Uber Drivers Deemed To Be Employees By Swiss Insurance Provider (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous shares a TechCrunch article: Uber has suffered another setback to its operational model in Europe after a Swiss insurance agency ruled that Uber drivers are employees, not freelance contractors as the company claims -- meaning it must pay social security contributions. This follows a similar ruling by a UK employment tribunal in October which found that the two Uber drivers bringing the claim were employed as workers by Uber, rather than being freelance contractors. Swiss broadcaster SRF says the Suva agency made its decision on the status of Uber drivers in the market on account of their inability to set price or payment type, and because they are threatened with consequences from Uber if they do not fulfill its requirements. The Suva described its decision on the classification as a "clear conclusion." The public sector insurer is involved in determining whether workers are freelance or not as a provider of compulsory on-the-job accident insurance which is required for certain high risk professions.

Comments

Re:In the end...

[TWX]

Wow, and I thought I was quite the jaded nihilist...

I suppose I see it that if human beings have the ability to work together for collective endeavors, like government, then there's no reason why we should not try to structure such to get the best balance of outcomes.

Companies like Uber and Lyft are not "ride sharing" companies despite whatever verbiage they attempt to use to describe themselves. They're passenger livery services. Laws that govern the passenger livery service apply to them whether they want them to or not. Also, the way they've structured themselves, they retain enough control over those that work for them to where those individuals are employees. They're running the opposite of the taxi model where the drivers actually are contractors in many cases; lots of taxi companies lease the car to the driver for a daily figure, provide dispatch for pickups if the driver wishes, and otherwise the driver is free to use the car to transport all the fares that the driver can, local laws (like airport rights) not withstanding. Those taxi drivers can drive as much or as little as they want, and short of engaging in bad behavior that reflects on the car owner, doesn't have a lot to answer for to the company itself.

By so tightly controlling the drivers and how they're compensated it's clear that the drivers are not simply contractors, and the only other class by and large is employee. And in my view that's as it should be.

Re:They are looking at it all wrong

[MightyMartian]

The precise rules differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but on a balance what I'm seeing is that in multiple jurisdictions in Europe and North America, Uber's relationship with its drivers is viewed by taxation and labor authorities as being a employer-employee relationship. Here in Canada, I've had experience with how the Canada Revenue Agency (our version of the IRS) views contractor vs employee, and it applies similar standards that basically amount to "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck". Over the years I've seen many an attempt by employers large and small to treat what are clearly employees as private contractors for the purposes of ducking their responsibility on collecting and remunerating payroll taxes to taxation authorities, not to mention hoping to sneak past overtime pay and other labor rules like meal breaks. It's a scam some employers keep trying over and over again, so Uber is hardly the first company to try to pull this stunt.

Of course, the real irony of Uber is that even with this withholding tax-dodging scheme, they're still losing vast amounts of money, so I expect that once many jurisdictions force it to treat its drivers as employees, it will either collapse or just turn into a regular taxi service.