Uber, Lyft To Courts: Drivers Are Not Employees

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
What employees? These are just people that like driving other people around. Heck, we barely consider them people let alone employees. :D

U.S. District Judges Edward Chen and Vince Chhabria in San Francisco federal court said in the two rulings that it would be up to juries to determine what the companies’ drivers are. If they’re employees, as separate lawsuits claim, Uber and Lyft would likely have to reimburse them for expenses like gas and vehicle maintenance, and force them to pay Social Security, workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance.
Click to expand...
 
Uber and Lyft are taxi companies... plain and simple. The only difference is most cab companies lease/maintain the vehicles where as Uber and Lyft use their own.

Go by their example... seems like its a state by state decision.
 
Isn't Uber more of a match-making service than anything? They basically say to riders, "Need a ride? Maybe someone here can help."

I don't think that I'm an employee of Ebay just because I use their site to sell stuff.
 
PantherBlitz said:
Isn't Uber more of a match-making service than anything? They basically say to riders, "Need a ride? Maybe someone here can help."

I don't think that I'm an employee of Ebay just because I use their site to sell stuff.
Click to expand...

I think your match making analogue is about as good as you can get. It's a very gray area compared to traditional methods, and unfortunately as Uber will probably find out our legal concepts and systems do not handle gray areas very well.
 
PantherBlitz said:
Isn't Uber more of a match-making service than anything? They basically say to riders, "Need a ride? Maybe someone here can help."

I don't think that I'm an employee of Ebay just because I use their site to sell stuff.
Click to expand...

That's how I feel about it. It's no different then the bulletin boards of yore where you'd write a message "looking for a ride" and pin it.

Uber shouldn't be anymore culpable for what happens between the drivers and the passengers than craigslist should be responsible for what happens between buyer and seller.
 
This is a surprisingly big case. A LOT of companies are starting to use "independent contractors" to lower their costs, since they aren't responsible for things like benefits (Healthcare, retirement, etc).
 
Their defense is silly. I think drivers could be classified as "Independent Contractors" and Uber could be classified as a dispatch business. Uber could send 1099's to the drivers and they would be responsible for insurance, taxes and maintenance of their own vehicles.
 
PantherBlitz said:
Isn't Uber more of a match-making service than anything? They basically say to riders, "Need a ride? Maybe someone here can help."

I don't think that I'm an employee of Ebay just because I use their site to sell stuff.
Click to expand...

Not the best of analogies simple because you are comparing different types of services, services which are ALREADY defined as different.

Ebay is an auction/selling site, uber is a taxi service. Their regulations are different and not really similar enough to compare.

IMO Uber cannot be described as a ride sharing site, they advertised it specifically as a driver/passenger service similar to taxi services.

Just look at their "driver" page: https://get.uber.com/drive/ You have to confirm that: "I PLAN TO DRIVE A COMMERCIALLY INSURED AND LICENSED LIVERY OR FOR-HIRE VEHICLE"

Everything on the page pretty much describes a Taxi cab driver. You just use your own car vs leasing a cab companies.

While I can understand the belief that one should not need different licensing and regulations to drive paying passengers around, or that one should have the right to charge a fee to drive another around... This is not how the laws are currently.

If you believe taxi services should be completely regulation free, that is a different topic...
 
Uber and Lyft is like Craigslist. People have a service they want to sell (driving people around) and there are buyers that will take on what sellers have to offer. Craigslist is not the employer of sellers.
 
dandirk said:
While I can understand the belief that one should not need different licensing and regulations to drive paying passengers around, or that one should have the right to charge a fee to drive another around... This is not how the laws are currently.

If you believe taxi services should be completely regulation free, that is a different topic...
Click to expand...

That is why a lot of pressure usually comes down on Uber, but this particular case is not looking at that. They are trying to define the concept of employee. The argument is that Uber has the power to remove drivers from the pool and that since drivers are essential to their operation -- drivers are therefore "part" of Uber.
 
