
Highest French court reclassifies Uber drivers as employees - Aissen
https://www.courdecassation.fr/IMG/20200304_arret_uber_communique_eng.pdf?
======
m11a
> The criteria for self-employment include the possibility of building up
> one's own clientele, the freedom to set one's own rates, and the freedom to
> set the terms and conditions for providing one's services.

Immediately I'd seem to agree with this statement. I think of typical self-
employment businesses; hairdressers, freelance developers, etc and this seems
to apply. You can set your own rate and your own terms, even if those may kill
your chance at being competitive.

But if you think deeper into this, then this criteria isn't always true.

Here's a scenario: I publish an ad on a handyman site asking for a new shed
built for £100. People can place their interest and their proposal. The price
is fixed at £100, and I may set other terms and criteria. Nobody is going to
argue that the builders are employees of the exchange site. Uber isn't
entirely different (it just simplifies the process). Its drivers are allowed
to deny a ride, and can see the cost upfront.

Really the difference in these types of self-employment seems to be that the
customer approached a set of potential suppliers, rather than vice versa, and
the customer set the terms and the self-employed get to accept/deny. In the
typical scenario (hairdressers, etc) they set the terms to potential customers
who get to accept/deny.

I don't agree or disagree with the classification of Uber drivers as
employees, I just don't agree with the criteria of the court in this case.

~~~
timwaagh
The classification of uber drivers as employees mostly means they have to pay
more tax and less money goes to drivers and uber. People will argue employees
have more rights and this is good for them, but the primary benefit of someone
being an employee is to the state and the benefit is financial. If too many
people become self-employed, the state can't finance itself anymore. The line
between 'employee' and 'self-employed' is vague and this kind of
reclassification is not limited to Uber. If you try contracting as a coder for
example, you are likely to get reclassified as an employee. And then you have
to prove you are not. Which you aren't going to be able to, because a self-
employed working through a brokerage isn't radically different from a
consultant working through a consultancy. So in that case you are going to
have to pay a lot of back taxes. The point is: if too many people start
working for exchange sites, they will also get sued and be classified as
employees, just so the state can get its dues.

~~~
aikah
> The classification of uber drivers as employees mostly means they have to
> pay more tax and less money goes to drivers and uber.

You forgot to disclose the fact that they are getting many perks like properly
funding their public pensions while working for Uber AND getting access to
regular unemployment funds. The advantages absolutely out-weight the drawbacks
in France. And they are guaranteed a minimum wage, legal contract framework
which means that Uber cannot fire them on the spot and so on and so forth. The
only loser here is Uber, not the driver, if Uber were to chose to continue
doing business in France.

~~~
timwaagh
We shall see how French uber drivers will fare in future but I don't share
your optimism.

------
pkaye
Seems a fair judgement since all the restriction make the drivers effectively
work as employees:

> Drivers who use the Uber application do not build up their own clientele, do
> not freely set their rates, and do not determine the terms and conditions of
> providing their transportation service. The company imposes the itinerary
> and the driver’s fare is adjusted if this itinerary is not followed. The
> destination is unknown to the driver, thereby revealing that the driver
> cannot freely choose the route that suits him/her...

~~~
rahimnathwani
Doesn't all of this also apply to taxis? Taxis pick up at taxi ranks or off
the street. Taxis have regulations set by an organisation. Taxis (in most
places) have rules that say they must take the most efficient route. In most
places, taxis aren't allowed to refuse a customer based on destination.

Does that mean that a taxi driver is an employee? Of course not.

~~~
def8cefe
>Taxis pick up at taxi ranks or off the street.

'Radio' calls and calls they've privately arranged with customers as well.

>Taxis have regulations set by an organisation.

That would be local by-law in most cases.

>Taxis (in most places) have rules that say they must take the most efficient
route.

You can't intentionally ripoff customers but the fastest route and the
cheapest are often different. You can take whatever route you want as long as
the customer is cool with it.

>In most places, taxis aren't allowed to refuse a customer based on
destination.

You absolutely can refuse a customer as long as it's not descriminatory, like
most other businesses.

>Does that mean that a taxi driver is an employee?

Some drivers are employees, some are best compared to franchisees and others
are totally independent.

~~~
reaperducer
_You absolutely can refuse a customer as long as it 's not descriminatory,
like most other businesses._

Depends on your jurisdiction.

For example, taxi drivers in Chicago were notorious for refusing to take
people on trips that were too short, or too far out of the CBD. Sometimes
they'd even refuse to take people from downtown to the airport because if
traffic is bad, or there was a long wait in the staging area at the airport,
it would cut into their profits.

