Uber Drivers' Self-Employed Status 'Fictitious', France Rules (bloomberg.com) 107
France's top court ruling opens the way for Uber drivers to be reclassified as employees, the country's highest court ruled on Wednesday, the latest in a wave of rulings globally to grant more rights to gig workers. From a report: The Cour de Cassation in Paris said Uber drivers can't build a clientele, don't set rates or decide on terms and conditions, itineraries are imposed and destinations unknown to them. The top court said the fact that Uber "unilaterally determines its terms and rules" are all indications that drivers are more like employees of the company than self-employed. "The existence of a relationship of subordination between the company Uber and the driver when connecting to the digital platform" makes the "driver's self-employed status merely fictitious," the Cour de Cassation wrote.
IR35 in the UK? (Score:5, Interesting)
When is Uber going to run into the IR35 rule in the UK?
the knowledge london is better then uber! (Score:3)
the knowledge london is better then uber!
Re: (Score:2)
the grammar, however . . .
???
hawk
Just think of them as entrepreneurs (Score:2)
Like their masters.
Re: (Score:1)
Darn straight it is (Score:1, Interesting)
Too bad the UK people complaining about this have no right of complaint anymore, thanks to Brexit. You get the rule, but no say.
Re:Darn straight it is (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems a bit trollish, but what on earth has this got to do with the UK and Brexit, and even if it did have something to do with it - the relevant EU laws are currently UK law, and the UK can in future adjust them as needed.
I don't see the relevance.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand this topic, brexit, or the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. Which one of us had a business degree in econ from Canada before they served in NATO and traveled Europe, while investing there.
Oh, I know, it's me.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to buy French economics journals in Paris and read them in the original French too, but hey, let's compare creds when you're not upset about the EU throwing it's weight around in ... check calendar ... 20 years.
how do taxis work there. Uber is an taxi ! (Score:3, Insightful)
how do taxis work there. Uber is an taxi !
Re:how do taxis work there. Uber is an taxi ! (Score:4, Interesting)
However, if you operate under the assumption that Uber drivers are taxis then there are quite a few regulations they need to follow. The top of the list is that taxi drivers need to be licensed to provide services. This brings up a whole separate set of issues when it comes to getting a taxi license, but it is a requirement if they're to be considered taxis. There are a number of other requirements, including having a triangular taxi sign lit when in service, gps in the car and active during a fare so the passenger can see the destination and route, and they're also required to charge fares based on municipality regulations. I don't vouch for completeness or accuracy, as this is just based off of what I can find in passing online.
The basic point is that Uber isn't operating as a taxi. They're operating as an alternative to taxis. If they want to be a taxi service, follow taxi regulations. If they want to be their own service, they have to follow the regulations as required. I don't know if taxi drivers are considered employees, contractor, or what. But, that classification is irrelevant to how Uber operates it's business.
Re: how do taxis work there. Uber is an taxi ! (Score:3, Interesting)
Taxi licensing is the root of the problem that created Uber. By severely constraining the supply, and gifting control of that supply to local cronies, capitalists, and mobsters the old system created a taxi service that was simultaneously shitty and expensive.
I agree with this court's ruling. Uber drivers very obviously are employees. However that by itself doesn't mean anyone wants to go back to the bad old days of the taxi mafia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
By severely constraining the supply, and gifting control of that supply to local cronies, capitalists, and mobsters the old system created a taxi service that was simultaneously shitty and expensive.
This may come as some surprise to you, but there are taxis outside New York.
Re: how do taxis work there. Uber is an taxi ! (Score:1)
Same crooked taxi system in SF, Boston, and Vegas. Probably most other major cities too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
This may also come as a surprise to you: France isn't in the USA.
Re: how do taxis work there. Uber is an taxi ! (Score:1)
No way dude. France is in New Jersey.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber is not a taxi. You can't hail one passing by on the street. Uber is a limo. You call, they come, and take you to were you want to go.
Re: how do taxis work there. Uber is an taxi ! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to choose your own hours (less than I think it is 10 a day, for any driving job), set your own rates, choose your own vehicle and do your own tax evasion, then you set up your own company and register it with the authorities. If you want t
Better laws than in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in the US, we have pretty precisely the same laws, but very few people care to enforce them and many actively ignore them.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Do you make the same argument about minimum wage laws, rights to disability insurance, and so on ?
Re:Better laws than in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you make the same argument about minimum wage laws?
