Uber Proposes California-style Gig Work Reforms in Europe (cnbc.com) 117
Uber called on the European Union to introduce a framework for gig economy workers, floating a model similar to that adopted by California after a contentious fight over the employment status of its drivers. From a report: The U.S. ride-hailing giant shared a "white paper" with EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager, jobs commissioner Nicolas Schmit and other officials. It urged policymakers to implement reforms that protect drivers and couriers operating through an app, without reclassifying them as employees. It's a thorny issue for Uber and other companies in the so-called gig economy that encourage temporary, flexible working models in favor of full-time employment. Last year, Uber, Lyft and other firms successfully fought against proposals in California which would have given their drivers the status of employees rather than independent contractors. Californian voters approved Proposition 22, a measure that would allow drivers for app-based transportation and delivery companies to be classified as independent contractors while still entitling them to new benefits like minimum earnings and vehicle insurance.
"We're calling on policymakers, other platforms and social representatives to move quickly to build a framework for flexible earning opportunities, with industry-wide standards that all platform companies must provide for independent workers," Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said in a blog post Monday. "This could include introducing new laws such as the legislation recently enacted in California," he added. Uber said the EU could alternatively set new principles through a "European model of social dialogue" between platform workers, policy makers and industry representatives.
"We're calling on policymakers, other platforms and social representatives to move quickly to build a framework for flexible earning opportunities, with industry-wide standards that all platform companies must provide for independent workers," Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said in a blog post Monday. "This could include introducing new laws such as the legislation recently enacted in California," he added. Uber said the EU could alternatively set new principles through a "European model of social dialogue" between platform workers, policy makers and industry representatives.
No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Workers in Europe have rights, and should be treated like valued human beings (as should all workers). So no thanks, Uber, we'd rather not have your modern serfdom.
Re:No thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The sarcasm is strong with that one.
Re: (Score:3)
Followed by someone claiming that regulation that protects workers stifles innovation somehow.
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's true for most of us though. I actually mostly like my job, but I still have to do it. I could choose to take a different job but it likely wouldn't pay as much or maybe about the same but with less benefits.
Bottom line, nearly all of us have to choose between "homeless" and working a job we only kind of like or maybe not at all but that beats being homeless. I see homeless every day and I would rather be an uber driver then homeless. Some are both.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I like my jobs.
If you don't, finds me work, you like.
Wow, that was so easy again.
Re: (Score:2)
You already fell for the fallacy of "people will only do a job if they want to". No, I somehow don't think minimum-wage workers choose to do shitty jobs that nobody else will, unless you face the fact that their "choice" is between that job or being homeless.
That's an interesting philosophical and moral question: at what point are your alternatives so horrible we think you really didn't have a choice? I'm going to sidestep that for now.
Are you absolutely sure every Uber driver is one gig away from homelessness? Because that wasn't the original pitch. The concept was people who wanted a few extra dollars on the side could get them. Are you really sure none of the drivers find that appealing? Sure enough to outlaw the practice?
I'll give you a hint: I know people
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Workers in Europe have rights, and should be treated like valued human beings (as should all workers). So no thanks, Uber, we'd rather not have your modern serfdom.
The gig companies already found plenty of loopholes though. Uber used to make you register as an LLC to drive for them, and some delivery companies like Wolt make you sign three contracts with different companies, so that you're not a full time employee with any of them, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
For someone to be a freelancer in most EU member states they must avoid the 'fictitious self-employment' trap, meaning that they can't just be making money from one company that's trying to sidestep its statutory obligations. The Wolt approach you mention would seem like something specifically engineered to avoid this. If someone is genuinely driving for multiple companies this would at least be one way forward.
Re: (Score:3)
There are already plenty of alternative employment options for freelancers besides full-time employment across member states, but you don't get to sidestep the respective labour laws just because you feel like it. Most countries also don't accept the freelance designation when someone is only working for one company, as this would constitute fictitious self-employment and is generally seen as an attempt by the employer to avoid its statutory obligations, rather than something being to the individual's benef
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No thanks (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You are grossly redefining the term slave. A slave was the property of someone else. A contract with a non-compete clause, or restricting the ability to quit might properly be considered slavery, but "Starve if I don't need work today" is a different problem. It's a real problem, but it's not the same one.
(And, FWIW, some slaves have been quite comfortable. I'll grant that it's a minority, and probably a small minority, I don't have figures, but SOME. Suffering is not a defining characteristic of slave
Re: (Score:3)
And, FWIW, some slaves have been quite comfortable. I'll grant that it's a minority, and probably a small minority, I don't have figures, but SOME.
Most people don't abuse their pets, but enough do to make it a problem. Even with laws banning it, a lot happens out of sight. This is why certain animal rights organizations want us to stop keeping pets entirely. Of course, when it comes to humans, we don't want there to be any abuse at all, so it's easier to ban the entire practice than try to police every slave owner.
It's the same for gig workers. We accept some level of mistreatment towards them because the existence of those jobs also brings a lot of g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Temporary measures (Score:2)
I propose a white paper... (Score:2)
Like... a collection of pages we could list the names of Uber CEOs on.
And then go through the list, burning them alive in their beds.
Or chairs. I'm fine if we burn them alive in their chairs.
Call it an alternative proposal.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait, Uber will send a few hundred million 'educating' people on what a good idea this is while obfuscating the laws they're actually trying to get passed.
The down side to allowing referendums like Cali is people being fallible and, sadly, subject to manipulation by advertising. It doesn't surprise me that Uber got their law passed, but that's simply because buying laws is common practice - not because it's actually supposed to be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what and whose rights you think are being infringed in this case.
Anyhow, what you say is not universally true in US law. Your right to a jury trial infringes the right to freedom of movement for 12 of your peers - the ones that have the duty to attend your trial and listen to you plead your case. I suspect there aren't many other examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Race to the bottom it is, got it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it is. It's just *your* right and not a universal right.
Kind of like the right to free speech in a America is still a right despite restricting the rights of the legislature of the United States of America.
Re:No thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
That's just not how rights work. The right to not be murdered means others lose the right to murder. The right to privacy means other give up the right to look at certain things.
All rights must come with responsibilities, which necessarily mean some loss of freedom. For example, the right not to be murdered also includes a responsibility that you must act to prevent murders. The right to hold private property includes the responsibility to help defend your neighbors property. Normally, we delegate those responsibilities to a group we form and call "the government" and then we pay for that service with taxes.
If you can do a thing or have something you think of as a right, but you have no reciprocal responsibilities to protect that right in others, then it is not a right. It is merely license, "I do what I want, so fuck you."
The way you phrase it indicates you hold a surprisingly immature and selfish view of rights. Did a "libertarian" teach you that? I would not be surprised. Libertarianism is a surprisingly immature and selfish philosophy. Libertarians do not really want "freedom" or "rights." They just want license to do whatever they want, with no consequences. Thankfully, most libertarians grow out of it after college.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me parse this for you and others who appear to be too thick or unwilling to understand.
To quote myself:
Any "right" [to murder/fire my gun/look at your private stuff] that requires infringing the rights of others [killing/shooting you/invading your privacy], is not a right.
What do you not understand about this? What seems to make you think I would not seek to uphold the rights of others?
As for dragging Libertarians into this, their whole philosophy is to protect rights from the depredations of others wh
Re:No thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
But your right to not have your privacy invaded limits my ability to go wherever I please. How do you not see that every right sets a limit on behavior that did not exist before the right was espoused?
To illustrate: your right not to be killed does not apply to hurricanes, and only partially applies to tigers. A hurricane may murder you, and people will do nothing about it, because they can't. A tiger can kill you, and the only thing we can do is kill the tiger. Your "right" means nothing to the tiger, and less than nothing to the hurricane.
Rights are made up, by humans, and only apply to humans. They are specifically limits placed on human behavior, and contingent on human understanding and a willingness to comply.
They are also conditional. Your right to not be shot by other humans ends on the battlefield. Your right to privacy ends as soon as the rest of us suspect you are using it to cover up a crime, and we get a warrant. Rights are not innate. They are not natural. God did not give them to you. Other people did, by agreeing that the right is important, by agreeing to limit their own behavior, and by agreeing to defend your right when others infringe it. Outside of that, your rights are just words.
All rights come with a limit on behavior, and a responsibility, specifically, an agreement to reciprocally defend said right.
