Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation The Courts

Uber Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors, Says Dutch Court (reuters.com) 65

Posted by BeauHD from the big-win-for-unions dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Uber drivers are employees, not contractors, and so entitled to greater workers' rights under local labor laws, a Dutch court ruled on Monday, handing a setback to the U.S. company's European business model. It was another court victory for unions fighting for better pay and benefits for those employed in the gig economy and followed a similar decision this year about Uber in Britain. The Amsterdam District Court sided with the Federation of Dutch Trade Unions (FNV), which had argued that Uber's roughly 4,000 drivers in the capital are employees of a taxi company and should be granted benefits in line with the taxi sector.

The court found drivers who transport passengers via the Uber app are covered by the collective labour agreement for taxi transportation. "The legal relationship between Uber and these drivers meets all the characteristics of an employment contract," the ruling said. Uber drivers are in some cases entitled to back pay, the court said. The judges also ordered Uber to pay a fine of 50,000 euros ($58,940) for failing to implement the terms of the labor agreement for taxi drivers. Uber said it would appeal against the decision and "has no plans to employ drivers in the Netherlands." They added: "We are disappointed with this decision because we know that the overwhelming majority of drivers wish to remain independent. Drivers don't want to give up their freedom to choose if, when and where to work."

Last November, Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies scored a decisive win in California when a majority of the state's voters passed a company-sponsored ballot measure that cemented workers' status as contractors, albeit with some benefits.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uber Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors, Says Dutch Court More

Uber Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors, Says Dutch Court

Comments Filter:

  • Laws are for everyone :P (Score:5, Informative)

    by angel'o'sphere ( 80593 ) <angelo.schneider ... e ['oom' in gap]> on Monday September 13, 2021 @07:59PM (#61793921) Journal

    Uber said it would appeal against the decision
    That was not really a "decision", that was a lecture about the law.

    and "has no plans to employ drivers in the Netherlands." They added: "We are disappointed with this decision because we know that the overwhelming majority of drivers wish to remain independent."
    You are not independent, when you only work for one "contract partner".

    Drivers don't want to give up their freedom to choose if, when and where to work."
    They can still work when they want! Oops. Nothing has changed. But Uber has to pay pension, health insurance and a (minimum?) wage.

    • Re:Laws are for everyone :P (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @01:18AM (#61794555)

      You are not independent, when you only work for one "contract partner".

      I'm not Dutch, but in America, it is common for drivers to have both Uber and Lyft apps active, and accept rides from either.

      • Re:Laws are for everyone :P (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot&worf,net> on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @03:20AM (#61794765)

        I'm not Dutch, but in America, it is common for drivers to have both Uber and Lyft apps active, and accept rides from either.

        There are a few more considerations than that to determine if someone is a contractor or employee. After all, an employee can also work for both Uber and Lyft - it's called working two jobs.

        Other factors include whether the contract is for a definite term or project (this makes a lot of "endless renewal" contractors employees - the term of employment needs to be well defined), whether the contractor has the freedom to set prices and so on. If Uber and Lyft really wanted to do this, they could - someone wants a ride, and drivers get to quote how much they'd do it for, either in total price or in the price they'd take and the company would add their cut to the customer price. Then the customer can pick the level of service they'd want.

        At this point it would satisfy most definitions of contractor if each ride is taken as a separate contract.

        Of course, this takes a lot of convenience out of the trip if you have to plan on it - you have to submit a request and wait a few minutes for bids to come in and then choose from the bids. And there might even be fees for this if you cancel the trip if you dislike the bids. Or you need to handle the case where drivers might bid on multiple trips and then have those bids cancelled if one of them is accepted.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

          Of course, this takes a lot of convenience out of the trip

          What it does is take a lot of convenience out of Uber, which is why they don't operate as if their employees are contractors, which is why they should be treated as employees and not contractors.

          Uber wants to behave one way and be treated as if they are behaving another way, which is why they deserve to lose.

          The best solution to these problems is to decouple basic needs from employment, which is to say to pay a UBI and adopt national health care through medicare expansion, the cheapest means and also most l

        • There are a few more considerations than that to determine if someone is a contractor or employee. After all, an employee can also work for both Uber and Lyft - it's called working two jobs.

          While it is true, in my experience, "working two jobs" classically means something like working for McD's in the AM and then showering and going to work for Walmart(or whoever) in the afternoon.

          You have discrete set time periods where you're working for one or the other.

          In a contracting position, consider a lawyer, accountant, or web designer who bills you for their time, but are not employees, they get to decide WHEN they work for you, even if there is some number of hours you're guaranteed to get.