Chicago made that behavior illegal. It still happens occasionally. But if you
know the law, you can do what I do and sit in the cab and refuse to get out
while offering to call the police to have an officer explain the rules to the
driver.

~~~
def8cefe
That's a fair point, they forbid you refusing short trips most places I'm
familiar with. I wasn't really thinking about that in this case, mostly people
asking you to take them sketchy places or belligerent customers which are the
only reasons I consider it. An important distinction is it's local law that
forbids that, not a company policy like with Uber.

Just a few days ago I had some drunk customers screaming at me in my cab and
shaking my seat under the impression I was legally required to drive them.
They earned a very long walk home to think about it.

~~~
reaperducer
_Just a few days ago I had some drunk customers screaming at me in my cab and
shaking my seat under the impression I was legally required to drive them.
They earned a very long walk home to think about it._

I had a nearly identical situation when I Ubered. In spite of multiple
warnings, their behavior didn't improve. When I dropped them off in the middle
of nowhere they insisted that I was required by law to carry them. Nope. I'm
not a public bus.

~~~
def8cefe
Did you have any trouble with Uber over that or were you simply able to cancel
with no drama?

~~~
reaperducer
The pax make a lot of threats about reporting me to Uber and the police and
whatnot, but as far as I know, nothing became of it. I never heard anything,
and I never got anything deducted from my earnings, as far as I noticed.

In my experience, the first thing that happens when anyone calls Uber with a
complaint is they get their fare refunded. That's usually enough to cool most
people off.

------
jakub_g
Now it would be interesting to see the opinion of the court on fake IT
contractors (SSII), where as a developer you are a full-time employee of
company X, rented _for years_ as full-time "consultant" to company Y, on
premises of company Y, just with lower salary and no profit sharing & no
bonuses that staff of company Y enjoys.

(This has been a common practice of Microsoft in US in 1990s and they lost a
lawsuit on that. In France, this is still an open secret and a way to milk
junior developers. The markup those contractor companies make is crazy.)

~~~
slovenlyrobot
The UK HMRC has just absolutely devastated the London contracting market due
to a rule shakeup like this. Speaking as an ex-contractor and current hiring
manager, the result has been disastrous.

~~~
mavelikara
What were the changes and it's negative results you observed?

~~~
slovenlyrobot
They moved responsibility for determining whether a person is acting as an
employee or a vendor in the vast majority of cases to the client, who must
demonstrate a bunch of factors (I'm not a tax guy), not least

\- the "vendor's" right to substitute himself for a replacement they
subcontract (via employment or otherwise) to, irrespective of the client's
deemed suitability of the chosen replacement

\- the "vendor's" right to a significant level of autonomy, such as the
ability to choose their working hours and lunches, and have high level control
over their workflow

\- the process of determination 'employee' vs 'vendor' must be significantly
documented and can be challenged in retrospect for years after completion of
the contract

Falling on the wrong side of a determination could leave the client liable for
mandatory national insurance and pay-as-you-earn tax deductions. Now HMRC need
not prosecute individual contractors, but instead clients (who may hire
hundreds of contractors), making the enforcement process much more efficient
for them, and much higher risk for the clients.

Net result for companies: building big overnight temporary teams out of
contractors e.g. for 6-12 month projects are vastly less likely to do so, for
fear that at some future date, the tax man could claw back a year's worth of
tax for e.g. 20 contractors on the same project, with non-compliance and late
payment penalties lumped on top (which themselves increase with respect to how
long it took HMRC to get around to investigating you). It could be the case
(hypothetically) that it would only require one member of a team to report the
inability to substitute, or the presence of a line manager, for an entire
project team's worth of tax to get a question mark placed next to it.

Net result for contractors: anyone who understands what's going on has either
pivoted into becoming a permanent employee, avoiding the whole mess, since
contracting is an expensive activity to begin with, and the premium has now
been removed, or has banded with a few friends and attempted to set up "micro
agencies". I've already encountered these, where substitution was advertised
very early in conversation.

Net result for the market: it will be all but gone by April 2020.

~~~
CydeWeys
> Net result for companies: building big overnight temporary teams out of
> contractors e.g. for 6-12 month projects are vastly less likely to do so,
> for fear that at some future date, the tax man could claw back a year's
> worth of tax for e.g. 20 contractors on the same project

Why shouldn't the companies be paying the required taxes for the 6-12 months
exactly? It sounds like they are doing temporary employment. In other words,
this finding sounds exactly correct.

Are there no fixed-length employment contracts in the UK? For these projects,
wouldn't the correct thing to do be having these people employed on a limited
term contract as full employees, and have to pay all the correct employment
taxes and such? This seems like a logical thing for the government to want,
and I don't blame them for enforcing it.

And wouldn't the person who's doing this work benefit from it as well? They
get benefits this way, and it's not like being fully employed by different
companies for 6-12 month stretches is that different from not technically
being employed by those employees but working exclusively for them nonetheless
over 6-12 month periods.

~~~
slovenlyrobot
It eliminates the sizeable premium that previously attracted skilled labour to
the instability of contracting. Without premium, why bother with the risk?

FWIW, prior to the recent change, I believe the situation had been the status
quo since well into the 90s. I only started contracting circa 2007

~~~
CydeWeys
Why would it eliminate the premium? Companies would still be willing to pay
extra for shorter term highly skilled workers that produce results.