In nature, there are no rights. There is only power. You either have the power to do something, or you don't. This is a sad and frightful situation, so to combat this painful truth, we band together. We agree to limit our natural powers, for example the power to look where we please, that everyone is born with. It's not a right, it's simply an ability. Your right to privacy infringes my ability to sense my environment. Your right to life infringes my right to use weapons when and how I please.
Every right is a trade off. Every right is negotiable. Every right is conditional. Every right depends entirely on other people's willingness to uphold it. Yes, this means rights are tenuous. It means they may change. It means they may not always apply.
It means things that once were considered rights, like the right to own other human beings, may be overturned. And it means new rights may be invented, like the right to be addressed by your preferred pronouns. If other humans are willing to defend that right, it becomes just as real and valid as any other. For as long as people are willing to both limit their own behavior, and defend against those who are not willing.
Re: (Score:1)
You are being obtuse. This correspondence is concluded.
Re: (Score:3)
And you've been schooled by many people who all agree that your take on rights is simplistic and juvenile.
You have refused to learn or broaden your understanding of the complex subject of rights.
Good day.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, not only do you not understand what a right is, you also apparently don't know what obtuse means! Nifty.
I don't understand why we're letting this happen (Score:5, Insightful)
The deal was we give up the risk of our own business for stable wages. Now we've got all the disadvantages and none of the benefits. Literally. It's piece work. It was banned in the 1900s and for good reason.
And if you don't think they'll come for your job you're not paying attention. Imagine if your company didn't pay you hourly or a salary, but for every computer you fixed or every line of code you wrote. I can hear you laughing "I'll pad my code".... and they'll run an AI over it to detect the padding and fire you. Then sue you for the money they paid. Then it'll go to binding arbitration and you'll be slapped with $20k in fines and no job....
People died for the 40 hour work week and we're just letting it go.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I don't understand why we're letting this happ (Score:3)
At least Americans are consistent. Capitalism is exploitation. Success amounts to being the best at exploitation. This can mean the most exploitation (Walmart) or the most "happiness" of the exploited (Silicon Valley).
I'm not saying I can offer a better system than capitalism. But I'm not going to play obsequious denial games about its nature either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
sounds to me
It's tough stating cynically hyperbole around people who take everything literally.
raise a family and have a life
Nice house, good school, safe neighborhoods, and job security are a huge draw for a lot of college educated people living in the Bay Area. Obviously depends on which part of the Bay Area, it's a huge area and some of it is gorgeous and some of it is a dump, sometimes literally.
Once their kids are grown, they've retired from their job, and their house is worth many times what they paid. They start looking at how to escape inco
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism is good for the vast majority of people. Including yourself and rsilvergun who are both middle aged white males who have lives a pretty good life compared to the vast majority of the planet. You guys are ignorant of how the real world lives. Go visit India or China or Africa or South America and let me know how that goes.
Are you suggesting that these countries, or (most of) the countries within these continents are not capitalist economies? If the (large) companies based there are not funded by shareholders then how exactly are they financed pray tell?
Ah well, since it's impossible to know everything, we're all ignorant of something. Most of us don't display it quite so 'proudly' though...
Re: (Score:2)
It's piece work. It was banned in the 1900s and for good reason.
FYI, piece rate labor is still a thing and is quite legal.
Re: I don't understand why we're letting this happ (Score:3)
No, if it is anything like "Scheinselbstständigkeit" (fake self-employedness, where you only have one "customer"), it is most definitely not.
Minimum Wage (Score:2)
This is why fry cooks aren't paid by the burger. Yet.
Re: (Score:2)
It is totally legal to pay cooks by the burger, assuming you comply with minimum wage and overtime laws.
Alice is a cook who works for Bob. Bob states that he will pay Alice $0.50 for every burger she cooks. In five eight-hour days, Alice cooks a thousand hamburgers. Her gross pay for that week is $500. Next week, business is slow and Alice only cooks five hundred burgers ion the same forty hours. Her gross pay would be $250, but that's below minimum wage, so Bob must pay her $290. The week after that
That's not piece work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I don't understand why we're letting this happe (Score:5, Interesting)
the deal we had with our bosses is breaking down before our eyes and we're just shrugging our shoulders and saying "Meh".
The problem is, back in the days, people were willing to sacrifice a lot of income to go on strike - sometimes for a mightly long time - and get what they wanted.
