# Uber Lawsuit



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

I was reading the site www.uberlawsuit.com and I was wondering; do people really want to be classified as employees (i.e. paid slaves) or would you rather be a plantation owner (i.e. "independent" contractor). I have to admit, we are technically working as slaves under the guise of a plantation owner. If we were truly independent contractors as Uber states, we would be able to set our own driving rates and also get paid tips and other things in the so-called contract would be negotiable. However, we are obviously getting played. I am for a hybrid model. Maybe create a whole new employment category. More like *"Dependent Contractor" *with benefits from both sides of the fence so-to-speak. Any thoughts?


----------



## CityGirl (Nov 29, 2014)

The premise that we would be able to set our own rates is inaccurate. Most franchises don't have that option, from gas prices to convenience stores to haircut stores to fast food. The franchisor tells them where to price goods, and with hefty, sometimes multi-million dollar investments, they are not weak partners like we are.

The law is very slow to change. Nevertheless, why is a hybrid needed? Either the elements of control are there, or they are not. I would like (love) to be reimbursed for expenses, but I wouldn't want anything else to change. Reimbursing for expenses could be really damaging to the company, it would probably not be able to operate...my car gets too low gas mileage, so I could be deactivated. Some cars cost too much to repair, more deactivations. It's a huge tradeoff I'm not ready to make.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

As an independent contractor, you can accept Uber's contract requirements, or not. Uber says tipping not required. Uber sets the rates. As the old saying goes, "If you don't like the rule, leave."

That's what Uber does when a city demands they follow certain rules....they leave.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

To me Uber is a love/hate relationship. Can't live with it, can't live without it. I love more aspects of it than not which is why I am sticking with this "quasi-abusive" relationship to see if things will change for the better. No relationship is perfect but some things need to change.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

phillipzx3 said:


> As an independent contractor, you can accept Uber's contract requirements, or not. Uber says tipping not required. Uber sets the rates. As the old saying goes, "If you don't like the rule, leave."
> 
> That's what Uber does when a city demands they follow certain rules....they leave.


Looks like the lawsuit ruling is starting to favor of the drivers. So Uber will either change it's business model or cease to exist if drivers ultimately win. It is basically setting a nationwide precedence if you understand law in general.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

CityGirl said:


> Nevertheless, why is a hybrid needed?


Hybrid model is needed so we can get the perks of employees while maintaining independence. I hate being told when and where to work on the job. When to come in and when to leave, etc...What I will be paid also...


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

CityGirl said:


> law is very slow to change.


Yes, even if the lawsuit is successful, could take another 5 - 10 years before anything is put into place that will affect us as drivers. But maybe sooner, things happen quickly in the technical world.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> Hybrid model is needed so we can get the perks of employees while maintaining independence. I hate being told when and where to work on the job. When to come in and when to leave, etc...What I will be paid also...


Well who DOESN'T want the best of both worlds?  One of the biggest issues for state and fed is the tax and entitlement status. If you can operate independently when it favors you, yet file for unemployment, workers comp, etc when it doesn't , you shift a larger burden to employers. That's unacceptable.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> Well who DOESN'T want the best of both worlds?  One of the biggest issues for state and fed is the tax and entitlement status. If you can operate independently when it favors you, yet file for unemployment, workers comp, etc when it doesn't , you shift a larger burden to employers. That's unacceptable.


New economy dictates a new business model. We still have industrial age job categories...


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> New economy dictates a new business model. We still have industrial age job categories...


Well, if you are willing to get rid of the protection currently provided by those job categories, that is fine. Are you? Are you willing to give up entitlement programs when you hit the wall?


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> Well, if you are willing to get rid of the protection currently provided by those job categories, that is fine. Are you? Are you willing to give up entitlement programs when you hit the wall?


This includes the FLSA protections, BTW, which were put in place for those "industrial age jobs". If you are willing to render those obsolete, I will tip my hat to you.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Well, if you are willing to get rid of the protection currently provided by those job categories, that is fine.


Tx rides said:


> Are you? Are you willing to give up entitlement programs when you hit the wall?


Not really, that's why hybrid model taking the best of both sides is needed. Remember I am talking bi-polar not just polar in a sense. I wonder what it would take to create an entire new employment (hybrid) category. Change will come, it's inevitable. Uber is too big to just go away and has too many large investors. Besides, it's good for the economy and overall a greater good and much needed service within the corporation called America. Also, as drivers there is strength in numbers so the legal route is the best route.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> This includes the FLSA protections, BTW, which were put in place for those "industrial age jobs". If you are willing to render those obsolete, I will tip my hat to you.


I am just saying things need to be modified for the greater good.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> New economy dictates a new business model. We still have industrial age job categories...





Jason2k15 said:


> I am just saying things need to be modified for the greater good.


Greater good as YOU define it? Or as I define it?


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> Greater good as YOU define it? Or as I define it?


Not necessarily yours or my opinion as to what the greater good is but society in general. Good things eventually bubble to the top...


