# Class Action Lawsuit call from Uber today



## UberNation (Jul 16, 2014)

I got a call from Uber asking me to come up to their location to be interviewed. There is a class action lawsuit claiming drivers are not IC's but employees. Uber wants me to talk about it. I wasn't aware of this...


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberNation said:


> I got a call from Uber asking me to come up to their location to be interviewed. There is a class action lawsuit claiming drivers are not IC's but employees. Uber wants me to talk about it. I wasn't aware of this...


http://uberlawsuit.com/

The lawsuit has been around awhile, please let us know what they say at interview.


----------



## UberNation (Jul 16, 2014)

Wow. I had no idea. I'll let you all know.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

BTW, you may want to contact the lawyers at that website BEFORE you go to the interview. You may need to be careful what you say or don't say at interview, they could probably guide you.


----------



## UberNation (Jul 16, 2014)

observer said:


> BTW, you may want to contact the lawyers at that website BEFORE you go to the interview. You may need to be careful what you say or don't say at interview, they could probably guide you.


Good idea. I'll do that.


----------



## LAuberX (Jun 3, 2014)

We are employees that are afraid of being fired.

Uber thinks otherwise?


----------



## UberNation (Jul 16, 2014)

I stopped driving for a month and then drove one night for just two rides. I am over it. I have gainful employment once again and am crushing it and I'm back in class about to finish up my MBA. I don't have time for it anymore. Well, I don't have time for crappy people who leave crap in my car and have no respect for the things of others. I always enjoyed the driving around and being on the road. I liked exploring LA and finding hole in the wall restaurants to try. It was always the lack of support from Uber, the crappy passengers who trashed my car, and the fear of getting deactivated for a bad review that ruined the fun. 

I like being home with my family again. I missed them.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberNation said:


> I got a call from Uber asking me to come up to their location to be interviewed. There is a class action lawsuit claiming drivers are not IC's but employees. Uber wants me to talk about it. I wasn't aware of this...


Check this out,

https://uberpeople.net/threads/i-got-a-phone-call-yesterday-from-an-undesirable.19415/


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

UberNation said:


> I got a call from Uber asking me to come up to their location to be interviewed. There is a class action lawsuit claiming drivers are not IC's but employees. Uber wants me to talk about it. I wasn't aware of this...


No. They don't want to interview you. When they phoned me, they started out by claiming they wanted to interview me too, and see if I could help them. It was pitched to me as just a chat. However, I have an accurate built-in bullshit detector and it was pinging like crazy during the phone call.

After some very direct questions, the Uber dude admitted that this is an evidence gathering exercise. They want drivers to sign affidavits in which they claim they are independent contractors. Some of these affidavits may be presented to the court and admitted as evidence in Uber's defence against the drivers' class action.

Do you want to help Uber in its defence?


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

elelegido said:


> No. They don't want to interview you. When they phoned me, they started out by claiming they wanted to interview me too, and see if I could help them. It was pitched to me as just a chat. However, I have an accurate built-in bullshit detector and it was pinging like crazy during the phone call.
> 
> After some very direct questions, the Uber dude admitted that this is an evidence gathering exercise. They want drivers to sign affidavits in which they claim they are independent contractors. Some of these affidavits may be presented to the court and admitted as evidence in Uber's defence against the drivers' class action.
> 
> Do you want to help Uber in its defence?


Mmmmmm. No!!


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Txchick said:


> Mmmmmm. No!!


Yeah... not really a tough call.


----------



## SydX (Sep 8, 2014)

The ozzies are keeping close eye on this lol


----------



## ReviTULize (Sep 29, 2014)

observer said:


> BTW, you may want to contact the lawyers at that website BEFORE you go to the interview. You may need to be careful what you say or don't say at interview, they could probably guide you.


+1
Uber will $hit their pants if you walk in with a lawyer


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

I'd like to be classified as an employee just long enough to give me the opportunity to go to my local manager and sing "Take This Job And Shove It."


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ReviTULize said:


> +1
> Uber will $hit their pants if you walk in with a lawyer


Lol!!


----------



## ReviTULize (Sep 29, 2014)

I bet they'd cancel the interview


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ReviTULize said:


> I bet they'd cancel the interview


I'm sure they would, but I'd be willing to bet Uber would have lawyers at that interview.


