
California Rules: Uber's Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors - ranit
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/10/us-uber-tech-california-ruling-idUSKCN0RA0B120150910
======
kbenson
> According to the administrative law judge who heard the first appeal, Uber
> has sole discretion over fares, and can charge drivers a cancellation fee if
> they choose not to take a ride, prohibit drivers from picking up passengers
> not using the app and suspend or deactivate drivers' accounts.

> The company argues that drivers want independent contractor status because
> they value the chance to be their own boss.

If you are an individual contractor and you have one client, and that client
can prevent you from taking others, fine you, put you on probation, and
directly intervene in you work while it's ongoing, you are not a contractor,
you are an employee.

This is the reason for labor laws, to prevent companies from taking advantage
of employees. Whether the employees have been tricked into foregoing some of
their rights because they think it's better due to marketing spin is
irrelevant.

~~~
therobot24
> Whether the employees have been tricked into foregoing some of their rights
> because they think it's better due to marketing spin is irrelevant.

I constantly see the same argument over and over and over - they make their
own hours, they use their own equipment, they can also work for Lyft, etc.
Those are all traits of a contractor, but it doesn't defend all the practices
that come with being an independent contractor.

From the IRS website ([http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-
Employ...](http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-
Employed/Independent-Contractor-Defined)):

> The general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor if the
> payer has the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not
> what will be done and how it will be done.

> You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be
> controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This
> applies even if you are given freedom of action. What matters is that the
> employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are
> performed.

It's pretty clear that Uber is controlling the details.

~~~
kbenson
> I constantly see the same argument over and over and over - they make their
> own hours, they use their own equipment, they can also work for Lyft, etc.
> Those are all traits of a contractor, but it doesn't defend all the
> practices that come with being an independent contractor.

Exactly. My point (in case it was unclear, as I was unsure if you were just
reinforcing my point or misinterpreting it) is that just because a driver has
"independent contractor" status which Uber argues drivers desire, it doesn't
really mean anything if many of the actual benefits of being an independent
contractor are removed.

The labor laws regarding this are there for _exactly_ this issue. A lot of
companies try to reclassify employees as independent contractors because it's
cheaper in many ways, so there are laws in place to prevent this abuse.
Unfortunately, it seems every few years there's a new way to circumvent those
laws which needs to be addressed.

~~~
therobot24
> Exactly. My point (in case it was unclear, as I was unsure if you were just
> reinforcing my point or misinterpreting it)

I was trying to reinforce it.

> A lot of companies try to reclassify employees as independent contractors
> because it's cheaper in many ways

Which is why i support Uber for using it - they have a good business model
that is really changing the industry. I remember calling a taxi and maybe one
showing up an hour later, now i can get a ride in minutes.

> Unfortunately, it seems every few years there's a new way to circumvent
> those laws which needs to be addressed.

Which is why i support the class action lawsuit against Uber for abusing it.