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> Well, if you are willing to get rid of the protection currently provided by those job categories, that is fine.
> 
> Not really, that's why hybrid model taking the best of both sides is needed. Remember I am talking bi-polar not just polar in a sense. I wonder what it would take to create an entire new employment (hybrid) category. Change will come, it's inevitable. Uber is too big to just go away and has too many large investors. Besides, it's good for the economy and overall a greater good and much needed service within the corporation called America. Also, as drivers there is strength in numbers so the legal route is the best route.


Seriously? You really believe that Uber is too big to fail? It is a house of cards! Look at the incredible driver turnover. They continue to cut rates below any reasonable point, and only drivers in select areas in unique environments can survive. They are shifting the burden of everything from vehicle maintenance to employment taxes on to the backs of the drivers. As soon as they are forced to stop shifting that burden, a huge chunk of their profit dries up.

These "self-employed" drivers have no recourse when they are arbitrarily deactivated. Nor are they eligible for unemployment. But there are movements out there to make these "self-employed drivers" eligible. There are two ways that could happen: 1.Uber kicks in and pays unemployment taxes, 2. The drivers pay unemployment taxes.

If 1;
Go to UberProfitLoss

If 2:
Go to driver pay cuts

How is this "good for the economy"?
It is not as if all of the riders previously stayed home and watched television before Uber came to town. At best, it moved income to a different vehicle/driver combo, and in many cases, reduced ridership on public transportation vehicles, which some say is bad for the environment.

You don't seem to be proposing removing any safety nets. I may be wrong, but you want the net there, yet you want to avoid paying for the net. Either take the full risk of being an entrepreneur or don't! Going into business for yourself is scary, and many people fall on their face, more than once, but this is not Little League baseball where mom brings snacks, and everyone leaves happy. If you want the freedom to be your own boss, come and go as you please, etc., man up and make it happen. It seems that you opted to drive for a company which is exercising its own right to do as it pleases. 
There are certainly Uber drivers out there who are running their own show, maximizing their profits, investing in their future, and putting money aside for a rainy day. Again, they are in unique situations demographically, but it is what it is, you cannot force a square peg into a round hole.

We don't need a "hybrid" category . You either work for a company which follows labor guidelines, or you work for yourself, and set your own labor guidelines.


----------



## XUberMike (Aug 2, 2015)

Well you can put my vote in for making UBER drivers employee's (although I do like the dependent classification.) The present model allows UBER to dictate far too much on the income side with no regard to minimum wage. Their fare cuts without informing drivers is about as underhanded as it comes.

Presently FUBAR can hire as many drivers as it wishes and flood local markets with more and more drivers with no ramifications/cost (well the referral fee but they get 20 rides to offset it) except they get their 20% from 5,000 drivers instead of 500 drivers, the problem being the 500 drivers are now earning substantially less and less...Then they toss in a rate decrease and don't add a fuel surcharge. Many just went thru a 20% fuel increase and a 20% rate decrease...roughly a $400 monthly hit for me that UBER cares nothing about BUT they sure say they do...lol

I can't wait until deactivated drivers get unemployment paid for BY UBER...you want to see fares rise...just watch when that happens (maybe then they will listen to drivers and not let intoxicated riders rate you when in fact they can't even walk.) When UBER gets handed down the hard costs of running a business you will see a whole different side...Payroll Taxes, Workers Comp, Social Security...the list goes on.

I for one am all for being an employee, let UBER see what the real business world is like where drivers are employees not chattel.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> More like *"Dependent Contractor" *with benefits from both sides of the fence so-to-speak. Any thoughts?


The bolded is very much in line with the Department of Labor's new guidelines for determining employment/contractor status. They stated that if the company is the worker's main source of income, then they are an employee despite other criteria that suggests otherwise. Essentially it means the worker is dependent on the company, and is therefor not independent of the company. They fail to meet the profile on an independent contractor.

This is where Uber is going to fall flat on their face given how many drivers do this as their main source of income.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

XUberMike said:


> Well you can put my vote in for making UBER drivers employee's (although I do like the dependent classification.) The present model allows UBER to dictate far too much on the income side with no regard to minimum wage. Their fare cuts without informing drivers is about as underhanded as it comes.
> 
> Presently FUBAR can hire as many drivers as it wishes and flood local markets with more and more drivers with no ramifications/cost (well the referral fee but they get 20 rides to offset it) except they get their 20% from 5,000 drivers instead of 500 drivers, the problem being the 500 drivers are now earning substantially less and less...Then they toss in a rate decrease and don't add a fuel surcharge. Many just went thru a 20% fuel increase and a 20% rate decrease...roughly a $400 monthly hit for me that UBER cares nothing about BUT they sure say they do...lol
> 
> ...


I will bet my latest fleet addition that Uber will fold it's hand before it becomes an employer! I just hope they are forced to pay damages first


----------



## XUberMike (Aug 2, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> I will bet my latest fleet addition that Uber will fold it's hand before it becomes an employer! I just hope they are forced to pay damages first


You know it, they want nothing to do with responsibility and the law of the land. Play it fast and loose on IC drivers backs. You think the LIBS would be up in arms over it, but sadly liberal voters draw the line at waiting for dirty smelly expensive cab rides.

Not to worry us CALI liberals will get them, you know the ones that charge you sales tax on the full list price of a cell phone and get you for 80 cents at the pump.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> Not necessarily yours or my opinion as to what the greater good is but society in general. Good things eventually bubble to the top...


My vision of society? Or yours? What's good one may well screw another.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

CityGirl said:


> The premise that we would be able to set our own rates is inaccurate. Most franchises don't have that option, from gas prices to convenience stores to haircut stores to fast food. The franchisor tells them where to price goods, and with hefty, sometimes multi-million dollar investments, they are not weak partners like we are.
> 
> The law is very slow to change. Nevertheless, why is a hybrid needed? Either the elements of control are there, or they are not. I would like (love) to be reimbursed for expenses, but I wouldn't want anything else to change. Reimbursing for expenses could be really damaging to the company, it would probably not be able to operate...my car gets too low gas mileage, so I could be deactivated. Some cars cost too much to repair, more deactivations. It's a huge tradeoff I'm not ready to make.


Uber is not a franchisor.

Most franchisee agreements are crafted to protect both franchisor and franchisee, Ubers contract is crafted to protect Uber.

If a dependent contractor model is created, it will affect EVERY OTHER industry in the U.S. Every other business will try and classify their employees this way.

There is NO need to open up a Pandoras Box.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

XUberMike said:


> You know it, they want nothing to do with responsibility and the law of the land. Play it fast and loose on IC drivers backs. You think the LIBS would be up in arms over it, but sadly liberal voters draw the line at waiting for dirty smelly expensive cab rides.


Give it time, it is still fairly early. Once you see reports of starving deactivated drivers with unusable vehicles, especially those left paying medical bills due to an accident, etc. you will see an increase in interest.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> Give it time, it is still fairly early. Once you see reports of starving deactivated drivers with unusable vehicles, especially those left paying medical bills due to an accident, etc. you will see an increase in interest.


Yes, unfortunately government typically needs to witness the damage first before it finds the motivation to change the rules. Being able to obviously see where this is headed is not enough.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> Yes, unfortunately government typically needs to witness the damage first before it finds the motivation to change the rules. Being able to obviously see where this is headed is not enough.


Just turn on CSPAN any day of the week and listed to our elected officials; most have NO CLUE about what they arguing for or against outside of boilerplate talking points.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> We don't need a "hybrid" category . You either work for a company which follows labor guidelines, or you work for yourself, and set your own labor guidelines.


You are entitled to your opinion; something has got to change but I don't see Uber going out of business anytime soon. Even if/when laws change. They'll just adjust their business model.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> I will bet my latest fleet addition that Uber will fold it's hand before it becomes an employer! I just hope they are forced to pay damages first


Even if Uber folds (which I highly doubt), there are other rideshare companies to pick up the slack of course. This business model is here to stay, take it or leave it. At worst, one of the investors will buy the company outright.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> This is where Uber is going to fall flat on their face given how many drivers do this as their main source of income.


Isn't a W2 Contractor a dependent contractor with benefits? That may be where things need to shift...


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> My vision of society? Or yours? What's good one may well screw another.


A democratic society for the people by the people


----------



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

Technology companies do not set rates. They would let their customers, (who are the drivers not the pax), set them. They would immediately accommodate tipping in the app as soon as the customers requested it. They would work for the drivers, not vica-versa. They wouldn't DARE tell a customer they must refuse a tip from the pax, unless they insist a second time. That is so incredibly inappropriate.
A technology company would sell an app, and perhaps charge to use it. Not control every little thing like Uber does. 
A technology company wouldn't punish experienced users by favoring new drivers with more pings as Uber is known to do. They would be fair.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> Isn't a W2 Contractor a dependent contractor with benefits? That may be where things need to shift...


W-2 means: 
1. Social security, medicare, and income tax are withheld 
2. The company pays 1/2 of social security and medicare and must carry workmen's compensation coverage 
3. Your earnings count towards eligibility for future unemployment compensation 
4. If you do not get paid, the government may be able to assist for free 
5. You are protected by FMLA, COBRA, etc., laws.

1099 means: 
1. No taxes are withheld 
2. You must pay estimated taxes and self-employment taxes 
3. Your earnings do not count towards eligibility for future unemployment compensation 
4. If you do not get paid, it is a breach of contract issue rather than an unpaid wage issue, so you have to sue 
5. You are not protected by FMLA, COBRA, etc., laws.


----------



## XUberMike (Aug 2, 2015)

Hey we'll get Obamacare if they let us work full time...if they don't those politicians will be pissed.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> You are entitled to your opinion; something has got to change but I don't see Uber going out of business anytime soon. Even if/when laws change. They'll just adjust their business model.


You think they will just absorb you all as employees? Lol! No way. Never. Their rates would then be higher than local black care rates. There is a reason cabs and black cars operate independently, rarely existing as more than a franchise or affiliate in multiple cities.

To put it bluntly, the only thing "innovative" about their business model is that they convinced so many drivers to invest their own resources and carry a great deal of the risks. People moving through dispatch is much older than you or I am. The high turnover in a very short timeframe indicates this "innovation" is short lived.