Nowadays, workers aren't willing to lose any sort of comfort to defend their rights. Worse, the ruling elite found out a long time ago that it's more productive to slowly but steadily erode established social rights, so that people think "I can live without this or that small thing, it's not so bad". In other words, boil the proverbial frog very slowly. All this of course isn't helped by people living paycheck to paycheck, or saddled with mortgages and debts.
Guess what: A little here, a little there, and before you know it, you have Uber seriously proposing to bring back wage slavery in Europe, of all places.
Re: (Score:2)
The boiling frog fallacy is an extremely harmful version of the slippery slope fallacy. It is a myth that frogs, and people, will not react to danger. https://www.theatlantic.com/te... [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think it's that they were willing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Piece-rate labor is very much still a thing. Maybe certain states have banned it (or maybe its just not enforced) but around here for example in construction its very common to pay workers per-sheet of gypsum hung or per bag of insulation installed.
It's a motivational thing: if they work fast their per-hour wage can be quite high. Drag their feet and it'll be in the dumps.
Re: I don't understand why we're letting this happ (Score:2)
And if they ever ger sick, or the boss "doesn't have any work for them at the moment", they are fucked. Which is why it's illegal in civilized countries, if you've got only one such "boss" instead of multiple customers, and if you don't have insurance.
Because we grew sick of picking up dumb or desperate people who fell for it, due to us having a social system, because it is a terrible thing to waste a human life, even if it's a stupid or evil one.
Of course if you are OK with your fellow citizens becoming bu
Re: (Score:2)
And if they ever ger sick, or the boss "doesn't have any work for them at the moment", they are fucked.
In the former case, there is no (federal) law guaranteeing an hourly worker sick or vacation time, so in the former case, whether or not they're fucked depends entirely on the quality of their employer (i.e. there's no reason a piece laborer cannot have paid time off). In the latter case, that's constructive dismissal and they're eligible for unemployment just like an hourly worker.
piece laborer can be used get out paying for waiti (Score:2)
piece laborer can be used get out paying for waiting time and that is why we need min wage.
No you can't have 20 people just sitting waiting for an ride / in an call center waiting for an call. No you need to pay people so that you have the staff to take 20 calls at the same time. As with piece rate you may have 19 people on hold with 1 person taking calls just so there piece rate can hit min wage.
Re: (Score:2)
And if they ever ger sick, or the boss "doesn't have any work for them at the moment", they are fucked. Which is why it's illegal in civilized countries, if you've got only one such "boss" instead of multiple customers, and if you don't have insurance.
Let's say I need somebody to mow my lawn, if I can't pay the neighbor's kid just for one lawn, how am I suppose to perform this transaction? There's no way for me to ensure they would find a second customer. They might not even have time for more customers if they're doing this between school. It's entirely out of my control. I also can't hire them full time because I only have one lawn and they'd be sitting around watching the grass grow for two weeks at a time.
And if your answer is "don't hire individuals
Re: (Score:1)
How is it "motivating" to see the guy who's twice your size and can carry two bags to your one, get paid twice as much as you at the end of the day, when you worked just as hard?
Equal pay for equal work, not more pay because you lucked out on genes, or less pay because you didn't.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it "motivating" to see the guy who's twice your size and can carry two bags to your one, get paid twice as much as you at the end of the day, when you worked just as hard?
Equal pay for equal work, not more pay because you lucked out on genes, or less pay because you didn't.
"Equal pay for equal work?" You just gave a scenario where one guy did twice as much work as the other, but they are paid the same. <Inigo>I don't think this means what you think this means.</Inigo>
If we follow your idea to it's logical conclusion, "How is it "motivating" to see the guy who want to college and learned to be an electrical engineer get paid ten times as much as you at the end of the day, when you worked just as hard digging ditches?" Note that HE lucked out on genes, or at leas
Re: (Score:3)
If that guy was carrying two bags to your one, it sounds like he is literally doing twice what you were doing. Why should he get paid the same as someone that works half as fast? He may as well stop bothering to carry two bags.
By the same token, you think an awesome programmer should get paid the same as a-fresh-out-of-college-programmer? Doesn't make any sense at all.
People that produce more from their efforts are generally more likely to raise to the top, regardless of your dogma.
