Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation EU The Courts United Kingdom

Uber Drivers Deemed To Be Employees By Swiss Insurance Provider (techcrunch.com) 121

Posted by msmash from the app-economy dept.
An anonymous shares a TechCrunch article: Uber has suffered another setback to its operational model in Europe after a Swiss insurance agency ruled that Uber drivers are employees, not freelance contractors as the company claims -- meaning it must pay social security contributions. This follows a similar ruling by a UK employment tribunal in October which found that the two Uber drivers bringing the claim were employed as workers by Uber, rather than being freelance contractors. Swiss broadcaster SRF says the Suva agency made its decision on the status of Uber drivers in the market on account of their inability to set price or payment type, and because they are threatened with consequences from Uber if they do not fulfill its requirements. The Suva described its decision on the classification as a "clear conclusion." The public sector insurer is involved in determining whether workers are freelance or not as a provider of compulsory on-the-job accident insurance which is required for certain high risk professions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uber Drivers Deemed To Be Employees By Swiss Insurance Provider More

Uber Drivers Deemed To Be Employees By Swiss Insurance Provider

Comments Filter:

  • In the end... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    we're all freelance contractors. You were born alone, you'll die alone, and the only one who really cares about you is you.

    • I was born in a hospital. My mother was present (very present indeed, considering I came out of her), and there were nurses and a doctor present. Maybe you're the one human being that was hatched out of egg in the middle of nowhere, but the rest of us weren't alone when we were born.

      • Might happen one day; humanity builds birthing pods. When the central AI decides humanity needs to increase population it drops some DNA into a birthing pod and when it is matured, out pops Anonymous Coward.

        There is a 0.000023% chance that Anonymous Coward is a time traveling being who was born in a birthing pod.

        • >There is a 0.000023% chance that Anonymous Coward is a time traveling being who was born in a birthing pod.

          I would LOVE to see the probability equation you used to come up with so exact a number...

      • And dying alone is generally reserved for truly horrible people. If you were even a little nice to people during your life - there will be loved ones by your side when the time comes, not to mention - these days, probably a bunch of doctors and nurses too.

    • Re:In the end... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TWX ( 665546 ) on Thursday January 05, 2017 @03:57PM (#53612839)
      Wow, and I thought I was quite the jaded nihilist...

      I suppose I see it that if human beings have the ability to work together for collective endeavors, like government, then there's no reason why we should not try to structure such to get the best balance of outcomes.

      Companies like Uber and Lyft are not "ride sharing" companies despite whatever verbiage they attempt to use to describe themselves. They're passenger livery services. Laws that govern the passenger livery service apply to them whether they want them to or not. Also, the way they've structured themselves, they retain enough control over those that work for them to where those individuals are employees. They're running the opposite of the taxi model where the drivers actually are contractors in many cases; lots of taxi companies lease the car to the driver for a daily figure, provide dispatch for pickups if the driver wishes, and otherwise the driver is free to use the car to transport all the fares that the driver can, local laws (like airport rights) not withstanding. Those taxi drivers can drive as much or as little as they want, and short of engaging in bad behavior that reflects on the car owner, doesn't have a lot to answer for to the company itself.

      By so tightly controlling the drivers and how they're compensated it's clear that the drivers are not simply contractors, and the only other class by and large is employee. And in my view that's as it should be.

    • and the only one who really cares about you is you.

      and not even that is guaranteed.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by cayce ( 189143 )

      we're all freelance contractors. You were born alone, you'll die alone, and the only one who really cares about you is you.

      Considering the immense amount of care required for a newborn to reach self sustenance I believe that you are full of shit my friend.

    • The core message of Buddhism is: 'every man for himself'.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Is that you, Otto?

      • The core message of Buddhism is: 'every man for himself'.

        I'm not a Buddhist, yet I am offended by this mischaracterization.

        Buddhism's core message is that suffering is an inherent part of being human, and one deals with suffering through a discipline of mental and moral self-purification. And when it comes to one's relationship with others, Buddhists adhere to the principle of Karma.

        Buddhists generally have a humanistic world-view. Their spiritual journey is an inner and reflective one, but that doesn't mean it's "every man for himself."

