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.

10 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. More likely they will pull out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More likely they will pull out of any markets that dictate this. They can't remain profitable doing that.

    1. Re:More likely they will pull out by golodh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good. This commonsense view should be applied to all markets Uber is in. If they can't compete on a level playing field they should indeed pull out and stop their unfair competition.

    2. Re:More likely they will pull out by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think it really matters, it costs almost nothing to defend these cases for Uber. They're just trying to defer spinning up a big HR division between now and in five years when Uber replaces most of their human drivers with driverless cars. People keep treating Uber as if they're going to be this massive, massive employer -- they won't. Ideally in 10 years most everything will live in the cloud run by a team of 300 engineers, with local service centers to swap out batteries and electric drive units for the cars. Human drivers will only work in areas that don't have enough ride share demand to deserve a dedicated service center.
       
      Worrying about driver's benefits is a very short sighted goal and really is a waste of everyone's time.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    3. Re:More likely they will pull out by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who cares?
      Even in ten years I will still boycott uber.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:More likely they will pull out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Brazilian labor law is *designed* to catch all attempts at doing what Uber does, really.

      To Brazilian law, if you do *anything* paid that looks like being employed more than X hours per week for a long enough period for the same company, you *are* employed, and they are in a very very bad position for trying to dodge labor law. Also, in labor issues, the employer is *presumed guilty* and *has to prove its innocence*. It is absolutely the *only* instance in the entire Brazilian law where this happens (in all other cases, whomever is being accused of a crime is presumed innocent).

      This is true even if you did the paid work under a contract for services rendered (as in person-to-business contract, not b2b contract, and no, a micro-business with just one or two people is NOT going to fly as a b2b situation), unless you are one of the few professions that are in a white list (teachers, engineers, doctors, lawyers, and a few others) -- and those pay a lot of income tax, so everyone would rather find a way to do it b2b anyway.

      You want to hire someone for just a short period, there is a lawful labor contract for that exact situation, too.

      What Uber does is simply unlawful. They'd have to limit the drivers to a few "runs" per week, and enforce that they also work for several other businesses (!!!) to avoid being considered an employer of their drivers.

      Everyone in Brazil saw that coming. Likely even Uber lawyers, which now will get even more money and Uber will still get even more screwed ;-)

  2. Re:I hate worker exploitation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Labor Laws by zifn4b · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  4. Re:Never Fails by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  5. Re:Never Fails by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  6. Re:I hate worker exploitation by Jaime2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.