New Zealand Uber Drivers Win Landmark Case Declaring Them Employees (theguardian.com) 136
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Guardian: A group of New Zealand Uber drivers have won a landmark case against the global ridesharing company, forcing it to treat them as employees, not contractors, and entitling them to a suite of worker rights and protections. New Zealand's employment court ruled on Tuesday that the drivers were employees, not independent contractors. While the ruling applies specifically to the case of four drivers, the court noted that it may have wider implications for drivers across the country. The court "does not have jurisdiction to make broader declarations of employment status" so all Uber drivers "do not, as a result of this judgment, instantly become employees," chief judge Christina Inglis wrote. She continued, however: "It may well have broader impact, particularly where, as here, there is apparent uniformity in the way in which the companies operate, and the framework under which drivers are engaged."
Employment status is the bedrock on which most of New Zealand's minimum employment rights rest. It is "the gate through which a worker must pass" before they can access legal minimum entitlements including the minimum wage, six minimum hours of work, rest and meal breaks, holidays, parental leave, domestic violence leave, bereavement leave, ability to pursue a personal grievance, and access to union membership and collective bargaining. A spokesperson for Uber said the company was "disappointed" and would be appealing against the decision. They said it was "too soon to speculate" on whether New Zealand's drivers having employee status would affect the company's operations in the country more broadly.
Employment status is the bedrock on which most of New Zealand's minimum employment rights rest. It is "the gate through which a worker must pass" before they can access legal minimum entitlements including the minimum wage, six minimum hours of work, rest and meal breaks, holidays, parental leave, domestic violence leave, bereavement leave, ability to pursue a personal grievance, and access to union membership and collective bargaining. A spokesperson for Uber said the company was "disappointed" and would be appealing against the decision. They said it was "too soon to speculate" on whether New Zealand's drivers having employee status would affect the company's operations in the country more broadly.
Have fun not having a job. (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess no time is better than part time.
Re:Have fun not having a job. (Score:4, Interesting)
When Uber and Lyft pulled out of Austin, other rideshare companies were up and operating within a week.
What happened in Austin after Uber and Lyft left [cnbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And then the state stepped in, overruled Austin, and Uber and Lyft came back:
https://www.hyrecar.com/blog/u... [hyrecar.com]
Not sure how the other unnamed rideshare companies fared after that.
Re:Have fun not having a job. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
lose billions every year without any obvious reason to believe they'll ever turn themselves around
The plan is:
1. Lose billions while building market share
2. Transition to self-driving cars.
3. Fire all the drivers.
4. Profit!!!
Step 2 is proving to be more difficult than anticipated.
Re: (Score:2)
And did those alternatives make all the former Uber drivers' dreams about secure employment and cushy benefits come true? If anything I'd think one or a few big employers make easier targets for regulation. A really fluid marketplace with constant churn in drivers and dispatchers is the opposite of the goal for drivers who want to be employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Bunch of goddamn whiners, those poors.
This just in... (Score:3)
They said it was "too soon to speculate" on whether New Zealand's drivers having employee status would affect the company's operations in the country more broadly.
This just in, raising the cost of doing business WILL affect the company's operations...
People just want a cheap ride (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I know. We should go back to slavery to make everything cheaper. "People" who provide transport services should do so while earning next to nothing, unable to make ends meet, no holidays, pensions or any other benefits, we need cheap transport! Won't someone think of the middleclass!
Disclaimer: It's 2022 so I feel the need to point out this post is sarcastic for the purpose of mocking the parent's point.
Re:People just want a cheap ride (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We have the words of a former slave about employment in a free market capitalistic system:
"experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other"
- Frederick Douglas
Re:People just want a cheap ride (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet those "virtual slaves" have infinitely higher quality of living compared to the various socialist "paradises" of present and past.
So to be clear, I can give you a dirt sandwich and you'll smile and eat it because it's not a shit sandwich?
Re: (Score:2)
So to be clear, I can give you a dirt sandwich and you'll smile and eat it because it's not a shit sandwich?
No, because you're not a representative of the government. If all you've got to offer is a choice of dirt or shit I am free to ignore you completely and take neither. You don't get any say in what I eat unless I decide that you do. And if I decide that nothing you're offering is any good, I don't have to justify that decision to you and I don't owe you any explanation of what I choose to do instead.