And if that premium only existed because the company wasn't having to pay the
employment taxes and benefits that they should, then it deserves to go away.
It was tax avoidance, not an actual premium.

------
c3534l
Counterpoint (from the basis of what I know from how the US, not France,
classifies independent contractors):

1\. Uber drivers also drive for Lyft and other services

2\. They can reject a passenger when the call comes in

3\. They bring their own tools to the job (their car)

4\. They provide their own training and technical qualifications (they're
responsible for getting a drivers license, license plate, etc.)

5\. They set their own hours

6\. The choose where they work

7\. They're paid by the job and the price is based on the job, not necessarily
just hourly wages (like paying for a deck, or a custom paint job)

8\. They work with limited supervision

This sounds an awful lot to me like an independent contractor working for a
small number of driving services. I do think that the fact that drivers have
limited ability in a given app to set their own rates indicates employment,
but very rarely does an independent contractor actually meet every single one
of the criteria I listed. A house cleaner, for instance, brings their own
tools, etc., but they're not paid by the job and they don't work with limited
supervision. Meanwhile some construction work might mean that work can only be
done during specific hours of the day using specialized equipment provided by
the nuclear plant / factory / whatever.

This is as opposed to someone like Microsoft or Intel that hires employees,
but gives them a different badge and excludes them from certain meetings and
then goes and pretends they're contractors when they're actually just poorly
paid interns.

~~~
corentin88
French law only requires a "relationship of subordination" to qualify someone
as an employee. The press release is very short and explains why the French
court considers that an Uber’s driver is in a relationship of subordinate.

> Drivers who use the Uber application do not build up their own clientele, do
> not freely set their rates, and do not determine the terms and conditions of
> providing their transportation service. The company imposes the itinerary
> and the driver’s fare is adjusted if this itinerary is not followed. The
> destination is unknown to the driver, thereby revealing that the driver
> cannot freely choose the route that suits him/her.

~~~
c3534l
Sure. I did try to qualify my statement saying I was basing my argument on US
law. French law is whatever a French court decides it is. But I do think that
riding-app drivers are, as a matter of opinion, much more like hiring someone
to paint your house than a regular employee relationship.

~~~
CydeWeys
Your analogy is off here. The person whose house is being painted is like the
passenger in an Uber; this finding does not establish an employee relationship
here.

Rather, the employee relationship is between that of the painters and the
painting company that is paying them out to do numerous painting jobs. That is
the closest analog in the Uber situation. And yes, these painters would be
classified as employees under French law too, as they should be.

------
Frost1x
The deteriorating relationship between what people widely consider 'employer'
and 'employee' has put a lot of societal structures (businesses, democratic
governments, etc.) at risk since income provides the abstraction most use
(money) to provide necessities and wants.

Most all of these institutions are able to continue to exist because people
accept their artificial constructs and play the roles due to wide belief that
it provides a better life. In many places, quality of life or at least
perception of quality of life is deteriorating for large segments of the
population. This is, IMO, causing wide rejection of modern institutional roles
laborers are dealing with. Many employers are breaking the social contract and
people aren't happy--this is a risky game to play.

I propose much of the political unrest we're seeing in US politics is
symptomatic of the population's general unrest and rejection of continued
shifts against your typical laborer.

We can play legal/semantic games about how we define 'employee,' 'employer,'
and 'contractor' but ultimately, if the general population disagrees, no
matter how well we construct our rules and arguments, the institutions will
fail if people widely perceive they're being cheated/deceived.

------
LatteLazy
I'm self employed. I really strongly prefer it. I don't want to be an employee
thanks. Yet my government (UK) are also trying to ban it (IR35). Why is it so
hard for people to understand: I prefer cash to "secure employment", I'm old
and mature enough to make that decision?

I didn't even know I was this right wing...

~~~
unishark
As always the govt wants to protect you from corporations by forcing you to be
dependent on them for your livelihood.

A bit different situation, but relevant to the group here. In the US, software
contracting started to become very big during an earlier tech bubble. This was
crushed in the mid 80s by a new tax law that made a long list of requirements
(12 or something) that must be satisfied to work as a contractor in tech. You
practically had to operate as an independent company selling them a finished
product. Otherwise they would fine both sides and make the company you
contracted with pay back taxes. The law was so overreaching it had to exempt
other professions like housekeeping and legal services which were
"traditionally" operating via hourly billing or whatever, or those forms of
operating would be completely eliminated too. The govt figured they would get
more tax money with people paying through paycheck deductions, while
businesses such as IBM were pushing for the law to turn the competition into
employees.

------
dahfizz
So can Uber force French drivers to work certain hours?

As an American, I have poor understanding of what employment entails in the
EU. If the Uber drivers are just hourly employees, what changes for them?

