# New York state just dealt another blow to Uber’s business model



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

*New York state just dealt another blow to Uber's business model*

*Written by* Alison Griswold
June 13, 2017 
qz.com

Three New York Uber drivers and "others similarly situated" have been deemed employees for unemployment purposes.

An administrative law judge for New York's state labor department ruled on June 9 that the three former Uber drivers were eligible to receive unemployment benefits, typically reserved for ex-employees. The ruling strikes another blow to Uber's business model. The company treats its over 600,000 US drivers as independent contractors, which enables it to avoid providing them both government-mandated employee benefits and a guaranteed minimum wage.

The new ruling upholds determinations made late last year by a state labor department clerk that found Jeffrey Shepherd, Levon Aleksanian, and Jakir Hossain-all former Uber drivers-to be employees of the company rather than contractors. Uber had appealed the initial determination.

"Uber took steps to modify the claimants' behavior, as typical in an employer-employee relationship," administrative law judge Michelle Burrowes wrote on June 9. "The overriding evidence establishes that Uber exercised sufficient supervision, direction, and control over key aspects of the services rendered by claimants such that an employer-employee relationship was created."

One unanswered question is what constitutes "similarly situated," and how many drivers it could extend to. Uber has previously emphasized that labor-department determinations are limited in scope to the named plaintiffs. The company also once said there was "no typical driver" on its roster, in an effort to preempt an employment lawsuit being certified as a class-action.

The New York Taxi Workers Alliance (NYTWA), an advocacy group for professional drivers in New York city that represented the three drivers in their case, called for the state labor department to audit Uber to determine whether all of their drivers in New York state are employees. "The message here is simple: If you're going to control the workers to maximize your profits off their labor, you owe them their rights and benefits under the law," Bhairavi Desai, executive director of the NYTWA, said in a statement.

Uber said in a statement that it has appealed the decision and is "immediately requesting" a new hearing. The company said it was denied its right to due process because the drivers who testified in the case were "hand-picked" by the NYTWA.

Uber's labor problems have faded into the background in recent months as the company has been consumed by other scandals. Uber today (June 13) released the results of an investigation into its workplace culture conducted by former US attorney general Eric Holder. CEO Travis Kalanick also said he would take a leave of absence, without specifying a return date. Kalanick's leave will compound a leadership void at the company; Uber currently lacks a the chief operating officer, chief financial officer, and senior vice president of engineering.

Even with the spotlight elsewhere, the employment question will remain huge for Uber so long as it relies on hundreds of thousands of human drivers to make its on-demand rides business possible. Local regulators have reached different decisions about whether to consider Uber's drivers employees or contractors. Such decisions typically do not set binding precedent, or apply to a broad set of workers.

Decisions made in 18 states so far have found at least one Uber driver to be an independent contractor. In other states, including California and New York, determinations have been made at least once that an Uber driver should be treated as employee under certain circumstances, such as unemployment.

Last summer, a federal judge rejected a $100 million settlement reached by Uber and the drivers suing it in a landmark employment lawsuit. The class-action lawsuit, brought by drivers in California and Massachusetts, argued that Uber had misclassified drivers in those two states as independent contractors instead of employees.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

We still need to these rulings to move beyond labor boards and administrative judges - we need a win at the state appeals level - and the federal court level!

also, here's the URL to the article above:
https://qz.com/1005254/three-uber-d...-for-unemployment-purposes-by-new-york-state/


----------



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> We still need to these rulings move beyond labor boards and administrative judges - we need a win at the state appeals level - and the federal court level!/


This article gives a little more info about the importance and next steps in the process for Uber Drivers to regain their benefits and rights. The reporter Dana Rubinstein has been covering Uber for the last few years.

*(New York) State labor judge finds Uber an 'employer'*

*http://www.politico.com/states/new-...ate-labor-court-finds-uber-an-employer-112733*


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

from the Politico article:

The company now has 20 days to appeal Burrowes' decision to a higher level of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, after which it can contest the case in a state appeals court.

It has every intention of appealing.

"We are immediately requesting a new hearing and appealing this decision," said Uber spokesman Josh Gold. "We are confident we will prevail - the Department of Labor has already ruled that several drivers are independent contractors and a Federal Court has deemed all black car drivers to be independent contractors."​Seems to me Uber loses all these administrative hearings and appeals and wins all of the state appeals court and federal rulings.


----------



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> from the Politico article:
> 
> The company now has 20 days to appeal Burrowes' decision to a higher level of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, after which it can contest the case in a state appeals court.
> 
> ...


One of Uber's major political power strategies has been to* pre-empt* local decisions at a higher level. Lobby (buy) big city mayors and state governors. Plouffe was the classic corrupt operator for Uber. David Plouffe just got called out a few days ago.