If somebody else offers me something better, great, if not, too bad, but in either case I have no obligation t
Re: (Score:2)
At worst, the First World western countries are like slightly imperfect apple and not "dirt sandwich"
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Because unregulated taxi services are totally not a disaster waiting to happen.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
is because of excessive government regulations, fees, taxes, etc.
Can you list specific regulations, fees and taxes that you believe are excessive and explain why? Or are you repeating a talking point you've once read somewhere?
The story of London (Score:2)
In London to be a taxi driver you have to learn 'the knowledge' - an impresive depth of understanding of the streets of London. Then we introduced 'private hire' cars; these have to be booked before hand, have police background check drivers, but do the same job point to point. When Uber arrived it offered services under the Private Hire legislation - but far more responsive as the app enabled easy pick ups. Taxi drivers are miserable - but their 'knowledge' is as redundant as that of a cart wright.
Re: (Score:2)
Navigation systems certainly make knowing every street a non-skill - but area knowledge is still valuable. I've driven a lot by taxi in my home city due to not owning a car and there clearly were drivers who knew the place and others who didn't. There were a couple times when I was directing the driver, telling him to ignore the navigation system.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, but is it enough to justify the requirement for 'the knowledge', which has been the London alternative to NY City's medallions to keep the number of taxis under control?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The big problem in most cities is the artificial limitation on the number of taxi licenses they issue.
I don't like Uber's business model and I've never used it, but at the same time, taxi regulations where I live are broken. Taxi drivers have to charge exhorbitant amounts because they owe hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for their taxi plates... limited commodities that are very, very expensive.
We can't just make it a free-for-all and license anyone who passes the safety tests, because existing
Re: (Score:2)
"The reason these services became popular is because people need cheap transportation."
The reason these services became popular is because people need to travel between locations that they are not intimately familiar with, even in there home town. They provided a consistent and legible interface for specifying locations like "where I am standing right now" and "an address I can cut-and-paste but not necessarily pronounce or describe".
In civilized parts of the world you can get this interface when getting a
They have roads in NZ now? (Score:2)
Do most Uber driver want this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Last year when the same case went through the U.K. every Uber driver I spoke with was very much against being an employee, as it would mean giving up the flexibility to work the hours of their own choosing.
Being an employee comes with trade offs that not everyone wants to make. The benefits outlined in the article are not worth the loose of personal freedom to wage slavery.
If you want to be a wage slave don’t work for Uber. But don’t ruin independence for everyone else
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's really strange. I know a lot of people who qualify as employees, but work on flex-time. Did you honestly not know there were many, many companies that allow workers a great deal of flexibility with respect to their work schedule, or are you just a paid industry blow boy?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Being an employee" if the company is set up as a gig company is literally no different from "Being a gig slave".
There is no magical "You have to work from X to Y" rule that suddenly springs into life just by being an employee. That's complete and utter nonsense.
There are rules for overtime, and rules for minimal working hours (if that's in the contract), but any rules pertaining to at which times someone works are completely between the employer and employee, and "Whenever I want as long as I work X hours
Re: (Score:2)
"Being an employee" if the company is set up as a gig company is literally no different from "Being a gig slave".
Ahem. I find using the term "slave" here extremely disrespectful to those who were enslaved by actual or threatened violence. Taking a job you don't especially like because it's better than your next best alternative is far different.
There is no magical "You have to work from X to Y" rule that suddenly springs into life just by being an employee. That's complete and utter nonsense.
There are rules for overtime, and rules for minimal working hours (if that's in the contract), but any rules pertaining to at which times someone works are completely between the employer and employee, and "Whenever I want as long as I work X hours a week." is perfectly valid.
Yes and no. That's the point of these suits: to force the negotiated outcome to be different than what the driver/company would settle on by themselves. If NZ is going to require benefits and a minimum wage, Uber should be able to add some requirements in return. That might be
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. That's the point of these suits: to force the negotiated outcome to be different than what the driver/company would settle on by themselves. If NZ is going to require benefits and a minimum wage, Uber should be able to add some requirements in return. That might be minimum hours worked, a requirement to work when demand surges, a minimum number of rides per hour, or any number of other reasonable things.
Yes Uber should be able to add those requirements, and employees can choose to be employed or not employed by Uber if they add them. What Uber shouldn't be able to do is call you contractor and not give you the legal rights of an employee.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes Uber should be able to add those requirements, and employees can choose to be employed or not employed by Uber if they add them. What Uber shouldn't be able to do is call you contractor and not give you the legal rights of an employee.
