California Declares Uber Drivers to be Employees.

[SimpleDon]

I can't have much compassion for the slights that Uber is forced to suffer at the hands of the government. They have a business based almost entirely on exploiting what their lawyers perceive as loopholes in the laws and regulations covering businesses in general and taxicabs specifically.

This is one example of this, a business that transports people without, in their lawyers view, hiring a single employee to drive customers. Here is another, Uber non-employees picking up customers at airports without paying the airport fees - taxes really, without the security screening and without the commercial liability insurance required of taxi drivers picking up customers at the airport.

This points out yet again the intellectual slovenliness of our current method of governing by slogan, in this case, "regulations are bad" and "taxation is theft."

It allows those who accept the principles of governing by slogans to address any specific problem without addressing the specifics of the problem. Uber is cool because they have found ways to avoid the regulations and the taxes because "government regulations are bad" and "taxation is theft" without having to address that there might be good reasons that the regulations and the taxes are needed.

And without the need to offer any alternatives to the regulations and taxes beyond the blind faith that the free market can somehow provide all of society's needs without the taxes and the regulations.

How it can do this is too specific to warrant an explanation. If you have to ask you will never understand is the apparent principle here.

 

[NobleSavage]

It really sucks for those employees, who now must itemize their vehicle expenses under the far less favorable "employee business expenses." The taxes paid by the company translates into less take home pay for the drivers, so no help there. The control they exercise over tje drivers was also due to government saying that the drivers aren't properly screened and controlled, supposedly making it less safe for the pasengers and threatening bans.

Thanks big government liberals. I'm sure the drivers will be happy with their lower income.

Yeah, how do the actual Uber drivers feel about this? Were they clamoring to be considered employees?

 

[coloradoatheist]

I can't have much compassion for the slights that Uber is forced to suffer at the hands of the government. They have a business based almost entirely on exploiting what their lawyers perceive as loopholes in the laws and regulations covering businesses in general and taxicabs specifically.

This is one example of this, a business that transports people without, in their lawyers view, hiring a single employee to drive customers. Here is another, Uber non-employees picking up customers at airports without paying the airport fees - taxes really, without the security screening and without the commercial liability insurance required of taxi drivers picking up customers at the airport.

This points out yet again the intellectual slovenliness of our current method of governing by slogan, in this case, "regulations are bad" and "taxation is theft."

It allows those who accept the principles of governing by slogans to address any specific problem without addressing the specifics of the problem. Uber is cool because they have found ways to avoid the regulations and the taxes because "government regulations are bad" and "taxation is theft" without having to address that there might be good reasons that the regulations and the taxes are needed.

And without the need to offer any alternatives to the regulations and taxes beyond the blind faith that the free market can somehow provide all of society's needs without the taxes and the regulations.

How it can do this is too specific to warrant an explanation. If you have to ask you will never understand is the apparent principle here.

But it is the clash between the several groups of people involved in an economic transaction: consumers want the best and cheapest products, some employees want the most benefits, and some want the most flexibility. In this case, it's group 2 that will win, with the other two groups getting hurt.

We'll have to see how things work out, because the model used by uber and lift would actually be a good thing if they get adopted in other areas too like retail.

 

[Bronzeage]

The independent contractor/casual labor/employee thing has been going on for a long time, and it's most often used to screw over the working person and shift the tax burden from the company, to the worker. That's the simple history of it.

The IRS has issued guidelines to determine who is an employee and who is a contractor, and issues clarifications nearly every year. It's difficult to imagine how an uber driver would fit the definition of employee, since the critical element of the being an employee is the scheduling. An employee can be told when to show up and when to leave. All time in between belongs to the employer. A contractor is given a time window and must complete the job within that time. Do uber drivers punch in at a certain time and promise to be available for that time?

Strippers are contractors and are paid directly by the club's patrons. It's a fascinating study in free market economics. The club can't actually create a schedule for the strippers, but must insure there is someone on stage during all business hours. There maybe some hours, especially early afternoon when there are only a few patrons in the bar.

The club has an ingenious way to insure coverage. The stripper contractor agrees to provide her services a certain number of days a week, with a certain number of weekend nights included in each month. When the stripper shows up, she has to work for 4 hours. This means she has to be there by 10pm(2am closing law). The club charges the stripper a fee for the dressing room and locker. These fees can be reduced or waived for the slow time periods.