Yes. Where I live, workers are scarce and even part-time high school students are paid more than minimum wage. Meanwhile, where jobs are scarce and people are willing to work for less, such as Puerto Rico, the minimum wage has devastated the economy.
Wages should be set by the market, not by politicians.
Re:Better laws than in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Markets are rarely perfect, despite libertarian religious dogma to the contrary.
Markets often need regulation to ensure they meet social goals that people created the markets to meet.
Employment regulations are simply a way to prevent an even more dysfunctional market than already tends to exist.
Re: (Score:1)
Who is going to pay the gov set wage for that? Investors? A company? Tax payers?
Re: (Score:2)
You are reading into 1stImmortal's post, something he did not say.
While the gov't may have a place setting the framework for the negotiation between two independent parties, that does not mean they have to be involved in every detail.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Better laws than in the US (Score:1)
Markets are great tools but they aren't the answer to everything. If we keep trying market-based solutions and they keep having deleterious results, maybe it's time to try a different tool.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
People are much better off relying on the real world discipline of the ***marketplace***
I assume you still put any lost teeth under the pillow for the invisible hand of the tooth fairy to find.
Re: (Score:2)
Typed that in on your iPhone, did you?
Now go have a flawless apple in the middle of winter.
Re: Better laws than in the US (Score:2)
Re: Better laws than in the US (Score:2)
There's an inherent information disparity between businesses and employees that makes your position untenable. And since anarcho capitalists like you abhor unions, you are advertising for the exploitation of workers to fund the coffers of the "happy few".
Re: (Score:2)
This works nice in times where workers are scarce. When a cycle downturn comes, many people would starve, the social disruption would be enormous.
A pure "market economy" is an illusian and would be a distopy. Even in the hard capitalism of the USA, the markets have ever been very regulated.
There is no successful human society where purely the strongest rule.
There are some, such as the war-lord areas in Somalia, Congo, or other dysfunctional states in Africa.
Re:Better laws than in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
How is there no law's protecting the worker when the worker Can decide to NOT WORK there anymore.
The only "law" that protects a worker in that context is the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery.
If having the option to "just work somewhere else" were enough to protect workers, then we wouldn't have child labor laws, minimum-wage laws, workplace-safety laws, overtime laws, workplace-discrimination laws, the ADA, ... and the list goes on.
When you choose to work for a company they usually set the rules and in this case you are using their app and services to get work so you accept the rules they set or go find another job simple as that.
Companies have a common-law right to dictate terms of employment ... provided they don't violate public policy. The question here is what the balance should be. People of goodwill can disagree on that balance. But it is not, and cannot, be solely up to a company to decide what's good for its workers.
Re: (Score:2)
And the issue in TFA is whether or not Uber drivers are employees.
Re:Better laws than in the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
No that's the cover story. The real reason is to get kickbacks to ease off on the severity of the regulations.
Pay attention to all of human history.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think the usual narrative works all that well here.
Re:Better laws than in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber is losing hundreds of millions to billions of dollars every year. You'll have to explain to me how they're exploiting workers.
Since you asked...
Uber is engaged in market warfare (which costs money) to become the dominant rideshare company (which will let them make lotsandlotsa money.) They see a future where rides are offered by fleets of cars that don't even have drivers. But in the meantime, they need people driving their own cars to build brand-recognition. They don't want their war-chest (for fighting legal battles) depleted by uppity drivers demanding more money.
Just because a company is losing money does not mean it isn't exploiting its workers. It means they haven't figured out how to make money, or they're playing a long game.
Re: (Score:2)
How are busibodies screaming for more money and harsher regulation going to slow the inevitable arrival of robo-fleets?
Re: (Score:2)
They are not. In fact, they are probably speeding the arrival of robo-fleets.
But the regulation of robo-fleets is a question worthy of consideration when they are known to create actual real-world problems.
Re:Better laws than in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that gets me is that investors keep dumping money into it, expecting it to eventually pay off when there is no profitability in sight, no new plan, nothing. Just keep on doing the same old thing... . Where's the plan to turn it around? Unbelievable. No one will ever convince me their workers deserve less than minimum wage - self employed or not.
The reason they can't make a profit is not because they pay their workers too much. It's because it's a failed prospectus.
