Slashdot Mirror
Brazil Judge Rules Uber Drivers Are Employees, Deserve Benefits (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader shares a Reuters report: A Brazilian judge ruled that a driver using the Uber ride-hailing app is an employee of the San Francisco-based company and is entitled to workers' benefits, adding to the global debate over labor rights for drivers on the platform. Uber said on Tuesday it would appeal the decision by Judge Marcio Toledo Goncalves, who issued the ruling late Monday in a labor court in Minas Gerais state. Goncalves ordered Uber to pay one driver around 30,000 reais ($10,000) in compensation for overtime, night shifts, holidays and expenses such as gasoline, water and candy for passengers. The consequences for Uber, if the ruling is upheld, could be far greater if more drivers follow suit and if state and federal regulators and tax agencies start treating it, as the judge suggested, as a transportation company rather than a tech firm.
More likely they will pull out of any markets that dictate this. They can't remain profitable doing that.
Uber (at least in the US) dictates which tools you're allowed to use on the job, which is one of the big tests in employee vs. contractor designations. Try driving for Uber if you have a coupe, or if you have a beat-up old clunker of a car. It's not going to happen, you must have a 4-door vehicle, it must be in attractive condition, etc. Employers have lost suits over this sort of thing before. Specifying "you may only use DeWalt tools on this contract" can be enough to have your contractors qualify as employees.
There's also the scenario where Uber's app won't run, or won't run properly, if you also have a competing app (Lyft etc.) open at the same time. Ergo, Uber prevents you from accepting work from other sources, another big test for employee classification.
I applaud Uber drivers who are fighting for their rights.
The way I see it, Uber isn't a taxi company. Uber provides a platform as a service allowing service providers (ride share drivers) to find customers (passengers). The service providers might count as independent taxi drivers and thus be taxi companies themselves.
If Uber drivers are Uber employees, then Uber is providing the taxiing service, and is a taxi company. That's a lot different.
In other words: Uber is basically a phone book and telephone rolled into one, with a listing of cabbies and their rates circulated periodically--although in this case the cabbies have agreed to take current market rates and pay a share of revenues to Uber for publishing their contact information in the circular, and the circular goes out pretty much continuously, every second. If Uber employs the cabbies, then Uber is the cab service provider.
If you were looking for independence, you want Uber. If you were looking for employment, you want Yellow Cab Company.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I'm pretty sure if you're employing people in different countries you have to abide by their labor laws. You can't just push American labor laws on other countries. Cost of doing business there uber. Want to be a global multi-national company? You have to pay to play.
Or maybe we should just all agree on some global labor standards but I bet you America wouldn't like that one bit.
We'll make great pets
Someone comes up with an idea that's pretty good, is designed for people to work part time to pick up some cash, minimal regulations, etc. and it's a pretty good thing for everyone all around.
Except there are regulations around offering yourself for hire for personal transportation. Just because you own a boat doesn't mean you can take up commercial fishing part-time to make some extra cash either without following proper regulations and licensing. If you want a part-time job to make some extra cash wait some tables, tend bar, be a bag boy at a grocery store, or work swing shift in a bakery. Just wanting to make a little extra money doesn't justify ignoring local, state, or federal laws and regulations.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The way I see it, Uber isn't a taxi company. Uber provides a platform as a service allowing service providers (ride share drivers) to find customers (passengers). The service providers might count as independent taxi drivers and thus be taxi companies themselves.
Drivers can't set prices, can't turn down (too many) customers, can't drive whatever car they want, etc. Uber drivers aren't contractors.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
But a client specifying tools seems like a strange thing to determine contractor vs something else on.
A contractor produces results for a fee. If the purchaser of the service wishes to retain control over anything other than the results, then they need an employee, not a contractor.
A contractor produces results for a fee. If the purchaser of the service wishes to retain control over anything other than the results, then they need an employee, not a contractor.
An express contract can certainly have clauses and riders that go beyond the end result. Government contracts in particular are full of them.
However, Uber's contract appears to be an adhesion contract, which is basically one side dictating terms, making it a Hobson's choice. For those kind of contracts, judges have often struck down what can be considered unreasonable, because one side was not allowed to influence the terms.
It merely shows HOW STUPID the system of corrupt government corporate interaction is, and how the government takes any thing it touches and makes cost 10x as much.
Most of my friends cannot afford a taxi. Most taxis I've ridden in are disgusting. Uber, they can afford. And the vehicles are usually pretty nice.
Most contractors don't set prices. They can accept the price or move on. Can't turn down too many customers. Well guess what, you can't go too many days without coding and remain a contractor either. Can't drive whatever car they want. Nope...you need to have a tool that meets a modicum of professionalism. Yes, you're a contractor...but when you go to meetings you are required to dress appropriately...or you lose the privilege of being a contractor.
How does it make any sense that Uber should pay a driver overtime pay when the driver is fully in charge of how many hours they work per day or week?
That makes no sense at all.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I think you're posting in the wrong discussion - because there's considerable regulation both when it comes to hiring labor and when comes to transporting paying passengers. Regulation that Uber has consistently tried to circumvent, first with their nonsensical "ride sharing" claims, then with their equally nonsensical "we're just a tech company" claims. The only people it's "pretty good" for are Uber's investors, because they collect all the profit and shove all the risk onto the drivers.
In many countries drivers for hire must have a professional driving licence and a professional car insurance. And don't give me the crap about the Uber insurance, it covers far less than even a private car insurance in several European countries. Feel enlightened already?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap