Re:Uber loses court appeal against drivers' rights
by tptacek on Friday November 10, 2017 @09:24PM
(#15674655)
There are legal tests for contractor/client vs employer/employee relationships because companies are incentivized to misclassify employees to avoid tax and benefit obligations. The same problems don't exist with franchises and parent corporations (others do, though, and are litigated; for instance, McDonalds Corporate's obligations under the NLRA to franchise employees).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Uber loses court appeal against drivers' rights
by pas on Thursday November 16, 2017 @09:31AM
(#15712829)
And the new proposed standard would be pretty meaningful, yet hard to determine: "the putative joint employer wields sufficient influence over the working conditions of the other entity’s employees such that meaningful bargaining could not occur in its absence", that is, the franchise owner is considered a joint employer if the employee and the direct employer cannot bargin meaningfully on their own.
But of course this is meaningless in case of a 2 party problem, because it doesn't help determining "employmentship" vs "contractorship".
So what'd be a clear and fair way to test for the quality of work relationship?