# CA Labor Commissioner awards Uber Driver $4k in business expenses. Uber Appeals in Court.



## chi1cabby

Uber vs Berwick on Scribd

*https://www.scribd.com/doc/268911290

Uber's Appeal









CA Labor Commissioners Ruling







*


----------



## IndyDriver

Nice. So FL and CA both have ruled in the drivers favor...have any courts ruled in favor of Uber that you know of?


----------



## chi1cabby

IndyDriver said:


> So FL and CA both have ruled in the drivers favor...have any courts ruled in favor of Uber that you know of?


Uber's appeal of Florida Dept of Economic Opportunity Driver Unemployment Benefits ruling hasn't been adjudicated yet.

Uber's appeal of this CA Labor Commissioner's ruling was filed yesterday.


----------



## IndyDriver

chi1cabby said:


> Uber's appeal of Florida Unemployment Benefits ruling hasn't been adjudicated yet.
> 
> Uber's appeal of this California case was filed yesterday.


Got it, thanks


----------



## GooberX

chi1cabby said:


> Uber vs Berwick on Scribd
> 
> *https://www.scribd.com/doc/268911290*


The control exerted is obvious to an unbiased judge.

This will be interesting, as the upholding of this verdict would change everything.


----------



## UberRidiculous

chi1cabby said:


> Uber vs Berwick on Scribd
> 
> *https://www.scribd.com/doc/268911290
> 
> Uber's Appeal
> View attachment 8568
> 
> 
> CA Labor Commissioners Ruling
> View attachment 8569
> *


HOLY SMOKES!


----------



## chi1cabby

UberRidiculous said:


> HOLY SMOKES!


Ms. Barbara Berwick could have received judgment for back wages etc as well. But she didn't provide her pay statements to the hearing officer. She only provided her expense statement.


----------



## chi1cabby

I scooped Reuters by three hours!
Hehe!

*Uber drivers are employees, not contractors -Calif. Labor Commission*
*http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0Z30X920150617?irpc=932*


----------



## riChElwAy

CNBC now has the story!


----------



## riChElwAy

CNBC just ran the piece on Uber.. I'll see if i can get some screen shots...


----------



## riChElwAy




----------



## GooberX

chi1cabby said:


> I scooped Reuters by three hours!
> Hehe!
> 
> *Uber drivers are employees, not contractors -Calif. Labor Commission*
> *http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0Z30X920150617?irpc=932*


You da man!!!


----------



## riChElwAy




----------



## observer

Hear that thunderrrrr??


----------



## riChElwAy




----------



## observer

It's the investors running away from Uber....

Will be interesting to see if they stick around and that 50B valuation holds.


----------



## riChElwAy




----------



## riChElwAy




----------



## AintWorthIt

Burn baby burn!


----------



## riChElwAy

those are the screen shots .. Live from CNBC .. back to you chiCabby .....


----------



## chi1cabby

This thing has blown up!
Reuters, Business Insider, Newsweek, NY Times, Verge, TechCrunch, Gizmodo...
There will be hundreds of articles written about this just today!


----------



## GooberX

The crack will become a fissure and then a huge chasm.

This will embolden other government entities to stand up and regulate accordingly.

When I started everyone loved Uber, and the goodwill from its drivers made it into the behemoth it is today.

When you forget your roots, you are doomed.

It's too bad.


----------



## riChElwAy

ATTENTION GOLDMAN SACHS ... SELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## GooberX

I'll be curious to see Uber's valuation if they have to incur the expenses of every other transportation company.

Workman's comp alone will erase the massive advantage.

Cab drivers everywhere are rejoicing.

Especially in Chicago. LOL


----------



## Txchick

GooberX said:


> The crack will become a fissure and then a huge chasm.
> 
> This will embolden other government entities to stand up and regulate accordingly.
> 
> When I started everyone loved Uber, and the goodwill from its drivers made it into the behemoth it is today.
> 
> When you forget your roots, you are doomed.
> 
> It's too bad.


Uber & Lyft did it to themselves! I have no pity from them!!


----------



## chi1cabby

Attn. trekker


----------



## GooberX

Txchick said:


> Uber & Lyft did it to themselves! I have no pity from them!!


But do you have pity FOR them?


----------



## uberdriver

Whoever is in charge at Uber of developing self-driving cars (and that is an already employee person) will be crucified by Uber top management for not having delivered on the project soon enough in order to make that dream reality.....


----------



## azndriver87

yah, but now uber can charge you 30% in commission and also give you a w2. which means your take home is probably.... 40%


----------



## riChElwAy

uberdriver said:


> Whoever is in charge at Uber of developing self-driving cars (and that is an already employee person) will be crucified by Uber top management for not having delivered on the project soon enough in order to make that dream reality.....


theory ... the whole self-driving Uber cars was one big bluff .. install fear into the human drivers make them feel dispensable.. use of fear is most powerful


----------



## GooberX

uberdriver said:


> Whoever is in charge at Uber of developing self-driving cars (and that is an already employee person) will be crucified by Uber top management for not having delivered on the project soon enough in order to make that dream reality.....


As I have said before....self driving cars in livery is a pipe dream.

At least in the foreseeable future.


----------



## uberdriver

azndriver87 said:


> yah, but now uber can charge you 30% in commission and also give you a w2. which means your take home is probably.... 40%


Anything is possible. But..... W2 or 1099, the cost of Social Security tax and income taxes is ultimately the same, what changes is who pays for it. Now the drivers pay for 100% of all taxes. In an employee W2 model, Uber would pay half of SS tax.

What would become an additional cost for the service is unemployment insurance, any required health insurance or other mandatory benefits, and complying with minimum wage and overtime pay rules. And paying those minimums after all expenses are reimbursed. So yes, the UberX product may not continue being such a rock bottom price product. Good or bad ? To be seen.


----------



## berserk42

Well, this is huge.


----------



## uberdriver

GooberX said:


> As I have said before....self driving cars in livery is a pipe dream.
> 
> At least in the foreseeable future.


Agree somewhat, but it all depends how far in the future is one's foresight....


----------



## GooberX

Reporter to driver: "why did you file for unemployment"

Driver: "because we can"

Oh, the irony.


----------



## azndriver87

uberdriver said:


> Anything is possible. But..... W2 or 1099, the cost of Social Security tax and income taxes is ultimately the same, what changes is who pays for it. Now the drivers pay for 100% of all taxes. In an employee W2 model, Uber would pay half of SS tax.
> 
> What would become an additional cost for the service is unemployment insurance, any required health insurance or other mandatory benefits, and complying with minimum wage and overtime pay rules. And paying those minimums after all expenses are reimbursed. So yes, the UberX product may not continue being such a rock bottom price product. Good or bad ? To be seen.


yup also won't stop them from increasing their commission cut. if you want them paying for car maintenance, they're going to take it out of your cut.


----------



## GooberX

uberdriver said:


> Agree somewhat, but it all depends how far in the future is one's foresight....


We are 20 years away, at least, before self driving cars can even be considered as a viable resource in the livery business.


----------



## riChElwAy

GooberX said:


> As I have said before....self driving cars in livery is a pipe dream.
> 
> At least in the foreseeable future.


who cleans up the puke in a driverless Uber?


----------



## GooberX

riChElwAy said:


> who cleans up the puke in a driverless Uber?


I've asked that questions many times.

Also, who corrects a drunk rider's destination? Who calls him to find out his location?

It isn't happening.


----------



## azndriver87

riChElwAy said:


> who cleans up the puke in a driverless Uber?


iRobot.


----------



## riChElwAy

UberRidiculous said:


> We should all tweet [email protected] this:
> *WINNING! *


LOL!!!!!


----------



## Yuri Lygotme

Self driving cars are street legal only in three states, we are still years before this happens


----------



## KevinH

Where do we go to see what the timeframe is for a California Labor Board appeal. There adjudication process runs faster than a regular court.


----------



## UberRidiculous

Uber Investors HAVE to be noticing. I'm wondering how fast this kind of news affects an inflated valuation?


----------



## riChElwAy

Uber just tweeted!!!! ...... 
UBER: Our statement on the California Labor Commission ruling: http://t.co/lU0hru1MhG/s/H2WS

m.twitter.com/Uber


----------



## UberRidiculous

chi1cabby See what you started! 
LOL


----------



## UberRidiculous

riChElwAy said:


> Uber just tweeted!!!! ......
> UBER: Our statement on the California Labor Commission ruling: http://t.co/lU0hru1MhG/s/H2WS
> 
> m.twitter.com/Uber


UBER SPIN!


----------



## UberRidiculous

WAIT WAIT WAIT! NO IT'S:
UBER DAMAGE CONTROL!
or 
Uber Triage!


----------



## Ryder P

Thanks chi1cabby We're being asked to get driver reaction to the news. Do you agree, yes or no? The survey is here: https://goo.gl/dC3Qtj


----------



## berserk42

So, uh, what is Uber's statement? I'm behind the great firewall atm.


----------



## riChElwAy

UberRidiculous said:


> UBER SPIN!


they sure did come out right away! to issue their statement using their deception and trickery bullshit trying to downplay the incoming hurricane....


----------



## UberRidiculous

berserk42 said:


> So, uh, what is Uber's statement? I'm behind the great firewall atm.


Blah blah blah it's non-binding & for a single driver blah blah blah.


----------



## chi1cabby

*Uber's Statement On California Labor Commission Ruling*
*http://newsroom.uber.com/2015/06/clcstatement/*

_Reuters' original headline was not accurate. The California Labor Commission's ruling is non-binding and applies to a single driver. Indeed it is contrary to a previous ruling by the same commission, which concluded in 2012 that the driver 'performed services as an independent contractor, and not as a bona fide employee.' Five other states have also come to the same conclusion. It's important to remember that the number one reason drivers choose to use Uber is because they have complete flexibility and control. The majority of them can and do choose to earn their living from multiple sources, including other ride sharing companies.

- Uber spokeswoman_


----------



## chi1cabby

Claim filed w/ Labor Comm. 9/13/14
Hearing 3/10/15
Ruling 7/3/15
Uber filed Appeal in Court 7/16/15


KevinH said:


> Where do we go to see what the timeframe is for a California Labor Board appeal. There adjudication process runs faster than a regular court.


----------



## Bart McCoy

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber's Statement On California Labor Commission Ruling*
> *http://newsroom.uber.com/2015/06/clcstatement/*
> 
> _Reuters' original headline was not accurate. The California Labor Commission's ruling is non-binding and applies to a single driver. Indeed it is contrary to a previous ruling by the same commission, which concluded in 2012 that the driver 'performed services as an independent contractor, and not as a bona fide employee.' Five other states have also come to the same conclusion. It's important to remember that the number one reason drivers choose to use Uber is because they have complete flexibility and control. The majority of them can and do choose to earn their living from multiple sources, including other ride sharing companies._
> 
> _- Uber spokeswoman_


only thing we have complete control of is when we start working(app on), and when we stop(app off).
and thats it


----------



## UberComic

Cool. I can tell my wife I'm employed. 

Oh, and I think this guy Travis owes me some money. About a fat down on a new loaded AUDI's worth.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber's Statement On California Labor Commission Ruling*
> *http://newsroom.uber.com/2015/06/clcstatement/*
> 
> _Reuters' original headline was not accurate. The California Labor Commission's ruling is non-binding and applies to a single driver. Indeed it is contrary to a previous ruling by the same commission, which concluded in 2012 that the driver 'performed services as an independent contractor, and not as a bona fide employee.' Five other states have also come to the same conclusion. It's important to remember that the number one reason drivers choose to use Uber is because they have complete flexibility and control. The majority of them can and do choose to earn their living from multiple sources, including other ride sharing companies._
> 
> _- Uber spokeswoman_


2012... when they actually were contracting with Limo companies.

The UberX model, which came way after 2012, is a completely different model.

Uber On! hahahaha


----------



## GooberX

uberdriver said:


> Anything is possible. But..... W2 or 1099, the cost of Social Security tax and income taxes is ultimately the same, what changes is who pays for it. Now the drivers pay for 100% of all taxes. In an employee W2 model, Uber would pay half of SS tax.
> 
> What would become an additional cost for the service is unemployment insurance, any required health insurance or other mandatory benefits, and complying with minimum wage and overtime pay rules. And paying those minimums after all expenses are reimbursed. So yes, the UberX product may not continue being such a rock bottom price product. Good or bad ? To be seen.


I don't see how it would be bad.

Right now drivers go without.

I don't care if Uber pays for it or it raises rates so drivers can pay for it themselves.

What can't happen is for NO ONE to pay for it.

That was Uber's advantage, no one was paying for it.


----------



## GooberX

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> 2012... when they actually were contracting with Limo companies.
> 
> The UberX model, which came way after 2012, is a completely different model.
> 
> Uber On! hahahaha


Those limo companies may actually become "partners" again.

Just the way it should be.


----------



## Tremor

maybe that 1$ safe ride fee will become 2$ and would help cover taxes. 4$ minimum becomes 5$ minimum ride.


----------



## GooberX

Tremor said:


> maybe that 1$ safe ride fee will become 2$ and would help cover taxes. 4$ minimum becomes 5$ minimum ride.


Yeah, right.

How many hours wold you be on line?

Would you get ovetime for anything after that?

Would they charge the customer double time surge for that?

How would they cover 22% workmans comp insurance?

If you were getting an hourly would you go camp out where there are no rides?

Welcome to the real world of transportation.

It isn't easy.

Uber on!


----------



## MikeB

chi1cabby said:


> Claim filed w/ Labor Comm. 9/13/14
> Hearing 3/10/15
> Ruling 7/3/15
> Uber filed Appeal in Court 7/16/15


Ruling must have been on 3/7/15, not 7/3/15.


----------



## Uber-Doober

GooberX said:


> The crack will become a fissure and then a huge chasm.
> 
> This will embolden other government entities to stand up and regulate accordingly.
> 
> When I started everyone loved Uber, and the goodwill from its drivers made it into the behemoth it is today.
> 
> When you forget your roots, you are doomed.
> 
> It's too bad.


^^^
All Uber has to do is to put the fares back up to where they were in the beginning and they will still be screwing the cab companies. 
I can't see why that is lost on Uber's mindset. 
It's like Uber wants to screw the drivers while they're screwing the cab companies.


----------



## chi1cabby

azndriver87 said:


> yah, but now uber can charge you 30% in commission and also give you a w2. which means your take home is probably.... 40%


This is a sentiment that's borne out of fear & not knowing the consequences of Driver misclassification lawsuits.

I've posted this in another thread, but there is a world of difference in being a true self employed independent contractor and the abusive fashion in which esp Uber has treated it's Drivers.

If Uber does end up losing or settling the Driver misclassification lawsuits, it would have to pay out the settlement to Drivers who do join the lawsuit.

But more importantly, Uber would have to change many of it's Driver Policies going forward, to be able to continue treating them ICs. Such changes might include setting rates that reflect drivers true operational expenses, ending summary deactivations without cause or appeal, "inefficient route" fare adjustments without notification to or input from Drivers etc.

It would also mean giving back Drivers an opportunity to Opt-out of Binding Arbitration when it modifies the Partnership Agreement. Uber retroactively took away Drivers ability to Opt-out in the Nov 2014 by inserting a New "Modifications Clause" in the Agreement:
*Drivers' Last Chance To Opt-out of Binding Arbitration








*


----------



## Uber-Doober

azndriver87 said:


> iRobot.


^^^
Former Uber drivers.


----------



## Uber-Doober

chi1cabby said:


> This is a sentiment that's borne out of fear & not knowing the consequences of Driver misclassification lawsuits.
> 
> I've posted this in another thread, but there is a world of difference being an true self employed independent contractor and the abusive fashion in which esp Uber has treated it's Drivers.
> 
> If Uber does end up losing or settling the Driver misclassification lawsuits, it would have to pay out thesettlement to Drivers who do join the lawsuit.
> 
> But more importantly, it would have to change many of it's Driver Policies going forward, to be able to continue treating them ICs. Such changes might include setting rates that reflect drivers true operational expenses, ending summary deactivations without cause or appeal, "inefficient route" fare adjustments without notification to or input from Drivers etc.
> 
> It would also mean giving back Drivers an opportunity to Opt-out of Binding Arbitration when it modifies the Partnership Agreement. Uber retroactively took away Drivers ability to Opt-out in the Nov 2014 by inserting a New "Modifications Clause" in the Agreement:
> *Drivers' Last Chance To Opt-out of Binding Arbitration
> 
> View attachment 8606
> *


^^^
It's called changing the game after a driver has committed and is already involved up to his neck sometimes, with something like a Santander lease. 
Literally pulling the rug out from under the driver and making him/her agree to something that wasn't in the original agreement between the parties. 
That's really low.


----------



## Uber-Doober

Tremor said:


> maybe that 1$ safe ride fee will become 2$ and would help cover taxes. 4$ minimum becomes 5$ minimum ride.


^^^
Make it a $7.00 minimum since the two bux would come out of the minimum.


----------



## chi1cabby

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber's Statement On California Labor Commission Ruling
> http://newsroom.uber.com/2015/06/clcstatement/*












I believe this is *Natalia*. 
Knowledge is power.


----------



## chi1cabby

*Uber Driver Is An Employee, Not Contractor, Rules California Labor Commission
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhu...ontractors-rules-california-labor-commission/
*
_The decision sounds broad, but it is limited in scope and is "such a low-level process" right now, said start-up lawyer George Grellas. The Labor Commissioner's decision is more of an administrative one than a judicial one, and other courts are under no obligation to follow the decision, Grellas said. Uber appealed the decision, which moves the case to the San Francisco Superior Court. If the case ever moves up from there to the California Courts of Appeal, then a decision at that level could set some binding precedent, but not before, Grellas said.

"It's a throwaway type forum," Grellas told FORBES. "Once it's appealed, which of course Uber has already done, then the ruling itself has zero significant on even future proceedings in that same matter. Maybe it'll have significance in some kind of social way, like people around the nation will see it. But legally it's basically a ruling that is disposable, so to speak."

But higher courts sometimes defer to the decisions of government agencies because they are the people enforcing the law, Shannon Liss-Riordan, an attorney who is currently suing both Uber and Lyft on behalf of drivers seeking to be employees._


----------



## Cooluberdriver

azndriver87 said:


> yah, but now uber can charge you 30% in commission and also give you a w2. which means your take home is probably.... 40%


W2 has to pay for half the taxes, so it will be higher


----------



## Cooluberdriver

uberdriver said:


> Anything is possible. But..... W2 or 1099, the cost of Social Security tax and income taxes is ultimately the same, what changes is who pays for it. Now the drivers pay for 100% of all taxes. In an employee W2 model, Uber would pay half of SS tax.
> 
> What would become an additional cost for the service is unemployment insurance, any required health insurance or other mandatory benefits, and complying with minimum wage and overtime pay rules. And paying those minimums after all expenses are reimbursed. So yes, the UberX product may not continue being such a rock bottom price product. Good or bad ? To be seen.


Price will go back up.


----------



## chi1cabby

*The Many, Many Cases of the Woman Who Just Beat Uber*
*https://medium.com/ondemand/the-many-many-cases-of-the-woman-who-just-beat-uber-72785d9e07a8*


----------



## UberRidiculous

chi1cabby said:


> *The Many, Many Cases of the Woman Who Just Beat Uber*
> *https://medium.com/ondemand/the-many-many-cases-of-the-woman-who-just-beat-uber-72785d9e07a8*


Hahaha her next step is to get the check! Good luck with that too right!


----------



## azndriver87

i don't know if people are dumb but as employees they can enforce working hours. screw that. I drive for uber because of flexibility.


----------



## UberRidiculous

azndriver87 said:


> i don't know if people are dumb but as employees they can enforce working hours. screw that. I drive for uber because of flexibility.


There's no reason why flexibility has to go away. If anything Uber would have to limit how many sign on. Most areas have too many signed on, all the time.


----------



## Uber-Doober

azndriver87 said:


> i don't know if people are dumb but as employees they can enforce working hours. screw that. I drive for uber because of flexibility.


^^^
You mean that you live in a State where Owner/Operators-IC's don't have to keep a daily log?


----------



## Uber-Doober

UberRidiculous said:


> There's no reason why flexibility has to go away. If anything Uber would have to limit how many sign on. Most areas have too many signed on, all the time.


^^^
I hope that one of the regulations that come out of Carson City before allowing Uber to do business here in Nevada is to put a cap on the number of drivers allowed to be "partners"based on the population. 
In other words, create a waiting list.
I can just see 5,000 Uberites here in Vegas.


----------



## Uber-Doober

Cooluberdriver said:


> Price will go back up.


^^^
BINGO!!!
Let the price go back up to something like $1.50 for Uber X and they'll still be kicking the crap outta the cab companies.


----------



## startin trouble

azndriver87 said:


> i don't know if people are dumb but as employees they can enforce working hours. screw that. I drive for uber because of flexibility.


I know this may be extremely hard for you to believe, but it's not all about you! If you are happy receiving whatever crumbs a business owner is going to toss at you with the understanding you can come and go as you please, there are thousands of hotels and other opportunities for you still available. Some people would prefer to be treated fairly though.


----------



## Fauxknight

chi1cabby said:


> _one reason drivers choose to use Uber is because they have complete flexibility and control. The majority of them can and do choose to earn their living from multiple sources,* including other ride sharing companies.*_
> 
> _- Uber spokeswoman_


Good thing that they never suspended drivers for doing such.


----------



## startin trouble

Ryder P said:


> Nearly 2/3rds of on-demand workers are pro independent contractor status: https://goo.gl/oI1J1n
> 
> Most cited reasons are "freedom" and "flexibility", most city reasons for employee are due to "lack of control" and "blind dispatch"


The freedom and flexibility it's great, but that is not the issue. The issue is the control these companies have over their employees. The only thing these employees have control over is their flexibility, nothing else. That makes them an employee not an independent contractor and I will not fall into the uber pr machine that says different. There is no control over the trips drivers accept, no control over the price of fares, no control over amount of trips you can refuse, no control over what rating you must maintain, no control over even being allowed to even see your detailed ratings much less explain our dispute them, no control over fare adjustments, no control of no show reversals, no control of fare refunds, the only thing the driver has control of is the flexibility of working when they want, but that in and of itself does not make them an independent contractor.


----------



## AintWorthIt

It's amazing the comments on some of the news sites and FB how DUMB people are and how supportive of Uber they are.


----------



## startin trouble

AintWorthIt said:


> It's amazing the comments on some of the news sites and FB how DUMB people are and how supportive of Uber they are.


Reply to all of them this is what Uber is best at, spinning a situation, for Christ sake they have Obama's campaign manager on staff for just such an event. This is the same company that has most of its customers still to this day believing tips are included in the fare and drivers believing they will be fired if they accept a tip. Reply to everything that needs to be corrected.


----------



## UberRidiculous

startin trouble said:


> The freedom and flexibility it's great, but that is not the issue. The issue is the control these companies have over their employees. The only thing these employees have control over is their flexibility, nothing else. That makes them an employee not an independent contractor and I will not fall into the uber pr machine that says different. There is no control over the trips drivers accept, no control over the price of fares, no control over amount of trips you can refuse, no control over what rating you must maintain, no control over even being allowed to even see your detailed ratings much less explain our dispute them, no control over fare adjustments, no control of no show reversals, no control of fare refunds, the only thing the driver has control of is the flexibility of working when they want, but that in and of itself does not make them an independent contractor.


*Excellent post! *


----------



## SCdave

For me, not knowing the destination is also a big factor. More involved but a few scenarios:

TNC & Independent Contractor: "Here's the the Rate (fixed or negotiation possible), Pick-Up Location, and Destination. Would you like to accept the Ride"?

TNC & Employee: "Here's what we pay you (non-negotiable). Here is the Pick-Up location. Take them wherever they want to go".

TNC & Rideshare (in theory): "Here's the Pick-up location, here's the suggested rate, here's the destination. Would you like to accept rideshare?


----------



## elelegido

Let's get this in perspective, folks. This is a potentially a great win for drivers but Uber has, by appealing, escalated this matter to the Supreme Court. This case will, like the IC vs employee class action aleady in the court system, take years to reach final resolution. How many of us will still be driving for rideshare by then?


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

Cab drivers have always been ICs around here, and in most of the country as I understand it.

I've always disliked the IC arrangement because it transfers the risk of not making money onto the worker and away from the company. If the rideshare industry loses this battle, I expect the taxi/livery industry to follow suit.

I've always wondered why the IRS never stepped in here because cabbies are notorious for not paying taxes.


----------



## startin trouble

elelegido said:


> Let's get this in perspective, folks. This is a potentially a great win for drivers but Uber has, by appealing, escalated this matter to the Supreme Court. This case will, like the IC vs employee class action aleady in the court system, will take years to reach final resolution. How many of us will still be driving for rideshare by then?


Ah yes the "**** it, it doesn't apply to me" logic. Wonderful


----------



## UberRidiculous

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> Cab drivers have always been ICs around here, and in most of the country as I understand it.
> 
> I've always disliked the IC arrangement because it transfers the risk of not making money onto the worker and away from the company. If the rideshare industry loses this battle, I expect the taxi/livery industry to follow suit.
> 
> I've always wondered why the IRS never stepped in here because cabbies are notorious for not paying taxes.


Curiosity peaked. How do taxis do it different. Taxi drivers are happy compared to Uber drivers. Just fairer pay?


----------



## elelegido

startin trouble said:


> Ah yes the "**** it, it doesn't apply to me" logic. Wonderful


* reading comprehension skills.

I don't say it does not apply to me. I will be following this case and, because of Berwick's win, be putting my own claim in with the Labor Board when the time is right.

No... my post above was to illustrate that nothing is going to change overnight, or even for the foreseeable future. So drivers should not be making plans yet for what they are going to spend their compensation checks on.


----------



## observer

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> I hope that one of the regulations that come out of Carson City before allowing Uber to do business here in Nevada is to put a cap on the number of drivers allowed to be "partners"based on the population.
> In other words, create a waiting list.
> I can just see 5,000 Uberites here in Vegas.


In other words, put in some type of medallion system...

Imagine that.... I thought medallions were old school, obsolete and anti new technology.


----------



## elelegido

Yes, the medallion system was introduced partly to prevent driver saturation and dilution of driver earnings; slicing the pie too thin.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

UberRidiculous said:


> Curiosity peaked. How do taxis do it different. Taxi drivers are happy compared to Uber drivers. Just fairer pay?


I pay a set fee to lease a vehicle from my cab company, but like U/L drivers, I don't get to set rates.

I am able to reject calls I don't want to take, and my schedule is very flexible. I have to work one shift a month to keep my contract valid.

There a a lot of similarities between the cab and "TNC" world, and as time goes on, the line between the two will be blurred even more.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

Oh, forgot to add. Taxi drivers have never been happy with regards to pay.

This has always been a low paying gig and will continue to be so.


----------



## LA Cabbie

I agree on everything Taxi Driver in Arizona said about the cab industry. It is a low paying gig no matter how you slice it. One day you can gross $200 the next only $40 with you paying X amount out of your pocket to cover gas and the rest of the lease.

There is a reason why taxi drivers are foreigners. 1) They are receiving financial assistance and don't want to report income (this is why the HATE credit cards). 2) They are well-off from family or connections back in the old country and cabbing gives them an excuse to get out of the house. 3) They are like me, roughing it out while working on something tentatively much better AND their monthly expenses are minimal.

Truthfully, if you want to make a OK living cabbing, become a W-2 employee.

Honestly, with minimum wages going up here in LA, you are better off working at McDees.

I HIGHLY suggest Uber drivers especially the Uber X so called partners unite and seek out Employee status. Ride this wave like a surfer and try your best to have it take you where you want to go.

Congrats and Good luck Uber drivers on attaining what is rightfully yours.


----------



## chi1cabby

Ryder P said:


> Nearly 2/3rds of on-demand workers are pro independent contractor status: https://goo.gl/oI1J1n












Perhaps an addition survey question would have put the Drivers' opinion in perspective.

*Do you think the Platform exercises excessive control of how you perform your work?*

*Yes*
*No*


----------



## chi1cabby

*Uber's Statement On California Labor Commission Ruling
http://newsroom.uber.com/2015/06/clcstatement/*

_It's important to remember that the number one reason drivers choose to use Uber is because they have complete flexibility and control. The majority of them can and do choose to earn their living from multiple sources, *including other ride sharing companies.
*
- Uber spokeswoman_


Fauxknight said:


> Good thing that they never suspended drivers for doing


Yup!
*I've added an additional $468 to your payout. And btw, I've permanently deactivated your account..*
_*







*
_


----------



## SCdave

UberRidiculous said:


> WRONG!
> SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN IS
> ON THE J.O.B.!
> 
> And next year....
> Hillary/Warren!
> WOOT! WOOT!


Started with a fact, ended with sarcasm...love it


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

Ryder P said:


> Nearly 2/3rds of on-demand workers are pro independent contractor status: https://goo.gl/oI1J1n
> 
> Most cited reasons are "freedom" and "flexibility", most city reasons for employee are due to "lack of control" and "blind dispatch"


Ahhh, the new member coming in and citing Uber propaganda.

Drivers have been purposely misinformed that they will lose flexibility under the employee model. And you are helping spread the misinformation. Also intentionally I assume.

NEITHER worker classification (IC or employee) requires a work schedule. Each classification can be just as flexible.


----------



## Uber-Doober

azndriver87 said:


> i don't know if people are dumb but as employees they can enforce working hours. screw that. I drive for uber because of flexibility.


^^^
You should write a book called: "How To Be Flexible On No Money Per Day"... just like the famous line of books written years ago naming certain countries, and how to travel cheaply in them like, "France On Five Dollars A Day".


----------



## chi1cabby

*Barbara Berwick says her phone-sex business helped her tackle Uber*
*http://mobile.reuters.com/article/iduskbn0oy03o20150618?irpc=932*


----------



## Uber-Doober

observer said:


> In other words, put in some type of medallion system...
> 
> Imagine that.... I thought medallions were old school, obsolete and anti new technology.


^^^
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. 
It's just like in zoning a city... there can't be more than "x" number of bars withing a certain area. 
You can't have more than a certain number of people inside of a Burger King irrespective of the size of the dining room, and that's based on the size of the property and the number of parking spaces. 
It's very simple... Vegas has a certain population, there are X number of cabs and Uber can put out another X number of cars on the street based on a ratio of the population, and possibly Geo-Fence them just as certain cab companies are regulated here in Vegas.
Just putting an unregulated number of Uber vehicles out there on the street on a "sink or swim" basis would be pandemonium.


----------



## chi1cabby

*Uber Isn't About to Roll Over on Making Drivers Employees*
*http://www.wired.com/2015/06/uber-isnt-roll-making-drivers-employees/*


----------



## riChElwAy

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber Isn't About to Roll Over on Making Drivers Employees
> http://www.wired.com/2015/06/uber-isnt-roll-making-drivers-employees/*


throughout these readings i keep coming across this idea that the IRS and state agencies are going to create a hybrid employment classification which would fall in between an independent contractor and employee . . that would likely be a total disaster . . right now the IRS has a hard enough time in certain cases trying to distinguish between an IC and employee, now we're going to fill the gap in between?? no way if they did manage to create a third tier of classification then you'd swamp the IRS and state agencies in a re-review process of thousands and thousands of currently existing gray-area IC's and employees it would be a catastrophic mess


----------



## observer

riChElwAy said:


> throughout these readings i keep coming across this idea that the IRS and state agencies are going to create a hybrid employment classification which would fall in between an independent contractor and employee . . that would likely be a total disaster . . right now the IRS has a hard enough time in certain cases trying to distinguish between an IC and employee, now we're going to fill the gap in between?? no way if they did manage to create a third tier of classification then you'd swamp the IRS and state agencies in a re-review process of thousands and thousands of currently existing gray-area IC's and employees it would be a catastrophic mess


What the IRS should do is simplify the guidelines.

Do you work more than 50% of your time with one company.

How much control is worker given.

Can worker be fired.


----------



## SCdave

The direction I see it is also a new classification for the 1099 On-Demand worker. Really no way around it. How long will this take? Don't know. But I'm sure Fed/State tax agencies, commissions, and legislative bodies on one side and lawyers and lobbyists on the other side are working late nights on this already. (Oh, government agencies 9-5pm and lawyers/lobbyists late nights).

Uber will have to payout like Fedex has. Their valuation will take a hit but they will then make it up as they expand the transportation business model, tweak new regulations to their advantage, and add on other services like package deliveries and data mining. Uber is not going away and maybe the IPO just takes longer to launch. Who knows.

The IRS and Labor Commissions are already working on this (me thinks) and it will be happening sooner than later. Forums like this are part of the conversation and will be used as background info by all parties so lets all Whine Away and then back it up.

Let the games begin...sigh


----------



## KevinH

Here is one law firm's guide about the options for suing about wages:
http://www.sanfranciscolawyer360.com/employment-lawyers-attorneys/labor-commissioner-court/

It seems to me that a key part of any claim submitted to the Labor Board rather than State or Federal court would be to have an accurate log of the times that the driver was logged into the TNC system and cruising for work. As the summary above states, there is no discovery allowed in a Labor Board hearing in California. How would a driver get the logs from Uber/Lyft without a way to compel them to produce?


----------



## alln

riChElwAy said:


> theory ... the whole self-driving Uber cars was one big bluff .. install fear into the human drivers make them feel dispensable.. use of fear is most powerful


Self driving cars will be allowed in USA year 2050 no worries for us


----------



## Bart McCoy

KevinH said:


> It seems to me that a key part of any claim submitted to the Labor Board rather than State or Federal court would be to have an accurate log of the times that the driver was logged into the TNC system and cruising for work. As the summary above states, there is no discovery allowed in a Labor Board hearing in California. How would a driver get the logs from Uber/Lyft without a way to compel them to produce?


doesnt your weekly statement tell you how long you had the app on???


----------



## Uber-Doober

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber Isn't About to Roll Over on Making Drivers Employees
> http://www.wired.com/2015/06/uber-isnt-roll-making-drivers-employees/*


^^^
Even just a few minutes ago, Rush said that the decision has Uber "shaking in its boots". 
I wonder if Rush uses uber. JK. 
You Palm Beach drivers better get those overload springs on the Prius.


----------



## observer

observer said:


> It's the investors running away from Uber....
> 
> Will be interesting to see if they stick around and that 50B valuation holds.


BTW, 50B is just the VALUATION, it doesn't mean Uber HAS 50 billion in the bank.

They've only gotten a "few" billion from investors and cash flow, in the bank, minus lawyer fees, lobbyists, drivers, regular overhead, driverless vehicle research, paying off politicians, ooops, I meant political contributions, lawyer fees, lobbyists, advertising for drivers, fines for drivers, etc....
ooooh and more lawyers and lobbyists.

They have to fight this and win, or it could be end of Uber.


----------



## Uber-Doober

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> Even just a few minutes ago, Rush said that the decision has Uber "shaking in its boots".
> I wonder if Rush uses uber. JK.
> You Palm Beach drivers better get those overload springs on the Prius.


^^^
Addendum:
An actual Uber driver called in and actually said that he stopped the app to make the call. 
Some old dude but I didn't catch where he was calling from, and said that he was retired. 
He just Looooves Uber... he gets to drive around for a few hours and meet people and have some fun and yada yada yada.


----------



## Uber-Doober

observer said:


> BTW, 50B is just the VALUATION, it doesn't mean Uber HAS 50 billion in the bank.
> 
> They've only gotten a "few" billion from investors and cash flow, in the bank, minus lawyer fees, lobbyists, drivers, regular overhead, driverless vehicle research, paying off politicians, ooops, I meant political contributions, lawyer fees, lobbyists, advertising for drivers, fines for drivers, etc....
> 
> They have to fight this and win, or it could be end of Uber.