Re: (Score:2)
If you try to do it for most types of business (Score:2)
It's really only the dodgiest types of businesses that dabble in it (MLMs and the like) and the sort of companies that exclusively hire felons. Yeah, we shouldn't be looking the other way on those abuses, but we're doing worse now, we're letting those abuses spread
some franchise need to be "joint employers" (Score:2)
some franchise need to be "joint employers" as they really don't have an lot of control
Re: (Score:2)
...the sort of companies that exclusively hire felons.
Wait, what's wrong with hiring felons?
If you mean those still in prison but choose to take up this work as some sort of job training program, then hiring them is exactly what businesses should do. If nobody wants prison labor, then the programs, which have been shown to reduce recidivism, don't work.
If you mean those who's been released, then they should still be hired, because we all know those with no job and no hope of improving their situation quickly go back to committing crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
People died for the 40 hour work week and we're just letting it go
The 40 hour work week was never universal nor possible across all industries. And throughout all of history there have been in every industry people who have not wanted anything to do with the 40 hour work week.
I get what you're saying and Uber should go die in a ditch. But you're generlising to the point of absurdity which makes your post very easy to counter. To which I'm sure many contract coders here will agree.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that this is the tail end.
Just an example. There was a time cable techs were generally employed by the provider. In my case, Canada with Rogers. Today, they mainly outsource that work to 3rd parties.
Heck, even government's tend to like outsourcing, be it for cleaning services or anything they don't want to consider 'core.'
Let's not even talk about general outsourcing to cheaper countries...
So now we get to Uber. Delivery and Taxis have rarely been very secure jobs. Some regions tried to make
Re: (Score:2)
Many of the things you mention are completely separate from employee vs contractor. There are a lot of misconceptions about it. Employee doesn't even mean 40 hour work week. Employee does mean that above 40 hours, 1.5x payrate applies (at least in US, it might be 2x in Europe?). Smart contractors will also put an overtime provision in their contracts. The real smart contractors will make it apply after only 20 hours ;)
The biggest thing about being a contractor, is you can either negotiate the terms of your
Re: (Score:2)
But this *is* having your own business.
At least here in California most Uber drivers I know have their own LLCs. Some have expanded to a small fleet of limo operations, and many are making a good enough living. That would not be possible if they started at traditional taxi companies (renting the vehicles, paying fees to the *man*, etc).
But that does not mean all is good. Those who did not succeed bring only 40k/year, where 100k/year is considered "low income" in the region.
So, it is simultaneously *working*
Re: (Score:2)
The deal was we give up the risk of our own business for stable wages. Now we've got all the disadvantages and none of the benefits. Literally. It's piece work. It was banned in the 1900s and for good reason.
Nonsense. We never banned gig work. People do it all the time. Every person I hire to do a contract job around my house is a gig worker. If it's such a bad model with no benefits, why do you suppose so many people do it? I'll give you a hint: some people like being their own boss. They don't want or need to be a full time worker for a large company.
Let me address this another way. We know a bunch of contractors got fired as soon as AB5 took effect in California. I strongly suspect Lyft and Uber were not blu
White Paper precedes EU consultation (Score:3)
Uber's comments in a white paper to the European Commission precede a consultation on Feb. 24 when the EU executive will seek feedback from workers and employers' representatives on gig workers' rights before drafting laws on the subject by year-end.
The Commission said it will first seek feedback on whether a law is needed to improve the working conditions of gig workers, followed by a second consultation on the content of the law.
"As part of the social partners' consultation, the European Commission is considering issues, such as precarious working conditions, transparency and predictability of contractual arrangements, health and safety challenges and adequate access to social protection," a spokeswoman said.
https://news.yahoo.com/uber-de... [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Last year, Uber, Lyft and other firms successfully fought against proposals in California which would have given their drivers the status of employees rather than independent contractors.
CNBC printing lies like this doesn't help. There were no "proposals" other than the assholes actually follow existing law and stop misclassifying. There was an additional *redundant
Re: (Score:2)
That's scary. Sounds like they can push it through without even asking voters.
Welcome to a representative democracy. The amount of things you directly have a vote on even in California is so low that it's serial number hasn't even reached triple digits yet.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of things you directly have a vote on even in California is so low that it's serial number hasn't even reached triple digits yet.
