# Another Uber Driver Awarded Unemployment Benefits



## BurgerTiime

Article link: http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2...employment-benefits-first-known-case-in-state


----------



## DriverX

woohoo!


----------



## Bart McCoy

So how he pull that off, and it comes from Uber?


----------



## Huberis

That particular issue could be a real game changer.


----------



## riChElwAy

the 89-question questionnaire says it all . . with each passing question the picture is clearly painted . . Uber drivers are clearly serving Uber . . Uber drivers are clearly employees of Uber


----------



## riChElwAy

my personal favorite is Question 70 LOL!!!!!!


----------



## volksie

THIS IS HUGE and the timing couldn't be any better! Regardless of whether or not you want employee status with Uber, THIS IS HUGE!
The EDD HAS AN UBER SPECIFIC QUESTIONNAIRE! Holy Cow!


----------



## Jufkii

Wonder if Uber can still fight this or if it's a totally final done deal.


----------



## volksie

Jufkii said:


> Wonder if Uber can still fight this or if it's a totally final done deal.


Not only does it look like a done deal, I'll contend that SOME drivers who've had a weekly income decrease due to Uber's fare cuts can potentially get "Partial Unemployment Benefits"!


----------



## KevinH

This article has been updated and corrected. This is not the first case, but at least the 4th, with Barbara Anne Berwick and 2 other SoCal drivers receiving benefits. What is so important that the EDD approach with pointed questions.


----------



## BurgerTiime

KevinH said:


> This article has been updated and corrected. This is not the first case, but at least the 4th, with Barbara Anne Berwick and 2 other SoCal drivers receiving benefits. What is so important that the EDD approach with pointed questions.


*updated & fixed


----------



## volksie

KevinH said:


> This article has been updated and corrected. This is not the first case, but at least the 4th, with Barbara Anne Berwick and 2 other SoCal drivers receiving benefits. What is so important that the EDD approach with pointed questions.


I think this case is more important than the others because it proves Uber RETALIATES against drivers resulting in a loss of income and/or employment.


----------



## LAuberX

Bingo. If you are forced to drive 15-20 minutes to a ping or get a time out, you just might be an employee.

don't drive to 15 minute pings? get fired.


----------



## Just_in

riChElwAy said:


> the 89-question questionnaire says it all . . with each passing question the picture is clearly painted . . Uber drivers are clearly serving Uber . . Uber drivers are clearly employees of Uber


No doubt...It seems like it would be pretty hard to fail it if you drive for Uber. Answer honestly and you will reap the rewards.


----------



## USArmy31B30

Uber = Finacial House of Cards LMAO how long can they keep dragging this thing?


----------



## LADriver

BurgerTiime said:


> Article link: http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2...employment-benefits-first-known-case-in-state


This case speaks to the "Gig", "Shared", economy as a whole. The Company/Controller (i.e. UBER) wants to profit from the Independent Contractor/Server/Provider by separating labor from control. Labor law (especially in California) is very comprehensive and loop-hole free when it comes to an employer-employee relationship. UBER wants to separate in theory, labor from control. Like trying to separate Time from Space. Not going to happen. They say, "We're a Technology/Software provider. We're not a cab service." But, as can be seen in the lengthy questionnaire, UBER has an explicit employer/employee relationship with its' service providers. Examples: Provide UBER with your legal documents to work (DMV license, DMV registration, insurance). Provide personal information (name, age, address, SSN, phone numbers, email) to conduct a background check. Perform according to OUR 5-star rating system to remain on the platform or be de-activated (terminated at will). And produce OUR revenue before we pay you, etc. So, UBER drivers, my advise is to just make as much money as you can for the next year and then just move on. ---LADriver.


----------



## KevinH

I wonder if there is a similar form for Lyft?


----------



## Santa

And they call California a sissy state. Here it shows that they have more balls than all the other states.

I don't know when will Canada follow suit and stop giving in to these bullies such as Uber.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Somebody help me understand this. Uber doesnt pay unemployment insurance, at least not for drivers. But drivers are getting benefts. Who is paying this money to the driver?


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

Bart McCoy said:


> Somebody help me understand this. Uber doesnt pay unemployment insurance, at least not for drivers. But drivers are getting benefts. Who is paying this money to the driver?


Uber has misclassified their drivers. They will be responsible for all the back taxes owed


----------



## volksie

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Uber has misclassified their drivers. They will be responsible for all the back taxes owed


Hey Uber, The Sky is Falling! Anybody else notice that the media keeps using a $40B valuation for Uber lately instead of the mind boggling 70B?.... Interesting.


----------



## Modern-Day-Slavery

volksie said:


> Hey Uber, The Sky is Falling! Anybody else notice that the media keeps using a $40B valuation for Uber lately instead of the mind boggling 70B?.... Interesting.


The only media reports I see are biased towards Uber. They have vested interests.


----------



## observer

Bart McCoy said:


> Somebody help me understand this. Uber doesnt pay unemployment insurance, at least not for drivers. But drivers are getting benefts. Who is paying this money to the driver?


Even though this is about drivers, Uber has regular employees too. So, they have been depositing money into EDD for the regular employees. EDD will take that money. Once that money is gone, the state will pay, then sue Uber.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Bart McCoy said:


> So how he pull that off, and it comes from Uber?


Yep eventually it will


----------



## 20yearsdriving

LAuberX said:


> Bingo. If you are forced to drive 15-20 minutes to a ping or get a time out, you just might be an employee.
> 
> don't drive to 15 minute pings? get fired.


Bingo!!


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Bart McCoy said:


> Somebody help me understand this. Uber doesnt pay unemployment insurance, at least not for drivers. But drivers are getting benefts. Who is paying this money to the driver?


for now it just another cost shifted 
It will be repayed later


----------



## 20yearsdriving

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Uber has misclassified their drivers. They will be responsible for all the back taxes owed


Bingo!!!


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

20yearsdriving said:


> Bingo!!!


You know how the saying goes. There are two things that are certain in life... death and taxes.

If you think that the government bodies are going to let Uber slide without paying their tax bill then you are crazy.

Up next... the NLRB. This will be a bloodbath for Uber.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> You know how the saying goes. There are two things that are certain in life... death and taxes.
> 
> If you think that the government bodies are going to let Uber slide without paying their tax bill then you are crazy.
> 
> Up next... the NLRB. This will be a bloodbath for Uber.


There is no free lunch
Uber can only scoundrel it's way for so long

People are starting to understand uber's valuation is based on how much cost it can shift to everyone else in this planet 
Bottom line : reverse wealth re-distribution / trickle up economics

Uber has pick pocketed most people one way or another


----------



## underpaiduber

I have to stay this is extremely risky for the Uber Driver and I am 100% certain it will come back to bite the Uber driver. My sister an EDD worker in the Payroll Tax division of EDD said that in order to collect UI benefits, first there has to be an employer/employee relationship, then the employer must pay EDD U.I. payroll taxes on the driver (which they do not do). The only reason this got approved was because the UBER driver did not enter the correct information on the Unemployment Insurance application allowing it to slip through the cracks temporarily . EDD will catch this when there is no UI reserve account attached to the UBER account or no UI credit applied to the driver's social security number. Then they will go after the UBER driver not the UBER CORP. to collect any money that might have got paid out, plus penalties, interest, and a possible fraud charge. Just because it appears to have worked, make no mistake, it will fail. My advise to anyone think about this is "DO NOT DO IT"!


----------



## 20yearsdriving

underpaiduber said:


> I have to stay this is extremely risky for the Uber Driver and I am 100% certain it will come back to bite the Uber driver. My sister an EDD worker in the Payroll Tax division of EDD said that in order to collect UI benefits, first there has to be an employer/employee relationship, then the employer must pay EDD U.I. payroll taxes on the driver (which they do not do). The only reason this got approved was because the UBER driver did not enter the correct information on the Unemployment Insurance application allowing it to slip through the cracks temporarily . EDD will catch this when there is no UI reserve account attached to the UBER account or no UI credit applied to the driver's social security number. Then they will go after the UBER driver not the UBER CORP. to collect any money that might have got paid out, plus penalties, interest, and a possible fraud charge. Just because it appears to have worked, make no mistake, it will fail. My advise to anyone think about this is "DO NOT DO IT"!


Makes sense if you follow the rules
Uber skirts rules

You completely miss the point 
Or 
Your last name is Kalanic
Or 
just love your oppressor 
Or 
You are just bad advise


----------



## underpaiduber

Oh and anyone familiar with the class action must know that no court decision has been rendered forcing UBER to reclassify it drivers as employees. If by a miracle this happened then at that point in time one might try. But if you followed the Lyft case it was settled for penalties on the dollar and the workers were officially classified as independent contractors. The Uber case will be settled the same way. No way in hell will UBER be classifying its drivers as employees, absolutely no way!


----------



## Just_in

underpaiduber said:


> I have to stay this is extremely risky for the Uber Driver and I am 100% certain it will come back to bite the Uber driver. My sister an EDD worker in the Payroll Tax division of EDD said that in order to collect UI benefits, first there has to be an employer/employee relationship, then the employer must pay EDD U.I. payroll taxes on the driver (which they do not do). The only reason this got approved was because the UBER driver did not enter the correct information on the Unemployment Insurance application allowing it to slip through the cracks temporarily . EDD will catch this when there is no UI reserve account attached to the UBER account or no UI credit applied to the driver's social security number. Then they will go after the UBER driver not the UBER CORP. to collect any money that might have got paid out, plus penalties, interest, and a possible fraud charge. Just because it appears to have worked, make no mistake, it will fail. My advise to anyone think about this is "DO NOT DO IT"!


Why would the EDD go thru all that trouble to make a exclusive questionnaire for those who drove for Uber and are applying for benefits?


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

underpaiduber said:


> I have to stay this is extremely risky for the Uber Driver and I am 100% certain it will come back to bite the Uber driver. My sister an EDD worker in the Payroll Tax division of EDD said that in order to collect UI benefits, first there has to be an employer/employee relationship, then the employer must pay EDD U.I. payroll taxes on the driver (which they do not do). The only reason this got approved was because the UBER driver did not enter the correct information on the Unemployment Insurance application allowing it to slip through the cracks temporarily . EDD will catch this when there is no UI reserve account attached to the UBER account or no UI credit applied to the driver's social security number. Then they will go after the UBER driver not the UBER CORP. to collect any money that might have got paid out, plus penalties, interest, and a possible fraud charge. Just because it appears to have worked, make no mistake, it will fail. My advise to anyone think about this is "DO NOT DO IT"!


HAHA, another new member being sent in by the Uber spin machine.


----------



## Modern-Day-Slavery

20yearsdriving said:


> Makes sense if you follow the rules
> Uber skirts rules
> 
> You completely miss the point
> Or
> Your last name is Kalanic
> Or
> just love your oppressor
> Or
> You are just bad advise


This is 2016. Rules only apply to the repressed and enforced by the powerful only when it's convenient.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

underpaiduber said:


> Oh and anyone familiar with the class action must know that no court decision has been rendered forcing UBER to reclassify it drivers as employees. If by a miracle this happened then at that point in time one might try. But if you followed the Lyft case it was settled for penalties on the dollar and the workers were officially classified as independent contractors. The Uber case will be settled the same way. No way in hell will UBER be classifying its drivers as employees, absolutely no way!


No uber won't classify drivers as employees

Uber will have to treat IC's as real IC's
In other words huge leverage for drivers


----------



## underpaiduber

In a year from know remember my post and you will see I am and was 100% correct on this. Hey I am with the Uber drivers as far as being screwed over on the way they pay, but Jesus, this will not work. I dont know Kalanic and I am sure he is a greedy SOB. But you got to be smart on how you fight a corporation!


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Modern-Day-Slavery said:


> This is 2016. Rules only apply to the repressed and enforced by the powerful only when it's convenient.


how many dictators fell in the last decade ?
I'm sure we can do it? Right ?


----------



## 20yearsdriving

underpaiduber said:


> In a year from know remember my post and you will see I am and was 100% correct on this. Hey I am with the Uber drivers as far as being screwed over on the way they pay, but Jesus, this will not work. I dont know Kalanic and I am sure he is a greedy SOB. But you got to be smart on how you fight a corporation!


Please explain how you fight back ?


----------



## Just_in

20yearsdriving said:


> Please explain how you fight back ?


Yeah...


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Just_in said:


> Yeah...


Uber is sweating right now

Uber thinks sending a few shills with weak arguments will stop the bleeding


----------



## Another Uber Driver

My name is not Patrick Ely.

I do not live in San Marcos, California. In fact, I do not remember the last time that I was in San Marcos, California.

No one has awarded me any unemployment benefits.


----------



## Ziggy

Bart McCoy said:


> Somebody help me understand this. Uber doesnt pay unemployment insurance, at least not for drivers. But drivers are getting benefts. Who is paying this money to the driver?


The very nature of these questions from California EDD ... makes it clear that if California is looking for a very big payday in the form of unpaid taxes from Uber ... and in the process some drivers are benefiting from the wallop that California is about to unleash on Uber.


----------



## Ziggy

underpaiduber said:


> penalties on the dollar


the correct wording is "pennies on the dollar" ...


----------



## Just_in

20yearsdriving said:


> Uber is sweating right now
> 
> Uber thinks sending a few shills with weak arguments will stop the bleeding


The suspected shill.. based on his responses...Im thinking he is a thrill of victory,, agony of defeat type of guy. Coming to spoil the party..


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Just_in said:


> The suspected shill.. based on his responses...Im thinking he is a thrill of victory,, agony of defeat type of guy. Coming to spoil the party..


The shill part is not so bad 
Trying to sell his stuff kind of insults any reasonable persons intelligence


----------



## MotownUberDriver

underpaiduber said:


> I have to stay this is extremely risky for the Uber Driver and I am 100% certain it will come back to bite the Uber driver. My sister an EDD worker in the Payroll Tax division of EDD said that in order to collect UI benefits, first there has to be an employer/employee relationship, then the employer must pay EDD U.I. payroll taxes on the driver (which they do not do). The only reason this got approved was because the UBER driver did not enter the correct information on the Unemployment Insurance application allowing it to slip through the cracks temporarily . EDD will catch this when there is no UI reserve account attached to the UBER account or no UI credit applied to the driver's social security number. Then they will go after the UBER driver not the UBER CORP. to collect any money that might have got paid out, plus penalties, interest, and a possible fraud charge. Just because it appears to have worked, make no mistake, it will fail. My advise to anyone think about this is "DO NOT DO IT"!





underpaiduber said:


> Oh and anyone familiar with the class action must know that no court decision has been rendered forcing UBER to reclassify it drivers as employees. If by a miracle this happened then at that point in time one might try. But if you followed the Lyft case it was settled for penalties on the dollar and the workers were officially classified as independent contractors. The Uber case will be settled the same way. No way in hell will UBER be classifying its drivers as employees, absolutely no way!


There are these new things out. They're sweeping the nation, perhaps you've heard of them....

They are called "paragraphs".

Everything you write is just a wall of text. One big paragraph. It is tough to read, and truthfully I have no motivation to read these cluster.

Just saying. Pet peeve of mine.