----------



## Bob Salas (May 5, 2015)

Here's the thing, if the plaintiffs prevail, Uber will layoff all the drivers and then hire people they more closely vet. Or they open independent offices or franchises. In the long run, Uber losing will not be good for the current, average driver.

With drivers being employees, one might argue that Uber is not just a bunch of people sharing rides, but rather a company providing rides to fare paying customers. In other words a taxi company with all the regulations of a taxi company, including driver licensing and fees.

I do not see this as a good thing.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Bob Salas said:


> Here's the thing, if the plaintiffs prevail, Uber will layoff all the drivers and then hire people they more closely vet. Or they open independent offices or franchises. In the long run, Uber losing will not be good for the current, average driver.
> 
> With drivers being employees, one might argue that Uber is not just a bunch of people sharing rides, but rather a company providing rides to fare paying customers. In other words a taxi company with all the regulations of a taxi company, including driver licensing and fees.
> 
> I do not see this as a good thing.


In your own words,

Is Uber a bunch of people sharing rides?

Is Uber a company providing rides for fare paying customers?

Which is correct?


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Bob Salas said:


> Here's the thing, if the plaintiffs prevail, Uber will layoff all the drivers and then hire people they more closely vet. Or they open independent offices or franchises. In the long run, Uber losing will not be good for the current, average driver.
> 
> With drivers being employees, one might argue that Uber is not just a bunch of people sharing rides, but rather a company providing rides to fare paying customers. In other words a taxi company with all the regulations of a taxi company, including driver licensing and fees.
> 
> I do not see this as a good thing.


Uber ISN'T A bunch of people sharing rides, it IS a company providing rides to fare paying customers through a bunch of people currently classified as independent contractors.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Bob Salas said:


> Here's the thing, if the plaintiffs prevail, Uber will layoff all the drivers and then hire people they more closely vet. Or they open independent offices or franchises. In the long run, Uber losing will not be good for the current, average driver.
> 
> With drivers being employees, one might argue that Uber is not just a bunch of people sharing rides, but rather a company providing rides to fare paying customers. In other words a taxi company with all the regulations of a taxi company, including driver licensing and fees.
> 
> I do not see this as a good thing.


The "people sharing rides" vs "company providing rides" is a whole separate fight from the IC vs employee fight. The former is being fought between UberLyft and government regulatory authorities. The latter is being fought between UberLyft and their employees/contractors. The two are unrelated.


----------



## Bob Salas (May 5, 2015)

elelegido said:


> The "people sharing rides" vs "company providing rides" is a whole separate fight from the IC vs employee fight. The former is being fought between UberLyft and government regulatory authorities. The latter is being fought between UberLyft and their employees/contractors. The two are unrelated.


Disagree. If the plaintiffs prevail. Uber will likely be classified as a taxi service. Taxis being vehicles with "a meter which is licensed to collect passengers from...the street." Definition will vary by jurisdiction.
The upshot is that people who only want to work part time, at their leisure, on their own schedule will be out of job. As Uber may switch to a scheduled time and date at a set wage.
Personally, I do not see much good coming from this lawsuit. I hope it drags on for years so I can get some drives in and then retire.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Bob Salas said:


> Disagree. If the plaintiffs prevail. Uber will likely be classified as a taxi service. Taxis being vehicles with "a meter which is licensed to collect passengers from...the street." Definition will vary by jurisdiction.
> The upshot is that people who only want to work part time, at their leisure, on their own schedule will be out of job. As Uber may switch to a scheduled time and date at a set wage.
> Personally, I do not see much good coming from this lawsuit. I hope it drags on for years so I can get some drives in and then retire.


The IC/employee legal battle has nothing to do with the regulatory battles. It's not a matter for disagree/agree. It's like someone saying they disagree that a banana is not a screwdriver.


----------



## Optimus Uber (Oct 7, 2014)

UberNation said:


> I got a call from Uber asking me to come up to their location to be interviewed. There is a class action lawsuit claiming drivers are not IC's but employees. Uber wants me to talk about it. I wasn't aware of this...


Tell them you thought you were an employee and they are suppose to pay the Obama care premiums with your momentum reward points


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Bob Salas said:


> Disagree. If the plaintiffs prevail. Uber will likely be classified as a taxi service.


