Amazon Prime Drivers File Class Action

[mesyn191]

... a company is not intended to produce jobs, it is intended to produce products and services....a good job is a privilege for trained and dedicated workers, not a right

Glad to see you're no longer a proponent of the "job creators" meme.

You are, however inadvertently, making the case for a Mincome. Why? Because automation will keep improving to point where its impossible to do certain jobs at all no matter how dedicated and hard working you are or how low of a wage you're willing or able to accept.

 

[nilepez]

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of how the independent contractors compare to temp employees or part time employees ... Walmart has effectively used the part time classification to reduce their benefit burden ... my company has about half of the employees as temps (they still received pay and benefits but they are very different from those of the direct employees ... and the job security is very different as well, for both the employee and the employer)

Bottom line is that eventually technology is going to get a point where many of these low wage/low skill jobs can be automated ... a company is not intended to produce jobs, it is intended to produce products and services (and employees are a means to that end) ... as long as the value of the employees is adequate they will have jobs, but if they demand more value than they produce automation, elimination, and outsourcing are all viable and legal alternatives ... a good job is a privilege for trained and dedicated workers, not a right

Eventually, skilled jobs will be automated. Once you've eliminated all these jobs, who will you sell your products to? "I'd like to buy one of your lovely widgets, but all the jobs I have skills in are performed by robots."

 

[sir-gold]

Maybe it's just because I'm used to working in the Oil and Gas industry, but any contractor that refused work would be sent packing immediately. They would probably get blacklisted by other operators pretty effing quick too.

I think your laws need to be changed if independent contractors aren't expected to act like employees.

Independent contractors are NOT employees, they are self-employed business owners who have a work contract with the company, and are contracted to do a specific task for a specific fee. If you hire a plumber for example, he is your contractor, not your employee.

The key thing is that they are self-employed. If they are not given the freedoms of self-employment (such as choosing their own work hours and scheduling their own work) then the IRS says are not self-employed.

The problem is that Amazon (and Uber) are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They are treating the drivers as employees with the restrictions of employees, but calling them contractors simply to get out of paying benefits.


Also, the Oil and Gas industry is one of the worst examples of "how to treat your employees fairly", right up there with mining and heavy manufacturing. Telling someone "you must do exactly as we say (no matter how dangerous), or you will never work in the industry again" is just plain evil.

 

[/usr/sbin]

Come on. There is nothing wrong with being required to show up on time at 15 minutes early. It is to get situated and being designated for route assignments. There is no such thing as showing up exactly on time to work. If any of you are doing this, it's mostly a low end, low paying, and going no where job. You won't be moving upward if you think showing up 15 minutes "early" is considered wrong.

Bullshit. And I say this as a manager of tens of people. If I require my ee's to be present I must pay them. If you are an hourly employee you are *literally* payed for your time, not work output.

For sake of argument though, let's say that your employer requires you to be present without pay. If 15 minutes is "reasonable", why not 20 minutes? 30 minutes? 60 minutes? If you are literally selling your time, how much *free* time do you *owe" my employer? If that's the standard we are setting, we need to be consistent. Steak houses sell steak, in most cases by quantity, so how much steak do they *owe* me when I walk in the door? We're both selling things, so surely i'm owe some free steak right?

 

[sir-gold]

Eventually, skilled jobs will be automated. Once you've eliminated all these jobs, who will you sell your products to? "I'd like to buy one of your lovely widgets, but all the jobs I have skills in are performed by robots."

This is the reason Marxism was first created, in order to solve this very problem

People have seen this situation coming ever since farming was first mechanized in the late 1800s. The crisis was delayed by the explosion of service jobs (where people are paid to do things that everyone used to do themselves) but there is a limit to this.

When machines start replacing service workers just like they replaced farm workers, we will have an economic crisis that can't be solved in the normal ways. There will only be 2 outcomes: socialism of some sort, or poverty on a scale never seen before.

 

[kbrickley]

This is the reason Marxism was first created, in order to solve this very problem

People have seen this situation coming ever since farming was first mechanized in the late 1800s. The crisis was delayed by the explosion of service jobs (where people are paid to do things that everyone used to do themselves) but there is a limit to this.

When machines start replacing service workers just like they replaced farm workers, we will have an economic crisis that can't be solved in the normal ways. There will only be 2 outcomes: socialism of some sort, or poverty on a scale never seen before.

