# Uber’s Plan to Keep Driver Complaints Out of Court



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

Uber says its drivers should enjoy the freedom that comes with setting their own hours, as long as that freedom ends at the courthouse steps. As its California drivers battle to be treated as employees with benefits-rather than independent contractors-the world's most valuable startup is arguing they can't go to trial. According to the contracts most drivers signed, Uber says, disputes have to go through private arbitration.

The company's position has taken on greater importance since a Sept. 1 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco. Chen granted class-action status to a lawsuit brought by two Uber drivers seeking reclassification as employees. That means thousands more of the company's 160,000 drivers in California could join the suit. The drivers are seeking reimbursement for expenses and tips, which would open the door to a minimum wage, meal breaks, workers' compensation, and unionization. On Sept. 15, Uber asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco to take up "the leading case raising urgent questions about the classification of sharing-economy workers" and reverse Chen's decision.

In its appeal, Uber continues to argue its drivers aren't a class because they don't have set hours or other commitments. It's also urging the appellate court to overturn Chen's ruling in a related case last June, which invalidated the arbitration agreements barring drivers from joining class actions. Uber spokeswoman Jessica Santillo declined to comment on arbitration.
The fine print in Uber's driver contract includes a clause requiring the driver to take disputes to an arbitrator. If the two parties can't agree on an arbitrator, the mediation service JAMS is supposed to play that part. According to the contract language, Uber and the driver would split the costs of arbitration. JAMS charges a hearing fee of $7,000 per day and a $5,000 retainer fee to start the process.

JAMS spokeswoman Victoria Walsh says her firm hasn't handled any cases for Uber. In his June decision, Chen ruled that the arbitration agreements are so unfair they're unenforceable. On Sept. 21, state Judge Ernest Goldsmith came to the same conclusion in a similar case in San Francisco Superior Court.

Uber says the San Francisco case covers fewer than 15,000 of its California drivers, based on Chen's specifications that eligible plaintiffs must have, among other things, stopped driving for Uber before June 2014 or opted out of the arbitration agreement. But it's taking the potential threat to its $50 billion business model seriously, says Katherine Stone, an employment law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. "Uber is coming hard and fast on this, which is appropriate because it has a lot at stake," she says. Uber is hinging its case on U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have made it "very hard to get out of arbitration agreements anywhere."

Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lawyer representing the drivers, says forcing drivers into arbitration is a "sneaky tactic" to shield Uber from class-action liability resulting from violations of labor laws "even if they owe a whole lot of people money."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-24/uber-s-plan-to-keep-driver-complaints-out-of-court


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

New Drivers have 30 Days to *Opt-out of* *Binding Arbitration*


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Interesting that the driver pays part of the cost of arbitration.

In California the EMPLOYER pays all costs in arbitration.

One more reason for drivers becoming employees.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

Why do so many Cali drivers want to become employees? You'll probably have to work assigned shifts, your hours will probably be part time so you don't qualify for full time benefits, you'll have to follow a dress code, pick up all pax dispatched to you, work assigned areas depending on what Uber decides is the optimum number of vehicles in an area, and make a wage, not a portion of the fare.

Now, of course this is all speculation, but how could it be any other way? I'm interested in hearing opinions, I'm not trolling.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Old Rocker said:


> Why do so many Cali drivers want to become employees? You'll probably have to work assigned shifts, your hours will probably be part time so you don't qualify for full time benefits, you'll have to follow a dress code, pick up all pax dispatched to you, work assigned areas depending on what Uber decides is the optimum number of vehicles in an area, and make a wage, not a portion of the fare.
> 
> Now, of course this is all speculation, but how could it be any other way? I'm interested in hearing opinions, I'm not trolling.


Got enough "probably's in there? hehe...

The only things we KNOW are that employees:

save at least 7.5% in payroll taxes (because employers are required to pay 1/2 of SS/Medicare), 
gain unemployment insurance
gain worker's compensation insurance benefits, 
and have at least some of the burden of operating expenses reimbursed to them
*There is nothing anywhere that says an employer cannot give employees the ability to chose when, where or how much they work.*


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Got enough "probably's in there? hehe...
> 
> The only things we KNOW are that employees:
> 
> ...


Did you, as a small business owner and corporate VP, let employees come and go as they pleased, take as many breaks as they wanted, and just decide to take a couple of weeks off without telling you?


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Uber carries to much control over drivers for them to be considered independent contractors. The IRS has a classification of workers called _statutory employees.
_
If drivers were reclassified as statutory employees, Uber would be required to pay the employer's share of federal taxes for the driver. It does NOT mean Uber has to set up schedules.

JM2cW


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Old Rocker said:


> Why do so many Cali drivers want to become employees? You'll probably have to work assigned shifts, your hours will probably be part time so you don't qualify for full time benefits, you'll have to follow a dress code, pick up all pax dispatched to you, work assigned areas depending on what Uber decides is the optimum number of vehicles in an area, and make a wage, not a portion of the fare.
> 
> Now, of course this is all speculation, but how could it be any other way? I'm interested in hearing opinions, I'm not trolling.


I don't think many drivers want to become employees, the problem is Uber treats drivers as employees.

If Uber treated drivers as true Independent contractors that would be something different but they don't.

One benefit to being an employee though is you get paid a certain MINIMUM amount. In CA that will be 10 bucks an hour starting in January.

Another is all expenses are paid on top of the minimum wage.

**Minimum amount per hour.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

*Statutory Employees*

If workers are independent contractors under the common law rules, such workers may nevertheless be treated as employees by statute (statutory employees) for certain employment tax purposes if they fall within any one of the following four categories and meet the three conditions described under *Social Security and Medicare taxes*, below.


A driver who distributes beverages (other than milk) or meat, vegetable, fruit, or bakery products; or who picks up and delivers laundry or dry cleaning, if the driver is your agent or is paid on commission.
A full-time life insurance sales agent whose principal business activity is selling life insurance or annuity contracts, or both, primarily for one life insurance company.
An individual who works at home on materials or goods that you supply and that must be returned to you or to a person you name, if you also furnish specifications for the work to be done.
A full-time traveling or city salesperson who works on your behalf and turns in orders to you from wholesalers, retailers, contractors, or operators of hotels, restaurants, or other similar establishments. The goods sold must be merchandise for resale or supplies for use in the buyer's business operation. The work performed for you must be the salesperson's principal business activity.
Refer to the *Salesperson* section located in Publication 15-A, Employer's Supplemental Tax Guide (PDF) for additional information.

