
Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey - JacobHenner
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/uber-hit-with-650-million-employment-tax-bill-in-new-jersey
======
Shivetya
I am really curious how they arrived at any of the numbers in this article.
Seriously, what other large employers make it to hundred plus million per
year? Are they just up and deciding that anyone who did one trip is now an
employee? Is there a source that shows how much each company pays per year in
this state? who else is equivalent?

this isn't about protecting the drivers, this is about protecting the taxi
industry and metropolitan mass transit unions both of which were under threat
of better service being offered at lower costs both to tax payers as a whole
as well as customers. you don't have to like Uber to understand what this is
really about. It is protecting the current gravy train the politicians rely on
to stay in office.

edit:

[https://www.njbia.org/get-njbias-tax-changes-
for-2019/](https://www.njbia.org/get-njbias-tax-changes-for-2019/)

Unemployment Insurance, New Jersey Workforce Development and Health Care
Subsidy Fund Taxes

> Employee and employer state Unemployment Insurance tax rates will apply to
> the first $34,400 of an employee’s earnings in 2019 (up from $33,700 in
> 2018).

> For 2019, employees are subject to a 0.0425% (.000425) Workforce Development
> Partnership Fund tax rate. The employee Unemployment Insurance tax rate
> remains at 0.3825% (.003825) of taxable payroll.

~~~
xenocyon
You make reference to protecting mass transit as well as to the cost to
consumers. These arguments make sense if there are zero externalities, but
unfortunately there are: carbon footprint, both directly as well as second
order effects from increased congestion, commercial exploitation of subsidized
infrastructure, increased collision risk to cyclists and vulnerable road
users, abuse of contract law by preventing independent rate setting and
concealing negotiable information, artificially depressed prices fueled by
venture capital in order to create a monopoly and capitalize later. These
externalities are borne by society at large, so a pure "let the consumer
decide" philosophy is not fully justified in this scenario. Some of these
externalities apply to taxis as well, which is precisely why regulating and
limiting taxis is good, though I think one could do a lot better than the
medallion system.

~~~
manigandham
Regulation is what made taxis so terrible. We don't need the government to
control everything. Many of the externalities you describe would be the same
if people just drove their own cars.

If ridesharing is so bad then govt should invest in proper public transport to
create more choice, not try and crush a valuable service used by millions.

~~~
maximente
> Many of the externalities you describe would be the same if people just
> drove their own cars.

no, this isn't correct and on its face looks like a straw man, so i'm pretty
sure you're arguing in bad faith, but i'll try to give someone of the "market"
mindset a market argument.

market zealots tell us that as things become cheaper, people do more of them.
subsidizing ride sharing, evading regulations, etc. generally made ride
sharing become a cheaper alternative to taxis. as a result, it suddenly became
generally affordable for well off people to "ride share" around everywhere as
a manner of commuting. this very likely led to more congestion than a world
without ride sharing would have.

that some of these well off individuals could have done the same in private
cars is not really relevant. ride sharing became so economical that bus
riders, pedestrians and cyclists changed their behavior to make use of it.
this isn't controversial - there's at least one study from SF that found this;
i'm guessing other municipalities have found the same.

~~~
mav3rick
This is such a bullshit argument. What you're basically saying is people
wouldn't have driven their cars and stayed at Home if Uber wasn't a thing.
That's such an inane argument. Ridesharing is good and reduces overall
traffic. It doesn't make people go out more than they require. No one says
"it's a good day to Uber today ".

~~~
jellicle
I've read a dozen studies so far that indicate Uber increases traffic and
congestion in cities it operates in. Quite a lot, actually. Increasing commute
times by 40% or more in some of the studies. Venture capital is paying people
to idle around the city, clogging the roads. It's a sort of denial of service
attack.

"Uber and Lyft Admit They're Making Traffic Worse"

[https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/08/uber-lyft-
tra...](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/08/uber-lyft-traffic-
congestion-ride-hailing-cities-drivers-vmt/595393/)

~~~
manigandham
This is the normal outcome of more people going to more places. Ridesharing
definitely increased the total amount of people taking cars that didn't before
from a lack of options, but that's minor in terms of general population
growth.

Traffic always increases over time, that's a natural thing that cities need to
plan for. It's great motivation to build public transportation instead of
complaining about Uber helping people get around.

