# Court Says Uber Drivers Independaent Contractors



## Brundlefly (Nov 30, 2016)

https://www.wuft.org/news/2017/02/01/court-says-uber-drivers-independaent-contractors/



> *Court Says Uber Drivers Independaent Contractors*
> 
> Siding with the San Francisco-based technology giant, a Florida appeals court Wednesday upheld a decision by Gov. Rick Scott's administration that Uber drivers are independent contractors - not employees - and therefore not eligible for unemployment benefits.
> 
> The unanimous decision by the three-judge panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeals stems from an unemployment claim filed in 2015 by Darrin McGillis, who spent five months as an Uber driver before the company dropped him.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/...icial-legacy-that-will-far-outlast-his-tenure

It looks like this is the most conservative appeals court in the US so it's not really too surprising that they went against every other notable ruling on this issue ever.


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

Uber drivers, and any other Taxi driver is an independent contractor.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

*[FL] Court Says Uber Drivers Independent Contractors*
By Dara Kam - News Service of Florida

Siding with the San Francisco-based technology giant, a Florida appeals court Wednesday upheld a decision by Gov. Rick Scott's administration that Uber drivers are independent contractors - not employees - and therefore not eligible for unemployment benefits.

The unanimous decision by the three-judge panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeals stems from an unemployment claim filed in 2015 by Darrin McGillis, who spent five months as an Uber driver before the company dropped him.

Uber, which hooks up drivers and riders through a smart-phone app, requires drivers to sign a contract outlining the terms and conditions of its software platform and informing drivers that they serve as independent contractors, not employees, Judge Thomas Logue wrote in a 14-page opinion joined by judges Barbara Lagoa and Vance Salter.

Wednesday's appellate decision is the latest in a string of victories for Uber, which has posed a major challenge to limo and taxi companies in Florida and other states.

Uber last year agreed to pay up to $100 million to settle a pair of class-action lawsuits filed by drivers in California and Massachusetts. The settlement allows Uber to continue to classify the drivers as independent contractors.

The Florida decision addressed the "changes rippling through our society" resulting from the advent of new technologies.

*"In this case, we must decide whether a multi-faceted product of new technology should be fixed into either the old square hole or the old round hole of existing legal categories, when neither is a perfect fit," Logue wrote.*

Florida courts consider several factors to determine whether parties practice an independent-contractor or employee-servant relationship, the most important of which is the "extent of control &#8230; the master may exercise over the details of the work," Logue noted.

"Due in large part to the transformative nature of the internet and smartphones, Uber drivers like McGillis decide whether, when, where, with whom, and how to provide rides using Uber's computer programs. This level of free agency is incompatible with the control to which a traditional employee is subject," Logue concluded.

But, in the appeal filed last summer, McGillis argued that he "was closely controlled by Uber, with every move monitored and evaluated."

McGillis could be fired or "deactivated, as Uber calls it," if the company was not satisfied with his performance, the former driver wrote.

"Drivers, like the appellant, perform an essential service for Uber. Without its drivers, Uber would no longer be able to generate revenue, and would cease to exist. Moreover, it is plainly apparent that Uber exerts considerable control over the means and manner that drivers carry out their work, and retains the power to terminate drivers at its discretion," McGillis wrote.

The Florida Department of Revenue initially decided that McGillis and another former Uber driver, Melissa Ewers, had been employees of Uber. That led the company to file a protest with the Department of Economic Opportunity, which handles appeals of such issues.

The Department of Economic Opportunity slightly more than a year ago overturned the revenue agency's finding, agreeing with Uber that McGillis and Ewers were independent contractors and were not entitled to file for unemployment insurance in Florida.

Wednesday's ruling - which would affect approximately 20,000 Uber drivers in Florida - comes at a time when lawmakers are again considering proposals that would ban local governments from regulating companies like Uber and Lyft.

Similar proposals - fiercely opposed by taxi and limo companies - have failed the past two legislative sessions after Senate leaders balked at the notion of preempting local regulations and instead focused on issues such as insurance requirements.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

It's really funny they still refer to that same settlement that was rejected. I wonder how much Uber pays them to.


----------



## Dontmakemepullauonyou (Oct 13, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's really funny they still refer to that same settlement that was rejected. I wonder how much Uber pays them to.


It is sickening everywhere they report that 100mil settlement but the poop in my toilet has more real life matter than that settlement that basically thrown out by tbat judge.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's really funny they still refer to that same settlement that was rejected. I wonder how much Uber pays them to.


It's a pet peeve of mine, too - how the press refers to a rejected settlement as if the case were completed.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

*The* day I cross that line with Uber, I am going to write down each and every single piece of systemic design they have made to cross the employee/contractor line and shit all over it.

Wait til Jesus Trump starts ****ing with Judas Kalick for leaving his lapdog circle.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

Oh and forgot to drop this here:

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/02/his-corruptness/

This guy approved it?


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

Uber drivers are independent contractors, as are Taxi drivers. Unless you are forced to work "punch the clock" at a certain time, then you are an employee, until then you are an independent contractor, since you make up your own hours, you can come and go as you please, no one is forcing you to work with Uber or any other FHV/Taxi company.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TheFixer1 said:


> Unless you are forced to work "punch the clock" at a certain time, then you are an employee, until then you are an independent contractor, since you make up your own hours, you can come and go as you please,


If it were that clear cut then the IRS wouldn't publish a multi-page guide on how to determine if someone is an employee or an IC.

Just a dabbling from the IRS guidelines:

In determining whether the person providing service is an employee or an independent contractor, all information that provides evidence of the degree of control and independence must be considered.

Common Law Rules
Facts that provide evidence of the degree of control and independence fall into three categories:

Behavioral: 
Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?​Financial: 
Are the business aspects of the worker's job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)​Type of Relationship: 
Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? 
*Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business*?​
*There is no "magic" or set number of factors that "makes" the worker an employee or an independent contractor*, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another.​
The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination.

You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action. What matters is that the employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are performed.​


> no one is forcing you to work with Uber or any other FHV/Taxi company.


No one is forcing you to work anywhere; That's an irrelevant argument.


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If it were that clear cut then the IRS wouldn't publish a multi-page guide on how to determine if someone is an employee or an IC.
> 
> Just a dabbling from the IRS guidelines:
> 
> ...