Re:Better laws than in the US (Score:4, Interesting)
That is not because of what Uber is doing by offering ride hailing services. They sell you a ride, take a good percentage off the top, and pay the driver the rest. There is no loss for Uber (except when they do offers and such), so you think the minimum 30% off the top they take for every ride is more than enough to keep things going. After all, you only need a few programmers to keep the app up to date and a lawyer to ensure compliance with the various laws.
The real reason Uber is losing tons of money is not because of ride hailing - Uber's involved in a ton of things that lose money including autonomous vehicles, flying people drones and other such projects that are costing tons of money and will soak up billions of dollars without a definite return in the near term.
Basically Uber is spending tons of money on moonshots and if they wanted to be profitable, they have tons of fat they can cut
And companies abuse the whole "contractor" thing a lot - by declaring people contractors so they can deny things like unemployment insurance (now payable by the contractor for both sides) and health benefits and such. But without the true abilities of being a contractor - the "contractor" is still bound by terms of employment that clearly put the relationship as more of employer-employee than independent contractor.
To put it more mildly, if you're handed a non-compete that wasn't negotiated into the price, you're not a contractor. As an independent contractor you're free to work for the competition, even at the same time. If a company hiring you doesn't want that, they can say so and renegotiate your rates. If the contract is signed when a non-compete is presented, you're free to ignore at will - your terms of the contract are stated, and unless they wish to amend to include the non-compete, you're under no obligation to accept. They also can't make you work at their office unless the contract says you are to work on premises
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Better laws than in the US (Score:1)
In Soviet America we have at least 100 laws covering any aspect of life you might imagine. We are a bureaucratic/judicial tyranny. We have a LOTS of laws.
The problem is twofold: 1) Many of those laws are badlaws. And 2) our kangaroo courts nearly always rule in favor of the wealthier party, regardless of duh law.
Uber hates this one government trick (Score:2)
"Oh it's written in the village rolls
that if one plough-team wants an oxen
and that oxen is lent
then the villeins and the ploughmen got to have the loooord's consent."
What's the actual difference between a serf and a gig employee?
Re: (Score:3)
A serf has no choice about the situation.
Been a Self Employed Contract Computer Programmer for 30+ years and still at it.
Sure the big companies try to do the gig thing so they don't pay the huge government mandated extra cost for having the gall to hire someone.
Truth is they don't care, since they just pass the cost on to their customers, It is the little one person startups that get screwed by these ill thought out crap regulations. The big corps just do what they
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh it's written in the village rolls
that if one plough-team wants an oxen
and that oxen is lent
then the villeins and the ploughmen got to have the loooord's consent."
What's the actual difference between a serf and a gig employee?
You know, before I read your last sentence, I thought you were pro-Uber, and were criticizing big and omni-intrusive government being the lord whose consent is mandated, by that lord.
It is a better fit.
Re: (Score:3)
Serfs lacked freedom of movement and were legally bound to the land they worked for the feudal lord.
Gig employees are free to terminate their association with the company offering gig work at any time they desire.
You may say, "Oh but the gig employee can't get any other work and are forced to work for these companies." That's not the same as the serf. The serf refusing to work for the feudal lord could be punished by the lord in any way the lord saw fit, up to and including death. The gig employee just ceas
I am ... (Score:2)
*Could also be Ireland. Or Texas.
Want to work? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Want to work? (Score:4, Informative)
> No no no we can't have that.
Sure we can - our delightfully flexible employer just can't pretend that we're not still employees, and is required to adhere to the country's basic employee protection laws to prevent exploitation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Want to work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or the delightfully flexible employer will become slightly more flexible so that it's not quite as clear that we're employees
Well, that's exactly it, isn't it? We're all arguing about what criteria determine whether you're an employee or not. And we're arguing because we (for some set of "we") believe an employer has some obligations and responsibilities to an employee which they don't to a contractor.
So, does setting your schedule make you a contractor? Is it having a direct supervisor? Is it setting your rates? Determining your routes? Having a route suggested for you (with no requirement to follow it)? Having a suggested route with a bonus/penalty if you follow it or not? Determining how much insurance you must carry? Does requiring a driver to fist-bump a passenger or let them sit in the front seat make you an employee? Getting paid a salary, by the hour, or by the ride? There are a million things which might tilt the decision one way or another.
Here's the meta-question: who gets to decide? Should Lyft and Uber be able to unilaterally say they don't employ drivers? Should the legislature be able to unilaterally say yes you do? How about a court? Or should a court say Lyft/Uber must give drivers the choice of an employee or contractor relationship? How about me? Should I be able to request a ride but only if served by an employee driver?