Things usually pick up around 9pm, so the fees are highest after 9. A stripper who shows up right at 10 may have to pay as much as $100 locker fee. This means she could work the first hour, just to cover the fee. This creates an incentive for some strippers to show up early, when the crowd is less.

It's all an elaborate scheme to keep someone on the pole, but not call them an employee.

 

[Togo]

I can't have much compassion for the slights that Uber is forced to suffer at the hands of the government. They have a business based almost entirely on exploiting what their lawyers perceive as loopholes in the laws and regulations covering businesses in general and taxicabs specifically.

This is one example of this, a business that transports people without, in their lawyers view, hiring a single employee to drive customers. Here is another, Uber non-employees picking up customers at airports without paying the airport fees - taxes really, without the security screening and without the commercial liability insurance required of taxi drivers picking up customers at the airport.

This points out yet again the intellectual slovenliness of our current method of governing by slogan, in this case, "regulations are bad" and "taxation is theft."

It allows those who accept the principles of governing by slogans to address any specific problem without addressing the specifics of the problem. Uber is cool because they have found ways to avoid the regulations and the taxes because "government regulations are bad" and "taxation is theft" without having to address that there might be good reasons that the regulations and the taxes are needed.

And without the need to offer any alternatives to the regulations and taxes beyond the blind faith that the free market can somehow provide all of society's needs without the taxes and the regulations.

How it can do this is too specific to warrant an explanation. If you have to ask you will never understand is the apparent principle here.

But it is the clash between the several groups of people involved in an economic transaction: consumers want the best and cheapest products, some employees want the most benefits, and some want the most flexibility. In this case, it's group 2 that will win, with the other two groups getting hurt.

Hm.. No, group 1 also benefits, in that the quality of the product remains higher.
And group 3 is likely to be limited to a subset of Uber employees, while group 2 will include employees of other firms.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But it is the clash between the several groups of people involved in an economic transaction: consumers want the best and cheapest products, some employees want the most benefits, and some want the most flexibility. In this case, it's group 2 that will win, with the other two groups getting hurt.

Hm.. No, group 1 also benefits, in that the quality of the product remains higher.
And group 3 is likely to be limited to a subset of Uber employees, while group 2 will include employees of other firms.

Not on #1 because uber is faster and cheaper than ordinary cab services, it's the reason people use uber instead of taxis. #2 applies to other taxi drivers so they are happy when government comes in and says we are going to limit the number of taxi drivers. #3 is the most important because uber drivers are part time drivers, they want to do it on free time when they are available. Now when they become employees, uber can now dictate schedules for its employees.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The independent contractor/casual labor/employee thing has been going on for a long time, and it's most often used to screw over the working person and shift the tax burden from the company, to the worker. That's the simple history of it.

The IRS has issued guidelines to determine who is an employee and who is a contractor, and issues clarifications nearly every year. It's difficult to imagine how an uber driver would fit the definition of employee, since the critical element of the being an employee is the scheduling. An employee can be told when to show up and when to leave. All time in between belongs to the employer. A contractor is given a time window and must complete the job within that time. Do uber drivers punch in at a certain time and promise to be available for that time?

Strippers are contractors and are paid directly by the club's patrons. It's a fascinating study in free market economics. The club can't actually create a schedule for the strippers, but must insure there is someone on stage during all business hours. There maybe some hours, especially early afternoon when there are only a few patrons in the bar.

The club has an ingenious way to insure coverage. The stripper contractor agrees to provide her services a certain number of days a week, with a certain number of weekend nights included in each month. When the stripper shows up, she has to work for 4 hours. This means she has to be there by 10pm(2am closing law). The club charges the stripper a fee for the dressing room and locker. These fees can be reduced or waived for the slow time periods.

Things usually pick up around 9pm, so the fees are highest after 9. A stripper who shows up right at 10 may have to pay as much as $100 locker fee. This means she could work the first hour, just to cover the fee. This creates an incentive for some strippers to show up early, when the crowd is less.

It's all an elaborate scheme to keep someone on the pole, but not call them an employee.