The reason Uber won is exactly the reasons I posted, you can argue until the cows come home, it will not change the fact that Uber drivers, Taxi drivers, FHV drivers are independent contractors. Unless you work for a black car base and they pay you by the hour with commission based incentives using their car.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TheFixer1 said:


> The reason Uber won is exactly the reasons I posted, you can argue until the cows come home, it will not change the fact that Uber drivers, Taxi drivers, FHV drivers are independent contractors. Unless you work for a black car base and they pay you by the hour with commission based incentives using their car.


When you employ a couple of hundred people in both IC and employee status and have submitted dozens of SS-8s, then you might be able to have an informed discussion on the topic. Until then, you are just stating your opinion (which is fine - great even) as if it were fact (which is nonsense).

- - - - - - - -


uberdriverfornow said:


> It looks like this is the most conservative appeals court in the US so it's not really too surprising that they went against every other notable ruling on this issue ever.


I'm not so sure they did a bad thing at all:
This is my favorite line from the FL court (and one with which I agree)...

*"In this case, we must decide whether a multi-faceted product of new technology should be fixed into either the old square hole or the old round hole of existing legal categories, when neither is a perfect fit.".*

The court is recognizing that Congress has failed to update labor laws to reflect new labor markets in the US and seems to me to be making a more than subtle suggestion that if congress continues to ignore the subject, as it has been doing for 5 years, that these cases will eventually end up at the steps of the Supreme Court, which, barring new legislation from congress, will have no choice but to either put billion dollar segments of our economy out of business or pretend that labor laws do not apply to laborers. Should be an interesting few years ahead.


----------



## TheFixer1 (Jan 29, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> When you employ a couple of hundred people in both IC and employee status and have submitted dozens of SS-8s, then you might be able to have an informed discussion on the topic. Until then, you are just stating your opinion (which is fine - great even) as if it were fact (which is nonsense).
> 
> - - - - - - - -
> 
> ...


Uber is NOT your employer, how hard is this for you to comprehend.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

TheFixer1 said:


> Uber is NOT your employer, how hard is this for you to comprehend.


For someone who has so much difficulty understanding things, you sure toss that phrase around a lot.

A day or two ago you (I think it was you - sorry if it wasn't) were telling me that I did work for Uber.
I wish you'd make up your mind.


----------



## Tenderloin (Sep 5, 2016)

No uber for florida judges


----------



## Elmo Burrito (Feb 3, 2017)

That's fine, I don't EVER want to be an employee of Uber they already "toy" with us enough as it is. That's one of the main reasons I do this because I am an IC and set my own schedule. The main thing they do that pisses me off is uber/lyft want it both ways. To bad they can't make up their minds. Or did they?


----------



## Tenderloin (Sep 5, 2016)

Just add a tip option Uber. Its not fair.


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If it were that clear cut then the IRS wouldn't publish a multi-page guide on how to determine if someone is an employee or an IC.
> 
> Just a dabbling from the IRS guidelines:
> 
> ...


Technically could u be ruled as an employee if u go threw lyfts rental plan? Uber lease program is more 3rd party where u can do uber and lyft but lyfts has alot of things like giveing u insurance,inscentives, ect. As you working directly for lyft


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Elmo Burrito said:


> That's fine, I don't EVER want to be an employee of Uber they already "toy" with us enough as it is. That's one of the main reasons I do this because I am an IC and set my own schedule. The main thing they do that pisses me off is uber/lyft want it both ways. To bad they can't make up their minds. Or did they?


The goal of the lawsuits isn't to get drivers classified as employees -
it it's to force Uber and Lyft to stop treating their independent contractors as if they are employees.

You can see the slow progress being achieved in the results:
Uber will no longer deactivate a driver for low acceptance rates
(as that would demonstrate employer control).


----------



## SmokestaXX (Dec 17, 2016)

TheFixer1 said:


> Uber drivers are independent contractors, as are Taxi drivers. Unless you are forced to work "punch the clock" at a certain time, then you are an employee, until then you are an independent contractor, since you make up your own hours, you can come and go as you please, no one is forcing you to work with Uber or any other FHV/Taxi company.


Driving for Uber is no different than truck drivers leasing onto and running under another company's motor carrier authority. Not sure what the dispute ever was.


----------



## SmokestaXX (Dec 17, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> The goal of the lawsuits isn't to get drivers classified as employees -
> it it's to force Uber and Lyft to stop treating their independent contractors as if they are employees.
> 
> You can see the slow progress being achieved in the results:
> ...


If you're bad for business u gotta go. Uber just set the threshold too high. Bottomline, drivers need to keep their mouths shut about the behind the scenes, that goes especially for how much $ u may or may not be making


----------



## SmokestaXX (Dec 17, 2016)

Taxi companies need to sue Uber for what it is...a taxi company not adherin to the regulations.


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

SmokestaXX said:


> Taxi companies need to sue Uber for what it is...a taxi company not adherin to the regulations.


Exactly


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

SmokestaXX said:


> Driving for Uber is no different than truck drivers leasing onto and running under another company's motor carrier authority. Not sure what the dispute ever was.


The dispute is over control.
It is illegal to control an independent contractor the way you control an employee -
and still classify them as an independent contractor -
it's called tax fraud.



SmokestaXX said:


> Taxi companies need to sue Uber for what it is...a taxi company not adherin to the regulations.


They have - and they have lost.
Anything else?


----------



## Flarpy (Apr 17, 2016)

TheFixer1 said:


> Uber drivers are independent contractors, as are Taxi drivers. Unless you are forced to work "punch the clock" at a certain time, then you are an employee, until then you are an independent contractor, since you make up your own hours, you can come and go as you please, no one is forcing you to work with Uber or any other FHV/Taxi company.


I'm always amused when obvious non-lawyers give legal opinions.

Save your breath, your opinion matters only to yourself.

The only opinions I care about are the ones that affect my jurisdiction: California. And California judges are far more likely to find that a rideshare driver is an employee than Florida judges. Whether they're "right" or "wrong" is meaningless because their decision is law for my area. By definition.


----------



## SmokestaXX (Dec 17, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> The dispute is over control.
> It is illegal to control an independent contractor the way you control an employee -
> and still classify them as an independent contractor -
> it's called tax fraud.


