Slashdot Mirror
Uber Wins Key Ruling In Its Fight Against Treating Drivers As Employees (arstechnica.com)
A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that drivers "seeking to be classified as employees rather than independent contractors must arbitrate their claims individually, and not pursue class-action lawsuits," reports Reuters. Ars Technica explains the significance of this ruling: Employees are guaranteed to earn federal minimum wage and are entitled to overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours per week. Uber employees, in contrast, are paid by the ride and might earn much less than minimum wage if they drive at a slow time of day. California law also gives employees the right to be reimbursed for expenses they incur on the job, which would be significant for Uber drivers who otherwise are responsible for gas, maintenance, insurance, and other expenses of operating an Uber vehicle.
Hence, the question of whether Uber drivers are employees or independent contractors is a big and important one. It's also a question that isn't addressed at all in Tuesday's ruling, as the courts never get to the substance of the plaintiffs' arguments about employment law. Instead, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit court ruled that the drivers signed away their rights to sue in court when they signed up to be Uber drivers. Uber's agreement with drivers requires that this kind of dispute be handled by private arbitration rather than by a lawsuit in the public courts. The court cited a Supreme Court ruling handed down in May that held that federal labor law did not preempt arbitration agreements. [...] the decision means that each driver's case must be fought on an individual, case-by-case basis. Class-action lawsuits in the federal courts allow plaintiffs to effectively pool their resources. [...] But under arbitration, each driver's case will be considered individually. Most won't have the resources to afford top-tier legal representation, and drivers won't have the inherent leverage that comes from being able to bargain as a group.
Hence, the question of whether Uber drivers are employees or independent contractors is a big and important one. It's also a question that isn't addressed at all in Tuesday's ruling, as the courts never get to the substance of the plaintiffs' arguments about employment law. Instead, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit court ruled that the drivers signed away their rights to sue in court when they signed up to be Uber drivers. Uber's agreement with drivers requires that this kind of dispute be handled by private arbitration rather than by a lawsuit in the public courts. The court cited a Supreme Court ruling handed down in May that held that federal labor law did not preempt arbitration agreements. [...] the decision means that each driver's case must be fought on an individual, case-by-case basis. Class-action lawsuits in the federal courts allow plaintiffs to effectively pool their resources. [...] But under arbitration, each driver's case will be considered individually. Most won't have the resources to afford top-tier legal representation, and drivers won't have the inherent leverage that comes from being able to bargain as a group.
So, Uber is off the hook simply because they have endless financial resources. Way to go, American legal system. I hope dearly that the EU regulates Silicon Valley so far into the ground that they will have no option but to relent here as well.
Did you miss Hillary's 2016 campaign then? (There's good reasons people are annoyed at both major parties.)
so any job can now use arbitration get out of
minimum wage
workers comp
sexual harassment
overtime
etc.
and if the IRS rules them as Employees then will they fall into the black hole of having both the down sides with none of the upsides?
(1) Their "real" income after expenses puts them below minimum wage ($9.20 an hour). I felt sorry for them. They could work at a restaurant or store and earn better income.
(2) I say "used to" because one of those drivers I gave a generous tip, then proceeded to charge me for HIS drive from Santa Ana to Pasadena. I figured it was a mistake. BUT THEN Uber told me, "The driver says he took your girlfriend home, so that was the cause for the extra charge. No refund."
Problem: No girlfriend. I lost $120, and immediately erased Uber's app since that's not the kind of company I want to do business with.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
My plumber doesn't work 40+ hours per week for me week after week. I also generally don't have my plumber sign a contract before beginning to work for me. I don't set my plumber's rates. The plumber doesn't have to live by my code of conduct subject to suspension or termination.
I don't have a formal code of conduct for my plumber, which limits what plumbing jobs my plumber shall and shall not take, what he is allowed to say when speaking to his plumbing clients, disallowing him from contacting any of us after the job is complete, etc.
Most plumbers would tell you to fuck right off if you treated them like Uber treats its "contractors"
Yes, he's someone else's employee
Just like Uber drivers are Uber's employees
When you place all of these requirements on someone who works for you, they become your employee, not your contractor
Such clauses should be illegal. People should have the right to sue when the want. Poor and under-employed people, especially, don't have the negotiating power to pick and choose which clauses they like in such contracts. It's not a deli: it's get a paycheck or don't get a paycheck. This lopsidedness is sometimes called "Inequality of bargaining power".
Some argue it would flood the courts, but the courts can be streamlined to have an arbitration-like stage for smaller claims where the arbiter tries to work out a mutual agreement without anybody having to visit a courtroom. If either party doesn't agree, then it goes up to the formal court. The arbiter wouldn't be selected by nor hired by the corporation.
Table-ized A.I.
The courts here didn't decide anything of the above in this case, instead they ruled that the Uber "employees" signed away their rights when they applied for the jobs.
So the lesson here is do not sign away your rights when you take a job. Especially don't sell your soul for a low paying job.
Basically the courts have decided that those stupid agreements you sign when taking a job are valid, which is still highy pro-corporate.
Trump would never have been nominated if the typical Republican wasn't annoyed with Republicans. His relatively approval rating among Republicans is due in large part because Trump tweaked that party's establishment.