This is not entirely accurate. Originally, ballot propositions were given a number starting at one each election. This tended to be confusing as often famous initiatives such as Proposition 13 in 1978 might be confused with another initiative in a later year if there were more than twelve proposals on the ballot in any given year. Starting with the November 1982 ballot, the proposition numbers were not re-used but continued to increment every election, eventually resulting in proposition numbers exceeding 2
Re: (Score:2)
TIL. Thanks for the background.
Fundamentally my point is still the same though, even the USA is not a direct democracy. You don't get a say in nearly all of the laws which govern your life. Your reps do.
Re: (Score:2)
That's scary. Sounds like they can push it through without even asking voters.
Well, the European Commission has only the initiative to propose legislation. During the ordinary legislative procedure, the Council (which are ministers from member state governments) and the European Parliament (elected by citizens) can make amendments and must give their consent for laws to pass. Although possible it is unlikely that a referendum, and therefore a direct vote, will be held on this issue.
Thanks, but no thanks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Uber. We appreciate your ideas and input. However, we appreciate things like minimum wage, sick leave and holiday pay more. Do you have other exciting ideas on how to reduce the middle class to serfs?
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Uber. We appreciate your ideas and input. However, we appreciate things like minimum wage, sick leave and holiday pay more. Do you have other exciting ideas on how to reduce the middle class to serfs?
(The 1%) "There's just me, and everyone else who works to make me rich. What is this 'middle class' you speak of?"
(Laugh all you want. This is closer to the truth, than your comfort level allows.)
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Uber. We appreciate your ideas and input. However, we appreciate things like minimum wage, sick leave and holiday pay more. Do you have other exciting ideas on how to reduce the middle class to serfs?
Dear EU:
Thank you for your prompt response. We regret at this time we will not be able to offer our service or jobs in Europe. We regret the loss of income and convenience this will cost your citizens and the loss of tax revenue it will cost your governments. Please let us know when ready to stop banning services and jobs actual people clearly prefer to the alternative of no jobs and walking.
Say "hi" to the labor unions for us.
Sincerely,
Every gig company out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And good riddance. You must be pretty deluded to think that Uber actually is offering a superior service.
Re: (Score:2)
And good riddance. You must be pretty deluded to think that Uber actually is offering a superior service.
I don't live in Europe so I can't say whether the service is better or worse than others. Clearly their customers think so and that's the only people who's opinion matters. In the USA, Uber and Lyft are head and shoulders better than any other service I can get.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Uber: Please close the door on your way out.
Driver Still Dodge UBER Management (Score:2)
So many drivers give out their personal cards and numbers, so they can make runs without being on the company's take and simply pocket the whole thing. I have seen this so many times here in Canada. It's a wonder that they are still in business at all.
Re: Driver Still Dodge UBER Management (Score:2)
Do people really hire them directly without an app?
Seems like an opportunity for an open source app just to fuck with Uber/Lyft.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like an opportunity for an open source app just to fuck with Uber/Lyft.
Yes. Hurry up before they make it illegal like they did in california. That's what these laws are really about.
"We're calling on policymakers, other platforms and social representatives to move quickly to build a framework for flexible earning opportunities, with industry-wide standards that all platform companies must provide for independent workers," Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said in a blog post Monday.
AKA "Regulatory Capture". IOW make all new apps have to follow the exact same business model that Uber already follows.
Re: (Score:2)
Cops in California were doing stings to bust Uber drives who responded to ride hails from the street. Like all other violent crime is solved so they have to protect Uber's bottom line.
Re: Driver Still Dodge UBER Management (Score:2)
WTF. Did you serously just make Uber NOT leeching off of them sound like the sketchy thing?
It should ONLY be done with direct payments. Nobody needs Uber. All they do is leech, and turn an entire market into a monopoly under their control.
LOL (Score:2)
Good luck scaling up the bribes and propaganda from what it took for us Californians to swallow this horseshit. Europe is a whole lot bigger and politically a different animal.
Europe proposes Uber GTFO, (Score:5, Insightful)
and take their Rockefellerian slavery models with them.
We've got good public transport and our own cars and a bazillion types of vehicles you can share. Nobody needs you, but you yourselves. You fulfill no purpose over here, other than to worsen worker rights, pollution and dependency on corporations. Which is no surprise, with a business "idea" that, apart from the parts that only exist so you can leech odf money, could be created by a smart school kid in a week (and probably be better too).