          For exam

      • I'm not Dutch, but in America, it is common for drivers to have both Uber and Lyft apps active, and accept rides from either.
        That changes one into two. You might have a point if the contractor could chose between 30 Uber/Lyft/Gab like "partners", and if the contractors would earn the majouirity of the money/keep the fees.

        As a self employed contractor in Germany I have to show dozens of business partners over a couple of years to be considered self employed, otherwise I'm considered a "fake employe" who is c

        • >> In plenty of European states, e.g. France, being self employed is close to impossible: unless you are the owner of the company.

          Not trying to be pedantic (it just comes naturally), but isn't being the owner of the company for which one works the very definition of self-employment? What other kind of self employment do you have in Europe?

          • Evidently not Uber.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Sique ( 173459 )
            You don't have to have a company to be self employed. Artists for instance don't own a company either, but many of them are self-employed as free agents. This is the crux: If it's always the alleged customer who sets the terms of the contract, and there is no bid/offer process visible, then the alleged customer is in fact an employer. And if you share your time between several of those fixed-contract-terms jobs, then you are working several jobs part-time, but you are still an employee.

            In general, the gig

          • In Germany you can simply be self employed without having a "registered" company.
            In France you need to found a company (ltd or inc).

            Then the next definition is "freelance" - sorry, don't know the real official term in English. We call it "freie Berufe" or "Freiberufler". That would be e.g. applying for a medical practitioner or lawyer, or some variations of teacher.

      • And can they set their own rates and decline riders....the answer is no.

        Uber is a taxi service. Get over it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by whitroth ( 9367 )

        Sure. Because they can't make enough money to live working for just one.

        And a choice of one or one is not a choice, it's a monopoly.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by spitzak ( 4019 )

        It would be nice if that was not allowed. Drivers are always cancelling the ride they are going for because a better one showed up on the other service.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jlar ( 584848 )

      Uber said it would appeal against the decision
      That was not really a "decision", that was a lecture about the law.

      and "has no plans to employ drivers in the Netherlands." They added: "We are disappointed with this decision because we know that the overwhelming majority of drivers wish to remain independent."
      You are not independent, when you only work for one "contract partner".

      Drivers don't want to give up their freedom to choose if, when and where to work."
      They can still work when they want! Oops. Nothing has changed. But Uber has to pay pension, health insurance and a (minimum?) wage.

      Are you sure? As I understand it Uber drivers in the Netherlands are now covered by a taxi labor agreement (if the appeal court comes to the same decision). But you seem to know what this agreement says about working hours?

      • No, I do not know " But you seem to know what this agreement says about working hours?" - however: that is open to contract between Uber and the worker. Currently Uber lets them pick up work when they want. Why would they not in future?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by jlar ( 584848 )

          No, I do not know " But you seem to know what this agreement says about working hours?" - however: that is open to contract between Uber and the worker. Currently Uber lets them pick up work when they want. Why would they not in future?

          Because that is probably in conflict with the collective agreement and labor laws. If you are under a collective agreement you cannot make individual agreements that conflict with this agreement. It may be different in the US but in Europe in general you are not free to make individual agreements with your employer.

          I do of course agree that Uber should follow the law. But if you believe the labor union brought this case to court to protect the Uber drivers I believe you are wrong. They most likely did it to

          • Because that is probably in conflict with the collective agreement and labor laws. If you are under a collective agreement you cannot make individual agreements that conflict with this agreement. It may be different in the US but in Europe in general you are not free to make individual agreements with your employer.

            At least for Germany that isn't true. I work 37 hours, one of my colleagues works 40 hours, another 35, another 30. We don't get the exact same pay, we have different agreements regarding working from home and more. All are individual agreements between the employer and the employee.
            Collective agreements usually define the minimum an employer has to do for his employees. You are always allowed to agree on more favorable terms.

          • Because that is probably in conflict with the collective agreement and labor laws.
            Nope, how could that be?

            If you are under a collective agreement you cannot make individual agreements that conflict with this agreement.
            Of course you can. Only your partner is oblieged to make it not worth than the agreement.

            It may be different in the US but in Europe in general you are not free to make individual agreements with your employer.
            That is completely wrong sorry. Number 4th article or something in Germans constit

    • You are not independent, when you only work for one "contract partner".

      This is actually an interesting one in the Netherlands. While I admittedly don't use Uber often I've never met an Uber driver who didn't also have a full taxi license visible, and vehicle registered to take passengers (blue plates). Likewise I've not yet gotten into an actual Taxi that wasn't owned by a specific company (e.g. Schiphol's Tesla Taxi fleet) where the driver didn't also have Uber running alongside his standard taxi dispatch app.

      I'm sure Uber is free to actually consider its employees as contrac

    • Good for the Dutch.