------
nemo44x
There's no escaping this from states like NJ, CA, IL, MA, and NY. These states
(of which I am a member of) are broke with pension obligations waiting to
bankrupt the government. Taxes are already high both on income and property so
there's nowhere to go there. They have old infrastructures and although the
citizens are heavily taxed, government can't make improvements in large part
because of lifetime pension obligations to a rapidly growing group of retirees
- many of which have already moved to tax free states like FL.

So these states are the vanguard in finding ways to collect more tax revenue
any way they can. Sharing Economy companies are simply the easiest to harvest
right now.

~~~
akersten
Do you have some numbers to share to support the hypothesis that pension plans
will bankrupt these states without new taxes?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Illinois: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-illinois-
pensions/illinoi...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-illinois-
pensions/illinois-unfunded-pension-liability-climbs-to-1335-billion-
idUSKBN1O62KC) (Illinois' unfunded pension liability climbs to $133.5 billion)

[https://www.policyed.org/pension-pursuit/pension-
liability-s...](https://www.policyed.org/pension-pursuit/pension-liability-
state/map) (PolicyEd: Interactive Map of Pension Liability by State and City)

Illinois is an outlier, and is seriously in trouble, but most other states
will be fine.

~~~
rsclient
Total pension liability (from your numbers): 133.5 billion There are 12.80
million people in Illinois, so the per-person liability is $10429 A typical
pension is paid out over the course of about 20 years. The liability per
person per year is $521

Put differently: the pension liability per year is 6.675 billion. Illinois
rakes in about $45 billion per year in taxes.

That's at most "awkward" to handle and at best "easy" and possibly even
trivial.

~~~
rsj_hn
First, what you are doing is taking a net present value of a discounted cash
flow, dividing it up into pieces and then population.

You cannot do this.

Say there is a discount rate of 8% and you owe $100 per year for 20 years.
That's a NPV of about $980.

Then you say, $980 divided by 20 years is only $49! It's nothing. You just
turned an obligation of $100 per year into $49 per year.

See, the pensions, when they say they have a shortfall of X, what they mean is
that if they got X today, and invested it with their expected rate of return,
in the future they would have what they need to pay out their obligations.
They are not saying that their obligations are X when they are added together
across time without discounting.

Second, in the case of pension funds, the discount rate is how much they think
they can earn with the money. The pension industry has different assumed rates
of return, but the most consistent one I've heard is 8%, which in today's
world of secular low rates is insane. There is a whole world here of pension
funds reaching for yield as risk free instruments drop to very low rates, and
this is by far a much bigger impact on pensions than anything else and
something not talked about when people cheer low interest rates. This is
causing pension funds to be in shortfall all across the world.

There is also the issue that some pension plans contain provisions for health
insurance, which is also hard to predict.

So I'm not saying I have the right number, but without knowing their discount
rate or future obligations, you are not going to be able to get a good number.

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
You sound like you know a lot about pensions. How have Japanese pension funds
survived? Do they just not invest in Japan at all?

~~~
rsj_hn
Japan has a completely different pension system which is extremely
conservative.

It's a two tier system, the first government funded, and of course the
Japanese government is in enormous debt, but not because of pensions. The
government funded pension is like welfare, it's very small, is fixed in amount
for everyone, and funded by contributions. It would be what social security is
if the amount was tiny -- say $200 per month -- and fixed for everyone
regardless of how much they pay in, even though everyone pays in a bit less
than 1% of their salary. It is a system not dependent on positive rates of
return.

The second system is the main source of pensions for people and is
employer/employee funded. It is also quite austere -- you pay in 18% of your
income in year 1 and that amount increases by 0.25% each year. Of course only
half is deducted from your paycheck, the rest from the employer, but it is
effectively taken out of the worker's paycheck.

What you get when you retire is ~0.55% of your total lifetime wages each year.
This amount is fixed in nominal terms -- there is no inflation, cost of living
adjustment, etc. You get this fixed amount every year. That means that by
design the system is solvent because even if nothing is invested and the money
earns 0%, if you work for 30 years and never get a raise, you will have paid
in an average of ~22% of your lifetime wages which will fund 32 years of
retirement pension after 30 years of working. But a normal person will get
raises, and as they get raises over time, they earn more later in life when
their percentage contribution goes up, so pensions are well funded even for a
population with long lifespans and low interest rates. Then of course people
have private savings in addition to pensions.