        • thanks for stepping in - I don't characterize myself as Buddhist (in a religious sense) either, but after ~2 decades of Buddhist martial arts, the philosophy inevitably begins to creep in. what you say is the western interpretation of it: it kind of describes Buddhism, but doesn't quite do the idea right.

          Buddhism, as I understand it, actually has one core principle, which leads to two main consequences.

          the principle is: all separation (between parts of the "universe" - us, others, animals, objects...) is on

        • Damn you guys are dense.

  • If someone agrees to drive for Uber as an independent contractor, then Uber is that person's client. If an independent contractor agrees to work for a client who isn't willing to negotiate their pay rate, then that's on that person, that doesn't mean they are suddenly not an independent contractor just because they don't have any ability to control their rate of pay. Further, the passengers are not the driver's clients, they are Uber's, so any negotiation with the passengers over price or how the passenge

    • Re:They are looking at it all wrong (Score:5, Informative)

      by holophrastic ( 221104 ) on Thursday January 05, 2017 @04:25PM (#53613055)

      Agreed with all. But I'll take a stab at those other reasons.

      First, around here anyway, any "business owner" needs to have more than one client, to be able to call that business a business and pay taxes accordingly. That means that an Uber driver would need to drive for more than just Uber to be considered a driver-for-hire. It's true for bakers, and for candlestick makers around here. I can't have a programming business if I only program for one client. I used to need to prove that to my clients' accounting departments, or they'd start taxing my business revenue, as though it were personal income.

      Second, Uber just set a policy of zero sexual conduct between drivers and passengers. That's not a thing that a client can do to contractors. Can certainly fire contractors for it, but can't promise passengers that contractors will do or not do anything. Can only refund payments at the Uber level. Can't even dodge paying the drivers -- because policies aren't contractual.

      How'd I do?

      • Pretty good. Let me add this.

        I googled "contractor vs. employee" and came up with an interesting link on the USA IRS website. [irs.gov]

        TL/DR: Common Law specifies three rules that determine whether someone is an employee:

        (1) Behavioral (Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?)
        (2) Financial (Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed,

        • Re:They are looking at it all wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Thursday January 05, 2017 @05:52PM (#53613571) Journal

          The precise rules differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but on a balance what I'm seeing is that in multiple jurisdictions in Europe and North America, Uber's relationship with its drivers is viewed by taxation and labor authorities as being a employer-employee relationship. Here in Canada, I've had experience with how the Canada Revenue Agency (our version of the IRS) views contractor vs employee, and it applies similar standards that basically amount to "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck". Over the years I've seen many an attempt by employers large and small to treat what are clearly employees as private contractors for the purposes of ducking their responsibility on collecting and remunerating payroll taxes to taxation authorities, not to mention hoping to sneak past overtime pay and other labor rules like meal breaks. It's a scam some employers keep trying over and over again, so Uber is hardly the first company to try to pull this stunt.

          Of course, the real irony of Uber is that even with this withholding tax-dodging scheme, they're still losing vast amounts of money, so I expect that once many jurisdictions force it to treat its drivers as employees, it will either collapse or just turn into a regular taxi service.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by stdarg ( 456557 )

          Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Uber drivers do, but I'd say they are clearly not employees under #1. Isn't driving for Uber completely up to the driver on a moment by moment basis? Like I can say, oh I don't feel like working from 9am-11am, so I wont. You can't do that at a real job and keep your employment. Likewise you choose your car and you choose where you drive every day. I don't see how that's anything like a normal job in terms of controlling employee behavior.

          • I'm a software developer. If I don't want to work from 9 to 11, I don't have to. I should notify some people here if I'm not going to, much like an Uber driver has to notify someone whether he or she is on or off duty.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by stdarg ( 456557 )

              What company do you work for that allows unlimited unpaid leave at your discretion? Or if you're not willing to say, can you say whether it's not wholly or in part owned by you or a relative of yours?

          • Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Uber drivers do, but I'd say they are clearly not employees under #1. Isn't driving for Uber completely up to the driver on a moment by moment basis? Like I can say, oh I don't feel like working from 9am-11am, so I wont. You can't do that at a real job and keep your employment. Likewise you choose your car and you choose where you drive every day. I don't see how that's anything like a normal job in terms of controlling employee behavior.

