# New York Administrative Judge says Uber Drivers are Employees



## Maven

Uber loses another round in the contractor vs. Employee battle.
_____________

 
*New York ALJ Takes Uber for a Ride *
Lexicology June 29 2017
*
Why it matters*

In a decision with potentially significant implications, a New York administrative law judge (ALJ) held that Uber drivers are employees of the ride-sharing company. The case arose after three drivers had their accounts deactivated and sought unemployment benefits. Uber contended that because the drivers set their own schedules, selected their work areas, were not required to report absences and were not provided with fringe benefits, they should be considered independent contractors. But the ALJ disagreed, finding that Uber did not use an "arms' length approach as would typify an independent contractor arrangement," instead demonstrating substantial involvement with the drivers. "I find that while there are some indicia of claimant's independence, 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," the ALJ wrote. Importantly, she added that her decision applied not just to the three drivers involved in the case but "others similarly situated" as well. Uber-which has been battling the issue across the country with mixed results-said it intends to appeal the decision.

*Detailed discussion*

Are Uber drivers employees or independent contractors? Three New York drivers sought unemployment benefits after their accounts with the ride-sharing service were deactivated. Uber balked, arguing that the drivers were independent contractors. The state's Department of Labor issued an initial determination holding that the drivers were eligible to receive benefits, and Uber requested a hearing to appeal.

Following the hearing-complete with testimony from the drivers and Uber representatives-ALJ Michelle Burrowes overruled Uber's objection and found that the drivers were employees.

The ALJ walked through the process of becoming an Uber driver, explaining the "on-boarding process" beginning with the requirement of certain documents (a driver's license, vehicle registration and a license from the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission). Drivers were shown a video explaining how the Uber app works and depicting best practices guidelines, such as maintaining a clean vehicle and wearing professional attire.

Uber also published a Code of Conduct for its drivers, setting forth the minimum standards of conduct to which it expects both riders and drivers to adhere, with an explanation that failure to do so risks deactivation of access to the app. In addition, Uber published a Welcome Packet, described as containing "essential information for new Uber partners" and maintained online support resources for drivers.

Drivers needed a vehicle and smartphone to provide rides through the app, with Uber compiling a list of the vehicles it deemed acceptable. For those looking to lease their vehicles, Uber referred drivers to an affiliated third party and, in one case, intervened when a driver became delinquent, negotiating with the lessor for an alternative payment schedule. Uber also provided one driver with a smartphone and another with a phone charger and cable.

When a rider was picked up, the Uber app suggested a route, but drivers were expected to follow the route suggested by a rider, if given; the company also imposed rules about how long drivers had to wait for a rider. During the time period drivers are logged in to the app, Uber has the capacity to collect and review data regarding their activities, such as their acceptance and cancellation rates, the ALJ noted. Drivers are expected to accept 90 percent of ride requests received.

The company did not provide drivers with paid vacation, sick leave, health insurance coverage or other fringe benefits, nor did Uber impose a work schedule on the drivers. Instead, drivers autonomously decided when, where and how long they would work. Drivers were allowed to procure rides from Uber's competitors and had the ability to sub-contract drivers if they wanted.

After relating all these facts, the ALJ found the evidence demonstrated "that Uber exercised sufficient supervision and control over substantial aspects" of the drivers' work. "Uber did not employ an arms' length approach to the claimants as would typify an independent contractor arrangement," Burrowes wrote. "Uber remained involved with the means by which claimants provided transportation services for its Riders," such as requiring compliance with a list of approved vehicles.

"Additionally, Uber does not dispute that when [two of the] complainants lacked proper credit to secure their own vehicles, Uber not only referred them to their third-party affiliates to lease vehicles without credit, but also Uber took the additional step of withholding monies from these claimants' fares and making lease payments on their behalf. Uber even intervened when [one claimant] was delinquent in his lease payments to the third-party lessor, to arrange an alternate payment plan &#8230; to address his arrears."

The ALJ rejected Uber's position that the drivers signed a contract designating them as independent contractors as well as its characterization of the company as simply "a technology company that generates leads for drivers."

Uber set a mandatory wait time for riders before leaving a pickup site, the ALJ noted, retained the sole discretion to determine if that rider would be charged a wait fee, and had complete control over the fare for the ride, which was calculated by Uber's app algorithm.

Further, Uber continuously monitored its drivers, Burrowes found. "Uber took steps to modify the claimants' behavior, as typical in an employer-employee relationship," the ALJ said, publishing several documents including a Code of Conduct, which warned drivers that if they failed to accept 90 percent of all ride requests, they could face deactivation.

"Uber also used its Riders' responses on its five-star rating system &#8230; to monitor and evaluate a Driver's performance in providing ride service and to determine if that Driver's rating was unacceptable such that he should be deactivated from the app," the ALJ wrote.

A review of the record showed that each driver was "subjected to substantial supervision and control by Uber," Burrowes said. "I find that while there are some indicia of claimant's independence, 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. I conclude, therefore, that the claimants, and others similarly situated, are/were employees of the employer, Uber."

To read the decision, click here.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

It's important to understand that, just like in CA and FL, the findings are those of an ALJ ("administrative law judge) - not a judge in a court. Uber will appeal this decision to an appeals board - and if they lose there, they will appeal the state court.


----------



## Rakos

At least its a start!


----------



## Maven

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It's important to understand that, just like in CA and FL, the findings are those of an ALJ ("administrative law judge) - not a judge in a court. Uber will appeal this decision to an appeals board - and if they lose there, they will appeal the state court.


I wonder if there are any openings on the Uber legal team. Their outlook is great, win or lose, for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Maven said:


> I wonder if there are any openings on the Uber legal team. Their outlook is great, win or lose, for the foreseeable future.


no kidding... I wouldn't be surprised if Uber is sponsoring JD programs at some major law schools.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Here we go again. If the drivers really want to be employees then start practice saying "would you like that super sized?" and go apply at your local McDonalds. 
I'm getting sick of this employee crap. Idiots get involved in something that they have no clue about and when things don't work out they try and find blame to get a free ride. Almost reminds me of some of the new recruits in boot camp. The whining of some people is disgusting. If you did not know what you were getting involved in then why in the hell did you sign up to drive? 
If you were naive enough to fall for the "be your own boss, work when you want to" crap then you need to find a way to rebound on your own. Hope you learned a valuable lesson about believing everything you read on the Internet. 
P.S. YOU"LL NEVER BE AN EMPLOYEE!!!!


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Here we go again. If the drivers really want to be employees then start practice saying "would you like that super sized?" and go apply at your local McDonalds.
> I'm getting sick of this employee crap. Idiots get involved in something that they have no clue about and when things don't work out they try and find blame to get a free ride. Almost reminds me of some of the new recruits in boot camp. The whining of some people is disgusting. If you did not know what you were getting involved in then why in the hell did you sign up to drive?
> If you were naive enough to fall for the "be your own boss, work when you want to" crap then you need to find a way to rebound on your own. Hope you learned a valuable lesson about believing everything you read on the Internet.
> P.S. YOU"LL NEVER BE AN EMPLOYEE!!!!


Travis has pretty much said if they lose the Indy contractor deal, uber can't exist, and they will have to rework the ENTIRE business model.

On top of taxes insurance ect. Employees are legally entitled to min wage free and clear of all deductions.

Notably, employees need to make min wage AFTER per mile expenses OR vehicle rental costs.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Travis has pretty much said if they lose the Indy contractor deal, uber can't exist, and they will have to rework the ENTIRE business model.


I'm sure that won't be too hard. Just pay a top notch attorney to reword a few items and I'm sure Uber will have no trouble finding idiots to continue to drive for pennies. Just like we count on Phoenix being hot in the summer, Uber counts on society being ignorant.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

SEAL Team 5 said:


> I'm sure that won't be too hard. Just pay a top notch attorney to reword a few items and I'm sure Uber will have no trouble finding idiots to continue to drive for pennies. Just like we count on Phoenix being hot in the summer, Uber counts on society being ignorant.


"Free and clear of all deductions"

That's a clause in employment law that will sink uber.

If uber/lyft loses employee classification nationwide ride sharing is dead.

Employees don't NEED to have expenses comped, they just have to make min wage AFTER EXPENSES.

Assuming an uber driver puts in 10 miles every hour they would NEED to be compensated (depending on the state) $12.60 to $16.35 per hour.

20 miles driven in an hour pushes that to $17.95 t0 $21.70 per hour.

How uber markets do you really think are really paying out that much?


----------



## Safe_Driver_4_U

Rakos said:


> At least its a start!


 I don't want to be an employee, I would lose my tax write off. Driving for Uber and Lyft is a superb opportunity for those that need to lose money, why ruin it with "employee" status?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> "Free and clear of all deductions"
> That's a clause in employment law that will sink uber.


Uber in the US, in my opinion, is driving the gig economy to the Supreme Court, which will dump the whole labor issue back into Congress' lap - where it belongs.