In the USA, you only see real employment benefits if you are a salaried
employee. An hourly worker gets paid their wage and that's it (no sick days,
retirement, etc).

~~~
zwieback
I don't know if that's true. Our hourlies get benefits like health insurance,
vacation, etc. Maybe not as good as salaried but it's not as clear cut as
"hourly pay only."

~~~
dahfizz
What does paid time off even look like if you don't have a set schedule,
though? Will Uber drivers just get n hours of wage added to their paycheck
every month?

~~~
tyfon
Where I live the company has to set aside 12.5% of the salary paid for next
years "vacation money". You can chose yourself when to withdraw this money in
the following year.

For a full time job you are required to take 25 days (or 5 weeks) off work
outside of public holidays which is about 10% of the total working time so you
usually have a bit more to spend in this period even if the vacation itself is
unpaid :)

~~~
fastball
Why not just pay them more? Seems like a convoluted way to structure a pay
increase.

~~~
tyfon
Because then you would have a bunch of people without money in the vacation
month ;)

I'd be able to manage it personally but you will find that a lot of people
wouldn't..

~~~
fastball
I find the idea of legislating how businesses operate based on the idea that
people aren't expected to have personal responsibility highly distasteful.

~~~
tyfon
I think the only country in the world where the general citizen have enough
self control to manage this sort of stuff is Switzerland.

It might be distasteful to you but it is how people operate in real life and
it would be sad if legislators ignored the real world in favour of how they
wished the world to be.

------
oarla
I am not sure I understand why this is a win for Uber drivers(genuine
question). Is it considered a win because now they are treated as employees,
so they will have benefits like sick pay, vacation days etc? What was the
policy when they were not employees? Would they be penalized(financially) if
they took a sick day? France already mandates some of these for contractors,
so not a huge benefit, I think.

I doubt it'll mean more earnings, since employees are generally paid lower
than contractors. This being in France, universal health care already covers
everyone, so don't think that drivers are going to get a better healthcare
coverage.

Maybe now the drivers will have to be compensated for wear and tear of their
vehicle, which I can see is a win.

~~~
BitwiseFool
I have a hunch this is actually being done to hurt Uber drivers and save the
already well-regulated Cab industry in France.

~~~
WanderPanda
Probably also an act of protectionism / hurting foreign companies

~~~
duxut_staglatz
Are you implying that French courts change their rulings to benefit the
government policies (hurting foreign companies in this case) rather than
simply basing them on the law?

------
6510
To appreciate the context one must consider the much higher standards for
employment.

[https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/employment-
law/co...](https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/employment-
law/comparison-between-usa-and-france-employment-employment-law-essay.php)

> "...the French law regulates much more heavily all the aspects of employment
> conditions than the United States: Only a few forms of employment contracts
> exist in the French legal system, whereas the American law allows the two
> parties – the employer and the employee- to agree on almost every aspect of
> the contract freely, as soon as the contract is respecting the same
> principles and regulations set by the American law for contracts.

> The French legal system also regulates more strictly the aspects related to
> the execution of an employment contract, the work duration, the remuneration
> and the contract termination.

> The social tendency of the French legal system to protect the employees is
> in clear contrast here with the American employment, contracting and
> competing freedom principles."

Uber is seen as an attempt to escape the relatively fixed labor agreement.

------
49531
I used to work at a gig economy startup (uber for dog walking...) and we spent
considerable resources lobbying local and national governments to expand the
kinds of restrictions we put onto our independent contractors while still not
labeling them as employees.

We also had an entire team dedicated to preventing our contractors from going
"off platform".

Probably one of the more exploitative jobs I've had.

------
coliveira
Kudos for the French. If a driver works full time driving for Uber she should
be compensated as a full time worker.

~~~
smallgovt
In all likelihood, moving drivers from contractor to employee status will
result in lower pay for drivers. Uber won't foot the larger employment tax
bill. They'll just lower driver wages and increase customer prices.

~~~
darkwizard42
More likely they will enforce the hours that the employee can work. If you are
idling around at 4 AM in the burbs, they aren't going to pay you full rate,
they will just kick you out and set working hours. If you don't like the
hours, you get fired.

Less flexibility for drivers is probably a guaranteed outcome

------
jacquesm
Excellent judgement, not only because I happen to agree with it but also
because of how it was explained that they arrived at this conclusion. Uber
drivers ended up with all of the downsides of being an employee but none of
the upsides.

------
mucholove
Couldn’t Uber solve the problem if the drivers could accept / deny / bid up /
bid down?

~~~
rtkwe
Currently Lyft (haven't used uber in ages but I assume they do the same) gives
an exact price as you're selecting a destination before you're assigned a
driver, to allow driver price negotiation you can't give an accurate price
before a driver accepts. At best you could give the driver more of the company
cut but Uber is already lighting mountains of cash on fire as it is to
increase driver income.

------
username90
Can anyone explain why we need separate laws for self employed people and
employees? To me it seems like they should have the same criteria. So for
example, if a self employed person don't bring in enough money to pay minimum
wage and all benefits then he is no longer allowed to work and must file for
unemployment and look for another job immediately so that he can get a better
paying job. Then Uber would no longer be able to get any riders unless they
paid better which would fix the problem. What is the problem with this model?