^^^
Yep, when they quote that 50 billion, they're capitalizing it to the max. 
If Uuubs would go to at least 2 bux a mile for X they'd still be kicking the crap outta the cabs because at least Uber gets there the same day and I'd think that a lot of their problems would be over, and they wouldn't have to be flooding the radio stations with Uber ads because potential drivers would be beating down their doors. 
I hear at least 5 to 7 Uber ads on the radio every day in the car during my shift here in Vegas.


----------



## Robert121231

This is great news. Driving for 90 cents per mile, 30% goes to taxes, 20% goes to uber, 25% goes to gas and maintenance, then you buy road food and drinks and hope you don't get in an accident and have to pay the $1000 deductible just isn't worth it. Hopefully this will help Uber pay their employees appropriately.


----------



## MoneyUber4

observer said:


> It's the investors running away from Uber....
> 
> Will be interesting to see if they stick around and that 50B valuation holds.


IPO and market are on the line.

Uber screw up.

Drivers do not quit now, you are entitle to worker compensation and unemployment. Keep your records and save your logs. Paper trail is the key.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

I love this disruption thing 

I really REALLY do!!!!!!!!!

May the best of outcome be on your side 

OR YOU CAN REALLY BE FREE AND 
BE DONE WITH IT 

No one owns transportation 

GO OUT THERE AND TAKE IT !!!!!

Stop thinking that your faith is on other persons hands

Peace.


----------



## Just_in

riChElwAy said:


> throughout these readings i keep coming across this idea that the IRS and state agencies are going to create a hybrid employment classification which would fall in between an independent contractor and employee . . that would likely be a total disaster . . right now the IRS has a hard enough time in certain cases trying to distinguish between an IC and employee, now we're going to fill the gap in between?? no way if they did manage to create a third tier of classification then you'd swamp the IRS and state agencies in a re-review process of thousands and thousands of currently existing gray-area IC's and employees it would be a catastrophic mess


 The driver will be classified as "Partner" by the IRS ?.


----------



## MoneyUber4

Partners = Partially owner of a company but drivers don't own any part of Uber.

Uber is an employer and NOT a partner. 

Uber loves to twist the meaning of the words. 

Any judge will trash that interpretation as inaccurate and misleading.


----------



## GooberX

Partners = Partially owner of a company but drivers don't own any part of Uber. NOT TRUE. Companies enter into partnerships all the time without relinquishing equity.

Uber is an employer and NOT a partner. TRUE. They control the entire transaction and they change the terms unilaterally. Cabbies, at lest can accept cash.

Uber loves to twist the meaning of the words. Of course.

Any UNBIASED judge will trash that interpretation as inaccurate and misleading. And only as the partnership stands now.


----------



## chi1cabby

*Good Read.*

*Here's How Uber Could Lose the Bigger Battle Over Employee Classification*
*http://recode.net/2015/06/18/heres-...e-bigger-battle-over-employee-classification/*


----------



## GooberX

That's important because a large part of Uber's value (maybe it's only true value) hinges on the fact that it doesn't employ its drivers - that means no payroll taxes, benefits costs or insurance. If it had to treat drivers as employees, that would severely cut into its profits or result in massive losses. It would also have an impact on the broader on-demand startup world, e.g., Lyft, Handy, Homejoy, Postmates, DoorDash, etc.

BINGO.


----------



## GooberX

*But if Uber wins any of these rulings, is that it? End of story?*

No. There are separate class-action suits in the federal court system now that could more directly affect Uber and how it classifies its employees. More on that next time.

WROOOOONG! Damn reporter.

If Uber wins one of these appeal, plaintiff could very well appeal any overturning of the decision.

I doubt the plaintiff would drop it, nor the lawyer involved. The prestige of having beaten Uber would make her a desirable legal representative, and she'd be rich.

This case either goes to the State Supreme court or Uber loses.


----------



## UberRidiculous

GooberX said:


> *But if Uber wins any of these rulings, is that it? End of story?*
> 
> No. There are separate class-action suits in the federal court system now that could more directly affect Uber and how it classifies its employees. More on that next time.
> 
> WROOOOONG! Damn reporter.
> 
> If Uber wins one of these appeal, plaintiff could very well appeal any overturning of the decision.
> 
> I doubt the plaintiff would drop it, nor the lawyer involved. The prestige of having beaten Uber would make her a desirable legal representative, and she'd be rich.
> 
> This case either goes to the State Supreme court or Uber loses.


I was just thinking the same thing:
*ROCKUBERHARDPLACE*


----------



## Just_in

MoneyUber4 said:


> Partners = Partially owner of a company but drivers don't own any part of Uber.
> 
> Uber is an employer and NOT a partner.
> 
> Uber loves to twist the meaning of the words.
> 
> Any judge will trash that interpretation as inaccurate and misleading.


 Either way you look at it. It's not a good relationship. The ride share company you refer to controls 51% by definition. They write the terms you sign them. As we have seen already They can fire you for a number of reasons.

The double speak you reference might be this. The technology company or the given term ride share company they are referred as don't see it that way. Or might not see it this way. They think it's 50/50. You leave or quit your basically firing them.


----------



## riChElwAy

Just_in said:


> The driver will be classified as "Partner" by the IRS ?.


good point .. let's see ... independently partnered employee ?


----------



## riChElwAy

MoneyUber4 said:


> Partners = Partially owner of a company but drivers don't own any part of Uber.


remember not long ago when Uber began that whole "we're helping people become entrepreneurs" campaign . . they saw this coming and tried to nip in the bud best they could . . once again Uber shifting burden onto poor drivers saying the drivers are the existing business and we (Uber) are a mere link to that existing business


----------



## SCdave

The 1099 On Demand Employee classification or re-classification had to happen sooner or later. There just was never the type of business model like TNC or company with so much exposure like Uber that existed. Rise of Uber just fast-tracked it.

I'm sure that Uber has contingencies on how to grow the business if it has to pay Drivers as employees or as a newly classified 1099 On Demand Employee. Also Investors knew this was a potential risk. And if they didn't, well, they should have, right?

Whichever way this goes, Uber was able to start up, operate for 5 years, and not have to allocate funding for drivers as employees, paying vehicle expenses, or purchasing 100s of thousands of vehicles. Not a bad 5 year window of opportunity to create a new business.

Guess Uber Lobbyist will be working overtime this year.


----------



## Uber-Doober

SCdave said:


> The 1099 On Demand Employee classification or re-classification had to happen sooner or later. There just was never the type of business model like TNC or company with so much exposure like Uber that existed. Rise of Uber just fast-tracked it.
> 
> I'm sure that Uber has contingencies on how to grow the business if it has to pay Drivers as employees or as a newly classified 1099 On Demand Employee. Also Investors knew this was a potential risk. And if they didn't, well, they should have, right?
> 
> Whichever way this goes, Uber was able to start up, operate for 5 years, and not have to allocate funding for drivers as employees, paying vehicle expenses, or purchasing 100s of thousands of vehicles. Not a bad 5 year window of opportunity to create a new business.
> 
> Guess Uber Lobbyist will be working overtime this year.


^^^
Heh heh heh... They're just getting buried under an avalanche of shit.


----------



## Uber-Doober

GooberX said:


> Partners = Partially owner of a company but drivers don't own any part of Uber. NOT TRUE. Companies enter into partnerships all the time without relinquishing equity.
> 
> Uber is an employer and NOT a partner. TRUE. They control the entire transaction and they change the terms unilaterally. Cabbies, at lest can accept cash.
> 
> Uber loves to twist the meaning of the words. Of course.
> 
> Any UNBIASED judge will trash that interpretation as inaccurate and misleading. And only as the partnership stands now.


^^^
You don't need equity to enter into a partnership, just a vested interest.


----------



## atomix

SCdave said:


> The 1099 On Demand Employee classification or re-classification had to happen sooner or later. There just was never the type of business model like TNC or company with so much exposure like Uber that existed. Rise of Uber just fast-tracked it.
> 
> *I'm sure that Uber has contingencies on how to grow the business* if it has to pay Drivers as employees or as a newly classified 1099 On Demand Employee. Also Investors knew this was a potential risk. And if they didn't, well, they should have, right?
> 
> Whichever way this goes, *Uber was able to start up, operate for 5 years, and not have to allocate funding for drivers as employees, paying vehicle expenses, or purchasing 100s of thousands of vehicles. * Not a bad 5 year window of opportunity to create a new business.
> 
> Guess Uber Lobbyist will be working overtime this year.


Insightful post. Uber's rate of growth is without precedent--the world's largest privately held tech company. Travis, better than anyone else, was able monetize the rideshare business model. He was able to exploit many things in order to make Uber the revenue machine that it has become, such as loopholes in government regulations, public animosity against taxi industry, need for cheap transportation, and so on. Most importantly, he creatively used technology to bypass the need to own large fleet of vehicles, and the personnel to run and support them. Shifting vast majority of costs to drivers is basis for Uber's extraordinary profitability.

Problem was that this business model relied on exploiting grey areas in labor laws to work. For this reason, Uber's ridiculous growth was overinflated, and to be honest, unsustainable. This explains why the controversy over independent contractor vs employee has become so huge. Look how local government agencies are ruling against Uber more often than before; corporations are agreeing to settle rather than air their BS in court, because their classification of workers as independents was built on a lie. There's an old saying that makes sense here: *"Honest men have nothing to fear."*

Judge Chen had this to say when he ruled this month Uber's arbitration provisions were unenforceable: (2013 and 2014 provisions) "are both procedurally and substantively unconscionable" and therefore "unenforceable."

Change is building.


----------



## observer

atomix said:


> Insightful post. Uber's rate of growth is without precedent--the world's largest privately held tech company. Travis, better than anyone else, was able monetize the rideshare business model. He was able to exploit many things in order to make Uber the profit monster that it has become, such as loopholes in government regulations, public animosity against taxi industry, need for cheap transportation, and so on. Most importantly, he creatively used technology to bypass the need to own large fleet of vehicles, and the personnel to run and support them. Shifting vast majority of costs to drivers is basis for Uber's extraordinary profitability.
> 
> Problem was that this business model relied on exploiting grey areas in labor laws to work. For this reason, Uber's ridiculous growth was overinflated, and to be honest, unsustainable. This explains why the controversy over independent contractor vs employee has become so huge. Look how local government agencies are ruling against Uber more often than before; corporations are agreeing to settle rather than air their BS in court, because their classification of workers as independents was built on a lie. There's an old saying that makes sense here: *"Honest men have nothing to fear."*
> 
> Judge Chen had this to say when he ruled this month Uber's arbitration provisions were unenforceable: (2013 and 2014 provisions) "are both procedurally and substantively unconscionable" and therefore "unenforceable."
> 
> Change is building.


I agree with your entire post except calling Uber a "profit monster".

They may be generating lots of revenue, but revenue is not profit.

If Uber were a "profit monster" they would not need investor money to continue growing.


----------



## atomix

observer said:


> I agree with your entire post except calling Uber a "profit monster".
> 
> They may be generating lots of revenue, but revenue is not profit.
> 
> If Uber were a "profit monster" they would not need investor money to continue growing.


Lol. Does revenue machine sound better.


----------



## observer

observer said:


> I agree with your entire post except calling Uber a "profit monster".
> 
> They may be generating lots of revenue, but revenue is not profit.
> 
> If Uber were a "profit monster" they would not need investor money to continue growing.


 "They may be generating lots of revenue, but revenue is not profit"

Just ask ANY Uber driver the difference between revenue and profit.


----------



## observer

atomix said:


> Lol. Does revenue machine sound better.


Lol, yea that helps.


----------



## atomix

observer said:


> Lol, yea that helps.


observer, you convinced me. Changing to Jurassic Park-sized "revenue machine" now.


----------



## atomix

Ok, done.