Remember 2016 was the "mad as hell" election and still the Democrats ran the most establishment candidate possible. (If you're mad about Trump, blame the Clintons.)
Uber drivers - provide all their own tools (the car), work when they want for as long as they want, choose the rides they pick up, they can choose how they perform the job (they have some choice in the route to take). They can even work for competitors at the same time. Contractor vs Employee is about the workers level of control. If you show up at an office at a specific time, work using a company computer, do the tasks they assign and can't work for a competitor then you are definitely an employee. Uber drivers are further from being an employee than any of the governments "contractors".
Fortunately for all of us, there are rights that you cannot sign away, even if you sign a contract to that effect. If it were otherwise, we would all be living in a hellscape dystopia.
But alas, the SCOTUS decided that employee arbitration agreements were not one of them, despite federal labor law. Maybe a different law needs to be passed. Maybe Uber drivers need to unionize (yes, I know that is another kind of challenge.) The point is that employers don't have unfettered power to dictate terms to employees. Other elements of society must be able to balance the power of employers. Without that, we're all serfs.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
It's a common tax question of when is someone an employee and when are they a contractor. This is well settled. THere are puiblished guideline. You could look them up since you don't know them.
But a rule of thumb is a contractor provides the tools of their trade, and gets paid by the task not the hour or the mile.
For example a house cleaner is Usually not a maid. A maid uses the vaccuum provided by the household, the house cleaner brings one.
Other signs are things like paying your own Social security and Benefits. However, these only work in one direction. If the House is paying these then its a sign you are an employee. If the person is paying them, then this doesn't prove they are not an employee.
THe case for uber is interesting since they often do provide their own cars.
Really what they need is a union.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
"I also generally don't have my plumber sign a contract before beginning to work for me."
In most states, a licensed plumber is required to have you sign a work order that contains a list of what is to be done and an estimate of the cost. It is a contract.
yes. Peculiarly enough though, the contract virtually always protects the contractor to the disadvantage of the home or business owner.
This, for the love of FSM.
Uber wants to fashion itself as a contract facilitator between the contractor and the contractee. But it is Uber, not the driver, who specifies the terms of the contract. IMHO, that makes Uber an employer, and the drivers employees, not contractors.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Thanks to the corrupting influence of money on our politics, it's comforting to know that government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, like Uber, and their sick, rich, greedy owners, (or their "elected" puppets,) shall not perish from the earth.
Actually, I am being sarcastic. It is a dreadful shame that the government of, by, and for the people, seemingly has perished from the earth, to be replaced by the aforementioned corrupt government, that works against, to the detriment of, and to spite the people.
They nip at our rights, won by the blood, sweat, and tears of our forebears, and all we can do is watch helplessly as the people who can be bothered to vote, mostly do so for either the Democratic monster, or the Republican monster, both puppets of the same people, and then those people, who are proximally responsible for the unending nightmare we're all living through, have the sheer unmitigated gall to wag their fingers at US for voting for someone who isn't the puddle of fetid vomit retched up onto the ballot by either the "Democratic" (as if they've any right to call themselves that,) or "Republican" halves of the one party that actually controls America, and tell us that the person we voted for "spoiled" something.
As yet another general political election creeps up on us in America, I'd like to remind anyone interested in my vote that if you derive any support of any kind whatsoever from anyone other than the common voters you propose to represent, i.e., if you take PAC money, big corporate money, if you are supported either directly or indirectly by a group that is making in-kind donations, etc... you are NOT eligible for my vote. EVER. If everyone held to a conviction like this, we wouldn't have the corruption and uselessness we now see in our so-called "government". But since many people are stupid and easily frightened into voting for those who will betray and exploit them, or ignore them, the rest of us, sadly, are screwed.
Anyway, sorry for that aside. I'm sure there's nothing in any way corrupt about a multibillion-dollar corporation that has been feeding parasitically off its employees, oh... please forgive me, I mean "independent contractors"... hahahahah yeah, okay, managing to litigate their way into having a court of "law" (hahahahahha) issue a "ruling" (bwaahahahaha) requiring their "contractors" to undertake to arbitrate INDIVIDUALLY any dispute they may have, virtually guaranteeing that Uber will never have to worry about uppity slaves... er, sorry, I mean "contractors," demanding anything again.
Nothing to see here. Move along. Just a multibillion dollar parasitic business fucking everyone they can get their paws on as usual.
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
Remember 2016 was the "mad as hell" election and still the Democrats ran the most establishment candidate possible. (If you're mad about Trump, blame the Clintons.)
No it's not the Deomcrats fault Trump won. I thought the Republicans were the 2party of personal" responsibility anyway...
Trump is and always was corrupt, venal and incredibly self serving. The information was all out there before the election. If you voted for Trump, the fault is entirely yours. Own it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
- might earn much less than minimum wage if they drive at a slow time of day.
When I see demands for the drivers to at least make minimum wage, I've wondered... does this mean while they are driving? Or as long as they are signed in to the app? Would they still get paid by the hour if they refuse nearby ride requests? Or would the hour pay stop the instant they refuse/ignore a nearby request? I don't mean this to be in opposition to the cases or drivers, it's just something I've legitimately wondered every time it came up.