*Social Security and Medicare Taxes*
Withhold Social Security and Medicare taxes from the wages of statutory employees if all three of the following conditions apply.


The service contract states or implies that substantially all the services are to be performed personally by them.
They do not have a substantial investment in the equipment and property used to perform the services (other than an investment in transportation facilities).
The services are performed on a continuing basis for the same payer.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Old Rocker said:


> Did you, as a small business owner and corporate VP, let employees come and go as they pleased, take as many breaks as they wanted, and just decide to take a couple of weeks off without telling you?


It's an irrelevant question since in my corporate life I didn't run a business like Uber...
and my employees were all exempt (salaried, not hourly).
But since you asked nicely, in my small business, yes, my administrative employees work when they choose
(and because they are compensated based on productivity and revenues, they all choose to work when they are most productive).
My field labor force chooses the work assignments they want and are paid on an hourly basis.
Vacations and time-off are also at their discretion as long as we have notice so that we can plan around those times.
All employees also receive two weeks of paid time off each year and are covered by worker's comp and unemployment insurance.
Any other questions?


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

Old Rocker said:


> Why do so many Cali drivers want to become employees? You'll probably have to work assigned shifts, your hours will probably be part time so you don't qualify for full time benefits, you'll have to follow a dress code, pick up all pax dispatched to you, work assigned areas depending on what Uber decides is the optimum number of vehicles in an area, and make a wage, not a portion of the fare.
> 
> Now, of course this is all speculation, but how could it be any other way? I'm interested in hearing opinions, I'm not trolling.


I , definitely don't want to become a employee, but uber threats me like one,they can't have it both ways.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> One benefit to being an employee though is you get paid a certain MINIMUM amount. In CA that will be 10 bucks an hour starting in January.


No they don't. The minimum wage is a guarantee of a minimum hourly wage - not a minimum amount an employee gets paid.
If you don't work, you don't get paid.
If you are a sales employee compensated only on commission, you may or may not be subject to minimum wage laws.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

arto71 said:


> I , definitely don't want to become a employee, but uber threats me like one,they can't have it both ways.


Hopefully, the long term outcome of all of this will be that Uber creates two classes of drivers: IC's and W2 employees... allowing drivers to choose how they want to work and how they want to be classified (and accept the terms of each of those classifications).

For example, a part-time employee might agree to be "on-app" a minimum of 20 hours per week, while a full-time employee might agree to 40 hours of "on-app"time. A driver who wants to maintain full control and flexibility of how much and when they work, might opt to be an independent contractor.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No they don't. The minimum wage is a guarantee of a minimum hourly wage - not a minimum amount an employee gets paid.
> If you don't work, you don't get paid.
> If you are a sales employee compensated only on commission, you may or may not be subject to minimum wage laws.


If you are a sales person ando can't make at least minimum wage, you aren't much of a sales person.

But, uber drivers are not sales people.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Page 25
Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (.pdf, 195 KB)*
*







*


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

*Social Security and Medicare Taxes*
Withhold Social Security and Medicare taxes from the wages of statutory employees if all three of the following conditions apply.


The service contract states or implies that substantially all the services are to be performed personally by them.
They do not have a substantial investment in the equipment and property used to perform the services (other than an investment in transportation facilities).
The services are performed on a continuing basis for the same payer.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

All of the above applies to drivers. The IRS is able to add to the categories that are considered statutory employees.

Workers who rely on a technology application to perform their responsibilities.
JM2cW


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Page 25
> Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (.pdf, 195 KB)
> 
> View attachment 13910
> *


In the end Uber will have to decide if it wants control of drivers. I seriously doubt Uber will give up enough control to be true I/Cs.

They will probably keep pushing the boundaries until drivers push back.


----------



## Lack9133 (Mar 26, 2015)

Old Rocker said:


> Why do so many Cali drivers want to become employees? You'll probably have to work assigned shifts, your hours will probably be part time so you don't qualify for full time benefits, you'll have to follow a dress code, pick up all pax dispatched to you, work assigned areas depending on what Uber decides is the optimum number of vehicles in an area, and make a wage, not a portion of the fare.
> 
> Now, of course this is all speculation, but how could it be any other way? I'm interested in hearing opinions, I'm not trolling.


It's not that they WANT to become employees, it's that drivers want Uber to treat them as the law dictates businesses treat contractors. As much as Uber wants to threaten that drivers will become everything you mentioned, that will never happen in the transportation world due to the massive uncertainty and inability to predict demand in the transportation world.

Go look at taxi's who are limited to a specific amount of vehicles they can put on the road. Putting a cap on the number of drivers on the road will always create spikes in wait time when there is a spike in demand. If Uber ever went the employee route, it would kill their business.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Old Rocker said:


> Why do so many Cali drivers want to become employees? You'll probably have to work assigned shifts, your hours will probably be part time so you don't qualify for full time benefits, you'll have to follow a dress code, pick up all pax dispatched to you, work assigned areas depending on what Uber decides is the optimum number of vehicles in an area, and make a wage, not a portion of the fare.
> 
> Now, of course this is all speculation, but how could it be any other way? I'm interested in hearing opinions, I'm not trolling.


POST # 6/Old Rocker: You just broke the
"Well-Known" Barrier.

☆ ☆ Rank hath its Priveleges!☆ ☆

"Trolling" epithets levelled can ONLY
COME from the HOPELESSLY UNIN-
FORMED or Guttersniping by Trolls
Themselves.

Congrats, again.
Bison Admires.
Bison Inspires!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> If you are a sales person ando can't make at least minimum wage, you aren't much of a sales person.
> But, uber drivers are not sales people.


You're dodging your original post which said 
- "One benefit to being an employee though is you get paid a certain MINIMUM amount. "
I was just clarifying what minimum wage law means under the FSLA legislation and DoL regulations.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Hopefully, the long term outcome of all of this will be that Uber creates two classes of drivers: IC's and W2 employees... allowing drivers to choose how they want to be classified (and accept the terms of each of those classifications).
> 
> For example, a part-time employee might agree to be "on-app" a minimum of 20 hours per week, while a full-time employee might agree to 40 hours of "on-app"time. A driver who wants to maintain full control and flexibility of how much and when they work, might opt to be an independent contractor.