~~~
titanomachy
It seems to me like contractor rules were invented for a very different kind
of person, i.e. a professional who voluntarily gives up certain protections in
exchange for higher pay. As an engineer I can choose whether I want to enter
an employeer-employee relationship or a business-to-business relationship. In
the second, I take on a greater share of the risk and I am accordingly paid
more. The freedom to choose either option is valuable to me.

The rule was not intended as a way for large corporations to hire workers for
less than minimum wage, although so far we've had a hard time making laws that
cleanly differentiate the two cases.

------
bcheung
The ruling makes sense to me, but the criteria do not. At least in this case.
It almost seems like there needs to be a new category for the gig economy
employees. They are somewhere in-between.

~~~
alwayseasy
French courts can't write labour laws, just interpretations of them. It's the
legislative branch's job to create a gig economy framework.

------
easytiger
Really silly. There are loads of people who don't want to work as permanent
employees. In Europe people often travel to work seasonally in different
countries as suits them.

------
BrandoElFollito
It classified that Uber driver as an employee. This does not change anything
for others who still need to go to court in order to have their status changed
(or not, they may loose. We do not have a legal system where precedents can be
used in other cases)

------
predictmktegirl
I don't understand why this is so complicated. If someone works for you, they
are an employee. If someone works with you, they are a contractor. I think the
French definition of subordination is a great defining characteristic.
However, my understanding is that US law doesn't make this distinction thus
introducing a gray area.

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
>I don't understand why this is so complicated. If someone works for you, they
are an employee. If someone works with you, they are a contractor.

Well, no, it's not that simple.

For one, how many employees at your company could stop coming in tomorrow, and
then six months from now go back to work like nothing happened?

Being able to work whenever you want seems like a clear differentiator from
real employees. There's no requirement from Uber for you to actually work.

------
aksss
I'm not sure I follow.

Uber drivers can also drive for Lyft, and independently, thereby building up
their own clientele. Uber connects drivers to clients and takes a cut off the
top. Drivers can (and have) passed out their cards to me with direct lines.
They can also get dispatches from Lyft.. WHILE entertaining offers from Uber
and direct calls.

Uber drivers set their own rate by taking the job or not. The best analogy is
a contractor and a GC. The GC needs work done at a certain rate, the
contractor takes it or leaves it.

Drivers avail themselves to take rides or not on their own schedule, which is
them setting the terms and conditions for providing their services. They
aren't obligated to offer rides on the Uber platform, and can concurrently
entertain offers from other platforms (Lyft, independent, etc).

We all know the intent of Uber was/is to connect people who want to ride-share
in their spare time to people who need rides. It makes it easy for both
parties and it's an improvement over taxis for all involved except taxi
license holders. We shouldn't penalize progress because some Neanderthals want
to make it their sole source of income (or eradicate ride sharing).

This is people peeing in the Napster pool all over again.

------
PeterStuer
The real question is should Uber drivers get the same rights and protection as
employees, and the company contracting them be held to the same
responsabilities. My answer to that is yes, of course.

Wether they are or are not 'employee' according to some last century
definition is an uninteresting question.

------
dusted
A solution to uber exploiting those with little other choice, might actually
be to have more platforms like uber, that'd force them to compete, not only
for customers, but for workers.

I like the french version better though. If uber wants to be a taxi company,
then do it on fair terms.

------
usr1106
Wasn't it so that in France Ryanair pilots are not allowed to be self-employed
subcontractors either? (A model that Ryanair prefers.) Both makes sense to me,
neighter of them can really set their own prices, schedules or work-
conditions.

------
nie100sowny
More money goes to government.

Less (or in the best case the same amount of) money will stay in Uber driver
pockets because of the taxes

Less money in people's wallets because of the higher transportation costs.

Who have more money have more power :/ This is how we loose freedom

------
richard78459
This ruling should apply only to a company that has a revenue over say 10
million. That way it will provide competition to the market at the same time
taking care of drivers not being exploited. win win scenario.

------
Lucadg
The platform-provider relationship is a new thing. A new kind of regulation is
needed.

Trying to define drivers as employees or contractors is futile.

------
tus88
I wonder if an Uber could exist that posed itself as a _service to drivers not
passengers_.

------
baron816
Labor market regulation is tricky. All of Uber's drivers join as contractors
_under their own free will_. No one is legally obligated to work for Uber. No
one is threatening to do harm to anyone if they don't drive for Uber. If they
don't like the terms of their employment, they can just stop driving for Uber.

Now of course, that libertarian approach has some practical consequences.
Humans are a little bit mushier than the "economic man". We get sick, and old,
come of age under different environmental conditions, have certain family
obligations, happen upon unexpected circumstances, etc.

We can all appreciate that some people don't really have the option to just
quit the job that's just barely keeping them afloat. But if a society decides
that it values things like economic and human rights, then the burden of
guaranteeing those rights for everyone should be spread across society as a
whole, not just on the few whose business model depends on employing those at
the bottom.