The FLSA needs to be updated to reflect the today's work environment and the will of Congress (min wage protections, prevention of exploitation of labor) to cover gig workers with a new category of worker - a hybrid, something in-between employee and contractor. It should (again, just imo) end up with the corporation paying the employer share of 'employer taxes' (SSI/Medicare) & unemployment insurance on their labor force - but still allowing the worker the independence of a contractor.



Safe_Driver_4_U said:


> I don't want to be an employee, I would lose my tax write off. Driving for Uber and Lyft is a superb opportunity for those that need to lose money, why ruin it with "employee" status?


hehe... and to hell with the other 99% of drivers!


----------



## jonhjax

Not the other 99%. The other 99.7% of the drivers!!


----------



## Demon

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Here we go again. If the drivers really want to be employees then start practice saying "would you like that super sized?" and go apply at your local McDonalds.
> I'm getting sick of this employee crap. Idiots get involved in something that they have no clue about and when things don't work out they try and find blame to get a free ride. Almost reminds me of some of the new recruits in boot camp. The whining of some people is disgusting. If you did not know what you were getting involved in then why in the hell did you sign up to drive?
> If you were naive enough to fall for the "be your own boss, work when you want to" crap then you need to find a way to rebound on your own. Hope you learned a valuable lesson about believing everything you read on the Internet.
> P.S. YOU"LL NEVER BE AN EMPLOYEE!!!!


Uber drivers are employees. If you don't like that perhaps Uber isn't for you.


----------



## KevRyde

Demon said:


> Uber drivers are employees. If you don't like that perhaps Uber isn't for you.


No, Uber drivers are independent contractors which is a business relationship that results when a driver agrees to the terms and conditions of the completely unilateral, nonnegotiable contract presented by Uber. If you don't like the terms and conditions, don't agree to the contract. If you have previously agreed to those terms and conditions and subsequently decide that you don't like them, then quit driving for Uber or don't agree to the next version of the conract that Uber presents.

It continues to boggle my mind that so many posters on here equate independent contractor status with the ability to make up your own terms and conditions and do anything you want. The only folks who benefit from these silly law suits are the attorneys.


----------



## dirtylee

About the employee thing.

Most of you truly underestimate how well uber can rig the game. Back when guarantees where $35 -$50/hr, you really did hit it or come close to it. 

With xchange vehicles, rentals, & fuel cards - yeah. They could probably swing a fleet of FT employees making $12.50/hr.


----------



## Demon

KevRyde said:


> No, Uber drivers are independent contractors which is a business relationship that results when a driver agrees to the terms and conditions of the completely unilateral, nonnegotiable contract presented by Uber. If you don't like the terms and conditions, don't agree to the contract. If you have previously agreed to those terms and conditions and subsequently decide that you don't like them, then quit driving for Uber or don't agree to the next version of the conract that Uber presents.
> 
> It continues to boggle my mind that so many posters on here equate independent contractor status with the ability to make up your own terms and conditions and do anything you want. The only folks who benefit from these silly law suits are the attorneys.


Do drivers set their own prices??


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Demon said:


> Uber drivers are employees. If you don't like that perhaps Uber isn't for you.


Here we go again. The only thing Uber drivers are is naive, ignorant and gullible. Give me the name of just 1 driver that has completed a W-4 for Uber Technologies/Raiser LLC prior to downloading the driver app. You do know that a W-4 is a federal form that is required by law to be completed by every EMPLOYEE prior to receiving any compensation from any company or entity. 
It's sure pathetic when people don't get their way they start throwing a tantrum and blaming others for their own stupidity. But it's sure great that we live in a country in which we can try and set legal precedence for our own stupidity.



Demon said:


> Do drivers set their own prices??


1000's of companies that do contract work for govt's at the federal, state and local levels don't get to set their own price. Cab drivers have been IC's for years, in fact the phrase independent contractor is usually blocked in letters on the driver's side door, and the cab company is the one that sets the rates. In some municipalities it's the gov't that sets the rates.


----------



## Demon

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Here we go again. The only thing Uber drivers are is naive, ignorant and gullible. Give me the name of just 1 driver that has completed a W-4 for Uber Technologies/Raiser LLC prior to downloading the driver app. You do know that a W-4 is a federal form that is required by law to be completed by every EMPLOYEE prior to receiving any compensation from any company or entity.
> It's sure pathetic when people don't get their way they start throwing a tantrum and blaming others for their own stupidity. But it's sure great that we live in a country in which we can try and set legal precedence for our own stupidity.
> 
> 1000's of companies that do contract work for govt's at the federal, state and local levels don't get to set their own price. Cab drivers have been IC's for years, in fact the phrase independent contractor is usually blocked in letters on the driver's side door, and the cab company is the one that sets the rates. In some municipalities it's the gov't that sets the rates.


So is that a yes or a no?


----------



## KevRyde

Demon said:


> Do drivers set their own prices??


No. Drivers agree to the rates that Uber sets when they sign the contract. How do you not know this?


----------



## Demon

KevRyde said:


> No. Drivers agree to the rates that Uber sets when they sign the contract. How do you not know this?


Then they aren't independent contractors. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## driverx.nj

Some people like "Titles", like employee, Sr. VP, CEO. These are like the "Tipping Option", it is out there but did not get you much.



KevRyde said:


> No. Drivers agree to the rates that Uber sets when they sign the contract. How do you not know this?


You can keep saying that but, as you keep see some people have a reading disorder. They will never get it.


----------



## KevRyde

Demon said:


> Then they aren't independent contractors. Thanks for clearing that up.


I have a hunch that even if you somehow managed to obtain a law degree <or> could afford the advice of $400/hour attorney that you would likely never be clear on this matter.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Demon said:


> So is that a yes or a no?


Did you complete a W-4, state tax form and an I-9 for Uber Technologies/Raiser LLC prior to downloading the driver's app? If you answered yes then you are an employee. 
However I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you only completed a 1099 form with your name, address, SS# and you marked the box sole proprietor. Just a wild guess.



Safe_Driver_4_U said:


> Driving for Uber and Lyft is a superb opportunity for those that need to lose money


I love your line, but if you really want to lose money then just PM me your name, address, SS#, banking acct info with routing# and maybe one of your 15 or 16 digit credit card #'s with exp date and cvs #. Thank you in advance and don't worry. I'll make sure you LOSE lots of money.


----------



## Veju

Only on UP will you see drivers fighting with each other over better wages and labor standards. This is why America is dying.


----------



## Andretti

While we can debate the merits of indie vs employee, with the current fall in driver wages if Uber paid my city's minimum wage + the fed 54c/mile reimbursement, I wouldn't doubt many if not most drivers would come-out ahead. To say nothing of the advantages of time-and-a-half over 40 hours.

The reason many drivers initially think they're making money is because they overlook their longterm vehicle maintenance and depreciation, which the IRS averages to 54c/mile.

Let's look at the numbers if I were an employee:

For me on a moderate weekday this would be around $75/day in direct mileage reimbursement, plus 6-7 hours at $11/hr in wages. That $77-88 wage gets reduced to around maybe $60-70 after taxes, leaving me around $140 clear per 6-7 hr day. Ironically that's pretty much where I'm at on a moderate weekdays with decent Boost. But I'm really working my ass off hustling in the hottest spots and busiest hours bang-bang-bang! And now that boost has been dropping, my numbers are slipping. And working more or other hours (or places), gives me a lower return. Essentially, I'm at my highest most optimal average wages.

In terms of earnings-per-hour, I suspect I'm probably at about the 70% level on this board for my city. But on this board I believe we are probably quite a bit higher than the average drivers, who lack our knowledge. After talking to random peeps and riders who drive in my city, I wouldn't doubt I'm at the 90% level! I run into people all the time that drive, but fail. Or do a little here and there, making terrible money. Outside of this board, I rarely run into real-life people doing regular $150/weekdays and $200+ Saturdays. Most are doing pitifully.

So for these reasons, in my city I think most drivers would be better-off financially if they were employees. Not all drivers, but many. And outside of having to keep scheduled hours, it would likely be less stressful financially.



Veju said:


> Only on UP will you see drivers fighting with each other over better wages and labor standards. This is why America is dying.


Actually, this same debate occurs on a myriad of internet platforms and in real life quite often.

I too, am at a loss to explain it.


----------



## Elmo Burrito

Demon said:


> Then they aren't independent contractors. Thanks for clearing that up.


When I was doing electrical contracting work if I wanted to bid on a prevailing wage govt. job it was written into the contract that, I would ONLY pay prevailing wage rates for the duration of the contract. YES TO MYSELF as an IC. 
As an IC I could either accept the terms of the contract pay PW and get the gig or not and that was my choice as an Independent Contractor. That's how it works. Accept the terms of the contract or, not.


----------



## Ca$h4

*https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/opinion/the-gig-economys-false-promise.html*

*The Gig Economy's False Promise*
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD APRIL 10, 2017

Photo









Credit Kim Ryu
The promises Silicon Valley makes about the gig economy can sound appealing. Its digital technology lets workers become entrepreneurs, we are told, freed from the drudgery of 9-to-5 jobs. Students, parents and others can make extra cash in their free time while pursuing their passions, maybe starting a thriving small business.