----------



## KekeLo

My friend has been working at the Employment Development Department (EDD) for 30 years, and she called, uberunderpaid''s posts BS.


Travis, was born here, he should know not to with Cali. Lol


----------



## UberPartnerDennis

And to think...had screwber actually treated their drivers right and not dropped rates to slave wages, they could have avoided ALL of this..or at least a good portion of it..personally, I would not have signed onto the big lawsuit had they not dropped the rates and not given me a canned answer as to why surge didnt happen New Years eve. More and more drivers are starting to fight back, and I love every minute of it


----------



## RockinEZ

UberPartnerDennis said:


> And to think...had screwber actually treated their drivers right and not dropped rates to slave wages, they could have avoided ALL of this..or at least a good portion of it..personally, I would not have signed onto the big lawsuit had they not dropped the rates and not given me a canned answer as to why surge didnt happen New Years eve. More and more drivers are starting to fight back, and I love every minute of it


That is the living truth!


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect

underpaiduber said:


> The only reason this got approved was because the driver did not enter the correct information on the Unemployment Insurance application allowing it to slip through the cracks temporarily . EDD will catch this ,.... Then they will go after the driver not the UBER CORP. to collect any money that might have got paid out, plus penalties, interest, and a possible fraud charge. Just because it appears to have worked, make no mistake, it will fail. My advise to anyone think about this is "DO NOT DO IT"!


My thoughts too. There have several people file the so call "Zero" Income tax return, A lot of times they got back a full refund of all that was paid in for that year. Only a year later the Service mails a Birthday letter , "We have changed your return", asking for it all back.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect

20yearsdriving said:


> Please explain how you fight back ?


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The first one that runs out is first loser.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> 
> The first one that runs out is first loser.


Let's see 4.00 minimum ride =2.00 net 
You have to do way to many rides to make that much $$$$$$
It all makes sense now !!
You just roll over & take it

Your share of 60 billion = just a dream


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce

Bart McCoy said:


> Somebody help me understand this. Uber doesnt pay unemployment insurance, at least not for drivers. But drivers are getting benefts. Who is paying this money to the driver?


Uber does have (corporate) employees and pays unemployment insurance.
Uber doesn't consider you an employee but the state of California do. The state apparently doesn't care what ubers definition of an employee is. All deactivated drivers who worked over a year for uber should take their chances and file imo.


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce

underpaiduber said:


> Oh and anyone familiar with the class action must know that no court decision has been rendered forcing UBER to reclassify it drivers as employees. If by a miracle this happened then at that point in time one might try. But if you followed the Lyft case it was settled for penalties on the dollar and the workers were officially classified as independent contractors. The Uber case will be settled the same way. No way in hell will UBER be classifying its drivers as employees, absolutely no way!


Nobody wants to be an employees we want to be independent contractors. We want uber to understand the difference between the two. All this deactivation mess shouldn't be allowed. Our rating shouldn't be used to control us. As an independent contractor the power should lie in the hands of the client not the company. Imo.


----------



## MotownUberDriver

UberBlackPr1nce said:


> Nobody wants to be employees we want to be independent contractors. We want uber to understand the difference between the two. All this deactivation mess shouldn't be allowed. Our rating shouldn't be used to control us. As an independent contractor the power should lie in the hands of the client not the company. Imo.


A friend of mine put it very simple...

"As an independent contractor, you have the right to refuse any trip you want, just as Uber has the right to end the partnership at any moment."

That's what he said. I think it's spot on.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Jufkii said:


> Wonder if Uber can still fight this or if it's a totally final done deal.


I used to work for the unemployment office here in PA back in the 80's, and of course its appealable.

From the pic, its really uncertain as to how far up on the UC food chain this comes from. Initially, the local office makes the initial determination, then both parties have the right to appeal to a referee and then to a board of review. Beyond that, the state courts are an option to appeal to.

Even if this is just the initial determination, yes, it is important as I can't see a local UC examiner making this decision without local management review. But it could be a rogue local examiner out of touch with the EDD leadership in Sacramento, and isn't a binding precedent for other examiners or referees. Unless Uber were to agree with it, it's really not settled until it is battled out in the courts, and that may take years, depending on how many cases are ahead of this on the referees' and board of appeals dockets.


----------



## chi1cabby

underpaiduber said:


> The only reason this got approved was because the UBER driver did not enter the correct information on the Unemployment Insurance application allowing it to slip through the cracks temporarily .


It's obvious that you didn't even read the article. California Employment Development Department has a 10 page *Employment Relationship Questionnaire *specifically for Uber Drivers. So there is Zero chance that EDD didn't catch on that the Applicant, Patrick Ely, was in fact an Uber Driver.










In addition to Patrick Ely's case, there is Driver Zero's case:
*LA Uber Driver Got Unemployment Benefits*
And:
*EDD denies Uber's appeal. In southern California a terminated Uber driver is declared an employee*


----------



## MotownUberDriver

chi1cabby said:


> It's obvious that you didn't even read the article. California Employment Development Department has a 10 page *Employment Relationship Questionnaire *specifically for Uber Drivers. So there is Zero chance that EDD didn't catch on that the Applicant, Patrick Ely, was in fact an Uber Driver.
> 
> View attachment 30859
> 
> 
> In addition to Patrick Ely's case, there is Driver Zero's case:
> *LA Uber Driver Got Unemployment Benefits*
> And:
> *EDD denies Uber's appeal. In southern California a terminated Uber driver is declared an employee*


Lol. Thank you for this.


----------



## Rat

UberBlackPr1nce said:


> Nobody wants to be employees we want to be independent contractors. We want uber to understand the difference between the two. All this deactivation mess shouldn't be allowed. Our rating shouldn't be used to control us. As an independent contractor the power should lie in the hands of the client not the company. Imo.


As an independent contractor, you're not the client, the passenger is. Uber is working for the client, also. Part of the service they offer the client is ensuring a safe, clean, and prompt ride.


----------



## chi1cabby

BurgerTiime said:


> Article link: http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2...employment-benefits-first-known-case-in-state


BurgerTiime would you please edit your opening post with an acknowledgement/credit to the SFWeekly reporter & Forum Member Chris_Roberts.
Thanx!


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Rat said:


> As an independent contractor, you're not the client, the passenger is. Uber is working for the client, also. Part of the service they offer the client is ensuring a safe, clean, and prompt ride.


Isn't the service delivered by you. the driver ??
When you accept that 4 dollar ride 
Are you happy to donate that ride or is uber acceptance rate a factor 
If acceptance rate is a factor you smell like a employee


----------



## KekeLo

It's very simple. Uber attempts to control drivers with the acceptance rate by giving them time outs. If the drivers don't succumb to Uber's BS demands, the company will terminate them. The EDD is one of the agencies charged with classifying workers as independent contractors or employees.
The EDD knows exactly what's going on with Uber.

READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH ABOUT CONTROL.THAT'S RIGHT SCREW YOU UBER. LMAO


----------



## chi1cabby

KekeLo said:


> READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH ABOUT CONTROL.THAT'S RIGHT SCREW YOU UBER. LMAO


Forum Members please take a moment to cast your votes in this pertinent poll:

*Ongoing Poll | Do Uber & Lyft Exercise Excessive Control Over IC Drivers.*


----------



## KekeLo

It all makes sense now !!
You just roll over & take it

Your share of 60 billion = just a dream
Yeah, that $2.40 ain't no joke. 

TELL THEM 20yearsdriving. LMFAO


----------



## chicagoguyPHX

underpaiduber said:


> I have to stay this is extremely risky for the Uber Driver and I am 100% certain it will come back to bite the Uber driver. My sister an EDD worker in the Payroll Tax division of EDD said that in order to collect UI benefits, first there has to be an employer/employee relationship, then the employer must pay EDD U.I. payroll taxes on the driver (which they do not do). The only reason this got approved was because the UBER driver did not enter the correct information on the Unemployment Insurance application allowing it to slip through the cracks temporarily . EDD will catch this when there is no UI reserve account attached to the UBER account or no UI credit applied to the driver's social security number. Then they will go after the UBER driver not the UBER CORP. to collect any money that might have got paid out, plus penalties, interest, and a possible fraud charge. Just because it appears to have worked, make no mistake, it will fail. My advise to anyone think about this is "DO NOT DO IT"!


Travis Kalanick, is this you??


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce

Rat said:


> As an independent contractor, you're not the client, the passenger is. Uber is working for the client, also. Part of the service they offer the client is ensuring a safe, clean, and prompt ride.


Lol, I didn't say" we we're clients".. Inspector gadget..... If you can't understand what I meant then I can't help you.


----------



## Bart McCoy

UberBlackPr1nce said:


> Uber does have (corporate) employees and pays unemployment insurance.
> Uber doesn't consider you an employee but the state of California do. The state apparently doesn't care what ubers definition of an employee is. All deactivated drivers who worked over a year for uber should take their chances and file imo.


Yes, I know they have corporate employees, thats why I said "for drivers at least". The number of corporate employees is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than if they included all drivers. Which means the money Uber pays for unemployment doesn't match up(corporate employees + drivers), or if hundreds and hundreds of drivers filed for benefits it would tap into the money Uber pays for their corporate employees. They don't pay any payroll tax for unemployment benefits for any drivers (since they are independent contractors). So again, the money has to come from somewhere, Uber surely isn't paying for all their drivers, so I'm wondering if the state of California is paying it,which it turn mean tax payers are paying it

If the state considers Uber drivers an employee, then the state needs to make Uber pay for unemployment for these employees(drivers). I haven't seen anything that says Uber is doing this


----------



## KekeLo

Go to CA.gov Department of Industrial Relations, and you will see, Uber is going to pay for the EDD benefits. These laws have been in place way before Uber came along.

Pay attention.

.


----------



## Bart McCoy

KekeLo said:


> Go to CA.gov Department of Industrial Relations, and you will see, Uber is going to pay for the EDD benefits. These laws have been in place way before Uber came along.
> 
> Pay attention.
> 
> .


Pure speculation for now.
But yeah, we'll pay attention and see, just like we are all paying attention to the employee/independent contractor suit that hasn't played out yet


----------



## 20yearsdriving




----------



## KekeLo

Bart McCoy said:


> Pure speculation for now.
> But yeah, we'll pay attention and see, just like we are all paying attention to the employee/independent contractor suit that hasn't played out yet


Now, understand this, Mr.McCoy, I've been in 10 class action lawsuit suits in California, and ALL THE EMPLOYERS LOST. SO, I have BEEN PAYING ATTENTION WAY BEFORE UBER AND YOUR OPINION CAME ALONG


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> Somebody help me understand this. Uber doesnt pay unemployment insurance, at least not for drivers. But drivers are getting benefts. Who is paying this money to the driver?


The state will charge Uber. The fact that Uber hasn't "heretofore" paid for unemployment insurance for the drivers is irrelevant as to whether the 'employee' qualifies for benefits under state law. It's now up to the CA Dept of Labor (Labor Commission) to prosecute Uber for not providing the unemployment insurance coverage.


----------



## KekeLo

Michael - Cleveland said:


> The state will charge Uber. The fact that Uber hasn't "heretofore" paid for unemployment insurance is irrelevant as to whether the 'employee' qualifies for benefits under state law. It's now up to the CA Dept of Labor (Labor Commission) to prosecute Uber for not providing the unemployment insurance coverage.


Thank you, so very much, Michael-Cleveland.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

underpaiduber said:


> In a year from know remember my post and you will see I am and was 100% correct on this. Hey I am with the Uber drivers as far as being screwed over on the way they pay, but Jesus, this will not work. I dont know Kalanic and I am sure he is a greedy SOB. But you got to be smart on how you fight a corporation!


I disagree. What this will do, IMO, is force Uber to *change what it controls* about the work of ICs and it *may* force the US congress off it's fat collective ass to update the FLSA and create a new class of worker that supports the gig economy while still providing the minimum protections it was intended to guarantee: SSI/Medicare contributions, unemployment insurance and the prevention of exploitation of labor.


----------



## Bart McCoy

KekeLo said:


> Now, understand this, Mr.McCoy, I've been in 10 class action lawsuit suits in California, and ALL THE EMPLOYERS LOST. SO, I have BEEN PAYING ATTENTION WAY BEFORE UBER AND YOUR OPINION CAME ALONG





Michael - Cleveland said:


> The state will charge Uber. The fact that Uber hasn't "heretofore" paid for unemployment insurance for the drivers is irrelevant as to whether the 'employee' qualifies for benefits under state law. It's now up to the CA Dept of Labor (Labor Commission) to prosecute Uber for not providing the unemployment insurance coverage.


You guys kill me. So because employers lost in the past, Uber is guaranteed to lose this one? seriously? you call the past science?

"State will charge". Again, PURE SPECULATION. Holler back when they DO charge and Uber ACTUALLY pays. Because for some reason you think "prosecuting" is the new science of "must pay", smh. There's no 100% prosecution rate

If you guys cant follow along, its still speculation about what will happen, and its sad you guys wanna debate me about that,acting like its a foregone conclusion, worse yet a FACT, that Uber will pay. Yikes.

We have to wait and see


----------



## stuber

volksie said:


> THIS IS HUGE and the timing couldn't be any better! Regardless of whether or not you want employee status with Uber, THIS IS HUGE!
> The EDD HAS AN UBER SPECIFIC QUESTIONNAIRE! Holy Cow!


I don't want employee status, but Uber wants that way way less. Instead, they will be forced, hopefully, to change the entire program.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> State will charge


 is quoted out of context - it was answer to a question - not a statement of fact. Don't mischaracterize what I post.


> its still speculation about what will happen...


 yup


> ...and its sad you guys wanna debate me about that


 yeah - because your speculations are superior to others.


> We have to wait and see


That's about the only reasonable thing you've said.

Having now read through the EDD's questionnaire, should this unemployment benefits ruling result in any attempt to hold Uber responsible for anything, my money would be on Uber absolutely ripping the ruling apart in hearings and court. Typos aside, it's is just terribly written. This is what Uber pretty much counts on: no one actually being able to fully follow, comprehend or tie together all of the pieces of their puzzle regarding their relationship with drivers.

I suspect that no board decision, court ruling or legislation will ever get it completely 'right' unless everyone involved (attys, bureaucrats, judges, jury members and legislators) have all driven for a TNC for at least 3 months. And that is never going to happen.


----------



## Uber-Doober

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> HAHA, another new member being sent in by the Uber spin machine.


^^^
Not only that.... but using Che as his avatar.


----------



## Uber-Doober

UberPartnerDennis said:


> And to think...had screwber actually treated their drivers right and not dropped rates to slave wages, they could have avoided ALL of this..or at least a good portion of it..personally, I would not have signed onto the big lawsuit had they not dropped the rates and not given me a canned answer as to why surge didnt happen New Years eve. More and more drivers are starting to fight back, and I love every minute of it


^^^
Over the last several months, I have posted your reply almost verbatim. 
All great minds run in the same gutter. Haha.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

The title of this thread caught me off guard.
For a minute, I thought Another Uber Driver had been awarded unemployment benefits.