OK. But why the distinction? Why should Uber be able to add some conditions (or not) and not others? What's your principle for deciding what can be negotiated and what's non-negotiable?
That's the issue I have: the answer is "because a sufficient number of people elected officials who made it mandatory." I was going to write "..a majority..." but it's not even that: a small, vocal minority who don't necessarily even work for the company can force their will on everyone.
There are some number of things one has
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Where does it say that a contract employee needs to do this? If Uber would write valid contracts then that clause doesn't need to be in there, at all.
For some reason this argument always gets trotted out, and it's complete nonsense. There's absolutely no reason why Uber should have to use a 'classic' employer/employee contract.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why? Where does it say that a contract employee needs to do this? If Uber would write valid contracts then that clause doesn't need to be in there, at all.
For some reason this argument always gets trotted out, and it's complete nonsense. There's absolutely no reason why Uber should have to use a 'classic' employer/employee contract.
Once you become a contract employee, the employer is on the hook for a number of "fixed costs" related to your employment. Things like their contribution to social security, pensions etc. Given that fact, they will NOT be writing a contract which enables you to work as few hours per week as you effing please, any number of times you like, without manager approval. You're not going to take two days off whenever you feel like, because if that happens then you'll not be working enough to cover your fixed costs
Re: (Score:2)
Once you become a contract employee, the employer is on the hook for a number of "fixed costs" related to your employment. Things like their contribution to social security, pensions etc.
Social security and pensions are normally a fixed percentage of your salary.
So if you don't work, you don't get paid. And you don't get a pension either.
There are fixed costs (e.g. ones related to health and safety, and providing equipment to work). but these apply to gig workers and normal employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to both you and jimbobxxx for pointing out that even in the US, where the deck is stacked in favour of employers more than just about anywhere else in the developed world, workers still have some recourse.
Re: (Score:2)
That's really strange. I know a lot of people who qualify as employees, but work on flex-time.
That's one of the big differences between salaried and hourly. I get a salary. I negotiate my hours with my boss but primarily, we agree on my work product. As long as I get that done, he doesn't get much say in my hours. To the point, I don't have to document working a set number of hours per week.
That's one of the questions for NZ: are Uber drivers salaried or hourly? Why? Who chooses? Why do they get that choice and not other choices?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There is nothing inherently "employee" about flexibility for working. That's up the digression of the employer. The fact that you (and Uber's employees) think this is a core issue means that Uber is doing well in controlling the narrative. Uber couldn't give a shit about reigning in flexibility. What they care about are things such as minimum wage, healthcare, pensions and other benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about NZ, but here you certainly should/must pay contributions towards healthcare and pensions if you work as a gig worker for the like of Uber.
But being an employee means you must contractually commit towards doing a certain number of hours every month, which goes very much against some of the benefits of occasional driving for Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
>But being an employee means you must contractually commit towards doing a certain number of hours every month, which goes very much against some of the benefits of occasional driving for Uber.
Why? There is no reason that Uber would even chose this model of contract, given the nature of their work force. There is nothing against the law of having a different sort of labour contract.
Re: (Score:2)
I, too, have so many questions.
Traditionally, being an employee meant my employer could set my hours. Will Uber NZ be able to do this? Will they have to? How much notice does a driver have to get before a "shift" starts? What happens if they don't respond when on shift?
Employment can be exclusive. I cannot take another job without getting approval (or at least notifying) my employer. Can Uber forbid drivers from working at Lyft? DoorDash? A taxi company? The local bus company? A coffee shop?
Is it possible f
Re: (Score:2)
I've never used Uber, because where I live the public buses are pretty good, and if you need a taxis it's pretty reasonably priced to ride in a real one... but I don't think the word of the Uber drivers is necessarily the whole story:
1. Don't Uber drivers rely on positive user reviews? So if the driver complains about the company, that's probably not going to get them a good review, which will directly impact their income.
2. The drivers were still in the "honeymoon period" where they were enjoying their new
Employee concept is stupid (Score:2)
Expecting companies, the place that is hiring you, to pay employee benefits is ridiculous. Get the benefits money from the state instead, not the guy giving you a chance and a job. The state should cover healthcare insurance costs for everyone, corporations should not. People are afraid to leave jobs because they might lose healthcare benefits. The only reason for anyone to be an employee is if the state does not provide vouchers for health insurance. With Obamacare, why have the concept of being an employe
Re: (Score:3)
The companies don't pay for your health insurance. You do, indirectly. Through the company. And then you do, directly, also administrated by the company. And that goes into "Obamacare". That's how the state covers healthcare insurance costs.