~~~
dusted
"No one is legally obligated to work for Uber. No one is threatening to do
harm to anyone if they don't drive for Uber. If they don't like the terms of
their employment, they can just stop driving for Uber."

This is an interesting position. On the surface it even seems reasonable. Just
like "no one is FORCING you to eat that particular food, if you don't like it,
just don't eat it".

Well, hunger might force one to eat a particular food, even if one does not
like it, even if one does not tolerate it well. It might well be, that that
particular food is that one available to you, and you might not be in a
position to select another food. Can you opt not to eat it, it it's what seems
available to you?

I think we tend to forget that not everyone has the kind of choice we have.

~~~
alexmingoia
People who disagree with having the fruits of their labor stolen and given to
others (welfare), or prevented from laboring (employment restrictions like the
ones for Uber), are well aware that people have different possessions,
capabilities, and opportunities. They just don’t think two wrongs make a right
or that the ends justify the means. They think the purpose of government
should be to secure rights instead of violating them to benefit someone else.

------
jonplackett
Does anyone know if this is already the case Kapten, which seemed to be the
main ride hailing service in Paris when we just went.

------
RocketSyntax
"You're all fired."

------
krghosh
Good!

------
hnewsshadowbans
With Uber want to work? Press a button. Want to take a break? Press a button.
Want to work again? Press a button. Take as long a break as you want. Work as
long as you want. No timecards. No obnoxious coworkers. No intrusive
questions. No douchebag bosses making your life a living hell. In what other
job do you have this sort of freedom without the instability of traditional
selfemployment? What more could you ask for? Now it'll all be ruined for
everybody because of the greed and entitlement of a few.

Its side hustle money for bored college kids with some free time. They NEVER
promised anything more. They're not forcing you to work for them. If you're a
a single mother raising 5 kids on Uber alone you're doing it wrong.

~~~
avianlyric
> Its side hustle money for bored college kids with some free time.

Except it isn’t. If it was then Uber wouldn’t be trying to setup vehicle
leasing schemes for their drivers.

If it was true then I would actually meet some college kid drivers, rather
that 30 year old migrants.

If you’re a single mother raising 5 kids on Uber, then you probably have no
choice. Telling them they’re “doing it wrong” won’t feed their kids. It’s just
a callus relegation of someone you find undesirable and have no wish to help.

~~~
hnewsshadowbans
If people want to work for Uber so badly then whats Uber's place not to
accommodate them? If single mothers need help so badly then thats not Uber's
problem, they're out to run a business not save the world. The government
should do something useful for them instead of effectively putting them out of
work.

Yes the main effect of this is the company will have to restrict its standards
and probably less of these people we're supposedly so concerned about will be
able to work anymore due to qualifications or being able to cope. And those
left now get to enjoy more regulations, supervisors, time cards, and workplace
surveillance and the daily grind just like the rest of us drones. Heck Uber is
barely scraping by as is. This might be the killing blow and now everybody is
out of work. Good job.

~~~
xg15
> _the main effect of this is the company will have to restrict its standards
> and probably less of these people we 're supposedly so concerned about will
> be able to work anymore due to qualifications or being able to cope._

This kind of whining and fear mongering is done in response to absolutely
every kind of employment regulation or workers rights improvement. Somehow it
never seems to come true.

~~~
manigandham
It's come true many times and is already happening in California because of
AB5.

------
datashow
So if a driver works on both Uber and Lyft or whatever, the driver is an
employee of all those companies?

~~~
guerrilla
Yes, many people work more than one job.

~~~
datashow
Not at the same time.

~~~
avianlyric
You can’t do jobs for two ride sharing companies at the same time.

You just can’t take two different people to two different destinations in one
car.

~~~
umeshunni
> You just can’t take two different people to two different destinations in
> one car.

Yes you can - that's literally how carpooling (or UberPool, Lyft-line etc)
work.

~~~
vishaalk
I think he means you can't (or it's not feasible) to do both an Uber ride AND
a Lyft ride at the same time. Unless they magically align, you will be
punished for going off itinerary for both.

------
LatteLazy
How many people cheering this are still paying the plumber that fixed their
toilet a year ago a salary?

~~~
duxut_staglatz
My plumber is an actual independent worker, setting his own rates, having his
own clientele and free to organize his work as he sees fit.

~~~
LatteLazy
Uber doesn't stop people having their own clients. Quite the opposite, it's a
great place to swap numbers with a driver you like. Uber even has a favourites
button so you have a higher chance of getting the same driver/passenger.