"Part time" employees would have to be classed as something else because they have the same exact rights as full time employees.

Also notice you wrote "on app", currently drivers are only paid when a pax is in the car.

Drivers as employees puts the onus on Uber to keep enough drivers working that UBER makes enough to be profitable.

That will cut down on excess drivers not making ANY money.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Lack9133 said:


> It's not that they WANT to become employees, it's that drivers want Uber to treat them as the law dictates businesses treat contractors. As much as Uber wants to threaten that drivers will become everything you mentioned, that will never happen in the transportation world due to the massive uncertainty and inability to predict demand in the transportation world.
> 
> Go look at taxi's who are limited to a specific amount of vehicles they can put on the road. Putting a cap on the number of drivers on the road will always create spikes in wait time when there is a spike in demand. If Uber ever went the employee route, it would kill their business.


In UberWORLD, every qualified person with a car should drive Uber (to 'share' their vehicle) 
and every person without a car should use Uber for transportation.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

UberNorthStar said:


> *Social Security and Medicare Taxes*
> Withhold Social Security and Medicare taxes from the wages of statutory employees if all three of the following conditions apply.
> 
> 
> ...


My understanding is that one of the four first items must apply, and all of the second three items must apply. In the second line for SS and Medicare, don't we have a substantial investment in our equipment so we don't qualify for all three rules?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You're dodging your original post which said
> - "One benefit to being an employee though is you get paid a certain MINIMUM amount. "
> I was just clarifying what minimum wage law means under the FSLA legislation and DoL regulations.


I'm not sure what you are getting at since in the very next sentence, I state it was minimum wage per hour that was going UP TO 10 dllrs per hour in January.

I did add an edit at bottom to clarfy it for you, if that helps.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> "Part time" employees would have to be classed as something else because they have the same exact rights as full time employees.


Not enrtirely... but close enough for the sake of discussion.



> Also notice you wrote "on app", currently drivers are only paid when a pax is in the car.


hehe... I don't have to notice it... I wrote it. Intentionally. 


> Drivers as employees puts the onus on Uber to keep enough drivers working that UBER makes enough to be profitable.


Assuming we're talking about a 'mature' Uber rather than Uber as 'start-up' as it is now,
how is that any different than the onus on Uber to keep ICs working in order for Uber to make enough money to be profitable?


> That will cut down on excess drivers not making ANY money.


IMO, that's a very one-sided view - from the driver's perspective. Uber doesn't care if drivers make any money. They care about the service level and growth of the user base. 
Remember: Uber has one eye on a future that doesn't have much to do with drivers.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Because our work has to rely on a technology application,

(Repeat)
The IRS is able to add to the categories that are considered statutory employees.

Workers who rely on a technology application to perform their responsibilities.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> In the end Uber will have to decide if it wants control of drivers. I seriously doubt Uber will give up enough control to be true I/Cs.
> 
> They will probably keep pushing the boundaries until drivers push back.


I agree... except that it seems they will keep pushing the boundaries until it is a moot point and most drivers are replaced by automated, driverless robotic cars.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Not enrtirely... but close enough for the sake of discussion.
> 
> hehe... I don't have to notice it... I wrote it. Intentionally.
> 
> ...


Mature or start up, it's not up to the drivers to make Uber profitable.

Of course, Uber doesn't care but that is exactly why drivers are sueing Uber.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

Most, as in nearly all, taxi cab drivers are IC's. This came as a result of the taxi industry's own push for regulation resulting in the medallion system. So, with even cab companies not allowed to add cars to their own fleets, they can only make money by keeping their cabs on the road 24/7 and by leasing out their cabs to independent contractors, instead of paying and insuring employees. The big money in the taxi cab system is the value of their medallions.

Only a few places have statues in place requiring cab drivers to be employees. San Francisco being one. This, of course, bred the environment allowing Uber to thrive in San Francisco where people have to wait 30 minutes for a cab and cab companies can charge deadheading fees for trips of more than 15 miles outside of the city.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberNorthStar said:


> Because our work has to rely on a technology application,
> 
> (Repeat)
> The IRS is able to add to the categories that are considered statutory employees.
> ...


You're making a very important and often overlooked point:
The IRS and the Dept. of Labor write REGULATIONS, not law. 
Laws are written by Congress. It is the responsibility of the administrative branch of government to implement procedures and regulations that support the laws Congress writes. Within the authority of the departments, there is a lot of latitude - and this is why the IRS does not 'rule' on a question before the fact. It lets the courts decide if how a company is classifying workers is within the bounds of the regulations and the spirit of the law.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> Mature or start up, it's not up to the drivers to make Uber profitable.
> Of course, Uber doesn't care but that is exactly why drivers are sueing Uber.


??? I have no idea what you're talking about... I never said it was a driver's responsibility to make Uber profitable.
No, driver's are not suing Uber because Uber doesn't care about them. 
Some driver's are suing Uber because, in their opinion, Uber is not treating them legally.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

Isn't it great being part of history?



Edit to add: I also appreciate the way we are having a great discussion here, presenting differing viewpoints, yet staying polite and professional.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

Old Rocker said:


> Why do so many Cali drivers want to become employees? You'll probably have to work assigned shifts, your hours will probably be part time so you don't qualify for full time benefits, you'll have to follow a dress code, pick up all pax dispatched to you, work assigned areas depending on what Uber decides is the optimum number of vehicles in an area, and make a wage, not a portion of the fare.
> 
> Now, of course this is all speculation, but how could it be any other way? I'm interested in hearing opinions, I'm not trolling.


We don't. We want to be REAL IC.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

Sacto Burbs said:


> We don't. We want to be REAL IC.


I firmly believe the "No tip required" is an employer rule, not an agent-contractor rule.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Not enrtirely... but close enough for the sake of discussion.
> 
> hehe... I don't have to notice it... I wrote it. Intentionally.
> 
> ...





observer said:


> Mature or start up, it's not up to the drivers to make Uber profitable.
> 
> Of course, Uber doesn't care but that is exactly why drivers are sueing Uber.


Ok, let me rephrase, Uber IS NOT under any pressure to keep drivers busy because UBER is not paying anything for independent contractors that are on app and not getting pings. Excess independent contractors make NO MONEY sitting around.

