Uber loses appeal - court rules drivers are employees, not contractors

In New Zealand specifically

161

For four individual drivers, even more specifically.

51
- Including one named Shane, a 28 year old man who's a Scorpio and plays the drums, even more specifically
  
  27

Nice, another country where the gig economy suffers a big hit.

They need to have more countries stomp down on this. It sucks for workers, and just allows greedy C-suites to run away with even more money. Although what is missing here is doing this retroactively and making the CEO pay out of pocket all the missing money for the insurances and taxes.

102

I was in an Uber the other day when the driver started complaining, and rightfully so, that Uber only gives them roughly half of what they make and wondered why?

I explained how we allow monopolies here or duopolies to give the appearance of competition. In Europe there are competing services, to include functional public transportation, that drive the companies to pay their drivers a fair share.

26
Hell, how about you make them point out openly in the hiring literature that the car cost and maintenance is well above what they're paying you. Most people just think that The money they pay for their car, maintenance and insurance are getting fully covered by what Uber is paying them.

14
I am an Uber driver and Uber is the best thing that has ever happened to me. As an autistic person I do not fit into the normal job structure. I need a varied marketplace with different kinds of employment in order to survive.

I am really scared of the “compassionate” push to get rid of free market, consensual interaction in favor of everyone being forced into their favorite cozy sweater.

0
- That's not what cracking down on gig economy is. Gig economy benefits nobody except the rich farts at the top of the companies employing it. It is entirely and solely meant to increase profits of the bosses, and shoving those costs onto the country the company is operating in.
  
  And hence changes such as these are entirely meant to move that money back. Ideally, for the employee, nothing changes at all. Their bosses buy 5 Porsche a year instead of 8, and the country has another company paying their required taxes and insurances they happened to be skirting until now.
  
  6

I got tboned by an Uber eats employee because they weren’t paying attention and ran a red light. The driver had only been driving for a few months, and had no business being rushed by some app to meet some quota. Because of them, I’m permanently fucked up.

62

This is too bad, wish you the best. I already had a thought these apps are effectively decreasing safely of the cities for the profit, but haven't experienced it myself...

8
- If it had be a local pizza place instead it would have been better? Safer?
  
  The problem here is a bad driver, not their employer / contracting app.
  
  5
Uber has quotas?

5
- They all do. Amazon is still the worst
  
  12
- No, Uber does not have quotas. At least not in Colorado.
  
  2

Can people please put the country in the title. I have read multiple headlines thatjust say "court decides" with no explanation of what court or jurisdiction. Australia is not the only country where the employment status of Uber drivers is under question

39

I got worried but I saw the .nz link and assumed correctly it was new Zealand

5
But that wouldn't drive clickbait engagement now would it?

0
- You're right. The New Zealand Herald clearly does not talk about what country their stories about hoping you will click their links.
  
  Truly dastardly.
  
  4

US gig workers: If you have auto insurance, check your policy. Look for a " livery" exclusion. Many policies won't cover you if you're driving for a Uber/Lyft kind of deal and get in an accident (this exclusion does not apply if going under someone's liability, usually only first party) . Some also include food delivery in that exclusion as well.

15

Many insurances require you to get a commercial policy. Others have a rideshare "rider" for additional coverage while working.

7

I have many issues with Uber as a corporation - their treatment of customers, employees and drivers. But with case law, I have concerns for the precedent this sets.

Ruling drivers as employees risks removing scope for a ridesharing services entirely, and locks ad hoc transportation to the old inefficient taxi system.

With personal vehicles sitting idle, I do think there should be scope left for some platform for drivers to offer services at any price at any time if they feel it is worthwhile. It increases mobility across the spectrum, and allows for better allocation of resources.

I think the bigger issue is why Uber has so much leverage to control the pricing and terms of drivers in the first place, and why there aren't more alternatives to force them to be competitive.

-3

With personal vehicles sitting idle, I do think there should be scope left for some platform for drivers to offer services at any price at any time if they feel it is worthwhile. It increases mobility across the spectrum, and allows for better allocation of resources.

I don't see why having drivere be employees would prevent this. If you're driving, you're on the clock. If you're not, you're not.

Alternatively, have a true network of contractors, with an Uber style company just creating a marketplace to facilitate connections between individuals offering and accepting rides. The company won't set prices or schedules or payouts; it will allow drivers and riders to bid on fares. The company simply takes a small percentage from each transaction, or has a membership fee.

6
- That network of contractors is a pretty cool idea, I think that's the kind of network I would like an exception carved out for.
  
  The other commenter made a fair point that its commercial viability is questionable, but as the world changes I'd still want to leave to scope to try.
  
  2
- Well, one thing is it forces overtime for more than 40 hours. This reduces the efficiency of the market, and may introduce restrictions on how many hours I can work.
  
  -3
uber has never proved the non taxi model is actually self sustaining. They paid really high wages at the start for low fares by burning through investment capital with the promise they will corner the taxi market and repay investors with a monopoly.

At the rates and fares they're collecting its actually not possible to maintain the kind of fleet they need. When investors and drivers stop volunteering their money and cars to support uber its not clear the whole thing will stand up on its own. Grocery/restaurant delivery is for sure a heavy ongoing loss in the industry.

5

Noooooo!

I’m an Uber driver and I chose this job because I want to be an independent contractor.

Being an employee means I get a boss and a schedule. I’ve looked into this.

I wish these busybodies would just go get a regular job and stop trying to fuck with my chosen job.

-18

Well unless you live in New Zealand this specific case doesn't affect you.

However, it doesn't mean that you must have a schedule. Uber could choose to do that but what it does mean is that in New Zealand you could gain the same worker protections of that country, including benefits, pay, paid time off, etc. as applicable to the country's laws, if the ruling expanded to everyone in that country instead of the 4 people that sued.

7
- It’s coming for me. This case represents the beginning of a cascade.
  
  Also, people in NZ probably have similar problems to mine.
  
  -1
Do you intentionally take the most contrarian position possible for any given topic???

1
- No, but I do tend to speak up only when I disagree, because I abhor echo chambers.
  
  1

This only hurts working poor like me by making it harder for people to have quick temporary earnings. These rules are not about helping people or fairmess it's about messing up options so people are desperate enough to lock themselves into shitty jobs rather than have any self determination.

-51

Why do you think that's all it's about?

19
- Because it’s a consistent pattern. These changes consistently hurt the poor.
  
  1
I don't know about your experience, but when I drove for Uber Eats, I had to quit after a few months because they arbitrarily cut my pay by about 80%. I was wearing my car down and burning my own gas to make less than $6/hr. I was struggling too, so much that I just couldn't afford to do that job anymore.

Uber promised investors the moon and now they can barely afford to pay their stakeholders back, if even that. Their unsustainable business practices, in a sane world, would have done them in years ago.

17
- Was the $6/hr better than $0 because that's the decision a lot of people will have to make. The pay represents the skill set. Basically have a pulse and be able to Walk from your car to a door and back. Some people need it and some can do other things. Forcing Uber to hire people as employees will leave a lot of people in the $0/hr basket that really needed to be in the $6/hr basket instead. What is a completely different conversation is whether people should have to be in this position at all but that's not for uber to solve and they have no obligation to society to solve it.
  
  2
THANK YOU.

Please see past the wave of downvotes to understand that someone out here appreciates your voice.

Thank you for articulating this truth.

These changes, to make Uber into the same kind of employment poison that is all other jobs, scares the fucking shit out of me.

0