Uber Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors, Says Dutch Court (reuters.com) 65
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.
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.
Laws are for everyone :P (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
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
Working two jobs (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Evidently not Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, the gig
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber is a taxi service. Get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Option to be employee or contractor (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that, when it suits them, Uber says that it is merely a matching platform that allows drivers and passengers to transact with each other. This very clearly isn't true. That's not how their advertising portrays the service, and not how their service works.
Re:Option to be employee or contractor (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. If it was a matching platform, the price would be set between the driver and rider - maybe with a competitive bidding thing, not set solely by Uber.
That'd work like independent truck drivers (at least in the US). Shipper posts a price, driver either takes it, or posts a bid that may be higher if they think the offered price was too low to meet their operating costs. Eventually, there is a match.
Re:That is how it works (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that drivers get penalised for declining too many fares...
So no, the driver can't "choose to decline" without there being a negative outcome for them - which makes them not independent of the "matching platform"...
Re: (Score:3)
Surely you're describing how it works.
Just that you're not describing Uber as a matching platform. The way it works Uber is doing *way* more than a mere matching platform should and it's the point of the verdict.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, if that doesn't prove they're employees, I don't know what would. If it were a real match platform between customers and contractors, the customers would be paying the contractors (possibly minus some fee).
Re:That is how it works (Score:4, Informative)
A quick Google search brings up plenty of pages that disagree with your claim and none that support it.
Drivers get a cut of surge prices. That's sorta the point: the higher prices encourage more drivers to get out there and drive.
Surge pricing [ridester.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Listen jackass, Uber sets the price for drivers and dictates how the drivers are to operate. That's a fucking employer. Uber is not a Craig's list.
You can fuck off now.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't think that's an issue.
If a driver gets dropped lower on a matching algorithm for declining offers, that seems fair.
For me, the key is that drivers able to set their own price. They tried something like that in California and it didn't work out to Uber's liking. Basically a lot of users cancelled rides because the price was too much
https://www.uber.com/blog/cali... [uber.com]
Maybe that's the reality of the market when drivers actually get to set their price. If Uber still wants to be just a matching serv
No, it is not exactly how it works. (Score:3)
> A driver knows roughly the fare they will get if they ride - the passenger knows roughly how much they will pay for the ride
Wrong. Knowing is not the same as SETTING. The starting price of the negotiation needs to come from either the driver or the rider. If the starting point comes from Uber, then the rider or the driver can make ARBITRARY changes to it as part of the negotiation. I can't see it happening.
In Uber's model, Uber sets the price and they either accept or decline. Tips don't count as
Re: (Score:2)
Either can choose to decline.
I don't want to decline. I want to make a counter-offer.
Re: (Score:3)
Understanding labor law in the US is ambitious, to also understand it in the Netherlands is ridiculous. Most of us can only opine on what is fair, we don't have the expertise to comment on what the law says or intends.
Re: (Score:2)
A friend of my son became an Uber driver as a part time thing for a bit of extra money, but it wasn't enough of offset his costs, so he quit.
My boss uses Uber but regularly complaints about how long it takes it get a ride, because they're short of drivers.
Uber's business model revolves around exploiting
Re: (Score:1)
Someone needs to take Economics 101 at the local community college.
If Uber has too many customers (demand) and not enough drivers (supply), the prices are too low.
Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that Uber has to price itself less than the taxi services they're looking to "disrupt." They can't do that if they have to classify their drivers as employees.
This is further evidence that the "gig economy" is a modern-day serfdom.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
The problem is when the prices are raised enough to get more drivers, they can lose their customers to other means of transportation; and either way, Uber continues to lose money.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, but ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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 ...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Doesn't Uber have to provide the vehicle, then? (Score:1)
Holland already had an Uber-ish cab system (Score:3)
where most of the drivers own their own vehicle.
Uber only removed the need to pay any social securities and other benefits to it's 'employees'.
Do Drivers really want to be paid $0/hr waiting fo (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
flight attendants and pilots do not pay for plane / fuel / repair / upkeep. Some Truckers pay for the truck others the companies owns it and the drivers have an fuel card
Re: Do Drivers really want to be paid $0/hr waiti (Score:1)
Sure. But the point is that all of them are paid $0/hr for being at work, arguably DOING work.
Re: (Score:2)
If Uber/Lyft drivers were paid only by the mile for example, to use the truck driver scenario, then it might be fair to not pay them for wait time because they aren't supposed to be paid for time. But drivers are paid for time - it just isn't counted because Uber/Lyft get to clock them in and out after each ride and just after each new passenger comes in, instead of just leaving them clocked in like they would for employees. That is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh yes, the cavalier way of magically paying for something when there is no attached revenue stream.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you arguing that bank tellers should not be paid when there is no customer that needs their services?
Having to pay employees even for time when these employees cannot perform their work due to a lack of customers/work is part of the risk that you take on when you start a company. Those periods of time are calculated into the the overall price you ask from your customers.
Uber and Lyft tried to get around that by declaring their drivers contractors. But many (not all) courts around the world don't agree w
Re: Do Drivers really want to be paid $0/hr waiti (Score:1)
Are they actually paid for time? As in, when they give a customer a ride, they earn a rate stated in $/hr?
Or are they paid based on distance that customer travels? As in, if a customer goes 10 miles, the driver gets $x, regardless of how long it takes to go those 10 miles?
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of construction jobs pay piecemeal too.
EG my dad was in drywall (he's retired now) and a lot of the people there would get paid per sheet of drywall hung, or per bag of insulation installed rather than by the hour.
It can work as an incentive in some cases - your hourly wage essentially scales with your work speed. You could make $30 an hour or $5 an hour depending on how peppy you wanted to be. On the other hand it can make budgeting hell to not know exactly how much you'll be making within a given
Uber can't help but twist it with weasel words (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
No they do not have minimum hours or specific times, they do have minimum hourly rates and benefits though.
Do you have documentation for this?
To be honest I don't think it is true. Please note that it is the combination of labor law and the collective agreement. And the labor law also has some limitations on how work hours are organized.
Dumping (Score:3)
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.
great news (Score:2)
BAD (Score:2)
I'd say PARTNERS, not Employees