Drivers and insurers are not going to willingly cover the costs and risks, and once rates are adjusted to reality, you have EXPERIENCED completion to contend with.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> You think they will just absorb you all as employees? Lol! No way. Never. Their rates would then be higher than local black care rates. There is a reason cabs and black cars operate independently, rarely existing as more than a franchise or affiliate in multiple cities.
> 
> To put it bluntly, the only thing "innovative" about their business model is that they convinced so many drivers to invest their own resources and carry a great deal of the risks. People moving through dispatch is much older than you or I am. The high turnover in a very short timeframe indicates this "innovation" is short lived.
> 
> Drivers and insurers are not going to willingly cover the costs and risks, and once rates are adjusted to reality, you have EXPERIENCED completion to contend with.


I happen to know someone who works in the Shipping and Logistics industry in Cincy and they use ICs for distribution as well for the past at least 40 years. The business model of using IC's is nothing new. The fact that Uber has the app is their only advantage. Anyone can get an app but they have the market share.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> I happen to know someone who works in the Shipping and Logistics industry in Cincy and they use ICs for distribution as well for the past at least 40 years. The business model of using IC's is nothing new. The fact that Uber has the app is their only advantage. Anyone can get an app but they have the market share.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertw...tles-driver-mislabeling-case-for-228-million/

If Fedex can't get away with it, it's just a matter of time before your friend's cincy based shipping and logistics company is sued and loses too.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> Isn't a W2 Contractor a dependent contractor with benefits? That may be where things need to shift...


Please provide an example of your vision of a w2 contract". Typically that status is for a consulting firm which fulfills contracts for a company (eg a contractor company which staffs Dell, IBM, etc) 
For example, I am now working as a W2 contractor. My contract manager pays me, witholds taxes, offers 401k, etc. The company I'm contracted to does not provide any of that.
Surely you are not suggesting this model would be feasible for Uber?


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> I happen to know someone who works in the Shipping and Logistics industry in Cincy and they use ICs for distribution as well for the past at least 40 years. The business model of using IC's is nothing new. The fact that Uber has the app is their only advantage. Anyone can get an app but they have the market share.


I know limo operators who incorrectly use IC status. It only works until someone makes a claim, then the dominoes fall. BTW-app, SHMAPP! People have been getting around for a long time. We don't have national market share, but we run full tilt during peak seasons, and have grown our business every year. An app, without quality drivers, vehicles, and service is just costly eye candy.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> Please provide an example of your vision of a w2 contract". Typically that status is for a consulting firm which fulfills contracts for a company (eg a contractor company which staffs Dell, IBM, etc)
> For example, I am now working as a W2 contractor. My contract manager pays me, witholds taxes, offers 401k, etc. The company I'm contracted to does not provide any of that.
> Surely you are not suggesting this model would be feasible for Uber?


I surmise the only way that W2 model would work is if there were a middleman pimping us to Uber? That would drive costs way up and not make any real competitive advantage for customers even going with Uber drivers in the first place. So we need a hybrid dependent model. I'd propose the following using the dependent contractor definiton:

A *dependent contractor* is a subset of independent *contractors*. It's essentially a hybrid between an employee and independent *contractor*. There are already articles out there about this. TO be honest. I never read it before suggesting it but apparently it has been thought of: http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-if-there-were-a-new-type-of-worker-dependent-contractor-1422405831


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertw...tles-driver-mislabeling-case-for-228-million/
> 
> If Fedex can't get away with it, it's just a matter of time before your friend's cincy based shipping and logistics company is sued and loses too.


Well, 40 years of operation does not lie. I think there have been a couple of cases but I know their HR is aware of the fine line between contractor and employee status and educates their employees on how to treat ICs.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> Well, 40 years of operation does not lie. I think there have been a couple of cases but I know their HR is aware of the fine line between contractor and employee status and educates their employees on how to treat ICs.


I don't see where I insinuated anyone is lying.

All it takes is one employee to sue the company, then the party ends when the judge issues his ruling. The decades this went on will just motivate the judge to issue a harsher punishment on the company. The amount of time it got away doing it is not something that actually helps the company in this case.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> I surmise the only way that W2 model would work is if there were a middleman pimping us to Uber? That would drive costs way up and not make any real competitive advantage for customers even going with Uber drivers in the first place. So we need a hybrid dependent model. I'd propose the following using the dependent contractor definiton:
> 
> A *dependent contractor* is a subset of independent *contractors*. It's essentially a hybrid between an employee and independent *contractor*. There are already articles out there about this. TO be honest. I never read it before suggesting it but apparently it has been thought of: http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-if-there-were-a-new-type-of-worker-dependent-contractor-1422405831


Just an attempt to provide max profits without investing in the backup plan.
This resonates with the millennials who subscribe to opinion articles written to warn employers of their demands (I get these on LinkedIn regularly...they'd be adorable if written by children, but are quite irritating when penned by thirtysomethings!!) They want a good paying job which they plan to leave in a year...they want flexibility, they want praise, blah blah blah..in short; the Internet social message us:Millenials Want. That's not how business runs. Never has been, never will be. No one is going to stick their neck out for employees long term, without expecting loyalty and productivity. You (*collective you, not you personally) are not a special snowflake. *You want fair labor? Work as an employee. You want to set your own terms? Work for yourself. This "third option" is for sissies who kinda/sorta want to take the risk, but want a safety net funded by us "Dinosaurs" who have built our businesses fair and square. Bah! Rabble Rabble!!