Needless to say, Americans would riot if you told them they need to increase
their social security contribution from 15% to 18%, with no cap, and that this
amount goes up every year, and then what they get would be only 0.55% of their
lifetime earnings with no COLA. That means someone earning the median per-
capita income of about 31K for 40 years of work would get $570 per month in
social security benefits after paying in an average of $594 per month over 40
years. But again, our system is designed for people who die younger and work
in an economy with decent rates of return.

But if we adopted a Japanese style system, social security would be
permanently in the black regardless of interest rates.

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
Thanks!

So does that mean the average retired Japanese person is living on less than
$1k per month?? How are they doing that? Isn't Japan pretty Urban and the
cities relatively expensive to live in?

~~~
rsj_hn
You would be surprised at how low wages are in Japan and how frugal people are
to save to supplement their employer pensions. You would also be surprised at
how many poor people there are in Japan. The stereotypical wealthy Japanese
salaryman has pretty low salaries by American standards. There are also
homeless people in Tokyo who sleep quietly in the streets and then clean up
after themselves, disappearing completely from sight so you wouldn't know
there was an encampment there. There was one famous case of an older person
starving in Japan. He had a very touching diary where he wrote he dreamed of
eating just one rice ball. He went to the unemployment office but they turned
him down.(source: [https://asiancorrespondent.com/2012/02/starving-to-death-
in-...](https://asiancorrespondent.com/2012/02/starving-to-death-in-wealthy-
japan/))

In Japan 2/3 of the average person's retirement income is pension benefits and
1/3 is savings, so Japanese augment their frugal pensions by saving a lot.
Even so, 1 in 6 Japanese live in poverty, and 1 in 5 seniors live in poverty,
suggesting that the low pensions play a role and that some Japanese are
suffering because of this
([https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/06/04/business/financ...](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/06/04/business/financial-
markets/japans-pension-system-inadequate-aging-society-council-warns/))

In terms of Japan being expensive to live in, it depends on your lifestyle.
You can certainly spend a lot of money in Japan, but the median _household_
income in Japan is about 40K (source:
[http://nbakki.hatenablog.com/entry/Distribution_of_Yearly_Ho...](http://nbakki.hatenablog.com/entry/Distribution_of_Yearly_Household_Incomes_in_Japan_2016).
more salary breakdowns here:
[https://resources.realestate.co.jp/living/average-salary-
jap...](https://resources.realestate.co.jp/living/average-salary-japan-
occupation-age/)) so assuming 2 people, that's about $1700/month per person,
so a pension of $1000/month is completely unsurprising.

Private consumption in Japan, as a share of GDP, is about 10% less than in the
U.S. E.g. they consume about 57% of GDP and we consume about 67% of GDP. This
includes consumption of fixed capital. If you back that out, the median
Japanese household is just much more frugal than the median US household, and
it's not all increased out of pocket healthcare spending (source:
[https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/how-do-united-
states-c...](https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/how-do-united-states-
consumer-expenditures-compare-with-the-united-kingdom-and-
japan.htm?view_full)). They really are more frugal and more risk averse than
US households.

~~~
toomuchtodo
How does the US Social Security system compare with Japan’s when considering
keeping the elderly out of poverty?

~~~
rsj_hn
In the U.S. 9% of seniors live in poverty compared to 13% of the population
(and 18% of children). Social Security not only does a fantastic job of
keeping seniors out of poverty, but for many seniors who lived in poverty
before the age of 65, the receipt of social security benefits lifts them out
of poverty in their old age.

Thus, social security is much more than a pension program, it's actually a
significant transfer that causes seniors to have lower poverty rates than
working-age Americans.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Thank so much for the reply.

------
navigatr
Jersey City just had a public referendum on short-term rentals that AirBnB
spent millions of dollars lobbying against. It's good to see that the both the
public and its elected officials are coming up to speed on the realities
companies like Uber and AirBnb force upon them by skirting the law.

~~~
kapuasuite
These are the same elected officials who let taxi companies rip off passengers
for the better part of a century by limiting competition through the medallion
system, and protect hotel interests because they’ve been able to tack a ton of
extra taxes onto every hotel bill?

~~~
listenallyall
Before the smartphone era, the only possible way to ensure availability of
personal transportation was to have a functioning taxi & livery industry. The
use of medallions was actually to protect the public, ensuring all drivers
were at least accountable and traceable and thus somewhat safe, just like
today's Uber riders expect the company to perform background checks on
drivers. Yes it benefitted embedded interests, but eliminating medallions
would have been worse.

Also, tacking on taxes to hotel bills hurts them, by making visits more
expensive and thus reducing demand.

But really nice hot takes.

