
Judge Rules 160,000 Uber Drivers Can Sue in a Class Action - bdcravens
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/judge-rules-160000-uber-drivers-can-sue-in-a-class-action
======
hackuser
Copied from an HN user who said much better than I could: [1] [EDIT: I'm now
questioning, is it appropriate to repost their words without their knowledge
or consent?]

 _Human labor is not a commodity.

This was the common sense amongst all working people for most of the 20th
century. Samuel Gompers, maybe the most conservative labor leader of his time,
said "You cannot weigh the human soul on the same scales as piece of pork."
And working people, along with the management class for the most part,
understood this to be an undeniable truth. In fact, this piece of common sense
was enshrined into US law with the Clayton Act of 1914, which stated "The
labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce." But in the
last 20 years, as capital has gained the firm upper hand, the common sense
understanding has shifted towards the idea that labor is in fact a commodity.

The ideas behind the so-called "on-demand workforce" further solidify the
notion that labor is a commodity. After all, you can order an uber ride just
as easily as you can order vitamins online.

It's so pervasive that even I, someone born into a union family and a firm
believer in the idea of worker solidarity, have to force myself to believe
that labor is not a commodity. Why? The business class treated labor as
expendable in 1915, just as they do in 2015. Why did working people understand
this truth in 1915 but not today? I don't know.

I read a recently released sociology book earlier this year (going crazy
looking for the title/author, can't find it), that posits millennials are far
more likely than any recent generation to blame themselves for the problems
they face. It's part of the reason that the self-help industry is bigger
business than it's ever been. It's not always your fault. Our modern economy
is built on rotten ideas like labor = commodity. If we want to do something
about inequality, it's time that we subject fundamentally unjust ideas like
these to a serious critique._

[1] Thank you maceo:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9502757](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9502757)

~~~
skwirl
>The ideas behind the so-called "on-demand workforce" further solidify the
notion that labor is a commodity. After all, you can order an uber ride just
as easily as you can order vitamins online.

How does this make Uber drivers any more or less of a commodity than the taxi
drivers they replace?

------
yazaddaruvala
2024 Headline

Class action lawsuit in California: Uber not allowed to replace 360,000
drivers with self driving cars

~~~
bpodgursky
idk why people are instinctively downvoting. If Uber drivers are really
classified as employees, and the NLRB decides that whatever category this is
has a right to force collective bargaining, they could very easily prevent
self-driving cars from being rolled out by Uber.

Many unions, famously automotive ones at GM, have blocked the closures of
plants which were running at 10% capacity.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Actually, false. The NLRB could not decide not to allow self driving cars.
What _could_ happen is local or state governments could acquire self driving
cars and then provide rides to citizens (as they do with other mass transit
systems), and legislate private self driving car companies out of existence
(as the roads are government-owned).

~~~
bpodgursky
? I never claimed the NLRB could prevent it. I said that Uber's drivers could
unionize, and through collective bargaining, that union could prevent the
rollout (from their point of view, prevent Uber from laying off any drivers).
Which is absolutely true.

------
ps4fanboy
Considering how much pressure Uber gets from governments around the world this
doesnt surprise me.

~~~
ddoscampaign
Obvious reading between the lines: Uber arrests in France were more to protect
Uber employees from being assassinated. [0]

French Taxi drivers can fuck some shit up. [1]

0: [http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/29/uber-france-leaders-
arreste...](http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/29/uber-france-leaders-arrested-for-
running-illegal-taxi-company/)

1: [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/violence-erupts-in-france-
during...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/violence-erupts-in-france-during-taxi-
driver-strike-against-uber/)

------
jstalin
The case docket is available online as well:
[https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/cand/269290/](https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/cand/269290/)

------
philip1209
This could have turned out so differently if it were forced into mandatory
arbitration.

------
closetnerd
Is this only Uber drivers or does it effect all ride sharing services?

~~~
aikah
well it sets a precedent, obviously.

~~~
closetnerd
That's unfortunate for Uber because thats sets them up for a competitive
disadvantage. Most lawyers would be interested in class actions suits with the
potential to yield the most amount of money.

Laws might implemented under the guise of fairness but they're rarely upheld
with the same vigor and intent.

------
funkyy
So, Uber might become taxi company soon, just bit more modern?

------
dylanjermiah
I really do not understand. If you want to be classified as an employee, it's
simple, don't drive for Uber. They're offering a particular type of job for
particular people, it's clear up front. You have a choice.

~~~
mmanfrin
"I really do not understand. If you don't want to work 14 hours a day, it's
simple, don't work for these factories. They're offering a particular type of
job for particular people, it's clear up front. You have a choice." \-
Opponents of the 8 hour work day during the industrial era.

Regulations on employment are there for a reason -- you cannot say that an
employer is free to ignore them because people 'don't have to work there'.