----------



## LADriver

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Uber has misclassified their drivers. They will be responsible for all the back taxes owed


In the world of high finance, this is know as "Funny Money" (just kidding). The State of California knows it has just set up $60-Billion-UBER to cover the onslaught of un-employment benefits it will be paying out from Gov. Browns' private checking account. Their 9 page, 89 item questionnaire did not create itself without a team of attorneys projecting it's impact on the un-employment system.

The state bill for UBER starts now and it will continue to grow along the way, through court cases, judgments, settlements, etc. The law in California allows for a misclassified employee to collect 4 years of back-pay from the filing date, once a case is settled. (I've been through 2 of these cases against limo companies). UBER has been legal in California for less than 3 years, so they will be on the hook for the full amount, after the result of the Employee/I.C. case set to go to trial in June. Current un-employment benefits are pushed into the unknown future, "Funny Money" at its' best.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

stuber said:


> I don't want employee status, but Uber wants that way way less. Instead, they will be forced, hopefully, to change the entire program.


You don't want minimum wage?
You don't want overtime?
You don't want Uber to pay social security and medicare instead of paying a self employment tax?
You don't want to be reimbursed for vehicle expenses?
You don't want your healthcare paid for?
You don't want workers comp if you get injured?
You don't want the ability to keep your flexible schedule?

What, exactly, do you want?


----------



## KekeLo

LADriver said:


> In the world of high finance, this is know as "Funny Money" (just kidding). The State of California knows it has just set up $60-Billion-UBER to cover the onslaught of un-employment benefits it will be paying out from Gov. Browns' private checking account. Their 9 page, 89 item questionnaire did not create itself without a team of attorneys projecting it's impact on the un-employment system.
> 
> The state bill for UBER starts now and it will continue to grow along the way, through court cases, judgments, settlements, etc. The law in California allows for a misclassified employee to collect 4 years of back-pay from the filing date, once a case is settled. (I've been through 2 of these cases against limo companies). UBER has been legal in California for less than 3 years, so they will be on the hook for the full amount, after the result of the Employee/I.C. case set to go to trial in June. Current un-employment benefits are pushed into the unknown future, "Funny Money" at its' best.


NUFF SAID


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

KekeLo said:


> It's very simple. Uber attempts to control drivers with the acceptance rate by giving them time outs. If the drivers don't succumb to Uber's BS demands, the company will terminate them. The EDD is one of the agencies charged with classifying workers as independent contractors or employees.
> The EDD knows exactly what's going on with Uber.
> 
> READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH ABOUT CONTROL.THAT'S RIGHT SCREW YOU UBER. LMAO
> 
> View attachment 30868


The last part after that is also very important. It's why uber keeps trying to insist they're NOT a transportation company.

The fact that a questionaire JUST for uber was written says to me they've already made up their minds that uber drivers are employees. They just want documentation to show it.


----------



## KekeLo

Fuzzyelvis said:


> The last part after that is also very important. It's why uber keeps trying to insist they're NOT a transportation company.
> 
> The fact that a questionaire JUST for uber was written says to me they've already made up their minds that uber drivers are employees. They just want documentation to show it.


Exactly!!!


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> You don't want minimum wage?
> You don't want overtime?
> You don't want Uber to pay social security and medicare instead of paying a self employment tax?
> You don't want to be reimbursed for vehicle expenses?
> You don't want your healthcare paid for?
> You don't want workers comp if you get injured?
> You don't want the ability to keep your flexible schedule?
> 
> What, exactly, do you want?


To be treated like a contractor. In other words have control over what is supposedly OUR business.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Michael - Cleveland said:


> The title of this thread caught me off guard.
> For a minute, I thought Another Uber Driver had been awarded unemployment benefits.


See post #42 for disclaimer.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

Fuzzyelvis said:


> To be treated like a contractor. In other words have control over what is supposedly OUR business.


That's a nice snarky reply, but would you like to add something of substance?


----------



## stuber

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> You don't want minimum wage?
> You don't want overtime?
> You don't want Uber to pay social security and medicare instead of paying a self employment tax?
> You don't want to be reimbursed for vehicle expenses?
> You don't want your healthcare paid for?
> You don't want workers comp if you get injured?
> You don't want the ability to keep your flexible schedule?
> 
> What, exactly, do you want?


All I want is control over my own business. Freedom from acceptance/cancellation penalties. Freedom to set my own price, and complete waybills with destination BEFORE I take a trip.

Give me these and I'll do just fine.

No way would I want to be an employee of a company this unethical.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

stuber said:


> All I want is control over my own business. Freedom from acceptance/cancellation penalties. Freedom to set my own price, and complete waybills with destination BEFORE I take a trip.
> 
> Give me these and I'll do just fine.
> 
> No way would I want to be an employee of a company this unethical.


You DO have control over YOUR business. What you really want is control over Uber's business. If you want freedom from acceptance penalties, then kick Uber to the curb. That's what I did.

You have freedom to set your own prices in your driving business, and Uber has the freedom to offer you jobs at your rate or not. That's exactly how my business works. If another limo company wants me to do a run for them and I dont like the price they offer, I don't take the run. If the other limo company doesn't think I accept enough of their runs, then they don't offer them to me anymore.

Welcome to the real world of owning a business. If you don't like the way a company works or you find them unethical, then do not work with them.


----------



## scrurbscrud

Bart McCoy said:


> Somebody help me understand this. Uber doesnt pay unemployment insurance, at least not for drivers. But drivers are getting benefts. Who is paying this money to the driver?


That's a great question. The driver in question could have been previously employed and drew benefits from what a previous employer paid in? I'm not familiar with the regs on this one. In most states there is a time slot after separating from work where an unemployed person can draw benefits from what that employer paid in. Obviously in Uber's case they didn't pay in for the driver, so I don't know how that could possibly work. Seems a bit strange.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> You DO have control over YOUR business. What you really want is control over Uber's business. If you want freedom from acceptance penalties, then kick Uber to the curb. That's what I did.
> 
> You have freedom to set your own prices in your driving business, and Uber has the freedom to offer you jobs at your rate or not. That's exactly how my business works. If another limo company wants me to do a run for them and I dont like the price they offer, I don't take the run. If the other limo company doesn't think I accept enough of their runs, then they don't offer them to me anymore.
> 
> Welcome to the real world of owning a business. If you don't like the way a company works or you find them unethical, then do not work with them.


You are mischaracterizing Uber's *stated* business relationship with drivers. They state in the driver agreements that what Uber does is provide 'leads' to drivers who license the app, and that *use of the app creates a direct relationship between the rider and the driver *(and that Uber acts as a "third party payor"). THAT is how and why Uber 'claims' they are not a transportation company.

But then, the reality is that Uber CONTROLS the pricing of the transportation and can fire a driver from the system at its discretion based on metrics it tracks which include things like ratings from the driver's clients, acceptance rate and cancelation rate. The say they are not an employer of drivers - but they exert the control of an employer over drivers.

Uber wants the control of an employer without the responsibilities and the courts are not going to allow all of that. It's going to breakdown somewhere - and IMO we will see a new way for companies like Uber to handle 'gig' workers.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

scrurbscrud said:


> That's a great question. The driver in question could have been previously employed and drew benefits from what a previous employer paid in? I'm not familiar with the regs on this one. In most states there is a time slot after separating from work where an unemployed person can draw benefits from what that employer paid in. Obviously in Uber's case they didn't pay in for the driver, so I don't know how that could possibly work. Seems a bit strange.


Companies pay unemployment INSURANCE premiums that go into a state fund. While the state tracks what each company pays based on each employee and their earnings, it's not like they set up separate deposit accounts for every employer or employee. Claims are paid out of the fund. (And while it really doesn't matter, Uber IS a California employer and does pay unemployment insurance premiums on their direct hire employees)


----------



## Bart McCoy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Companies pay unemployment INSURANCE premiums that go into a state fund. While the state tracks what each company pays based on each employee and their earnings, it's not like they set up separate deposit accounts for every employer or employee. Claims are paid out of the fund. (And while it really doesn't matter, Uber IS a California employer and does pay unemployment insurance premiums on their direct hire employees)


We already know Uber pays umemployment insurance, for non-drivers. We are talking drivers which outnumber all their non-drivers. Theoretically, all past drivers could file for benefits, which take money out of the fund reserved for NON-DRIVERS to get benefits. The state fund Uber pays is based on NON-DRIVERS. Uber would pay EXTREMELY more if they paid for drivers and non-drivers. We are talking a BIG money difference here


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> The state fund Uber pays is based on NON-DRIVERS. Uber would pay EXTREMELY more if they paid for drivers and non-drivers. We are talking a BIG money difference here


You are conflating different issues and completely missing the point of how the STATE pays unemployment benefits. A beneficiary receives unemployment benefit payments from the STATE. The state determines if, what and how much an employer must contribute to the state unemployment fund. If the company paid the benefit directly to each former employee, it would be called 'severance pay'.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> The state determines if, what and how much an employer must contribute to the state unemployment fund. '.


So you telling me this is NOT based on the number of employees? (in this case it would only be non-drivers for Uber)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> So you telling me this is NOT based on the number of employees? (in this case it would only be non-drivers for Uber)


I don't know what "this" is... but I turn in my quarterly payroll reports to the state. They determine the withholdings for each employee. What I pay, and how many employees I pay for, is not related (directly) to whether or not an IC I hired who files a claim gets paid. That determination is a separate issue, handled by the state. If the state determines that the worker is eligible for benefits, they come back to my account to see if I paid the insurance premiums for that employee and if I haven't they send me a bill and give me the opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of the claim.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I don't know what "it" is... but I turn in my quarterly payroll reports to the state. They determine the withholdings for each employee. What I pay, and how many employees I pay for, is not related (directly) to whether or not an IC I hired who files a claim gets paid. That determination is a separate issue, handled by the state. If the state determines that the worker is eligible for benefits, they come back to my account to see if I paid the insurance premiums for that employee and if I haven't they send me a bill and give me the opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of the claim.


So your answer implies that it DOES matter how many employees you have. Which makes sense. Uber simply does not pay for any unemployment on its drivers as of today(simply because they are independent contractors). You seem to go back to the other guy that says the state will send UBer a bill and make them pay. I'm pretty sure Uber is not gonna "just pay" all that extra money for independent contractors. Appeals and appeals are coming Im sure.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> So your answer implies that it DOES matter how many employees you have. Which makes sense. Uber simply does not pay for any unemployment on its drivers as of today(simply because they are independent contractors). You seem to go back to the other guy that says the state will send UBer a bill and make them pay. I'm pretty sure Uber is not gonna "just pay" all that extra money for independent contractors. Appeals and appeals are coming Im sure.


Of course Uber doesn't pay unemployment insurance (or SSI/Medicare, or any withholding) on drivers. Drivers do not receive payroll - they receive payments directly from their paxs - with Uber acting as the third party payor and subtracting the fees it charges. THAT is the point... drivers are suing (individually and collectively) and proving, in some cases, that they are in fact employees of Uber, working for the benefit of their employer, due all of the required benefits of an employee, as specified in the Department of Labor regulations. They are filing unemployment claims and using that channel to prove that they are in fact employees doing work for the benefit of their employer.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Of course Uber doesn't pay unemployment insurance (or SSI/Medicare, or any withholding) on drivers. Drivers do not receive payroll - they receive payments directly from their paxs - with Uber acting as the third party payor and subtracting the fees it charges. THAT is the point... drivers are suing (individually and collectively) and proving, in some cases, that they are in fact employees, due all of the required benefits of an employee. They are filing unemployment claims and using that channel to prove that they are in fact employees doing work for the benefit of their employer.


I understand all that. Not debating all that. The only debate is:

*Who is paying for the benefits*

not should they prove they are employees or anything else you have typed. I see no proof Uber is paying for all these drivers, so I have to assume the state, aka tax payers, are paying as of right NOW


----------



## ginseng41

I wonder how the state is determining the amount of the unemployment benefits. Gross (i.e. that which they claim we're earning ), gross to us (that which they pay us, or actual net.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> I understand all that. Not debating all that. The only debate is:
> 
> *Who is paying for the benefits*
> 
> not should they prove they are employees or anything else you have typed.


"*THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND PAYS THE BENEFIT*"
The state will attempt to verify policy coverage of the worker vis-a-vis the employer. If premiums have been paid for that employee, no problem. If not, the state will send the employer a bill. The employer can challenge the claim.



> I see no proof Uber is paying for all these drivers, so I have to assume the state, aka tax payers, are paying as of right NOW


So what? That's what taxpayers pay in to the fund for. Unemployment benefits. The self employed and employers both pay into the fund. If someone is awarded a claim, the state pays it and goes after the employer for it. If the employer challenges the claim and wins, any unemployment benefits paid to the worker are then billed back to that worker. So what's your beef?


----------



## Bart McCoy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> "*THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND PAYS THE BENEFIT*"
> The state will attempt to verify policy coverage of the worker vis-a-vis the employer. If premiums have been paid for that employee, no problem. If not, the state will send the employer a bill. The employer can challenge the claim.
> 
> So what? That's what taxpayers pay in to the fund for. Unemployment benefits. The self employed and employers both pay into the fund. If someone is awarded a claim, the state pays it and goes after the employer for it. If the employer challenges the claim and wins, any unemployment benefits paid to the worker are then billed back to that worker. So what's your beef?


That would mean tax payers are paying more money than they should, since Uber should be paying for its alleged employees. Means people in CA will be paying higher taxes. Im sure that wont sit well with those residents


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> That would mean tax payers are paying more money than they should, since Uber should be paying for its alleged employees. Means people in CA will be paying higher taxes. Im sure that wont sit well with those residents


Are you intentionally ignoring what I am saying in order to make a false point?
The state verifies that the insurance premium has been paid by the employer. If it hasn't, then they go after the employer for the payment. If the company challenges the claim and wins, then the money comes back to the fund from the worker.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Are you intentionally ignoring what I am saying in order to make a false point?
> The state verifies that the insurance premium has been paid by the employer. If it hasn't, then they go after the employer for the payment. If the company challenges the claim and wins, then the money comes back to the fund from the worker.


No, guess I'm just kind of confused as to what you are saying. But remember what's happening here: independent contractors (who NO employer has paid unemployment insurance on them) are getting benefits. Of course Uber will say, this person is not our employee. The state of CA doesn't even need to "verify the insurance premium has been paid by the employer" because the person filing for benefits is NOT an employee!!!

And you say "the money comes back to the fund". Well according to the OP, looks like a person has got a check or is getting a check. If Uber "wins" as you say, the person has to pay that money back?Because appeals and claims etc take a while. Would be wild if it dook 6 months and the guy has to pay 6months back. You say"goes back to the fund" well somebody (the state or the uber guy) has to give it back. And either way the money in Uber's fund is NOT for drivers, its for their non-drivers (aka actual employees).

But looks like we are going in circles here. Guess we have to wait until Uber appeals or files a claim, or if someone produces a document showing Uber is actually paying for non-employees (drivers).As of now yes it looks like the driver is getting money, but its not proven yet where the money is actually coming from(well the state is giving it to him but questions remain if Uber will pay the state for it)


----------



## JimS

I thought if you were fired, you weren't entitled to unemployment benefits. Only if you were laid off.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> No, guess I'm just kind of confused as to what you are saying. But remember what's happening here: independent contractors (who NO employer has paid unemployment insurance on them) are getting benefits.


