California Rules Uber Drivers Are Employees

clintl · Jun 17, 2015

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/17/technology/uber-employee-ruling/index.html

I think this is great news. There's no doubt in my mind that among the many, many sleazy things about the Uber business model, exploitation and cost-shifting to its drivers was one of them. That basically, Uber was set up to rake in the cash while deferring all the risk elsewhere. I'm glad to see them smacked down like this.

Zoombie · Jun 17, 2015

Huzzah!

Gilroy Cullen · Jun 17, 2015

Now let's see them do the same thing to Lyft (Uber's competitor).

Though I expect this will mean that Uber will take its ball and go home like it has before.

Don · Jun 17, 2015

Gilroy Cullen said:
Now let's see them do the same thing to Lyft (Uber's competitor).

Though I expect this will mean that Uber will take its ball and go home like it has before.

The people who lose out in this ruling are the people who want to drive for Uber under the existing model and the riders who lose a lower-cost and more interesting alternative to the enshrined taxi cartels. Yeah, that's a real win for the little guy. :sarcasm

The "filthy rich" owners of Uber may have lost, but the equally "filthy rich" owners of existing taxi companies won, so that's pretty much a wash.

So are all taxi drivers now also employees, or were they allowed to retain their "independent contractor" status? It looks to me like taxi companies that have a similar relationship to their drivers as Uber are still allowed to call them independent contractors.

I wonder how much this ruling cost the wealthy and politically-connected owners of the taxicab companies?

Crony capitalism at its finest.

Xelebes · Jun 17, 2015

One crony for another crony, I guess.

Don · Jun 17, 2015

Xelebes said:
One crony for another crony, I guess.

Yeah, as long as you ignore the little guys getting trampled by the elephant battle... you know, the drivers who want to work under that model, and the people who were using the service. Personally, I'd prefer they put the people first, and the cronies last, when it comes to political decision-making.

But what does the little guy matter anyway, amirite? Might makes right, afterall.

In other news, The Register wins the headline wars for this story, hands down.

Super Cali goes ballistic – Uber says it's bogus (even though its contract is something quite atrocious)

Also, Google, a big investor in Uber, has Goober coming down the road... a driverless Uber model. How's that gonna work out, and how does it square with Google's motto?

robeiae · Jun 17, 2015

Don said:
In other news, The Register wins the headline wars for this story, hands down.

Super Cali goes ballistic – Uber says it's bogus (even though its contract is something quite atrocious)

Xelebes · Jun 17, 2015

The little guy? The little guy is complaining that they have to foot the tolls and other fees. That eats into the drivers' margins, right to the point that at least one driver is complaining enough to take it to court. And now that driver has won. How about those other drivers?

Or perhaps, start looking at other services and see if they are doing a fair job supporting their drivers. Don't need to get all hung up on Uber. Uber is one crony for another.

Don · Jun 17, 2015

Xelebes said:
The little guy? The little guy is complaining that they have to foot the tolls and other fees. That eats into the drivers' margins, right to the point that at least one driver is complaining enough to take it to court. And now that driver has won. How about those other drivers?

Or perhaps, start looking at other services and see if they are doing a fair job supporting their drivers. Don't need to get all hung up on Uber. Uber is one crony for another.

One driver. Out of how many?

In any event, this is a victory for conservatism, for the status quo, for blocking innovation in the economy, for twentieth-century practices holding back twenty-first century advancements in technology. Just what we need; preserve the status quo because it's working out so well.

Williebee · Jun 17, 2015

Not so sure about the "cronyism" charge. This ruling could very well change the definitions and working arrangement for the other, more traditional, cab companies. It could redefine what the cab statute refers to as an "employee."

Don · Jun 17, 2015

Williebee said:
Not so sure about the "cronyism" charge. This ruling could very well change the definitions and working arrangement for the other, more traditional, cab companies. It could redefine what the cab statute refers to as an "employee."

Yeah, and if bullfrogs had wings...

When those definitions change and this ruling is applied to all cab companies instead of specifically to Uber, there might be reason to question the "cronyism" charge. None of those are facts in evidence at the present time. To the contrary, this ruling applies only to Uber. Any mention of other cab companies is conspicuous in its absence.

Anybody holding their breath waiting for this to be applied evenly across the board is going to get awfully blue in the face.

clintl · Jun 17, 2015

Don, wake up. You're siding with a corporation here.

Don · Jun 18, 2015

clintl said:
Don, wake up. You're siding with a corporation here.

There are corporations involved in both sides of this debate, if that's the measure you want to use. Rapacious upstart corporation vs. protectionist, conservative, status-quo old-money corporations who've too long held travelers in their government-granted monopolistic embrace. Now drivers who can't get work with those entrenched firms and people who can't afford their monopolistic rates have another voluntary choice they can make.

Nobody is being forced to drive for or to ride in a Uber vehicle. Everybody is involved purely of their own free will. And the "progressive" or "liberal" slant is to deny the drivers and passengers shut out by the existing system a personal, non-coerced choice to use new technology in an end run around the entrenched monopoly?