What control do you speak of?


----------



## Jagent (Jan 29, 2017)

If we're independent contractors, then we should be able to set our own rates.


----------



## SmokestaXX (Dec 17, 2016)

Jagent said:


> If we're independent contractors, then we should be able to set our own rates.


Not when you're operating under some1 else's authority.


----------



## SmokestaXX (Dec 17, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> They have - and they have lost.
> Anything else?


Clearly the judicial system is broken.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

SmokestaXX said:


> What control do you speak of?


Read the IRS Tax code (cited above) on the difference between an employee and an Independent Contractor.
It's been discussed here repeatedly - do a search in the forum. It only takes a few moments to read up on a topic before you post.



SmokestaXX said:


> Clearly the judicial system is broken.


yeah - that's it... the most admired system of checks and balances that has led the US to be the oldest continuously active democracy in the history of the world is broken - because you disagree with a ruling in the court system.



SmokestaXX said:


> Not when you're operating under some1 else's authority.


Apparently you' haven't read the Uber Driver Agreement (contract). Uber drivers do NOT operate under anyone else's 'authority'. That's how Uber want's it so they can limit their own liability. The problem is that they also want the control of being able to direct driver's activities - and they can't have it both ways.

*2.3 Your Relationship with Users.*
You acknowledge and agree that your provision of Transportation Services to Users creates a direct business relationship between you and the User. Company is not responsible or liable for the actions or inactions of a User in relation to you, your activities or your Vehicle. You shall have the sole responsibility for any obligations or liabilities to Users or third parties that arise from your provision of Transportation Services. You acknowledge and agree that you are solely responsible for taking such precautions as may be reasonable and proper (including maintaining adequate insurance that meets the requirements of all applicable laws including motor vehicle financial responsibility laws) regarding any acts or omissions of a User or third party. You acknowledge and agree that Company may release your contact and/or insurance information to a User upon such User's reasonable request. You acknowledge and agree that, unless specifically consented to by a User, you may not transport or allow inside your Vehicle individuals other than a User and any individuals authorized by such User, during the performance of Transportation Services for such User. You acknowledge and agree that all Users should be transported directly to their specified destination, as directed by the applicable User, without unauthorized interruption or unauthorized stops.

*2.4* *Your Relationship with Company.*
You acknowledge and agree that Company's provision to you of the Driver App and the Uber Services creates a direct business relationship between Company and you. *Company does not, and shall not be deemed to, direct or control you generally* or in your performance under this Agreement specifically, including in connection with your provision of Transportation Services, your acts or omissions, or your operation and maintenance of your Vehicle. *You retain the sole right to determine when, where, and for how long you will utilize the Driver App or the Uber Services. You retain the option, via the Driver App, to attempt to accept or to decline or ignore a User's request for Transportation Services via the Uber Services, or to cancel an accepted request for Transportation Services via the Driver App*, subject to Company's then-current cancellation policies. With the exception of any signage required by local law or permit/license requirements, Company shall have no right to require you to: (a) display Company's or any of its Affiliates' names, logos or colors on your Vehicle(s); or (b) wear a uniform or any other clothing displaying Company's or any of its Affiliates' names, logos or colors. You acknowledge and agree that you have complete discretion to provide services or otherwise engage in other business or employment activities. For the sake of clarity, you understand that you retain the complete right to; (i) use other software application services in addition to the Uber Services; and (ii) engage in any other occupation or business. Company retains the right to deactivate or otherwise restrict you from accessing or using the Driver App or the Uber Services in the event of a violation or alleged violation of this Agreement, your disparagement of Company or any of its Affiliates, your act or omission that causes harm to Company's or its Affiliates' brand, reputation or business as determined by Company in its sole discretion.

*4.1 Fare Calculation and Your Payment. *
You are entitled to charge a fare for each instance of completed Transportation Services provided to a User that are obtained via the Uber Services ("Fare"), where such Fare is calculated based upon a base fare amount plus distance (*as determined by Company* using location-based services enabled through the Device) and/or time amounts, *as detailed at www.uber.com/cities for the applicable Territory ("Fare Calculation")*. You acknowledge and agree that the Fare provided under the Fare Calculation is the only payment you will receive in connection with the provision of Transportation Services, and that neither the Fare nor the Fare Calculation includes any gratuity. You are also entitled to charge User for any Tolls, taxes or fees incurred during the provision of Transportation Services, if applicable. *You: (i) appoint Company as your limited payment collection agent solely for the purpose of accepting the Fare, applicable Tolls and, depending on the region and/or if requested by you, applicable taxes and fees from the User on your behalf *via the payment processing functionality facilitated by the Uber Services; and (ii) agree that *payment made by User to Company (or to an Affiliate of Company acting as an agent of Company) shall be considered the same as payment made directly by User to you.* In addition, the parties acknowledge and agree that as between you and Company, the Fare is a recommended amount, and the primary purpose of the pre-arranged Fare is to act as the default amount in the event you do not negotiate a different amount. *You shall always have the right to: (i) charge a fare that is less than the pre-arranged Fare; or (ii) negotiate, at your request, a Fare that is lower than the prearranged Fare (each of (i) and (ii) herein, a "Negotiated Fare")*. Company shall consider all such requests from you in good faith. Company agrees to remit, or cause to be remitted, to you on at least a weekly basis: (a) the Fare less the applicable Service Fee; (b) the Tolls; and (c) depending on the region, certain taxes and ancillary fees. If you have separately agreed that other amounts may be deducted from the Fare prior to remittance to you (e.g., vehicle financing payments, lease payments, mobile device usage charges, etc.), the order of any such deductions from the Fare shall be determined exclusively by Company (as between you and Company).

*4.2 Changes to Fare Calculation. *
Company reserves the right to change the Fare Calculation at any time in Company's discretion based upon local market factors, and Company will provide you with notice in the event of changes to the base fare, per mile, and/or per minute amounts that would result in a change in the recommended Fare. Continued use of the Uber Services after any such change in the Fare Calculation shall constitute your consent to such change.