----------



## SCdave

atomix said:


> Insightful post. Uber's rate of growth is without precedent--the world's largest privately held tech company. Travis, better than anyone else, was able monetize the rideshare business model. He was able to exploit many things in order to make Uber the revenue machine that it has become, such as loopholes in government regulations, public animosity against taxi industry, need for cheap transportation, and so on. Most importantly, he creatively used technology to bypass the need to own large fleet of vehicles, and the personnel to run and support them. Shifting vast majority of costs to drivers is basis for Uber's extraordinary profitability.
> 
> Problem was that this business model relied on exploiting grey areas in labor laws to work. For this reason, Uber's ridiculous growth was overinflated, and to be honest, unsustainable. This explains why the controversy over independent contractor vs employee has become so huge. Look how local government agencies are ruling against Uber more often than before; corporations are agreeing to settle rather than air their BS in court, because their classification of workers as independents was built on a lie. There's an old saying that makes sense here: *"Honest men have nothing to fear."*
> 
> Judge Chen had this to say when he ruled this month Uber's arbitration provisions were unenforceable: (2013 and 2014 provisions) "are both procedurally and substantively unconscionable" and therefore "unenforceable."
> 
> Change is building.


Yes, change is coming but that was expected.

I think Government Agencies have had trouble ruling since the TNC/1099 On Demand Model of Uber Proportions came so fast, so hard, in such large proportions, and so forcefully. They got overwhelmed and/or outgunned or whatever.

Now, judges are a different animal than government officials. Judges are ruling on current law. So I just see Uber having to do some type of payout at sometime but how much, who knows.

Just wondering what compromises or back room deals government officials will make with Uber? Those lobbyists will be coming with money, stats, and saying "do you want to be the official or agency that kills TNCs and thus causes drunk driving deaths to go up 40%". Or "the 1099 On Demand economy is here to stay. Lets make it work from Corporate America to Main Street (and wink, wink...the money is in the envelope... no not that one, the other one).

I'm just hoping I can say thank you to a few good kick-ass Judges and then hope us Drivers can actually share in the Uber Revenue Pie to a larger degree.

And a transgendered former "Phone Sex" business owner is at the forefront. Gotta love it...


----------



## chi1cabby

*Good Read.*

*Could A Legal Ruling Instantly Wipe Out Uber? Not So Fast*
*http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhu...l-ruling-instantly-wipe-out-uber-not-so-fast/*


----------



## chi1cabby

UBERNOMICS
*How much would it cost Uber to make drivers employees? (Hint: It's a lot.)*
*http://fusion.net/story/153243/uber-drivers-costs-if-employees/*


----------



## Uber-Doober

chi1cabby said:


> *Good Read.*
> 
> *Could A Legal Ruling Instantly Wipe Out Uber? Not So Fast*
> *http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhu...l-ruling-instantly-wipe-out-uber-not-so-fast/*


^^^
Uhhhh... Hmmmm...
Not a tremendously optimistic article in Forbes. 
But reality is reality. 
I don't really carry a flag for Uber drivers, but I carry the flag for fairness... and when I see people "sign up" for one thing, and then they get the rug pulled out from under them by going from let's say, $1.50 a mile to 99¢... that's low. I mean, REALLY low. 
And this has happened just withing the time that I have been monitoring this site, not necessarily from the time I joined this site.

Uber should be the greatest thing going... but in reality they are turning their "partner" drivers into passive catamites. 
I can't believe it!!!


----------



## Uber-Doober

chi1cabby said:


> UBERNOMICS
> *How much would it cost Uber to make drivers employees? (Hint: It's a lot.)*
> *http://fusion.net/story/153243/uber-drivers-costs-if-employees/*


^^^
Much more encouraging article, particularly quoting Berwick which I think will become precedent whether Uber likes it or not.
The unencouraging part is the possible wait for 10 years for a final decision, depending on what court hears and makes the decision and whether or not it goes to a higher court.

Hey... I'm a "real" livery driver, and I make more in tips per week than a lotta Uber drivers make total in a month... but I'm REALLY for you guys, I really am. 
I HATE vultures, and that's what Uber currently is. 
They started out as a really good deal, and then deteriorated into compleat (sic) crap. lol

By the way, chi1cabby... I did call the NRA yesterday and I was forwarded about three times till I got to an editor and he was astonished. 
Not really astonished, but when I told him that overrides MY state's rights and constitution he was in complete agreement. 
He's going to email me with an online form. 
Hey, great.


----------



## UberRidiculous

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> Much more encouraging article, particularly quoting Berwick which I think will become precedent whether Uber likes it or not.
> The unencouraging part is the possible wait for 10 years for a final decision, depending on what court hears and makes the decision and whether or not it goes to a higher court.
> 
> Hey... I'm a "real" livery driver, and I make more in tips per week than a lotta Uber drivers make total in a month... but I'm REALLY for you guys, I really am.
> I HATE vultures, and that's what Uber currently is.
> They started out as a really good deal, and then deteriorated into compleat (sic) crap. lol
> 
> By the way, chi1cabby... I did call the NRA yesterday and I was forwarded about three times till I got to an editor and he was astonished.
> Not really astonished, but when I told him that overrides MY state's rights and constitution he was in complete agreement.
> He's going to email me with an online form.
> Hey, great.


I don't think it will take the FTC 10 years to make some changes or recommendations or clarifications. Anything the FTC would do could make an impact on these cases having faster resolutions. And even then 'faster' is relative. From what I am reading, the best investment Uber makes is in its PR Machine, because everyone keeps saying the only people that matter right now are Uber's billionaire investors and their level of confidence. THAT is probably Uber's biggest threat, maintaining investor confidence, and not just everyday investors, the big shots.


----------



## Uber-Doober

UberRidiculous said:


> I don't think it will take the FTC 10 years to make some changes or recommendations or clarifications. Anything the FTC would do could make an impact on these cases having faster resolutions. And even then 'faster' is relative. From what I am reading, the best investment Uber makes is in its PR Machine, because everyone keeps saying the only people that matter right now are Uber's billionaire investors and their level of confidence. THAT is probably Uber's biggest threat, maintaining investor confidence, and not just everyday investors, the big shots.


^^^
I'm knocking on wood right now. 
OUCH... my head hurts.


----------



## UberRidiculous

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> I'm knocking on wood right now.
> OUCH... my head hurts.


Lol okay fine, so I don't know, but I am popping popcorn!


----------



## Uber-Doober

UberRidiculous said:


> okay fine, so I don't know, but I am popping popcorn!


^^^
I had some popcorn about an hour ago for breakfast plus a protein shake. 
I'm on vacation for two weeks and the first week is almost over... and I have to do all kinds of things around the house, like replace two toilet seats, replace four bathroom faucets and change the oil in my ancient Volvo. LOL. 
It never ends.


----------



## riChElwAy

observer said:


> If Uber were a "profit monster" they would not need investor money to continue growing.


i wonder is Uber burning through its fundraiser cash faster than it's burning through its driver population


----------



## observer

atomix said:


> observer, you convinced me. Changing to Jurassic Park-sized "revenue machine" now.


The IRS may not wait ten years. Once they realize how much taxes are not being paid, they will speed things up, or maybe have Uber pay into a trust account till things are settled.


----------



## dandy driver

chi1cabby said:


> I scooped Reuters by three hours!
> Hehe!
> 
> *Uber drivers are employees, not contractors -Calif. Labor Commission*
> *http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0Z30X920150617?irpc=932*


Any and all drivers MUST immediately join a national class action ! It is the only way to have an ear with Uber. To ear is human to drive with humans.


----------



## ARIV005

uberdriver said:


> Agree somewhat, but it all depends how far in the future is one's foresight....


It will first be the wealthy man's toy before it becomes any form of public transportation.


----------



## SCdave

chi1cabby said:


> UBERNOMICS
> *How much would it cost Uber to make drivers employees? (Hint: It's a lot.)*
> *http://fusion.net/story/153243/uber-drivers-costs-if-employees/*


Love the last line of the article:

"And if Uber is ever forced to treat its drivers like employees, one thing is certain - it won't be cheap."

Uh, Drivers are bearing these costs already (not all but many). Uber Mother Ship knows this, Uber Investors know it and love this fact, many Legislators getting lunch paid for by Uber Lobbyists (along with a Tip, wink wink) know it but ignore it, and even a few Drivers know this while others are "making good money"...sigh 

Uber will survive paying more for employees whether full or part-time, and with current labor laws now and whatever the new 1099 worker labor laws become. And if Uber doesn't survive will the TNC business disappear? Don't think we're going backwards on this one. Changes yes, no TNCs, nope.

Hey, what was the time-frame for Fedex - Lawsuit filing, court process, and payout schedule?


----------



## Uber-Doober

SCdave said:


> Love the last line of the article:
> 
> "And if Uber is ever forced to treat its drivers like employees, one thing is certain - it won't be cheap."
> 
> Uh, Drivers are bearing these costs already (not all but many). Uber Mother Ship knows this, Uber Investors know it and love this fact, many Legislators getting lunch paid for by Uber Lobbyists (along with a Tip, wink wink) know it but ignore it, and even a few Drivers know this while others are "making good money"...sigh
> 
> Uber will survive paying more for employees whether full or part-time, and with current labor laws now and whatever the new 1099 worker labor laws become. And if Uber doesn't survive will the TNC business disappear? Don't think we're going backwards on this one. Changes yes, no TNCs, nope.
> 
> Hey, what was the time-frame for Fedex - Lawsuit filing, court process, and payout schedule?


^^^
The time frame was years... can't remember exactly, but I remember hearing it on the news when the suit was initiated... maybe 5 or 7 years. 
Quite a while, but at least they got satisfaction. 
One of the main reasons that it took so long is that there were thousands of retired UPS drivers that joined into the suit, and that complicated matters.

Edit: 
Another thing is that years back, UPS gave out stock options and was supposed to turn into an employee-owned business, but didn't exactly turn out like that. 
Ultimately, that's one of the factors that needed to be computed and held up the decision.


----------



## mizzrock

GooberX said:


> The crack will become a fissure and then a huge chasm.
> 
> This will embolden other government entities to stand up and regulate accordingly.
> 
> When I started everyone loved Uber, and the goodwill from its drivers made it into the behemoth it is today.
> 
> When you forget your roots, you are doomed.
> 
> It's too bad.


I tried going back and seeing what I did wrong or right to make $1,000 a week with Lyft. Then I got smart and realized I was being fooled. Heck, they could even route newer drivers more calls / pings. The sky is the limit when we're on the outside like this.

Either I got lazy (doubt it) or fares were lowered than when I started a year ago and pax have begun to abuse the system.

I no longer boast my earnings to the greedy cheap pax. Make them think I'm but a poorly peasant.


----------



## Uber-Doober

mizzrock said:


> I tried going back and seeing what I did wrong or right to make $1,000 a week with Lyft. Then I got smart and realized I was being fooled. Heck, they could even route newer drivers more calls / pings. The sky is the limit when we're on the outside like this.
> 
> Either I got lazy (doubt it) or fares were lowered than when I started a year ago and pax have begun to abuse the system.
> 
> I no longer boast my earnings to the greedy cheap pax. Make them think I'm but a poorly peasant.


^^^
You know what would be good? 
And I don't tell this to just anybody. Haha.
Go to your welfare dept and get an application for food stamps, or AFDC or whatever, and display it someplace where the passenger can see it. 
That might get some sympathy tips.


----------



## Oscar Levant

GooberX said:


> The control exerted is obvious to an unbiased judge.
> 
> This will be interesting, as the upholding of this verdict would change everything.


No it won't, it will only affect that driver ( as far as I know )


----------



## GooberX

riChElwAy said:


> i wonder is Uber burning through its fundraiser cash faster than it's burning through its driver population


Uber reminds m


Oscar Levant said:


> No it won't, it will only affect that driver ( as far as I know )


You'll see.

Uber will nend an army of lawyers to stem the tide.


----------



## mizzrock

Oscar Levant said:


> No it won't, it will only affect that driver ( as far as I know )


Can't we all sue then?


----------



## GooberX

mizzrock said:


> Can't we all sue then?


Assuming it's what you want.