"All the Obama types like David Plouffe that went to work for the corrupt as shit company can suck it," Manley wrote.

*Former Reid Adviser Criticizes Former Obama Officials*



Former Pres. Barack Obama and former Sen. Harry Reid / Getty Images

BY: Conor Beck
June 12, 2017 4:32 pm

Former Harry Reid communications adviser Jim Manley criticized Obama campaign manager David Plouffe for his role at Uber in a vulgar tweet Monday.

"All the Obama types like David Plouffe that went to work for the corrupt as shit company can suck it," Manley wrote.

The tweet comes in the wake of the news that Uber senior vice president Emil Michael is leaving the company.

Michael had previously floated the idea of hiring opposition researchers or journalists at a dinner with Ben Smith from BuzzFeed while forgetting to say the meeting was off the record. The goal of this planned initiative was to smear a female journalist who had criticized the company.

Plouffe was not the only former Obama official to work with Uber. Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder worked for Uber to investigate allegations of sexual harassment and sexism within the company.

Plouffe has run into legal troubles with his work for Uber after illegally lobbying Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel without registering as a lobbyist. Plouffe received a fine of $90,000.


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

An independent contractor would know the full spec of work. In ubers case we only know where we pick up. We do not know 99% of the entire task at hand. Thus we are not independent. The only thing we control is the time we log on and off. That is not the definition of an independent contractor as uber would like us to believe


----------



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

Fubernuber said:


> An independent contractor would know the full spec of work. In ubers case we only know where we pick up. We do not know 99% of the entire task at hand. Thus we are not independent. The only thing we control is the time we log on and off. That is not the definition of an independent contractor as uber would like us to believe


You really don't control when to log on in a practical sense. Driver can log on anytime but Driver can't make minimum wage anytime. The only times not to lose money with Uber is to work during rush hours when the "meter" is speeded up (boost, surge). Flexibility is an illusion, since a Driver can only profit a few hours during the week.. Uber will show you boost times, working at Uber base rate is losing money, need the speeded up meter.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Ca$h4 said:


> One of Uber's major political power strategies has been to* pre-empt* local decisions at a higher level. Lobby (buy) big city mayors and state governors. Plouffe was the classic corrupt operator for Uber. David Plouffe just got called out a few days ago.


I've been calling out Plouffe here on the site for his hypocrisy and mercenary ethics since he joined Uber.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Fubernuber said:


> An independent contractor would know the full spec of work. In ubers case we only know where we pick up. We do not know 99% of the entire task at hand. Thus we are not independent. The only thing we control is the time we log on and off. That is not the definition of an independent contractor as uber would like us to believe


I've always held this same opinion. Uber could avoid so many of their longstanding problems by making two fundamental changes. 1. Stop setting the rates and instead turn each trip request into a live auction pushed out to the nearest 5 drivers. 2. Stop withholding destination information from drivers prior to accepting the trip.

Every trip has a true market value. But Uber wants to artificially control the market by imposing the rates and obscuring the job information.

This is exactly the reason they should be seen as employers. They make the rules.

In general, Uber should work exactly like eBay. Then Uber would actually be "ridesharing" instead of the taxi service that it is.

Unfortunately for drivers and passengers, these two changes will never happen.


----------



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

stuber said:


> I've always held this same opinion. Uber could avoid so many of their longstanding problems by making two fundamental changes. 1. Stop setting the rates and instead turn each trip request into a live auction pushed out to the nearest 5 drivers. 2. Stop withholding destination information from drivers prior to accepting the trip.
> 
> Every trip has a true market value. But Uber wants to artificially control the market by imposing the rates and obscuring the job information.
> 
> ...


The Rydego founder is not so cynical about fighting Uber and Silicon Valley even though he is getting hammered. CPUC is making it hard for Rydngo to start up. Rydngo is a bidding app as you described in your post.

*RydenGo promises a unique ride-hail experience*

*http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-rydengo-20170310-story.html
*

*Stop, state tells Newport company hoping to challenge Uber and Lyft*

*http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-rydengo-cpuc-20170419-story.html*


----------



## LADriver (Aug 28, 2014)

Ca$h4 said:


> *New York state just dealt another blow to Uber's business model*
> 
> *Written by* Alison Griswold
> June 13, 2017
> ...


The California/Massachusetts case is going to be the last nail in the UBER coffin. When lawyers say, "no typical driver", what they are trying to do is "atomize" the drivers' standing in legal terms. This is like saying, "All the leaves on a tree are different because they are in a different time and space, individually."

This argument was used in the Diva Limousine case in California to offset a class action lawsuit. After 14 months the judges' decision was reversed on the appellate level. Diva Limousine was forced to pay their Chauffeurs on the clock as employees instead of the piece meal payment system it used as the industry standard for years.