Of course, in the US it doesn't work quite that way, as it does in almost every other "Western" country, but the principle is roughly the same.
You could argue the company should just pay you that money instead, but then you'd not have a government run healthcare insuranc
Re: (Score:2)
The companies don't pay for your health insurance. You do, indirectly.
Surprisingly true. Companies don't actually pay for anything. Costs are always and only borne by actual living humans: employees, customers, investors, and so forth.
You could argue the company should just pay you that money instead, but then you'd not have a government run healthcare insurance, and you'd be back to square one.
I'd argue that if we're at square one now and government run health insurance is square two, just paying employees and letting them finance their own health care (perhaps giving poor people a base income to spend as they see fit) is square 10. We'd have a much better outcome for less money if we did that.
Re: (Score:2)
I think one of the problems is that a lot of people in the US have no conceptual understanding how "Health Care" works in other countries, and have been so bombarded with all kinds of politically motivated "information" (for certain values of information), that it seems impossible to even have a decent conversation about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think one of the problems is that a lot of people in the US have no conceptual understanding how "Health Care" works in other countries, and have been so bombarded with all kinds of politically motivated "information" (for certain values of information), that it seems impossible to even have a decent conversation about it.
No doubt. You can broaden this: lots of people all over the world see all sorts of things the way they are and find it hard to conceptualize entirely different ways things could be. For example: when discussing voting, lots of people seem to think the only possible way to run an election is a one-person, one-vote, plurality wins. That's what we use in most elections most of the time. But there are at least a dozen other reasonable ways to hold democratic elections.
In the US, many people seem to have tunnel
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to look up how health care works in the Netherlands and Switzerland, that sound like the perfect kind of thing for your personal preference :)
Re: (Score:3)
Get the benefits money from the state instead, not the guy giving you a chance and a job.
Where do you think the state will get the money to pay for those benefits? Thin air?
The state should cover healthcare insurance costs for everyone, corporations should not.
Again, where do you think the state will get the money to cover healthcare insurance costs?
People are afraid to leave jobs because they might lose healthcare benefits.
Bull. People are afraid to leave jobs because they're not sure if the next job
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you think the state will get the money to pay for those benefits? Thin air?
From taxation of profits, like it currently does.
Re: (Score:2)
>>People are afraid to leave jobs because they might lose healthcare benefits.
>Bull. People are afraid to leave jobs because they're not sure if the next job will be any better. 20% of those who quit their job during the "great resignation" now regret doing so [businessinsider.com].
Lol. You pick out that 20% number. That means 80% *didn't* regret it. It's even funnier, because:
"About one in six U.S. workers (16%) with employer-based health insurance is staying put at a job they'd like to leave d
Re: (Score:3)
Good point for US based people, but this story is about New Zealand, where this is already in place. Standard Health care is government provided or subsidised, by a combination of state run hospitals, funding to partially pay doctor’s fees and government run accident and medical misadventure insurance (ACC) which both means that no one is uninsured, and reduces doctor’s fees as they’re not paying massive insurance costs to cover the risk of being sued.
Worker Abuse vs. Worker Oppertunity (Score:2)
I'm torn between how low wage gig/contract worker classifications are abused to skirt labor laws and true "gig workers" forcing companies to hire them as "real employees".
"I do this gig in my spare/free time to earn an extra bit a of money" is different from "I need a job with benefits and protection and I am willing to drive people around in my own car or deliver packages or deliver food etc."
Fundamentally, traditional taxi and delivery services left a void that modern technology fixed. Link people with "
started as ride share (as in going the same way) (Score:2)
started as ride share (as in going the same way) but then they removed seeing the full route of the ride and became an taxi in where the driver just sees the pick up calls with no real info on the full trip.
tl;dr of this comment section (Score:2)
A company whose business model depends upon exploiting its workers should not be in business. That capital should be put to use in the furtherance of businesses that are sufficiently efficient to not require human misery to function.
Proof Uber is pure scum. (Score:2)
Employment status is the bedrock on which most of New Zealand's minimum employment rights rest.