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> This "third option" is for sissies who kinda/sorta want to take the risk, but want a safety net funded by us "Dinosaurs" who have built our businesses fair and square.


Let's get one thing straight. Slavery was legal in the US at one time and after 100's of years of this thievery and nonsense all of a sudden all things were supposed to be "fair and equal" and businesses built "fair and square". In the words of Biden, "that is a bunch of Malarkey" -- Except that is a whole another can of worms.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

Jason2k15 said:


> Looks like the lawsuit ruling is starting to favor of the drivers. So Uber will either change it's business model or cease to exist if drivers ultimately win. It is basically setting a nationwide precedence if you understand law in general.


They'll "cash out" and laugh all the way to some nice sunny island only to spend the rest of their lives scuba diving for fresh lobster. 

Once Uber heads south with their billions, the "rideshare" slaves will be crying for a cold beer.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

phillipzx3 said:


> They'll "cash out" and laugh all the way to some nice sunny island only to spend the rest of their lives scuba diving for fresh lobster.
> 
> Once Uber heads south with their billions, the "rideshare" slaves will be crying for a cold beer.


I think Uber will be bought out by one of its investors and changed for the better. It's just a matter of time while the lawsuits and negative press build up before the current management regime and business collapses from the pressure.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> Let's get one thing straight. Slavery was legal in the US at one time and after 100's of years of this thievery and nonsense all of a sudden all things were supposed to be "fair and equal" and businesses built "fair and square". In the words of Biden, "that is a bunch of Malarkey" -- Except that is a whole another can of worms.


What does that have do do with this? You want fair labor laws...they exist! You want to be exempt from them? You can do that as well. You don't get the benefits if you don't pay for the plan. Why would you expect to?


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

XUberMike said:


> You know it, they want nothing to do with responsibility and the law of the land. Play it fast and loose on IC drivers backs. You think the LIBS would be up in arms over it, but sadly liberal voters draw the line at waiting for dirty smelly expensive cab rides.
> 
> Not to worry us CALI liberals will get them, you know the ones that charge you sales tax on the full list price of a cell phone and get you for 80 cents at the pump.


So when are the conservatives going to come to your rescue? In case you haven't figured it out, money has no political party.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> I think Uber will be bought out by one of its investors and changed for the better. It's just a matter of time while the lawsuits and negative press build up before the current management regime and business collapses from the pressure.


Changed for the better...how? Provide full insurance coverage, as well as payroll taxes, Workers comp, unemployment, etc? Like I said , at that point the rates will exceed most of your local competitors. Who would think that is a smart investment?


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

phillipzx3 said:


> So when are the conservatives going to come to your rescue? In case you haven't figured it out, money has no political party.


A true conservative does not think they SHOULD rescue you from yourself.

Edit : to add that a SMART conservative realizes the majority of the population will expect to be rescued!!!


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> What does that have do do with this? You want fair labor laws...they exist! You want to be exempt from them? You can do that as well. You don't get the benefits if you don't pay for the plan. Why would you expect to?


We (us drivers) are voluntary Uber slaves and apparently through some legal loopholes this mammoth organization has been created. The labor laws on the books need to change and a new category created. I don't accept that we are building a true business under this model. I know how to minimize costs and help the bottom line but if you are technically an employee to begin with then it is all one big lie aimed at exploiting and deferring costs to do business on the drivers.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> Changed for the better...how? Provide full insurance coverage, as well as payroll taxes, Workers comp, unemployment, etc? Like I said , at that point the rates will exceed most of your local competitors. Who would think that is a smart investment?


All they will do is increase the commission to cover the costs of providing those benefits and maybe at some point raise the threshold of the ratings to help assure quality. Uber has more "employees"/i.e. money makers/salesmen/agents than the number 2 CPG company in the world, might be number 1 now Kraft Heinz with nearly 200K drivers. Still a young company with a lot of options.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> We (us drivers) are voluntary Uber slaves and apparently through some legal loopholes this mammoth organization has been created. The labor laws on the books need to change and a new category created. I don't accept that we are building a true business under this model. I know how to minimize costs and help the bottom line but if you are technically an employee to begin with then it is all one big lie aimed at exploiting and deferring costs to do business on the drivers.


So...you made an independent choice to empower this company. Many knew all along this was a bad model. We knew this when we met with them years ago. 
Tens of thousands of car owners signed up to drive for them in spite of laws restricting the service. NOW they want laws? Go figure


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> So...you made an independent choice to empower this company. Many knew all along this was a bad model. We knew this when we met with them years ago.
> Tens of thousands of car owners signed up to drive for them in spite of laws restricting the service. NOW they want laws? Go figure


Clearly, the law is in the favor of the drivers already. Don't necessarily need too many new laws. Just a new job designation category for it to make sense for the driver (to protect against being taken advantage of or continued "exploitation" and manipulation, etc... )


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> Clearly, the law is in the favor of the drivers already. Don't necessarily need too many new laws. Just a new job designation category for it to make sense for the driver (to protect against being taken advantage of or continued "exploitation" and manipulation, etc... )


What new law would that be? We have labor laws. Are you proposing some unique set which says that a company has to pay for your benefits, meet wage requirements, etc...yet you set your own hours and work as you please?