As an employer Uber would HAVE to keep drivers busy or UBER would lose money and not the drivers.

As to Uber caring for the drivers, we can agree on that.

They don't.

If Uber cared for its drivers it would treat them fairly and drivers would not think they are being mistreated. I don't think they are being treated legally either.

Ask any driver.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> Ok, let me rephrase, Uber IS NOT under any pressure to keep drivers busy because UBER is not paying anything for independent contractors that are on app and not getting pings. Excess independent contractors make NO MONEY sitting around.
> 
> As an employer Uber would HAVE to keep drivers busy or UBER would lose money and not the drivers.
> 
> ...


Any way, interesting point you bring up about driver utilization and effciency... all true, except that Kalanick has said repeatedly his goal... his 'vision' is for drivers to have an 'endless ride'... or 'perpetual' ride while driving, when they pick up the next pax as soon as they drop off the last. Read his cover story article in the October issue of Fast Company and see his TV appearances. He DOES care about asset/car utilization and efficiency... he just doesn't care about DRIVERS.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Old Rocker said:


> Why do so many Cali drivers want to become employees? You'll probably have to work assigned shifts, your hours will probably be part time so you don't qualify for full time benefits, you'll have to follow a dress code, pick up all pax dispatched to you, work assigned areas depending on what Uber decides is the optimum number of vehicles in an area, and make a wage, not a portion of the fare.
> 
> Now, of course this is all speculation, but how could it be any other way? I'm interested in hearing opinions, I'm not trolling.


As I replied to you in another post it's not about what they WANT. It's about what they ARE, and you are not a contractor just because someone SAYS you are.

Read the Texas take on this. Basically the assumption is you are an employee unless shown to be otherwise. The problem is with attitudes like yours folks put up with BS because they don't WANT to be employees. Meanwhile they are treated like shit because they think being an employee is worse. But actually they are being treated like one with none of the benefits.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Any way, interesting point you bring up about driver utilization and effciency... all true, except that Kalanick has said repeatedly his goal... his 'vision' is for drivers to have an 'endless ride'... or 'perpetual' ride while driving, when they pick up the next pax as soon as they drop off the last. Read his cover story article in the October issue of Fast Company and see his TV appearances. He DOES care about asset/car utilization and efficiency... he just doesn't care about DRIVERS.


Right. But that means each driver could be driving 24 hours a day at 10 cents per mile and he'd be happy. OR his driverless cars. Which is why we're just the fly in the ointment as far as he's concerned.

The problem is, to have driverless cars with no downtime you could not have an excess of them (like you have drivers now) as you have to PAY for them.

On the other hand, if you have less of them so that each car can actually pay for itself then you will not have the very short wait times for pax as the cars will be further apart. There will also be too few when it IS busy. Also more dead miles are inevitable.

There is no way to fix this with driverless cars. It will work with drivers either the way it is now (working for him, not us) as the cost of the cars is not an issue. Which is why there are too many most of the time and even when it's busy now it doesn't surge much. I don't think it's sustainable though.

If the rates were higher then we could work in non busy areas and non busy times and still make money so long as the on boarding slowed down. More drivers would always work during busy times as it would surge some. But there are many folks who would rather not work the drunks and make a little less. The problem now is its almost impossible to do that and make enough.

Quite honestly his world seems to be downtown, midtown and so on. There is no room for his vision for long trips or suburbs. 100% utilization is not ever going to happen there and I don't think he cares. It's all about cars zipping around one small busy area without stopping except to drop off and pick up pax.

Last Saturday most places I went another driver was picking up or dropping off. For perfect utilization I should have been picking up and dropping off at the same place. That never happened because I wasn't available when the pax called. If he wants his system to be truly free of dead time then having it decide to send me the trip that us requested as I'm already headed there would make sense. That is supposedly what Uber is trying to do but from what I've read here it doesn't work too well. Of course the driver should have the option of whether to be available which he doesn't.

I think if he did have driverless cars he would be willing to make people wait for that car that is already on its way there to cut down on cost and dead miles. But since it's not his cost now he doesn't care.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> The problem is, to have driverless cars with no downtime you could not have an excess of them (like you have drivers now) as you have to PAY for them.


Cars (equipment), unlike drivers, can be depreciated. There is no reason that I can foresee that Uber couldn't have as many cars in service as they need at any given time.


> On the other hand, if you have less of them so that each car can actually pay for itself then you will not have the very short wait times for pax as the cars will be further apart. There will also be too few when it IS busy. Also more dead miles are inevitable.


None of that matters with driverless cars because they are dispatched automatically by the system which knows where demand is - and more importantly, knows where demand will be based on prior history (a city's "footprint" of service needs) and current event information. A high school kid could program those algorithms.

When demand is high, cars are dispatched... when slow, the cars go park themselves at the nearest charging station and wait to be dispatched into service again, as needed. 
Currently, that is the 'purpose of SURGE pricing - to provide an incentive to get more cars available to riders.
Driverless cars *should* mean no more surge pricing.



> Quite honestly his world seems to be downtown, midtown and so on. There is no room for his vision for long trips or suburbs. 100% utilization is not ever going to happen there and I don't think he cares. It's all about cars zipping around one small busy area without stopping except to drop off and pick up pax.


This is mass-market stuff - not specialty services. It makes sense to have driverless cars zipping around densely populated areas at near full efficiency. So maybe the burbs and smaller cities will still be serviced by real people? Maybe even in the cities riders will have the option of choosing between a person-driven car or a driverless car?
Who knows... we're not even close to that time... yet.



> Last Saturday most places I went another driver was picking up or dropping off. For perfect utilization I should have been picking up and dropping off at the same place. That never happened because I wasn't available when the pax called.


hehe... take a breath... the systems and network are only just being created!
We're basically in 'beta' version right now.
Already Uber is testing software that takes into an account a driver's next drop off point and notifies the driver of the next avail pax near that point BEFORE the driver has made that drop-off.
There are a LOT of improvements than can come with better (and far more complex) programming...
and all of that new program capability will be designed to do one thing: increase car productivity (well, and also 'User eXperience'/wait times).



> I think if he did have driverless cars he would be willing to make people wait for that car that is already on its way there to cut down on cost and dead miles. But since it's not his cost now he doesn't care.