A spokesperson for Uber said the company was "disappointed"
This company should be surgically removed from earth.
uber needs to give the drivers control over rates (Score:3)
uber needs to give the drivers control over
rates
show them the full ride info and let them pick and choose to take it not + let them send an counter offer to the person requesting an ride
let drivers say if you want to take this long ride out of the core area then I need to charge you an added fee to cover my return trip
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The world you envision is one where we're slaves to a mythical job creator. Is that really the life you want to live?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Fascinating," said Luke. "Every word in that sentence is wrong."
We had a century of non-Uber taxi service, and it was shit protected by kickback-receiving politicians.
Uber is much faster and responsive. And "work must be done" is the bleat of politicians hitching gigatons of baggage to the populace, hoping some sucker who, you know, wants to live in better than a shack, will drag it along.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber has grown at three times the rate that taxis have declined.
So 2/3rds of their growth comes from elsewhere.
Before Uber, I would usually rent a car when I traveled on business and very rarely used taxis. So for me, Uber is mostly an alternative to a rental car.
Sounds about right (Score:4, Insightful)
Before Uber, I would usually rent a car when I traveled on business and very rarely used taxis. So for me, Uber is mostly an alternative to a rental car.
Yep so forcing Uber out of business means instead of one Uber driver driving around 20 people in a day, you now have 20 more (rental) cars on the road. Awesome!
Also don't forget that now you can't drink anymore if you go out on the town because now you have to drive.
This is objectively false (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given a choice, some people preferred Uber for some rides.
Anti-choice crowd disapproves. Sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uber did not decrease anything
Uber decreased the value of taxi licenses in my city - massively.
It's not just about some vague "anti-choice" complaint - it's that Uber came into a regulated market, operated illegally until they built up mindshare, and ultimately forced governments to create a new class of licensing to deal with it.
Now we are seeing /why/ the taxi regulations existed in the first place - the only way an organisation like Uber can really make money is by exploiting the drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
The work still needs to be done. If Uber goes out of business somebody else can just step in. There's no need whatsoever for this constant race to the bottom. It benefits no one.
"Fascinating," said Luke. "Every word in that sentence is wrong."
I like that quote, but it's not true. Some of the words are definitely wrong. It clearly benefits someone, or it wouldn't be happening.
We had a century of non-Uber taxi service, and it was shit protected by kickback-receiving politicians.
And yet, Uber is also shit, it's just shit for the workers. And it's also protected in the same way [icij.org].
Uber is much faster and responsive.
That's true.
And "work must be done" is the bleat of politicians hitching gigatons of baggage to the populace, hoping some sucker who, you know, wants to live in better than a shack, will drag it along.
And also Uber. And yet, there is demand for this service, so someone really is going to do it somehow.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no need whatsoever for this constant race to the bottom.
But there is. Corporate profits and CEO bonuses need to come from somewhere. The myth of capitalism was born after WW2 when progress in technology and business operations created real productivity increases. But those have flattened out (there's only so much you can gain by optimizing). The expectations of investors haven't. So the money needs to come from somewhere else - customers (predatory pricing, subscription traps, pointless consumerism) and employees (dropping real wages, gig economy, erosion of wor
Your ignorant prejudice is showing (Score:2)
In some markets you may be right. In others - for example UK supermarkets - the incumbents have received a good kicking from German chains opening up over here; Aldi has just overhauled Morrisons as the 4th largest retailer. It and Lidl have trashed the profits of the incumbents; Tesco, the largest, is so upset about it that it offers some basic food items at the same price as Aldi - and makes a point of saying so. So yes, consumers have seen real benefits from red in tooth and claw capitalism.
And then ther
Re: (Score:3)
will anyone be willing to pay what it will cost now?
Speaking only for myself, I would continue to use Uber/Lyft instead of renting a car or taking a taxi even if they doubled their price.
I doubt if this change will cost them more than 10% if that. Employees get more benefits and stability, but contractors get higher pay and more flexibility. So the costs somewhat cancel out.
most Uber drivers I have ever met did not want to be employees, they just wanted a simple part-time gig
Most drivers are part-time gig workers, but most miles are driven by drivers doing it full time.
Re: (Score:3)
being an employee means good-bye to that freedom.
It also means being paid an even smaller fraction of the money you generate while being 100% responsible for costs of operation and all other potential issues. Awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
being an employee means good-bye to that freedom.
It also means being paid an even smaller fraction of the money you generate while being 100% responsible for costs of operation and all other potential issues. Awesome.