*4.3 Fare Adjustment. *
Company reserves the right to: (i) adjust the Fare for a particular instance of Transportation Services (e.g., you took an inefficient route, you failed to properly end a particular instance of Transportation Services in the Driver App, technical error in the Uber Services, etc.); or (ii) cancel the Fare for a particular instance of Transportation Services (e.g., User is charged for Transportation Services that were not provided, in the event of a User complaint, fraud, etc.). Company's decision to reduce or cancel the Fare in any such manner shall be exercised in a reasonable manner.
​


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

TheFixer1 said:


> Uber is NOT your employer, how hard is this for you to comprehend.


 The problem is; without Uber, you're also not an independent contractor. Turn off their app and see how successful your taxi business is. Without Uber, you have nothing but a scab cab.


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

TheFixer1 said:


> Uber is NOT your employer, how hard is this for you to comprehend.


It is. Its 2017. The laws should get updated the way u check into work is electronically now. Most truckers now have E-logs. So when u log off u off duty. If u return to work is all ur choice if u want to pay ur bills or not u free to leave work when ever u want


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Read the IRS Tax code (cited above) on the difference between an employee and an Independent Contractor.
> It's been discussed here repeatedly - do a search in the forum. It only takes a few moments to read up on a topic before you post.
> 
> yeah - that's it... the most admired system of checks and balances that has led the US to be the oldest continuously active democracy in the history of the world is broken - because you disagree with a ruling in the court system.
> ...


You do know that this is most likely the 1st time the majority of the UP.net forum members have ever read this. How many drivers are in violation of this contract, specifically section 2.3 with insurance requirements?


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> They have - and they have lost.
> Anything else?


It helped that Uber has paid off most politicians in order to "open shop" in the city of choice.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

phillipzx3 said:


> It helped that Uber has paid off most politicians in order to "open shop" in the city of choice.


You're behind the times... Uber has moved on to bypassing cities and now writes state legislation that prohibits municipalities from regulating the TNCs and defines drivers as "independent contractors". It's much more cost effective that way. Thank you David Plouffe.


----------



## SmokestaXX (Dec 17, 2016)

If you didn't or don't know Uber is running an illegal car for hire service, I don't know what to tell you. Putting that aside for this discussion we are all or have been contractors for Uber. There was an agreed upon rates and terms of services provided for both parties. They no more or less control what anyone does than the person you hire to cut your grass or paint your house. If I don't like their performance I ask them to pack up and leave.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

SmokestaXX said:


> If you didn't or don't know Uber is running an illegal car for hire service, I don't know what to tell you. Putting that aside for this discussion we are all or have been contractors for Uber. There was an agreed upon rates and terms of services provided for both parties. They no more or less control what anyone does than the person you hire to cut your grass or paint your house. If I don't like their performance I ask them to pack up and leave.


On the legality issue - you're obviously wrong, as proven time and again in the courts. 
As to the agreement you make with the guy who cuts your lawn - do you enter that agreement without the ability to negotiate the terms of the agreement by going through a non-responsible third party?
I didn't think so.
Your facts are wrong and your analogies irrelevant.


----------



## SmokestaXX (Dec 17, 2016)

I can live with being wrong in my analogy.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> http://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/...icial-legacy-that-will-far-outlast-his-tenure
> 
> It looks like this is the most conservative appeals court in the US so it's not really too surprising that they went against every other notable ruling on this issue ever.


What notable rulings?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> As to the agreement you make with the guy who cuts your lawn - do you enter that agreement without the ability to negotiate the terms of the agreement by going through a non-responsible third party?


You certainly could if you wished to.


----------



## LADriver (Aug 28, 2014)

Brundlefly said:


> https://www.wuft.org/news/2017/02/01/court-says-uber-drivers-independaent-contractors/


Florida is a legal backwater. Wait for the California case to be resolved. UBER controls the rates that are charged and collected. As well as payroll. UBER is in full control of the financials. A true Independent Contractor is entitled to set his or her own rates.

Congress needs to step in and regulate or eliminate the gig economy.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

LADriver said:


> Florida is a legal backwater. Wait for the California case to be resolved. UBER controls the rates that are charged and collected. As well as payroll. UBER is in full control of the financials. A true Independent Contractor is entitled to set his or her own rates.
> 
> Congress needs to step in and regulate or eliminate the gig economy.


Hilarious. California has some of the most overturned federal courts in the nation. They are notorious for writing their own laws.

Some independent contractors set their own rates and some choose to enter contracts where the rates are set. It has no bearing on IC vs employee status.

Congress needs to stay out of the free market. This isn't China.


----------



## Jagent (Jan 29, 2017)

LADriver said:


> Florida is a legal backwater. Wait for the California case to be resolved. UBER controls the rates that are charged and collected. As well as payroll. UBER is in full control of the financials. A true Independent Contractor is entitled to set his or her own rates.
> 
> Congress needs to step in and regulate or eliminate the gig economy.


Thank you. I've been preaching that the one thing that determines independent contractor status is the ability to set your own rates. There is no way we are independent contractors.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Jagent said:


> Thank you. I've been preaching that the one thing that determines independent contractor status is the ability to set your own rates. There is no way we are independent contractors.


It's just not true. I've been an IC or small business owner who has hired up to 22 ICs at a time. Who sets the rate has no bearing on IC status. MOST ICs with a contract did not set the rate. It's a take it or leave it offer.


----------



## LADriver (Aug 28, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Hilarious. California has some of the most overturned federal courts in the nation. They are notorious for writing their own laws.
> 
> Some independent contractors set their own rates and some choose to enter contracts where the rates are set. It has no bearing on IC vs employee status.
> 
> Congress needs to stay out of the free market. This isn't China.


http://www.blr.com/HR-Employment/Compensation/Independent-Contractors-in-Florida

Florida 10 factor test to determine whether an employee is covered by workers' compensation or is an independent contractor who is not covered.

1. Extent of control that the employer may exercise. UBER.
2. Is individual engages in distinct occupation. (Ride-sharing) UBER.
3. Work done under the direction/supervision of the employer. UBER
4. Occupation skill. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
5. Supplies tools. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
6. Length of time. UBER
7. Method of payment, by time or by job. UBER
8. Regular business of employer. UBER
9. Agreed to Employer/Employee relationship. INDEPENDENT CONTRATOR.
10. Individual in business. INDEPENDENT CONTRATOR.

UBER as employer, 6. Independent Contractor, 4.