You are right it has been an issue for different areas for some time. But it's also saying that as an adult you are not smart enough to make a decision on when you can decide if a transaction is good for you.

 

[Togo]

Hm.. No, group 1 also benefits, in that the quality of the product remains higher.
And group 3 is likely to be limited to a subset of Uber employees, while group 2 will include employees of other firms.

Not on #1 because uber is faster and cheaper than ordinary cab services, it's the reason people use uber instead of taxis.

Faster & cheaper /= better. Uber drivers are less well trained, less well screened, and not as capable at their jobs as a proper cabbie. The amount of difference this makes may depend on the standards of local cab drivers. Over here, if you can't navigate two or three different routes to your destination, recognise most streets in central London by name, pull a U-turn in a single lane, navigate heavy traffic, help someone disabled in and out of the cab safely, and deal with an automobile accident, then you may not get your license.

The point is that not everyone does use Uber. Those that don't benefit from additional cab capacity if Uber aren't capturing part of the market. Business isn't as simple as cheap=good.

#3 is the most important because uber drivers are part time drivers, they want to do it on free time when they are available. Now when they become employees, uber can now dictate schedules for its employees.

They weren't before? I would have thought having drivers available all the time, even at times awkward for them, was very much part of the business model.

 

[Togo]

It's all an elaborate scheme to keep someone on the pole, but not call them an employee.

You are right it has been an issue for different areas for some time. But it's also saying that as an adult you are not smart enough to make a decision on when you can decide if a transaction is good for you.

When it comes to transactions that dodge taxes, and encourage people to use drivers without as many controls as a normal cab company, then that's probably accurate - people aren't in a position to decide if the transaction is good for you.

 

[dismal]

Faster & cheaper /= better. Uber drivers are less well trained, less well screened, and not as capable at their jobs as a proper cabbie.

Well then, assuming you speak for everyone, Uber is doomed to fail.

I am, however, left to puzzle over why some people seem to like it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Faster & cheaper /= better. Uber drivers are less well trained, less well screened, and not as capable at their jobs as a proper cabbie. The amount of difference this makes may depend on the standards of local cab drivers. Over here, if you can't navigate two or three different routes to your destination, recognise most streets in central London by name, pull a U-turn in a single lane, navigate heavy traffic, help someone disabled in and out of the cab safely, and deal with an automobile accident, then you may not get your license.

You are right, but if customers thought the benefits of getting a normal taxi outweighed the costs of an uber ride they would choose taxis? How has market share been for uber and lift?

They weren't before? I would have thought having drivers available all the time, even at times awkward for them, was very much part of the business model.

Nope. The drivers log into their app when they want and click on accept a ride. They can log in any time. Uber sets payment levels to meet demand, but if they are employees then they can schedule shifts.

 

[Bronzeage]

The independent contractor/casual labor/employee thing has been going on for a long time, and it's most often used to screw over the working person and shift the tax burden from the company, to the worker. That's the simple history of it.

The IRS has issued guidelines to determine who is an employee and who is a contractor, and issues clarifications nearly every year. It's difficult to imagine how an uber driver would fit the definition of employee, since the critical element of the being an employee is the scheduling. An employee can be told when to show up and when to leave. All time in between belongs to the employer. A contractor is given a time window and must complete the job within that time. Do uber drivers punch in at a certain time and promise to be available for that time?

Strippers are contractors and are paid directly by the club's patrons. It's a fascinating study in free market economics. The club can't actually create a schedule for the strippers, but must insure there is someone on stage during all business hours. There maybe some hours, especially early afternoon when there are only a few patrons in the bar.

The club has an ingenious way to insure coverage. The stripper contractor agrees to provide her services a certain number of days a week, with a certain number of weekend nights included in each month. When the stripper shows up, she has to work for 4 hours. This means she has to be there by 10pm(2am closing law). The club charges the stripper a fee for the dressing room and locker. These fees can be reduced or waived for the slow time periods.

Things usually pick up around 9pm, so the fees are highest after 9. A stripper who shows up right at 10 may have to pay as much as $100 locker fee. This means she could work the first hour, just to cover the fee. This creates an incentive for some strippers to show up early, when the crowd is less.

It's all an elaborate scheme to keep someone on the pole, but not call them an employee.