Yes, but as soon as they receive the benefits, the state makes sure the unpaid premiums are paid by the employer. [/QUOTE]


> Of course Uber will say, this person is not our employee. The state of CA doesn't even need to "verify the insurance premium has been paid by the employer" because the person filing for benefits is NOT an employee!!!


And this is where you are getting confused. If the EDD determines the worker is eligible for benefits due to their relationship with an employer, then it doesn't matter what the employer calls the worker. The company has right to appeal a claim, and if they win, they don't have to pay the premiums due. If they lose the appeal, then they do. If the worker has been paid any benefit that is later found to have been paid in error, then the worker must pay the state back.



> If Uber "wins" as you say, the person has to pay that money back?


 Yes.


> Because appeals and claims etc take a while.


Again, you are confusing different issues. The EDD is not a COURT - it is an operating board. Claims and appeals happen quickly (relative to lawsuits in court).


> Would be wild if it dook 6 months and the guy has to pay 6 months back.


Happens all the time. People quit their job, file for unemployment, receive benefits and don't report their new job income... the state catches up with them and gets their money back. You have to remember how much power the state and federal gov'ts have when it comes to *garnishing wages* and attaching liens to property (including bank accounts).


> You say"goes back to the fund" well somebody (the state or the uber guy) has to give it back. And either way the money in Uber's fund is NOT for drivers, its for their non-drivers (aka actual employees).


 Uber does not have a FUND!! Stop thinking about it that way. It is INSURANCE. The money is for ANYONE who is determined to be unemployed through no fault of their own... this isn't charity - it is a fund supported through the insurance premiums paid by all workers and employers. It works the same way all insurance works: lots of people pay into a fund, the fund is invested and grows, the claims are paid to the small percentage of the people who contribute (directly or through their employer by way of premiums) that actually need the funds while they are looking for new work.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

JimS said:


> I thought if you were fired, you weren't entitled to unemployment benefits. Only if you were laid off.


State laws differ, but in general if you were fired without "cause", you can collect unemployment benefits. (note: 'cause' is a legal term - and it is defined by each state)


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Bart McCoy said:


> So you telling me this is NOT based on the number of employees? (in this case it would only be non-drivers for Uber)





ginseng41 said:


> I wonder how the state is determining the amount of the unemployment benefits. Gross (i.e. that which they claim we're earning ), gross to us (that which they pay us, or actual net.


The forms & questions were uber driver specific
I think the state is preparing its move

Information that uber refuses to release 
Is being slowly put together

If state denied unemployment deactivated drivers would not apply

The state just opened the flood gates


----------



## Bart McCoy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yes, but as soon as they receive the benefits, the state makes sure the unpaid premiums are paid by the employer.
> And this is where you are getting confused. If the EDD determines the worker is eligible for benefits due to their relationship with an employer, then it doesn't matter what the employer calls the worker. The company has right to appeal a claim, and if they win, they don't have to pay the premiums due. If they lose the appeal, then they do. If the worker has been paid any benefit that is later found to have been paid in error, then the worker must pay the state back.
> 
> Yes.Again, you are confusing different issues. The EDD is not a COURT - it is an operating board. Claims and appeals happen quickly (relative to lawsuits in court).Happens all the time. People quit their job, file for unemployment, receive benefits and don't report their new job income... the state catches up with them and gets their money back. You have to remember how much power the state and federal gov'ts have when it comes to *garnishing wages* and attaching liens to property (including bank accounts). Uber does not have a FUND!! Stop thinking about it that way. It is INSURANCE. The money is for ANYONE who is determined to be unemployed through no fault of their own... this isn't charity - it is a fund supported through the insurance premiums paid by all workers and employers. It works the same way all insurance works: lots of people pay into a fund, the fund is invested and grows, the claims made by a small percentage of the people (who contribute directly or through their employer by way of premiums) that actually need the funds while they are looking for new work.


Thanks for breaking that down, I understand more clearly now how CA operates. But again, I'd hate for an Uber driver to get happy they get benefits, but be forced to pay it back much later.

Now don't get me wrong, I think CA making Uber pay driver benefits pay is a good thing, in hopes that spreads to other states. But of course, the employee/contractor lawsuit was is still in the courts so I was a lil weary how at state level they can determine that an independent contractor (Uber driver) can be eligible to receive benefits.

I hope it all works out for the drivers though, and that they keep any benefits they receive


----------



## 20yearsdriving

JimS said:


> I thought if you were fired, you weren't entitled to unemployment benefits. Only if you were laid off.


C'mon
We can call it " you are set a drift "
What difference does it make
You are fired


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Bart McCoy said:


> Thanks for breaking that down, I understand more clearly now how CA operates. But again, I'd hate for an Uber driver to get happy they get benefits, but be forced to pay it back much later.
> 
> Now don't get me wrong, I think CA making Uber pay driver benefits pay is a good thing, in hopes that spreads to other states. But of course, the employee/contractor lawsuit was is still in the courts so I was a lil weary how at state level they can determine that an independent contractor (Uber driver) can be eligible to receive benefits.
> 
> I hope it all works out for the drivers though, and that they keep any benefits they receive


Prostitutes call hook ups "dates "
It's still prostitution

Drivers are being screwed by uber already

Your concern is really for uber


----------



## Bart McCoy

20yearsdriving said:


> Prostitutes call hook ups "dates "
> It's still prostitution
> 
> Drivers are being screwed by uber already
> 
> Your concern is really for uber


NO, just because I like to know how things work, does not mean my concern is for Uber. And since I'm me and you are not me, how bout you let ME say what my concern is for thank you

My actual concern is for the drivers. These benefits are not edged in stone. Again, the real concern is for drivers to potentially have to pay back any money far down the road. Because we all know, *that in general*, you can't file for benefits as an independent contractor


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

20yearsdriving said:


> C'mon
> We can call it " you are set a drift "
> What difference does it make
> You are fired


It makes a HUGE difference. 
If you're fired for stealing from your company, not showing up for work, or violating any condition of your employment agreement, then you do not get to collect unemployment benefits.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Bart McCoy said:


> NO, just because I like to know how things work, does not mean my concern is for Uber. And since I'm me and you are not me, how bout you let ME say what my concern is for thank you


It feels like some people here plant the seed of doubt
It's getting harder to sell that stuff

When you said you're concern is the driver may get charged back for his unemployment 
Is like me being concerned with your cholesterol after you've been mauled by a tiger
Bart McCoy


----------



## Bart McCoy

20yearsdriving said:


> When you said you're concern is the driver may get charged back for his unemployment
> Is like me being concerned with your cholesterol after you've been mauled by a tiger
> Bart McCoy


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

20yearsdriving said:


> When you said you're concern is the driver may get charged back for his unemployment
> Is like me being concerned with your cholesterol after you've been mauled by a tiger
> Bart McCoy


lmao!

But seriously, Bart McCoy has a legitimate concern and question... because anyone awarded benefits and accepting payments could in fact have those awards reversed later. This usually happens with unemployment fraud - where someone files for and accepts benefits but does not report income they get from a new job or venture. But it can also happen if the employer can prove that the worker was not entitled to the award and they get the board to reverse their determination.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It makes a HUGE difference.
> If you're fired for stealing from your company, not showing up for work, or violating any condition of your employment agreement, then you do not get to collect unemployment benefits.


True 
In uber context we know it's a game of words

Uber can set a rule to deactivate you for refusing a ping when the "pax" is John Gacy


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

20yearsdriving said:


> True
> In uber context we know it's a game of words
> 
> Uber can set a rule to deactivate you for refusing a ping when the "pax" is John Gacy


LOL! Yes - but if they do that, they have then exerted the control of an EMPLOYER and will owe you back payroll taxes, expenses and overtime! 

Uber may have outsmarted themselves and backed the company into a Catch-22 corner.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> Because we all know, *that in general*, you can't file for benefits as an independent contractor


Of course you can... as long as you are paying self employment taxes, as required by law... which include unemployment insurance.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Michael - Cleveland said:


> lmao!
> 
> But seriously, Bart McCoy has a legitimate concern and question... because anyone awarded benefits and accepting payments could in fact have those awards reversed later. This usually happens with unemployment fraud - where someone files for and accepts benefits but does not report income they get from a new job or venture. But it can also happen if the employer can prove that the worker was not entitled to the award and they get the board to reverse their determination.


did you read the questionnaire ?
It sounds specifically made for uber


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

20yearsdriving said:


> did you read the questionnaire ?
> It sounds specifically made for uber


I not only read every word of it, I also noted the errors and incomplete or inappropriate questions. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread: if Uber takes the EDD to court over this, IMO Uber's lawyers will rip the questionnaire and (and possibly the ruling) to shreds.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Michael - Cleveland said:


> LOL! Yes - but if they do that, they have then exerted the control of an EMPLOYER and will owe you back payroll taxes, expenses and overtime!
> 
> Uber may have outsmarted themselves and backed the company into a Catch-22 corner.


It's a matter of time


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

20yearsdriving said:


> It's a matter of time


Uber is counting on that being a long time. I have no doubt they are betting they can get federal legislation in place before any Supreme Court ruling is made on today's laws.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Of course you can... as long as you are paying self employment taxes, as required by law... which include unemployment insurance.


wait what?
self employed people can file for unemployment benefits???????????????????????????????
Only in California I assume
Because everybody pays tax, self employed or by an employer. Filing for unemployment though, depends on your independent contractor/employer status


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I not only read every word of it, I also noted the errors and incomplete or inappropriate questions. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread: if Uber takes the EDD to court over this, IMO Uber's lawyers will rip the questionnaire and (and possibly the ruling) to shreds.


at a minimum it can be considered a step in the right direction


----------



## Bart McCoy

20yearsdriving said:


> at a minimum it can be considered a step in the right direction


Folks in Seattle can form unions. You can call that a step in the right direction. Means nothing though if Uber's lawyers eventually get that tossed away


----------



## 20yearsdriving

Bart McCoy said:


> Folks in Seattle can form unions. You can call that a step in the right direction. Means nothing though if Uber's lawyers eventually get that tossed away


Every grain of sand counts even if it only delays / stalls uber
All costs add up to uber

I don't mind ubers existence I want checks & balances

Mark my words
Every pin prick bleed's uber ( we all have put our grain of sand )

Remember this uber is doing its things at drivers expense
We will probably see uber plow the field just to have others out run uber in the transportation race
I know I personally make uber work for me ( with out working for uber )
We just doing our pin pricking


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> wait what?
> self employed people can file for unemployment benefits???????????????????????????????
> Only in California I assume
> Because everybody pays tax, self employed or by an employer. Filing for unemployment though, depends on your independent contractor/employer status


As long as you are paying for unemployment insurance (either yourself as self employed) or through your employer (even the company you own) then you can file a claim for unemployment benefits. That's what unemployment insurance is for.
You still seem to be having a problem getting your head around the fact that unemployment insurance is INSURANCE. Self employed and business owners can pay premiums too... and are required to in some states.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> As long as you are paying for unemployment insurance (either yourself as self employed) or through your employer (even the company you own) then you can file a claim for unemployment benefits. That's what unemployment insurance is for.
> Youi still seem to be having a problem getting your head around the fact that unemployment insurance is INSURANCE. Self employed and business owners can pay premiums too... and are required to in some states.


We're talking Uber drivers. How many in CA are paying this?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> We're talking Uber drivers. How many in CA are paying this?


What do I look like, a statistician for the CA EDD? 

It's not relevant to this thread... BUT, since you asked, everyone who files a tax return who has business income should be paying self-employment taxes on that income. Self Employment taxes are what your employer would normally pay on your behalf: 1/2 Social Security/Medicare and unemployment insurance - and most states require workers comp.


----------



## MiddleClassedOut

So, since a huge number of drivers have also just taken a 20% pay cut on Lyft with the requirement that cars be newer than 2011 to qualify for the Power Driver Bonuses, I wonder if we could also get some Lyft class-action suits brewing in different states.

I actually just emailed a PA employment lawyer, I'll let you guys know what I hear.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You are mischaracterizing Uber's *stated* business relationship with drivers. They state in the driver agreements that what Uber does is provide 'leads' to drivers who license the app and that *use of the app creates a direct relationship between the rider and the driver *(and that Uber acts as a "third party payor"). THAT is how and why Uber 'claims' they are not a transportation company.
> 
> But then, the reality is that Uber CONTROLS the pricing of the transportation and can fire a driver from the system at its discretion based on metrics it tracks which include things like ratings from the driver's clients, acceptance rate and cancelation rate. The say they are not an employer of drivers - but they exert the control of an employer over drivers.
> 
> Uber wants the control of an employer without the responsibilities and the courts are not going to allow all of that. It's going to breakdown somewhere - and IMO we will see a new way for companies like Uber to handle 'gig' workers.


I haven't mischaracterized anything. I believe I was the first or close to the first person on this forum to point out that UberX drivers were actually employees, not contractors. I am also well aware of what Uber claims to be their business practice but it doesn't sound like the courts are buying it.

However, UberX drivers have bought into the fact that they are small business owners. Amd now that their businesses are not profitable or have very little profit, they want to change Uber to fit their business model instead of changing their own business practices.

Quite frankly, this is a two way street. Uber has misclassified their workers AND the workers enable Uber to do whatever they want by blindly following them. I have no sympathy for the drivers.


----------



## tohellwithu

Counting the days "Uber Fail"


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> However, UberX drivers have bought into the fact that they are small business owners.


? Whether we are self-employed contractors (able to drive for Uber and/or Lyft and/or on our own and/or for anyone else, it's semantics if you're going to argue that driver's aren't "business owners". The reality for all practical purposes is that we are. We are responsible for our own P&L (even if we do not have control over the fares we are 'permitted' to earn by the TNCs. It doesn't matter to me what you call it: a business, a business opportunity, an investment, The one thing it's NOT is being an employee of Uber. It *should* be, because of the control Uber does exert over drivers, but right now it's not.


> Amd now that their businesses are not profitable or have very little profit, they want to change Uber to fit their business model instead of changing their own business practices.


 Come on, one million drivers is not a monolithic group with just one opinion, goal or desire. But I would bet that the overwhelming majority of drivers would be just fine with Uber's "business model" as you put it, if Uber didn't routinely, repeatedly and continuously lower fares from the levels they were at when Uber recruited the driver to sign on and drive.


> I have no sympathy for the drivers.


 That's obvious. I wouldn't have sympathy for drivers either, IF Uber didn't change the rules AFTER drivers made their own investment in time and equipment to do the work that was promised to them.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

tohellwithu said:


> Counting the days "Uber Fail"


Hope you can count very high.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Bart McCoy said:


> That would mean tax payers are paying more money than they should, since Uber should be paying for its alleged employees. Means people in CA will be paying higher taxes. Im sure that wont sit well with those residents


That's why the state will go after uber if it determines uber should have been paying for insurance on all the drivers.

If it was impossible to get unemployment simply because your employer decided to CALL you a contractor and not pay for unemployment insurance do you think ANY companies would call their employees employees?

Obviously if a company does that just to avoid paying anything (taxes, unemployment etc.) the state will eventually go after them.