In reality, there is no utopia at companies like Uber, Lyft, Instacart and Handy, whose workers are often manipulated into working long hours for low wages while continually chasing the next ride or task. These companies have discovered they can harness advances in software and behavioral sciences to old-fashioned worker exploitation, according to a growing body of evidence, because employees lack the basic protections of American law.

A recent story in The Times by Noam Scheiber vividly described how Uber and other companies use tactics developed by the video game industry to keep drivers on the road when they would prefer to call it a day, raising company revenue while lowering drivers' per-hour earnings. One Florida driver told The Times he earned less than $20,000 a year before expenses like gas and maintenance. In New York City, an Uber drivers group affiliated with the machinists union said that more than one-fifth of its members earn less than $30,000 before expenses.

Gig economy workers tend to be poorer and are more likely to be minorities than the population at large, a survey by the Pew Research Center found last year. Compared with the population as a whole, almost twice as many of them earned under $30,000 a year, and 40 percent were black or Hispanic, compared with 27 percent of all American adults. Most said the money they earned from online platforms was essential or important to their families.

Since workers for most gig economy companies are considered independent contractors, not employees, they do not qualify for basic protections like overtime pay and minimum wages. This helped Uber, which started in 2009, quickly grow to 700,000 active drivers in the United States, nearly three times the number of taxi drivers and chauffeurs in the country in 2014.

The use of independent contractors is hardly an innovation. Traditional businesses like garment factories, construction companies and trucking have often misclassified employees as contractors to avoid offering benefits, paying payroll taxes and abiding by labor laws. What makes this different is that gig economy businesses are arguing that their use of the independent contractor model is in fact better for workers.

Increasingly workers, and government agencies are pushing back. Seattle passed an ordinance in 2015 allowing drivers for Uber, Lyft and other ride-hailing apps to unionize. A federal judge temporarily blocked that law on Tuesday after the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and some conservative groups filed lawsuits against the city. Workers have also sued various gig economy companies to seek overtime pay, reimbursement for expenses and other damages. Lyft recently agreed to pay $27 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by drivers in California.

Legislation and lawsuits might ensure that traditional labor laws are applied to the gig economy. But a few smaller companies, like Hello Alfred, which dispatches people to do household chores, and Managed by Q, which provides office maintenance and cleaning services, are taking steps on their own, by treating workers as employees. They say that this lowers turnover and improves the quality of their services. Over time even bigger companies like Uber, many of which lose money and rely on investors to keep pouring in billions of dollars of capital, might find that it pays to treat workers better and even make some of them employees.

But so far, experience with these companies shows that without the legal protections and ethical norms that once were widely accepted, workers will find the economy of the future an even more inhospitable place.


----------



## Certain Judgment

90% acceptance rate or face deactivation??? This is news to my ears...

There goes my career!


----------



## Tnasty

Uber should have the right to do whatever they want since they can fashion contracts to their liking.lol


----------



## CapeCodDriver

This is an interesting thread because it exposes a few things.
1. There are some legal issues with how Uber works today, and it will have to change one way or another to survive.
2. Drivers are on both sides of the fence on this issue, and obviously have very strong opinions about which they think is right or best for various economic and legal reasons.
3. It makes me realize that there may be room in the market for both employees and ICs. If you want a guaranteed rate for a guaranteed number of hours, you can be an employee. But you have to answer to Uber to schedule your shifts, and you'll be used with Uber's best interests in mind. If you want to be an IC, imagine a future version of the app where you can set filters to only get pings above a certain rate/boost/surge. And that will tell you the distance you're traveling and the estimated payout before you accept. Riders have upfront pricing....so should we! You can still go on and offline as you want, but your acceptance rate can be single digits because you only take the fares you want to. But as long as you're rated highly by pax, you don't get deactivated.


----------



## Trebor

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Here we go again. If the drivers really want to be employees then start practice saying "would you like that super sized?" and go apply at your local McDonalds.
> I'm getting sick of this employee crap. Idiots get involved in something that they have no clue about and when things don't work out they try and find blame to get a free ride. Almost reminds me of some of the new recruits in boot camp. The whining of some people is disgusting. If you did not know what you were getting involved in then why in the hell did you sign up to drive?
> If you were naive enough to fall for the "be your own boss, work when you want to" crap then you need to find a way to rebound on your own. Hope you learned a valuable lesson about believing everything you read on the Internet.
> P.S. YOU"LL NEVER BE AN EMPLOYEE!!!!


Yup. If we are "partners" imagine how bad they will treat us once we become employees.

1) Uniforms - (you have to purchase) 
2) Scheduled Shifts 
3) Scheduled Shifts also means pre determined areas
3) Waitress/Waiter min. wage + tips (at least we will get a mileage reimbursement
4) Acceptance rate falls under 99%? Get ready to be fired


----------



## Fubernuber

Uber can solve this issue by doing these simple things
1. Show destination. That gives the i.d. full visibility


----------



## CapeCodDriver

Fubernuber said:


> Uber can solve this issue by doing these simple things
> 1. Show destination. That gives the i.d. full visibility


That could be illegal in some places since it could lead to driver discrimination by refusing to go to certain neighborhoods in a city, for example. Now that they have upfront pricing, they should share the distance and driver's anticipated cut of the fare...then let us decide whether to accept it or not.

I don't need to necessarily know where I'm going. But if I plan on quitting in 10 minutes and my next request is for a destination 30 miles away, I'd like to know before I accept it.


----------



## Steve2967

Just remember when you all get your wish and become employees you will be mandated to work a set schedule of 40 hours a week of Uber's choosing or be terminated.

You can also forget working past 40 hours and getting OT if you are doing this full time.

There is absolutely no fix for stupid.


----------



## CapeCodDriver

Steve2967 said:


> Just remember when you all get your wish and become employees you will be mandated to work a set schedule of 40 hours a week of Uber's choosing or be terminated.
> 
> You can also forget working past 40 hours and getting OT if you are doing this full time.
> 
> There is absolutely no fix for stupid.


There's folks on both sides. We don't "all" want to be employees.


----------



## Steve2967

CapeCodDriver said:


> There's folks on both sides. We don't "all" want to be employees.


I guess I should have clarified "those who want to be employees"

People seem to think being mandated as employees is going to be some "magic fix"

It will be so much worse as an employee. Just go get an hourly job if that's what people want.

if you are netting less than minimum wage or near minimum wage doing this then this is not for you. You are bad at it PERIOD


----------



## Fubernuber

CapeCodDriver said:


> That could be illegal in some places since it could lead to driver discrimination by refusing to go to certain neighborhoods in a city, for example. Now that they have upfront pricing, they should share the distance and driver's anticipated cut of the fare...then let us decide whether to accept it or not.
> 
> I don't need to necessarily know where I'm going. But if I plan on quitting in 10 minutes and my next request is for a destination 30 miles away, I'd like to know before I accept it.


That is acceptable too. I care not where destination is. Basically i dont want to drive for 10.mins to a fare thats a mile long.


----------



## Rat

Safe_Driver_4_U said:


> I don't want to be an employee, I would lose my tax write off. Driving for Uber and Lyft is a superb opportunity for those that need to lose money, why ruin it with "employee" status?


You can still write off your expenses.


----------



## Cableguynoe

Rakos said:


> At least its a start!


Whoa!
You know this is a serious topic when Rakos posts a serious, logical, easy to understand response.
This thread now has my attention.


----------



## pomegranite112

Uber controls drivers too much. They need to give drivers more freedom and become looser in order for drivers to not be employees. They need to make it so we can set our own rates, can cancel rides without penalties, can decide to not accept rides without penalties and make it so we can't be deactivated for bs reasons. They should keep driver ratings and comments on the drivers so that people can choose themselves if they want that driver or not. Think of it as a mini yelp section for every driver. If a persons rating goes down, the customers can decide if they want that person or not. 