You are right it has been an issue for different areas for some time. But it's also saying that as an adult you are not smart enough to make a decision on when you can decide if a transaction is good for you.

Looks can be deceiving. What recourse does a person have if they discover their employer/contractee has involved them in an illegal transaction?

 

[coloradoatheist]

You are right it has been an issue for different areas for some time. But it's also saying that as an adult you are not smart enough to make a decision on when you can decide if a transaction is good for you.

Looks can be deceiving. What recourse does a person have if they discover their employer/contractee has involved them in an illegal transaction?

If that is a loophole that that specific thing needs to be addressed. What happens now if I ask a babysitter to perform an illegal transaction?

 

[Bronzeage]

Looks can be deceiving. What recourse does a person have if they discover their employer/contractee has involved them in an illegal transaction?

If that is a loophole that that specific thing needs to be addressed. What happens now if I ask a babysitter to perform an illegal transaction?

Her Daddy meets you at the curb.

It's not a loophole. It's a crime. Uber is facing this problem in several states, and as far as I can tell, every time the question comes up, it seems uber drivers fit the definition of employee. Uber has a choice. They can either rework their business model so that their drivers really are contractors, or they can conform to the law.

There are plenty of government regulations which are intended to protect the safety and property of the public. Uber has found an apparently profitable way to circumvent the public hire taxi regulations of the various cities of the nation. We could do away with all such regulations and let the public make adult decisions of whether to get in a stranger's car and hope they take you where you want to go.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If that is a loophole that that specific thing needs to be addressed. What happens now if I ask a babysitter to perform an illegal transaction?

Her Daddy meets you at the curb.

It's not a loophole. It's a crime. Uber is facing this problem in several states, and as far as I can tell, every time the question comes up, it seems uber drivers fit the definition of employee. Uber has a choice. They can either rework their business model so that their drivers really are contractors, or they can conform to the law.

There are plenty of government regulations which are intended to protect the safety and property of the public. Uber has found an apparently profitable way to circumvent the public hire taxi regulations of the various cities of the nation. We could do away with all such regulations and let the public make adult decisions of whether to get in a stranger's car and hope they take you where you want to go.

But yet, adults do decide to get into strangers cars knowing that is a stranger's car and can take them anywhere. They can also get in a random cab and be taken anywhere too. I'll find the list the IRS uses for contractors and by their definition they fit the contractors definition.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

How wonderful. Established and politically favored taxi companies shouldn't be forced to compete with lower priced decentralized non-favored independent drivers like those who work at Uber. The state of California has found a way to destroy the Uber model, which is great for the taxi companies.

And they even put a progressive spin on it, by talking about how these people who were making money before and not making any money now are better off.

Very conservoprogressive.

 

[Bronzeage]

Her Daddy meets you at the curb.

It's not a loophole. It's a crime. Uber is facing this problem in several states, and as far as I can tell, every time the question comes up, it seems uber drivers fit the definition of employee. Uber has a choice. They can either rework their business model so that their drivers really are contractors, or they can conform to the law.

There are plenty of government regulations which are intended to protect the safety and property of the public. Uber has found an apparently profitable way to circumvent the public hire taxi regulations of the various cities of the nation. We could do away with all such regulations and let the public make adult decisions of whether to get in a stranger's car and hope they take you where you want to go.

But yet, adults do decide to get into strangers cars knowing that is a stranger's car and can take them anywhere. They can also get in a random cab and be taken anywhere too. I'll find the list the IRS uses for contractors and by their definition they fit the contractors definition.

Maybe they do, but the question has been presented in several courts and the decision has been that they are employees. You are free to play Monday morning quarterback to a judge.

 

[NobleSavage]

But yet, adults do decide to get into strangers cars knowing that is a stranger's car and can take them anywhere. They can also get in a random cab and be taken anywhere too. I'll find the list the IRS uses for contractors and by their definition they fit the contractors definition.

Maybe they do, but the question has been presented in several courts and the decision has been that they are employees. You are free to play Monday morning quarterback to a judge.

So, if the Uber drivers were happy with their arrangement - say it was a nice step up from working Fast Food or Walmart -- you are happy with the courts decision because the independent contractor relationship has been abused in the past?

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Employee-vs.-Independent-Contractor-–-Seven-Tips-for-Business-Owners