            As I read the Common-Law rules, the key question appears to be: who controls the relationship? Under rules 1 and 2, it seems pretty clear that it's Uber, not the driver. Yes, the driver supplies the car and fuel. But that's because Uber says so. As for rule 3, there's no question that what the driver does is a "key aspect of the business" Uber is in. They're not hiring the drivers to do anything other than their primary business. I think that supports the argument that the drivers are employees.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by stdarg ( 456557 )

              the key question appears to be: who controls the relationship? Under rules 1 and 2, it seems pretty clear that it's Uber, not the driver. Yes, the driver supplies the car and fuel. But that's because Uber says so.

              I'm not sure how you determined that. If we look at a more clear cut case like a plumber, it seems like the same things hold. I've never been asked by a plumber to provide his tools or other supplies, and I would find it highly inappropriate and unprofessional if that came up. I don't think that makes me his employer or gives me more or less power in the relationship.

              For #3 you're right, but how do you square that with concepts like subcontracting? A subcontract is obviously part of the primary business of

      • Interesting. Curiously, where is "around here?"

        • Ontario.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        First, around here anyway, any "business owner" needs to have more than one client

        True... to an extent. But there is nothing stopping an independent contractor from only working for one client at any given time. Somebody I hired as an independent contractor can't turn around and tell me that he's supposed to be an employee just because he doesn't have any other clients at the moment.

        I can't have a programming business if I only program for one client.

        Uh... no..

        First of all, if business is slow you mi

        • "at any one time" -- taxation year. When it comes time to declare revenue, write-off expenses, and pay taxes, you'll need to have more than one client.

          Obviously, everyone understands ramp-up periods, and slow-down periods. So generally, like any depression, you'll get a year of flux. And obviously, if you're small, no one's going to look close enough for a few years at least.

          But you won't survive an audit with two contiguous years of only one client -- presuming that you're spending full-time on that one

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mark-t ( 151149 )
            My "dumbass comment" was meant toungue-in-cheek, to illustrate the logical absurdity of the notion that having only one client somehow must somehow automatically make somebody an employee. It's not much less absurd to think that an independent contractor can also somehow force a company that they work for which intended to hire them as an independent contractor to treat them as an employee just by repeatedly taking jobs for that same company, and doing it enough that they end up working full-time hours for

            • No one cares what you think is absurd. It's not about you. Write your local representative if you have an opinion. We're talking about what is, not about what you'd like it to be.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by stdarg ( 456557 )

        That's not a thing that a client can do to contractors. Can certainly fire contractors for it, but can't promise passengers that contractors will do or not do anything.

        What are you trying to say? If the threat of being fired doesn't keep a contractor honest, neither will the the threat of being fired keep the same person honest if you call him an employee instead. So that has no bearing on whether someone is a contractor or an employee.

        • It's not about "bearing" it's about accountability.

          If corporate makes something clear to employees, and trains employees on it, and enforces it, and then an employee does it anyway, then corporate is only accountable to prove that the employee was trained appropriately, and then to fire the employee.

          But with a contractor, corporate is accountable at all. It doesn't need to train contractors. It doesn't need to prove that contractors understood anything. It doesn't even need to fire the contractors. Ther

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by stdarg ( 456557 )

            If corporate makes something clear to employees, and trains employees on it, and enforces it, and then an employee does it anyway, then corporate is only accountable to prove that the employee was trained appropriately, and then to fire the employee.

            Right, so the employee gets fired. But let me note that it's not like it's required by law that the employee gets fired. That's the company's choice.

            But with a contractor, corporate is accountable at all. It doesn't need to train contractors. It doesn't need to prove that contractors understood anything. It doesn't even need to fire the contractors.

            I don't understand... if the contractor misbehaves, that will likely breach the contract, and the company is probably not going to enter a new agreement with that person. Why do you think nothing would happen? Wouldn't the broker lose a lot of credibility?

            Brokers don't set policies, they simply decide whom to broker. Recruiting agencies don't set hiring requirements either.