Also, your plumber doesn't set his rates, you do. He quotes and you accept (or
not). That's exactly the same as the Uber driver.

It seems pretty obvious to me that Uber drivers organise their own work. They
start and stop when they want, pick the journeys they want, set their own
hours etc. But maybe I've misunderstood you?

~~~
duxut_staglatz
You are conflating Uber and the Uber driver.

The driver does not quote anything, Uber does and both the driver and the
customer accept or not.

They have a very limited way to choose the ride they take: they have to make
the decision in a couple of seconds, they may not know the destination and
they are punished for declining too many rides by Uber. Does not scream free
choice of what ride to take.

It is possible to bypass Uber and exchange numbers, yes. But the Uber platform
itself does not let you build your own clientele, such as letting you look for
the clients you want or the other way around. The question is not whether
drivers can build their clientele outside of Uber but inside of Uber.

They do indeed have flexible hours, something that is apparently - reading the
comments of this thread - impossible as an employee in the US and thus a
feature of being an independent worker, but in France you can be an employee
and have flexible hours, so that does not make Uber drivers independent.

------
SergeAx
I beleive France is a very socialist country. There was a story when France
Telecom got private as Orange and new bosses put enormous pressure on
employees to get them quit and not lay them off, because laying-off people is
very expensive in France. It caused 35 (!!) suicides, and three bosses was
jailed for that last December [1]

I wonder, will Uber escape signing backdated contracts with all their drivers
in France (and what if some of them are illegal migrants?) or will it have to
properly lay them all off, with compensations etc?

I also wonder what would be an economy of Uber in France with all their
drivers being employees. Will it be 2x or 3x price? Even then it is somehow
better than shameless official Paris taxi drivers.

[1] [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-50865211](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50865211)

------
jonplackett
Just in time for Corona Virus sick pay?

~~~
jonplackett
Lots of downvotes. This was not meant to be a joke. I’m actually wondering if
they will get sick pay now.

------
xenospn
What now? Does this mean Uber can't afford to operate in France anymore?

~~~
negrit
How did you jump to this conclusion?

~~~
ars
Is there such a thing as an employee with random hours?

Isn't the whole _point_ of an employee that there is an expectation of regular
work?

~~~
Slartie
I think a certain regularity of work is not a necessity for an employer-worker
relationship to be exactly that.

And at a second thought, AFAIK Uber does even expect drivers to perform
"regular" work - not "regular" as in "we write 9-to-5 every day into the
contract", but "regular" as in "of course you can work as much as you like,
BUT if we see you driving too little time for Uber, below a certain threshold
that we set at our discretion, don't tell anyone and change as often as we
want, our magic algorithm will start disadvantaging you when it comes to
handing out rides, oh and actually we aren't acknowledging that this mechanism
exists at all, so let's just say this sentence really ended at 'as much as you
like'".

~~~
true_religion
That seems like it is fair. They are preferring to handout rides to drivers
using Uber as their primary income.

~~~
Slartie
I'd only call that "fair" if they assume the position of an actual employer at
the same time, offering all the usual benefits of an employment to their
employee drivers, especially including a minimum income. If they did, they
were free to distribute work as they like, by any crude criteria imaginable,
because it's not at all illegal to fully pay an employee for essentially doing
nothing. But that's exactly what they don't want to do.

They want to have their cake and eat it, too.

------
freepor
All of this is a legal system that has a square hole and a circular hole not
knowing what to do with a triangular peg. Governments job is to realize that
this is a new category of work and create laws specifically to address it.

~~~
on_and_off
why does the government need to bend backwards to allow underpaid jobs ?

~~~
Mirioron
If people voluntarily choose those jobs then doesn't that mean those jobs are
better than the alternatives they have? It also provides a pretty nice
service.

~~~
madsbuch
That people are able to do what's best for them is a faulty assumption and the
key argument for regulation.

~~~
manigandham
This attitude that people need to be saved from themselves usually leads to
worse conditions for everyone.

~~~
madsbuch
I reckon you are happy that you didn't work in the mines when you were 9 years
of age? Or am I completely wrong? Oh wait, naturally you would have been able
to decide for your own best.

~~~
manigandham
What a strange example. Nobody forced kids to work in mines.

Full-time driving jobs already exist. Anyone who wants one can already get
one. Why take away their freedom to choose flexibility if they want it?

~~~
madsbuch
This was about regulations. I never commented on the uber drivers. Tbh, I have
not enough insight to know if they should be protected.

I am merely pointing out, that is is easy to forget what regulations do for
you. And yes, 9 year old have worked in mines before working age was
regulated.

~~~
manigandham
This regulation is specifically about Uber, and it's also easy to forget what
regulations can harm and the unintended consequences they create. Balance is
key, and that seems to be have been entirely missed here.

> _9 year old have worked in mines before working age was regulated._

I know. They weren't forced to work, they were hired because it was legal and
families back then depended on their income. Children still work often in
agriculture and it remains the families choice to do so.

Regardless, there's a big difference between child labor and adults choosing
how they want to drive for work.