Personally, I have no idea whether being a contractor or employee is better. And I strongly suspect we're asking the wrong question. For example, the reason people care is because we want employers to pay for health insurance. Maybe the better question is why we want that and could there be other ways to finance health care? I can think of two or three which don't involve me trying to legislate the world into distinct "employee" and "contractor" boxes.
Re: (Score:3)
This whole subject is a hot topic in the UK right now because the government are making changes to something called IR35 (which is broadly speaking a way for them to tax people like employees, even if they're contractors).
In the UK (and I'd imagine a lot of this holds true for France, but I don't know the exact details there), there are a number of "tests" to see if you're an employee or a contractor. It gets very complex and nuanced, and no one thing definitely means "in" or "out", but as a general rule, i
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the detailed response.
This whole subject is a hot topic in the UK right now because the government are making changes to something called IR35 (which is broadly speaking a way for them to tax people like employees, even if they're contractors).
Could you rephrase that last clause, please? "Tax people like employees": does that mean "tax people, such as employees" or "tax people as if they are employees"? I'm guessing the latter.
Anyway, I think we largely agree. This is all about taxes or making employers provide benefits. I don't think for an instant the fight is about what makes someone a contractor or not. It's all about "I want to collect an employment tax" or "I want to continue to use companies as my agent to
Re: Want to work? (Score:1)
I would like to see an Uber-like system, but where individual drivers can set their own rates, deployed as public infrastructure by a municipal government. Many service providers, one neutral marketplace.
Re: (Score:2)
> No no no we can't have that. Sure we can - our delightfully flexible employer just can't pretend that we're not still employees, and is required to adhere to the country's basic employee protection laws to prevent exploitation.
Uber didn't hold a gun to their driver's heads and force them to work. If the drivers agree that its ludicrous to expect the Uber can provide all of them with middle class salaries, pensions, and platinum healthcare and remain in business while still offering the same amount of jobs who are you to come in between them? I thought we were all about consenting adults being able to do what they want in this country?
Re: Want to work? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Uber's business model relies on low pay and no worker protections, then maybe they are parasites we don't need. L
If the loss-making monopoly goes out of business, that will open up the market for other entrepreneurs. To legitimate businessmen who can provide modern transport on demand services _without_ their labor force being subsidized by public welfare programs.
Re: (Score:2)
If Uber's business model relies on low pay and no worker protections, then maybe they are parasites we don't need. L
.
What is low pay for a few hours of driving? IMO and the vast majority of drivers who accept work there they get paid competitively for what they do otherwise they wouldn't do it. Who died and made you king to overrule them? Its infeasible to pay everybody 40K a year with pensions and benefits for every imaginable job in the world because some jobs simply aren't worth that much. No matter how much you wish it were so. If you raise the pay to that level then there will be much less work and freedom. So just
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
No, but the drivers are forced to work, on pain of homelessness and starvation.
It's called reality, my friend. Stuff doesn't magically grow on trees.
It's called freedom, where hard working, clever people create jobs you can do. Not magical trees. Jobs so you don't have to be homeless.
Re: (Score:2)
>Uber didn't hold a gun to their driver's heads and force them to work
Oddly enough, neither has any employer I've ever had. If threat of death is the requirement, then slaves are the only employees.
Re: (Score:2)
"omnipresent surveillance"
How is being an Uber driver not putting you under omnipresent surveillance?
Sort of like employees ... (Score:2)
Uber drivers are like employees that can quit and apply to the same company on a daily basis. But in no way can the driver dictate or negotiate any terms of their employment, just whether to quit or reapply.
Re: (Score:2)
But in no way can the driver dictate or negotiate any terms of their employment, just whether to quit or reapply.
That pretty much describes every job I've ever had and I've worked as a salaried software engineer for 35 years. I've had remarkably little luck getting large companies to adjust the terms of an offer letter. Other fields like sales might be a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my limited experience and observations, employees that use tactics like that have usually been among the first to be let go when times get rough, regardless of their skills.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Uber could probably squash this..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just a thought....
still need to show full runs / have more then just (Score:2)
still need to show full runs / have more then just per mile. even if just long run added fee for over X miles to X zone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A think that there is the key. Uber needs to build its brand with a consistent service across a broad geographic area. If it shrinks to mainly serving specific highly profitable routes, then local cab companies can compete with that.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm definitely not saying you should be classified an employee, but an argument could be made based solely upon the details provided.