I don't know. I think Kalanick is very serious about the user experience and keeping wait times as low as possible... so I suspect that the rider will always get the closest car to them (until some pissed off uber engineer programs the cars to ignore or cancel ride requests!). At the kind of demand Kalanick envisions, that car on the way to that pick-up location but further from a car that is closer won't be idle for very long.

Fortunately, while it's fun to speculate, I don't expect that I'll ever have do deal with any of it... I don't plan to be driving that long (and I'm old anyway and will likely be long gone before any of this is widespread anywhere.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

BTW, Fuzzyelvis ...while I think the 'vision' of driverless cars is pretty interesting, my personal opinion (100% worthless to anyone but me) is that they will only be viable when roads are built with features to specifically allow the car's local/onboard hardware and software to operate the vehicle AND navigate safely in the event of loss of communications with the network - AND in bad weather conditions (ie: snow covered roads with no visible means of road/lane detection).

I suspect that the first viable driverless car systems available to transport humans commercially will be in a city that creates "driverless" car only zones or roads. Let's see how the pubic feels about giving up road space for their own driving to for-profit companies operating driverless cars.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Cars (equipment), unlike drivers, can be depreciated. There is no reason that I can foresee that Uber couldn't have as many cars in service as they need at any given time.
> 
> None of that matters with driverless cars because they are dispatched automatically by the system which knows where demand is - and more importantly, knows where demand will be based on prior history (a city's "footprint" of service needs) and current event information. A high school kid could program those algorithms.
> 
> ...


I don't understand how being able to depreciate a car makes having thousands of extra cars sitting around 90% of the time viable cost wise. You still have to buy them in the first place. My car depreciates too. Doesn't mean there's not cost involved. Also, where to put them in the dense areas they would be used? Parking spaces and charging stations are ANOTHER cost and one that is expensive in places like downtown. Right now that is on the drivers. If they are stored elsewhere that's more dead miles.

I'm not saying running driverless cars could not be a viable business down the road but I don't see it working so that there are always cars available at a moments notice without having a lot of extra expense put into "extra" cars only used on weekend nights and occasional events. And I think that expense would be too much.

Plus if wait times are important to him "stabling" the cars at quiet times is not an option. They would need to be on every street corner even if they weren't used very often. They would only be down to charge.

In other words driverless cars instead of taxis is going to happen IMHO but not the way Kalanick envisions. I don't think having all the cars running a small % of the time would make it worth buying as many as would be needed to satisfy enough to keep the wait times always short and have few dead miles.


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce (Dec 28, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Got enough "probably's in there? hehe...
> 
> The only things we KNOW are that employees:
> 
> ...


Why don't drivers just get a real job instead of forcing uber to employ them?


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> As I replied to you in another post it's not about what they WANT. It's about what they ARE, and you are not a contractor just because someone SAYS you are.
> 
> Read the Texas take on this. Basically the assumption is you are an employee unless shown to be otherwise. The problem is with attitudes like yours folks put up with BS because they don't WANT to be employees. Meanwhile they are treated like shit because they think being an employee is worse. But actually they are being treated like one with none of the benefits.


I have no attitude. I'm interested in a conversation that brings out all sides of the issue. If I write something provocative, it's a rhetorical technique designed to enhance the discussion.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Old Rocker said:


> . . . don't we have a substantial investment in our equipment so we don't qualify for all three rules?


. 
Were we required to purchase a car to drive on the Uber app? *No*, because we had the car already. Then we qualify for all three requirements under Social Security as statutory employees.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberBlackPr1nce said:


> Why don't drivers just get a real job instead of forcing uber to employ them?


Why doesn't Uber just abide by the law instead of breaking it?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberNorthStar said:


> .
> Were we required to purchase a car to drive on the Uber app? *No*, because we had the car already. Then we qualify for all three requirements under Social Security as statutory employees.


Precisely.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It might be helpful if you would read my reply before answering with exactly what I said!
> 
> Any way, interesting point you bring up about driver utilization and effciency... all true, except that Kala nick has said repeatedly his goal... his 'vision' is for drivers to have an 'endless ride'... or 'perpetual' ride while driving, when they pick up the next pax as soon as they drop off the last. Read his cover story article in the October issue of Fast Company and see his TV appearances. He DOES care about asset/car utilization and efficiency... he just doesn't care about DRIVERS.


I was agreeing with you, didn't quite understand if you understood what I was getting at so I tried explaining it a different way.

Sometimes I have difficulty getting whats in my head down in writing, I've kind of been suspecting for a while now that I have mild ADD, Dyslexia or something like that. Don't know if I've had it all along and didn't realize it or it's started recently, but I've begun to realize something may be going on.

I saw the magazine cover, been meaning to go pick up a copy at the store.

I do agree that Kalanicks eventual goal is to get rid of drivers but I don't think it'll be very soon, maybe another ten years or so. In the meantime, he needs to follow laws and not pick and choose what presently benefits Uber.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I don't understand how being able to depreciate a car makes having thousands of extra cars sitting around 90% of the time viable cost wise. You still have to buy them in the first place. My car depreciates too.


It's an involved tax issue, but for the sake of explaining in relatively simple terms:
*"Section 179* of the IRS tax code allows businesses to deduct the full purchase price of qualifying equipment and/or software purchased or financed during the tax year. That means that if you buy (or lease) a piece of qualifying equipment, [they] can deduct the FULL PURCHASE PRICE from [their] gross income."


> Doesn't mean there's not cost involved.


 True - but just as drivers shouldn't talk about the 'gross fares' as earnings and without also considering expenses and tax deductions to figure profitability, we also can't evaluate Uber's costs (or a third party provider's costs) of operating a driverless fleet without also considering the final cost, after expenses and tax savings.


> Also, where to put them in the dense areas they would be used? Parking spaces and charging stations are ANOTHER cost and one that is expensive in places like downtown. Right now that is on the drivers. If they are stored elsewhere that's more dead miles.


It seems like you're trying to imagine the simple replacement of drivers/cars with driverless cars... and I don't think you can do that. It's a paradigm change. Driverless cars don't need many of the things that a car with driver needs. An electric driverless car can scoot 2-5 miles out of a congested downtown area at a very low cost and 'sleep/charge' until needed. They can be at rest in much less space than would be required by a driver operated car. Most importantly (and this is the part that has all the gurus eyeballs spinning dollar signs) a fleet of driverless cars can be dispatched at will, to where the demand is... and that demand can be forecast and predicted by computers (we, the drivers and riders of today, are already creating that footprint of data needed to program the systems to do this).