Uber needs to become a platform instead of a big brother watching over you.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Ca$h4 said:


> *https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/opinion/the-gig-economys-false-promise.html*
> 
> *The Gig Economy's False Promise*
> By THE EDITORIAL BOARD APRIL 10, 2017
> 
> Photo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Credit Kim Ryu
> The promises Silicon Valley makes about the gig economy can sound appealing. Its digital technology lets workers become entrepreneurs, we are told, freed from the drudgery of 9-to-5 jobs. Students, parents and others can make extra cash in their free time while pursuing their passions, maybe starting a thriving small business.
> 
> In reality, there is no utopia at companies like Uber, Lyft, Instacart and Handy, whose workers are often manipulated into working long hours for low wages while continually chasing the next ride or task. These companies have discovered they can harness advances in software and behavioral sciences to old-fashioned worker exploitation, according to a growing body of evidence, because employees lack the basic protections of American law.
> 
> A recent story in The Times by Noam Scheiber vividly described how Uber and other companies use tactics developed by the video game industry to keep drivers on the road when they would prefer to call it a day, raising company revenue while lowering drivers' per-hour earnings. One Florida driver told The Times he earned less than $20,000 a year before expenses like gas and maintenance. In New York City, an Uber drivers group affiliated with the machinists union said that more than one-fifth of its members earn less than $30,000 before expenses.
> 
> Gig economy workers tend to be poorer and are more likely to be minorities than the population at large, a survey by the Pew Research Center found last year. Compared with the population as a whole, almost twice as many of them earned under $30,000 a year, and 40 percent were black or Hispanic, compared with 27 percent of all American adults. Most said the money they earned from online platforms was essential or important to their families.
> 
> Since workers for most gig economy companies are considered independent contractors, not employees, they do not qualify for basic protections like overtime pay and minimum wages. This helped Uber, which started in 2009, quickly grow to 700,000 active drivers in the United States, nearly three times the number of taxi drivers and chauffeurs in the country in 2014.
> 
> The use of independent contractors is hardly an innovation. Traditional businesses like garment factories, construction companies and trucking have often misclassified employees as contractors to avoid offering benefits, paying payroll taxes and abiding by labor laws. What makes this different is that gig economy businesses are arguing that their use of the independent contractor model is in fact better for workers.
> 
> Increasingly workers, and government agencies are pushing back. Seattle passed an ordinance in 2015 allowing drivers for Uber, Lyft and other ride-hailing apps to unionize. A federal judge temporarily blocked that law on Tuesday after the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and some conservative groups filed lawsuits against the city. Workers have also sued various gig economy companies to seek overtime pay, reimbursement for expenses and other damages. Lyft recently agreed to pay $27 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by drivers in California.
> 
> Legislation and lawsuits might ensure that traditional labor laws are applied to the gig economy. But a few smaller companies, like Hello Alfred, which dispatches people to do household chores, and Managed by Q, which provides office maintenance and cleaning services, are taking steps on their own, by treating workers as employees. They say that this lowers turnover and improves the quality of their services. Over time even bigger companies like Uber, many of which lose money and rely on investors to keep pouring in billions of dollars of capital, might find that it pays to treat workers better and even make some of them employees.
> 
> But so far, experience with these companies shows that without the legal protections and ethical norms that once were widely accepted, workers will find the economy of the future an even more inhospitable place.


Kim Ryu is basically saying that there is allot of idiots in this country. "The promises.....of letting workers become entrepreneurs. In reality....workers are often manipulated."

Uber has 700,000 active drivers in the U.S. That's three times more than the number of taxi drivers back in 2014, and UberX is barely 3 years old. The only employer I even know of to gain this many employees in such a short time frame was the U.S. Department of Defense when Congress declared war back in 1941.


----------



## Rat

Steve2967 said:


> Just remember when you all get your wish and become employees you will be mandated to work a set schedule of 40 hours a week of Uber's choosing or be terminated.
> 
> You can also forget working past 40 hours and getting OT if you are doing this full time.
> 
> There is absolutely no fix for stupid.


There is no requirement as an employee to work a set schedule


----------



## SpecialK8

A few people here need to give back their cocktail napkin law degree haha

OK, a preface...I do not prefer to be an employee. I am fine with agreeing ahead of time to some of Uber's non negotiable policies and that in itself does not make me or anyone an employee. That said, clearly a few of you arguing we are contractors on the premise Uber has a right to set its policies have never read the driver-partner agreement. If you have, then you would recognize a major flaw in your legal stance and also recognize the government contract analogy is awful.

First and foremost, Uber in its partner agreement says it is AN AGENT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE DRIVER to facilitate a ride and act as a third party payment collector. The ride waybill generated is between the rider/client and the driver/service provider.

On its face, the government analogy is horrible because the government sets its own rates as a client and the provider of services can take it or leave it. Uber is saying on one hand it is merely acting on our behalf as our own third party intermediary, yet it wants to control the rates and how the services are performed. That is contradictory to its own claims that it is merely a third party. Third parties provide ancillary services and are not usually the ones that set the policies of how the work is performed.

I said before that I prefer to be a contractor. However, if someone claiming to be MY AGENT fired me because MY clients didn't like the job I was doing or which clients I took on or didn't take on, then I too would be suing the agent for not upholding the agreement. You can't say you're just a third party and then get to set and enforce how you want all the work to be done. If you do, you're no longer a third party...you're an employer. 

Most of these drivers probably prefer to be contractors but they're tired of Uber trying to play both sides of a legal fence. They want to have all the control of rates, policies and talk down to and lecture drivers when riders complain, yet they say they're just a third party payment collector. Like I said, if that were true then it should be up to the driver to set rates and decide for themself how to handle wait times, cancellations, complaints, etc. 

Read the freaking agreement people...Uber itself claims its a third party and acts an agent of the driver. Since when does an agent representing a client get to control how the client does all his or her work? It doesn't.


----------



## Safe_Driver_4_U

SpecialK8 said:


> ...
> 
> ...Uber itself claims its a third party and acts an agent of the driver. Since when does an agent representing a client get to control how the client does all his or her work? It doesn't.


 If we agree to Uber's terms I would think it's binding, where in the world does it say an agent can't place conditions on it's services. A painting contractor is obviously an IC yet I can dictate work hours on my home, which painters are allowed into my home and the colors of paint, I can even dictate brush, roller or spray.<<<< simply terms of the agreement.


----------



## SpecialK8

Safe_Driver_4_U said:


> If we agree to Uber's terms I would think it's binding, where in the world does it say an agent can't place conditions on it's services. A painting contractor is obviously an IC yet I can dictate work hours on my home, which painters are allowed into my home and the colors of paint, I can even dictate brush, roller or spray.<<<< simply terms of the agreement.


 Another fallacy. As I said, Uber does not claim to be the provider of services to the rider. It claims to facilitate the ride and in the agreement itself claims the driver is offering the services as the contractor. Ergo, it should be the driver setting the policies.

Conspicuously absent from the actual partner agreement is cancellation policies, acceptance rates, rider complaints, safety complaints, deactivation policies, etc. You ever wonder why that is? Ill tell you...because Uber knows it wouldnt have a legal ground to stand on if it tried to put all that in the agreement. It would come across as an employer that sets all the policies and drivers have to abide by them. The nature of such control suggests an employer employee relationship, just as this judge has determined.


----------



## Certain Judgment

CapeCodDriver said:


> That could be illegal in some places since it could lead to driver discrimination by refusing to go to certain neighborhoods in a city, for example.


Newsflash! I already do discriminate by refusing to pickup in certain neighborhoods. The peanuts they pay me with are not enough for the risk of getting curb stomped by pissed off Black Lives Matter thugs.

It's already bad enough that I cannot control dropping off in the hood.


----------



## OdiousRhetoric

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Here we go again. If the drivers really want to be employees then start practice saying "would you like that super sized?" and go apply at your local McDonalds.
> I'm getting sick of this employee crap. Idiots get involved in something that they have no clue about and when things don't work out they try and find blame to get a free ride. Almost reminds me of some of the new recruits in boot camp. The whining of some people is disgusting. If you did not know what you were getting involved in then why in the hell did you sign up to drive?
> If you were naive enough to fall for the "be your own boss, work when you want to" crap then you need to find a way to rebound on your own. Hope you learned a valuable lesson about believing everything you read on the Internet.
> P.S. YOU"LL NEVER BE AN EMPLOYEE!!!!


Um, you've obviously not done Uber Eats.



Certain Judgment said:


> Newsflash! I already do discriminate by refusing to pickup in certain neighborhoods. The peanuts they pay me with are not enough for the risk of getting curb stomped by pissed off Black Lives Matter thugs.
> 
> It's already bad enough that I cannot control dropping off in the hood.


You are in violation of the civil rights act of 1964. What is your login name? You need to be sued.


----------



## Strange Fruit

Demon said:


> Do drivers set their own prices??


Do Franchise owners?


----------



## CapeCodDriver

Certain Judgment said:


> Newsflash! I already do discriminate by refusing to pickup in certain neighborhoods. The peanuts they pay me with are not enough for the risk of getting curb stomped by pissed off Black Lives Matter thugs.
> 
> It's already bad enough that I cannot control dropping off in the hood.


Maybe that's cool in WI, but you can't actually say that out loud or act in any way consistent with those thoughts over here in MA. Lol!



Strange Fruit said:


> Do Franchise owners?


Now this is interesting...never considered the franchise model. Hmm....


----------



## Strange Fruit

pomegranite112 said:


> Uber controls drivers too much. They need to give drivers more freedom and become looser in order for drivers to not be employees. They need to make it so we can set our own rates, can cancel rides without penalties, can decide to not accept rides without penalties and make it so we can't be deactivated for bs reasons. They should keep driver ratings and comments on the drivers so that people can choose themselves if they want that driver or not. Think of it as a mini yelp section for every driver. If a persons rating goes down, the customers can decide if they want that person or not.
> 
> Uber needs to become a platform instead of a big brother watching over you.


Cuz there's a market full of riders who want to negotiate rates with various drivers before getting a ride.


----------



## I have nuts

As long as uber sets the rates and doesn't let drivers have the ability to choose which pax they want to drive, then you are an employee.


