Uber drivers are employees

[Eldritch]

It's also forbidding them to drive with other companies while in their "off" time.

Is it? Uber made a statment that is the opposite of that as part of their response.

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

Is it? Uber made a statment that is the opposite of that as part of their response.

The good old "They made a statement" eh!

Anyway here is the old article about this:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/04/technology/uber-lyft/index.html

Oooh.. actually they claim it's another oversight commission? So.., it's like.. because their "partners" are actually cab drivers, Uber claimed they are regulated by the TLC commission , even though at the same time they claim Uber is not a cab driving company with cab drivers?
Okay.. hope it's clear then!!!!

 

[HeatXfer]

No, they are completely right. Much as with the Air BnB solution for Hotels mentioned earlier the system has become grotesquely corrupt and are horrifically over regulating business to the point where new business models are being invented to work around them. Business regulation should only exist to promote growth and development of the industries regulated and these systems clearly are not doing that and are in fact attempting to innovate new parasitic infestations to continue to bloat the evil of taxation so that the graft mongers in public employ can continue to line their barrels with pork at the community well.

I don't completely disagree, but this business model is just another race to the bottom. I'm surprised there hasn't been an even cheaper 'Uber' trotted out yet.

Using Uber or Lyft is tantamount to putting a "car for hire" sign on your car. What ever regulations are in place for professional drivers should be applied to Uber & Lyft.

 

[Eldritch]

I don't completely disagree, but this business model is just another race to the bottom. I'm surprised there hasn't been an even cheaper 'Uber' trotted out yet.

Using Uber or Lyft is tantamount to putting a "car for hire" sign on your car. What ever regulations are in place for professional drivers should be applied to Uber & Lyft.

Absoloutley not. Remove all the bullshit taxing, licensing and market control to slash operating costs of a fleet vehicle business and let Taxi companies compete realistically. You would see Uber and Lyft have a big bite taken out of their asses. Of course the same licinese and insurance requirements should be applied because we should have an oversight model that is risk averse, but business friendly, but the insurance thing with Drivers has already been addressed.

 

[SFSV650]

...but the insurance thing with Drivers has already been addressed.

Do you mean in this conversation ( as in 'this is how it should be') or do you mean has been resolved by those transportation companies / regulators / the courts? If the latter, that's a surprise to me as I understood the insurance loophole left almost all drivers effectively uninsured.

 

[Eldritch]

Do you mean in this conversation ( as in 'this is how it should be') or do you mean has been resolved by those transportation companies / regulators / the courts? If the latter, that's a surprise to me as I understood the insurance loophole left almost all drivers effectively uninsured.

No, after that little girl got smashed in 2013 they expanded the driver coverage to include drivers who do not have passengers present. Previously the policy for drivers only covered Uber drivers when they had a passenger present and most personal policies have exemptions for commercial use of the vehicle, so before th egap was covered, Uber drivers were essentially uncovered when between dropping off and picking up a client. They have since closed the loophole.

 

[HeatXfer]

Absoloutley not. Remove all the bullshit taxing, licensing and market control to slash operating costs of a fleet vehicle business and let Taxi companies compete realistically. You would see Uber and Lyft have a big bite taken out of their asses. Of course the same licinese and insurance requirements should be applied because we should have an oversight model that is risk averse, but business friendly, but the insurance thing with Drivers has already been addressed.

And what company would win in this scenario? The one that costs the least. That is a race to the bottom.

We're not taking about the way it should be or what laws or regs should be changed. Right now Uber & Lyft are in several clear ways operating outside of existing regulation. I'm all for innovation, clever mechanisms, unique business models etc. And I agree that many of the "systems" controlling the many aspects of our lives are broken or corrupted.

This is a bit like the Roach coach revolution a few years back that had many restaurants crying foul. The difference here is those 'taco trucks' are licensed and regulated through local & state authorities to operate.

They seem to be doing fine. Off the Grid anyone?

 

[Eldritch]

And what company would win in this scenario? The one that costs the least. That is a race to the bottom.

We're not taking about the way it should be or what laws or regs should be changed. Right now Uber & Lyft are in several clear ways operating outside of existing regulation. I'm all for innovation, clever mechanisms, unique business models etc. And I agree that many of the "systems" controlling the many aspects of our lives are broken or corrupted.

This is a bit like the Roach coach revolution a few years back that had many restaurants crying foul. The difference here is those 'taco trucks' are licensed and regulated through local & state authorities to operate.

They seem to be doing fine. Off the Grid anyone?

You say that like low cost is bad? Products should always be consumed with careful eye to both cost of consumption and quality of product. What else should matter?

 

[HeatXfer]

You say that like low cost is bad? Products should always be consumed with careful eye to both cost of consumption and quality of product. What else should matter.

I agree, but it's not a product it's a service. When it comes to "working" there will always be those willing to work for less, and that is a problem for all of us.

 

[Eldritch]

I agree, but it's not a product it's a service. When it comes to "working" there will always be those willing to work for less, and that is a problem for all of us.

No, it is not. Service is a product; anything you buy is a product. Don’t humanize a financial transaction; that is sentimentality gnawing away at your logic. Competitive pricing is an important part of a successful business model. If you continue down that train of flawed logic it will begin to make you care about how a company that sells you a product treats their staff.