Florida's own laws point to UBER drivers as qualified for workers' compensation. That's why the initial decision was made in their favor. The Appeals court says it's a square peg in a round hole. Well then, fix the laws one way or the other.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

LADriver said:


> 1. Extent of control that the employer may exercise. UBER.
> 2. Is individual engages in distinct occupation. (Ride-sharing) UBER.
> 3. Work done under the direction/supervision of the employer. UBER
> 4. Occupation skill. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
> ...


1. Extent of control that the employer may exercise. *Driver*: you wear what you want, drive when you want, drive where you want, accept or decline the rides you want, can refuse or end any ride at any time, and have no supervision.
2. Is individual engages in distinct occupation. (Ride-sharing) *Driver*: You drive for any company you wish or don't.
3. Work done under the direction/supervision of the employer. *Driver*: You have no direct supervision. Do you even know what that means?
4. Occupation skill. *Driver*
5. Supplies tools. *Driver*
6. Length of time. *Driver*: Uber has no control over the hours you work. What are you even talking about?!
7. Method of payment, by time or by job. UBER
8. Regular business of employer. UBER (although this is debatable.)
9. Agreed to Employer/Employee relationship. *Driver*
10. Individual in business. UBER

7-3.


----------



## Jagent (Jan 29, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> It's just not true. I've been an IC or small business owner who has hired up to 22 ICs at a time. Who sets the rate has no bearing on IC status. MOST ICs with a contract did not set the rate. It's a take it or leave it offer.


You're missing the point. When you hire those ICs, they know all the terms of the contract. We don't. We never get an offer. When we are deciding whether or not to accept a ride, we have NO idea what that job will pay out, or the distance involved. If those factors were offered up front, your argument would hold water.

To make matters worse, if we make an attempt to find out, or if we cancel once we find out the terms of the contract, we are under the threat of termination.

Its no different than offering body shop guys a fee for fixing a car, while not letting them look at it first. Then threatening to fire them if they decide its not worth fixing once they see the damage. Those are employees, not private contractors.

Uber is my side gig. I've been a private contractor my entire life. I've paid self employment taxes since 1982. Uber drivers are not private contractors. There are two ways Uber could fix this;

1. Allow drivers to set a rate. Pax needing a ride would see several drivers, their rating, fee, and distance away and could choose a ride. Uber would get a percentage.

2. Pax would ask for a ride and offer a price. Nearby drivers would see the location, distance of ride and money offered. First one to accept gets the job. Uber gets their percentage.

As long as Uber sets all the terms, and drivers are kept in the dark , drivers are employees.


----------



## Jagent (Jan 29, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> 1. Extent of control that the employer may exercise. *Driver*: you wear what you want, drive when you want, drive where you want, accept or decline the rides you want, can refuse or end any ride at any time, and have no supervision.
> 2.
> -3.


We DON'T get to accept or decline rides that we want. Uber gives us no choice in the matter. Next time you get a ping that takes you out in the boonies for a two mile ride, cancel it. Do that several times and see how long before you get deactivated.

Nor do we get to drive where we want. Next time you pick up a pax headed somewhere you'd rather not go, cancel his ride. See how many times you can do that without getting fired.

We don't know where the pax is going, nor how far, until we start the trip. Once we start it, canceling is not an option under Ubers terms. That makes us employees.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Jagent said:


> You're missing the point. When you hire those ICs, they know all the terms of the contract. We don't. We never get an offer. When we are deciding whether or not to accept a ride, we have NO idea what that job will pay out, or the distance involved. If those factors were offered up front, your argument would hold water.
> 
> To make matters worse, if we make an attempt to find out, or if we cancel once we find out the terms of the contract, we are under the threat of termination.
> 
> ...


OK, that's a very good point. I think you're probably pushing the definition of employee still, but it's a valid argument.


----------



## Jagent (Jan 29, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> OK, that's a very good point. I think you're probably pushing the definition of employee still, but it's a valid argument.


Think of it like this - All that drivers know is that we get paid by the mile, and, under some circumstances, by the minute. That's all Uber offers us. It's not much different than being paid by the hour. Who gets paid by the hour? Employees.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> You certainly could if you wished to.


That's the point: You have the choice.
With Uber, you don't.
Even the Uber 'AGREEMENT' says you have the right to negotiate fares - but it provides no way to do that - and CSRs have said here that if you try, you'll be deactivated.
(but you knew that)


----------



## LADriver (Aug 28, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> 1. Extent of control that the employer may exercise. *Driver*: you wear what you want, drive when you want, drive where you want, accept or decline the rides you want, can refuse or end any ride at any time, and have no supervision.
> 2. Is individual engages in distinct occupation. (Ride-sharing) *Driver*: You drive for any company you wish or don't.
> 3. Work done under the direction/supervision of the employer. *Driver*: You have no direct supervision. Do you even know what that means?
> 4. Occupation skill. *Driver*
> ...


Keep in mind that these questions are meant as a way to establish whether there is an employer-employee relationship or not. The original case is Darrin McGillis v. UBER Technologies.

1. Extent of control. You say Driver has control for free dress, when, where, accept, decline, cancel, no supervision.

This is a shallow, on the surface, non-legal reading of what control means.

California has an EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP QUESTIONAIRE with 89 questions. Not just 10 like Florida.

Just for starters to show legal control let's begin with what Uber REQUIRES:

Online application, Driver's license, Vehicle Registration, Insurance paperwork, Vehicle Inspection Certification, Background Check, Direct Deposit.

Uber also REQUIRES video training, remedial training if deactivated, airport procedures training.

Uber sets the fee (fare) schedules for compensation. Uber changes the fee schedules regularly.

Uber monitors performance with it's star rating system. Uber sets the minimum requirement to stay active.

Uber sends notices (mostly text messages) regarding activity or progress on driving accounts.

Uber deactivates drivers base on falling below minimum star ratings standard.

Uber notifies drivers regarding acceptance rate.

Uber collects fees from passengers.

Uber did not allow tipping until recently.

Uber deducts fees, airport fees, Safety Rider fees. Uber fees are not negotiable.

Uber can terminate at will.

Uber does not have profit sharing with drivers.

Uber provides signs, logos that must be displayed to work.

Uber requires an arbitration agreement.

Uber requires Identity Verification to keep driving.