Lyft has settled their California case because they are much smaller and want to continue their claim to the U.S. rideshare market. But, UBER is to big to avoid the crippling Employer/Employee legal framework that dictates how Americans earn their living.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Ca$h4 said:


> The Rydego founder is not so cynical about fighting Uber and Silicon Valley even though he is getting hammered. CPUC is making it hard for Rydngo to start up. Rydngo is a bidding app as you described in your post.
> 
> *RydenGo promises a unique ride-hail experience*
> 
> ...


Hadn't heard about that. Thanks. Rideshare 2.0 is only a matter of time. The whole old industry obviously needed a shake up, but Uber and Lyft are ultimately going to have to evolve into something sustainable. The driver churn cannot last forever. The Blacklane model is also proving to be viable for the higher end segment. Look into that if you haven't already.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Nothing is going to change until 1 state finally tells Uber to keep their bribes and finally files a lawsuit on behalf of drivers that settles the issue once and for all. I have seen countless lawsuits filed by the California Board of Labor on behalf of shuttle employees and they have won every single time. As long as they are able to be bought off by Uber nothing is going to change.

These unemployment benefit cases are pennies to the dollar on what Uber would owe on a real lawsuit that rules all drivers are employees.

The only real explanation for no state stepping in on behalf of drivers is they are somehow bought off by Uber.

It's really too bad we got a moron like Shannon Riordan going against us on the biggest lawsuit for employees in the nation.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

LADriver said:


> The California/Massachusetts case is going to be the last nail in the UBER coffin. When lawyers say, "no typical driver", what they are trying to do is "atomize" the drivers' standing in legal terms. This is like saying, "All the leaves on a tree are different because they are in a different time and space, individually."
> 
> This argument was used in the Diva Limousine case in California to offset a class action lawsuit. After 14 months the judges' decision was reversed on the appellate level. Diva Limousine was forced to pay their Chauffeurs on the clock as employees instead of the piece meal payment system it used as the industry standard for years.
> 
> Lyft has settled their California case because they are much smaller and want to continue their claim to the U.S. rideshare market. But, UBER is to big to avoid the crippling Employer/Employee legal framework that dictates how Americans earn their living.


you forgot to mention that the Judge in CA who approved the 'class' was over-turned on appeal - and the class was reduced to just a few of those leaves on the tree.


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

The only company to cover their a $$ in nyc is gett. They show the destination and its absolutely the definition of i.c. w3 cant touch gett and frankly i think we all want them to dominate. Uber needs to be kicked out


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> you forget to mention that the Judge in CA who approved the 'class' was over-turned on appeal - and the class was reduced to just a few of those leaves on the tree.


It's ridiculous. Uber has their gigantic network and great technology, but they have always operated on the same old taxi business model. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The Rydengo idea is excellent, but unless they have massive funding for marketing, they'll never penetrate and find even a small niche. Blacklane is also a good approach, but they have the same marketing hurdles.

Blacklane at least has a clear direction. They're not trying to be everything to everyone. They've defined themselves as the quality network for customers who want professional service.

I'll be interested to learn more about Rydengo. If someone has insight please advise. Is the Rydengo passenger app going to require users to enter destinations? I can't see how drivers could bid without knowing the passenger destinations beforehand.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

stuber said:


> The Rydengo idea is excellent, but unless they have massive funding for marketing, they'll never penetrate and find even a small niche. I'll be interested to learn more about Rydengo.


Rydengo doesn't exist. It was 'vaporware' from the outset and since they started marketing for drivers, the State of CA issued a cease and desist. I haven't heard a word since that happened.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Figures. Uber likes to kill the babies before they grow teeth.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

stuber said:


> Figures. Uber likes to kill the babies before they grow teeth.


Uber didn't have anything to do with it. 
There's a RydenGo thread here somewhere that explains it all (from the completely inexperienced 'founders' to the lack of business plan to the state saying 'WTF, Not On Our Watch"?


----------



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber didn't have anything to do with it.
> There's a RydenGo thread here somewhere that explains it all (from the completely inexperienced 'founders' to the lack of business plan to the state saying 'WTF, Not On Our Watch"?


*https://uberpeople.net/threads/could-rydengo-business-model-be-uber-and-lyfts-demise.144857/*


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Ca$h4 said:


> *https://uberpeople.net/threads/could-rydengo-business-model-be-uber-and-lyfts-demise.144857/*


Thanks for digging that up!


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> you forgot to mention that the Judge in CA who approved the 'class' was over-turned on appeal - and the class was reduced to just a few of those leaves on the tree.