If not, all Walmart and Mcdonalds workers would be "contractors".


----------



## scrurbscrud

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Companies pay unemployment INSURANCE premiums that go into a state fund. While the state tracks what each company pays based on each employee and their earnings, it's not like they set up separate deposit accounts for every employer or employee. Claims are paid out of the fund. (And while it really doesn't matter, Uber IS a California employer and does pay unemployment insurance premiums on their direct hire employees)


I understand that. Typically there are eligibility requirements such as actually being an employee and the company actually paying unemployment taxes on said employees wages to meet eligibility.


----------



## phillipzx3

volksie said:


> Hey Uber, The Sky is Falling! Anybody else notice that the media keeps using a $40B valuation for Uber lately instead of the mind boggling 70B?.... Interesting.


I value myself at 102.3 trillion dollars. Just don't ask me to prove it.

And pay no attention to the money I keep "borrowing" from investors. It's all good.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

scrurbscrud said:


> I understand that. Typically there are eligibility requirements such as actually being an employee and the company actually paying unemployment taxes on said employees wages to meet eligibility.


That's not true* anywhere*.
Qualification for benefits is determined not by the employer - or what the employer 'calls' the worker,
but by a set of qualifications 'tests' which are subjective and carry different weight -
and not one of which is "_did the employer pay unemployment taxes_" or "_did the employer call the worker an employee_".

*Type of Relationship*
https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Type-of-Relationship

Type of relationship refers to facts that show how the worker and business perceive their relationship to each other.

The factors, for the type of relationship between two parties, generally fall into the categories of:

Written contracts
Employee benefits
Permanency of the relationship
Services provided as key activity of the business
*Written Contracts*
Although a contract may state that the worker is an employee or an independent contractor, this is not sufficient to determine the worker's status. The IRS is not required to follow a contract stating that the worker is an independent contractor, responsible for paying his or her own self employment tax. How the parties work together determines whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor.

*Employee Benefits*
Employee benefits include things like insurance, pension plans, paid vacation, sick days, and disability insurance. Businesses generally do not grant these benefits to independent contractors. However, the lack of these types of benefits does not necessarily mean the worker is an independent contractor.

*Permanency of the Relationship*
If you hire a worker with the expectation that the relationship will continue indefinitely, rather than for a specific project or period, this is generally considered evidence that the intent was to create an employer-employee relationship.

*Services Provided as Key Activity of the Business*
If a worker provides services that are a key aspect of the business, it is more likely that the business will have the right to direct and control his or her activities. For example, if a law firm hires an attorney, it is likely that it will present the attorney's work as its own and would have the right to control or direct that work. This would indicate an employer-employee relationship.

And...
https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Behavioral-Control


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

scrurbscrud said:


> I understand that. Typically there are eligibility requirements such as actually being an employee and the company actually paying unemployment taxes on said employees wages to meet eligibility.


*Internal Revenue Service 20 point Checklist for Independent Contractor*

http://art.mt.gov/artists/IRS_20pt_Checklist_ Independent_Contractor.pdf

Mistakenly classifying an employee as an independent contractor can result in significant fines and penalties. There are 20 factors used by the IRS to determine whether you have enough control over a worker to be an employer. Though these rules are intended only as a guide-the IRS says the importance of each factor depends on the individual circumstances-they should be helpful in determining whether you wield enough control to show an employer-employee relationship. If
you answer "Yes" to all of the first four questions, you're probably dealing with an independent contractor; *"Yes" to any of questions 5 through 20 means your worker is probably an employee*.

1. Profit or loss. Can the worker make a profit or suffer a loss as a result of the work, aside from the money earned from the project? (This should involve real economic risk-not just the risk of not getting paid.)

2. Investment. Does the worker have an investment in the equipment and facilities used to do the work? (The greater the investment, the more likely independent contractor status.)

3. Works for more than one firm. Does the person work for more than one company at a time? (This tends to indicate independent contractor status, but isn't conclusive since employees can also work for more than one employer.)

4. Services offered to the general public. Does the worker offer services to the general public?

5. Instructions. Do you have the right to give the worker instructions about when, where, and how to work? (This shows control over the worker.) _drivers can only work in the state where they are licensed to drive and their car is registered - and only from the place of rider pick-up to the place of rider drop-off._

6. Training. Do you train the worker to do the job in a particular way? (Independent contractors are already trained.) _see Uber's training videos_

7. Integration. Are the worker's services so important to your business that they have become a necessary part of the business? (This may show that the worker is subject to your control.) _no drivers - no Uber_

8. Services rendered personally. Must the worker provide the services personally, as opposed to delegating tasks to someone else? (This indicates that you are interested in the methods employed, and not just the results.) _drivers must personally perform the service provided and may not hire anyone else to do them without having them apply and be accepted by Uber_

9. Hiring assistants. Do you hire, supervise, and pay the worker's assistants? (Independent contractors hire and pay their own staff.)

10. Continuing relationship. Is there an ongoing relationship between the worker and yourself? (A relationship can be considered ongoing if services are performed frequently, but irregularly.) _Yes. Uber drivers are hired to work ongoing assignments - not a single task._

11. Work hours. Do you set the worker's hours? (Independent contractors are masters of their own time.)

12. Full-time work. Must the worker spend all of his or her time on your job? (Independent contractors choose when and where they will work.) _Uber drivers cannot choose where they will without being subjected to harassment and deactivation._

13. Work done on premises. Must the individual work on your premises, or do you control the route or location where the work must be performed? (Answering no doesn't by itself mean independent contractor status.)

14. Sequence. Do you have the right to determine the order in which services are performed? (This shows control over the worker) _Yes, Uber controls the sequence of the work performed._

15. Reports. Must the worker give you reports accounting for his or her actions? (This may show lack of independence) _Yes, sort-of... Uber monitors the work by means of technology_

16. Pay Schedules. Do you pay the worker by hour, week, or month? (Independent contractors are generally paid by the job or commission, although by industry practice, some are paid by the hour.) _Uber drivers are a paid a PORTION (that Uber determines) of the fares that Uber determines the end-user will pay - Uber has 100% control over fares, fees and compensation._

17. Expenses. Do you pay the worker's business or travel costs? (This tends to show control.)

18. Tools and materials. Do you provide the worker with equipment, tools, or materials? (Independent contractors generally supply the materials for the job and use their own tools and equipment.)

19. Right to fire. Can you fire the worker? (An independent contractor can't be fired without subjecting you to the risk of breach of contract lawsuit.) _Yes, Uber can fire the worker at their discretion_

20. Worker's right to quit. Can the worker quit at any time, without incurring liability? (An independent contractor has a legal obligation to complete the contract.) _Yes. Uber drivers can quit at any time without any liability._


----------



## phillipzx3

Fuzzyelvis said:


> To be treated like a contractor. In other words have control over what is supposedly OUR business.


Without Uber YOU have no business other than being an illegal taxi service. If you want to be treated like an IC, you'll never get it from Uber. Your "business" is 100% dependent on them.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

phillipzx3 said:


> Without Uber YOU have no business other than being an illegal taxi service. If you want to be treated like an IC, you'll never get it from Uber. Your "business" is 100% dependent on them.


I nominate that post for most pointed, irrelevant and uninformed of the week!
(as the courts are determining, it's the other way around: Uber's business is 100% dependent on its drivers)


----------



## Hope_Solo

Bart McCoy said:


> Somebody help me understand this. Uber doesnt pay unemployment insurance, at least not for drivers. But drivers are getting benefts. Who is paying this money to the driver?


The State of California at first. But they will charge the companies later as taxes or fees.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *Internal Revenue Service 20 point Checklist for Independent Contractor*
> 
> http://art.mt.gov/artists/IRS_20pt_Checklist_ Independent_Contractor.pdf
> 
> Mistakenly classifying an employee as an independent contractor can result in significant fines and penalties. There are 20 factors used by the IRS to determine whether you have enough control over a worker to be an employer. Though these rules are intended only as a guide-the IRS says the importance of each factor depends on the individual circumstances-they should be helpful in determining whether you wield enough control to show an employer-employee relationship. If
> you answer "Yes" to all of the first four questions, you're probably dealing with an independent contractor; *"Yes" to any of questions 5 through 20 means your worker is probably an employee*.
> 
> 1. Profit or loss. Can the worker make a profit or suffer a loss as a result of the work, aside from the money earned from the project? (This should involve real economic risk-not just the risk of not getting paid.)
> 
> 2. Investment. Does the worker have an investment in the equipment and facilities used to do the work? (The greater the investment, the more likely independent contractor status.)
> 
> 3. Works for more than one firm. Does the person work for more than one company at a time? (This tends to indicate independent contractor status, but isn't conclusive since employees can also work for more than one employer.)
> 
> 4. Services offered to the general public. Does the worker offer services to the general public?
> 
> 5. Instructions. Do you have the right to give the worker instructions about when, where, and how to work? (This shows control over the worker.) _drivers can only work in the state where they are licensed to drive and their car is registered - and only from the place of rider pick-up to the place of rider drop-off._
> 
> 6. Training. Do you train the worker to do the job in a particular way? (Independent contractors are already trained.) _see Uber's training videos_
> 
> 7. Integration. Are the worker's services so important to your business that they have become a necessary part of the business? (This may show that the worker is subject to your control.) _no drivers - no Uber_
> 
> 8. Services rendered personally. Must the worker provide the services personally, as opposed to delegating tasks to someone else? (This indicates that you are interested in the methods employed, and not just the results.) _drivers must personally perform the service provided and may not hire anyone else to do them without having them apply and be accepted by Uber_
> 
> 9. Hiring assistants. Do you hire, supervise, and pay the worker's assistants? (Independent contractors hire and pay their own staff.)
> 
> 10. Continuing relationship. Is there an ongoing relationship between the worker and yourself? (A relationship can be considered ongoing if services are performed frequently, but irregularly.) _Yes... Uber drivers are not hired on a 'per task' or 'per assignment basis_
> 
> 11. Work hours. Do you set the worker's hours? (Independent contractors are masters of their own time.)
> 
> 12. Full-time work. Must the worker spend all of his or her time on your job? (Independent contractors choose when and where they will work.)
> 
> 13. Work done on premises. Must the individual work on your premises, or do you control the route or location where the work must be performed? (Answering no doesn't by itself mean independent contractor status.)
> 
> 14. Sequence. Do you have the right to determine the order in which services are performed? (This shows control over the worker) _Yes, Uber controls the sequence of the work performed._
> 
> 15. Reports. Must the worker give you reports accounting for his or her actions? (This may show lack of independence) _Yes, sort-of... Uber monitors the work by means of technology_
> 
> 16. Pay Schedules. Do you pay the worker by hour, week, or month? (Independent contractors are generally paid by the job or commission, although by industry practice, some are paid by the hour.)
> 
> 17. Expenses. Do you pay the worker's business or travel costs? (This tends to show control.)
> 
> 18. Tools and materials. Do you provide the worker with equipment, tools, or materials? (Independent contractors generally supply the materials for the job and use their own tools and equipment.)
> 
> 19. Right to fire. Can you fire the worker? (An independent contractor can't be fired without subjecting you to the risk of breach of contract lawsuit.) _Yes, Uber can fire the worker at their discretion_
> 
> 20. Worker's right to quit. Can the worker quit at any time, without incurring liability? (An independent contractor has a legal obligation to complete the contract.)


Let me add some additional answers...
2. The Sacremento Bee case ruled that using a personal vehicle is NOT a significant investment. If a commercial vehicle was purchased for the sole use of driving then yes.
4. No. your services are offered to Uber. Ubers service is offered to the public.
17. Uber pays commercial liability insurance. This is a large expense that Uber is paying.
18. Yes, the software is owned by Uber.
20. yes


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *Internal Revenue Service 20 point Checklist for Independent Contractor*
> 
> http://art.mt.gov/artists/IRS_20pt_Checklist_ Independent_Contractor.pdf
> 
> Mistakenly classifying an employee as an independent contractor can result in significant fines and penalties. There are 20 factors used by the IRS to determine whether you have enough control over a worker to be an employer. Though these rules are intended only as a guide-the IRS says the importance of each factor depends on the individual circumstances-they should be helpful in determining whether you wield enough control to show an employer-employee relationship. If
> you answer "Yes" to all of the first four questions, you're probably dealing with an independent contractor; *"Yes" to any of questions 5 through 20 means your worker is probably an employee*.
> 
> 1. Profit or loss. Can the worker make a profit or suffer a loss as a result of the work, aside from the money earned from the project? (This should involve real economic risk-not just the risk of not getting paid.)
> 
> 2. Investment. Does the worker have an investment in the equipment and facilities used to do the work? (The greater the investment, the more likely independent contractor status.)
> 
> 3. Works for more than one firm. Does the person work for more than one company at a time? (This tends to indicate independent contractor status, but isn't conclusive since employees can also work for more than one employer.)
> 
> 4. Services offered to the general public. Does the worker offer services to the general public?
> 
> 5. Instructions. Do you have the right to give the worker instructions about when, where, and how to work? (This shows control over the worker.) _drivers can only work in the state where they are licensed to drive and their car is registered - and only from the place of rider pick-up to the place of rider drop-off._
> 
> 6. Training. Do you train the worker to do the job in a particular way? (Independent contractors are already trained.) _see Uber's training videos_
> 
> 7. Integration. Are the worker's services so important to your business that they have become a necessary part of the business? (This may show that the worker is subject to your control.) _no drivers - no Uber_
> 
> 8. Services rendered personally. Must the worker provide the services personally, as opposed to delegating tasks to someone else? (This indicates that you are interested in the methods employed, and not just the results.) _drivers must personally perform the service provided and may not hire anyone else to do them without having them apply and be accepted by Uber_
> 
> 9. Hiring assistants. Do you hire, supervise, and pay the worker's assistants? (Independent contractors hire and pay their own staff.)
> 
> 10. Continuing relationship. Is there an ongoing relationship between the worker and yourself? (A relationship can be considered ongoing if services are performed frequently, but irregularly.) _Yes... Uber drivers are not hired on a 'per task' or 'per assignment basis_
> 
> 11. Work hours. Do you set the worker's hours? (Independent contractors are masters of their own time.)
> 
> 12. Full-time work. Must the worker spend all of his or her time on your job? (Independent contractors choose when and where they will work.)
> 
> 13. Work done on premises. Must the individual work on your premises, or do you control the route or location where the work must be performed? (Answering no doesn't by itself mean independent contractor status.)
> 
> 14. Sequence. Do you have the right to determine the order in which services are performed? (This shows control over the worker) _Yes, Uber controls the sequence of the work performed._
> 
> 15. Reports. Must the worker give you reports accounting for his or her actions? (This may show lack of independence) _Yes, sort-of... Uber monitors the work by means of technology_
> 
> 16. Pay Schedules. Do you pay the worker by hour, week, or month? (Independent contractors are generally paid by the job or commission, although by industry practice, some are paid by the hour.)
> 
> 17. Expenses. Do you pay the worker's business or travel costs? (This tends to show control.)
> 
> 18. Tools and materials. Do you provide the worker with equipment, tools, or materials? (Independent contractors generally supply the materials for the job and use their own tools and equipment.)
> 
> 19. Right to fire. Can you fire the worker? (An independent contractor can't be fired without subjecting you to the risk of breach of contract lawsuit.) _Yes, Uber can fire the worker at their discretion_
> 
> 20. Worker's right to quit. Can the worker quit at any time, without incurring liability? (An independent contractor has a legal obligation to complete the contract.)