Or create new jobs in space and under the sea ... undersea mining and farming will be a future job as technology improves ... space will become more attractive if we have millions or billions of people to provide new employment for as explorers, miners, colonists, space farmers, etc ... of course, given humanities normal proclivities there is one other option (WAR)

 

[Cmdrmonkey]

Sounds like they're low paid W2s who are misclassified rather than 1099 MISCs.

 

[mesyn191]

Or create new jobs in space and under the sea

Robots are already waaaay cheaper than people in space or under the sea.

 

[Ragenrok]

Sound like a bunch of whiners to me, non if those things are in anyway unfair or unreasonable to expect out of an employee (contractor or actual employee)

Courts have allowed it for employees, but I think requiring an employee to arrive 15 minutes early without pay should be illegal. If I'm an hourly worker, then pay me for my time...and that 15 minutes is my time and you're requiring me to be there.

Why? I rarely ever see an employee show up right at 8am ready to work, they always need to get a coffee, go to the washroom, get signed in ect. I have always been asked to show up early but never expected to work. it always been show up 10-20 min early please so you can gear up have a coffee and bullshit with other employees so that at 7 or 8 or when ever your shift starts your ready to do your job. so sick of people that think their employers should be paying them to drink coffee and screw around in the morning.

 

[SLee]

Sound like a bunch of whiners to me, non if those things are in anyway unfair or unreasonable to expect out of an employee (contractor or actual employee)

Perhaps for an employee but all of those are unreasonable for a true IC. I'd imagine this will be one of the easiest cases ever regarding employment classification; hard to imagine what Amazon was thinking.

 

[Ragenrok]

Perhaps for an employee but all of those are unreasonable for a true IC. I'd imagine this will be one of the easiest cases ever regarding employment classification; hard to imagine what Amazon was thinking.

Perhaps, where I'm from its common to have contractors work with hourly employees. they have all the same expecations and rules as hourly (hours, gear ect) but get less benifits. they have to handle their own taxes, dont get medical coverage and are the first to be let go but they are laid accordingly. last job I worked at with contractors they made $9/hour more than us.

 

[nilepez]

Or create new jobs in space and under the sea ... undersea mining and farming will be a future job as technology improves ... space will become more attractive if we have millions or billions of people to provide new employment for as explorers, miners, colonists, space farmers, etc ... of course, given humanities normal proclivities there is one other option (WAR)

All of which will likely be easier, more safe and higher quality if you use a machine. Seriously, if a machine can build things on earth, there's no reason they couldn't do it on an asteroid or Mars. Any human jobs would likely be limited. Likewise, I'm not sure why we'd use people to farm in the ocean if a machine could do it

 

[Apandria]

The list of "complaints" are not complaints, they are a test demonstrating that the job does not meet the legal requirement for independent contractor status, a violation of US law. It is part of the "Right to control" test. In order to legally be an independent contractor, the contractor must for all intents and purposes be their own boss and the company they work for is their customer, not their employer.
Per the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Independent-Contractor-Defined

This distinction is important to the government and the independent contractor because of self employment taxes and Social Security and Medicare withholdings. Hope this information helps.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/employee-vs-independent-contractor-differences-you-need-to-know

 

[snowcrash]

Bullshit. And I say this as a manager of tens of people. If I require my ee's to be present I must pay them. If you are an hourly employee you are *literally* payed for your time, not work output.

For sake of argument though, let's say that your employer requires you to be present without pay. If 15 minutes is "reasonable", why not 20 minutes? 30 minutes? 60 minutes? If you are literally selling your time, how much *free* time do you *owe" my employer? If that's the standard we are setting, we need to be consistent. Steak houses sell steak, in most cases by quantity, so how much steak do they *owe* me when I walk in the door? We're both selling things, so surely i'm owe some free steak right?

You got to be kidding me. So you want me to show up right one time down to a second as I walk in the door. Fudge around to get ready. Then sit down at my desk 15 minutes later and tell the boss I'm now ready to start.

You manage tens of people. I have always required my employees to show up at least 10 minutes early or I tell them they better be ready to go the moment their clock starts. At the place I work now, all my coworkers show up at least 10 minutes early. Not because they're required but because they have pride in being on time and having a little leaway to get started. And these are 6 figures salary or high 5 figures with couple contractors. Times and attitude sure have changed.