Sincerely,
All of Europe.
The entire continent.
Not California's employee laws - Uber's. (Score:3)
Uber and other Gig employers just put up $200+ million in California last November to defeat a ballot initiative that would have classified its workers as employees. When you say Uber wants California-style employee laws, remember they're Uber's employee laws.
Uber has profitted and expanded thanks to ignoring existing regulations - on everything.
Re:Not California's employee laws - Uber's. (Score:5, Informative)
Uber and other Gig employers just put up $200+ million in California last November to defeat a ballot initiative that would have classified its workers as employees.
And that's how good their propaganda was. You got it backwards. Uber already had to classify as employees based on long-settled federal and state law. Then an additional *redundant* law was passed in the state assembly that again, required Uber to stop misclassifying. The ballot initiative was Uber's, and was to permanently misclassify all "app-based" work as independent, no matter what, exempting themselves from all prior laws.
Re: (Score:2)
You are exactly correct. So why is parent expanded with a score of 3, but you have a score of 3 as well as the correct answer, but your post is collapsed?
Uber needs slaves to make a profit (Score:2)
Uber lost $6.8 billion in 2020.
The only way they can every reach profitability is by either getting a lot more slaves to drive for them or through automation.
If they had automation today they wouldn't be lobbying for slavery everywhere they operate.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way they can every reach profitability
Don't be so naive. The company is built to never be profitable. It has nothing to do with how much they (don't) pay workers. They are currently skimming 95% of all costs paid by the customers. They then waste all that money on bloat, bonuses for execs, and other bullshit. Then they take that super-inflated number and subtract it as operating costs before calculating that they in fact only skimmed "25%" according to their filings. And don't forget they aren't just taking money from customers, they are taking
Europe is different (Score:2)
Want to work from home? Your company will document your need for a home office so you can deduct the cost. Want a car? Here's your company car and a letter supporting the business need. And a company gas card as well. One of the major markets for Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, etc. are the vehicles that businesses su
No no no no (Score:2)
"Uber called on the European Union to introduce a framework for gig economy workers, floating a model similar to that adopted by California after a contentious fight over the employment status of its drivers."
Yes, let's make everybody poor! Let's make everyone live hand-to-mouth!
Let's make sure that no one has a steady job, health insurance, or benefits, YAAAY!!
What a glorious day for the Richie Riches of the world! Long live the GIG ECONOMY!!
they have public healthcare so it's not as bad as (Score:2)
they have public healthcare so it's not as bad as usa tied to job one.
But labor rights are alot better in the EU so this may fail
Absolutely illegal (Score:2)
...a measure that would allow drivers for app-based transportation and delivery companies to be classified as independent contractors while still entitling them to new benefits like minimum earnings
In my country, this is explicitly illegal. You simply can't run your core business with an army of contractors-in-name-only who get guaranteed work. People have been prosecuted for this as a form of tax evasion and went to prison. If you still decide to try this stunt here, good luck in court.
"Like California" (Score:4, Interesting)
I love how they're acting like all they want is for the EU to adopt "the wisdom of California," when what really happened is the opposite of what they describe.
California did NOT vote for special classification of gig workers to help Uber. California passed a law to make what Uber is doing ILLEGAL. Uber promptly ignored that law, and for some reason nobody understands, California allowed them to do that for an entire year without trying to enforce the law. That was long enough for Uber to get a law put on the ballot that essentially gutted the existing California law, and then it spent untold hundreds of millions on lobbying and advertising to convince California voters that what was good for Uber was good for the state. And that's how we have the situation we have now.
I hope the EU aren't suckers.
Re: (Score:2)
for some reason nobody understands, California allowed them to do that for an entire year without trying to enforce the law.
What's really frustrating about that, is they then just said "oh well" about all of the law-violating that happened prior. It's like the whole Trump thing really. What about making the victims whole? It was illegal before it wasn't. That should still be prosecuted!
One event is a gig, uber is a job (Score:2)
I
Who is naive? (Score:2)
I really wonder if it's Uber that is so naive they believe they can change 150 years of labor law tradition that is at the heart of modern European culture or if it's us European that are so naive that we think they cannot destroy our societal model?
Anyway, as many other EU citizens have said here. GTFO, we don't need your "service", and we think a job has to meet some decency criterion to be allowed.