Uber requires drivers to have an airport permit to pickup at LAX.

This is what is meant as control in a legal sense. Not that the driver's can wear a T-shirt and shorts if they want.

As for Florida question #3 "Whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision.

Uber tracks the movement of every ride through their App. Tracking is supervising. I'll give you an example:

I was starting a ride and followed the designated route. Until the designated freeway onramp was closed. I backtracked to the previous, nearest onramp because it was a 15 minute freeway job. The passenger complained that I took an inefficient route and Uber deducted $1.75 from my earned fare.

How was Uber able to do this adjustment? Well, they tracked/supervised my route. They received the complaint, reviewed the route and deducted my money within an hour. Did a computer do this? Or did a supervisor/live human in the L.A. office authorized taking back money that I had already earned?

My Uber supervisor in L.A. made the decision through tracking, which every driver is subjected to.

Florida question #6. "The length of time for which the person is employed."

Time in this case refers to days, months, years, not daily shift hours. To establish an employer-employee relationship, the State would most likely want to know how long term it is. If an Independent Contractor is hired to do a repair for one day. That's a very brief, non relationship. But, if a driver has worked for 4 years (as in my case), that's a more long standing employer-employee relationship that shows that I'm dependent on the employer for work (federal definition).

UBER 6, Independent Contractor 4. (Florida questions).


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

"Be your own boss, work when you want to."
Why is it that not one person complained about employee status before joining Uber to drive? Honest question to the forum. Which drivers were worried about not having employee status with Uber before joining to drive?


----------



## Jagent (Jan 29, 2017)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> "Be your own boss, work when you want to."
> Why is it that not one person complained about employee status before joining Uber to drive? Honest question to the forum. Which drivers were worried about not having employee status with Uber before joining to drive?


Because prior to actually working for Uber, all you know is their propaganda. You don't actually realize what a crappy deal is until you drive 15 miles to pick up a 2 mile fare.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Jagent said:


> Because prior to actually working for Uber, all you know is their propaganda.


Very well said. Almost like the older kids enticing you to smoke your very first joint. "C'mon, it's not that bad, you'll like it. You can be cool like us."
The fare for hire industry has been around for many many years. It would have been very simplistic to research this industry first and then make a decision to join Uber or not.


----------



## Jagent (Jan 29, 2017)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Very well said. Almost like the older kids enticing you to smoke your very first joint. "C'mon, it's not that bad, you'll like it. You can be cool like us."
> The fare for hire industry has been around for many many years. It would have been very simplistic to research this industry first and then make a decision to join Uber or not.


Well, it's not so bad that's it's not worth doing. Even if I'd researched, I would still do it. I manage to make some money each week. The point is, it could be a lot better and it should be.

Uber is getting away with murder and, to be honest, I don't see how they're losing money. I think they are avoiding taxes by claiming huge losses. Anyhow, if the courts bring them into compliance on ICs, perhaps things will be better for drivers.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> "Be your own boss, work when you want to."
> Why is it that not one person complained about employee status before joining Uber to drive? Honest question to the forum. Which drivers were worried about not having employee status with Uber before joining to drive?


Because drivers believed it. Again the purpose of challenging the employee status is not for the most part to be considered an employee, but rather to get Uber to stop treating independent contractors as employees. Because of the lawsuit in the CA, Uber will no longer deactivate drivers because the drivers choose not to accept rides (low acceptance rate). Uber was forced to live up to the terms of its agreement with drivers (which says drivers can choose to accept or not accept any ride request they chose). To have continued deactivating drivers over 'low acceptance rate' would have been evidence of 'employer control'.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's the point: You have the choice.
> With Uber, you don't.
> Even the Uber 'AGREEMENT' says you have the right to negotiate fares - but it provides no way to do that - and CSRs have said here that if you try, you'll be deactivated.
> (but you knew that)


You can negotiate them down, not up. The fare offered is a maximum. I doubt anyone will be deactivated. I have fares adjusted when I need to with no issues.

I didn't mean an either / or. Some contracts you fill in your rates and they choose who they want and others the hiring company puts out a fee schedule and you accept or decline. It's perfectly normal.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> You can negotiate them down, not up. The fare offered is a maximum. I doubt anyone will be deactivated. I have fares adjusted when I need to with no issues.
> 
> I didn't mean an either / or. Some contracts you fill in your rates and they choose who they want and others the hiring company puts out a fee schedule and you accept or decline. It's perfectly normal.


You can negotiate them - period. 
It specifically says 'down' - 
it does not say you can't negotiate them up. 
That omission - in contract law - is meaningful and significant.

I've been through this with you before and have no intention of going there again. People can draw their own conclusions - or consult an attorney.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

LADriver said:


> 1. Extent of control. You say Driver has control for free dress, when, where, accept, decline, cancel, no supervision.
> 
> This is a shallow, on the surface, non-legal reading of what control means.


Your minimizing what I'm saying because you want to change the precedent and norm. I've been in contracting on both sides for most of my life and have dealt with this subject in 7 states. One of them was not CA, and they tend to be rabid anti-business, so your milage may vary.

When I say dress, I'm saying there is no required logoed uniform or any uniform. This is on every IC vs employee list I've ever read. So is scheduling and when and where you work. You can dismiss them if it makes you feel better, but you'll note the courts don't agree.



LADriver said:


> Just for starters to show legal control let's begin with what Uber REQUIRES:
> 
> Online application, Driver's license, Vehicle Registration, Insurance paperwork, Vehicle Inspection Certification, Background Check, Direct Deposit.


All part of state or local law requirements and not Uber policy except background checks, which are normal for ICs everywhere. Mandatory direct deposit I've not seen and have no idea where that would fall.



LADriver said:


> Uber also REQUIRES video training, remedial training if deactivated, airport procedures training.


Nope. Uber does not require video training or remedial training. They offer videos but they are not required. They accept 3rd party remedial training if you choose to do it, but it's not required.



LADriver said:


> Uber sets the fee (fare) schedules for compensation. Uber changes the fee schedules regularly.


Uber sets the max fee, not the actual fee you are free to charge. They change the max fee. If there is a bone to pick with Uber, this is definitely it, but not towards IC vs EMP. There is no reason they can't choose what they offer as a max. I do it with contractors all the time. They come in and look at the work, tell me their normal rates, and I tell them this is the MAX I will pay for this job.



