Re:An attorney suing Uber, Lyft, GrubHub and a dozen Califor...
by manicdee on Monday January 25, 2016 @12:06AM
(#10965687)
Uber uses the model where you offer someone the work, you set the price, but they have control whether they do the work, and how the work gets done.
I suspect Uber does not conform to either employee or contractor arrangements under current law. The employee/contractor line is blurry enough as it is.
Re:An attorney suing Uber, Lyft, GrubHub and a dozen Califor...
by aggieben on Monday January 25, 2016 @12:01PM
(#10968297)
How is this different than a franchising model, where a parent corporation (say, Taco Bell) sets a bunch of conditions on the franchise license, but independent operators actually execute the restaurant business?
Re:An attorney suing Uber, Lyft, GrubHub and a dozen Califor...
by steven2012 on Sunday January 24, 2016 @11:59PM
(#10965661)
You are wrong. They are independent contractors. They are not employees as defined by current labor laws.
I think it is you that are blinded by your beliefs. They are not told how to do the work. Each driver chooses when they want to work and how long they work. They are free to work with whomever else they want, including other ride sharing companies at the same time.
Uber is a marketplace that brings drivers and riders together. It's not an employer because drivers have complete freedom.
Re:An attorney suing Uber, Lyft, GrubHub and a dozen Califor...
by timwaagh on Monday January 25, 2016 @07:42AM
(#10966833)
although i think most people would agree with this the local laws apparently say everyone who does something central to the core business of a company and gets paid for it by the company is an employee. it's in the article.
Re:An attorney suing Uber, Lyft, GrubHub and a dozen Califor...
by pfarnsworth on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @04:38PM
(#10976300)
Except for taxi drivers.
Drivers are being paid as independent contractors. Under the current Uber model, they are not independent contractors as defined by labor law (nor the IRS). Ergo, Uber is in violation of both labor law and tax regulations; if they are found to have violated IRS employee classification rules, they'll be liable for back taxes, penalties, and officers of the company can be held personally liable.
> What evidence is there that they are actually employees besides the fact that lawyers and union activists want them to be?
You must be blinded by some sort of belief that Uber is the victim here; my apologies. Employee vs independent contractor classifications can sometimes be difficult, but the gist of it is:
If you tell someone how to do the work, and you set the price, they're an employee; if you give someone the work, they set their prices, and they have control over how the work is performed, they're a contractor.
Guess which model Uber uses?