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> What new law would that be? We have labor laws. Are you proposing some unique set which says that a company has to pay for your benefits, meet wage requirements, etc...yet you set your own hours and work as you please?


I guess you don't admit or understand that many of us are *dependent workers* for Uber and we need the protections that go along with those dependencies. For some, this job is their livelihood. Especially cabbies who jumped ship to come over to Uber. But yes, along the lines of what you said. Hence hybrid.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> All they will do is increase the commission to cover the costs of providing those benefits and maybe at some point raise the threshold of the ratings to help assure quality. Uber has more "employees"/i.e. money makers/salesmen/agents than the number 2 CPG company in the world, might be number 1 now Kraft Heinz with nearly 200K drivers. Still a young company with a lot of options.


As an owner of a car service, and an active member of several associations, I can assure you that the costs of a nationwide car service will not be competitive with local fares. That's because LABOR is their primary product, and LIABILITY is their biggest risk. Unlike consumables, there is no discount for bulk, in fact bulk labor or liability cost rates tend to INCREASE in numbers.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> I guess you don't admit or understand that many of us are *dependent workers* for Uber and we need the protections that go along with those dependencies. For some, this job is their livelihood. Especially cabbies who jumped ship to come over to Uber.


No sir. You signed up to be an independent contractor. The terms were clear on that aspect. I've seen the terms, I've faced off with the advocate drivers who sold this as entrepreneurial, if you want to be a worker, go hire on with a car service which hires workers.

If you really are dependent, you need to find something else. If it is ruled that they are an employer, you'll be looking elsewhere anyway, might as well get a head start


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> No sir. You signed up to be an independent contractor. The terms were clear on that aspect. I've seen the terms, I've faced off with the advocate drivers who sold this as entrepreneurial, if you want to be a worker, go hire on with a car service which hires workers.
> 
> If you really are dependent, you need to find something else. If it is ruled that they are an employer, you'll be looking elsewhere anyway, might as well get a head start


I am just working Uber as a side job. Not my main source of income but I do see potential if they get it together somehow.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> You signed up to be an independent contractor


I might have signed up as an IC; but if the definition doesn't hold up in court,Which is does not seem to be then, I am obviously a DE.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> I guess you don't admit or understand that many of us are *dependent workers* for Uber and we need the protections that go along with those dependencies. For some, this job is their livelihood. Especially cabbies who jumped ship to come over to Uber. But yes, along the lines of what you said. Hence hybrid.


What Uber would likely do if/when it loses the lawsuit is require drivers to show proof of other sources of income, to prove their relationship with Uber is not one of a dependent nature, before they would be approved to drive. That would at least get rid of the issue of the Department of Labor's new guidance.

Uber would still have other issues, but I doubt very greatly that Uber would accept in their business model the legal burden that comes with having workers who are considered dependent on Uber. Even if you can get the law to define a new class of worker, that dependency will have burden that comes with it that Uber would be very unlikely willing to accept.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> I am just working Uber as a side job. Not my main source of income but I do see potential if they get it together somehow.


At the risk of sounding arrogant (really not my intent-I promise!) we run our car service leaner and meaner than many of our peers. I'm very data driven. I know what it takes for us to put at least $22/hr in to our drivers pockets and draw a modest profit. Those costs will exist.PERIOD. The question is:who pays them? Uber will not absorb those costs, their bs valuation will tank.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> What Uber would likely do if/when it loses the lawsuit is require drivers to show proof of other sources of income, to prove their relationship with Uber is not one of a dependent nature, before they would be approved to drive. That would at least get rid of the issue of the Department of Labor's new guidance.
> 
> Uber would still have other issues, but I doubt very greatly that Uber would accept in their business model the legal burden that comes with having workers who are considered dependent on Uber. Even if you can get the law to define a new class of worker, that dependency will have burden that comes with it that Uber would be very unlikely willing to accept.


Just because you are part time and have another full time job does not relieve Uber of the responsibilty of paying drivers (if deemed employees) all the same benefits a full time employee recieves.

Lots of people work part time jobs NOW, and recieve employee benefits.

This being dependent or not on Uber is BS, we work because we depend on the income. Wether it is 40 hours or one hour.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

observer said:


> Just because you are part time and have another full time job does not relieve Uber of the responsibilty of paying drivers (if deemed employees) all the same benefits a full time employee recieves.
> 
> Lots of people work part time jobs NOW, and recieve employee benefits.
> 
> This being dependent or not on Uber is BS, we work because we depend on the income. Wether it is 40 hours or one hour.


I'm not justifying what Uber would do. I'm just predicting what Uber would do in response. There are good reasons why 1099 relationships exist. So 1099 relationships won't go away. Uber will restructure the relationship with drivers to be consistent with why 1099 relationships are allowed to exist. There's very little chance drivers will end up with benefits on par with full time employment from this ruling.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Tx rides said:


> At the risk of sounding arrogant (really not my intent-I promise!) we run our car service leaner and meaner than many of our peers. I'm very data driven. I know what it takes for us to put at least $22/hr in to our drivers pockets and draw a modest profit. Those costs will exist.PERIOD. The question is:who pays them? Uber will not absorb those costs, their bs valuation will tank.


All you need now is a stellar app and hella marketing!


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> All you need now is a stellar app and hella marketing!


Right! Lol! Sadly those do NOTHING to address the core of the biz. That, IMO is something the Uber team has never grasped.

We have a driver app, and are careful to avoid marketing beyond our capabilities, and try to not staff/stock beyond demand. Constant adjustments Both ways are the safest way to go.


----------



## CityGirl (Nov 29, 2014)

observer said:


> Uber is not a franchisor.
> 
> Most franchisee agreements are crafted to protect both franchisor and franchisee, Ubers contract is crafted to protect Uber.
> 
> ...


It was an analogy. But we do agree we don't need a third model.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

CityGirl said:


> It was an analogy. But we do agree we don't need a third model.


So, if the lawsuit is in the favor of the drivers, what do you think will happen? Uber and most other rideshares wouldn't necessarily be able to operate efficiently with just employee status. It would cause too much business overhead making the model unsustainable. They would push for a third model even if the drivers didn't. I'm sorry but I don't want to be an employee of Uber nor is this Independent Contractor model the most ideal.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> So, if the lawsuit is in the favor of the drivers, what do you think will happen? Uber and most other rideshares wouldn't necessarily be able to operate efficiently with just employee status. It would cause too much business overhead making the model unsustainable. They would push for a third model even if the drivers didn't. I'm sorry but I don't want to be an employee of Uber nor is this Independent Contractor model the most ideal.


So, because Uber has an unsustainable model. The drivers and us taxpayers should pay?


----------



## XUberMike (Aug 2, 2015)

I'm a independent contractor when UBER shows me the rider destination and allows me to make my own independent decision on weather to accept it. I'm certainly not an IC with UBER telling me to accept every ride when my APP is on (or I risk deactivation)...that clearly makes me an employee when they tell me to accept everything regardless if it's in my best interest or not.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

XUberMike said:


> I'm a independent contractor when UBER shows me the rider destination and allows me to make my own independent decision on weather to accept it. I'm certainly not an IC with UBER telling me to accept every ride when my APP is on (or I risk deactivation)...that clearly makes me an employee when they tell me to accept everything regardless if it's in my best interest or not.


Indeed


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

observer said:


> So, because Uber has an unsustainable model. The drivers and us taxpayers should pay?


The money has to come from somewhere. Worse case scenario is they will raise their commission rate to cover costs.


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> The money has to come from somewhere. Worse case scenario is they will raise their commission rate to cover costs.


Sure they could. Your $1.00 per mile is now .50 cents per mile. 50% commission.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Just_in said:


> Sure they could. Your $1.00 per mile is now .50 cents per mile. 50% commission.


Actually, I think it would be more like $0.40 a mile since we only get 80 cents on the dollar


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> So, if the lawsuit is in the favor of the drivers, what do you think will happen? Uber and most other rideshares wouldn't necessarily be able to operate efficiently with just employee status. It would cause too much business overhead making the model unsustainable. They would push for a third model even if the drivers didn't. I'm sorry but I don't want to be an employee of Uber nor is this Independent Contractor model the most ideal.


A third model is more like a in between. A in between in waiting for a better job to come along that is. That's what it will be thought of if a third classification were to become a reality. Might not be written that way but...


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Just_in said:


> A third model is more like a in between. A in between in waiting for a better job to come along that is. That's what it will be thought of if a third classification were to become a reality. Might not be written that way but...


Uber might not be the perfect Blue/Green Collar job for full-timers, but it certainly has it place part-time for those already gainfully employed.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Jason2k15 said:


> Yes, even if the lawsuit is successful, could take another 5 - 10 years before anything is put into place that will affect us as drivers. But maybe sooner, things happen quickly in the technical world.


Things happen quickly in the LABOR world. If a federal court rules that drivers are employees, the change will come overnight - even if Uber/Lyft appeal. And a ruling could also make the finding retroactive.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Things happen quickly in the LABOR world. If a federal court rules that drivers are employees, the change will come overnight - even if Uber/Lyft appeal. And a ruling could also make the finding retroactive.


Do you think it could become a Supreme Court issue or it is not big enough for them to decide if appealed constantly...?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Jason2k15 said:


> Do you think it could become a Supreme Court issue or it is not big enough for them to decide if appealed constantly...?


Very unlikely (in my opinion). If any federal court rules that drivers are employees, it will be appealed, but if an appeals court sustains a ruling, I suspect the industry will focus on getting the IRS to change its rules and/or Congress to change the law. (there's a reason that Uber hired David Plouffe in an executive position)


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Jason2k15 said:


> The money has to come from somewhere. Worse case scenario is they will raise their commission rate to cover costs.


So, you are ok with Uber making money at your expense?

Well, Uber could raise rates, RIGHT THIS MINUTE.

But they won't.

Why?

Because Uber is a corporation, their ONLY loyalty is to the investors. They will offload EVERY expense they can to the drivers and the public.

They have zero interest in making drivers profitable. Every dollar a driver profits is one less dollar for Uber.