 

[/usr/sbin]

You got to be kidding me. So you want me to show up right one time down to a second as I walk in the door. Fudge around to get ready. Then sit down at my desk 15 minutes later and tell the boss I'm now ready to start.

I love how you just make assumptions. I require they are ready (and are) start their shift as scheduled. If they can walk in with a coffee or whatnot in their hand and sit down on time and are ready to go right on time, that's fine. If they want to come in early, head over to the employee area and have a cup of joe before they start, that's fine as well. I don't require, nor should I require that they are present before I am paying them. Labor laws where I live are very clear about this. Personally, I feel that if you place your organization in jeopardy of legal repercussions for violation labor laws, especially over something as trivial as 5 minutes of pay, then you are a poor manager.

 

[kbrickley]

I am still unclear on how an independent contractor is different than a temp ... I have worked at many companies that used temps and these driver positions shouldn't be more than a temp worker (even if they weren't independent contractors) ... there is no way that delivery drivers (except for armored car ones) should be direct company employees ... if using the IC title instead of Temp is allowing them to skirt certain benefits then I would side with the workers ... However, it seems that Amazon could (and probably should) insure all drivers are temps only and all restricted to part time status ... this would minimize their cost and benefit requirements so they provide the maximum value to their employer

 

[Movinhamm]

Someone that knows labor law better than I do needs to explain to me how this works. If you sign up to be an independent contractor, shouldn't you know that you do not have the same benefits that an employee has?

Whether a worker is an employ or independent business is a question of fact. Self-serving agreements between parties has little, or no, weight in determining the worker’s status.

The 20 common law factors that determine if a worker is an employee or independent contractor (i.e. a separate business) IRS Revenue Ruling 87-41.

As an aid to determining whether a worker is an employee under the common law rules, twenty factors or elements have been identified as indicating whether sufficient control is present to establish an employer-employee relationship. The twenty factors have been developed based on an examination of cases and rulings considering whether an individual is an employee.

The twenty factors are designed only as guides for determining whether an individual is an employee; special scrutiny is required in applying the twenty factors to assure that formalistic aspects of an arrangement designed to achieve a particular status do not obscure the substance of the arrangement (that is, whether the person or persons for whom the services are performed exercise sufficient control over the individual for the individual to be classified as an employee).

The degree of importance of each factor varies depending on the occupation and the factual context in which the services are performed.

(1) Instructions: A worker who is required to comply with other persons' instructions about when, where, and how he or she is to work is ordinarily an employee. This control factor is present if the person or persons for whom the services are performed have the RIGHT to require compliance with instructions. See, for example, Rev. Rul. 68-598, 1968-2 C.B. 464, and Rev. Rul. 66-381, 1966-2 C.B. 449.

(2)Training: Training a worker by requiring an experienced employee to work with the worker, by corresponding with the worker, by requiring the worker to attend meetings, or by using other methods, indicates that the person or persons for whom the services are performed want the services performed in a particular method or manner. See Rev. Rul. 70-630, 1970-2 C.B. 229.

(3) Integration: Integration of the worker's services into the business operations generally shows that the worker is subject to direction and control. When the success or continuation of a business depends to an appreciable degree upon the performance of certain services, the workers who perform those services must necessarily be subject to a certain amount of control by the owner of the business. See United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947), 1947-2 C.B. 167.

(4) Services Rendered Personally: If the Services must be rendered personally, presumably the person or persons for whom the services are performed are interested in the methods used to accomplish the work as well as in the results. See Rev. Rul. 55-695, 1955-2 C.B. 410.

(5) Hiring, Supervising and Paying Assistants: If the person or persons for whom the services are performed hire, supervise, and pay assistants, that factor generally shows control over the workers on the job. However, if one worker hires, supervises, and pays the other assistants pursuant to a contract under which the worker agrees to provide materials and labor and under which the worker is responsible only for the attainment of a result, this factor indicates an independent contractor status. Compare Rev. Rul. 63-115, 1963-1 C.B. 178, with Rev. Rul. 55-593 1955-2 C.B. 610.

(6) Continuing Relationship: A continuing relationship between the worker and the person or persons for whom the services are performed indicates that an employer-employee relationship exists. A continuing relationship may exist where work is performed at frequently recurring although irregular intervals. See United States v. Silk.