If jury decides that Uber Drivers are indeed employees not ICs, Uber will just have to adjust it's Driver policies to more closely fit the IC model going forward. 
And of course it would have to pay the damages to existing Drivers who join the class action lawsuit.
No one is going to be classified as an employee going forward as Uber/Lyft will just have to relax the control they exert on Drivers.


----------



## Optimus Uber (Oct 7, 2014)

They're are going to put drivers on record as stating they aren't employees. If you don't state it they'll probably terminate the employment, I mean partnership


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Optimus Uber said:


> They're are going to put drivers on record as stating they aren't employees. If you don't state it they'll probably terminate the employment, I mean partnership


I've already given a heads up to the law office of Shannon-Lis Riordan, that Uber is "Coaxing" drivers to sign affidavits that they are not employees but are "Partners" err I mean ICs.
You guys might have noticed it, these days lots of email responses from Uber say "as an Independent Contractor you have the choice to make your own decision in this matter"...


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

Shannon-Lis Riordan rOCKS!!! Travis is no match for her.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> You guys might have noticed it, these days lots of email responses from Uber say "as an *Independent Contractor* you have the choice to make your own decision in this matter"


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> View attachment 7240


So it's not ok as per Uber policy. Then it's ok as per some Uber manager. Then it's up to us?

But so is accepting calls? And they threaten deactivation over that. I would reply and ask how this affects your acceptance/cancellation rate. Or guarantees.

Also ask about the insurance and what the stance is there.


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

Uber csr responses are always going to be evasive. Hell if you asked one of them is they smoked pot, they'd probably say they "never inhale".


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I would reply and ask how this affects your acceptance/cancellation rate. Or guarantees.


Fuzzy that's not my email...I just posted it here to illustrate that I've noticed Uber use the term "Independent Contractor" more & more lately.


----------



## DriverJ (Sep 1, 2014)

elelegido said:


> No. They don't want to interview you. When they phoned me, they started out by claiming they wanted to interview me too, and see if I could help them. It was pitched to me as just a chat. However, I have an accurate built-in bullshit detector and it was pinging like crazy during the phone call.
> 
> After some very direct questions, the Uber dude admitted that this is an evidence gathering exercise. They want drivers to sign affidavits in which they claim they are independent contractors. Some of these affidavits may be presented to the court and admitted as evidence in Uber's defence against the drivers' class action.
> 
> Do you want to help Uber in its defence?


I'd like to help Uber - help *****-boy, criminal Kalanick, and all his cronies into San Fransisco Bay.


----------



## DriverJ (Sep 1, 2014)

Lidman said:


> Uber csr responses are always going to be evasive. Hell if you asked one of them is they smoked pot, they'd probably say they "never inhale".


Wouldn't that be like having intercourse, but never inserting? This is adults only, right?


----------



## DrJeecheroo (Feb 12, 2015)

DriverJ said:


> Wouldn't that be like having intercourse, but never inserting? This is adults only, right?


Never Inserting? Maybe the proverbial "hand" instead.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

If you take away the drivers, Uber has nothing, it doesn't exist. I drive taxi and am considered an independent contractor: I collect money from pax and at the end of the evening, I pay the taxi company, they do not pay me. Also, the company I lease from does other work. They have a courier business, deliver luggage from the airlines, warehouse atm parts etc. They have their own paid employees who handle that work. As a taxi driver, I get some of that particular work if they have more than they can handle or taxi business is slow. 

That is how it should be. More or less anyway. If you are an independent contractor, you should be collecting the money and you should be paying Uber their share not the other way around.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Here's a new one: Use of the term "Independent Contractor" instead of "Partner" in New Driver recruitment material.


----------



## ElectroFuzz (Jun 10, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> If jury decides that Uber Drivers are indeed employees not ICs, Uber will just have to adjust it's Driver policies to more closely fit the IC model going forward.


Exactly
I'll take it.


----------



## The Kid (Dec 10, 2014)

Bob Salas said:


> Here's the thing, if the plaintiffs prevail, Uber will layoff all the drivers and then hire people they more closely vet. Or they open independent offices or franchises. In the long run, Uber losing will not be good for the current, average driver.
> 
> With drivers being employees, one might argue that Uber is not just a bunch of people sharing rides, but rather a company providing rides to fare paying customers. In other words a taxi company with all the regulations of a taxi company, including driver licensing and fees.
> 
> I do not see this as a good thing.


Not true. If the court finds we are employees,Uber will make changes so that we will not be employees.


----------