 

[HeatXfer]

No, it is not. Service is a product; anything you buy is a product. Don’t humanize a financial transaction; that is sentimentality gnawing away at your logic. Competitive pricing is an important part of a successful business model. If you continue down that train of flawed logic it will begin to make you care about how a company that sells you a product treats their staff.

Oh, I see.

 

[Eldritch]

Oh, I see.

There you go. Strive always to be better.

 

[Marlowe]

bcv _west's Home Depot comment is right on the money. The damages I'm talking about are the loss of income to existing cab drivers who followed the required and expensive licensing requirements to become a taxi driver. The disregard for the livelihoods of established, trained & licensed comes with making any Tom, Dick and Harry a driver. A NY cab sticker is $100k? How much does an Uber or Lyft driver pay to play?

If you had (or have) a job that requires a certain level of expertise that, right or wrong, the state requires training and licensing before you are allowed to practice your profession wouldn't you be hurt by a large group that wholesale takes your job and hands it to literally anyone who said they wanted to try it?

As far as protecting the public, here are the requirements to become a licensed SF taxi driver:

How to become a Taxi Driver in San Francisco​

Fingerprints, 10yr print out of driving record, criminal background check, training, being disease-free are part of the licensing process.

Uber & Lyft don't consider their drivers "professional drivers", but because of the gropings, verbal abuse, threats and even vehicular deaths they have since required background checks. So +1 for Uber on that count.

On top of that there are now more vehicles on the road, in the city driven by roving, un-vetted Uberoaches.

And yeah, I get it: the free market place etc. Try seeing the whole picture and this scenario might play out.

Nice, passionate defense of the cab companies there.

Have we all forgotten that those companies are basically sharecroppers and abuse the drivers just as much?

 

[Entoptic]

The ruling is a joke and will get overturned. Uber provides software for linking drivers to customers. They do not provide anything else.

Does this mean Angie's list is now responsible to employ all their listings because customers go to their site looking for a job?

Does this mean anyone in IT that logs into a third party site looking for work is now an employee?

How about real estate? If I use real estate software to find houses that I can sell am I now an employee of the real estate company?

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

The ruling is a joke and will get overturned. Uber provides software for linking drivers to customers. They do not provide anything else.

Does this mean Angie's list is now responsible to employ all their listings because customers go to their site looking for a job?

Does this mean anyone in IT that logs into a third party site looking for work is now an employee?

How about real estate? If I use real estate software to find houses that I can sell am I now an employee of the real estate company?

So why don't the drivers of Uber set their own price then?

.. Because their system limits them, that's why .

 

[Marcoose]

So why don't the drivers of Uber set their own price then?

.. Because their system limits them, that's why .

And Uber handles all customer service, all billing, all advertising, all legal, all regulatory, all market analysis, all pricing/rates, some insurance, etc. Uber has nothing to do with Angie's List or a real estate agency. Uber uses the drivers like Muni does. That's an employee with rights to benefits.

 

[Eldritch]

And Uber handles all customer service, all billing, all advertising, all legal, all regulatory, all market analysis, all pricing/rates, some insurance, etc. Uber has nothing to do with Angie's List or a real estate agency. Uber uses the drivers like Muni does. That's an employee with rights to benefits.

Bah, you are suggesting that benefits are some kind of inalienable right of people who work. That simply isn't true. During the recession I did a TON of long term contract work in office with no benefits. The taxes are a bitch, but it was fine and perfectly legal.

 

[Marcoose]

Bah, you are suggesting that benefits are some kind of inalienable right of people who work. That simply isn't true. During the recession I did a TON of long term contract work in office with no benefits. The taxes are a bitch, but it was fine and perfectly legal.

Hey, we all eventually hustle on way or the other. Cry me a river.

But if times are good and Uber's owners are filling their pockets on people hustling around town, the latter ought to be in on the good times too, more than just the pay, but also executive-type of compensation; retirement plan, health insurance, disability insurances, vacation, stock, raises, promotions, perks, etc.

 

[Eldritch]

Hey, we all eventually hustle on way or the other. Cry me a river.

But if times are good and Uber's owners are filling their pockets on people hustling around town, the latter ought to be in on the good times too, more than just the pay, but also executive-type of compensation; retirement plan, health insurance, disability insurances, vacation, stock, raises, promotions, perks, etc.

Cry you are river? I wasn't complaining. I was saying it is FINE. Why on earth would Uber owners share record profits with contractors? They didn't start the company so Drivers could get rich. If the Drivers want to get rich, they can start their own innovative business.

 

[Marcoose]

Cry you are river? I wasn't complaining. I was saying it is FINE. Why on earth would Uber owners share record profits with contractors? They didn't start the company so Drivers could get rich. If the Drivers want to get rich, they can start their own innovative business.

You're cute!

Getting rich? Very few employees get rich. The employment system is such that employees don't end up in the Tenderloin when they go through a rough patch. With companies circumventing employment with the contractor scheme, it's all for the owners/investors, none for the little guy.

That's all I have to say.