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.
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.