      What most comments seem to miss is the position of Uber et. al., that these are "independent contractors" that are free to do what they want as long as they follow company rules and are therefore not employees, when what they are actually doing is exploiting "the gig economy" that was intended for workers who need flexible hours and/or a temp job that don't mind driving people around. But some "gig workers" found they could out hustle the average driver and traditional taxi companies and

  • Ya, but ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday September 13, 2021 @08:39PM (#61794003)

    Uber said it would appeal against the decision and "has no plans to employ drivers in the Netherlands." They added: "We are disappointed with this decision because we know that the overwhelming majority of drivers wish to remain independent. Drivers don't want to give up their freedom to choose if, when and where to work."

    There's this thing called a "part-time" employee ...

    • I'm not agreeing with Uber, but "part time" doesn't mean you just get to decide when and how much you work - just that you're employed for less than what is considered "full time" (depends on the company - where I'm at full time is 37.5 hrs per week).

      You can be "part time" but have strict working hours of 9am to 12pm on weekdays.

      • I'm not agreeing with Uber, but "part time" doesn't mean you just get to decide when and how much you work - just that you're employed for less than what is considered "full time" (depends on the company - where I'm at full time is 37.5 hrs per week). You can be "part time" but have strict working hours of 9am to 12pm on weekdays.

        Sure, but the employer makes the rules for its employees and *could* make them so the drivers can simply work as they are now... This is all about Uber (and others) wanting contract workers instead of employees because there are fewer rights (for the contractor) and responsibilities (for the employer) than with the employee model. The problem for the companies is they need still those contractors to workers to like employees (to some extent) for their business to function.

  • Do Drivers really want to be paid $0/hr waiting fo (Score:3)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Monday September 13, 2021 @09:16PM (#61794093)

    Do Drivers really want to be paid $0/hr waiting for an ride?? or do they want to be paid to be in an spot waiting for an ride / sitting in an taxi rack? / holding in the middle of an high demand area?
    Be paid $0/hr (Maybe even lose $) after an long trip to get back to your core area?

  • Uber can't help but twist it with weasel words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Monday September 13, 2021 @10:15PM (#61794221)

    Drivers don't want to give up their freedom to choose if, when and where to work.

    why would drivers have to give up that unless Uber demands it? being an employee doesn't mean you are not permitted flexibility unless the employer decides to be aholes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by freax ( 80371 )

      It's even more funny: if drivers have the freedom to choose if, when and where to work then that implies that they have the freedom to choose to work for a competitor of Uber.

      In the end, they are self employed (right?). So Uber is just one possible costumer for them.

      If that's not the case, when Uber has a monopoly, then, technically, they aren't really self employed. Because they then can't choose where or for whom to work.

      • that implies that they have the freedom to choose to work for a competitor of Uber.

        In the end, they are self employed (right?)

        Correct. Many Uber drivers also drive for Lyft. They keep both apps open and take the first available fare from either.

        It isn't clear if they will still be able to do that once they are "employees". If not, the change will benefit Uber and hurt Lyft since if the employees are forced to pick one, they will presumably pick the one giving them more business.

      • It's even more funny: if drivers have the freedom to choose if, when and where to work then that implies that they have the freedom to choose to work for a competitor of Uber.

        You can be employed at two companies both with flexible hours. You just can't both employers for the same hours.

        In the end, they are self employed (right?). So Uber is just one possible costumer for them.

        Your statement is not the only possible conclusion from the previous statement.
        Drivers having the freedom to chose their hours doesn't automatically mean that they're self employed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jlar ( 584848 )

      Drivers don't want to give up their freedom to choose if, when and where to work.

      why would drivers have to give up that unless Uber demands it? being an employee doesn't mean you are not permitted flexibility unless the employer decides to be aholes.

      The court ruled that Uber employees are covered by the Dutch taxi drivers collective labor agreement. My guess is that this labor agreement is pretty rigid with regards to working hours but I may be wrong.

      https://www.local10.com/busine... [local10.com]

  • Dumping (Score:3)

    by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @08:00AM (#61795215) Homepage

    Quite apart from Uber and Lyft seriously exploiting their employees, there's the little issue of uncompetitive dumping. To my knowledge, Uber and Lyft have never made a profit. This means they are under-pricing their services, most likely in an attempt to kill of competitors, after which they will have the freedom to raise prices and harm consumers.

    Any other company that lost money continually for years to subsidize below-market-rate products or services would be shut down for anti-competitive practices.

  • This is really good news. Hopefully we see similar regulations of gig economy companies in all countries, including the U.S.

  • I'd say PARTNERS, not Employees

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Close