> I don't see it working so that there are always cars available at a moments notice


 Why would they have to be available at "a moments notice"?
Having a car available for a pick-up in a 5 to 10 minute window (at worst) would be an incredible achievement.
That's longer than it take a lot of city dwellers to get from their apartment/office to their own car in a parking garage.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> I was agreeing with you, didn't quite understand if you understood what I was getting at so I tried explaining it a different way.


I am having some difficulty always understanding what you're trying to say...
but in THAT post I did exactly what I accused YOU of! I didn't read your post very carefully and replied before figuring it out. Which is why I edited out the first line
Sorry!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Old Rocker said:


> I have no attitude. I'm interested in a conversation that brings out all sides of the issue. If I write something provocative, it's a rhetorical technique designed to enhance the discussion.


Yeah, well I hate people like us.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It's an involved tax issue, but for the sake of explaining in relatively simple terms:
> *"Section 179* of the IRS tax code allows businesses to deduct the full purchase price of qualifying equipment and/or software purchased or financed during the tax year. That means that if you buy (or lease) a piece of qualifying equipment, [they] can deduct the FULL PURCHASE PRICE from [their] gross income."
> True - but just as drivers shouldn't talk about the 'gross fares' as earnings and without also considering expenses and tax deductions to figure profitability, we also can't evaluate Uber's costs (or a third party provider's costs) of operating a driverless fleet without also considering the final cost, after expenses and tax savings.
> 
> ...


Plus, don't forget, Uber will own these cars. There is no way they will lose money. If it isn't profitable to operate the cars at a certain fare, they will just raise the fare.

Because they can.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> Plus, don't forget, Uber will own these cars.


We do not know that... and it is very unlikely.
On one end of the spectrum Uber may own subsidiaries, regionally (like they do with Raiser) which own and operate the cars...
or they may set-up their own capital equipment leasing companies to lease the cars to Uber (or another 3rd party) - or just operate them under contract (much like the IC drivers do now)... there are a hundred different scenarios that they may consider... and (most likely) they may use different set-ups in different cities/regions/countries.
But one thing is pretty certain - unless there is some advantage to the "technology company" to actually own the vehicles, they won't.



> There is no way they will lose money. If it isn't profitable to operate the cars at a certain fare, they will just raise the fare.


Yup! (or find a way to reduce costs... keep in mind that if Uber ends up being a company which affects the purchase 100,000+ vehicles a year, they are going to have an awful lot of clout with manufacturers.)


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> We do not know that... and it is very unlikely.
> On one end of the spectrum Uber may own subsidiaries, regionally (like they do with Raiser) which own and operate the cars...
> or they may set-up their own capital equipment leasing companies to lease the cars to Uber (or another 3rd party) - or just operate them under contract (much like the IC drivers do now)... there are a hundred different scenarios that they may consider... and (most likely) they may use different set-ups in different cities/regions/countries.
> But one thing is pretty certain - unless there is some advantage to the "technology company" to actually own the vehicles, they won't.
> ...


Everyone knows that Rasier or any other holding company is in reality the same as Uber.

What will become interesting is how the different regulating bodies react to Uber or one of its subsidiaries owning the vehicles.

If I remember correctly, as part of some operating permits, "Uber" isn't allowed to own any of it's vehicles.

I wonder if the regulators will just roll over and accept Uber or its subsidiaries owning vehicles.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

UberBlackPr1nce said:


> Why don't drivers just get a real job instead of forcing uber to employ them?


Did you read your partner agreement? Did you comprehend what you read? Are you even a driver?

Uber drivers are not "independent" by any means. We stand back while Uber:

Collects our fares _minus_ whatever percentage commission it wishes to charge.
Sets area rates without any input from the local "partners."
Judges how good we drivers are via a rating system biased against drivers.
Tells us how we can/cannot earn extra income while driving. Pax can "rat us out" when they rate us.
Tells us when to drive by giving "guarantees" or by establishing surges.
Pays for our TNC licenses only to turn around & take it from our paycheck.
If we were true IC's, Uber would:

Deposit our gross paycheck & send us an invoice as to how much we owe it and for what reason(s) so we have documentation for our taxes.
Would set area rates _with the input of drivers. _
Inform us of negative comments and allow us to respond instead of taking the pax'a side.
Stay out of how we earn money while we are driving. _Nowhere in the the 11/2014 agreement I signed_ is it stated I cannot accept tips_._
Set rates close to the local cabs rates & get rid of surge pricing. Surge pricing pisses off customers & benefits night/early morning drivers.
Allow each driver to pay their fees directly to the entity requiring the fee.
Drivers are calling Uber to task. It claims to be _just a technlogy company _that leases its app to drivers when in many ways Uber oversteps its bounds as vendor to control drivers as an employer controls employees_.
_
I for one do not wish to be an hourly employee. Give me free reign to be an independent business woman.

UNS


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

You g


Old Rocker said:


> I have no attitude. I'm interested in a conversation that brings out all sides of the issue. If I write something provocative, it's a rhetorical technique designed to enhance the discussion.


You got a tweed jacket with elbow patches too


----------



## UberBlackPr1nce (Dec 28, 2014)

UberNorthStar said:


> Did you read your partner agreement? Did you comprehend what you read? Are you even a driver?
> 
> Uber drivers are not "independent" by any means. We stand back while Uber:
> 
> ...


Don't use their technology/app if you don't like their rules.
It's pretty simple.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

arto71 said:


> Uber says its drivers should enjoy the freedom that comes with setting their own hours, as long as that freedom ends at the courthouse steps. As its California drivers battle to be treated as employees with benefits-rather than independent contractors-the world's most valuable startup is arguing they can't go to trial. According to the contracts most drivers signed, Uber says, disputes have to go through private arbitration.
> 
> The company's position has taken on greater importance since a Sept. 1 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco. Chen granted class-action status to a lawsuit brought by two Uber drivers seeking reclassification as employees. That means thousands more of the company's 160,000 drivers in California could join the suit. The drivers are seeking reimbursement for expenses and tips, which would open the door to a minimum wage, meal breaks, workers' compensation, and unionization. On Sept. 15, Uber asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco to take up "the leading case raising urgent questions about the classification of sharing-economy workers" and reverse Chen's decision.
> 
> ...