----------



## chi1cabby

*Good Read* explaining the Issue of Uber Drivers as Employees vs ICs:

*http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/82189.html?rss=1*


----------



## observer

chi1cabby said:


> *Good Read* explaining the Issue of Uber Drivers as Employees vs ICs:
> 
> *http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/82189.html?rss=1*


I was wondering about the 2012 California Labor Commission ruling in Ubers favor, quoted in just about every story.

It took me a bit to find any reference to this case, I finally found it.

As I was reading the article, I kept thinking, who the hell was the stupid lawyer hired by this driver.

Then I went back and read, he filed it "Plaintiff Pro Se"!! HE REPRESENTED HIMSELF!! Uber had 3 lawyers defending itself.

No wonder Uber won.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In FDCO 20130823840/ALATRAQCHI v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Let's see how Uber does against real lawyers.


----------



## observer

One more thing, this driver worked for Uber only 14 days. 12-29-11 to 1-12-12. That is not a very long time period.

It appears to me Uber back then WAS just an app. But since then have completely changed their relationship with drivers, exerting more and more control over their activities.


----------



## Verminator

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> I hope that one of the regulations that come out of Carson City before allowing Uber to do business here in Nevada is to put a cap on the number of drivers allowed to be "partners"based on the population.
> In other words, create a waiting list.
> I can just see 5,000 Uberites here in Vegas.


I like this idea.

Perhaps we could require Uber drivers to purchase a license to operate their Uber vehicle-for-hire&#8230; but call it something different&#8230; I dunno&#8230; maybe a "medallion".

Oh, wait.


----------



## Uber-Doober

Verminator said:


> I like this idea.
> 
> Perhaps we could require Uber drivers to purchase a license to operate their Uber vehicle-for-hire&#8230; but call it something different&#8230; I dunno&#8230; maybe a "medallion".
> 
> Oh, wait.


^^^
Had to give you a "like" particularly because of the quotation from Tacitus.


----------



## riChElwAy

chi1cabby said:


> *Good Read* explaining the Issue of Uber Drivers as Employees vs ICs:
> 
> *http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/82189.html?rss=1*


here is a quote from within this story and my comment follows ... <<"The California Labor Commission's ruling is nonbinding and applies to a single driver," Uber said. "Indeed it is contrary to a previous ruling by the same commission, which concluded in 2012 that the driver 'performed services as an independent contractor, and not as a bona fide employee.' Five other states have also come to the same conclusion.">>
Uber says 2012 .. what in the hell are they referring to!?!? uberX started in 2013


----------



## Uber-Doober

riChElwAy said:


> here is a quote from within this story and my comment follows ... <<"The California Labor Commission's ruling is nonbinding and applies to a single driver," Uber said. "Indeed it is contrary to a previous ruling by the same commission, which concluded in 2012 that the driver 'performed services as an independent contractor, and not as a bona fide employee.' Five other states have also come to the same conclusion.">>
> Uber says 2012 .. what in the hell are they referring to!?!? uberX started in 2013


^^^
Was the driver decision in 2012 an X driver or in another category.

One other thing. 
There is a difference between 'perfoming services 'as' an independent contractor' and being treated and regulated as an employee. 
The latest suit, Berwick, approached basically the same issue from a different angle, thus the seemingly conflicting decision. 
Also, one of the plaintiffs that lost brought forth the case 'in pro se' which is always a bad idea, thinking himself to be a budding Perry Mason.

For instance, if you work your own hours and in the areas that you prefer, then you might be considered an independent contractor.
On the other hand if Uber tells you do drive a 50 mile round trip to return an item left in your vehicle, at your own expense and on your own time, and with possible punishment for non-compliance, that could be construed as being an employee and requiring reimbursement in the eyes of the court.


----------



## observer

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> Was the driver decision in 2012 an X driver or in another category.
> 
> One other thing.
> There is a difference between 'perfoming services 'as' an independent contractor' and being treated and regulated as an employee.
> The latest suit, Berwick, approached basically the same issue from a different angle, thus the seemingly conflicting decision.
> Also, one of the plaintiffs that lost brought forth the case 'in pro se' which is always a bad idea, thinking himself to be a budding Perry Mason.
> 
> For instance, if you work your own hours and in the areas that you prefer, then you might be considered an independent contractor.
> On the other hand if Uber tells you do drive a 50 mile round trip to return an item left in your vehicle, at your own expense and on your own time, and with possible punishment for non-compliance, that could be construed as being an employee and requiring reimbursement in the eyes of the court.


He was a limo driver, owned his own car and business. Back then Uber was just an app.


----------



## Uber-Doober

observer said:


> He was a limo driver, owned his own car and business. Back then Uber was just an app.


^^^
And? 
He owned his own car and business and was moonlighting with Uber in addition?


----------



## The Kid

AintWorthIt said:


> It's amazing the comments on some of the news sites and FB how DUMB people are and how supportive of Uber they are.


They love cheap rides!


----------



## riChElwAy

observer said:


> He was a limo driver, owned his own car and business. Back then Uber was just an app.


Back then when you said "Uber" it meant a taxi-dispatched black TCP . . a completely different story than uberX . . Uber referring to this is irrelevant and not surprising


----------



## Uber-Doober

riChElwAy said:


> Back then when you said "Uber" it meant a taxi-dispatched black TCP . . a completely different story than uberX . . Uber referring to this is irrelevant and not surprising


^^^
Oh, ok... got it. 
I'm familiar with how they worked back then but just needed a bit of clarification.


----------



## chi1cabby

While speaking at Stanford today, Uber's Chief Counsel says Drivers Hire Uber. So Uber is the employee.


----------



## The Kid

Oh come on! Ever tried to tell your boss how much they can charge for your services? Ever had a supplier tell you how much you can charge for services. Uber is running the entire show.


----------



## observer

riChElwAy said:


> Back then when you said "Uber" it meant a taxi-dispatched black TCP . . a completely different story than uberX . . Uber referring to this is irrelevant and not surprising


^^^^^^ What he said, (better than I did) been a busy morning, couldn't get back to clarify my statement.

Uber as usual, is mixing apples and oranges trying to confuse everything to their benefit.

This lawsuit BTW was not held in a Labor Commission office but in a courtroom. So again Uber is purposely confusing the story and ALL or MOST of the news stories are repeating Ubers spin.

http://www.wilkefleury.com/article/a-short-course-on-labor-commissioner-hearings/

I went to defend a few Labor Commission complaints and didn't remember ever going in front of an actual judge. It only goes to a courtroom in case of an appeal.


----------



## UberRidiculous

chi1cabby said:


> While speaking at Stanford today, Uber's Chief Counsel says Drivers Hire Uber. So Uber is the employee.
> 
> View attachment 8848
> 
> 
> View attachment 8849


wow


----------



## chi1cabby

Ongoing Poll in SF Business Times

*Do you think #Uber drivers should be classified as employees or independent contractors? 
http://m.bizjournals.com/sanfrancis...dependent-contractors/17504141?ana=twt&r=full*


----------



## observer

observer said:


> ^^^^^^ What he said, (better than I did) been a busy morning, couldn't get back to clarify my statement.
> 
> Uber as usual, is mixing apples and oranges trying to confuse everything to their benefit.
> 
> This lawsuit BTW was not held in a Labor Commission office but in a courtroom. So again Uber is purposely confusing the story and ALL or MOST of the news stories are repeating Ubers spin.
> 
> http://www.wilkefleury.com/article/a-short-course-on-labor-commissioner-hearings/
> 
> I went to defend a few Labor Commission complaints and didn't remember ever going in front of an actual judge. It only goes to a courtroom in case of an appeal.


Makes me wonder about the cases referred to in the other "5 states". What were they all about, how long ago were they and most importantly, since Uber has been increasing its control of drivers, 
ARE THEY RELEVANT TO THE UBER OF TODAY.


----------



## UberCemetery

The Uber driver who got California to classify her as an employee is now teaching other drivers how to do the same

By ALISON GRISWOLD, SLATE

Read more: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...yee_she_wants_to_teach_you.html#ixzz3e0PjHw65


----------



## MoneyUber4

I quit Uber / Lyft some time ago. I got my own paxs, get paid directly and I don't provide no water, no candies.

I quote my own price and so far it is great.

No problem with insurance either.

I have 5 solid customers; they use my service every day. - Every day, I make 3 trips in the morning at about $50 each (Start at 7 AM done by 10:30 or 11:00 AM and 2 trips in the evening @ $38 and $45 each. And I am done for the day. Some drivers might say: That is not money but it is for me. It is my lunch and dinner money only, about $250 per day. I have another job as an outside sale person. (Salary + insurance)

Where did I get my paxs? Asking all the time + craigslist ads.

Money is all mine. No none sense with Uber' rating and paying them 20% commission + their rip off dollar per trip.

Uber / Lyft is not for me.


Wake up drivers you are being rip off 20% + $1.00 Uber's insurance + you owe 20% to the IRS.

You are in business to make money and NOT a charity, free rides + pay commission to a billion dollar company and so many bs.


----------



## 20yearsdriving

MoneyUber4 said:


> I quit Uber / Lyft some time ago. I got my own paxs, get paid directly and I don't provide no water, no candies.
> 
> I quote my own price and so far it is great.
> 
> No problem with insurance either.
> 
> I have 5 solid customers; they use my service every day. - Every day, I make 3 trips in the morning at about $50 each (Start at 7 AM done by 10:30 or 11:00 AM and 2 in the evening @ $38 and $45 each. And I am done for the day. Some drivers might say: That is not money but it is for me. It is my lunch and dinner money only, about $250 per day. I have another job as an outside sale person. (Salary + insurance)
> 
> Where did I get my paxs? Asking all the time + craigslist ads.
> 
> Money is all mine. No non sense with Uber' rating and paying them 20% commission + their rip off dollar per trip.
> 
> Uber / Lyft is not for me.
> 
> Wake up drivers you are being rip off 20% + $1.00 Uber's insurance + you owe 20% to the IRS.
> 
> You are in business to make money and NOT a charity, free rides + pay commission to a billion dollar company and so many bs.


You wrestled a slice of the pie 
Away from the alligator 
Congrats

You'll be fine 
Since all of your customers
Are fully aware
Your insurance will cover you


----------



## UberRidiculous

chi1cabby said:


> Ongoing Poll in SF Business Times
> 
> *Do you think #Uber drivers should be classified as employees or independent contractors?
> http://m.bizjournals.com/sanfrancis...dependent-contractors/17504141?ana=twt&r=full*


63% voted employee so far 498 votes.


----------



## chi1cabby

*The Impact of the Uber Ruling and Issues of Employment Misclassification*
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/impact-uber-ruling-and-issues-employment-misclassification

_Uber - the transportation networking company which, through the use of its technological platform and smart phone application, connects consumers (passengers) with transportation providers (private vehicle drivers) and facilitates the ride sharing service - may be the next victim of the continuing wave of employee misclassification lawsuits sweeping the nation. On June 3, 2015, in Berwick v. Uber Technologies, the California Labor Commissioner ruled that an Uber driver in California is an employee, and not an independent contractor, of the ride-hailing company. In relevant part, the labor commission found that "the minimal degree of control that [Uber] exercised over the details of the work was not considered dispositive because the work did not require a high degree of skill and it was an integral part of the employer's business" and that, in reality, Uber is "involved in every aspect of the operation." As a result, Uber was ordered to reimburse its driver's legitimate, reimbursable expenses pursuant to California Labor Code § 2802.

Though the decision of the California Labor Commission is not binding - Uber already has appealed - the lawsuit and underlying decision are significant. The decision is symbolic in that it jeopardizes Uber's contractor-based business model. Uber maintains that it is "nothing more than a neutral technological platform, designed simply to enable drivers and passengers to transact the business of transportation." Given the Commissioner's ruling and the overarching and virtually universal presumption of employment, courts may not agree with Uber.

Uber is not alone. Shyp, a San Francisco based startup that picks up, packages and delivers items on demand, already has reclassified its couriers from independent contractors to employees, undoubtedly to avoid any ensuing legal melee. Just last year, Lowe's agreed to settle a class action brought by its home improvement contractors and installers who alleged they were misclassified as independent contractors instead of employees. As the issue of employee misclassification has become an increasingly hot topic nationwide, construction companies, valet service providers and many other employers have had to justify their designation of their workers as independent contractors (and not employees).

This string of misclassification lawsuits has exposed and drawn a great deal of attention to the independent contractor business model. Under appropriate circumstances, employers can classify their workers as independent contractors. This can result in an incredible cost saving to employers, as it excuses them from certain legal obligations, such as the payment of minimum wage and overtime, unemployment benefits and payroll taxes, as well as the provision of certain benefits like health insurance, wellness programs, retirement benefits and workers compensation insurance. The flip side is that a worker classified as an independent contractor and not an employee may have little legal protection if/when something goes wrong. Of course, when a worker is improperly classified as an independent contractor but should be an employee, he/she may be legally entitled to recover certain benefits, overtime pay, and other compensatory remuneration afforded under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws.

Earlier this year, the New Jersey Supreme Court made it more difficult for employers to classify their workers as independent contractors. In Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC, 220 N.J. 289 (2015), decided January 14, 2015, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that under New Jersey law, the "ABC" test derived from the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. § 43:21-19(i)(6), governs whether a plaintiff is an employee or independent contractor for the purpose of resolving claims brought under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, N.J.S.A. §§ 34:11-4.1 to 34:-4.14, and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. §§ 34:11-56a to 34:11-56a38. In the Sleepy's litigation, the plaintiff delivery drivers contended they suffered financial losses as a result of the company's misclassification of them as independent contractors, rather than employees. Although the plaintiffs signed independent contractor agreements as delivery drivers for Sleepy's, they alleged this was a ruse by Sleepy's to avoid paying them various employee benefits, which they asserted was a violation of state wage payment laws.

The Court expressed that under the New Jersey wage laws at issue, both of which are remedial, the "ABC" test "provides an analytical framework to decide whether a person claiming unemployment benefits or seeking the protection of the wage-and-hour provisions of the WHL or the wage-payment provisions of the WPL is an independent contractor or an employee" and "presumes that the claimant is an employee and imposes the burden to prove otherwise on the employer." Hargrove, 220 N.J. at 314. Thus, under the "ABC" test, an individual is presumed to be an employee unless the employer can demonstrate: (A) the individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such service, both under his contract of service and in fact; (B) the service is either outside the usual course of the business for which such service is performed, or that such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed; and (C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. Id. at 25.

In essence, the employer first must prove that it did not exercise control over the worker and did not have the ability to exercise such control. Notably, absolute control is not required. Next, the employer must show that the service provided was outside the usual course of the employer's business or was performed outside the places in which the employer performs its business. Third, the employer must demonstrate that it exists and would continue to exist independently of and apart from the particular service relationship, and that the worker himself/herself is engaged in an independently established business enterprise. "The failure to satisfy any one of the three criteria results in an 'employment' classification." Id.

These cases have significant wage, hour, tax and employee benefit ramifications for employers state and nationwide. Employers like Uber, Lowe's and Sleepy's, which predicated their businesses (in whole or in part) on an independent contractor model, may find themselves in violation of state and federal wage and hour laws. Perhaps even worse, employers who conduct interstate business could find themselves in compliance with the FLSA but in violation of applicable state laws. In some instances, a misclassification error is not discovered until a wage and hour audit occurs, which can expose the employer to stiff administrative fines above and beyond any potential civil penalties or remedies. For employers, advance planning and internal auditing is recommended.

The California Labor Commissioner's ruling will not be the last word on the Uber matter, and it remains to be seen whether Uber's business model will require a total overhaul. Regardless, these cases should be carefully considered and closely followed by employers and their in-house counsel, especially given the sharp uptick in employee misclassification litigation._


----------



## chi1cabby

*Uber's Death by A Thousand Cuts*
*By **Lawrence Meyers*
*http://finance.townhall.com/columni...s-death-by-a-thousand-cuts-n2019977/page/full*

_The ultimate free-market solution for big city transportation, Uber Technologies, seems certain to succumb by a death of a thousand regulatory cuts. That's probably why it will race its IPO to market, before it bleeds out.

One ongoing challenge is whether drivers are classified as employees or independent contractors. As I wrote earlier, there's a pending case in California that could result in Uber being on the hook for tens of millions of dollars, if not more.

Now that same case has been filed in Boston, by the same aggressive lawyer, Shannon Liss-Riordan. She has an impressive track record in cases exactly like this, and has nailed companies like Starbuck and FedEx.

This will occur in all fifty states. Uber will lose at least some of these cases, and investors better realize it will cost a lot of money. How much? Breitbart News reports as much $1.2 billion in California alone. If Uber lost this battle in every state, the potential bill could be almost $11 billion.

This begs the question, "just how stupid are investors?"

Well, pretty stupid, apparently. Bloomberg News reported that Uber's bond offering may come with little actual detail about revenue and losses to investors. Uber apparently lost $415 million on $470 million in revenue, but refused to disclose to Bloomberg the period over which these losses occurred, except to say that they are "substantially old numbers". Why would any investor put money into a bond offering without current information, or with insane losses like this?

Look, I'm all for Uber and its free market solution, but I'm also opposed to being stupid with money. There's substance and there's hype, there's reward and there's risk. What I see right now with Uber is nothing but risk. This is the same kind of dumb IPO that Shake Shack did, where investors are valuing stores at fifteen timesthe value of a McDonald's franchise. One day that stock will crash. If Uber even gets its IPO out the door, it will crash one day as well, because of the headwinds it faces.

So that's why I think they are rushing to go to the IPO market and get financing in any other way they can before things get really messy.

How messy? Very. It's only a matter of time before someone sues under the Americans with Disabilities Act, since virtually no Uber cars service the disabled. Whether or not such a case has merit, the point is that it's another hundred cuts to Uber that will cost it money either in legal fees, or in a settlement. In the worst case scenario, Uber is forced to have a certain number of disabled-ready vehicles in its fleet. Say goodbye to the entire model in that case. Thank you, Big Government.

In cities where the taxi medallion financial industry is well-entrenched, like New York, Uber has already lost the battle. Data from the Taxi & License Commission shows only moderate declines in taxi medallion financial industry revenue, which declined less in 2014 than it did in 2013, showing Uber's weakening impact on taxi medallion industry revenues. In fact, for the period of January through April, revenue only declined 6.3% from 2013 to 2015.

Any hope that taxi medallion owner-operators or passive investors would fail to make loan payments on their medallions has been laughed aside. Owner-operators net 5-6 times the income they need to pay their low-cost loans.

Sources tell me a NY City Council bill to limit For-Hire Vehicle growth is likely to pass, which would limit Uber's growth there to 1% over the next year. Given that UberX increased the number of drivers from 4,000 in 2013 to about 20,000 today, and it has had virtually no effect on the taxi medallion financial industry, this will stop it dead in its tracks.

Another likely move from the city council will be to either cap surge pricing, or permit taxis to charge surge pricing, as well. Another pending lawsuit is challenging the notion that an electronic hail from the Uber app is equivalent to a street hail, to which only yellow taxi may respond. It sounds silly, but the definition of "hail" is such that this could easily fall against Uber.

Actual income is another issue. Uber's claim of making $90,000 a year has been largely debunked. Its own internal study showed a 50% attrition rate for drivers after one year, and I believe it is because drivers didn't realize the hidden costs. In my recent white paper, "Towards a Cost Estimate of a NYC UberX Driver", I was astonished to find costs were 37 cents-per-mile, or 68% of their revenue on the first dollar per mile they earn&#8230;before taxes.

I think Uber's labor pool is going to dry up sooner than anyone expects, and will dry up further if employment improves, since most drive because they are underemployed.

All of these are reasons why I think Uber is going to rush its IPO to market. Sad to say, there are so many problems with the business model alone, as well as all the regulatory nonsense. Uber is red-hot, and the public's zeal to support it is blinding Wall Street.

When that IPO does hit the market, I wouldn't be surprised if it shows huge losses.

So while we cheer on the free market, be wary of visions of gold-plated Uber cars. The government has a lot at stake in protecting the taxi medallion financial industry in every city and state, and will not go quietly._


----------



## Sydney Uber

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber's Death by A Thousand Cuts*
> *By **Lawrence Meyers*
> *http://finance.townhall.com/columni...s-death-by-a-thousand-cuts-n2019977/page/full*
> 
> _The ultimate free-market solution for big city transportation, Uber Technologies, seems certain to succumb by a death of a thousand regulatory cuts. That's probably why it will race its IPO to market, before it bleeds out.
> 
> One ongoing challenge is whether drivers are classified as employees or independent contractors. As I wrote earlier, there's a pending case in California that could result in Uber being on the hook for tens of millions of dollars, if not more.
> 
> Now that same case has been filed in Boston, by the same aggressive lawyer, Shannon Liss-Riordan. She has an impressive track record in cases exactly like this, and has nailed companies like Starbuck and FedEx.
> 
> This will occur in all fifty states. Uber will lose at least some of these cases, and investors better realize it will cost a lot of money. How much? Breitbart News reports as much $1.2 billion in California alone. If Uber lost this battle in every state, the potential bill could be almost $11 billion.
> 
> This begs the question, "just how stupid are investors?"
> 
> Well, pretty stupid, apparently. Bloomberg News reported that Uber's bond offering may come with little actual detail about revenue and losses to investors. Uber apparently lost $415 million on $470 million in revenue, but refused to disclose to Bloomberg the period over which these losses occurred, except to say that they are "substantially old numbers". Why would any investor put money into a bond offering without current information, or with insane losses like this?
> 
> Look, I'm all for Uber and its free market solution, but I'm also opposed to being stupid with money. There's substance and there's hype, there's reward and there's risk. What I see right now with Uber is nothing but risk. This is the same kind of dumb IPO that Shake Shack did, where investors are valuing stores at fifteen timesthe value of a McDonald's franchise. One day that stock will crash. If Uber even gets its IPO out the door, it will crash one day as well, because of the headwinds it faces.
> 
> So that's why I think they are rushing to go to the IPO market and get financing in any other way they can before things get really messy.
> 
> How messy? Very. It's only a matter of time before someone sues under the Americans with Disabilities Act, since virtually no Uber cars service the disabled. Whether or not such a case has merit, the point is that it's another hundred cuts to Uber that will cost it money either in legal fees, or in a settlement. In the worst case scenario, Uber is forced to have a certain number of disabled-ready vehicles in its fleet. Say goodbye to the entire model in that case. Thank you, Big Government.
> 
> In cities where the taxi medallion financial industry is well-entrenched, like New York, Uber has already lost the battle. Data from the Taxi & License Commission shows only moderate declines in taxi medallion financial industry revenue, which declined less in 2014 than it did in 2013, showing Uber's weakening impact on taxi medallion industry revenues. In fact, for the period of January through April, revenue only declined 6.3% from 2013 to 2015.
> 
> Any hope that taxi medallion owner-operators or passive investors would fail to make loan payments on their medallions has been laughed aside. Owner-operators net 5-6 times the income they need to pay their low-cost loans.
> 
> Sources tell me a NY City Council bill to limit For-Hire Vehicle growth is likely to pass, which would limit Uber's growth there to 1% over the next year. Given that UberX increased the number of drivers from 4,000 in 2013 to about 20,000 today, and it has had virtually no effect on the taxi medallion financial industry, this will stop it dead in its tracks.
> 
> Another likely move from the city council will be to either cap surge pricing, or permit taxis to charge surge pricing, as well. Another pending lawsuit is challenging the notion that an electronic hail from the Uber app is equivalent to a street hail, to which only yellow taxi may respond. It sounds silly, but the definition of "hail" is such that this could easily fall against Uber.
> 
> Actual income is another issue. Uber's claim of making $90,000 a year has been largely debunked. Its own internal study showed a 50% attrition rate for drivers after one year, and I believe it is because drivers didn't realize the hidden costs. In my recent white paper, "Towards a Cost Estimate of a NYC UberX Driver", I was astonished to find costs were 37 cents-per-mile, or 68% of their revenue on the first dollar per mile they earn&#8230;before taxes.
> 
> I think Uber's labor pool is going to dry up sooner than anyone expects, and will dry up further if employment improves, since most drive because they are underemployed.
> 
> All of these are reasons why I think Uber is going to rush its IPO to market. Sad to say, there are so many problems with the business model alone, as well as all the regulatory nonsense. Uber is red-hot, and the public's zeal to support it is blinding Wall Street.
> 
> When that IPO does hit the market, I wouldn't be surprised if it shows huge losses.
> 
> So while we cheer on the free market, be wary of visions of gold-plated Uber cars. The government has a lot at stake in protecting the taxi medallion financial industry in every city and state, and will not go quietly._


I'd love UBERX to go to an IPO. Then to satisfy regulators they've got to open their books to forensic scrutiny. We'll See why their CFO took off and why they can't find another to be the fall guy for cooked books.