(7) Set Hours of Work: The establishment of set hours of work by the person or persons for whom the services are performed is a factor indicating control. See Rev. Rul. 73-591, 1973-2 C.B. 337.

(8) Full Time Required: If the worker must devote substantially full time to the business of the person or persons for whom the services are performed, such person or persons have control over the amount of time the worker spends working and impliedly restrict the worker from doing other gainful work. An independent contractor on the other hand, is free to work when and for whom he or she chooses. See Rev. Rul. 56-694, 1956-2 C.B. 694.

(9) Doing Work on Employer’s Premises: If the work is performed on the premises of the person or persons for whom the services are performed, that factor suggests control over the worker, especially if the work could be done elsewhere. Rev. Rul. 56-660, 1956-2 C.B. 693. Work done off the premises of the person or persons receiving the services, such as at the office of the worker, indicates some freedom from control. However, this fact by itself does not mean that the worker is not an employee. The importance of this factor depends on the nature of the service involved and the extent to which an employer generally would require that employees perform such services on the employer's premises. Control over the place of work is indicated when the person or persons for whom the services are performed have the right to compel the worker to travel a designated route, to canvass a territory within a certain time, or to work at specific places as required. See Rev. Rul. 56-694.

(10) Order or Sequence Set: If a worker must perform services in the order or sequence set by the person or persons for whom the services are performed, that factor shows that the worker is not free to follow the worker's own pattern of work but must follow the established routines and schedules of the person or persons for whom the services are performed. Often, because of the nature of an occupation, the person or persons for whom the services are performed do not set the order of the services or set the order infrequently. It is sufficient to show control, however, if such person or persons retain the right to do so. See Rev. Rul. 56-694.

(11) Oral or Written Reports: A requirement that the worker submit regular or written reports to the person or persons for whom the services are performed indicates a degree of control. See Rev. Rul. 70-309, 1970-1 C.B. 199, and Rev. Rul. 68-248, 1968-1 C.B. 431.

(12) Payment by Hour, Week or Month: Payment by the hour, week, or month generally points to an employer-employee relationship, provided that this method of payment is not just a convenient way of paying a lump sum agreed upon as the cost of a job. Payment made by the job or on s straight commission generally indicates that the worker is an independent contractor. See Rev. Rul. 74-389, 1974-2 C.B. 330.

(13) Payment of Business and/or Traveling Expenses: If the person or persons for whom the services are performed ordinarily pay the worker's business and/or traveling expenses, the worker is ordinarily an employee. An employer, to be able to control expenses, generally retains the right to regulate and direct the worker's business activities. See Rev. Rul. 55-144, 1955-1 C.B. 483.

(14) Furnishing of Tools and Materials: The fact that the person or persons for whom the services are performed furnish significant tools, materials, and other equipment tends to show the existence of an employer-employee relationship. See Rev. Rul. 71-524, 1971-2 C.B. 346.

(15) Significant Investment: If the worker invests in facilities that are used by the worker in performing services and are not typically maintained by employees (such as the maintenance of an office rented at fair value from an unrelated party), that factor tends to indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. On the other hand, lack of investment in facilities indicates dependence on the person or persons for whom the services are performed for such facilities and, accordingly, the existence of an employer-employee relationship. See Rev. Rul. 71-524. Special scrutiny is required with respect to certain types of facilities, such as home offices.

(16) Realization of Profit or Loss: A worker who can realize a profit or suffer a loss as a result of the worker's services (in addition to the profit or loss ordinarily realized by employees) is generally an independent contractor, but the worker who cannot is an employee. See Rev. Rul. 70-309. For example, if the worker is subject to a real risk of economic loss due to significant investments or a bona fide liability for expenses, such as salary payments to unrelated employees, that factor indicates that the worker is an independent contractor. The risk that a worker will not receive payment for his or her services, however, is common to both independent contractors and employees and thus does not constitute a sufficient economic risk to support treatment as an independent contractor.

(17) Working for More Than one Firm at a Time: If a worker performs more than de minims services for a multiple of unrelated persons or firms at the same time, that factor generally indicates that the worker is an independent contractor. See Rev. Rul. 70-572, 1970-2 C.B. 221. However, a worker who performs services for more than one person may be an employee of each of the persons, especially where such persons are part of the same service arrangement.