Uber's planning to screw drivers who did't opt out on arbitration http://www.business2community.com/f...ew-over-drivers-who-have-a-complaint-01336176


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Txchick said:


> Uber's planning to screw drivers who did't opt out on arbitration http://www.business2community.com/f...ew-over-drivers-who-have-a-complaint-01336176


This needs to be REALLY publicized, if people think that arbitration isn't a problem, this should give drivers food for thought.

Politicians and judges should also be paying more attention.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

UberBlackPr1nce said:


> Don't use their technology/app if you don't like their rules.
> It's pretty simple


That is what I am pointing out. "Their rules" is the right description of an employer.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Old Rocker said:


> Statutory Employees


I'd like to point out that Statutes are like an outline. It's the "Regulations" that are the True Law.

Publication 15 ? Its just that, a publication, not law. You will have to cross ref pub 15 to the Regulations.

The IRS does not want you looking at the regulations. As they can not have the general public aware as there house of cards would collaspe and millions would be out of work. Fear and ignorance of the law is the enemy.


----------



## William1964 (Jul 28, 2015)

Tipped employees in Illinois get 5.45 an hour plus tips

Include this into uber and the driver would get $5.45 for every hour they have a passenger in the vehicle. Since it's over I'll take away the $0.18 or $0.20 per minute.

And go work someplace else.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

William1964 . . . It is Federal labor law (restaurants) that if a company earns X amount of $$, they can get away with paying 2/3 of minimum wage. In Uber's case they would need to raise the per mile rate, I would think. Otherwise you will have drivers on the app and doing very little pickups.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> I'd like to point out that Statutes are like an outline. It's the "Regulations" that are the True Law.


The definition of a statutory employee is a published regulation.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberNorthStar said:


> William1964 . . . It is Federal labor law (restaurants) that if a company earns X amount of $$, they can get away with paying 2/3 of minimum wage. In Uber's case they would need to raise the per mile rate, I would think. Otherwise you will have drivers on the app and doing very little pickups.


Not in California, here everyone tipped or not gets paid minimum 9 dllrs per hour. Tips are on top of hourly pay.

Minimum wage goes up to 10 per hour Jan 1, 2016.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

A state cannot get any more lax than Federal law such as paying 1/3 of minimum wage w/ tips. 

A state can get stricter, which CA has done.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> Not in California, here everyone tipped or not gets paid minimum 9 dllrs per hour. Tips are on top of hourly pay.


States laws can mandate higher min wages than the federal min wage.
*Min Wage Law By State*
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

*Min Wage Law for TIPPPED Employees by State*
http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberNorthStar said:


> A state cannot get any more lax than Federal law such as paying 1/3 of minimum wage w/ tips.
> 
> A state can get stricter, which CA has done.





Michael - Cleveland said:


> States laws can mandate higher min wages than the federal min wage.
> *Min Wage Law By State*
> http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm


Cities can also have higher minimum wages. There's a lot of support in CA to gradually raising minimum wage to 15 dllrs.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

UberNorthStar said:


> Did you read your partner agreement? Did you comprehend what you read? Are you even a driver?
> 
> Uber drivers are not "independent" by any means. We stand back while Uber:
> 
> ...


On your line item 1., when I had a staffing agency that used IC's we would pay IC's their net earnings. I believe most staffing companies who use IC's do so. The difference was the IC had no idea how much I was charging their 'employer.' I generally tried to have a 15% to 20% before taxes and expenses pad as the middle man, which ended up as about 10% after taxes and expenses.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

Sacto Burbs said:


> You g
> 
> You got a tweed jacket with elbow patches too


I prefer a toga.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> I'd like to point out that Statutes are like an outline. It's the "Regulations" that are the True Law.
> 
> Publication 15 ? Its just that, a publication, not law. You will have to cross ref pub 15 to the Regulations.
> 
> The IRS does not want you looking at the regulations. As they can not have the general public aware as there house of cards would collaspe and millions would be out of work. Fear and ignorance of the law is the enemy.


According to the Government Printing Office, the full version of the tax codes and regulations is over 13,000 pages.


----------



## UberSneak (Dec 31, 2014)

Old Rocker said:


> Why do so many Cali drivers want to become employees? You'll probably have to work assigned shifts, your hours will probably be part time so you don't qualify for full time benefits, you'll have to follow a dress code, pick up all pax dispatched to you, work assigned areas depending on what Uber decides is the optimum number of vehicles in an area, and make a wage, not a portion of the fare.
> 
> Now, of course this is all speculation, but how could it be any other way? I'm interested in hearing opinions, I'm not trolling.


I'm gonna take your word that you're not a troll because unfortunately I can't read through all the threads and posts anymore. I made the mistake of replying to Glados once because I hadn't realized he's an Uber moron. I will copy and paste what I've said in other threads.

I'm from Los Angeles, so my response to you is based on my market. 
You are almost completely wrong about what you're saying. I would LOVE to see Uber pull out of California; what is probably one of their biggest market. Or at least, I would love to see if they have the stones to do it. Yea they did it in Alaska, that's a tiny market, and they've done it in other small markets. But they have yet to pull out of a major market (to my knowledge).

If the court decides that drivers were classified wrong, then Uber will owe certain drivers money, and the outcome afterwards will be one of three things; (1) Uber will pull out of the market, (2) Uber will treat us like employees and do the things you mentioned, or (3) they will change their policies to better reflect an independent contractor model. 
1. If it's a small market, Uber would easily pull out. Whether they would do that in a major market remains to be seen; but I doubt they would.
2. Do you really think Uber wants to do actual work? Seriously? Lol. They would have to hire people to manage drivers, set the schedules, etc. All the things you mentioned would require actual work on Uber's part. 
3. This option is the most likely, and what would benefit the drivers more. Idk what this would look like, but it can only be better than what we currently have.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

UberSneak said:


> I'm gonna take your word that you're not a troll because unfortunately I can't read through all the threads and posts anymore. I made the mistake of replying to Glados once because I hadn't realized he's an Uber moron. I will copy and paste what I've said in other threads.
> 
> I'm from Los Angeles, so my response to you is based on my market.
> You are almost completely wrong about what you're saying. I would LOVE to see Uber pull out of California; what is probably one of their biggest market. Or at least, I would love to see if they have the stones to do it. Yea they did it in Alaska, that's a tiny market, and they've done it in other small markets. But they have yet to pull out of a major market (to my knowledge).
> ...