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

observer said:


> So, you are ok with Uber making money at your expense?
> 
> Well, Uber could raise rates, RIGHT THIS MINUTE.
> 
> ...


I am not okay with it but it could happen if people want benefits, etc...but then something else would have to be thrown into the equation to offset it (to prevent more massive turnover) like guaranteed hourly salary or something.


----------



## loki (Nov 28, 2014)

phillipzx3 said:


> As an independent contractor, you can accept Uber's contract requirements, or not. Uber says tipping not required. Uber sets the rates. As the old saying goes, "If you don't like the rule, leave."
> 
> *That's what Uber does when a city demands they follow certain rules....they leave.*


Or they get kicked out and come back with millions in lobbyists and contributions and beg to be let into the market...


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

loki said:


> ...and beg to be let into the market...


Uber doesn't beg.
Uber bullies.


----------



## loki (Nov 28, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber doesn't beg.
> Uber bullies.


They begged to get into Nevada. They had to spend a bunch of money and aren't quite getting what they wanted (and almost didn't get anything) and will cost them quite a bit more to operate in the market.


----------



## Winkomo (Jan 9, 2015)

UberHammer said:


> What Uber would likely do if/when it loses the lawsuit is require drivers to show proof of other sources of income, to prove their relationship with Uber is not one of a dependent nature, before they would be approved to drive. That would at least get rid of the issue of the Department of Labor's new guidance.
> 
> Uber would still have other issues, but I doubt very greatly that Uber would accept in their business model the legal burden that comes with having workers who are considered dependent on Uber. Even if you can get the law to define a new class of worker, that dependency will have burden that comes with it that Uber would be very unlikely willing to accept.


Can u imagine? I'm sorry but you don't make enough money at your other job to allow us to bring you on as a driver. Huh? Or better yet, we had to suspend/deactivate you halfway through this month because your Uber earnings are about to surpass your Mickey D wages. Then u get the ra ra text saying go talk to ur Mickey D supervisor and tell him you need more hours so u can continue to drive for Uber! That's a circus I'd pay a few scheckels to watch...


----------



## Winkomo (Jan 9, 2015)

Just_in said:


> A third model is more like a in between. A in between in waiting for a better job to come along that is. That's what it will be thought of if a third classification were to become a reality. Might not be written that way but...


I hear lots of folks talking about this third classification (and it could become a reality, very possible), but haven't seen much discussion re the reasons the employment laws were put in place to begin with. The government doesn't want to (and probably can't) deal with the burden of a significant portion of its population being destitute and requiring assistance in its retirement years. The way they addressed it was to require either (or both) capital and labor (or employer and employee) to put something aside so when those individuals aren't capable of working any longer, they're not standing on a street corner starving to death. If they prevail, this attempt by modern business entities to circumvent the requirement is going to migrate societies again to a situation where they have to deal with that problem. FDR in the 30's went to Big Business and told them if things didn't change, the country could seriously go Socialist. The Communist Party was very active here in the U.S., and that's how Social Security and other programs became laws, literally to fend off those "foreign" ideas. And now here's Bernie Sanders attracting impressive crowds.....


----------



## Jason2k15 (Jul 31, 2015)

Winkomo said:


> I hear lots of folks talking about this third classification (and it could become a reality, very possible), but haven't seen much discussion re the reasons the employment laws were put in place to begin with. The government doesn't want to (and probably can't) deal with the burden of a significant portion of its population being destitute and requiring assistance in its retirement years. The way they addressed it was to require either (or both) capital and labor (or employer and employee) to put something aside so when those individuals aren't capable of working any longer, they're not standing on a street corner starving to death. If they prevail, this attempt by modern business entities to circumvent the requirement is going to migrate societies again to a situation where they have to deal with that problem. FDR in the 30's went to Big Business and told them if things didn't change, the country could seriously go Socialist. The Communist Party was very active here in the U.S., and that's how Social Security and other programs became laws, literally to fend off those "foreign" ideas. And now here's Bernie Sanders attracting impressive crowds.....


Good analysis.


----------



## d'Uber (Apr 7, 2015)

Uber's insurer, James River Insurance Company charges $1,000 deductible when an uninsured motorist hits the Uber driver's car while transporting passenger(s). And whereas reputable insurers such as State Farm will cut a check for the difference between the cost of the repairs and the deductible, James River "protects the lienholder" with whom there is no relationship, rather than the now-struggling driver "partner." We provide the vehicles, gasoline, wear and tear/depreciation, insurance that doesn't cover us and which Uber requires be in force otherwise, no claim with James River will be filed, etc. When others break the law and we are 100 percent not at fault, Uber needs to step up and provide all repairs to the vehicle with no charge to the driver. The hardship that results from the current situation is absolutely unacceptable.

Uber should raise rates somewhat to assure profitability whenever a "partner" is on the road, and limit surges during daytime to 2X and night 2.5X, instead of taking advantage of people who had too much to drink who will then give the driver a 1-star rating when they sober up in the morning. Tipping through the app, without Uber taking a cut should be added. Drivers should be "showered" with Uber credits, too. Other than that, 1099 status is what makes driving for Uber bearable. Can you imagine what it would be like to drive under the direction of Uber and their spoiled, misguided W2 management?


----------