Re: (Score:2)
I too cannot "build a clientele" of its end clients
That's not going to convince anyone, other than convincing some you're really an employee.
I'm not sure why building a clientele is the significant attribute of a contractor. There's lots of other things I think matter, such as not having a supervisor, setting your own hours, non-exclusive business relationships, or supplying your own tools. To me it seems clear ride sharing drivers are much closer to contractors than they are employees.
Really, the only reason we're arguing about this is in the past, it was
"ride sharing" is not describing Uber (Score:5, Insightful)
A side note: Can we please stop using the term "ride sharing" for Uber and Lyft?
At least to me, ride sharing is when I need to go from A to B for any of my own needs (work, vacation, shopping ...) and ask if someone would like to have ride, perhaps getting paid for a part of the fuel expenses. Or perhaps co-ordinating with friends and neighbours to travel together, like sharing a car to some sports event. There are several nice apps for that - but that's not what Uber or Lyft do.
If I drive from A to B only because someone else would like to go from A to B (usually also on the time they like, and by going to A first), and do it for money, that's not ride-sharing. You could argue that this is actually more or less the definition of taxi, instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, and yes, it was not about your usage in particular - that's what they (alas) managed to get themself known as, so it's certainly practical to use.
Re: (Score:2)
A side note: Can we please stop using the term "ride sharing" for Uber and Lyft?
I see you point. IIRC, the original idea behind Lyft and Uber was that the driver is sharing their car for a fee. That's where we got the term "the sharing economy", although that term seems to be falling out of favor. Since the car comes with a driver service, I agree "ride sharing" doesn't really capture it.
I'd be fine calling them an app-based taxi service but that's a mouthful and "taxi service" implies things which don't apply to Lyft and Uber. What's another good two-word phrase which describes app-me
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, but at least here in town (Uppsala, Sweden) taxi works in exactly the same way as Uber fere- you open the app (from the taxi company) and order transportation, with estimate of time to arrive and price. Well, taxi companies usually provide call dispatch too, and a few wait for customers at the main railway station. Perhaps "app-only taxi" or "unregulated taxi" in the cases where the demands on drivers (geographical knowledge, background checks) are less?
Paid personal chauffeured transportation
Gas tax vs electric vehicles (Score:2)
The answer is NOT, however, to require GPS trackers in every vehicle.
Instead convert to a vehicle road use tax, where the tax is a function of odometer miles and gross vehicle weight, with heavier vehicle taxed more per mile. In the US, lots of states already require an annualy vehicle inspection and/or emissions testing. Those tests regularly include noting odometer reading, but you could also do something like you submit an affidavit of your odometer reading when you apply for your annual tag.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is NOT, however, to require GPS trackers in every vehicle.
Instead convert to a vehicle road use tax, where the tax is a function of odometer miles and gross vehicle weight, ...
We're drifting off the "are drivers employees or contractors" topic.
The problem is odometer-based taxes works great until you drive across a political boundary. That's why I describe us as searching for a good solution.
Take New England, for example. Many people live just outside Massachusetts and commute to jobs in the commonwealth. Ditto people who live in Connecticut and work in NYC. In both cases, most of the miles could be in the "wrong" state.
Personally I'm OK with just owing taxes in the state where t
They can't decide what to charge (Score:3)
Uber drivers cannot control what they charge. The company controls that.
What about an Uber-like driver co-op (Score:2)
No "relationship of subordination" there.
Just because you can't see the boss (Score:3)
Can Uber start handing out shifts? (Score:2)
If Uber is the employer, then Uber should get to say "your shift starts at 0600 and runs to 1400. You get your 2 15 minute breaks, plus 1/2 hour for you meal. And you cannot refuse riders assigned to you during your shift. And you cannot drive for Lyft, Grub Hub, or any other competitor during your Uber shift. You may not use Uber app to accept riders outside of your shift time."
Pretty much every Uber or Lyft ride I've ever had, the driver was actively using both apps at the same time, interleaving customer
Re: (Score:2)
Every country has its own definition of employee. In most, if a large part of your income stems from one "customer", say 75%, then you're dependent on them, and virtually you are their employee. What your defintion is, does not matter, but I think this is reasonable.
French .v. American English (Score:2)
analysis finds easier, simpler and succinct constructs available to describe über terms employed in French language to describe false premises provide clarity that American English failed under the legal jurisprudence system.