Slashdot Mirror
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.
we're all freelance contractors. You were born alone, you'll die alone, and the only one who really cares about you is you.
Agreed with all. But I'll take a stab at those other reasons.
First, around here anyway, any "business owner" needs to have more than one client, to be able to call that business a business and pay taxes accordingly. That means that an Uber driver would need to drive for more than just Uber to be considered a driver-for-hire. It's true for bakers, and for candlestick makers around here. I can't have a programming business if I only program for one client. I used to need to prove that to my clients' accounting departments, or they'd start taxing my business revenue, as though it were personal income.
Second, Uber just set a policy of zero sexual conduct between drivers and passengers. That's not a thing that a client can do to contractors. Can certainly fire contractors for it, but can't promise passengers that contractors will do or not do anything. Can only refund payments at the Uber level. Can't even dodge paying the drivers -- because policies aren't contractual.
How'd I do?
If they are employees, certainly Uber can demand that they work specific hours or not be employees anymore?
I've never heard of "employees" who can work or not work at their own whim just by signing into or out of an app.
And you are a fucking moron who knows squat about the law and business. Look up contract law some time Zippy.
Where I come from, cabs, and livery (airport limo) vehicles, i.e.: the vehicles themselves, have to undergo a state safety inspection every six months or N miles, whichever comes first, same as school buses and other commercial vehicles. Because without that, people and companies would cheat and cut corners: they'd be driving passengers around with bald tires, worn-out brakes, broken suspensions, etc., and the unsuspecting passengers would be put at risk by the operator's greed and laziness.
Also, the drivers themselves need to have a Public Chauffer's License, meaning (minimalist) special training, clean background (no DUIs, etc.) and periodic drug/health* testing. Again, without that, people (potential drivers) would cheat. What's the acceptable/allowable Blood Alcohal Content??
Uber seeks to outflank all of that: the vehicle condition is the subcontractor's responsibility, the drivers fitness is the subcontractor's responsibility, all Uber does is makes a profit.
My question is: how long before some front-page uber**-tragic wrongful death lawsuit drives them out of business?
* Think: diabetes and epilepsy
** OK, pun intended, mea culpa
Pretty good. Let me add this.
I googled "contractor vs. employee" and came up with an interesting link on the USA IRS website.
TL/DR: Common Law specifies three rules that determine whether someone is an employee:
(1) Behavioral (Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?)
(2) 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.))
(3) 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?)
It seems clear that Uber drivers are employees under rule 1. It's less clear whether they are under rule 2, but on balance it seems that the drivers are employees under this rule as well. And as for rule 3, obviously Uber does everything it can to keep the type of relationship from looking like that of employer-employee, but maybe some aspects of it still qualify here as well.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Further, the passengers are not the driver's clients, they are Uber's
The moment you start down that road Uber is a taxi service, which they very strongly insist that they are not. They're just a matchmaking service, like eBay for car rides. The "ride sharing" are private agreements between drivers and passengers, Uber just takes a commission like on eBay. At least that's their narrative on the customer side. Their problem is that they're not really much like eBay at all, when you start regulating in detail what you can sell, how you can sell it and to what price sooner or later you'll cross the line where you're not an independent seller but a store employee.
It's like trying to claim the fry cook at McDonald's is an independent contractor delivering burgers and the company just takes a commission for matching him with hungry customers, even though they decide the menu, branding, price, commission rate, opening hours and everything else. You could simply stop driving for Uber any time, but in an at-will state you could walk out at any time. That alone doesn't make you a contractor.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
And you also have it wrong.
If Uber is the client of the driver, then sure the driver may not be able to negotiate the pay rate with uber..... but they should be allowed to set their prices for their OWN customers on the other end of the transaction.
So say Uber says "to use our service you must pay us $2 per transaction"
OK, thats fine. If the driver wants to charge the people they are providing rides for $10 or $20 and then pay uber their flat $2 that is all well and good.
BUT Uber is setting the prices that the driver WILL charge to their clients.
This is what transforms it from an independent contractor arrangement into an employee -> employer relationship.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And if there are too many parameters set on how you do your work, you may very well be an employee. Uber is just the latest and perhaps largest example of how companies try to evade payroll taxes and labor laws by claiming they're in a contractor relationship with their workers, but they're hardly the first. In general terms, contract work is supposed to give you pretty wide latitude in how the job gets done. Contracts can set up due dates, and to some extent even milestone dates, can set up remuneration schedules, and most certainly include quality assurance requirements, but when you start making those contractual requirements so narrow that the contractor's schedule and duties start to look a lot more like employment, then a line has been crossed. It can be fuzzy, and I've certainly read of cases that have gone to court where the courts have leaned one or the other based on the balance of facts, but talk to any employment lawyer and they will tell you that if you want the status of a contract to hold if a court case or government investigation ensues, the fewer stipulations on how the work is actually conducted, the less likely the relationship is to be seen as an employment relationship.
I've done plenty of contract work in my time, and my contracts have always amounted to "Will deliver product on such-and-such a date", along with a schedule of the exact user requirements. If I have month to do the job, and I don't start it until four days before it's due, then that's my business, and my problem, and if I fail, then the contract language is usually there to spank me very badly indeed. I wouldn't sign a contract to do a job that required me to work on it specific hours, save perhaps where the necessities of testing and implementation required I do the work after hours.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Also, if you're a private contractor, you're required to pay the portion of Social Security taxes that your employer would have: i.e: you pay 1.5x what a standard employee would. Does anybody know? Does Uber issue 1099s to their "contractors"?
I've been in many 'working/gigging' bands, and they way that the money is typically handled is that the bar/venue either pays the band member who is designated as the 'manager/accountant' in cash or check, who then pays the band members in either cash or check (usually depending on whether the band is of the long-term variety or 3-5 local guys landing the occasional summer gig) and the 'manager/accountant' will issue the band member a 1099 either mailed (or delivered in person) at the time they're paid or at the end of the month (in the case of the 'casual' band with changing members & few/no 'regular' gigs) or (in the case of full-time working bands) issued yearly prior to tax-return season in the US.
Under the same set of guidelines being used regarding Uber, might it be possible that some judge/court would rule bands/band-members 'employees' of the bar/club?
If the average local bars/clubs had to treat band members as employees there would be no more 'bar bands' as we've come to enjoy at the local bar on a Friday/Saturday night. I don't know about you, but I can only stand 'karaoke night' at local dives in VERY small doses! 0_o
Another part of this whole debate is how free is the individual to exchange his time & labor as he may see fit as best suiting his personal circumstances and preferences? When and why should the freedom for an individual to decide and to choose for themselves be removed from the individual under threat of deadly force and possible incarceration? Is the individual not the one best suited and motivated to decide what is in his own best interests?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.