----------



## Woohaa

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Here we go again. If the drivers really want to be employees then start practice saying "would you like that super sized?" and go apply at your local McDonalds.
> I'm getting sick of this employee crap. Idiots get involved in something that they have no clue about and when things don't work out they try and find blame to get a free ride. Almost reminds me of some of the new recruits in boot camp. The whining of some people is disgusting. If you did not know what you were getting involved in then why in the hell did you sign up to drive?
> If you were naive enough to fall for the "be your own boss, work when you want to" crap then you need to find a way to rebound on your own. Hope you learned a valuable lesson about believing everything you read on the Internet.
> P.S. YOU"LL NEVER BE AN EMPLOYEE!!!!


 _"I conclude, therefore, that the claimants, and others similarly situated, are/were employees of the employer, Uber."_

Read the article at least before popping off. Damn.

And she isn't the first judge to rule this way against Uber.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Safe_Driver_4_U said:


> Driving for Uber and Lyft is a superb opportunity for those that need to lose money.


And if that's the selling point, isn't there a problem?

I can't argue with you though. Uber and Lyft really ARE a great opportunity to lose money.



SEAL Team 5 said:


> Here we go again. The only thing Uber drivers are is naive, ignorant and gullible. Give me the name of just 1 driver that has completed a W-4 for Uber Technologies/Raiser LLC prior to downloading the driver app. You do know that a W-4 is a federal form that is required by law to be completed by every EMPLOYEE prior to receiving any compensation from any company or entity.
> It's sure pathetic when people don't get their way they start throwing a tantrum and blaming others for their own stupidity. But it's sure great that we live in a country in which we can try and set legal precedence for our own stupidity.
> 
> 1000's of companies that do contract work for govt's at the federal, state and local levels don't get to set their own price. Cab drivers have been IC's for years, in fact the phrase independent contractor is usually blocked in letters on the driver's side door, and the cab company is the one that sets the rates. In some municipalities it's the gov't that sets the rates.


I would argue that there are many companies that have been abusing the contractor status for many years. That doesn't mean that it's right and it doesn't mean that Uber is not one of them. Your argument is akin to saying Mary's husband beats her so I shouldn't complain if my husband beats me.



Safe_Driver_4_U said:


> If we agree to Uber's terms I would think it's binding, where in the world does it say an agent can't place conditions on it's services. A painting contractor is obviously an IC yet I can dictate work hours on my home, which painters are allowed into my home and the colors of paint, I can even dictate brush, roller or spray.<<<< simply terms of the agreement.


 Never mind the fact that this is not the same sort of arrangement, when a contract is heavily weighted on one side or the other it is not necessarily going to be held up in court. If I sign a piece of paper saying that I agree to let you kill me (Euthanasia and Dr. kevorkian aside) and then you do,that doesn't mean you won't go to jail.

Contracts are not necessarily binding.


----------



## WaveRunner1

Uber overextends its authority over drivers and treats them like employees while denying them any benefits of being employees. They prey on the ignorance of drivers who don't understand the difference between independent contractors and employees. I personally don't care about employee benefits but rather want Uber to leave me alone to decide who I pick up and where I go without any penalty or threat of termination.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Woohaa said:


> _"I conclude, therefore, that the claimants, and others similarly situated, are/were employees of the employer, Uber."_
> 
> Read the article at least before popping off. Damn.
> 
> And she isn't the first judge to rule this way against Uber.


In 10 more friggin years we'll still be having this same conversation and drivers will still be driving for sub $1/mile rates. If you want to be an employee in the fare for hire industry then go be a van driver for Super Shuttle, or a city bus driver, or a courtesy driver for a vehicle repair shop or even a hearse driver for a mortuary. TNC will never be an employable career for drivers.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Did you complete a W-4, state tax form and an I-9 for Uber Technologies/Raiser LLC prior to downloading the driver's app? If you answered yes then you are an employee.
> However I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you only completed a 1099 form with your name, address, SS# and you marked the box sole proprietor. Just a wild guess.


Just because Uber calls drivers independent contractors doesn't mean the are. Almost most all administrative law justices and courts around the world have been in agreement that Uber drivers are employees. You may not like it but that's the way it is.

I'm sure if Uber told you to jump off a bridge you would because whatever Ubers says you believe and don't question.


----------



## Certain Judgment

OdiousRhetoric said:


> You are in violation of the civil rights act of 1964. What is your login name? You need to be sued.


You can't sue me for discrimination against a geographic location, as I pick up people of all pigmentations outside of those areas. You can run along now.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

No drivers want to be employees, they simply want to be treated like independent contractors if Uber wants to call us as such. If they want to call us independent contractors going forward then they need to pay all the back dues and penalties for treating us like employees all the way up until such time that they finally treat us like independent contractors.


----------



## Surge Donut

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Here we go again. If the drivers really want to be employees then start practice saying "would you like that super sized?" and go apply at your local McDonalds.
> I'm getting sick of this employee crap. Idiots get involved in something that they have no clue about and when things don't work out they try and find blame to get a free ride. Almost reminds me of some of the new recruits in boot camp. The whining of some people is disgusting. If you did not know what you were getting involved in then why in the hell did you sign up to drive?
> If you were naive enough to fall for the "be your own boss, work when you want to" crap then you need to find a way to rebound on your own. Hope you learned a valuable lesson about believing everything you read on the Internet.
> P.S. YOU"LL NEVER BE AN EMPLOYEE!!!!


I usually agree with all your posts but on this I disagree. It's not about what you want to be. Uber definitely treats drivers like employees. For instance they force me offline for 2 minutes if I don't accept 3 low rated trip requests in a row.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Your argument is akin to saying Mary's husband beats her so I shouldn't complain if my husband beats me.


That's a horrible comparison. What example of contracting that I posted was illegal like the felony assault that you posted.


----------



## Certain Judgment

CapeCodDriver said:


> Maybe that's cool in WI, but you can't actually say that out loud or act in any way consistent with those thoughts over here in MA. Lol!


The thought police are coming, the thought police are coming!


----------



## Surge Donut

uberdriverfornow said:


> No drivers want to be employees, they simply want to be treated like independent contractors if Uber wants to call us as such. If they want to call us independent contractors going forward then they need to pay all the back dues and penalties for treating us like employees all the way up until such time that they finally treat us like independent contractors.


Yes. Uber need to make up their mind. Either give us more control over our business or employ us and pay a wage. They can't have it both ways.


----------



## JasonB

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Here we go again. The only thing Uber drivers are is naive, ignorant and gullible. Give me the name of just 1 driver that has completed a W-4 for Uber Technologies/Raiser LLC prior to downloading the driver app. You do know that a W-4 is a federal form that is required by law to be completed by every EMPLOYEE prior to receiving any compensation from any company or entity.
> It's sure pathetic when people don't get their way they start throwing a tantrum and blaming others for their own stupidity. But it's sure great that we live in a country in which we can try and set legal precedence for our own stupidity.
> 
> 1000's of companies that do contract work for govt's at the federal, state and local levels don't get to set their own price. Cab drivers have been IC's for years, in fact the phrase independent contractor is usually blocked in letters on the driver's side door, and the cab company is the one that sets the rates. In some municipalities it's the gov't that sets the rates.


I really think that the reason most of the drivers who want to be classified as
employees want that us because they want exactly the OPPOSITE of
what Uber wants!

And why shouldn't they?

Uber has expressed many times, with both words and by their actions, that
they couldn't care less about what drivers want or need. Nope. To them, it's
all about what THEY want to do, with drivers' desires not entering into the
equation for even a split second.

Basically, Uber has always acted in a way that is the WORST possible for drives,
and now drivers want what is the WORST possible outcome for Uber.

And no, drivers don't care if being reclassified as employees bankrupts Uber
and doing rideshare stops being a thing entirely.

Makes sense?

Yep. Drivers hate Uber THAT much. But Uber has brought this upon themselves.

It could have been a beautiful, harmonious relationship, but Travis was more concerned
with Flying cars and getting back at everyone who wronged him in high school than he
was in creating a workforce that loved working for him.


----------



## Surge Donut

SpecialK8 said:


> A few people here need to give back their cocktail napkin law degree haha
> 
> OK, a preface...I do not prefer to be an employee. I am fine with agreeing ahead of time to some of Uber's non negotiable policies and that in itself does not make me or anyone an employee. That said, clearly a few of you arguing we are contractors on the premise Uber has a right to set its policies have never read the driver-partner agreement. If you have, then you would recognize a major flaw in your legal stance and also recognize the government contract analogy is awful.
> 
> First and foremost, Uber in its partner agreement says it is AN AGENT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE DRIVER to facilitate a ride and act as a third party payment collector. The ride waybill generated is between the rider/client and the driver/service provider.
> 
> On its face, the government analogy is horrible because the government sets its own rates as a client and the provider of services can take it or leave it. Uber is saying on one hand it is merely acting on our behalf as our own third party intermediary, yet it wants to control the rates and how the services are performed. That is contradictory to its own claims that it is merely a third party. Third parties provide ancillary services and are not usually the ones that set the policies of how the work is performed.
> 
> I said before that I prefer to be a contractor. However, if someone claiming to be MY AGENT fired me because MY clients didn't like the job I was doing or which clients I took on or didn't take on, then I too would be suing the agent for not upholding the agreement. You can't say you're just a third party and then get to set and enforce how you want all the work to be done. If you do, you're no longer a third party...you're an employer.
> 
> Most of these drivers probably prefer to be contractors but they're tired of Uber trying to play both sides of a legal fence. They want to have all the control of rates, policies and talk down to and lecture drivers when riders complain, yet they say they're just a third party payment collector. Like I said, if that were true then it should be up to the driver to set rates and decide for themself how to handle wait times, cancellations, complaints, etc.
> 
> Read the freaking agreement people...Uber itself claims its a third party and acts an agent of the driver. Since when does an agent representing a client get to control how the client does all his or her work? It doesn't.


