SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The California Labor Commission has ruled in favor of a former Uber driver in San Francisco, finding that the driver is an employee of the ride-hailing company rather than an independent contractor. The ruling was made earlier but came to light when Uber appealed the decision on Tuesday. Uber could be required to pay the driver $4,152.20 for reimbursement of expenses, but that's only the beginning:
The commission said Uber is "involved in every aspect of the operation." Classifying Uber drivers as employees opens the company up to considerably higher costs, including Social Security, workers' compensation and unemployment insurance. That could affect its valuation, currently above $40 billion, and the valuation of other companies that rely on large networks of individuals to provide rides, clean houses and other services.
Uber had argued that its drivers are independent contractors, not employees, and that it is "nothing more than a neutral technology platform." But the commission said Uber controls the tools driver use, monitors their approval ratings and terminates their access to the system if their ratings fall below 4.6 stars. The ruling affects only California. However, the state is Uber's home base, one of its largest markets, and sets a path often followed by regulators and courts in other states.
Uber did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It likely will not have to start paying any additional costs unless it loses on appeal, and only after it exhausts its appeals. The commission was ruling on an appeal by Uber of a labor commissioner's award of about $4,000 in expenses to San Francisco-based driver Barbara Ann Berwick, who filed her claim in September. She worked as an Uber driver for just over two months last year. Earlier this month, Uber lost a bid to force arbitration in a federal lawsuit brought in San Francisco by its drivers. Earlier this year, the same court rejected Uber's bid to deem its drivers independent contractors, saying a jury would rule on their status. In Florida, a state agency ruled earlier this year that Uber drivers are employees.
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Interesting) by isostatic on Thursday June 18 2015, @10:19AM
I got a normal taxi yesterday, as I was out-of-uber area. Had to wait 15 minutes for it to turn up, but I had no idea when it would, it was always "just round the corner"). I had to pay cash. I had to beg for a receipt, which was just an empty piece of paper. The driver spent the whole trip blowing bubblegum.
It was the same price as uber, but I'd happily pay 30% more for Uber, I've taken over 100 uber trips on 4 continents, never had a bad one.
The price isn't the key thing about uber, it's the fact
I talked to one driver in the UK a couple of weeks ago -- where Uber is set up as a local minicab firm. He recently left another firm, and now gets earns as much for a day's work, and the work is far more varied.
One driver I talked to in Singapore last month was concerned about the future with robot-driving cars. I think it will be a good 20 years before they realistically happen even in "civilised" places like the US or Singapore. You won't get a robot car driving in somewhere like Cairo without core-dumping.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nesh on Thursday June 18 2015, @12:29PM
> I talked to one driver in the UK a couple of weeks ago -- where Uber is set up as a local minicab firm.
Well, yes, that's the solution: provide a good service without trying to sidestep all the regulation.
That regulation mostly came about for protection of the drivers and customers (local exceptions notwithstanding).
Why don't they compete on an equal footing and focus on providing a better service. But ubers current global business model is a long way away from that.
Where I live all taxis are clean and drivers are nice, and local firms are working on points 1 to 4, with some firms having pooled resources to create a digital platform.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday June 18 2015, @10:21PM
So why is the model in the UK different to the rest of the world?
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Thursday June 18 2015, @12:33PM
And if the drivers that Uber contracts with had the correct livery license, there would be no problem.
If the cars that were used by the Uber drivers had the correct commercial insurance and were properly registered as commercial vehicles.
Of course, that would involve Uber recognizing the difference between ride-sharing and a taxi service.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday June 18 2015, @10:00PM
That's exactly how it runs in the uk, driver owned cars, licensed, enhanced mot, criminal background checks.
The taxi drivers still hate it though.