PantherBlitz said:
That is why a lot of pressure usually comes down on Uber, but this particular case is not looking at that. They are trying to define the concept of employee. The argument is that Uber has the power to remove drivers from the pool and that since drivers are essential to their operation -- drivers are therefore "part" of Uber.
Click to expand...

That is a good point, eluding to the various methods states use to determine employee or contractor... Describing how one such rule could work and how it applies in this case. Thank you.

I guess I did not explain myself properly... Earlier in the tread I made my opinion on the OP, and that was Uber and Lyft are taxi companies and should be regulated the same as other taxi companies.

Just because its online doesn't mean its completely new... These lawsuits have already been determined.
 
I don't have much familiarity with Uber and Lyft ... how do the drivers pay them ... is it just a fixed fee to be a member of the service or do they only collect fees from the passenger side or do they take a percentage of the fare (like a regular taxi service)
 
JL6speed said:
Uber and Lyft is like Craigslist. People have a service they want to sell (driving people around) and there are buyers that will take on what sellers have to offer. Craigslist is not the employer of sellers.
Click to expand...

That isn't a good analogy. Craigslist has no control over how/when/where work is performed. It's much trickier than you make it sound. The IRS regs can be found here:
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Behavioral-Control

Here is the short version (again, from the IRS):

An employee is generally subject to the business’s instructions about when, where, and how to work. All of the following are examples of types of instructions about how to do work.

When and where to do the work.
What tools or equipment to use.
What workers to hire or to assist with the work.
Where to purchase supplies and services.
What work must be performed by a specified individual.
What order or sequence to follow when performing the work.
 
Uber doesn't own any vehicles. They are contracting out people with vehicles to give rides for money. Aren't gas and vehicle expenses reimbursed in exchange for traveling to do your job? With Uber the travel is the job. I don't think a court should be the one to determine this. Let the market decide.
 
jnmunsey said:
Uber doesn't own any vehicles. They are contracting out people with vehicles to give rides for money. Aren't gas and vehicle expenses reimbursed in exchange for traveling to do your job? With Uber the travel is the job. I don't think a court should be the one to determine this. Let the market decide.
Click to expand...

"The market" can't decide this one. How exactly would it do that? Consumers can't choose who pays the employer portion of social security. The issue at hand has more to do with the IRS than it does with the customers.
 
JL6speed said:
Uber and Lyft is like Craigslist. People have a service they want to sell (driving people around) and there are buyers that will take on what sellers have to offer. Craigslist is not the employer of sellers.
Click to expand...

And the issue is that many cities (at least big ones) have specific laws on the books over who can operate a for-hire passenger transportation business. You can't slap a magnetic sign on the side of your car that says "taxi", you can't drive a bus to pick up people to drop them off at work, you can't even pull a rickshaw or operate a pedicab (bike powered transport) without a taxi .
 
Technically they're not employees because they have discretion over their schedules and how they do their work. There's been thousands of court cases that have defined this precedent pretty clearly.
 
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but many of you seem confused about contractors and employees. I've worked as both and can speak from personal experience. Some situations are clear, others are really murky. This isn't an issue that can be resolved based on fairness, it has to follow the law and the IRS regulations.

Here are a few (silly) illustrative examples:
A. You advertise on Craigslist looking for someone to mow your lawn. You tell them that it must be done by Friday. This is a contractor. You aren't specifying how the work is done or exactly when. The contractor decides the particulars.
B. You advertise on Craigslist looking for someone to run your garage sale. You specify how much to list items for and how to negotiate prices. You specify how much of a cut they will receive. You tell them what hours to be open and where the goods are to be stored. You are defining the place, time, and manner of work. This person is an employee.

I don't know enough about the specifics of Uber or Lyft's business to say which classification is right, but what little I know tells me that it is nowhere near as clear cut as my made up examples.

Employees are misclassified all the time. My wife was working as a tutor. She was told who to teach, when, and where. Her boss ran training sessions intended to define the manner of the teaching. She was payed a set wage for each student. She should have been an employee, but her boss was being dodgy and trying to get out of paying the employer part of social security.
 