~~~
ranDOMscripts
If "protecting the public" was truly the goal, why not make taxi driving as
simple as getting a commercial endorsement on your license? Driving 50 people
in a public bus only requires X hours in a classroom and an extra exam (or
two, depending). Interestingly, the medallions were affixed the the vehicle
(thus allowing anybody to use it), the total number of medallions were
artificially limited and the choice parts of the city were off limits to
competition. Does that really protect the public or does it just protect those
who own the medallions?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
You should look at the history of why taxi regulation came about and why the
"right" number of taxi badges per city was a system that much of the world
arrived at. It also brought minimum service obligations, driver standards and
fair pricing.

Deregulated taxis had cartels, increased and varying prices depending on
destination and poorer customer service. Bad enough that many countries and
cities found they _had_ to regulate.

Now, whether medallions that are separate from vehicle and driver, and thus
have a value in their own right are the best way to regulate is another
question entirely. In the US specific case it seems emphatically not. Quite
why many US cities had such poor taxi service when other countries have
managed much better is beyond me.

------
fortran77
If these Uber drivers were correctly reporting their income (and I can't see
how they wouldn't be--Uber surely 1099s it) -- wouldn't each individual driver
be paying these same taxes, even as a self-employed person? The self-employed
pay into Social Security for both their portion and the employer's portion,
this also includes SSDI. I'm not sure how NJ does their state tax calculation.

~~~
howard941
These amounts aren't FICA, they're levied on employers and owed to the state's
unemployment and disability tax collection agency.

------
mherdeg
Is the limited-liability corporation that Uber uses called "Raiser LLC" or
"Rasier LLC"? I swear I've seen it spelled both ways, although only "Rasier"
in Uber receipts.

What's the etymology?

~~~
lwf
Both, although it's possible it's only "Raiser" in some locales[1] as a typo —
Uber's liability insurance paperwork[2] and site[3] refer exclusively to
"Rasier".

[1]:
[http://tsa1.nv.gov/ActiveCertificatesDetail.asp?cCertNum=TNC...](http://tsa1.nv.gov/ActiveCertificatesDetail.asp?cCertNum=TNC+0002)

[2]: [https://ubernewsroomapi.10upcdn.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/...](https://ubernewsroomapi.10upcdn.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/NY-COI-P1-3-Phys-Dam.pdf)

[3]: [https://www.uber.com/global/en/cities/washington-
dc/](https://www.uber.com/global/en/cities/washington-dc/)

There's at least one document[4] where Rasier LLC forms a subsidieary `Raiser-
CA, LLC`.

[4]: [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9kwjz5/unicorn-trank-
and-...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9kwjz5/unicorn-trank-and-raiser-
the-names-uber-uses-to-do-business) , specifically [https://video-
images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1500911986571-S...](https://video-
images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1500911986571-Screen-
Shot-2017-07-24-at-114249-AM.png?resize=1050:*)

------
ChuckMcM
Ok, is it just cynical of me to say "Ok, here is their 'one time expense' for
this quarter to show why they aren't profitable yet?

That said, the company has so much regulatory risk associated with it. It has
the feel that the "system" is working very hard to punish the "disrupter" in a
fatal way to discourage other such disrupters.

------
jdhn
If the state wins, I wouldn't be surprised if Lyft and Uber pulled out, or at
least increased their fares by a substantial amount.

~~~
Koremat6666
Personally I think they should pull out nevertheless and make an example out
of NJ. That should give enough signals for other lawmakers not to come between
consenting parties.

~~~
deadmetheny
"We should just let corporations do whatever they want"

~~~
lend000
I wonder how many people have this opinion just to stick it to "the man" \--
seems like most of the anti-Uber HN crowd does not actually drive for Uber,
but nonetheless express a passionate hatred for their business model.

~~~
walshemj
They are avoiding taxes which indirectly increases ours

~~~
username90
Your comment doesn't make sense, are you saying that all independent
contractors are tax avoiders and leech from society? Either the taxes
independent contractors pay are fine and Uber paid a fair amount, or we need
to raise the rates for all independent contractors.