Well said, I'm with you 100%.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Surge Donut said:


> I usually agree with all your posts but on this I disagree. It's not about what you want to be. Uber definitely treats drivers like employees. For instance they force me offline for 2 minutes if I don't accept 3 low rated trip requests in a row.


How is being punished for not fulfilling your contractual obligation being treated like an employee? Hell, you should see some of the daily fines contractors get for not completing projects on time.


----------



## REX HAVOC

Maven said:


> Uber loses another round in the contractor vs. Employee battle.
> _____________
> 
> 
> *New York ALJ Takes Uber for a Ride *
> Lexicology June 29 2017
> *
> Why it matters*
> 
> In a decision with potentially significant implications, a New York administrative law judge (ALJ) held that Uber drivers are employees of the ride-sharing company. The case arose after three drivers had their accounts deactivated and sought unemployment benefits. Uber contended that because the drivers set their own schedules, selected their work areas, were not required to report absences and were not provided with fringe benefits, they should be considered independent contractors. But the ALJ disagreed, finding that Uber did not use an "arms' length approach as would typify an independent contractor arrangement," instead demonstrating substantial involvement with the drivers. "I find that while there are some indicia of claimant's independence, 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," the ALJ wrote. Importantly, she added that her decision applied not just to the three drivers involved in the case but "others similarly situated" as well. Uber-which has been battling the issue across the country with mixed results-said it intends to appeal the decision.
> 
> *Detailed discussion*
> 
> Are Uber drivers employees or independent contractors? Three New York drivers sought unemployment benefits after their accounts with the ride-sharing service were deactivated. Uber balked, arguing that the drivers were independent contractors. The state's Department of Labor issued an initial determination holding that the drivers were eligible to receive benefits, and Uber requested a hearing to appeal.
> 
> Following the hearing-complete with testimony from the drivers and Uber representatives-ALJ Michelle Burrowes overruled Uber's objection and found that the drivers were employees.
> 
> The ALJ walked through the process of becoming an Uber driver, explaining the "on-boarding process" beginning with the requirement of certain documents (a driver's license, vehicle registration and a license from the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission). Drivers were shown a video explaining how the Uber app works and depicting best practices guidelines, such as maintaining a clean vehicle and wearing professional attire.
> 
> Uber also published a Code of Conduct for its drivers, setting forth the minimum standards of conduct to which it expects both riders and drivers to adhere, with an explanation that failure to do so risks deactivation of access to the app. In addition, Uber published a Welcome Packet, described as containing "essential information for new Uber partners" and maintained online support resources for drivers.
> 
> Drivers needed a vehicle and smartphone to provide rides through the app, with Uber compiling a list of the vehicles it deemed acceptable. For those looking to lease their vehicles, Uber referred drivers to an affiliated third party and, in one case, intervened when a driver became delinquent, negotiating with the lessor for an alternative payment schedule. Uber also provided one driver with a smartphone and another with a phone charger and cable.
> 
> When a rider was picked up, the Uber app suggested a route, but drivers were expected to follow the route suggested by a rider, if given; the company also imposed rules about how long drivers had to wait for a rider. During the time period drivers are logged in to the app, Uber has the capacity to collect and review data regarding their activities, such as their acceptance and cancellation rates, the ALJ noted. Drivers are expected to accept 90 percent of ride requests received.
> 
> The company did not provide drivers with paid vacation, sick leave, health insurance coverage or other fringe benefits, nor did Uber impose a work schedule on the drivers. Instead, drivers autonomously decided when, where and how long they would work. Drivers were allowed to procure rides from Uber's competitors and had the ability to sub-contract drivers if they wanted.
> 
> After relating all these facts, the ALJ found the evidence demonstrated "that Uber exercised sufficient supervision and control over substantial aspects" of the drivers' work. "Uber did not employ an arms' length approach to the claimants as would typify an independent contractor arrangement," Burrowes wrote. "Uber remained involved with the means by which claimants provided transportation services for its Riders," such as requiring compliance with a list of approved vehicles.
> 
> "Additionally, Uber does not dispute that when [two of the] complainants lacked proper credit to secure their own vehicles, Uber not only referred them to their third-party affiliates to lease vehicles without credit, but also Uber took the additional step of withholding monies from these claimants' fares and making lease payments on their behalf. Uber even intervened when [one claimant] was delinquent in his lease payments to the third-party lessor, to arrange an alternate payment plan &#8230; to address his arrears."
> 
> The ALJ rejected Uber's position that the drivers signed a contract designating them as independent contractors as well as its characterization of the company as simply "a technology company that generates leads for drivers."
> 
> Uber set a mandatory wait time for riders before leaving a pickup site, the ALJ noted, retained the sole discretion to determine if that rider would be charged a wait fee, and had complete control over the fare for the ride, which was calculated by Uber's app algorithm.
> 
> Further, Uber continuously monitored its drivers, Burrowes found. "Uber took steps to modify the claimants' behavior, as typical in an employer-employee relationship," the ALJ said, publishing several documents including a Code of Conduct, which warned drivers that if they failed to accept 90 percent of all ride requests, they could face deactivation.
> 
> "Uber also used its Riders' responses on its five-star rating system &#8230; to monitor and evaluate a Driver's performance in providing ride service and to determine if that Driver's rating was unacceptable such that he should be deactivated from the app," the ALJ wrote.
> 
> A review of the record showed that each driver was "subjected to substantial supervision and control by Uber," Burrowes said. "I find that while there are some indicia of claimant's independence, 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. I conclude, therefore, that the claimants, and others similarly situated, are/were employees of the employer, Uber."
> 
> To read the decision, click here.


Do you guys really want to be classified as employees? I just want pay comparable to what the taxi's earn and maybe partially subsidized healthcare. . What I don't want is someone dictating what hours I work and where.


----------



## Surge Donut

SEAL Team 5 said:


> How is being punished for not fulfilling your contractual obligation being treated like an employee? Hell, you should see some of the daily fines contractors get for not completing projects on time.


Because if I am an independent contractor I should (and do) have the right to choose which jobs I accept. If I choose to make a business decision to not accept a trip from someone with a 4.1 rating or someone who is too far away that I wouldn't make a profit that is my decision.


----------



## SpecialK8

SEAL Team 5 said:


> That's a horrible comparison. What example of contracting that I posted was illegal like the felony assault that you posted.


This apparently comes as a surprise to you but merely two parties agreeing to a contract doesn't always make it enforceable. Labor law trumps any agreement made and if the government decides a misclassification was made of employment, the contract is void


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

KevRyde said:


> No. Drivers agree to the rates that Uber sets when they sign the contract. How do you not know this?


According to the Uber Driver Agreement, the fares published by Uber are only 'default' (recommended) fares to be used in the event that the driver and rider do not negotiate a fare. "How do you not know this?" 

_By accepting a Ride, you indicate your agreement to charge the Rider Payment at the amount recommended by us as your agent. The Fare portion of the Rider Payment shall operate as a default, but following completion of a Ride you are entitled to request to charge a lower Fare, and we will consider these requests in good faith._​
And that's the current language - earlier versions were even more ambiguous.
Still, it's another example of Uber wanting it both ways: The fares are just recommendations - but you, as an IC, agree to charge the rider the 'recommended' fare (_uh - that makes it not a recommendation_) but fret not, driver, because you can always request that we collect a different fare from the rider - as long as it's lower (_uh, no... if an IC can change the fare to a lower amount, then they can also change it to a higher amount_).

Someday, Uber is going to have to stand before a judge and justify the above 'UberSpeak' and explain how it is that Uber is not exerting control over it's ICs.


----------



## Surge Donut

SEAL Team 5 just because we agree with the ruling doesn't mean we want to be employees. I would rather Uber treat us as independent contractors but they don't.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Demon said:


> Then they aren't independent contractors. Thanks for clearing that up.


Read 4.1 of your Uber Driver Agreement.



Surge Donut said:


> Because if I am an independent contractor I should (and do) have the right to choose which jobs I accept. If I choose to make a business decision to not accept a trip from someone with a 4.1 rating or someone who is too far away that I wouldn't make a profit that is my decision.


Question: 
Let's say I pick up an Amazon Flex 'block' for delivering packages... 
and the load assigned to me has 30 packages, but there are five addresses I don't want to deliver to. 
Do I have the right as an IC to say:
'hey Amazon - I'll deliver these 25, but not those 5"?
And if 'yes', then does Amazon have the right to never send me anymore jobs/blocks?