~~~
closetnerd
It's a bit of a stretch to imply that Uber is ignoring its drivers. I can
understand that employment laws need to be strict when there isn't enough
competition for employers to keep there employees.

But given that Uber is a strong choice for many, to most, drivers, I'd argue
that its detrimental to have such strong regulations favoring employees.

~~~
hackuser
> given that Uber is a strong choice for many, to most, drivers

I've heard this from Uber and some anecdotes (part of Uber marketing, I
suspect); is there data? Maybe the drivers feel they need to work for whoever
controls the most customers, for example.

~~~
closetnerd
> I've heard this from Uber and some anecdotes (part of Uber marketing, I
> suspect);

O_o Well this a first. No I simply like Uber as a service and model.

> is there data?

No. So you're right. I probably can't claim "most drivers". But it being the
biggest ride sharing service by far, it's difficult to argue that it isn't a
strong choice.

~~~
Frondo
It's not ride-sharing. That's a marketing term, and totally non-descriptive of
how Uber works.

Ride-sharing seems more like what you'd see in developing countries, the
private (unlicensed) taxis where someone with a car picks up a passenger from
the side of the road for a few cents' (negotiated on the spot) fare.

Uber is just a taxi service with a really fancy app and really dodgy
employment (i.e. "you employees, you're all contractors!") practices.

------
ZoeZoeBee
Uber is preparing for this by building one of the best robotics divisions in
the world, be careful what you wish for Uber drivers, you may just quicken
your obsolescence

~~~
toomuchtodo
And then we just tax Uber and their robotics-generated revenue (note I said
revenue, not profit; profit can be gamed).

That's what Hacker News doesn't get. You're not entitled to a profit. You're
not entitled to "disrupt". And if we change laws so you squeeze technology-
heavy companies in order to support people displaced who no longer can find
jobs, that's how it goes (does "eminent domain" ring a bell? if intellectual
property is "property", what stops taking that?).

You can serve bits from anywhere. Physical infrastructure? Good luck profiting
off of that from another jurisdiction.

EDIT: HN, you make me chuckle. A US court is about to slam the hell out of
Uber for violating labor law, and everyone here is up in arms about how their
match-driver-to-passenger unicorn couldn't possibly be required to bow to
"mere mortal" law.

~~~
onewaystreet
> A US court is about to slam the hell out of Uber for violating labor law

The class action suit will be tied up in the courts for another decade. FedEx
has been fighting this same fight for years and the vast majority of its
drivers remain independent contractors.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Info on the Fedex court case is below; note, the IRS can move quicker, and can
extract far harsher penalties (as they should).

"FedEx has settled a long-running dispute with FedEx Ground California
drivers. The class settlement will create a $228 million fund to resolve
claims by over 2,000 FedEx Ground and FedEx Home Delivery pickup and delivery
drivers. Some claims date back to 2000 and some extend through 2007. The
settlement must still be approved by the Ninth Circuit, but assuming court
approval, will end one chapter in a bitter dispute.

The settlement comes in the wake of a 2014 Ninth Circuit ruling that FedEx
misclassified drivers as independent contractors. FedEx has long maintained
that it didn’t misclassify anyone. Yet independent contractor status was a key
component of how FedEx does business. In the case of the 2,300 FedEx Ground
drivers, for years, FedEx called them—and paid them—as independent
contractors."

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/06/16/fedex-
sett...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/06/16/fedex-settles-
driver-mislabeling-case-for-228-million/)

------
hippo8
Sadly just another reason why employers in the future would prefer a robot
worker over a human one.

I honestly can't understand this. Why would you make it harder for your own
employer to do business. Call Uber whatever you like, but these guys have
changed many things, they have helped make a lot of people's lives better.

~~~
pfisch
idk, maybe Uber shouldn't be allowed to operate illegally by declaring all its
employees as contractors. I'm not allowed to do this so I don't really
understand why Uber can.

If you have a job how would you like being reclassified as a contractor right
now. It would only double your tax burden.

~~~
mgraczyk
If my current job were as a taxi driver and my choices were retain my current
job or become a contractor at Uber, I would switch to Uber.

Uber would not have been able to succeed early on if it didn't classify its
drivers as contractors. The drivers are better off for it. That doesn't mean
the drivers shouldn't sue Uber to be employees now that Uber is successful.
It's in their self-interest to do so. However, everybody including current
Uber drivers would likely be better off long term if they could not sue.

~~~
s73v3r
So basically you're saying that if they didn't cheat, they wouldn't be where
they are?

I'm not seeing anything in your post that justifies them ignoring labor laws.

~~~
closetnerd
I understand it differently. Labor laws aren't inherently good for either
parties, employers or _employees_ , necessarily.

Perhaps the labor laws need to be reformed and/or scaled back.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Perhaps the labor laws need to be reformed and/or scaled back.

Perhaps if you want to suggest specific alterations and arguments for them,
that would be productive.

~~~
closetnerd
Well in this case, the need to classify Uber drivers as employees.