~~~
mamon
Don't know how that works in US, but here in Europe the answer is yes, the
main reason people become contractors is because taxes for contractors are
lower than for employees, which means more take-home pay for the same cost for
the employer.

~~~
heavyset_go
In the US, contractors have a higher effective tax rate than employees, and
are responsible for FICA withholdings that are usually part of an employer's
payroll tax.

------
TheMagicHorsey
Even though Uber will eventually be ruined by the bad press, we should all
appreciate what they did. The taxi industry was an overregulated high-rent
business dominated by insiders, delivering shitty service at high prices, and
nobody was able to break into it.

Uber broke that and introduced people to what is possible with the free
market. Now the government can't just go back to its corrupt ways. People will
notice if service degrades.

I hope Lyft, Uber, and others are driven out of some markets just so we can
see if there's a backlash against the unholy union of government, left-wing
unions, and taxi cab companies.

I feel like people should be reminded about what the government and taxi cab
union dominated market was like with their hedgefund insider deals (to
purchase medallions) and other corrupt dealings.

People always assume decapitating Uber will bring an utopia ... they should be
reminded about how corrupt government is when nobody is watching (and people
usually aren't watching).

------
pitaj
Please don't quote with code blocks. It breaks formatting by forcing
horizontal scrolling, and is especially bad on mobile.

Requoted:

> Employee and employer state Unemployment Insurance tax rates will apply to
> the first $34,400 of an employee’s earnings in 2019 (up from $33,700 in
> 2018). For 2019, employees are subject to a 0.0425% (.000425) Workforce
> Development Partnership Fund tax rate. The employee Unemployment Insurance
> tax rate remains at 0.3825% (.003825) of taxable payroll.

~~~
andy_ppp
The annoying thing is it’s 5 lines of css to fix in most browsers...
[https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/make-pre-text-wrap/](https://css-
tricks.com/snippets/css/make-pre-text-wrap/)

~~~
pitaj
Yes except that breaks _actual_ code, especially affecting mobile devices
where wrapping can make it very difficult to follow.

~~~
andy_ppp
It doesn’t actually break code, it just wraps it on mobile devices
differently. Make your window bigger (80 chars) if you want to see full lines.
For mobile it’s still more readable than horizontal scrolling code.

~~~
pitaj
> It doesn’t actually break code, it just wraps it on mobile devices
> differently.

I meant it breaks the flow of the code by inserting line breaks.

> Make your window bigger (80 chars) if you want to see full lines. For mobile
> it’s still more readable than horizontal scrolling code.

Not all code uses 80 as the standard, many use 100 instead. Regardless, it is
not at all true that wrapping is more readable than horizontal scrolling.
Wrapping doesn't obey the indentation of the surrounding context.

~~~
andy_ppp
This is a matter of opinion, you see scrolling as better on mobile and I see
wrapping as far far better.

------
throwaway35784
Or it could be about protecting employee rights against exploitative
corporations who flout the law for profit.

Edit: and society for that matter. See Al Capone, a murderer, being finally
arrested for tax evasion as an example.

~~~
subsaharancoder
Curious, in which world has taxation ever been for the benefit of the
employee?

~~~
IanCal
Taxation is, broadly, spent on citizens and citizens benefit from that. I pay
taxes that cover the police as well as the schooling that lowers the chance of
people around me having to resort to crime.

~~~
subsaharancoder
In the context of Uber vs NJ, the drivers are already remitting taxes as
contractors. The $650M demand from the state isn't a driver initiative with
them demanding "Uber needs to pay more taxes.." it's the state saying "What
we've collected from drivers isn't enough and we want more from Uber.."

~~~
throwaway_tech
>"What we've collected from drivers isn't enough and we want more from Uber.."

Or its fundamentally correct under the law and Uber has misclassified its
drivers as independent contracts whereas they should properly be classified as
employees.

After all Uber did disclose this was significant risk in their S-1, and
further that such a reclassification could be an existential threat to the
business.