            They can decide whom to broker based on a set policy though. For instance it's common to have a service lik

        • If you've ever lived and died by contractual agreements, then you've heard the term: "teeth". You can write anything you want into a contract. You can write that "the driver will do jumping jacks every morning, and take ballet lessons at night, before watching jay leno". All parties can sign, and it can be completely legal.

          But you've forgotten the teeth.

          What happens when the driver doesn't watch jay leno one night? Your agreement doesn't have any cansequences. And hence, if the driver doesn't watch jay

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Every country has their own rules about contractor vs Employee.
      This is because there is usually a financial incentive to have you workers be contractors.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        This is because there is usually a financial incentive to have you workers be contractors.

        Financial incentive for Uber, yes. Also there's a financial incentive for the drivers to be contractors. But governments hate it, particularly in the USA. Because taxes and gov't interference in businesses all tend to be keyed to 'protecting the employee'. Screw the protection. I want the tax loopholes and freedom from the nanny state for myself.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by oh_my_080980980 ( 773867 )
      And you are a fucking moron who knows squat about the law and business. Look up contract law some time Zippy.

    • Re:They are looking at it all wrong (Score:5, Informative)

      by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 ) on Thursday January 05, 2017 @04:50PM (#53613237)
      Where I come from, cabs, and livery (airport limo) vehicles, i.e.: the vehicles themselves, have to undergo a state safety inspection every six months or N miles, whichever comes first, same as school buses and other commercial vehicles. Because without that, people and companies would cheat and cut corners: they'd be driving passengers around with bald tires, worn-out brakes, broken suspensions, etc., and the unsuspecting passengers would be put at risk by the operator's greed and laziness.
      Also, the drivers themselves need to have a Public Chauffer's License, meaning (minimalist) special training, clean background (no DUIs, etc.) and periodic drug/health* testing. Again, without that, people (potential drivers) would cheat. What's the acceptable/allowable Blood Alcohal Content??

      Uber seeks to outflank all of that: the vehicle condition is the subcontractor's responsibility, the drivers fitness is the subcontractor's responsibility, all Uber does is makes a profit.

      My question is: how long before some front-page uber**-tragic wrongful death lawsuit drives them out of business?

      * Think: diabetes and epilepsy
      ** OK, pun intended, mea culpa

      • Save for the problem that Uber isn't making a profit. Even with what amounts to wage slavery and a large-scale payroll tax evasion scheme, it still can't actually turn a profit. It has managed to disrupt taxi services in many places, screwing over drivers, and in some cases fucking up consumers as well, and for what exactly?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          It is being run just like most dotbombs. A carefully managed charade to pump up values for the IPO so that vulture 'er' venture fun capitalists can cash in big time with the backing of "it's a great investment" banksters, whilst they privately bet on the side it will fail. https://ftalphaville.ft.com/20... [ft.com]. How has it managed to convince investors, it hasn't, the banksters and culture 'er' venture capitalists did that, next they dump it, bet on loses and rake in the profits.

    • Re:They are looking at it all wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Thursday January 05, 2017 @05:26PM (#53613451) Homepage

      Further, the passengers are not the driver's clients, they are Uber's

      The moment you start down that road Uber is a taxi service, which they very strongly insist that they are not. They're just a matchmaking service, like eBay for car rides. The "ride sharing" are private agreements between drivers and passengers, Uber just takes a commission like on eBay. At least that's their narrative on the customer side. Their problem is that they're not really much like eBay at all, when you start regulating in detail what you can sell, how you can sell it and to what price sooner or later you'll cross the line where you're not an independent seller but a store employee.

      It's like trying to claim the fry cook at McDonald's is an independent contractor delivering burgers and the company just takes a commission for matching him with hungry customers, even though they decide the menu, branding, price, commission rate, opening hours and everything else. You could simply stop driving for Uber any time, but in an at-will state you could walk out at any time. That alone doesn't make you a contractor.

      • If Uber was actually trying to create a franchise, they might have a better argument. Franchisee agreements still give the mother corp a helluva lot of control over operations, even down to prices, but then again, franchises usually involve contracts between two companies. So if Uber drivers were something like 148123812 Inc. or the like then Uber might have an argument, but in general, the "contract" is between Uber and private individuals, which means even the wall that franchise agreements have doesn't e

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by stdarg ( 456557 )

        You could simply stop driving for Uber any time, but in an at-will state you could walk out at any time. That alone doesn't make you a contractor.

