Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

Re:Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court... by FeepingCreature on Friday February 19, 2021 @09:22AM (#26193424)

You can make actions illegal, and you can make not taking an action illegal, but you can't make not having enough money illegal, because "having money" is not an action that you can mandate people take.

> "They needed to sue, but couldn't get a lawyer" is absolutely a circumstance we could make illegal.

I mean -- I guess, technically you can, but it's one of the most insulting things I have ever heard. What are you gonna do, sue them for not having the money to have a lawyer to defend themselves? Maybe take them to court for damages, caused by them not having money? Kafka would have a field day with this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court... by wtetzner on Friday February 19, 2021 @09:31AM (#26193525)

You seem to be interpreting it the opposite of how I interpreted it.

You wouldn't take action against the person without money. You'd do something to fix the situation, like provide them with a lawyer for free.

Note I don't necessarily think that's a good idea (really haven't thought it through), but that's how I interpreted th comment.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court... by FeepingCreature on Friday February 19, 2021 @10:34AM (#26194217)

Right, I agree that's probably how it's meant, but that's not accurately described by the phrase "making it illegal".

If I make houses without a sewer line illegal, that doesn't mean the state has to lay a sewer line, it means you the owner have to take care that you get a sewer line or you open yourself up to liability.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court... by kbelder on Friday February 19, 2021 @05:09PM (#26198670)

They made not having medical insurance illegal. Quite controversial, at the time.

[ Parent | on HN ]