It sounds conspiratorial, but now that they have gone public (and investors
have cashed out and dumped the bag) the money that was roadblocking these
moves by government (note the article makes it clear NJ has been pursuing
these taxes for 4 years) has dried up and governments will begin to act. Its
no surprise to anyone in the know, just follow the money (in this case the
shorts)

~~~
throwaway35784
I wonder how many pre-IPO investors are making money on the way down with
those shorts.

The "sharing economy" is a scam of epic proportions.

------
kd3
Another great example of the government mafia stifling innovation and trying
to extort and rob everyone at every opportunity. Government is the big iron
ball attached to our foot holding us all back.

------
jacquesm
Looking forward to seeing a repeat here in NL.

------
GrumpyNl
I still dont get why a cab driver must get a cab driver license and a uber
driver doesnt. Same service, just another name.

~~~
ars
Uber is legally limousine service, not cab service. i.e. hired not flagged on
the street.

------
bandrami
I mean, I used to get tech support gigs on Craigslist all the time. Should
Craigslist have been responsible for paying me minimum wage during that time?

~~~
navigatr
I didn't know Craiglist determined your rates and claims to own the
relationship between you and your clients.

------
xiphias2
Über was just much more lucky / smart on its IPO than WeWork, as VCs could get
rid of their overvalued assets before the company was started to be regulated
like a normal company.

------
paulie_a
In guessing they will just get another round of investment when running an
illegal taxi business at scale...I mean disrupting. Oh well I don't mind the
subsided rides. The drivers have been very pleasant and I'll hate going back
to cabs when this came party ends

------
ganitarashid
This is not Uber's real problem. The much bigger problem is that Uber's
business model by definition cannot be profitable, and here is why:

Let's start with the costs of the business model.

What are the two costs involved in transporting a customer from point A to
point B? They are: \- The car’s time \- The (human) driver’s time

Operating or leasing a car for a certain amount of time
(maintenance/insurance/gasoline) has not become significantly cheaper since
Uber was created, so there is no cost reduction here.

Hiring a human's dedicated time (at least minimum wage) has also not become
significantly cheaper since Uber, so here too there is no cost reduction.

Therefore the cost to transport something from point A to B has stayed exactly
the same, before Uber and after Uber.

To transport something from point A to point B, someone must still carry this
unavoidable cost. If the customer is not carrying this cost, then Uber must be
carrying it. Uber can do so for now because investor money has subsidized the
cost. But Uber can’t do this forever because investors will lose patience and
stop the subsidy.

Uber can only be profitable once the unavoidable cost transport is passed on
entirely to the customer. At that point, Uber will have to charge the same
price as any taxi. Stated differently, Uber can never be more profitable than
a taxi company on a per-ride basis.

Given that customers have no loyalty to a ride-share service, because every
ride is virtually identical, any taxi company can build a similar service,
removing any "walled garden" or "network effect" Uber may have hoped for. In
fact, Uber clones are doing well in other countries and are creating
significant headwinds for Uber.

Uber therefore has no hope of ever delivering its promises unless it can
deliver driverless cars. Even if it can do that, the technology will quickly
become commoditized and ubiquitous, meaning that any other ride-share service
could offer it as well, once again removing any advantage, and driving margins
for all ride-share services to near zero.

~~~
ganitarashid
I know Uber shareholders do not like to hear this.

------
droithomme
> The money that they’re not paying into the unemployment and disability
> systems is being picked up by the states and the taxpayers.

Isn't it true that independent contractors are _not_ eligible for unemployment
or disability claims?

Yes that's true.

Given that, it is false that the "cost" is being picked up by others, because
there is no cost here.

And given that the state is seeking retroactive reimbursement for past years,
all independent contractors in the state who worked at this during this time
period should be retroactively reimbursed for times of unemployment and for
disability issues. Odd the state's not offering that.

~~~
howard941
The state would beg to differ: "..the department also has determined that 65
drivers who listed Uber, Rasier or Lyft as their employer in unemployment-
insurance-benefits claim forms are employees of those companies and therefore
eligible to seek jobless benefits."

------
mnm1
> It’s not clear whether the company ever paid any of that bill.

What's the point of these fines if NJ and other governments have no real power
to enforce them? This seems to be all for show. Sure, we throw poor people in
jail over a $20 fine. But Uber doesn't pay tens of millions and nothing at all
happens to them. It's impossible to see this as anything other than separate
justice systems for the rich and poor. If Uber was a real person, they'd
probably be in jail for life. If they weren't white, they'd be sitting on
death row. Instead, we talk of them as if they are some sort of success: a
company breaking laws and hemorrhaging money with no chance in fucking hell of
ever being profitable.