LADriver said:


> Uber monitors performance with it's star rating system. Uber sets the minimum requirement to stay active.


Yes, they do. All contracts expect satisfactory work and use one system or another to make that determination. IC doesn't mean freedom to not produce up to expected standards.



LADriver said:


> Uber sends notices (mostly text messages) regarding activity or progress on driving accounts.


Yes, and?



LADriver said:


> Uber deactivates drivers base on falling below minimum star ratings standard.


Already covered.



LADriver said:


> Uber notifies drivers regarding acceptance rate.


Yes, and? If my contractors don't accept my jobs or rates, I find contractors who will. I'm not obligated to let them in on any job if I can't rely on them.



LADriver said:


> Uber collects fees from passengers.


Yep. All a part of a normal IC contract.



LADriver said:


> Uber did not allow tipping until recently.


Completely false.



LADriver said:


> Uber deducts fees, airport fees, Safety Rider fees. Uber fees are not negotiable.


Yep, they collect and pay you. All the part of a normal contract.

Uber fees are negotiable. Have you not read the TOS?



LADriver said:


> Uber can terminate at will.


Yep, same as all contracts. Performance is in every contract I've ever signed or issued.



LADriver said:


> Uber does not have profit sharing with drivers.


What does this have to do with anything? Profit sharing is an employee thing, not an IC thing.



LADriver said:


> Uber provides signs, logos that must be displayed to work.


Only where required by law.



LADriver said:


> Uber requires an arbitration agreement.


Nope. Read the TOS.



LADriver said:


> Uber requires Identity Verification to keep driving.


This is a new item, we'll see how it plays out. I don't see how providing evidence of identification has any bearing on anything.



LADriver said:


> Uber requires drivers to have an airport permit to pickup at LAX.


Required by law. They don't issue them, they require them. I require my contractors to be properly licensed too.



LADriver said:


> This is what is meant as control in a legal sense. Not that the driver's can wear a T-shirt and shorts if they want.


Uniforms. No uniforms and no dress code. Your sarcasm is agenda driven because it's a legitimate standard. So is mandatory meetings. So are a lot of things.

You've proved nothing about control. They do not control you, you agree to their terms or you don't and they are very light handed compared to most contracts.



LADriver said:


> As for Florida question #3 "Whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision.
> 
> Uber tracks the movement of every ride through their App. Tracking is supervising. I'll give you an example:
> 
> ...


You don't have an Uber supervisor. You had a fare adjusted based on the TOS you signed but didn't read. They track your routes for disputes. They do not supervise your route. You're stretched so thin in your arguments, you're just making things up now.



LADriver said:


> Florida question #6. "The length of time for which the person is employed."
> 
> Time in this case refers to days, months, years, not daily shift hours. To establish an employer-employee relationship, the State would most likely want to know how long term it is. If an Independent Contractor is hired to do a repair for one day. That's a very brief, non relationship. But, if a driver has worked for 4 years (as in my case), that's a more long standing employer-employee relationship that shows that I'm dependent on the employer for work (federal definition).


Yes, this is a legitimate question. Many contractors will work years on a project so that's not abnormal. The question would be if this is all you do during that time. You are not dependent on the work just because you choose to do it. I've worked contracts for 5-6 years and offered the same contractors daily work for 5-6 years. They are not obligated to take the work.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Uber fees are negotiable. Have you not read the TOS?


And that's the 'fail'... the TOS/Agreement says a lot of things (in order to make it seem like an IC relationship) that are in fact not implementable in the real world. Accepting or declining ride requests and cancelling ride requests, for example. Negotiating fees and negotiating fares are more examples.


> You don't have an Uber supervisor.


Not true - Uber monitors everything from how hard you brake to how fast you accelerate, from how many rides requests you accept and don't - to how many you cancel: and importantly, they not only let you know thatthey they are monitoring those activities, but they warn you that you may be deactivated for those things - even though the driver agreement says you can perform your job any way you see fit. That is employer control over how a driver performs his/her job. They monitor your route - that by agreement you are allowed to choose - and will make adjustments to your fares if they decide it was not an efficient route. That is employer control.


> Uber sets the max fee, not the actual fee you are free to charge.


That's absolutely not true - and every driver knows it. The driver agreement says that fares are 'suggestions' but provides no way for a driver and rider to submit a 'negotiated' fare. It's another example of the agreement being written to say one thing (to buttress the argument for IC status) but the reality being completely different.

You are right on-point on your other remarks.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You can negotiate them - period.
> It specifically says 'down' -
> it does not say you can't negotiate them up.
> That omission - in contract law - is meaningful and significant.
> ...


It's not an omission. Uber sets the maximum, you can negotiate at will under that maximum.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> And that's the 'fail'... the TOS/Agreement says a lot of things (in order to make it seem like an IC relationship) that are in fact not implementable in the real world. Accepting or declining ride requests and cancelling ride requests, for example. Negotiating fees and negotiating fares are more examples.


I agree. They ride the line on these issues. I can see their point of view on service if you cancel too many times but it's allowed in the TOS.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's absolutely not true - and every driver knows it. The driver agreement says that fares are 'suggestions' but provides no way for a driver and rider to submit a 'negotiated' fare. It's another example of the agreement being written to say one thing (to buttress the argument for IC status) but the reality being completely different.


You can absolutely charge the rider less than the max fare listed. Trip / help. Still, it is a bit gray in that there's no real way for pax and driver to agree.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> I agree. They ride the line on these issues. I can see their point of view on service if you cancel too many times but it's allowed in the TOS. You can absolutely charge the rider less than the max fare listed. Trip / help. Still, it is a bit gray in that there's no real way for pax and driver to agree.


It's not a gray area - it's Uberese - or UberSpeak if you prefer. You don't have to argue with me about the negotiating fares thing - just ask an attorney who practices contract law.


----------



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

Brundlefly said:


> https://www.wuft.org/news/2017/02/01/court-says-uber-drivers-independaent-contractors/


Wonder how much Fuber paid for this verdict...


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Trump Economics said:


> Wonder how much Fuber paid for this verdict...


lol - a LOT LESS than if they hadn't paid for it and lost the decision!