Also remember, you are assumed to be an employee. The burden of proof is on Uber to prove otherwise. So if it's a close call, your an employee.


----------



## observer

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Let me add some additional answers...
> 2. The Sacremento Bee case ruled that using a personal vehicle is NOT a significant investment. If a commercial vehicle was purchased for the sole use of driving then yes.
> 4. No. your services are offered to Uber. Ubers service is offered to the public.
> 17. Uber pays commercial liability insurance. This is a large expense that Uber is paying.
> 18. Yes, the software is owned by Uber.
> 20. yes


Lots of employees use their personal vehicles and are reimbursed for costs.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Also remember, you are assumed to be an employee. The burden of proof is on Uber to prove otherwise. So if it's a close call, your an employee.


That's not accurate. A company determines initially what classification their workers fall under. The IRS publishes guidelines. You can request a determination from the IRS using form ss-8. However, even when the IRS responds to a request, it is only an opinion. That opinion can still be challenged in court. That's because the IRS does not write the law, it only publishes regulations which support the law.

It is also interesting that the IRS and the Department of Labor can have different guidelines on what classifies as an independent contractor versus an employee. They are two different departments within government which are both tasked with enforcing different provisions of the FLSA. For example, the IRS does not determine whether someone is entitled to overtime. It is only responsible for the taxes on that overtime wage. The Department of Labor through the hours and wage division, determines eligibility for overtime.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's not accurate.A company determines initially what classification their workers fall under. The IRS publishes guidelines. You can request a determination from the IRS using form ss-8. However, even when the IRS responds to a request, it is only an opinion. That opinion can still be challenged in court. That's because the IRS does not right now, it only publishes regulations which support the law.
> 
> It is also interesting that the IRS and the Department of Labor can have different guidelines on what classifies as an independent contractor versus an employee. They are two different departments within government which are both tasked with enforcing different provisions of the FLSA. For example, the IRS does not determine whether someone is entitled to overtime. It is only responsible for the taxes on that overtime wage. The Department of Labor through the hours and wage division, determines eligibility for overtime.


Actually, it's already been ruled that in court. So yes, all workers are presumed employees first.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

observer said:


> Lots of employees use their personal vehicles and are reimbursed for costs.


True, but thats not whats being discussed. We are dicussing whether a using a personal vehicle for work is a significant financial investment for the purposes of determining employee vs. IC. The courts have said no because you are using a car that you already own and utilize.

Reimbursement of expenses while using the vehicle for work is a different subject.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's not accurate.A company determines initially what classification their workers fall under. The IRS publishes guidelines. You can request a determination from the IRS using form ss-8. However, even when the IRS responds to a request, it is only an opinion. That opinion can still be challenged in court. That's because the IRS does not right now, it only publishes regulations which support the law.
> 
> It is also interesting that the IRS and the Department of Labor can have different guidelines on what classifies as an independent contractor versus an employee. They are two different departments within government which are both tasked with enforcing different provisions of the FLSA. For example, the IRS does not determine whether someone is entitled to overtime. It is only responsible for the taxes on that overtime wage. The Department of Labor through the hours and wage division, determines eligibility for overtime.


please read pages 13 -15
http://uberlawsuit.com/OrderDenying.pdf
I have also read this other places but will take me awhile to research it. Ill get back to you.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Actually, it's already been ruled that in court. So yes, all workers are presumed employees first.


Nope.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> please read pages 13 -15
> http://uberlawsuit.com/OrderDenying.pdf
> I have also read this other places but will take me awhile to research it. Ill get back to you.


Thanks... will do when I'm off mobile. But how the courts (judicial branch) choose to make a presumption does not necessarily effect how the dept of labor or IRS (administrative branch) choose to implement a law written by Congress (the legislative branch).


----------



## Older Chauffeur

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Of course you can... as long as you are paying self employment taxes, as required by law... which include unemployment insurance.


I would question this statement. I have been paying FEDERAL self employment taxes since 2003, to the IRS. These taxes cover Medicare and Social Security, but not unemployment insurance.
CA does have *elective *coverage for the self employed. There are some requirements to participate, such as a minimum $4600 net annual income, and the majority of your work related income must come from self employment.


----------



## Older Chauffeur

An afterthought- reading the Taxes forum, it's apparent that most Uber drivers probably would not meet the net income requirement to pay into the CA insurance fund.
Another hurdle, at least in my case, would be making a convincing claim for benefits. What, I laid myself off?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Older Chauffeur said:


> I would question this statement. I have been paying FEDERAL self employment taxes since 2003, to the IRS. These taxes cover Medicare and Social Security, but not unemployment insurance.
> CA does have *elective *coverage for the self employed. There are some requirements to participate, such as a minimum $4600 net annual income, and the majority of your work related income must come from self employment.


Yes, indeed - sorry about that - I thought I had written: "... AND unemployment insurance". The point being that if you (or your employer) pay for unemployment coverage on your behalf, you can file a claim for benefits. And I did say it that way in an earlier post.

And frankly, if you're self-employed and not earning the minimum to qualify to purchase unemployment insurance, then you're not really employed - you are already unemployed!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> please read pages 13 -15
> http://uberlawsuit.com/OrderDenying.pdf
> I have also read this other places but will take me awhile to research it. Ill get back to you.


Many thanks for posting the link to this... I *thought* I had read this very interesting ruling, but I hadn't! So, it's good to get caught up.

As far as the mention of presumptive employment, I believe you are looking at that quote out of the context in which Judge Chen used it, which was _IN LIGHT OF_ the Yellow Cab case. He is (imo) saying that '_in light of that similar case about drivers_', which determined that drivers were in fact employees of the cab company, that it was incumbent on the court to presume that Uber drivers were also employees, and: "...*This Court* holds, as a matter of law, that Uber's drivers render service to Uber, and thus are Uber's presumptive employees."

Also, it is very important to note that in the ruling you linked to, Judge Chen was ruling on Uber's motion for summary dismissal of the case based on Uber's contention that drivers, by contract agreed to be considered Independent Contractors. THAT is why he cited his court's presumption of employment as the basis for denying Uber's motion and allowing the case to move forward. The presumption of employment, as he notes, does NOT carry over to the actual trial where a jury will determine the status of the drivers.


----------



## Dude in the Car

This is just the beginning .


----------



## Older Chauffeur

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yes, indeed - sorry about that - I thought I had written: "... AND unemployment insurance". The point being that if you (or your employer) pay for unemployment coverage on your behalf, you can file a claim for benefits.
> 
> And frankly, if you're self-employed and not earning the minimum to qualify to purchase unemployment insurance, then you're not really employed - you are already unemployed!


Not necessarily. Take an Uber driver writing off most of his earnings in mileage expense. He's taking the money out of his car of course, but reducing his net earnings all the same. Or, as in my case, I am self employed as a driver, but since I am at an advanced age  I do just enough to fulfill the needs of a few longtime clients and supplement my retirement income. I also can write off business expenses to bring down my taxable net income. But still, my tax returns and business license indicate I am "employed."  As previously stated, I don't think I could successfully pursue a claim if I bought the insurance.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Older Chauffeur said:


> Not necessarily. Take an Uber driver writing off most of his earnings in mileage expense. He's taking the money out of his car of course, but reducing his net earnings all the same. Or, as in my case, I am self employed as a driver, but since I am at an advanced age  I do just enough to fulfill the needs of a few longtime clients and supplement my retirement income. I also can write off business expenses to bring down my taxable net income. But still, my tax returns and business license indicate I am "employed."  As previously stated, I don't think I could successfully pursue a claim if I bought the insurance.


Yeah, well, as I said earlier, it's different by state... but if you're paying premiums and have basically no income, even if you can make a claim, your award is going to be zero because your award is based on your average earnings over a period of time. It's not like you can have zero income form employment and then file a claim and expect to get more in benefits than you earned in earnings.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> but if you're paying premiums and have basically no income, even if you can make a claim, your award is going to be zero because your award is based on your average earnings over a period of time. It's not like you can have zero income form employment and then file a claim and expect to get more in benefits than you earned in earnings.


2 things:
1) can we agree that 98% of uberX drivers dont pay for any unemployment premium? If so, 98% of all drivers would easily get benefits...

2) you say "no income", now you not saying the amount unemployment pays is based on NET or TAXABLE income now are you?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> 2 things:
> 1) can we agree that 98% of uberX drivers dont pay for any unemployment premium? If so, 98% of all drivers would easily get benefits...
> 
> 2) you say "no income", now you not saying the amount unemployment pays is based on NET or TAXABLE income now are you?


I don't why you're making this sound so complicated.
It's insurance. You're covered or you're not covered. A premium was paid through payroll deductions/tax or it wasn't.
Your benefit amount is based on whatever formula your state uses to determine your benefit - which I'm 'guessing' is your average gross earnings over a period of time... (but you can learn more on your state's unemployment website).

UI is meant to provide a worker with a portion of the income lost when out of work through no fault of their own. If you didn't actually earn any money at your work, then you didn't pay any premium (because premiums are based on earnings) - and you won't be able to collect a benefit.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I don't why you're making this sound so complicated.
> It's insurance. You're covered or you're not covered. A premium was paid through payroll deductions/tax or it wasn't.
> Your benefit amount is based on whatever formula your state uses to determine your benefit - which I'm 'guessing' is your average gross earnings over a period of time... (but you can learn more on your state's unemployment website).
> 
> UI is meant to provide a worker with a portion of the income lost when out of work through no fault of their own. If you didn't actually earn any money at your work, then you didn't pay any premium (because premiums are based on earnings) - and you won't be able to collect a benefit.


It would have been easier if you had just answered the questions directly,instead of going off on a tangent. Lets see if I can be more clear and more simple

1) You keep teaching about unemployment, that's great, but the simple question is, out of all UberX drivers, can you give a rough guess the percentage who have paid this unemployment tax? (hint: your answer should not contain words and def not a paragraph, but instead just a 2 digit # follow by %)

2) Yes, my state works by gross. So can you give me an example of "no income" or "no earnings" when you try to file? My point is even if you work for a loss, you still have gross earnings. So again, please give a scenario of "didn't actually earn any money at your work" so that you would get no benefits


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> out of all UberX drivers, can you give a rough guess the percentage who have paid this unemployment tax?


 Are you asking me or the community here? How would I know?

I'll answer a question any way I see fit in order to provide the best information I can.
Uber says that the overwhelming majority of its drivers in the US drive only part-time and do it to supplement other income. Presumably that other income is employment.



> 2) Yes, my state works by gross. So can you give me an example of "no income" or "no earnings" when you try to file? My point is even if you work for a loss, you still have gross earnings. So again, please give a scenario of "didn't actually earn any money at your work" so that you would get no benefits


When you file your tax return, you report AGI. I've no idea if you supply tax returns when you apply for UI as a self employed person or not, but if you do - and your AGI reflects all of those driving deductions, I can see a scenario in which you don't have any earnings that qualify for benefit... but that was just a flip joke I made in response to the post the 'retired' driver made... wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Sorry if it confused you.

However, if a self employed worker, uses deductions to reduce their income to zero, then they won't have a premium to pay (premiums are based on earnings) - and if no premium is paid, there's no benefit to award. Again - is that too hard to follow?


----------



## Bart McCoy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Are you asking me or the community here? How would I know?
> 
> I'll answer a question any way I see fit in order to provide the best information I can.
> Uber says that the overwhelming majority of its drivers in the US drive only part-time and do it to supplement other income. Presumably that other income is employment.
> 
> 2) Yes, my state works by gross. So can you give me an example of "no income" or "no earnings" when you try to file? My point is even if you work for a loss, you still have gross earnings. So again, please give a scenario of "didn't actually earn any money at your work" so that you would get no benefitsWhen you file your tax return, you report AGI. I've no idea if you supply tax returns when you apply for UI as a self employed person or not, but if you do - and your AGI reflects all of those driving deductions, I can see a scenario in which you don't have any earnings that qualify for benefit... but that was just a flip joke I made in response to the post the 'retired' driver made... wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Sorry if it confused you.
> 
> However, if a self employed worker, uses deductions to reduce their income to zero, then they won't have a premium to pay (premiums are based on earnings) - and if no premium is paid, there's no benefit to award. Again - is that too hard to follow?


1) just asked for a number, smh. I said a guess, a GUESS!. My point being, if only 2% of drivers have paid this, what is the point of mentioning that when nobody is in that same boat? The point of this topic is that if this guy in CA can get it even though he's an independent contractor technically, then of course all 100% drivers will want it WITHOUT paying unemployment, which im sure this guy didn't do

2) Point is, in my state, you can work for 1 day at a walmart, quit, then file for unemployment. Now, with one day of work, no taxes have been filed yet. The only way you can use deductions to make your net income zero is at tax time,not at file for unemployment time. And if one is paying for unemployment, I can't see how "making no money" at tax time would not get you benefits since they are paying you benefits according to gross earnings

Much of what you are saying may be knowledge, but it doesnt seem to apply to the average uber driver who is an independent contractor that does not pay for unemployment.

But I will now digress *sigh*


----------



## Just_in

Bart McCoy said:


> 1) just asked for a number, smh. I said a guess, a GUESS!. My point being, if only 2% of drivers have paid this, what is the point of mentioning that when nobody is in that same boat? The point of this topic is that if this guy in CA can get it even though he's an independent contractor technically, then of course all 100% drivers will want it WITHOUT paying unemployment, which im sure this guy didn't do
> 
> 2) Point is, in my state, you can work for 1 day at a walmart, quit, then file for unemployment. Now, with one day of work, no taxes have been filed yet. The only way you can use deductions to make your net income zero is at tax time,not at file for unemployment time. And if one is paying for unemployment, I can't see how "making no money" at tax time would not get you benefits since they are paying you benefits according to gross earnings
> 
> Much of what you are saying may be knowledge, but it doesnt seem to apply to the average uber driver who is an independent contractor that does not pay for unemployment.
> 
> But I will now digress *sigh*


 Your asking for a comparison of the small minority of Uber Driver's who have collected benefit's, to overall majority of the Uber Driver pool?


----------



## Bart McCoy

Just_in said:


> Your asking for a comparison of the small minority of Uber Driver's who have collected benefit's, to overall majority of the Uber Driver pool?


I didnt say collected
I said how many UberX drivers have paid for unemployment, so they can easily get benefits (since they paid the tax)
Again, whats the point of a couple people who may have paid, when it doesnt reflect the overall majority position that most drivers are in? And when I say majority I mean surely over 90% of all drivers who are independent contractors


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> The point of this topic is that if this guy in CA can get it even though he's an independent contractor technically, then of course all 100% drivers will want it WITHOUT paying unemployment, which im sure this guy didn't do


Bart - you just don't get it. He only "got it" (the award) because the EDD determined that he was an employee of Uber - and that Uber is responsible for providing the insurance.


> Point is, in my state, you can work for 1 day at a walmart, quit, then file for unemployment.


 No, you can't. At least not unless you also worked somewhere else before working for Walmart for that one day. In MD, your "Standard Base Period" for determining your benefit is the 12 months months preceding your unemployment. Before filing a claim for benefits, MD requires you to submit a 'Determination of Benefit' questionnaire. If you don't have qualifying income earned from an employer including your own company or self-employment that paid for the coverage, then you have no benefit to claim.

Unemployment benefits are not just some big pool that anyone can just dive into. You first have to qualify for the benefit. Qualification is based on participating in the insurance. The amount of the benefit is determined based on your earnings over a period of time FROM qualifying employers.


----------



## Bart McCoy

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Bart - you just don't get it. He only "got it"


Okay man, you got it
Lets just wait and see if Uber pays this bill that the state of CA is or has sent for Uber to pay. Clearly opens the door for all drivers there to file. We'll see what happens


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Bart McCoy said:


> Okay man, you got it
> Lets just wait and see if Uber pays this bill that the state of CA is or has sent for Uber to pay. Clearly opens the door for all drivers there to file. We'll see what happens


Rulings by the EDD are on an individual basis and do not generally have the (legal) force of precedent. The EDD is not a court, it is an administrative body.


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd

Bart McCoy said:


> Somebody help me understand this. Uber doesnt pay unemployment insurance, at least not for drivers. But drivers are getting benefts. Who is paying this money to the driver?


The state tax payers. Research unemployment trust fund.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Wil_Iam_Fuber'd said:


> The state tax payers. Research unemployment trust fund.


http://www.edd.ca.gov/about_edd/quick_statistics.htm


----------



## phillipzx3

Michael - Cleveland said:


> ? Whether we are self-employed contractors (able to drive for Uber and/or Lyft and/or on our own and/or for anyone else, it's semantics if you're going to argue that driver's aren't "business owners". The reality for all practical purposes is that we are. We are responsible for our own P&L (even if we do not have control over the fares we are 'permitted' to earn by the TNCs. It doesn't matter to me what you call it: a business, a business opportunity, an investment, The one thing it's NOT is being an employee of Uber. It *should* be, because of the control Uber does exert over drivers, but right now it's not. Come on, one million drivers is not a monolithic group with just one opinion, goal or desire. But I would bet that the overwhelming majority of drivers would be just fine with Uber's "business model" as you put it, if Uber didn't routinely, repeatedly and continuously lower fares from the levels they were at when Uber recruited the driver to sign on and drive. That's obvious. I wouldn't have sympathy for drivers either, IF Uber didn't change the rules AFTER drivers made their own investment in time and equipment to do the work that was promised to them.


The Uber concept was touted as using your existing vehicle to provide rides to people "going your way," which is why they played word games by calling their business model "ride sharing." Uber drivers have no investment as they are using the vehicle they purchased as a "daily driver," and not a car purchased as a business investment.

The cabs I own are investments. The car I bought to drive back and forth to and from work is not.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

phillipzx3 said:


> The Uber concept was touted as using your existing vehicle to provide rides to people "going your way," which is why they played word games by calling their business model "ride sharing."


 Not really... but whatever.


> Uber drivers have no investment as they are using the vehicle they purchased as a "daily driver," and not a car purchased as a business investment.


 Tell that to all of the driver's who lease a car via Uber's affiliates, just to drive Uber - and tell that to the guy who just bought a new car just to qualify for driving Uber - and counts on the Uber income to make the car payment. And you can't tell that to me - who purchased a car so that I wouldn't have to put miles on my personal car.


> The cabs I own are investments. The car I bought to drive back and forth to and from work is not.


That's YOUR situation and perfectly understandable - for you. There are a million drivers out there, each with their own unique circumstances.


----------



## KingTravisHasNoClothes

phillipzx3 said:


> The Uber concept was touted as using your existing vehicle to provide rides to people "going your way," which is why they played word games by calling their business model "ride sharing." Uber drivers have no investment as they are using the vehicle they purchased as a "daily driver," and not a car purchased as a business investment.
> 
> The cabs I own are investments. The car I bought to drive back and forth to and from work is not.


Bahahahaha....... Really ?
That's it ? That's your argument ?
"The car I bought to drive back and forth to and from work is not". 
Sir, uber would love to have you come aboard. You meet the #1 requirement
1). Must be thick as a brick.


----------



## observer

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> True, but thats not whats being discussed. We are dicussing whether a using a personal vehicle for work is a significant financial investment for the purposes of determining employee vs. IC. The courts have said no because you are using a car that you already own and utilize.
> 
> Reimbursement of expenses while using the vehicle for work is a different subject.


Got it now. 
There is no investment unless you go out and buy a vehicle to drive uber. Which vast majority of drivers don't do.


----------



## notabadguythe

I saw a movie, forgot nam, where Uber drove 45 minutes to a no show


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Not really... but whatever. Tell that to all of the driver's who lease a car via Uber's affiliates, just to drive Uber - and tell that to the guy who just bought a new car just to qualify for driving Uber - and counts on the Uber income to make the car payment. And you can't tell that to me - who purchased a car so that I wouldn't have to put miles on my personal car. That's YOUR situation and perfectly understandable - for you. There are a million drivers out there, each with their own unique circumstances.


Here is the Sacremento Bee case.... read page 8 "Carriers degree of investment"
http://media.bizj.us/view/img/3877101/sac-bee-decision.pdf

Although you bought a car for Uber, you did not NEED to buy a car for Uber. That was your choice to buy another PERSONAL vehicle. As I stated previously, I think the courts would look at it differently if you bought and maintained a COMMERCIAL VEHICLE for Uber.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Here is the Sacremento Bee case.... read page 8 "Carriers degree of investment"
> http://media.bizj.us/view/img/3877101/sac-bee-decision.pdf
> 
> Although you bought a car for Uber, you did not NEED to buy a car for Uber. That was your choice to buy another PERSONAL vehicle. As I stated previously, I think the courts would look at it differently if you bought and maintained a COMMERCIAL VEHICLE for Uber.


That case is an individual case, with no force of precedent. For example, the car I purchased is used specifically for business, for use in rideshare, and is insured specifically for rideshare. Personally, I don't care whether anyone (or any agency) considers that purchase an investment - because I take the std mileage deduction which with the miles I drive, covers the depreciation and expense and then some.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That case is an individual case, with no force of precedent. For example, the car I purchased is used specifically for business, for use in rideshare, and is insured specifically for rideshare. Personally, I don't care whether anyone (or any agency) considers that purchase an investment - because I take the std mileage deduction which with the miles I drive, covers the depreciation and expense and then some.


Getting back on subject... this thread is about the merits of employee vs. comtractor, not how you figure your taxes. I provided an opinion from the court on that matter. It doesn't matter if it is a precedent. I value the courts opinion more than yours or mine.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Getting back on subject... this thread is about the merits of employee vs. comtractor, not how you figure your taxes. I provided an opinion from the court on that matter. It doesn't matter if it is a precedent. I value the courts opinion more than yours or mine.


It's not 'on subject'.
The part of the case you cited at best is not apples-to-apples and at worst is irrelevant.
The 'carriers' vehicles were not 'for hire vehicles', as rideshare vehicles are.
The service provided to the [defendant] company by the carriers did not unconditionally depend upon the use of the carriers vehicles, (as rideshare does).

(the case itself, of course, is highly relevant to the issue of IC or employee)


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It's not 'on subject'.
> The part of the case you cited at best is not apples-to-apples and at worst is irrelevant.
> The 'carriers' vehicles were not 'for hire vehicles', as rideshare vehicles are.
> The service provided to the [defendant] company by the carriers did not unconditionally depend upon the use of the carriers vehicles, (as rideshare does).
> 
> (the case itself, of course, is highly relevant to the issue of IC or employee)


Thats only your opinions. Now post something with substance please. I'm sure you can find something to post which you base your opinions on.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Thats only your opinions. Now post something with substance please. I'm sure you can find something to post which you base your opinions on.


The things I listed are fact. 
They just happen to coincidentally agree with my opinions.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

BurgerTiime said:


> Article link: http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2...employment-benefits-first-known-case-in-state


POST # 1/@Burger Tiime: ......CONGRATU-
LATIONS on this, Your
FOURTH [and UPNF-Leading] "Featured Thread" ! Although Fellow 15th Notable
AND Moderator Another Uber Driver
is Making Comedic Hay over the Potential
Confusion created by this Thread's Title,
"Just Another Uber Driver Awarded Unem-
ployment Benefits" would have ALMOST
CERTAINLY produced similar results.

Bison Admires. Bison Inspires!


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> Just Another Uber Driver


There is a member of this forum with that ID.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Another Uber Driver said:


> There is a member of this forum with that ID.


POST#186/Another Uber Driver: ALMOST!
The Southern
Californian UPNF Member, to whom you
refer IS Just Another Uber Drive .....no
"r" at the end matches the Near Miss with
the "@" Prefix Missing at the Start of this
Thread.

Bison Chortling !


----------



## Older Chauffeur

Was just going to enter the discussion to point that out.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST#186/Another Uber Driver: ALMOST!
> The Southern
> Californian UPNF Member, to whom you
> refer IS Just Another Uber Drive


I do wonder if that was a typographical error. When he first signed on to this forum, he did issue an apology for a similar ID. I informed him that his ID was, in fact, different from mine. It was no big deal, really, he has his ID and I, mine. I suppose that since I expected the "r" to be there, I assumed that it was.


----------



## Older Chauffeur

But you have the cool avatar!


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Older Chauffeur said:


> But you have the cool avatar!


If you mean my avatar, I chose it in response to the many cat avatars on these boards.


----------



## Just Another Uber Drive

Another Uber Driver said:


> I do wonder if that was a typographical error. When he first signed on to this forum, he did issue an apology for a similar ID. I informed him that his ID was, in fact, different from mine. It was no big deal, really, he has his ID and I, mine. I suppose that since I expected the "r" to be there, I assumed that it was.


Yes, the missing r was an accident.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Just Another Uber Drive said:


> Yes, the missing r was an accident.


I had thought as much, especially because during our discussion on whatever topic it was, it appeared that both of us did assume that the final "r" was there.


----------



## Older Chauffeur

Another Uber Driver said:


> If you mean my avatar, I chose it in response to the many cat avatars on these boards.


Sorry, I should have been clearer, I did mean yours.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Older Chauffeur said:


> Sorry, I should have been clearer, I did mean yours.


No big deal; no apology necessary. You Southern California drivers are a polite group.


----------



## stuber

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You are mischaracterizing Uber's *stated* business relationship with drivers. They state in the driver agreements that what Uber does is provide 'leads' to drivers who license the app and that *use of the app creates a direct relationship between the rider and the driver *(and that Uber acts as a "third party payor"). THAT is how and why Uber 'claims' they are not a transportation company.
> 
> But then, the reality is that Uber CONTROLS the pricing of the transportation and can fire a driver from the system at its discretion based on metrics it tracks which include things like ratings from the driver's clients, acceptance rate and cancelation rate. The say they are not an employer of drivers - but they exert the control of an employer over drivers.
> 
> Uber wants the control of an employer without the responsibilities and the courts are not going to allow all of that. It's going to breakdown somewhere - and IMO we will see a new way for companies like Uber to handle 'gig' workers.


Exactly.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Jufkii said:


> Wonder if Uber can still fight this or if it's a totally final done deal.


POST # 8/Jufkii : Is the Badly Drawn
Chupacabra Avatar
symbolic of Travi$....or Just Looking Mal-
nourished....after the Deceased #[F]Uber
Drivers have been Vanquished by Robots,
Starved to Death and Finally Eaten ?

Apologies to "Well-Known" & Follower
BurgerTiime, for the Threaderruption.


----------



## stuber

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You are mischaracterizing Uber's *stated* business relationship with drivers. They state in the driver agreements that what Uber does is provide 'leads' to drivers who license the app and that *use of the app creates a direct relationship between the rider and the driver *(and that Uber acts as a "third party payor"). THAT is how and why Uber 'claims' they are not a transportation company.
> 
> But then, the reality is that Uber CONTROLS the pricing of the transportation and can fire a driver from the system at its discretion based on metrics it tracks which include things like ratings from the driver's clients, acceptance rate and cancelation rate. The say they are not an employer of drivers - but they exert the control of an employer over drivers.
> 
> Uber wants the control of an employer without the responsibilities and the courts are not going to allow all of that. It's going to breakdown somewhere - and IMO we will see a new way for companies like Uber to handle 'gig' workers.


Thus is possibly the finest summary regarding Uber ever posted here.. Michael, please stop whatever you're doing and go immediately to Boston and join Shannon Liss-Riorden in her cause.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

volksie said:


> I think this case is more important than the others because it proves Uber RETALIATES against drivers resulting in a loss of income and/or employment.


POST # 12/volksie: How D A R E You
speak about
"Unka Kakanicky" in such a Mean Way!


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

USArmy31B30 said:


> Uber = Finacial House of Cards LMAO how long can they keep dragging this thing?


POST # 15/USArmy31B30: C O M I N G
UP on their
S i x t h A n n i v e r s a r y...pretty soon.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

underpaiduber said:


> I have to stay this is extremely risky for the Uber Driver and I am 100% certain it will come back to bite the Uber driver. My sister an EDD worker in the Payroll Tax division of EDD said that in order to collect UI benefits, first there has to be an employer/employee relationship, then the employer must pay EDD U.I. payroll taxes on the driver (which they do not do). The only reason this got approved was because the UBER driver did not enter the correct information on the Unemployment Insurance application allowing it to slip through the cracks temporarily . EDD will catch this when there is no UI reserve account attached to the UBER account or no UI credit applied to the driver's social security number. Then they will go after the UBER driver not the UBER CORP. to collect any money that might have got paid out, plus penalties, interest, and a possible fraud charge. Just because it appears to have worked, make no mistake, it will fail. My advise to anyone think about this is "DO NOT DO IT"!


POST # 30/underpaiduber: Oooooooooo,
I'm quakeing in my
SlipperSox-4-Bison. Hey, Che Guevara....
Fidel called: He wants his Beret back !

Bison Chortling !


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

underpaiduber said:


> In a year from know remember my post and you will see I am and was 100% correct on this. Hey I am with the Uber drivers as far as being screwed over on the way they pay, but Jesus, this will not work. I dont know Kalanic and I am sure he is a greedy SOB. But you got to be smart on how you fight a corporation!


POST # 37/underpaiduber: "In a Year
from K N O W..."?
A Year from N O W...YOU STILL won't be
"...in the Know !"


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

chi1cabby said:


> It's obvious that you didn't even read the article. California Employment Development Department has a 10 page *Employment Relationship Questionnaire *specifically for Uber Drivers. So there is Zero chance that EDD didn't catch on that the Applicant, Patrick Ely, was in fact an Uber Driver.
> 
> View attachment 30859
> 
> 
> In addition to Patrick Ely's case, there is Driver Zero's case:
> *LA Uber Driver Got Unemployment Benefits*
> And:
> *EDD denies Uber's appeal. In southern California a terminated Uber driver is declared an employee*


POST # 58/chi1cabby : PLEASE, St. Comity,
DON'T go all
chi1cabby on this M I S I N F O R M E D
#[F]UberShill...his Sister works @EDD !


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Many thanks for posting the link to this... I *thought* I had read this very interesting ruling, but I hadn't! So, it's good to get caught up.
> 
> As far as the mention of presumptive employment, I believe you are looking at that quote out of the context in which Judge Chen used it, which was _IN LIGHT OF_ the Yellow Cab case. He is (imo) saying that '_in light of that similar case about drivers_', which determined that drivers were in fact employees of the cab company, that it was incumbent on the court to presume that Uber drivers were also employees, and: "...*This Court* holds, as a matter of law, that Uber's drivers render service to Uber, and thus are Uber's presumptive employees."
> 
> Also, it is very important to note that in the ruling you linked to, Judge Chen was ruling on Uber's motion for summary dismissal of the case based on Uber's contention that drivers, by contract agreed to be considered Independent Contractors. THAT is why he cited his court's presumption of employment as the basis for denying Uber's motion and allowing the case to move forward. The presumption of employment, as he notes, does NOT carry over to the actual trial where a jury will determine the status of the drivers.


I don't know about California but when it comes to unemployment claims in Texas the Texas Workforce Commission SPECIFICALLY states that you are considered an employee until shown otherwise.

In practise this is a very business/employer friendly state so good luck with that, but the language is very clear.

It also states that a written or oral agreement about the worker's status is irrelevant. So agreeing to be a contractor does not give them an out. See below, quote from the website:

"Neither the business nor the individual may choose whether the worker is classified as a contractor or employee. The relationship between the parties and the presence of direction and control determine whether or not a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.A written or oral agreement between the parties does not change the status of the worker."

And again (after saying TX basically uses the IRS questions but that "direction and control" are the MOST important factors:

"It is important to note that it does not matter that one or both parties may call their arrangement "contract labor". The above definition makes clear that the important consideration is the underlying nature of the work relationship. The law creates a presumption of employment and places the burden for proving otherwise on the employer. It sets forth the primary factor in an independent contractor relationship, namely, the absence of direction and control over the work."


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Bart - you just don't get it. He only "got it" (the award) because the EDD determined that he was an employee of Uber - and that Uber is responsible for providing the insurance. No, you can't. At least not unless you also worked somewhere else before working for Walmart for that one day. In MD, your "Standard Base Period" for determining your benefit is the 12 months months preceding your unemployment. Before filing a claim for benefits, MD requires you to submit a 'Determination of Benefit' questionnaire. If you don't have qualifying income earned from an employer including your own company or self-employment that paid for the coverage, then you have no benefit to claim.
> 
> Unemployment benefits are not just some big pool that anyone can just dive into. You first have to qualify for the benefit. Qualification is based on participating in the insurance. The amount of the benefit is determined based on your earnings over a period of time FROM qualifying employers.


Right, but if you worked somewhere else and quit to work for uber, and after a couple of months got deactivated and were found to be an employee, you would qualify based on previous work history. If you worked for uber for a year (or even less--TX does a similar calculation and you can still get reduced benefits) you would qualify and uber woukd be on the hook.

You should qualify even if your income simply went down.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Another point: in Texas there is a way to report worker misclassification. I wouldn't use your email, do it anonymously. I imagine every state has this. Everyone should call. Make them pay attention.


----------



## stuber

I emailed Shannon Liss-Riorden to alert them about this thread. Hopefully, they will find it useful.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Rat said:


> As an independent contractor, you're not the client, the passenger is. Uber is working for the client, also. Part of the service they offer the client is ensuring a safe, clean, and prompt ride.


POST # 60/Rat : As a NUberer of ONLY
12 Days Duration HERE,
let me gently suggest that YOU have ERRED
FOUR Times in 3 Sentences.

PLEASE Read more about the #Evil[F]Uber
prior to Next Posting. UPNF was set up in
a Searchable Database Format, with the
World's Largest Collection of A-B TNC
Information, in General, and Details of
#AntiPersonnel LLC's Inhumanity-to-Man,
in Particular.

Mentoring Bison: Here since 07DEC2014.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

KekeLo said:


> Go to CA.gov Department of Industrial Relations, and you will see, Uber is going to pay for the EDD benefits. These laws have been in place way before Uber came along.
> 
> Pay attention.
> 
> .


POST # 69/KekeLo: From your lips to
Bart McCoy 's 
"N O T A B L Y " TONEDEAF ears !

Bison Chortling !


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

JimS said:


> I thought if you were fired, you weren't entitled to unemployment benefits. Only if you were laid off.


POST # 107/JimS: Oh dear........


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Bart McCoy said:


> View attachment 31001


POST#117/Bart McCoy:E X C E L L E N T
C H O I C E
F O R ...Y O U R...N E W ...A V A T A R !


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *Internal Revenue Service 20 point Checklist for Independent Contractor*
> 
> http://art.mt.gov/artists/IRS_20pt_Checklist_ Independent_Contractor.pdf
> 
> Mistakenly classifying an employee as an independent contractor can result in significant fines and penalties. There are 20 factors used by the IRS to determine whether you have enough control over a worker to be an employer. Though these rules are intended only as a guide-the IRS says the importance of each factor depends on the individual circumstances-they should be helpful in determining whether you wield enough control to show an employer-employee relationship. If
> you answer "Yes" to all of the first four questions, you're probably dealing with an independent contractor; *"Yes" to any of questions 5 through 20 means your worker is probably an employee*.
> 
> 1. Profit or loss. Can the worker make a profit or suffer a loss as a result of the work, aside from the money earned from the project? (This should involve real economic risk-not just the risk of not getting paid.)
> 
> 2. Investment. Does the worker have an investment in the equipment and facilities used to do the work? (The greater the investment, the more likely independent contractor status.)
> 
> 3. Works for more than one firm. Does the person work for more than one company at a time? (This tends to indicate independent contractor status, but isn't conclusive since employees can also work for more than one employer.)
> 
> 4. Services offered to the general public. Does the worker offer services to the general public?
> 
> 5. Instructions. Do you have the right to give the worker instructions about when, where, and how to work? (This shows control over the worker.) _drivers can only work in the state where they are licensed to drive and their car is registered - and only from the place of rider pick-up to the place of rider drop-off._
> 
> 6. Training. Do you train the worker to do the job in a particular way? (Independent contractors are already trained.) _see Uber's training videos_
> 
> 7. Integration. Are the worker's services so important to your business that they have become a necessary part of the business? (This may show that the worker is subject to your control.) _no drivers - no Uber_
> 
> 8. Services rendered personally. Must the worker provide the services personally, as opposed to delegating tasks to someone else? (This indicates that you are interested in the methods employed, and not just the results.) _drivers must personally perform the service provided and may not hire anyone else to do them without having them apply and be accepted by Uber_
> 
> 9. Hiring assistants. Do you hire, supervise, and pay the worker's assistants? (Independent contractors hire and pay their own staff.)
> 
> 10. Continuing relationship. Is there an ongoing relationship between the worker and yourself? (A relationship can be considered ongoing if services are performed frequently, but irregularly.) _Yes. Uber drivers are hired to work ongoing assignments - not a single task._
> 
> 11. Work hours. Do you set the worker's hours? (Independent contractors are masters of their own time.)
> 
> 12. Full-time work. Must the worker spend all of his or her time on your job? (Independent contractors choose when and where they will work.) _Uber drivers cannot choose where they will without being subjected to harassment and deactivation._
> 
> 13. Work done on premises. Must the individual work on your premises, or do you control the route or location where the work must be performed? (Answering no doesn't by itself mean independent contractor status.)
> 
> 14. Sequence. Do you have the right to determine the order in which services are performed? (This shows control over the worker) _Yes, Uber controls the sequence of the work performed._
> 
> 15. Reports. Must the worker give you reports accounting for his or her actions? (This may show lack of independence) _Yes, sort-of... Uber monitors the work by means of technology_
> 
> 16. Pay Schedules. Do you pay the worker by hour, week, or month? (Independent contractors are generally paid by the job or commission, although by industry practice, some are paid by the hour.) _Uber drivers are a paid a PORTION (that Uber determines) of the fares that Uber determines the end-user will pay - Uber has 100% control over fares, fees and compensation._
> 
> 17. Expenses. Do you pay the worker's business or travel costs? (This tends to show control.)
> 
> 18. Tools and materials. Do you provide the worker with equipment, tools, or materials? (Independent contractors generally supply the materials for the job and use their own tools and equipment.)
> 
> 19. Right to fire. Can you fire the worker? (An independent contractor can't be fired without subjecting you to the risk of breach of contract lawsuit.) _Yes, Uber can fire the worker at their discretion_
> 
> 20. Worker's right to quit. Can the worker quit at any time, without incurring liability? (An independent contractor has a legal obligation to complete the contract.) _Yes. Uber drivers can quit at any time without any liability._


POST # 142/Michael - Cleveland: The
8th Notable AND
Great "Great Laker" strikes again! Nice
work here, Sir.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Wil_Iam_Fuber'd said:


> The state tax payers. Research unemployment trust fund.


POST # 172/Wil_Iam_Fuber'd: If, as your
Signature Line suggests,
that your "...War against...simple-minded
stupidity within the UP Community" in-cludes the Distinguished Gentleman from
Maryland.....then it is NO WONDER THAT
you are getting your "@$$ kicked"!

Bison Chortling !


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

KingTravisHasNoClothes said:


> Bahahahaha....... Really ?
> That's it ? That's your argument ?
> "The car I bought to drive back and forth to and from work is not".
> Sir, uber would love to have you come aboard. You meet the #1 requirement
> 1). Must be thick as a brick.


POST#176/KingTravisHasNoClothes: SIR!
Please rotate Your
"Inflatable Humanoid" 90° clockwise
before YOU even think about "Trash-
Talkin'" a "Well-Known" Member of
Longer Duration and CONSIDERABLY
GREATER CONTRIBUTION to this
Community.

Mentoring Bison: "Exceedingly Obtuse": In a
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ Glass House that One is.


----------



## RockinEZ

20yearsdriving said:


> Let's see 4.00 minimum ride =2.00 net
> You have to do way to many rides to make that much $$$$$$
> It all makes sense now !!
> You just roll over & take it
> 
> Your share of 60 billion = just a dream


The 60 billion number is just a fantasy valuation for a potential public offering.

Actually Goober is losing money right now.

Without venture capitalists hoping for a big pay day on an IPO, Goober would have been out of business 5 years ago.


----------



## RockinEZ

A lot of folks are missing the real shell game here.

It is the very large salaries paid to the executives.

Travis is reportedly worth north of 2.8 billion dollars. That is personal wealth, not part of Uber or his other businesses.

There is only one business, separating the money from the people.
TK is very good at that and directing it into his pocket.

Uber is just a tool to fill TK's pockets. If Uber goes sour he will do something else.
Sociopaths like TK only have themselves in mind.


----------



## stuber

RockinEZ said:


> A lot of folks are missing the real shell game here.
> 
> It is the very large salaries paid to the executives.
> 
> Travis is reportedly worth north of 2.8 billion dollars. That is personal wealth, not part of Uber or his other businesses.
> 
> There is only one business, separating the money from the people.
> TK is very good at that and directing it into his pocket.
> 
> Uber is just a tool to fill TK's pockets. If Uber goes sour he will do something else.
> Sociopaths like TK only have themselves in mind.


The going sour is, actually, built in to the business model. There's no longer term plan. They would have completely different approach if they wanted something sustainable.


----------



## RockinEZ

I was wrong. In 2014 his net worth was 6 billion dollars. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Kalanick


----------



## RockinEZ

stuber said:


> The going sour is, actually, built in to the business model. There's no longer term plan. They would have completely different approach if they wanted something sustainable.


Uber is a scam to avoid employment laws for a short time and fill TK's & his partner's pockets.
When the gig is up, he will take the dough and go.

If you look at his history he likes to set up businesses that use other people's property.

Scour shared other people's movies.

Red Swoosh was a peer to peer file sharing company.

Uber is sharing your car.

He likes making money off of software that makes it possible to use other's property to make money.


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd

RockinEZ said:


> Uber is a scam to avoid employment laws for a short time and fill TK's & his partner's pockets.
> When the gig is up, he will take the dough and go.
> 
> If you look at his history he likes to set up businesses that use other people's property.
> 
> Scour shared other people's movies.
> 
> Red Swoosh was a peer to peer file sharing company.
> 
> Uber is sharing your car.
> 
> He likes making money off of software that makes it possible to use other's property to make money.


Well, uhm ya. Duh. But that's what makes GUber so great. Ahem, for the emploee/investors that is. Less so for the i/c drivers. But ours is not to reason why, rather to do or die...or so some wise soul once penned. Yet they toil onward, yearning for riches while attaining poverty. Damerica' is great aint it!! For the investors that is.


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST # 172/Wil_Iam_Fuber'd: If, as your
> Signature Line suggests,
> that your "...War against...simple-minded
> stupidity within the UP Community" in-cludes the Distinguished Gentleman from
> Maryland.....then it is NO WONDER THAT
> you are getting your "@$$ kicked"!
> 
> Bison Chortling !


Always appreciate a mention my Elkin Amigo. Even when I have not the faintest clue to which you refer. But yes, simple ignorance in Guber world makes politics seem "rational" by comparison. A tiny cheese adoring rodent can only do so much. Drowning here in a sea of stupidity. Whence I shuffle off this earthly plane, into it my remains asunder. So it serves some purpose one supposes.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I don't know about California but when it comes to unemployment claims in Texas the Texas Workforce Commission SPECIFICALLY states that you are considered an employee until shown otherwise.
> 
> In practise this is a very business/employer friendly state so good luck with that, but the language is very clear.
> 
> It also states that a written or oral agreement about the worker's status is irrelevant. So agreeing to be a contractor does not give them an out. See below, quote from the website:
> 
> "Neither the business nor the individual may choose whether the worker is classified as a contractor or employee. The relationship between the parties and the presence of direction and control determine whether or not a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.A written or oral agreement between the parties does not change the status of the worker."
> 
> And again (after saying TX basically uses the IRS questions but that "direction and control" are the MOST important factors:
> 
> "It is important to note that it does not matter that one or both parties may call their arrangement "contract labor". The above definition makes clear that the important consideration is the underlying nature of the work relationship. The law creates a presumption of employment and places the burden for proving otherwise on the employer. It sets forth the primary factor in an independent contractor relationship, namely, the absence of direction and control over the work."


POST # 204/Fuzzyelvis: "Don't MESS
with Texas!"
Boy...was I suprised to find out that 
THAT Slogan was developed NOT
from Macho "Make my Day" Swagger,
but simply an Anti-Littering Campaign.

Bison: Of all the NERVE!


----------



## observer

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST # 204/Fuzzyelvis: "Don't MESS
> with Texas!"
> Boy...was I suprised to find to find out
> that THAT Slogan was developed NOT
> from Macho "Make my Day" Swagger,
> but simply an Anti-Littering Campaign.
> 
> Bison: Of all the NERVE!


Learned something unexpected today, gracias amigo. Whowuddathought!!


----------