It doesn't mean that at all. I'm an employee who codes and I am providing my own equipment and internet, but I know employees of other companies that get all their expenses covered. The distinction between employee and contractor is just a tax status.
Re: (Score:3)
The work still needs to be done.
Doesn't matter what is needed, will anyone be willing to pay what it will cost now?
If Uber goes out of business somebody else can just step in.
No they literally cannot if it's impossible to provide the service at a reasonable rate, or to find workers willing to work at said service because most Uber drivers I have ever met did not want to be employees, they just wanted a simple part-time gig where they could work whatever hours they felt like... being an employee means good-bye to that freedom.
Being an employee doesn't mean any of those things, it's just a tax status. You can be an employee that works few hours or many hours, the government doesn't care. You can be an employee of multiple companies simultaneously. You can be an employee using your own equipment or company equipment. In the end the driver wants to make money, the government wants its tax revenue, and the company wants to reduce both of these expenses as close to zero as possible.
Now, if they can't provide the service at a reaso
Re: (Score:2)
Being an employee doesn't mean any of those things, it's just a tax status. You can be an employee that works few hours or many hours,
Because of the overhead involved in having an employee, almost always the reality is that being an employee means substantial hours are required by the company for you to remain employed. Otherwise they are losing money overall if you are just driving a few hours a week.
Also, what does this mean for people that want to work for both Uber and Lyft, which is common.
Now, if the
Re: (Score:2)
Being an employee doesn't mean any of those things, it's just a tax status. You can be an employee that works few hours or many hours,
Because of the overhead involved in having an employee, almost always the reality is that being an employee means substantial hours are required by the company for you to remain employed. Otherwise they are losing money overall if you are just driving a few hours a week.
Also, what does this mean for people that want to work for both Uber and Lyft, which is common.
Now, if they can't provide the service at a reasonable rate while paying a fair amount for labor
They were already paying a fair amount for labor as evidenced by drivers that were totally at will, continued to work for Lyft and Uber.
If Uber was not paying a fair rate they'd have no drivers. The business model worked really well in fact.
Where there is a will, there is a way. If they can't obtain drivers as independents they will figure out an employment model that works.
Minimum number of hours a week, base salary plus commission based on revenue, etc.
There have been many reports indicating most drivers were barely making minimum wage. You might say "if it's not a fair wage people wouldn't do it", but people with limited options will do what they have to, especially if they *believe* it could pay off. Don't overlook the fact that this su
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Socialism spreads like a cancer (Score:4, Interesting)
Yup. Most of Uber's successful "innovation" was figuring out how to bypass all those nasty regulations guaranteeing workers fair wages, decent working conditions, paid holidays and parental leave, and so on. The NZ employment court has ruled that they can no longer flout a hundred years of hard-fought-for workers rights in order to make a quick buck.
NZ actually has Uber competitors like Zoomy that would be more than happy to step in if Uber finds they can't screw their workers so much any more. It'd be no big loss if they left.
Re: Socialism spreads like a cancer (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you really think irreparably changing your employers business model would result in better benefits, more hours, and higher wages?
Yes. It's called forcing employers to follow laws. This has knock on effect outside of the immediate company too, as companies built on a foundation of obeying laws and not fucking over employees seem to get undercut by those that do.
But you can look to the many countries this has already happened. Did Uber pull out? No, they paid their employees benefits and raised priced a bit. Sure as a consumer you may be upset that you can't perpetuate the concept of slavery, but shit happens.
Re: Socialism spreads like a cancer (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, imagine how much more profitable they could be if they could get actual slaves.
Slaves are much more expensive than gig workers, because you have to pay enough to maintain them or you're not protecting your investment. Uber doesn't have to pay workers even enough to survive on. When they find out they can't make a living (only a minority of Uber workers can do that, by design — if they don't have more than enough drivers lined up, then there will be passengers waiting) then they go do something else, or they find out by becoming homeless. Either way, it's no skin off Uber's nose — they just pick another desperate person out of the pool. Also, corporations don't have noses, or for that matter hearts — just bottom lines.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they can keep it down to a single person/small group nothing will change. Why do you think the concept of a union is so scary to them?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you really think irreparably changing your employers business model would result in better benefits, more hours, and higher wages?
Have you not heard of the Gilded Age? Or are you pretending it never happened so you can shill for Uber?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Of course they are employees (Score:5, Informative)
A taxi service is a taxi service is a taxi service.