~~~
CydeWeys
Oh come on, of course those kids were forced to work in those mines. They
weren't allowed to refuse. They had to do whatever their parents told them to.
The alternative was being a homeless street urchin.

~~~
pishpash
I believe the alternative to driving Uber is serving at McDonald's, not
becoming a homeless street urchin, so vivid imagery of this strawman
notwithstanding, the argument for regulation isn't nearly as convincing.

~~~
madsbuch
Whether people work at McDonald's or Uber, or are homeless, everybody should
be able to lead lives with dignity.

~~~
manigandham
Sure, nobody said anything against that. How is that relevant to this
discussion?

~~~
madsbuch
Regulations are needed to lead lives with dignity. That was basically what the
whole discussion was about.

------
manigandham
How unfortunate. The vast majority of drivers don't want this. If they wanted
full-time driving jobs, they would get one, yet they choose Uber for the
flexibility.

This is going to hurt most drivers than help. We can already see the results
of this here in California because of AB5 and I doubt most proponents of this
law have ever driven for Uber in the first place.

~~~
m463
Wouldn't flexibility be:

3) the freedom to set the terms and conditions for providing one's services.

~~~
manigandham
Nobody is stopping them from being independent drivers with their own
customers. For example, I do this for with regular drivers for airport rides
that I originally met on the app.

Uber is a matchmaking service that comes with certain rules and objectives so
the marketplace works better for everyone, and flexibility to work _when and
where_ you want is usually most important.

Perhaps we need a 3rd category to account for this kind of work.

------
jaked89
Examining this case from a "similarity to employee" perspective neglects a
crucial factor: the expectations between the parties at the time of contract.

It's patently obvious no Uber driver expected to be treated as an employee, as
no employment contract was signed, and the Uber model is known and clear.

The court merely implements "social justice", which is nor social nither
justice, destroying basic trust in society. Progressivism is cancer.

~~~
Polylactic_acid
A contract isn't law. I can write a piece of paper saying that you agree to
work for me for $1 per hour and even if you sign it, you are still able to
take legal action against me because this contract is illegal. Preventing
megacorps from exploiting those with few options is obviously a net benefit.

~~~
jaked89
This has nothing to do with my point. Law exists to establish peace and
consensus.

Contacts are the most basic construct enabling modern life in a crowded
society. Reinterpreting contracts in a liberal, unreasonable manner destroys
peace and introduces chaos.

It prevents members of society from ever trusting one another, and makes all
agreements tentative, subjective to the retroactive whims of politicians and
court.

It serves the court, positioning it as an ultimate dictator, not the society.

~~~
Polylactic_acid
Law exists to ensure the best possibly outcome for society. Companies finding
creative ways to redefine work so they get all the benefit while offloading
any of the costs is not helpful for society.

I might be inclined to agree with you on contracts if it wasn't for the huge
imbalance of power here. An individual who works for these taxi companies has
basically no negotiating power against uber so they will never be able to come
to a fair contract. Employment protections exist to solve this and they have
been rightfully applied to uber like they are to every other company. Laws
should adapt to changing reality rather than let companies work around them.

------
cmhnn
Some of my favorite themes here.

1) People asserting that the court was right or wrong followed by some
"argument". The court simply ruled. Anything beyond that is the same as people
who use statistics to provide "evidence" about their preconceived notions.

2) Examples that mean one thing to someone and something else to another but
both sides claim right or wrong. See 1. For fun, I'll do an example but not
claim it proves something. Most well known professional wrestlers work for a
tyrant. Until very recently when another billionare entered the game they
didn't have a lot of choices. Just like uber drivers they are mostly told what
to do and even have sold their real names. They can also be seriously injured
and die just like uber drivers. They also are "independent" contractors.
Despite those odds, some did leave and became well known outside of that
tyrant's world and are now getting richer than ever before...Would any of the
events above including the new billionare deciding they could compete by
picking up those independent minded wrestlers ever have happened if they were
employees all along?

3)Portrayal of evil corps and the downtrodden who are forced to serve them as
stereotypical "underclass" victims. If you are in Redmond soon and you take an
Uber don't be surprised if you are being driven around by a PM who is getting
out of the house or trying to get an extra edge against the high cost of
living there.

My personal feeling here is I do not care either way. What I care about is
from the consumer standpoint that Uber is accountable. My primary dislike of
Uber, Airbnb, Vroom or similar enterprises is that they all claim to be of one
stripe when things are going well but when things go wrong the company claims
"Oh that's not us it is this entity we represented as part of the process but
who we disclaim any responsibility for". As others have pointed out all the
major tech companies use contractors. I don't know of any that would get away
with the "oh that's not really us" defense.

