• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Uber drivers are employees

Eldritch said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's a great point and it's exactly Uber's point too!

Well then, let the drivers just stand at corners and hail riders. Bonus *tips* for approaching tourists and asking "Hey, you wanna ride around town?"

That would be the real free economy for ride-"sharing".. just like in third-world countries!!!
 
Marcoose said:
You're cute! :kiss :laughing

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.
Click to expand...

:dunno
 
So cab drivers work for "themselves," renting the hack for $200+ a day in SF, and on a slow day can lose money.

They "work" for companies that are basically sharecropping.

And we're supposed to say "oh, those poor Uber drivers?"

Come on.

Ground transportation is a racket all around, as a consumer I'd rather stick with the higher level, more consistent service.

Stranding me for 2 hours waiting on a cab that just keeps not coming, at night in not the best hood
, waiting for a "licensed driver" does not make me safer. When they show up in an ancient Crown Vic with no working belts, and the ABS light lit, I am also not safer.

Quit looking out for me and let me do it for myself.
 
Marlowe said:
So cab drivers work for "themselves," renting the hack for $200+ a day in SF, and on a slow day can lose money.

They "work" for companies that are basically sharecropping.

And we're supposed to say "oh, those poor Uber drivers?"

Come on.

Ground transportation is a racket all around, as a consumer I'd rather stick with the higher level, more consistent service.

Stranding me for 2 hours waiting on a cab that just keeps not coming, at night in not the best hood
, waiting for a "licensed driver" does not make me safer. When they show up in an ancient Crown Vic with no working belts, and the ABS light lit, I am also not safer.

Quit looking out for me and let me do it for myself.
Click to expand...

That so sounds like Chicago. I'd take the orange line to Midway just to avoid the crappy taxis and the cabbies that couldn't drive for shit and even worse English.
 
Orange to Midway can take as long as the Blue out to O'Hare, but that was actually New Orleans.

:laughing
 
Marlowe said:
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?
Click to expand...

BTW, friends of mine work for Radio Cab in Portland, who are directly involved with management.

They hate uber, naturally.
 
W2 vs 1099, both get taxed.

Lot as long as you are making enough on 1099 to buy benefit, there are a lot of tax perks for the 1099 earner.
 
AbsolutEnduser said:
It's also forbidding them to drive with other companies while in their "off" time.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I've driven for lyft when not ubering and have never received anything telling me I can't.

SFSV650 said:
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. :dunno
Click to expand...

As long as you are logged into the app you are covered by Ubers extended policy, passenger or not.
 
Psychochik said:
Interesting, I've driven for lyft when not ubering and have never received anything telling me I can't.



As long as you are logged into the app you are covered by Ubers extended policy, passenger or not.
Click to expand...

Tina. I would like a review/post about your experience so far.

:teeth
 
Marlowe said:
Sounds like a bad deal to me, I think if I were driving my own car professionally I'd want 1099 treatment given all the expenses you incur.
Click to expand...

You can deduct job-related non-reimbursable expenses, if your deductions are greater than the standard deduction.

And look at the flip side; 401(k) w/ matching, paid vacation, disability insurance, unemployment, health insurance, etc, etc.
 
Marcoose said:
You can deduct job-related non-reimbursable expenses, if your deductions are greater than the standard deduction.

And look at the flip side; 401(k) w/ matching, paid vacation, disability insurance, unemployment, health insurance, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're assuming being on a W2 implies a stack of benefits.

It does not.

On a 1099, you'd just offset those expenses against your income on Schedule C.
 
Marlowe said:
Sorry, you're assuming being on a W2 implies a stack of benefits.

It does not.

On a 1099, you'd just offset those expenses against your income on Schedule C.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm implying that someone wants to be considered an employee in order to obtain employment benefits, not just for the sake of getting a W2. Although there could be other reasons. Dunno.

I'm an employee with a regular W2 and deduct tons of non-reimbursable job expenses, ie, home printer cartridges, professional association dues, protective clothing, cell phone, part of the home internet bill, etc, etc. All stuff that I use for work and the company expects that I have it for business. Just like in the Schedule C.
 
There are plenty of body shops out there that put folks on W2 "contracts," with no benefits.

It's a tax document, period, not the bloody Magna Carta.
 
Marlowe said:
There are plenty of body shops out there that put folks on W2 "contracts," with no benefits.

It's a tax document, period, not the bloody Magna Carta.
Click to expand...

Yes, understood.

I don't care about the W2. I care about the benefits that can come with regular employment, which I imagine is the reason the person asked a judge to rule.

Let's not argue about arguing about arguments.
 
As a engineer, I tried to work as a contractor a couple times, but I could never negotiate a competitive compensation. Sure the hourly looks good, but the benefits are gutted. I think they get away with it because the average contractor worker, can not do simple math to find out what benefits are worth.

Addecco is horrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top