----------



## Certain Judgment

Surge Donut said:


> SEAL Team 5 just because we agree with the ruling doesn't mean we want to be employees. I would rather Uber treat us as independent contractors but they don't.


Indeed. I, as an IC, should have a right to carry my lawfully concealed weapon with me in the vehicle at all times. No contract should be permitted to infringe on my constitutional rights.


----------



## Surge Donut

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Read 4.1 of your Uber Driver Agreement.
> 
> Question:
> Let's say I pick up an Amazon Flex 'block' for delivering packages...
> and the load assigned to me has 30 packages, but there are five addresses I don't want to deliver to.
> Do I have the right as an IC to say:
> 'hey Amazon - I'll deliver these 25, but not those 5"?
> And if 'yes', then does Amazon have the right to never send me anymore jobs/blocks?


That's different because the Amazon delivery example is all part of 1 job whereas each Uber trip is a new job.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

uberdriverfornow said:


> Just because Uber calls drivers independent contractors doesn't mean the are. Almost most all administrative law justices and courts around the world have been in agreement that Uber drivers are employees. You may not like it but that's the way it is.
> 
> I'm sure if Uber told you to jump off a bridge you would because whatever Ubers says you believe and don't question.


I'm really not talking about what courts are arguing as much as EVERY driver joined Uber KNOWING full well that they were an IC. Now that the drivers are facing the reality of this business they're wanting to be bailed out by the courts granting them employee status. Three years ago these 700,000 drivers never even considered being in the fare for hire business. Now this country has 700,000 more professional drivers, but they're all *****in. Why doesn't everyone go back to what they were doing 3 years ago and let the IC's that have been doing this profession for over a century keep doing it.
Just a side note; Uber has been in business for almost 9 years and for the first 7 years there was NEVER a complaint about the IC status of drivers. Not until rates dropped did any driver ever complain.


----------



## SpecialK8

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Read 4.1 of your Uber Driver Agreement.
> 
> Question:
> Let's say I pick up an Amazon Flex 'block' for delivering packages...
> and the load assigned to me has 30 packages, but there are five addresses I don't want to deliver to.
> Do I have the right as an IC to say:
> 'hey Amazon - I'll deliver these 25, but not those 5"?
> And if 'yes', then does Amazon have the right to never send me anymore jobs/blocks?


I agree with the point you're making. Its valid. But I will also point out that with Amazon, the clients are Amazon's and as an IC, my job is to fulfill service for Amazon. Legally, uber wants everyone to believe these are MY clients to pick and choose from, not Uber, and they merely facilitate it for us and handle payments. Its a subtle difference but one nonetheless.


----------



## Steve2967

Rat said:


> There is no requirement as an employee to work a set schedule


Really? So you can get a job and the boss says "hey just come to work when you want." Yeah that doesn't happen ever.


----------



## Surge Donut

Steve2967 said:


> Really? So you can get a job and the boss says "hey just come to work when you want." Yeah that doesn't happen ever.


Actually it does. Many modern jobs are based on performance and results, not a set schedule. Some people work remotely from home a few days a week, others start when they want but end later. The only jobs with set hours and locations tend to be in hospitality and retail.

But I'm talking about Australia. Maybe it's more traditional in the US?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Certain Judgment said:


> Indeed. I, as an IC, should have a right to carry my lawfully concealed weapon with me in the vehicle at all times. No contract should be permitted to infringe on my constitutional rights.


You're conflating State law (CCW) with a right afforded under the constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the 2nd amendment does not give everyone the right carry a weapon anywhere they want, whenever they want. States have the legal right to regulate, register and control who can carry a firearm, how they can carry it and where they can carry it.

In other words, if you want to carry a concealed weapon you may be free to do so - but you may not be allowed to carry it into a Church, a Courtroom, Bar, or, into a place of employment. A company policy that prhobits the presence of firearms while working does not violate your right to carry - it's your choice (be unemployed and carry - or leave your gun at the door and work).



Surge Donut said:


> That's different because the Amazon delivery example is all part of 1 job whereas each Uber trip is a new job.


But I could argue that when I am online with Uber, they are pressuring me to take all requests and monitor both my request acceptance rate and my cancellation rate - therefore, while I am online, it's "one job" for which I am paid 'piecemeil'.



SEAL Team 5 said:


> I'm really not talking about what courts are arguing as much as EVERY driver joined Uber KNOWING full well that they were an IC. Now that the drivers are facing the reality of this business they're wanting to be bailed out by the courts granting them employee status. Three years ago these 700,000 drivers never even considered being in the fare for hire business. Now this country has 700,000 more professional drivers, but they're all *****in. Why doesn't everyone go back to what they were doing 3 years ago and let the IC's that have been doing this profession for over a century keep doing it.
> Just a side note; Uber has been in business for almost 9 years and for the first 7 years there was NEVER a complaint about the IC status of drivers. Not until rates dropped did any driver ever complain.


Please, make it easier for us all and just post a list of the things that meet your standard of what other people are allowed to complain about.


----------



## SpecialK8

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You're conflating State law (CCW) with a right afforded under the constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the 2nd amendment does not give everyone the right carry a weapon anywhere they want, whenever they want. States have the legal right to regulate, register and control who can carry a firearm, how they can carry it and where they can carry it.
> 
> In other words, if you want to carry a concealed weapon you may be free to do so - but you may not be allowed to carry it into a Church, a Courtroom, Bar, or, into a place of employment. A company policy that prhobits the presence of firearms while working does not violate your right to carry - it's your choice (be unemployed and carry - or leave your gun at the door and work).
> 
> But I could argue that when I am online with Uber, they are pressuring me to take all requests and monitor both my request acceptance rate and my cancellation rate - therefore, while I am online, it's "one job" for which I am paid 'piecemeil'.


You could argue it but that's not the case nor is it what Uber is claiming. He is correct though that with Amazon you're contracting for a specific batch of jobs at one time and not delivering them all is violating that specific project agreement. Uber basically just delivers requests to drivers they say are contracting with the client to drive.


----------



## Certain Judgment

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You're conflating State law (CCW) with a right afforded under the constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the 2nd amendment does not give everyone the right carry a weapon anywhere they want, whenever they want. States have the legal right to regulate, register and control who can carry a firearm, how they can carry it and where they can carry it.
> 
> In other words, if you want to carry a concealed weapon you may be free to do so - but you may not be allowed to carry it into a Church, a Courtroom, Bar, or, into a place of employment. A company policy that prhobits the presence of firearms while working does not violate your right to carry - it's your choice (be unemployed and carry - or leave your gun at the door and work).
> 
> But I could argue that when I am online with Uber, they are pressuring me to take all requests and monitor both my request acceptance rate and my cancellation rate - therefore, while I am online, it's "one job" for which I am paid 'piecemeil'.
> 
> Please, make it easier for us all and just post a list of the things that meet your standard of what other people are allowed to complain about.


Wisconsin says you can concealed carry, and that settles it.


----------



## Haskel45

SpecialK8 said:


> A few people here need to give back their cocktail napkin law degree haha
> 
> OK, a preface...I do not prefer to be an employee. I am fine with agreeing ahead of time to some of Uber's non negotiable policies and that in itself does not make me or anyone an employee. That said, clearly a few of you arguing we are contractors on the premise Uber has a right to set its policies have never read the driver-partner agreement. If you have, then you would recognize a major flaw in your legal stance and also recognize the government contract analogy is awful.
> 
> First and foremost, Uber in its partner agreement says it is AN AGENT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE DRIVER to facilitate a ride and act as a third party payment collector. The ride waybill generated is between the rider/client and the driver/service provider.
> 
> On its face, the government analogy is horrible because the government sets its own rates as a client and the provider of services can take it or leave it. Uber is saying on one hand it is merely acting on our behalf as our own third party intermediary, yet it wants to control the rates and how the services are performed. That is contradictory to its own claims that it is merely a third party. Third parties provide ancillary services and are not usually the ones that set the policies of how the work is performed.
> 
> I said before that I prefer to be a contractor. However, if someone claiming to be MY AGENT fired me because MY clients didn't like the job I was doing or which clients I took on or didn't take on, then I too would be suing the agent for not upholding the agreement. You can't say you're just a third party and then get to set and enforce how you want all the work to be done. If you do, you're no longer a third party...you're an employer.
> 
> Most of these drivers probably prefer to be contractors but they're tired of Uber trying to play both sides of a legal fence. They want to have all the control of rates, policies and talk down to and lecture drivers when riders complain, yet they say they're just a third party payment collector. Like I said, if that were true then it should be up to the driver to set rates and decide for themself how to handle wait times, cancellations, complaints, etc.
> 
> Read the freaking agreement people...Uber itself claims its a third party and acts an agent of the driver. Since when does an agent representing a client get to control how the client does all his or her work? It doesn't.












Thread over


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Certain Judgment said:


> Wisconsin says you can concealed carry, and that settles it.


https://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/default/files/dles/ccw/ccw-faq.pdf
see page 28 for where you cannot CCW in WI.