(18) Making Service Available to General Public: The fact that a worker makes his or her services available to the general public on a regular and consistent basis indicates an independent contractor relationship. See Rev. Rul. 56-660.

(19) Right to Discharge: The right to discharge a worker is a factor indicating that the worker is an employee and the person possessing the right is an employer. An employer exercises control through the threat of dismissal, which causes the worker to obey the employer's instructions. An independent contractor, on the other hand, cannot be fired so long as the independent contractor produces a result that meets the contract specifications. Rev. Rul. 75-41, 1975-1 C.B. 323.

(20) Right to Terminate: If the worker has the right to end his or her relationship with the person for whom the services are performed at any time he or she wishes without incurring liability, that factor indicates an employer-employee relationship. See Rev. Rul. 70-309.

 

[dandirk]

I am still unclear on how an independent contractor is different than a temp ... I have worked at many companies that used temps and these driver positions shouldn't be more than a temp worker (even if they weren't independent contractors) ... there is no way that delivery drivers (except for armored car ones) should be direct company employees ... if using the IC title instead of Temp is allowing them to skirt certain benefits then I would side with the workers ... However, it seems that Amazon could (and probably should) insure all drivers are temps only and all restricted to part time status ... this would minimize their cost and benefit requirements so they provide the maximum value to their employer

excellent question... I would believe the difference is a temp is an employee for another company (not themselves) where as the ICs are hired directly but not as employees.

I tend to agree companies often try and abuse the differences in these classifications.

I have seen organizations employ "temps" for years and years and basically treat them exactly like employees that do the same job... well except for the benefits and usually have to work all holidays etc (aka permanently low on the totem pole). Though to be honest I don't know the cost I generally get the impression from managers that this happens due to politics/bureaucracy of the company more than any factual costs (semi-pro temps are pricey).. you can't get an official FTE but for some reason you can get multiple temps for years and years instead.

Just last year this happened to my department, we hired a number of temps for Win7 upgrade, which expanded our responsibilities. We couldn't get an FTE approved but we did get a contractor/temp (for about twice the hourly cost as an FTE). When that "budget code" started to dry up and we were able to get an FTE.

Basically companies not only care about how much money but also and sometimes more importantly how that money is "labeled", maybe for taxes???. Your labor has to be below x% of revenue but "labor" doesn't could the 50% of your staff that are contractors/temps etc. Magic numbers...

 

[Apandria]

I am still unclear on how an independent contractor is different than a temp ... I have worked at many companies that used temps and these driver positions shouldn't be more than a temp worker (even if they weren't independent contractors) ... there is no way that delivery drivers (except for armored car ones) should be direct company employees ... if using the IC title instead of Temp is allowing them to skirt certain benefits then I would side with the workers ... However, it seems that Amazon could (and probably should) insure all drivers are temps only and all restricted to part time status ... this would minimize their cost and benefit requirements so they provide the maximum value to their employer

A CONTRACTOR is not the same as an INDEPENDENT Contractor. Contractors are given a W2 at the end of the year by the temp agency they work through and have income, Social Security and Medicare taxes withheld from their pay each pay period. They are employees. INDEPENDENT Contractors get a 1099 and are self employed. They have to file quarterly taxes or pay estimated taxes and pay self employment tax.

 

[{NG}Fidel]

Sounds like they have a good case again Amazon and i hope they win. Independant contractor is just a new term for bitch to these companies now. They know that most people do not understand the legal requirement that surround being one, as evidence by this thread....
I hope more companies get sued for this BS.

 

[nilepez]

You got to be kidding me. So you want me to show up right one time down to a second as I walk in the door. Fudge around to get ready. Then sit down at my desk 15 minutes later and tell the boss I'm now ready to start.

You manage tens of people. I have always required my employees to show up at least 10 minutes early or I tell them they better be ready to go the moment their clock starts. At the place I work now, all my coworkers show up at least 10 minutes early. Not because they're required but because they have pride in being on time and having a little leaway to get started. And these are 6 figures salary or high 5 figures with couple contractors. Times and attitude sure have changed.

Salaried != hourly. I'm sure if Amazon drivers got paid 6 figures (with benefits in your co-workers' cases, I suspect) they wouldn't have filed suit.