Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the get-your-grubby-hands-off-me dept.

"This is the first case in California as to how the gig economy works," US Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley said during the Thursday hearing, likely the last hearing before the September 5 bench trial, which is expected to last about a week. Most of the hearing was taken up establishing procedural ground rules and wrapping up loose threads about witness availability, among other items.

This lawsuit just might provide an answer. If Grubhub must treat its drivers as employees, the employees would be entitled to all kinds of benefits, including unemployment, insurance, and reimbursement for various expenses, like gas and employee phone bills. In short, treating workers as employees could cost companies like Grubhub millions of dollars.

The case, known as Lawson v. Grubhub, which was first filed back in 2015, is one of a slew of ongoing cases filed against so-called "gig economy" firms. During the Thursday hearing, the judge said that she had only recently understood that, in this context, "gig" simply was slang for "job" or work. She seemingly was under the impression that it was related to the tech prefix "giga."

[...] "This trial is a milestone because similar cases have settled or been dismissed," Michael LeRoy, a labor law professor at the University of Illinois, e-mailed Ars. "When cases settle, the wage-and-hour laws are not applied and interpreted by courts—and therefore, it's hard to say for sure how the law is adapting to the rapid changes in gig work."

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday August 27 2017, @02:32AM (3 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Sunday August 27 2017, @02:32AM (#559683)

    This is simple. Take away the Internet reality distortion field. Sprinkling a bunch of buzzwords like app, .com and cloud doesn't actually change anything except PR. So forget all that and ask the only question the court will be looking at. If you set up a similar business operation in meatspace, would it be legal? Adding "on the Internet" or "with an app" doesn't change the answer.

    Could you have thousands of "independent contractors" working for you who don't also work for anyone else or meet any of the other qualifications for a contractor listed on that mandatory poster every employer must post "in a conspicuous location visible to all employees" or face the wrath of the Dept of Labor? Obviously you can't so they can't either. Same way Uber can't actually be a taxi service in locations where the local government have granted a monopoly to the existing ones, and eventually the app/cloud fog will lift and that reality assert itself.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday August 27 2017, @03:25AM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday August 27 2017, @03:25AM (#559691) Journal

    Modded up. Please post more like this and less like...well, pretty much every other post you've ever made.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @04:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @04:35AM (#559707)

    The problem with this view is that the 'gig economy' has companies that are mostly completely tangential to the service. Uber, for instance, could be decentralized. You could have strong public record of who drives and picks up and the rides are only started once the driver/passenger quickly photo one another and a biometric analysis verifies both identities (passenger verifies driver, driver verifies passenger). I do think the companies serve a useful purpose, but that purpose is mostly tangential to the product provided. In a way they act more like a quasi-government arbiter (handling disputes, dealing with burdensome regulations, etc) than a private employer.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @11:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @11:21PM (#559946)

    Could you have thousands of "independent contractors" working for you who don't also work for anyone else or meet any of the other qualifications for a contractor listed on that mandatory poster every employer must post "in a conspicuous location visible to all employees" or face the wrath of the Dept of Labor?

    Sounds like the poor saps who work as installers & technicians for the cable companies.