WTF is progressive or liberal about that?

Protectionist is a fair description of that stance. So is conservative. Elitist fits. Even hubristic fits. But progressive or liberal? I don't think so.

Layla Nahar · Jun 18, 2015

"Nobody is being forced to drive for ... Uber ... Everybody is involved purely of their own free will."

^I'd bet there's a lot of people driving for Uber who would rather be doing something - more secure, more paying etc

raburrell · Jun 18, 2015

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/17201/uber_s_business_model_screwing_its_workers

From the very beginning, Uber attracted drivers with a bait-and-switch. Take the company’s launch in LA: In May 2013, Uber charged customers a fare of $2.75 per mile (with an additional 60¢ per minute under eleven mph). Drivers got to keep 80 percent of the fare. Working full time, drivers could make a living wage: between 15 and $20 an hour.
Drivers rushed to sign up, and thousands leased and bought cars just to work for Uber — especially immigrants and low-income people desperate for a well-paying job in a terrible economy. But over the last year, the company has faced stiff competition from its arch-rival, Lyft. To raise demand and push Lyft out of the LA market, Uber has cut UberX fares nearly in half: to $1.10 per mile, plus 21¢ a minute.
Uber drivers have no say in the pricing, yet they must carry their own insurance and foot the bill for gas and repairs — a cost of 56¢ per mile, according to IRS estimates. With Uber’s new pricing model, drivers are forced to work under razor-thin margins. Arman, for instance, made about $20 an hour just a year ago. And now? Some days he doesn’t even break minimum wage.
His experience is quite common among LA Uber drivers I spoke to. For many, driving for Uber has become a nightmare. Arman often works up to seventeen hours a day to bring home what he used to make in an eight-hour shift. When he emailed Uber to complain about his plummeting pay, he said the company blew him off. Uber’s attitude is that drivers are free to stop working if they are dissatisfied, but for drivers like Arman who’ve invested serious money in their cars, quitting isn’t an option.

Seems pretty exploitative to me, and few progressives are going to be supportive of a company that starts out screwing its workers that badly after such a short time in existence. Are the cab companies better? No, but that doesn't make Uber's baloney any better. I really don't see a good guy here.

Don · Jun 18, 2015

Layla Nahar said:
"Nobody is being forced to drive for ... Uber ... Everybody is involved purely of their own free will."

^I'd bet there's a lot of people driving for Uber who would rather be doing something - more secure, more paying etc

That's as fine an example of a non sequitur as I've ever seen. Nice job. Lack of opportunity does not equal coercion.

Perhaps it would be worth asking why it took a lawsuit to get rid of California's 1600 hour, $5000 training requirement for hair braiders (while police officers require only 727 hours) if one is truly concerned about the lack of alternative economic opportunities in California.

raburrell said:
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/17201/uber_s_business_model_screwing_its_workers

Seems pretty exploitative to me, and few progressives are going to be supportive of a company that starts out screwing its workers that badly after such a short time in existence. Are the cab companies better? No, but that doesn't make Uber's baloney any better. I really don't see a good guy here.

I'm not holding Uber up as an example of fine corporate personhood. Far from it. But the existing taxi services have a state-granted lock on how many people can drive for a living, and what rates passengers must pay. There are obviously numerous drivers and passengers who would prefer to have alternative options, and those options are being artificially restricted by politicians who receive regular contributions from owners of the various taxi cartels. How is protecting the existing drivers and owners at the expense of those who wish to compete, or who wish to use competing products, beneficial to the economy as a whole? Simply stated, it's not. Toss in the chill this throws on innovation as a cherry on top, and it's plain this decision is not one that has the best interests of the public in mind.

That said, I'm not sure what "not seeing a good guy here" has to do with any of this. Since there are no good guys, should the existing taxi services be dismantled as well?

raburrell · Jun 18, 2015

The article I linked (at least I think it was that one, I read a couple) makes the argument that taxi service approaches the level of a public trust, especially in large cities. I think a lot of that could be improved, such that there's better access for disabled individuals, it's not impossible to get a cab in some areas, etc. I'd argue both Uber & standard model need fixing.

That said, the article also indicates that in some markets, medallions are going idle as there's not enough demand now that people can drive for Uber, which I think undercuts the sense that taxi 'cartels' have all the power.

As far as the idea things like this stifle innovation go, I'm not of the opinion that entrepreneurial endeavors which rely on exploiting workers should be encouraged.

California Rules Uber Drivers Are Employees

clintl

Represent.

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse

Gilroy Cullen

Handsome servant of a redhead

Don

All Living is Local

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui

Don

All Living is Local

robeiae

Touch and go

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui

Don

All Living is Local

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Don

All Living is Local

clintl

Represent.

Don

All Living is Local

Layla Nahar

Seashell Seller

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Don

All Living is Local

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee