California Declares Uber Drivers to be Employees.

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102766716

A San Francisco-based driver for ride-hailing service Uber is an employee, according to a ruling by the California Labor Commission.

The ruling, filed on Tuesday in state court in San Francisco, was the latest in a host of legal and regulatory challenges facing Uber and other highly valued start-ups in the United States and other countries.

The commission said Uber is "involved in every aspect of the operation."

Classifying Uber drivers as employees opens the company up to considerably higher costs, including Social Security, workers' compensation and unemployment insurance. That could affect its valuation, currently above $40 billion, and the valuation of other companies that rely on large networks of individuals to provide rides, clean houses and other services.

Uber had argued that its drivers are independent contractors, not employees, and that it is "nothing more than a neutral technology platform."

Interesting.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's good. It's nice that the workers get covered by that as opposed to letting the company shaft them through that classification.

 

[Keith&Co.]

At the same time, some states' SWAT teams are trying to avoid typical SWAT oversight by claiming they're individual contractors....with the power to arrest and shoot people, but not actual police employees. So the local police don't have to offer up records of what their SWAT teams are up to...

I wonder how this decision will ultimately affect that tactic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I love the Independent Contractor scam... especially for those who can only work for a particular company because of a no compete clause, which really takes the "independent" out of the term.

 

[Axulus]

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.

 

[jonatha]

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.

The taxes paid by the company should have no bearing on the drivers' take home pay, since as "independent contractors" they were previously paying both halves of FICA. (Although the first $400 was not subject...)

And I am sure that Uber, being intent on retaining its valuable employees, will start to offer a mileage allowance

 

[ronburgundy]

Here are some facts that seem relevant to the issue.

Surveys of drivers show that 75% (and ever increasing) of Uber drivers do drive for more than one company/platform.

Also, 70% are just supplementing their primary income and have a different full time job for part of the year and 40% of the whole year.
44% drive less than 20 hours per week.

 

[prideandfall]

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

thanks big government conservatives. i'm sure all of us people who get shafted by a company being able to peg us as "independent contractors" completely regardless of what we do or how we're paid are real happy about the lower income because you people keep stymying regulation to stop this sort of bullshit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I suppose they can at least looking forward to not having to pay all of their payroll taxes anymore.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I love the Independent Contractor scam... especially for those who can only work for a particular company because of a no compete clause, which really takes the "independent" out of the term.

Yeah. No-compete clauses are proof they aren't independent. The essence of an independent contractor is they are free to work for multiple employers.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I love the Independent Contractor scam... especially for those who can only work for a particular company because of a no compete clause, which really takes the "independent" out of the term.

Yeah. No-compete clauses are proof they aren't independent. The essence of an independent contractor is they are free to work for multiple employers.

Just like my plumber. He can be hired to work for me and somebody else in the same day.

 

[jonatha]

Here are some facts that seem relevant to the issue.

Surveys of drivers show that 75% (and ever increasing) of Uber drivers do drive for more than one company/platform.

I work two jobs. Does that mean I'm not an employee in either case?

(Hint - the answer is no....)

 

[dismal]

Why would anyone want to be an "employee"? What with all the exploitation and wage stealing employers are constantly perpetrating.

The government forcing people to become employees seems pretty barbaric.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Why would anyone want to be an "employee"? What with all the exploitation and wage stealing employers are constantly perpetrating.

The government forcing people to become employees seems pretty barbaric.

Oh the humanity.

 

[ronburgundy]

Here are some facts that seem relevant to the issue.

Surveys of drivers show that 75% (and ever increasing) of Uber drivers do drive for more than one company/platform.

I work two jobs. Does that mean I'm not an employee in either case?

(Hint - the answer is no....)

If in addition to a full time job in which you are an official employee, you supplement that income by hiring yourself out to do isolated specific tasks for various people on your own part-time schedule and are paid based upon completion of independent tasks that you agree to take on and are free to refuse any that you wish, then you are far closer to the meaning of an independent contractor than an employee. This is what accurately describes the majority of Uber drivers.
I have a guy right now cleaning my gutters, he did it for me a few years ago. Is he my employee?

 

[ronburgundy]

Yeah. No-compete clauses are proof they aren't independent. The essence of an independent contractor is they are free to work for multiple employers.

Just like my plumber. He can be hired to work for me and somebody else in the same day.

So can Uber drivers. They do not have a No-compete clause and in fact the State of CA where this ruling was made specifically forbids no-compete clauses. Thus, CA law says that these drivers must be free and independent to contract work with other services, and most drivers do just that, yet CA is also now saying they are not independent contractors. The only difference between your plumber or a neighborhood handyman and an Uber driver is that the Uber driver pays a fee to use an online platform that links people looking to contract a job (passengers) with people willing to do the work (drivers).
IT is essentially the same as if the court ruled that anyone who gets an odd job via Craig's List is an employee of Craig's list.

 

[dismal]

I work two jobs. Does that mean I'm not an employee in either case?

(Hint - the answer is no....)

If in addition to a full time job in which you are an official employee, you supplement that income by hiring yourself out to do isolated specific tasks for various people on your own part-time schedule and are paid based upon completion of independent tasks that you agree to take on and are free to refuse any that you wish, then you are far closer to the meaning of an independent contractor than an employee. This is what accurately describes the majority of Uber drivers.
I have a guy right now cleaning my gutters, he did it for me a few years ago. Is he my employee?

If the government says he is.

The more interesting question is why would people care?

 

[jonatha]

I have a guy right now cleaning my gutters, he did it for me a few years ago. Is he my employee?

Possibly.

 

[ronburgundy]

I have a guy right now cleaning my gutters, he did it for me a few years ago. Is he my employee?

Possibly.

Then it is also possible that the Uber drivers are actually employees of the passengers since they are actually the one's requesting and paying for the services.

Perhaps the passengers should be forced to pay employer taxes and all other associated costs every time they catch a ride.

 

[laughing dog]

Here are some facts that seem relevant to the issue.

Surveys of drivers show that 75% (and ever increasing) of Uber drivers do drive for more than one company/platform.

Also, 70% are just supplementing their primary income and have a different full time job for part of the year and 40% of the whole year.
44% drive less than 20 hours per week.

Why on earth would any rational person think any of those facts are relevant in the determination of whether these people are employees of UBer or not?