        An Uber driver can stop driving at any time, and then start again at any time. That's a huge difference. I can't walk out of my job with no notice or approval and then come back in 8 weeks and say "Well that was a nice vacation!" You can't do that at any job that I know of. Full freedom of setting your own schedule is practically the definition of "being your own boss."

    • "If someone agrees to drive for Uber as an independent contractor, then Uber is that person's client. If an independent contractor agrees to work for a client who isn't willing to negotiate their pay rate, then that's on that person"

      It doesn't work like that, you need to look up the legal definitions of an employee and an independent contractor and how the law distinguishes between them.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )
        If I say I will pay a person $x to shovel the snow from my walkway, and I'm not willing to negotiate the price, that does *NOT* make whoever accepts that rate an employee of mine. The fact that Uber is unwilling to negotiate with its drivers over how much it pays them is immaterial to whether they should be considered employees or not.

        • Actually it does. Though a special kind - ever heard of a "casual worker" - that is considered a type of employee.

          You are not under the same regulations for that - because you're a private individual and some other factors, but you are their employer for the time being. If you pay a COMPANY to do it, then you're not. If you start a company where you pay kids $5 to snovel other people's snow and you charge those people 6 dollars taking a one dollar commission for matching snow-shovelers to driveway owners th

    • And you also have it wrong.
      If Uber is the client of the driver, then sure the driver may not be able to negotiate the pay rate with uber..... but they should be allowed to set their prices for their OWN customers on the other end of the transaction.
      So say Uber says "to use our service you must pay us $2 per transaction"
      OK, thats fine. If the driver wants to charge the people they are providing rides for $10 or $20 and then pay uber their flat $2 that is all well and good.
      BUT Uber is setting the prices that

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        If Uber is the client of the driver, then sure the driver may not be able to negotiate the pay rate with uber..... but they should be allowed to set their prices for their OWN customers on the other end of the transaction.

        The passengers are not the driver's customers in the first place, so he has no business trying to negotiate any payment details with them. The passengers are clients of Uber, not the driver.

    • By your argument - there are no such thing as employees then. Since what you say describes every employment contract ever. Ultimately an employer/employee relationship is defined by the existence of authority. Somebody sets your rates, sets your hours, and you agree to submit to their authority and let them do these things to you - if those things are present, then you're an employee.

      A contractor does not submit to the authority of the client, they agree on a job - he does the job, he gets paid the agreed a

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        Ultimately an employer/employee relationship is defined by the existence of authority. Somebody sets your rates, sets your hours, and you agree to submit to their authority and let them do these things to you - if those things are present, then you're an employee.

        It's less a matter of authority than it is an issue of control. Uber does not have place requirements in how much work there is for its drivers to do or how often they must work for Uber. Uber does *NOT* cover any of the costs that the driver mig

        • "Does Uber require that the person they are paying to drive actually be the driver? If so, then the drivers are definitely employees, but if the person they are paying is allowed to subcontract someone else to do their work (and presumably still make a profit while doing so), then the driver is not"

          Silent coder confirmed that you were oversimplifying with your snow shoveling response.

          It sounds to me like you're still oversimplifying.

        • >It's less a matter of authority than it is an issue of control.

          Those are synonyms.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mark-t ( 151149 )
            Yes, but like many synonyms, the definitions are not identical.; For example, your boss has authority over you, but he does not actually control you. Authority is a right that needs to be respected to function, while control implies something that is far more absolute.

            • You are just making stuff up now. Authority is literally defined as "the ability to control". It has the same root-word as "author" (a word which describes the absolute power a writer has over his characters") and that root word is the Greek word for "Deity".

              Authority is the ability control. Not all authority is absolute of course, and there are limits to the authority of an employer. But he most certainly does control you - when you agree to work for him, you agree to take orders regarding what to do, you

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by mark-t ( 151149 )

                Yes, authority is defined as the ability to control, but that's just it.... it is an ABILITY, and does not necessitate that said control is necessarily being exercised at any given time, while control itself is a much more absolute concept.