And you forgot to mention it's going all the way to the Supreme Court. There is precedent that you can't get around employee laws by adding an arbitration clause. Arbitration wasn't designed to allow employers to skirt employment law. Judges know this.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> And you forgot to mention it's going all the way to the Supreme Court. There is precedent that you can't get around employee laws by adding an arbitration clause. Arbitration wasn't designed to allow employers to skirt employment law. Judges know this.


You're making things up again. I didn't "fotget to mention" something that has NOT happened. It may go to the Supreme Court but that can't happen until the state supreme court rules on it. The precedent at both state appellate level and in the Supreme Court is to uphold the arbitration laws and regulations. In my opinion which isn't terribly important, that's for sure, it is not the arbitration Clause that will bite Uber in the rear end, but rather violations of FLSA.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You're making things up again. I didn't "fotget to mention" something that has NOT happened. It may go to the Supreme Court but that can't happen until the state supreme court rules on it. The precedent at both state appellate level and in the Supreme Court is to uphold the arbitration laws and regulations. In my opinion which isn't terribly important, that's for sure, it is not the arbitration Clause that will bite Uber in the rear end, but rather violations of FLSA.


The arbitration clause is helping Uber not hurting Uber.

The arbitration clause is what Uber tries to hide behind, so they aren't accountable when someone wants to file a class action lawsuit to band drivers together.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

Uber started off with a nifty app, and instead of just licensing the product to established players in the ride for hire business, they decided to try and take over the whole ride for hire on a world wide business.

They thought that by schmoozing with ultra progressive big city politicians- where a disproportionate amount of business was- and where everyone hated Yellow Cab- they could navigate the worldwide matrix of transportation regulations.


He just underestimated the complexity of the industry and its regulations, and the determination of some of his foes.


----------



## rembrandt (Jul 3, 2016)

Not only destinations but also estimated earning for the trips must be shown. An IC is not a charity worker after all. When a so called IC is forced to carry walmart shopping bag for less than $2 net after driving 20 minutes, this is nothing but *extortion. 
*
Apologists will tell you that if you don't like Uber et al. why driving ? Well, if you don't want to be robbed, don't go out. There is no need for a police force. If you don't like corrupted politicians , migrate to Utopia. Finally, if labor law is not observed by the employers , just quit and disband all the trade unions.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The arbitration clause is helping Uber not hurting Uber.
> 
> The arbitration clause is what Uber tries to hide behind, so they aren't accountable when someone wants to file a class action lawsuit to band drivers together.


The arbitration clause, *which you can and should opt out of*, has absolutely nothing to do with worker classification and is commonly used by companies who sell products and services to the public. We may disagree with how Uber claims that they are just a "tech company that sells access to their app", but that's how they describe their company.



I_Like_Spam said:


> He just underestimated the complexity of the industry and its regulations, and the determination of some of his foes.


Assuming you're talking about TK - I don't think so. I suspect he and the company attorneys recognized after year 1 that trying to negotiate local regs on a city-by-city basis would be a game-killer both in time and expense. I believe they purposely chose to flaunt and ignore those laws and regs and focus instead on user growth which would create political pressure for states to find a way to legitimize the 'disruption' of the industry. Just my opinion. Many folks here have fun lambasting Uber as being run by idiots. Uber may lack management experience, have zero sense of public responsibility or a moral compass - but they are not idiots (which makes all of their idiotic decisions all the more incredible).


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

If uber loses the right to call the drivers ICs it's all over for uber... lyft to for that matter.

Most taxi companies are operating their cars at less than 53.5c per mile. If uber drivers were made employees this is what uber would owe their drivers ON TOP OF minimum hourly wage. The SMR is what uber would be forced to pay it's drivers...

This little detail would make it more expensive for uber to keep drivers on a road than a taxi company to keep employee drivers on the road...

Most cab companies in orlando will rent/lease a taxi for somewhere in the 500-700 range. They cap out at $11oo a week. This is an astronomical sum of money, but not when i tell you how many miles the $1100 cab is driven...

an $1,100 a week cab is driven by two people around the clock, 7 days a week. These taxis have a mileage cap of 2,500 miles a week, with gasoline at $.10 a mile that's $1,350 over 2,500 miles or ... exactly .54 per mile

Fascinating how this math works... this is also... truth be told... one of the most expensive taxis i have ever heard of for rent outside of NYC... most like i said are in the $400-700 range.

A $700 solo lease with a mileage cap of 1750 miles and 10c a mile in gas comes to a cost of $875 for 1750 miles or 50c a mile...

again... same math, not surprising...


This is all the company is taking, and that is where they are making their profit. They are profiting by maintaining a car cheaper than the SMR, and renting it to the driver.




So cut all the BS out, and if uber loses the IC deal it currently has driver pay rates would substantially increase, then a lot of customers would flee uber as it now costs more than a taxi...