I think MarkVI hit the nail on the head. The point of this whole issue to define what Uber/Lyft drivers are in regards to the IRS.
 
If they're not independent contractors it totally destroys their business plan so I expect them to fight tooth and nail.
 
sfsuphysics said:
And the issue is that many cities (at least big ones) have specific laws on the books over who can operate a for-hire passenger transportation business. You can't slap a magnetic sign on the side of your car that says "taxi", you can't drive a bus to pick up people to drop them off at work, you can't even pull a rickshaw or operate a pedicab (bike powered transport) without a taxi .
Click to expand...

And you realize that the original reason for these laws was to limit competition (mainly from minorities), and to collect taxes/fees on the service.
 
So if you are an Uber driver, and you pick someone up, and you get in an accident.....how do you submit the claim, that this total stranger in your car gets injured.
 
nutzo said:
And you realize that the original reason for these laws was to limit competition (mainly from minorities), and to collect taxes/fees on the service.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't to defend the practice, the laws are in place, as a result Uber/Lyft do need to abide by them.
 
Employment law attorney here. What this really means is now that the Judges have decided to let the juries hear the cases, and if the plaintiffs can also achieve class certification, these cases will likely settle and we won't get a ruling on this issue either way. In California the burden is on the employer to prove the employee is actually an independent contractor, so in a class action with extremely high risks of exposure, 9 out of 10 times defendants settle. This why one attorney for the drivers was "very excited about both rulings."

And Uber and Lyft will follow the settlement with more internal moves to try and make their drivers independent contractors... and maybe in a few years we get some legislation dealing with this issue directly, as our laws are not really up to speed with some of the new job sectors we are seeing today.
 
The thing is that at least initially Uber was not supposed to be a business for the drivers. It was sort of picking passengers on your route who chip in and cover for gas and maintenance costs.

But now its pretty much a taxi service, except the conditions for the drivers are the same.
 
Simply put, the whole concept as a business model does NOT work. It shifts the cost of transporting Asshole A onto Idiot driver B, while Sharp Guy C (Uber) collects a piece of the action in the process for effectively free.

What the drivers are finding out is, they simply don't get paid enough to be economically viable i the long run. Sure the "customer" gets a break on the cost of just calling a Cab, but who makes up the cost .... the dipshit stupid enough to be the driver/car owner.

Meantime, commercial livery insurance costs more, etc, etc. No doubt many are "winging it" illegally and when something bad happens the customer instead of saving a few bucks over a Taxi, will pay the price.

It's simple, shithead rich fuck had a "bright" idea to make some more quick bucks, unleashed it on the world, and now the world is spending tons of NOT-HIS money to sort out all the ramifications .... while he stuffs his bank account.

Welcome to 'Merica. :rolleyes:
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
Simply put, the whole concept as a business model does NOT work. It shifts the cost of transporting Asshole A onto Idiot driver B, while Sharp Guy C (Uber) collects a piece of the action in the process for effectively free.

What the drivers are finding out is, they simply don't get paid enough to be economically viable i the long run. Sure the "customer" gets a break on the cost of just calling a Cab, but who makes up the cost .... the dipshit stupid enough to be the driver/car owner.

Meantime, commercial livery insurance costs more, etc, etc. No doubt many are "winging it" illegally and when something bad happens the customer instead of saving a few bucks over a Taxi, will pay the price.

It's simple, shithead rich fuck had a "bright" idea to make some more quick bucks, unleashed it on the world, and now the world is spending tons of NOT-HIS money to sort out all the ramifications .... while he stuffs his bank account.

Welcome to 'Merica. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The American Dream!
 
Is this related to "Companies are people so they should be given the same privileges" thing?

Anyway, the first time heard of services like Uber, i thought it was a carpooling app. I guess it evolved into a business so the original description no longer applies.
 
Sly said:
Is this related to "Companies are people so they should be given the same privileges" thing?
Click to expand...
I don't think so, that's mostly used to give unlimited funds to political candidates.
 
Biggest employment scan this side of the millennium IMO...Companies now trying to state that they aren't employees, but are contractors so they are not responsible for any costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top