                My point, however, remains... Uber does not control the number of drivers that it has, while an employer chooses to have a specific number of employees. Uber does exert some control over the vehicles that the drivers are permitted to use, and this is probably the stro

                • Except that what you think is some amazing breakthrough - is the very point we are making when we say "they don't get to negotiate fares with passengers" - when we say "this makes them employees" we just don't bother to add "because the passengers are not their customers" because it's so utterly bleeding obvious that it's not worth mentioning.
                  You're taking the reason why what we're saying matters, and pretending it's some amazing revelation that alters the conclusion - no, it's just the premise that's too o

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by mark-t ( 151149 )

                    Your issue may have mattered if you could say 'but they can negotiate prices with Uber". If Uber is their CUSTOMER rather than their EMPLOYER that must be possible.

                    The unwillingness of Uber to negotiate a price beyond what they offered for the job does not make one working for them an employee. For example, if I say that I will pay $15 to somebody to shovel my walkway after it snows, and I am firm on that amount, if somebody agrees to do it, they don't get to turn around and say that just because they coul

  • So when can Uber start scheduling shifts? (Score:3)

    by mpercy ( 1085347 ) on Thursday January 05, 2017 @04:36PM (#53613143)

    If they are employees, certainly Uber can demand that they work specific hours or not be employees anymore?

    I've never heard of "employees" who can work or not work at their own whim just by signing into or out of an app.

    • I guess you never heard of shift work either....

      • But I wonder if you meant "piece work". Shift work still requires employees to work a set schedule, but which may be a night shift, etc. Indeed, it's why I asked if Uber can start requiring their drivers to work scheduled shifts.

    • You've never seen a time clock? They come in app form now, too.

    • If they are employees, certainly Uber can demand that they work specific hours or not be employees anymore?

      They can. They currently don't. At the point where there is a surplus of Uber wannabee drivers and public demand for Uber, I expect that Uber may put more demands on their drivers so they can guarantee supply.

      I've never heard of "employees" who can work or not work at their own whim just by signing into or out of an app.

      Most employers don't, but Uber does. Someone I know used to work for a credit counseling service from home part time. She would sign in when she was able to work, sign out when she wasn't.

    • Re:So when can Uber start scheduling shifts? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Thursday January 05, 2017 @05:01PM (#53613319)
      The definition of "employee" varies by country. But in the U.S. [irs.gov], the distinction is based more or less on who dictates how the work is done. If you give a person a task to complete, and the person is free to complete the task when and how they want (subject to a deadline and requirements), then they are a contractor. But if you dictate how or when the person has to work, then they are an employee.

      So it's not just about dictating work hours. A good analogue is workers from a temp agency. The temp agency matches up temporary jobs with temporary workers, but the workers are considered employees of the temp agency. If they tried to act like Craigslist or eBay - simply providing a place for people looking for temp work and people looking to hire temp workers to meet up, and took a cut of the payment - they'd probably be classified as contractors. But when you start to meddle with the individual transactions (creating uniform pricing, dictating standards for worker behavior, etc) you're starting to encroach on employee territory.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by stdarg ( 456557 )

        But when you start to meddle with the individual transactions (creating uniform pricing, dictating standards for worker behavior, etc)

        Sounds like what Amazon is doing with their new service options. I bought a kitchen faucet last month on Amazon and they gave me the option of adding installation. Uniform pricing, at least some standards (they claim they handpick the businesses involved, require screening, and set standards on scheduling and cancellation).

        I wonder if they are considered Amazon employees? I would think not.

    • >If they are employees, certainly Uber can demand that they work specific hours or not be employees anymore?

      Uber already can and does do this. You lose access if you don't log in often enough.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      If they are employees, certainly Uber can demand that they work specific hours or not be employees anymore?

      I've never heard of "employees" who can work or not work at their own whim just by signing into or out of an app.

      Sigh, just because an employer can set hours, does not mean they have to.

      It is not unheard of for an employer to pay based on work delivered. In fact it's quite common in some construction trades (I.E paid by the brick) or logistics (paid by delivery).

      There are a few services where an employee can pick the job, bike courier for one. You certainly don't pay them for the time they spend standing around or holding up traffic.

      If Uber drivers are truly independent contractors... Why does Uber forbid the

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close