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> And you forgot to mention it's going all the way to the Supreme Court. There is precedent that you can't get around employee laws by adding an arbitration clause. Arbitration wasn't designed to allow employers to skirt employment law. Judges know this.


SCOTUS is very pro arbitration and pro business.

http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2...bitration-agreements/?slreturn=20170517095920


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> SCOTUS is very pro arbitration and pro business.
> 
> http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2...bitration-agreements/?slreturn=20170517095920


exactly - and that is why the CA appeals court neutered the lower court's ruling on establishing a 'class' that included all CA Uber drivers.



Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> ... So cut all the BS out, and if uber loses the IC deal it currently has driver pay rates would substantially increase, then a lot of customers would flee uber as it now costs more than a taxi...


Yes indeed - except you're assuming that all of Uber & Lyft's rides come from users who have used taxis in the past or would use them in the future - and that isn't the case. TNCs have expanded the market substantially. I wish I had access to the real-world numbers, but I can't remember where I saw them last - but what I've read is that the majority of TNCs rides come not from taxi riders, but are from people who generally did not use use any ride-for-hire services.

Also, when you consider how big an issue this is to the TNCs, it's pretty hard to imagine that they don't have a 'plan b' already in place if they lose the worker classification battle before self-driving cars are available to replace drivers. I would think it would be irresponsible of the board and management to not have a plan b in place.

Amazon Flex has an interesting take on the whole personal vehicle use for work: When you agree to drive for Amazon Flex, you are agreeing to "lease" your car to Amazon for the period of time you are driving for them. You maintain physical possession - but they have the 'exclusive right' to use your car for their business purposes. In effect, they are granting you permission to use the vehicle they lease from you.


----------



## SmokestaXX (Dec 17, 2016)

Fubernuber said:


> An independent contractor would know the full spec of work. In ubers case we only know where we pick up. We do not know 99% of the entire task at hand. Thus we are not independent. The only thing we control is the time we log on and off. That is not the definition of an independent contractor as uber would like us to believe


That's one of the better reasons I've heard...


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> The arbitration clause, *which you can and should opt out of*, has absolutely nothing to do with worker classification and is commonly used by companies who sell products and services to the public.


As usual you have no idea what you're talking about.

The biggest lawsuit to date for Uber drivers revolves around the arbitration agreement that Uber forces drivers to sign. The judge disallowed the arbitration agreement to be enforced to the extent that it would not be allowed to prevent class action for the drivers against Uber. The appeals court has disagreed and Shannon has appealed to the Supreme Court.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Court-ruling-deals-blow-to-385-000-Uber-drivers-9208421.php



> The ruling "*is not good for the class*," said Shannon Liss-Riordan, lead attorney for the drivers. *She said the court "endorsed Uber's attempt to use its arbitration agreement to avoid a systemic challenge to its classification of drivers as employees*."





Michael - Cleveland said:


> It may go to the Supreme Court but that can't happen until the state supreme court rules on it.


lol

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Court-ruling-deals-blow-to-385-000-Uber-drivers-9208421.php

This case is in the Federal court district. It is not at the state court level. It hasn't been there in a very long time.

You need to get your facts straight.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> CA appeals court


lol again

It was the Federal appeals court that you're referring to. I have no idea where you are getting this nonsense about the CA appeals court.

This is getting comical.

I'm actually really looking forward to just how you're going to spin this latest foot-in-mouth moment.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Also, if it wasn't at the Federal level they wouldn't be able to include drivers from two different states.....California and Massachusetts.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> As usual you have no idea what you're talking about. The biggest lawsuit to date for Uber drivers revolves around the arbitration agreement that Uber forces drivers to sign. The judge disallowed the arbitration agreement to be enforced to the extent that it would not be allowed to prevent class action for the drivers against Uber. The appeals court has disagreed and Shannon has appealed to the Supreme Court.http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Court-ruling-deals-blow-to-385-000-Uber-drivers-9208421.php


As usual? What a dick thing to say. And it's funny coming from you, who just posted fairy-tale nonsense.

You are mistakenly conflating* two different cases*. The CA Labor Commission case, which dealt with a single driver and found that the driver - and only that driver - was entitled to unemployment benefits, and the O'Conner Federal Class Action Case in the 9th circuit. 
The first case - was before a *state board* - and Uber chose to let it go because it set no precedent and effected just one driver.

The second case, O'Conner Class Action suit, - the 'big one' - is in Federal Court (and a merger of a class-action brought in MA federal court with this one brought by O'Conner in the CA 9th). It does not 'revolve around the arbitration agreement', it 'revolves' around the central issue of *worker classification*. The arbitration issue was a side matter that Judge Chen had to address when Uber challenged the motion that the class should be certified by the court - because, Uber claimed, the majority of plaintiff's 'class' had not 'opted-out' of the arbitration clause in the driver agreement.

Plain and simple. Judge Chen ruled against Uber, calling the clause and how it was buried in the agreement '_unconscionable_'. A huge 'win' for drivers. However, Judge Chen's bosses - the ninth circuit court of appeals - *overturned his ruling*, upholding Uber's claim that *drivers had signed away their right to bring Uber into court*. And THAT is where the case stands now: instead of the O'Connor suit representing a class of all Uber drivers in CA, it represents only those drivers who bothered to 'opt-out' of the arbitration clause.

The CA labor case was administered under the CA LWDA (an agency - not a court) and is entirely, as in 100%, unrelated to the Federal Civil Class Action Lawsuit you are referring to.

Next time you want to claim that someone doesn't know what they're talking about, trying backing up your BS with verifiable facts and citations.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Nobody cares about this tiny CA case you magically have brought up.

There have been many labor board decisions, with almost all of them going in favor of the driver, winning unemployment benefits because all judges know we're basically employees being misclassified as independent contractors.

The only thing people care about is the big Federal class action case.

Great spin 'though.


----------



## Salah Deaibes (Jun 5, 2017)

Nothing is going to change tell judges understand what that (standing on face of progress) that progress is the drivers hard words judges tell they understand that will keep rolling against drivers .


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Nobody cares about this tiny CA case you magically have brought up.


Now you're confusing me with the OP (Ca$h4 ) who is the one who brought up the labor board case... which , btw is the topic of this thread and hardly a 'magical' case.

The CA Labor Commission case and the NY Labor Board cases are the topic.


> There have been many labor board decisions, with almost all of them going in favor of the driver, winning unemployment benefits because all judges know we're basically employees being misclassified as independent contractors.


 And every one of them that has gone to COURT has been overturned by the court. The ones that haven't gone to court haven't been appealed by the TNCs because the TNCs don't care about 'unemployment' benefits rulings affecting an individual driver here or there. They care about the devastating effect of a federal ruling that would find that ALL drivers are employees - so they are in no rush to push these individual cases about unemployment benefits up the ladder of appeal where they might end up biting them in the ass.

The big picture case of 'worker classification' has yet to be ruled on in any state court that I know of. And many of us were hoping that with a certified class of all drivers in the Federal case in the 9th circuit, that it would be the one to go to the supreme court - but it is stalled in limbo since the class has been reduced to a meaningless number and the lawyers can't figure out how to bring 50-100,000 individual cases.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Now you're confusing me with the OP (Ca$h4 ) who is the one who brought up the labor board case... which , btw is the topic of this thread and hardly a 'magical' case.
> 
> The CA Labor Commission case and the NY Labor Board cases are the topic. And every one of them that has gone to COURT has been overturned by the court. They haven't gone to court because the TNCs don't care about 'unemployment' benefits rulings affecting an individual driver here or there. They care about the devastating effect of a federal ruling that would find that ALL drivers are employees - so they are in no rush to push these individual cases about unemployment benefits up the ladder of appeal where they might end up biting them in the ass.
> 
> The big picture case of 'worker classification' has yet to be ruled on in any state court that I know of. And many of us were hoping that with a certified class of all drivers in the Federal case in the 9th circuit, that it would be the one to go to the supreme court - but it is stalled in limbo since the class has been reduced to a meaningless number and the lawyers can't figure out how to bring 50-100,000 individual cases.


No unemployment case goes to court, they start out in an unemployment benefits hearing and either get appealed or end there.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> No unemployment case goes to court, they start out in an unemployment benefits hearing and either get appealed or end there.


 very bizarre that you keep making things up just to refute the facts. Of course cases go to court. It's called due process and is guaranteed under the Constitution. So instead of just posting a statement like that, why don't you back it up with a legal citing, article or citation.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> very bizarre that you keep making things up just to refute the facts. Of course cases go to court. It's called due process and is guaranteed under the Constitution. So instead of just posting a statement like that, why don't you back it up with a legal citing, article or citation.


I've had 5 unemployment cases in my life and have won them all, even the ones that went to appeal. None of them ever touched a superior court, municipal court, or any court. They are held at hearing offices that have nothing to do with any of the aforementioned courts.

How many have you actually had to fought ? How many have you won ?

Time to read up.

http://www.edd.ca.gov/Office_Locator/


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I've had 5 unemployment cases in my life and have won them all, even the ones that went to appeal. None of them ever touched a superior court, municipal court, or any court. They are held at hearing offices that have nothing to do with any of the aforementioned courts. How many have you actually had to fought ? How many have you won ?


