole, Uber REGULATES the drivers. This isn't some sort of app the people can use to hail rides and the passenger and rider negotiate a fare. Uber controls everything. Read the fucking ruling moron.

As long as it's the "free market" that's shafting people, that's OK. You can double your wage by getting rid of the government that stops companies like Uber from underpaying you. So the GP seems to believe.

Incorrect

[tkrotchko]

"'m pretty sure both lyft and uber prohibit people from driving for both."

They do not. In Seattle and many other cities drivers display stickers for both and take fares from both.

Re:liability insurance and some kind of mini wage

[BlueStrat]

liability insurance and some kind of mini wage system are needed for the fake 1099's

There needs to be some kind of mini wage so they can't be pulled under it by.

Can't be pulled down by being forced to rent / buy tools or software needed for them to work.
Can't be forced to come into some place in hopes there being work for them with them being sent home or forced to wait with no pay.
Can't be on call with you must be open to come with in a short time with no pay
Can't be forced to buy / rent uniforms.
Can't be charged pay roll fees and other back office fees.
Can't be forced to only use an very limited range of trucks / cars / other tools at there own cost.
Can't be forced to work with no / very low Mileage / parking / tolls reimbursement.
Can't be charged for any damage over any amount that would pull someone under min wage for damage to company cars / tools / lost costumers / etc.
Can't be forced to bear full liability for any lawsuits / damages to others.

What you describe isn't a contracting gig, it's more like a full-time public-sector unionized job or a civil-service government job.

You're pretty much saying by the conditions you set that you want the same old taxi system with regular employee drivers. That's exactly what nobody, not Uber/Lyft, not the potential passengers, nor the at-will drivers, want. If they did, they'd be using/driving the existing taxi systems.

Strat

Re:Expected ruling from institutionalized employee

[Ol Olsoc]

It's entrepreneurship because you get to decide when, where, and how much you work.

Do you have a newsletter? Your ideas are intriguing....

His newsletter is printed in a retro Roman-themed format. It's a scroll, available for your perusal in all good public restrooms....

My guess he is one of the No Government and everyone is honest people, where if only there are no rules, everyone will follow the rules.

Certainly his definition of entrepreneur includes all of us.

Yes, it is

[rsilvergun]

very few people can do it, but we have literally _billions_ of Indians to choose from and we can cycle them out with impunity.

Prices will rise as a result

[SonicSpike]

Prices will increase as a result of this nonsense.