----------



## arto71

chi1cabby said:


> Uber vs Berwick on Scribd
> 
> *https://www.scribd.com/doc/268911290
> 
> Uber's Appeal
> View attachment 8568
> 
> 
> CA Labor Commissioners Ruling
> View attachment 8569
> *


The driver who beat Uber will teach you how to do it too - for $50

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/barb...-how-to-become-employees-2015-7#ixzz3fL1VSUv0


----------



## UberRidiculous

arto71 said:


> The driver who beat Uber will teach you how to do it too - for $50
> 
> Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/barb...-how-to-become-employees-2015-7#ixzz3fL1VSUv0


She represented herself & didn't have an attorney. Court filing fees are probably a few hundred dollars. I bet there are some drivers willing to roll those dice.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

berserk42 said:


> So, uh, what is Uber's statement? I'm behind the great firewall atm.


POST # 51/berserk42: I believe the
#[F]Uber SpokesRobot
offered Tosh.0 's timeless "Nana nana
boo boo, stick Your head in doo doo."

Bison guffaws and chortles.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

chi1cabby said:


> View attachment 8607
> 
> 
> I believe this is *Natalia*.
> Knowledge is power.
> View attachment 8609


POST # 69/chi1cabby: What is her
Email ? I want to
tell her that I recommend she include:

☆ ☆ ☆ HELL IN A HANDBASKET!☆ ☆ ☆


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

AintWorthIt said:


> It's amazing the comments on some of the news sites and FB how DUMB people are and how supportive of Uber they are.


POST # 83/AintWorthIt: In case You
haven't noticed OR
are Congenitally Kind.....UPNF has its
share of K N U C K L E H E A D S too.

"Jeepers!" Declareth the Ungulate.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber's Statement On California Labor Commission Ruling
> http://newsroom.uber.com/2015/06/clcstatement/*
> 
> _It's important to remember that the number one reason drivers choose to use Uber is because they have complete flexibility and control. The majority of them can and do choose to earn their living from multiple sources, *including other ride sharing companies.
> *
> - Uber spokeswoman_
> 
> Yup!
> *I've added an additional $468 to your payout. And btw, I've permanently deactivated your account..*
> _*
> View attachment 8625
> *_


POST # 99/chi1cabby: I bet "Richard"
WASN'T "Wild" about
receiving that letter. Curse You,
#[F]Uber!


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> Uhhhh... Hmmmm...
> Not a tremendously optimistic article in Forbes.
> But reality is reality.
> I don't really carry a flag for Uber drivers, but I carry the flag for fairness... and when I see people "sign up" for one thing, and then they get the rug pulled out from under them by going from let's say, $1.50 a mile to 99¢... that's low. I mean, REALLY low.
> And this has happened just withing the time that I have been monitoring this site, not necessarily from the time I joined this site.
> 
> Uber should be the greatest thing going... but in reality they are turning their "partner" drivers into passive catamites.
> I can't believe it!!!


POST #"142/Uber-Doober: Thanks for
making me use
MY TWO VOLUME DICTIONARY, Sir!

As George Takei might Gasp: "Oh, MY!"

Bison chortling.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber's Death by A Thousand Cuts*
> *By **Lawrence Meyers*
> *http://finance.townhall.com/columni...s-death-by-a-thousand-cuts-n2019977/page/full*
> 
> _The ultimate free-market solution for big city transportation, Uber Technologies, seems certain to succumb by a death of a thousand regulatory cuts. That's probably why it will race its IPO to market, before it bleeds out.
> 
> One ongoing challenge is whether drivers are classified as employees or independent contractors. As I wrote earlier, there's a pending case in California that could result in Uber being on the hook for tens of millions of dollars, if not more.
> 
> Now that same case has been filed in Boston, by the same aggressive lawyer, Shannon Liss-Riordan. She has an impressive track record in cases exactly like this, and has nailed companies like Starbuck and FedEx.
> 
> This will occur in all fifty states. Uber will lose at least some of these cases, and investors better realize it will cost a lot of money. How much? Breitbart News reports as much $1.2 billion in California alone. If Uber lost this battle in every state, the potential bill could be almost $11 billion.
> 
> This begs the question, "just how stupid are investors?"
> 
> Well, pretty stupid, apparently. Bloomberg News reported that Uber's bond offering may come with little actual detail about revenue and losses to investors. Uber apparently lost $415 million on $470 million in revenue, but refused to disclose to Bloomberg the period over which these losses occurred, except to say that they are "substantially old numbers". Why would any investor put money into a bond offering without current information, or with insane losses like this?
> 
> Look, I'm all for Uber and its free market solution, but I'm also opposed to being stupid with money. There's substance and there's hype, there's reward and there's risk. What I see right now with Uber is nothing but risk. This is the same kind of dumb IPO that Shake Shack did, where investors are valuing stores at fifteen timesthe value of a McDonald's franchise. One day that stock will crash. If Uber even gets its IPO out the door, it will crash one day as well, because of the headwinds it faces.
> 
> So that's why I think they are rushing to go to the IPO market and get financing in any other way they can before things get really messy.
> 
> How messy? Very. It's only a matter of time before someone sues under the Americans with Disabilities Act, since virtually no Uber cars service the disabled. Whether or not such a case has merit, the point is that it's another hundred cuts to Uber that will cost it money either in legal fees, or in a settlement. In the worst case scenario, Uber is forced to have a certain number of disabled-ready vehicles in its fleet. Say goodbye to the entire model in that case. Thank you, Big Government.
> 
> In cities where the taxi medallion financial industry is well-entrenched, like New York, Uber has already lost the battle. Data from the Taxi & License Commission shows only moderate declines in taxi medallion financial industry revenue, which declined less in 2014 than it did in 2013, showing Uber's weakening impact on taxi medallion industry revenues. In fact, for the period of January through April, revenue only declined 6.3% from 2013 to 2015.
> 
> Any hope that taxi medallion owner-operators or passive investors would fail to make loan payments on their medallions has been laughed aside. Owner-operators net 5-6 times the income they need to pay their low-cost loans.
> 
> Sources tell me a NY City Council bill to limit For-Hire Vehicle growth is likely to pass, which would limit Uber's growth there to 1% over the next year. Given that UberX increased the number of drivers from 4,000 in 2013 to about 20,000 today, and it has had virtually no effect on the taxi medallion financial industry, this will stop it dead in its tracks.
> 
> Another likely move from the city council will be to either cap surge pricing, or permit taxis to charge surge pricing, as well. Another pending lawsuit is challenging the notion that an electronic hail from the Uber app is equivalent to a street hail, to which only yellow taxi may respond. It sounds silly, but the definition of "hail" is such that this could easily fall against Uber.
> 
> Actual income is another issue. Uber's claim of making $90,000 a year has been largely debunked. Its own internal study showed a 50% attrition rate for drivers after one year, and I believe it is because drivers didn't realize the hidden costs. In my recent white paper, "Towards a Cost Estimate of a NYC UberX Driver", I was astonished to find costs were 37 cents-per-mile, or 68% of their revenue on the first dollar per mile they earn&#8230;before taxes.
> 
> I think Uber's labor pool is going to dry up sooner than anyone expects, and will dry up further if employment improves, since most drive because they are underemployed.
> 
> All of these are reasons why I think Uber is going to rush its IPO to market. Sad to say, there are so many problems with the business model alone, as well as all the regulatory nonsense. Uber is red-hot, and the public's zeal to support it is blinding Wall Street.
> 
> When that IPO does hit the market, I wouldn't be surprised if it shows huge losses.
> 
> So while we cheer on the free market, be wary of visions of gold-plated Uber cars. The government has a lot at stake in protecting the taxi medallion financial industry in every city and state, and will not go quietly._


POST # 183/chi1cabby: This Article, in
Particular, brought a Smile
to the Old Ungulate's Visage. H O O R A Y !

SPECTACULAR THREAD Thank You × 30
Hyperlinked Pieces. We ARE Lucky to
have St. Comity with Us at UPNF!

Bison Admires.
Bison Inspires!


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

Sydney Uber said:


> I'd love UBERX to go to an IPO. Then to satisfy regulators they've got to open their books to forensic scrutiny. We'll See why their CFO took off and why they can't find another to be the fall guy for cooked books.


POST #:184/Sydney Uber: Good Points!


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

UberRidiculous said:


> She represented herself & didn't have an attorney. Court filing fees are probably a few hundred dollars. I bet there are some drivers willing to roll those dice.


POST #"186/UberRidiculous : You GO
Girl! Current stats
reveal 654 Messages/661 Likes. Welcome
to the 101% Club. Posting shortly.

Bison Admires.
Bison Inspires!


----------



## observer

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST # 51/berserk42: I believe the
> #[F]Uber SpokesRobot
> offered Tosh.0 's timeless "Nana nana
> boo boo, stick Your head in doo doo."
> 
> Bison guffaws and chortles.


You sir, are too fuuny.

Observer, guffawing and chortling with his buddy Bison!!


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

observer said:


> You sir, are too fuuny.
> 
> Observer, guffawing and chortling with his buddy Bison!!


POST #:195/observer: As an even mas
Entretenido Bison, Sr.
once Observed : "Better Funny than
Funny-Looking!"

Like Pepperidge Farm,
Bison Remembers.


----------



## UberDude2

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST #"186/UberRidiculous : You GO
> Girl! Current stats
> reveal 654 Messages/661 Likes. Welcome
> to the 101% Club. Posting shortly.
> 
> Bison Admires.
> Bison Inspires!


Where can we find the most current list? How about a list that consists of the bottom 100? The notables with the worst percentage.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher

UberDude2 said:


> Where can we find the most current list? How about a list that consists of the bottom 100? The notables with the worst percentage.


POST # 197/UberDude2: The list re-
mains in "Other" Forum at:

https://uberpeople.net/posts/338664

Recalculations are Ongoing. If Your
%age or Ranking has changed much,
the Likely Improvement will be Posted.

"Bottom 100"? Just go to the Members
Page and scroll to the Bottom. Click on
"Birthdays Today" and You'll find TONS
of 0%ers, usually NotYet Posters. Do YOU
think Insulting Members is Productive
for Community Building? I don't.

"Worst Notable"? Show a 3rd Grader
the "Notable Members" Page and they'll find'em.....probably doing the Math in
their head, it's THAT obvious. Try it!


----------



## UberDude2

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST # 197/UberDude2: The list re-
> mains in "Other" Forum at:
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/posts/338664
> 
> Recalculations are Ongoing. If Your
> %age or Ranking has changed much,
> the Likely Improvement will be Posted.
> 
> "Bottom 100"? Just go to the Members
> Page and scroll to the Bottom. Click on
> "Birthdays Today" and You'll find TONS
> of 0%ers, usually NotYet Posters. Do YOU
> think Insulting Members is Productive
> for Community Building? I don't.
> 
> "Worst Notable"? Show a 3rd Grader
> the "Notable Members" Page and they'll find'em.....probably doing the Math in
> their head, it's THAT obvious. Try it!


Uh oh, Bison is disturbed? 
BTW, Bison speaks regular English after all!


----------