Thanks for taking the discussion back to a more civil discourse.
Your (or my) personal experience has nothing to do with case law. (Why do so many here think that their unique anecdotes are definitive for all things everywhere? - smh).

To state as a fact that cases before state labor boards do not go to court is absurd - and I know you know enough about due process to know that.
So instead of me listing administrative rulings on unemployment that have gone through all of the lower courts, how about we just go to the top - where cases that have made there way through the state administrative boards, state court, state appeals court, federal court, federal appeals court and end up being decided in the US Supreme Court:

*FROM DONALD J. KULICK
Administrator for Regional Management US Dept. of Labor*

*SUBJECT: 
The U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida*
480 U.S. 136
Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n of Florida (No. 85-993)
*
Purpose. *
To advise the State agencies of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida, decided on February 25, 1987.

*Background.*
The appellant, Paula Hobbie, was employed as assistant manager of a retail jewelry store. In April 1984, Hobbie informed her immediate supervisor that she was to be baptized into the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and that, for religious reasons, she would no longer be able to work on her Sabbath, from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. Hobbie's supervisor agreed to substitute for her whenever she was scheduled to work on a Friday evening or Saturday. Hobbie agreed to work evenings and Sundays.

In June 1984, the general manager of the jewelry store learned of this arrangement and advised Hobbie that she could either work her scheduled shifts or resign. When Hobbie refused to do either, she was discharged. When Hobbie filed for unemployment benefits, she was disqualified on the basis that she had been discharged for misconduct connected with her work. This denial of benefits was affirmed by the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission and the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court aqrepd to hear the case directly from the Court of Appeal.

*Hobbie is not the first unemployment insurance case in which the Supreme Court has ruled *regarding the conflict between work and religious belief. In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the State agency denied benefits to a Sabbatarian who had refused to work on Saturdays. In Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Securit Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981), the claimant quit his job following an involuntary transfer to a division which fabricated armaments. He was then disqualified from receiving benefits on the grounds that he had voluntarily quit. In both cases the Court ruled that disqualification from benefits violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.​


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

lol maybe .001 percent of unemployment cases go to the Supreme Court ... the only reason there is a record is because they went to the Supreme Court ... as I said none of them even start at the munipal court level.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol maybe .001 percent of unemployment cases go to the Supreme Court ... the only reason there is a record is because they went to the Supreme Court ... as I said none of them even start at the munipal court level.


duh

you don't seem to even know what you are arguing for or about
Who ever said anything about 'starting' at the Supreme (or any) court - no case starts at the Supreme Court. And the only way any case gets to the Supreme Court is by being heard in a lower court. Again, you know that. Your statement was "They are held at hearing offices that have nothing to do with any of the aforementioned courts." yeah - nothing to do with those courts until they are appealed to a higher level of authority. I just gave you THREE unemployment benefits cases that not only were in the state/state appeals/federal and federal appeals courts, but also heard in the US Supreme court.

whatever - you'll believe what you want.
But facts are facts.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> duh
> 
> you don't seem to even know what you are arguing for or about
> Who ever said anything about 'starting' at the Supreme (or any) court - no case starts at the Supreme Court. And the only way any case gets to the Supreme Court is by being heard in a lower court. Again, you know that. Your statement was "They are held at hearing offices that have nothing to do with any of the aforementioned courts." yeah - nothing to do with those courts until they are appealed to a higher level of authority. I just gave you THREE unemployment benefits cases that not only were in the state/state appeals/federal and federal appeals courts, but also heard in the US Supreme court.
> ...


Yes, those are called "appeals", and rarely do unemployment cases ever go high up the appeals courts. I never said cases start at the Supreme Court level. I said no unemployment case ever starts at the municipal court, superior court levels.

You keep just interjecting stuff you have no idea how it works. You seem to think you're book smart. Half the time you don't even know what you're arguing about. You just like trying to correct people. I wind up being forced to correct you when you do just that. It's really annoying. Quit trying to act like you're smarter than everyone. Maybe you'd actually earn some respect sometimes.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Yes, those are called "appeals", and rarely do unemployment cases ever go high up the appeals courts. I never said cases start at the Supreme Court level. I said no unemployment case ever starts at the municipal court, superior court levels.


Read back in the thread where you started arguing about all of this and you'll find that every time I corrected your BS, you changed the topic to more uninformed and incorrect BS. Not one thing I've posted has been incorrect.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Read back in the thread where you started arguing about all of this and you'll find that every time I corrected your BS, you changed the topic to more uninformed and incorrect BS. Not one thing I've posted has been incorrect.


Every time I had to reply to you it was because something was incorrect.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Every time I had to reply to you it was because something was incorrect.


you thought something was incorrect (which is fine) but you keep replying with more BS after each time I prove what I said was correct. Each of my replies contains quotes and citations - each of your replies is your own, what, feelings?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> you thought something was incorrect (which is fine) but you keep replying with more BS after each time I prove what I said was correct. Each of my replies contains quotes and citations - each of your replies is your own, what, feelings?


