Drivers in Europe net big data rights win against Uber and Ola:
In a major win over opaque algorithmic management in the so-called gig economy an appeals court in the Netherlands has found largely in favor of platform workers litigating against ride-hailing giants Uber and Ola — judging the platforms violated the drivers' rights in a number of instances, including when algorithms were involved in terminating driver accounts.
The court also ruled the platforms cannot rely on trade secrets exemptions to deny drivers access to their data. Although challenges remain for regional workers to use existing laws to get enough visibility into platforms' data processing to know what information to ask for to be able to meaningfully exercise their data access rights.
The appeal court rulings can be found here, here and here (in Dutch).
The appeal was brought by the not-for-profit data trust Worker Info Exchange (WIE) in support of members of the App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU) in the UK and a driver based in Portugal.
One case against Uber's robo-firings involved four drivers (three based in the UK, one in Portugal); a second case against Uber over data access involved six UK-based drivers; while a data access case against Ola involved thee UK-based drivers.
In the data access cases drivers were seeking information such as passenger ratings, fraud probability scores, earning profiles, as well as data on the allocation of journeys to drivers — including Uber's batch matching and upfront pricing systems — as well as information about the existence of automated decision-making touching their work on the platforms.
Several decisions taken by the ride-hailing platforms were found to meet the relevant legal test of automated decision-making — including assigning rides; calculating prices; rating drivers; calculating 'fraud probability scores'; and deactivating drivers' accounts in response to suspicions of fraud — meaning drivers are entitled to information on the underlying logic of these decisions. (And also to a right to meaningful human review if they object to decisions.)
"The court ordered that Uber must explain how driver personal data and profiling is used in Uber's upfront, dynamic pay and pricing system. Similarly, the court ordered Uber to transparently disclose how automated decision making and worker profiling is used to determine how work is allocated amongst a waiting workforce," said WIE in a press release.
"Ola Cabs was also ordered to disclose meaningful information about the use in automated decision making of worker earnings profiles and so called 'fraud probability scores' used in automated decision making for work and fares allocation. The court also ruled that internally held profiles relating drivers and associated performance related tags must be disclosed to drivers."
Commenting in a statement, James Farrar, director of WIE, added:
"This ruling is a huge win for gig economy workers in Britain and right across Europe. The information asymmetry & trade secrets protections relied upon by gig economy employers to exploit workers and deny them even the most basic employment rights for fundamentals like pay, work allocation and unfair dismissals must now come to an end as a result of this ruling. Uber, Ola Cabs and all other platform employers cannot continue to get away with concealing the controlling hand of an employment relationship in clandestine algorithms.
"Too many workers have had their working lives and mental health destroyed by false claims of fraudulent activity without any opportunity to know precisely what allegations have been made let alone answer them. Instead, to save money and avoid their responsibility as employers, platforms have built unjust automated HR decision making systems with no humans in the loop. Left unchecked, such callous systems risk becoming the norm in the future world of work. I'm grateful for the moral courage of the courts expressed in this important ruling.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by SomeRandomGeek on Tuesday April 11, @07:54PM (6 children)
Where I live, either party may terminate employment at any time for any reason, except for certain specific reasons on the part of the employer (like racial discrimination.) As a general rule, employers make an effort not to fire people willy nilly, just because it is bad business. So I find the idea of a place where you are entitled to make your case for not getting fired a little weird.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11, @09:58PM (5 children)
So, you are saying you live in a shithole where employers are free to treat their workers like indentured servants. You must live in the US.
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday April 12, @01:12AM (4 children)
More seriously, last I checked more employers in a more competitive employment market was generally considered a net good. Not treating your employers like shit is a good move.
Here, the premise of the original poster is that either party may terminate employment at any time aside from some small set of reasons ("like racial discrimination") and that he discussed a scenario of "where you are entitled to make your case for not getting fired". I'll note that I don't think the Uber/Ola example fits since it's more about having no information on why they've been cut off.
But in the scenario, by the time you're in the firing stage, you've already made your case whether you knew it or not, and the company found it wanting. They don't want you even if you should happen to win the subsequent struggle.
I see this more as an opportunity for lawyers and such to profit rather than a genuine chance to get back into the good graces of the business. The more complicated and messed up such a process is, the more likely that the business will lose on it either through mistakes or a drawn-out process. Such favors huge businesses since they can afford the legal power to game the process.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12, @06:14AM (1 child)
So you're saying that US people are so helpless, weak and incompetent that they need the US Gov to protect them by killing people thousands of miles away?
Different governments have different ways of defending their citizens and different priorities. Some governments try to defend their citizens from poverty, sickness and bad employers.
Others defend their citizens from Tiktok.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday April 12, @01:45PM
If you are the original AC poster who made the leading statement (not even a question BTW) that I mocked, then you did indeed say that, you terrible AC.
"Try". The best way to have wealthy, healthy citizens with good employers, is to pay attention to your economy not virtue signaling. Then you don't even need to try because your citizens can do that themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12, @02:58PM (1 child)
Ah yes, the Republican strategy: suck off the employers and give them huge tax breaks to get them to move to your state, then find out a few years later the deal wasn't nearly as good for you as you thought at the time.
such a troll comment dude
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 12, @10:53PM
Should I expect that strategy to create more competitive employment?
Yes. I responded in kind. Notice that in the other reply to this post, they just didn't get it.