Thank you for your reply.

I sometimes do troll... been around the internet and BBS days since the beginning. But I've found that adding a bit of spice to the question (just as in real life) brings out the best answers. (It's our secret, don't tell anyone.)


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

I can attest that Old Rocker is a driver in my area. 



UberSneak said:


> (2) Uber will treat us like employees and do the things you mentioned


I doubt we will be considered common law employees. Because we need to file Schedule C (as opposed to Schedule A) when we file our taxes. We maybe considered statutory employees _if the IRS adds a category to their definition of who is a statutory employee.
+ _A worker whose job is app-based, and without such application could not perform his job.

JM2cW


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

We should all write Ted Cruz and get him to threaten to shut down the government until we have fair and clear rules and regulations regarding our industry and other app-based industries.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Old Rocker said:


> According to the Government Printing Office, the full version of the tax codes and regulations is over 13,000 pages.


Thank you for confirming your Fear.

There are only about a dozen Regulations that an individual needs to learn. None of which actually points to a requirement liability to file a 1040 form. Think your tax Attorney. CPA, etc., will correctly tell you which ones they are ?


----------



## The_One (Sep 9, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> New Drivers have 30 Days to *Opt-out of* *Binding Arbitration*


New drivers are clueless, they think that Uber is their savior, do you actually think they read any of the fine print, and most of them even if they did would not understand it. Uber on suckers.


----------



## XUberMike (Aug 2, 2015)

Old Rocker said:


> Isn't it great being part of history?
> 
> 
> 
> Edit to add: I also appreciate the way we are having a great discussion here, presenting differing viewpoints, yet staying polite and professional.


Shit and here I was thinking it's a damn shame


----------



## Instyle (Oct 18, 2014)

Old Rocker said:


> Why do so many Cali drivers want to become employees? You'll probably have to work assigned shifts, your hours will probably be part time so you don't qualify for full time benefits, you'll have to follow a dress code, pick up all pax dispatched to you, work assigned areas depending on what Uber decides is the optimum number of vehicles in an area, and make a wage, not a portion of the fare.
> 
> Now, of course this is all speculation, but how could it be any other way? I'm interested in hearing opinions, I'm not trolling.


Would be much like Partnerpeople.com.au setup, no schedule but employee status


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Technicality Ties Up Uber Technologies*

*Legal wrangling over ride-sharing firm's arbitration policies is slowing court cases*
*







*
*In the agreement all Uber drivers must sign to start work, the company asks workers to agree to resolve disputes through arbitration.*
*By LAUREN WEBER*
*Oct. 29, 2015 7:30 p.m. ET
1 COMMENTS
*
_As Uber Technologies Inc. faces a pair of court challenges that raise big questions about the way it classifies, pays and vets the 300,000 drivers offering rides through its app, the cases may hinge on what many would call a legal technicality._

_In the agreement all Uber drivers must sign to start work, the company asks workers to agree to resolve disputes through arbitration rather than the courts, and bars them from joining class-action suits against the company. Though drivers can opt out, an overwhelming majority sign on, and Uber is now fighting a series of court decisions that question the validity of its arbitration policies._

_The stakes are high for the company, which at a $51 billion valuation, is today the world's richest venture-backed startup. Should Uber lose a court trial, the decisions will likely force the firm to change the way it does business, including the independent-contractor labor model that has made it so profitable._


_The ride service has appealed California federal Judge Edward Chen's decisions in two cases filed by drivers. In one, Gillette v. Uber, the judge in June declared the firm's arbitration policy unenforceable, and said that drivers could continue with their case in court.

In the second, O'Connor v. Uber, whose lead plaintiffs had opted out of the arbitration policy, Judge Chen decided in September that the case could proceed as a class action and could include drivers who had signed an early version of the arbitration policy. Both of the appeals will be reviewed by a panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The legal wrangling highlights the increasing importance of arbitration clauses for big businesses. Arbitrations tend to favor employers, and when workers prevail, they receive smaller awards than they do in court, according to research by Alexander Colvin, a professor at Cornell University's ILR School.

While companies say arbitration allows them to resolve issues more quickly and efficiently than litigation, advocates and attorneys for workers worry that such policies help companies keep abuses under wraps and discourage workers from speaking up about alleged wrongs on the job. Class-action waivers in employment agreements have been booming since 2011, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the provisions are generally enforceable.

Judge Chen has written critically about Uber's arbitration policy, suggesting that workers often don't know what they are signing on for and that the company placed undue burden on drivers who want to opt out.

He has also asked for revisions to the company's policy, leading to a change that brought a notice of the arbitration policy to the first page of the driver agreement, where it appears in boldface, oversize type. Uber disagreed with many of the judge's conclusions, but complied with what it called Judge Chen's "unnecessary changes." An Oct. 21 court filing submitted by Uber noted that the judge had "line edited portions" of its policy.

Nonetheless, Judge Chen still determined that the 2014 driver agreement remained so unfair to workers as to be unenforceable, for a host of technical reasons.

In an appeals court brief in the Gillette case, the company accused Judge Chen of "sheer hostility toward arbitration" and asked the panel to override his decision and compel drivers into arbitration.

The arbitration issues have slowed down the suits as the parties argue over whether the cases should ultimately land in court or be certified as class actions, and, if they clear those hurdles, the scope and size of the potential classes. The appeals court hasn't set a date for oral arguments.

Cornell's Mr. Colvin, who has been following the cases closely, said Uber's aggressive defense of its arbitration policy is "revealing," because individual arbitration decisions are rarely made public.

"It's really a defensive strategy to try to protect themselves from outside scrutiny," he said.

Reached Thursday, Uber's attorney, Ted Boutrous, disagrees with that view, and said the company is willing to go to court to litigate the claims of drivers who declined to sign its arbitration policy._

Write to Lauren Weber at[email protected]


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Binding Arbitration | Inside the Uber apocalypse: Why the fast-growing tech giant could be in serious trouble
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/03/ins...ble/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow*


----------