I don't know about NZ, but in America, most taxi drivers are contractors.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Of course they are employees (Score:5, Insightful)
So the supply of taxi drivers is artificially limited in order to increase the income taxi drivers make so it's a livable wage.
That's a great idea. But why limit it to drivers? Why not require medallions to flip burgers, program computers, and grow vegetables?
If the government prevents more people from working, we can all be rich.
Re: (Score:3)
USSCt validated the constitutionality of it in the infamous Wickard decision
Make no mistake, as soon as computer programmers or burger flippers become powerful voting or lobbying blocks, licensing will be implemented for them as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you've been around long enough to know better. Are you just trolling? Well, I guess I'll bite...
I'm a licensed professional engineer. Nobody's allowed to practice engineering in my geographic boundary without that license, and while the legal limits of what constitutes engineering is a fairly small and well regulated list of activities, it does include some bits of computer programming that would have a direct impact on safety of the public (specifically machine safeguarding in this case). Yes, t
Re: (Score:3)
I know you've been around long enough to know better. Are you just trolling? Well, I guess I'll bite...
The "limit" you wrote about PEs is not an artificial limit on the number of PEs. It's a cognitive limit. Just like doctors. You have to prove you know your shit before people's lives are put in your hands. Canada is not limiting the number of PEs. That number is kind of self-limiting because of the effort it takes to get there.
In regard to Canadian dairy farmers, are you really advocating for the gove
Re: (Score:2)
ShanghaiBill's naive idea
That's redundant.
Re: (Score:3)
Some of them certainly act like employees but many of them like the flexibility of not being an employee and only work on weekends, on every other Wednesday, etc...
What Uber and other gig companies should be fighting for is prorated benefits. This is the way we should handle companies like Mcdonalds too. If we got rid of the fulltime/parttime designation and companies paid benefits proportionally then someone who worked two 20 hour a week jobs would have the funds to buy their own benefits.
amazon delivery gig workers need to be employees. (Score:2)
amazon delivery gig workers need to be employees.
As amazon has so much control over there work and tools.
Read to see downmod used as censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Two years ago, on a really cold night, I ordered thai but could not get my car started. I called a taxi, but they said the wait time was an hour before I could even schedule one.
The AAA guy couldn't get it started (almost 2 hrs later, it was a busy night for taxis and AAA). I mentioned my thai food dilemma to him (I had called them promising I would get there and was not a deadbeat).
He said, "Install Uber."
6 minutes later, I had it installed and programmed with my CC.
6 minutes after that, I was getting into a car.
Death to entrenched taxi interests and the corrupt politicians protecting them.
Re: (Score:3)
Plausible, noun: seeming reasonable or probable. And again, there are already regulations and inspections on cars.
This is the grammar police, and you've just been issued 2 demerit points. "Plausible" is an adjective, not a noun.
Re: (Score:2)
No loss. There will be plenty of competitors to fill the gap. If their rates need to be a bit higher to pay the drivers minimum wage and basic benefits, nobody decent will complain.
Re: (Score:2)
if there could have been plenty of competition it would already be competing with Uber. This type of magic thinking is prevalent among people who never tried running a business. The reality is that companies are doing everything possible to try and hold prices down to compete even in this environment of extreme inflation caused by government money printing central banks and by various regulations. This is a regulation, it will cause prices to go up in either scenario (Uber complies or Uber exits NZ). P
Re: (Score:2)
if there could have been plenty of competition it would already be competing with Uber.
Err ... what makes you think they are not? Have you heard of Ola, Didi, Zoomy, ...
Re: (Score:2)
Err ... what makes you think they are not? Have you heard of Ola, Didi, Zoomy, ...
Nope, never heard of any of them. I guess they're not trying hard enough.
Re: (Score:2)
If their rates need to be a bit higher to pay the drivers minimum wage and basic benefits, nobody decent will complain.
Ah. Apparently you missed the last 150 years of economic thought. The current thinking is all important economic decisions happen at the margin, where you're right on the edge of doing something or not.
There are always some people right on the edge of deciding whether to call Uber or drive themselves. Those aren't good or bad people, they just have to decide if the value of the service is worth the cost. If prices go up, those people will decide to walk. Whether that's a large or small number is a really go
Re: (Score:2)
and then they can sue for unfair dismissal and win.
Require them to come into the office each day (Score:2)
both before their first ride and after their last ride. Commuting costs are not Employer's responsibility.