Lol you're in denial. You clearly will never in your life ever admit you are wrong even when proven time and time again, especially in this thread. You seem to think each time you try spinning something, that that somehow makes you right.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Lol you're in denial. You clearly will never in your life ever admit you are wrong even when proven time and time again, especially in this thread. You seem to think each time you try spinning something, that that somehow makes you right.


funny - coming from someone who can't back-up a single claim they make in a thread with someone who has provided citation after citation backing up his statements. Personal ad hominem personal attacks are always of sign that someone has nothing to back up their statements and nothing of value to say.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> funny - coming from someone who can't back-up a single claim they make in a thread with someone who has provided citation after citation backing up his statements. Personal ad hominem personal attacks are always of sign that someone has nothing to back up their statements and nothing of value to say.


I backed up all of my claims clearly and concisely. You know this. Everyone that reads this thread knows this.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> I backed up all of my claims clearly and concisely. You know this. Everyone that reads this thread knows this.


Well then I guess you're perfectly happy now!


----------



## Spotscat (May 8, 2017)

Uber and Lyft are about to experience the same problems that most major trucking companies have been going through with their owner-operator and lease purchase drivers - are they or are they not truly independent contractors. The Dept. of Labor has issued some guidelines on whether or not an individual is an employee. The key tests are --

*1) The extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer's business.* If the work performed by a worker is integral to the employer's business, it is more likely that the worker is economically dependent on the employer and less likely that the worker is in business for himself or herself. For example, work is integral to the employer's business if it is a part of its production process or if it is a service that the employer is in business to provide.

*2) Whether the worker's managerial skills affect his or her opportunity for profit and loss.* Managerial skill may be indicated by the hiring and supervision of workers or by investment in equipment. Analysis of this factor should focus on whether the worker exercises managerial skills and, if so, whether those skills affect that worker's opportunity for both profit and loss.

*3) The relative investments in facilities and equipment by the worker and the employer.* The worker must make some investment compared to the employer's investment (and bear some risk for a loss) in order for there to be an indication that he/she is an independent contractor in business for himself or herself. A worker's investment in tools and equipment to perform the work does not necessarily indicate independent contractor status, because such tools and equipment may simply be required to perform the work for the employer. If a worker's business investment compares favorably enough to the employer's that they appear to be sharing risk of loss, this factor indicates that the worker may be an independent contractor.

*4) The worker's skill and initiative.* Both employees and independent contractors may be skilled workers. To indicate possible independent contractor status, the worker's skills should demonstrate that he or she exercises independent business judgment. Further, the fact that a worker is in open market competition with others would suggest independent contractor status. For example, specialized skills possessed by carpenters, construction workers, and electricians are not themselves indicative of independent contractor status; rather, it is whether these workers take initiative to operate as independent businesses, as opposed to being economically dependent, that suggests independent contractor status.

*5) The permanency of the worker's relationship with the employer.* Permanency or indefiniteness in the worker's relationship with the employer suggests that the worker is an employee, as opposed to an independent contractor. However, a worker's lack of a permanent relationship with the employer does not necessarily suggest independent contractor status because the impermanent relationship may be due to industry-specific factors, or the fact that an employer routinely uses staffing agencies.

*6) The nature and degree of control by the employer.* Analysis of this factor includes who sets pay amounts and work hours and who determines how the work is performed, as well as whether the worker is free to work for others and hire helpers. An independent contractor generally works free from control by the employer (or anyone else, including the employer's clients). This is a complex factor that warrants careful review because both employees and independent contractors can have work situations that include minimal control by the employer. However, this factor does not hold any greater weight than the other factors. For example, a worker's control of his or her own work hours is not necessarily indicative of independent contractor status; instead, the worker must control meaningful aspects of the working relationship. Further, the mere fact that a worker works from home or offsite is not indicative of independent contractor status because the employer may exercise substantial control over the working relationship even if it exercises less day-to-day control over the employee's work at the remote worksite.

The entire DOL Fact Sheet is here -- https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs13.htm


----------



## Uberiano (Jul 24, 2017)

stuber said:


> I've always held this same opinion. Uber could avoid so many of their longstanding problems by making two fundamental changes. 1. Stop setting the rates and instead turn each trip request into a live auction pushed out to the nearest 5 drivers. 2. Stop withholding destination information from drivers prior to accepting the trip.
> 
> Every trip has a true market value. But Uber wants to artificially control the market by imposing the rates and obscuring the job information.
> 
> ...


What do you think we as a drivers could do to change things in Uber?


----------