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It's not a gray area - it's Uberese - or UberSpeak if you prefer. You don't have to argue with me about the negotiating fares thing - just ask an attorney who practices contract law.


Hyperbole. It's all silly agenda BS. Please, for the sake of babyjezuz, go speak to your attornies. Better call Sal,


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

TheFixer1 said:


> Uber drivers are independent contractors, as are Taxi drivers. Unless you are forced to work "punch the clock" at a certain time, then you are an employee, until then you are an independent contractor, since you make up your own hours, you can come and go as you please, no one is forcing you to work with Uber or any other FHV/Taxi company.


No one is forcing you to work for ANYONE. So not being forced to work is not relevant.

The ONLY thing that tends to lean towards IC status is flexibility. Which is why it is the ONLY thing Uber keeps bringing up.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Elmo Burrito said:


> That's fine, I don't EVER want to be an employee of Uber they already "toy" with us enough as it is. That's one of the main reasons I do this because I am an IC and set my own schedule. The main thing they do that pisses me off is uber/lyft want it both ways. To bad they can't make up their minds. Or did they?


It's not about what you WANT. It's about what you ARE.

If I am a cashier at Walmart I can say I want to be an independent contractor all I want, but I'm not, I'm an employee. And if Walmart tomorrow decided to call me an IC, I would STILL be an employee in the eyes of the law, EVEN IF I AGREED TO IT.

If Walmart told all its employees tomorrow that they could agree to be ICs and Walmart would pay them an extra $1 per hour and take out no taxes, many (stupidly) would agree, because they'd see an immediate raise in their paychecks. Walmart would benefit if it could do that as it would be cheaper than keeping them as employees. But they don't do it because they (and their workers) don't GET to choose what they WANT.

The court cases are about what drivers ARE, not what they WANT. Legally, at least. Obviously it's about being treated like one or the other, instead of not having the advantages of an IC or an employee, but only the disadvantages of both.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

SmokestaXX said:


> If you're bad for business u gotta go. Uber just set the threshold too high. Bottomline, drivers need to keep their mouths shut about the behind the scenes, that goes especially for how much $ u may or may not be making


"Drivers need to keep their mouths shut"?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> "Be your own boss, work when you want to."
> Why is it that not one person complained about employee status before joining Uber to drive? Honest question to the forum. Which drivers were worried about not having employee status with Uber before joining to drive?


Because until you work for them you don't have any idea how much control they exert over you. I never expected to get texts and emails about my acceptance and cancellation rate, or my pay adjusted because I took a detour due to traffic or accidents. Never expected riders (MY customers, supposedly) to be instructed not to tip me. And so on.


----------



## LADriver (Aug 28, 2014)

Dontmakemepullauonyou said:


> It is sickening everywhere they report that 100mil settlement but the poop in my toilet has more real life matter than that settlement that basically thrown out by tbat judge.


The claim wrongfully states that there was an actual settlement, when the California Judge Chen REJECTED the 100 million dollar UBER extortion buyout as being much to low. Did I not say that Florida is a legal backwater. How does an administrative un-employment decision go all the way to an appellate court without proper court procedures? The California case will be in the lower court phase for years before it even goes to the appellate stage which will take another year of lawyer bills.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Hyperbole. It's all silly agenda BS. Please, for the sake of babyjezuz, go speak to your attornies. Better call Sal,


Wrong. 
"Silly agenda" ? What 'agenda re you referring to? Whose?
I spent nearly two years in court against a litigating attorney at the largest law firm in the US - on the very issue of 'contract language ambiguity'. And I won the case before a 3 judge Appeals Court panel. Granted, different courts will rule differently on complicated issues - but here in Ohio, my case is precedent setting.


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

Uber shouldn't even be succeeding. Everything about uber is wrong in buisness. Uber shows me how corrept the system is. Ive learned about honesty threw my life but once u get higher up in the buisness pyramid the more corrupt it gets.

Even the time flexibility is in employer favor to cuz u can get deactivated if u dont get on in what 60 days? Or 90? As an independent u cant be forced off.


----------



## CatchyMusicLover (Sep 18, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> my pay adjusted because I took a detour due to traffic or accidents.


Honestly there's very little in reality that points Uber toward them having employer-like control (I mean....text messages? Really?!), but THIS one...yeah. They fact that not only can they 'adjust' it, but even outright refund the whole fare (essentially STEALING the money) without even telling you (and you don't know unless you look), is pretty mind boggling.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

CatchyMusicLover said:


> Honestly there's very little in reality that points Uber toward them having employer-like control


I disagree - there's a lot (like turning a driver's app off because they do not accept a ride request even though our agreement says we have the right to accept or decline any request, and deactivating a driver because they cancel ride requests - even though our agreement says we have the right to cancel any ride request we want to.)

Now, that's not to say there isn't also a lot that points to IC status, too. And that's the problem. Current law (FLSA) just doesn't have a good definition for gig economy jobs.


> but THIS one...yeah. They fact that not only can they 'adjust' it, but even outright refund the whole fare (essentially STEALING the money) without even telling you (and you don't know unless you look), is pretty mind boggling.


Exactly!


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Current law (FLSA) just doesn't have a good definition for gig economy jobs.


 But theres very small regulations enforced on to uber. What uber is doing now is what happened in late 80s with trucking industry.

Just like back then uber is bottoming out their prices,adding a broader market like flex and ubereats to eliminate as much compition as can. The difference is the drivers actually got a good deal out of it as with uber everyone looses but uber executives.

Uber needs more and more regulation


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Jermin8r89 said:


> with uber everyone looses but uber executives.


Riders make out pretty damned well, too. And since riders are a 'huuuge' (Sorry Mr. President) political constituency, Uber uses marketing tactics (and lobbyists) to apply tremendous pressure on politicians and legislators.


----------



## SmokestaXX (Dec 17, 2016)

Jermin8r89 said:


> But theres very small regulations enforced on to uber. What uber is doing now is what happened in late 80s with trucking industry.
> 
> Just like back then uber is bottoming out their prices,adding a broader market like flex and ubereats to eliminate as much compition as can. The difference is the drivers actually got a good deal out of it as with uber everyone looses but uber executives.
> 
> Uber needs more and more regulation


Uber is very much identical to the trucking industry.


----------