----------



## Certain Judgment

Michael - Cleveland said:


> https://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/default/files/dles/ccw/ccw-faq.pdf
> see page 28 for where you cannot CCW in WI.


Page 28 is stating places you cannot OPEN carry, not concealed carry. Try again.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Certain Judgment said:


> Page 28 is stating places you cannot OPEN carry, not concealed carry. Try again.


No one,* including a CCW licensee* may carry a firearm in or on the grounds of a school unless another specific statutory exception applies. 
Wis. Stat. § 948.605(2)(b)1r. 
No one, *including a CCW licensee* may carry any other dangerous weapon on school premises unless a specific statutory exception applies. Wis. Stat. § 948.61(2) and (3). 
Also see: POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY. • Persons who do not have a CCW permit may not carry a handgun in a tavern and *those persons with a CCW license may carry a concealed handgun in a tavern only if NOT consuming alcohol*.


----------



## Certain Judgment

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No one,* including a CCW licensee* may carry a firearm in or on the grounds of a school unless another specific statutory exception applies.
> Wis. Stat. § 948.605(2)(b)1r.
> No one, *including a CCW licensee* may carry any other dangerous weapon on school premises unless a specific statutory exception applies. Wis. Stat. § 948.61(2) and (3).
> Also see: POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY. • Persons who do not have a CCW permit may not carry a handgun in a tavern and *those persons with a CCW license may carry a concealed handgun in a tavern only if NOT consuming alcohol*.


Schools and taverns. But it says nothing about my automobile and that is my point.


----------



## Maven

This is a great IC/Employee discussion.  If you are one of those with an interest then *please *speak out at:
https://uberpeople.net/threads/employee-or-contractor-choose-now.180522/


----------



## I have nuts

Strange Fruit said:


> Do Franchise owners?


Franchise owners are glorified employees. Franchise owners have to play by the rules of the parent company, and if you don't, they can strip your franchise away from you.

https://www.google.com/amp/abc13.co...chisee-loses-store-after-racist-rant/1693781/


----------



## Surge Donut

I have nuts said:


> Franchise owners are glorified employees. Franchise owners have to play by the rules of the parent company, and if you don't, they can strip your franchise away from you.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/abc13.co...chisee-loses-store-after-racist-rant/1693781/


Yes and they also pay themselves and their staff.


----------



## luvgurl22

Maven said:


> Uber loses another round in the contractor vs. Employee battle.
> _____________
> 
> 
> *New York ALJ Takes Uber for a Ride *
> Lexicology June 29 2017
> *
> Why it matters*
> 
> In a decision with potentially significant implications, a New York administrative law judge (ALJ) held that Uber drivers are employees of the ride-sharing company. The case arose after three drivers had their accounts deactivated and sought unemployment benefits. Uber contended that because the drivers set their own schedules, selected their work areas, were not required to report absences and were not provided with fringe benefits, they should be considered independent contractors. But the ALJ disagreed, finding that Uber did not use an "arms' length approach as would typify an independent contractor arrangement," instead demonstrating substantial involvement with the drivers. "I find that while there are some indicia of claimant's independence, 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," the ALJ wrote. Importantly, she added that her decision applied not just to the three drivers involved in the case but "others similarly situated" as well. Uber-which has been battling the issue across the country with mixed results-said it intends to appeal the decision.
> 
> *Detailed discussion*
> 
> Are Uber drivers employees or independent contractors? Three New York drivers sought unemployment benefits after their accounts with the ride-sharing service were deactivated. Uber balked, arguing that the drivers were independent contractors. The state's Department of Labor issued an initial determination holding that the drivers were eligible to receive benefits, and Uber requested a hearing to appeal.
> 
> Following the hearing-complete with testimony from the drivers and Uber representatives-ALJ Michelle Burrowes overruled Uber's objection and found that the drivers were employees.
> 
> The ALJ walked through the process of becoming an Uber driver, explaining the "on-boarding process" beginning with the requirement of certain documents (a driver's license, vehicle registration and a license from the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission). Drivers were shown a video explaining how the Uber app works and depicting best practices guidelines, such as maintaining a clean vehicle and wearing professional attire.
> 
> Uber also published a Code of Conduct for its drivers, setting forth the minimum standards of conduct to which it expects both riders and drivers to adhere, with an explanation that failure to do so risks deactivation of access to the app. In addition, Uber published a Welcome Packet, described as containing "essential information for new Uber partners" and maintained online support resources for drivers.
> 
> Drivers needed a vehicle and smartphone to provide rides through the app, with Uber compiling a list of the vehicles it deemed acceptable. For those looking to lease their vehicles, Uber referred drivers to an affiliated third party and, in one case, intervened when a driver became delinquent, negotiating with the lessor for an alternative payment schedule. Uber also provided one driver with a smartphone and another with a phone charger and cable.
> 
> When a rider was picked up, the Uber app suggested a route, but drivers were expected to follow the route suggested by a rider, if given; the company also imposed rules about how long drivers had to wait for a rider. During the time period drivers are logged in to the app, Uber has the capacity to collect and review data regarding their activities, such as their acceptance and cancellation rates, the ALJ noted. Drivers are expected to accept 90 percent of ride requests received.
> 
> The company did not provide drivers with paid vacation, sick leave, health insurance coverage or other fringe benefits, nor did Uber impose a work schedule on the drivers. Instead, drivers autonomously decided when, where and how long they would work. Drivers were allowed to procure rides from Uber's competitors and had the ability to sub-contract drivers if they wanted.
> 
> After relating all these facts, the ALJ found the evidence demonstrated "that Uber exercised sufficient supervision and control over substantial aspects" of the drivers' work. "Uber did not employ an arms' length approach to the claimants as would typify an independent contractor arrangement," Burrowes wrote. "Uber remained involved with the means by which claimants provided transportation services for its Riders," such as requiring compliance with a list of approved vehicles.
> 
> "Additionally, Uber does not dispute that when [two of the] complainants lacked proper credit to secure their own vehicles, Uber not only referred them to their third-party affiliates to lease vehicles without credit, but also Uber took the additional step of withholding monies from these claimants' fares and making lease payments on their behalf. Uber even intervened when [one claimant] was delinquent in his lease payments to the third-party lessor, to arrange an alternate payment plan &#8230; to address his arrears."
> 
> The ALJ rejected Uber's position that the drivers signed a contract designating them as independent contractors as well as its characterization of the company as simply "a technology company that generates leads for drivers."
> 
> Uber set a mandatory wait time for riders before leaving a pickup site, the ALJ noted, retained the sole discretion to determine if that rider would be charged a wait fee, and had complete control over the fare for the ride, which was calculated by Uber's app algorithm.
> 
> Further, Uber continuously monitored its drivers, Burrowes found. "Uber took steps to modify the claimants' behavior, as typical in an employer-employee relationship," the ALJ said, publishing several documents including a Code of Conduct, which warned drivers that if they failed to accept 90 percent of all ride requests, they could face deactivation.
> 
> "Uber also used its Riders' responses on its five-star rating system &#8230; to monitor and evaluate a Driver's performance in providing ride service and to determine if that Driver's rating was unacceptable such that he should be deactivated from the app," the ALJ wrote.
> 
> A review of the record showed that each driver was "subjected to substantial supervision and control by Uber," Burrowes said. "I find that while there are some indicia of claimant's independence, 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. I conclude, therefore, that the claimants, and others similarly situated, are/were employees of the employer, Uber."
> 
> To read the decision, click here.


Uber & Lyft are so full of crap. They control every aspect of our movement.From the passengers that we pick up, to where we go, to how long we drive, they are just smart about the way they manipulate the system to make you think otherwise. "Independent" my foot ...


----------



## bpm45

It wasn't a wise thing to establish "value pricing" where Uber takes a greater and greater share of the fare. This further establishes Uber as an employer. If we were real independent contractors, then we would be able to determine what we are willing to work for. The computer systems can be adapted to this new requirement quite easily.


----------



## SpecialK8

bpm45 said:


> It wasn't a wise thing to establish "value pricing" where Uber takes a greater and greater share of the fare. This further establishes Uber as an employer. If we were real independent contractors, then we would be able to determine what we are willing to work for. The computer systems can be adapted to this new requirement quite easily.


Great point. I was thinking about that when I heard about it a few weeks ago. At least before, the rates were set and the driver was always getting the same percentage of the fare...justifying somewhat they were merely charging a processing fee. But now they're setting rates arbitrarily and choosing what to pay the driver as a percentage.


----------



## Strange Fruit

I have nuts said:


> Franchise owners are glorified employees. Franchise owners have to play by the rules of the parent company, and if you don't, they can strip your franchise away from you.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/abc13.co...chisee-loses-store-after-racist-rant/1693781/





Surge Donut said:


> Yes and they also pay themselves and their staff.


So are franchise owners employees? Not sure if either of these are real answers or jokes. By the logic of most of the "I'm an employee" posts, franchise owners are employees, I mean according to these two answers if they're accurate. I know every McDs I've been in seemed like they were doing exactly as corporate told them to. Idk much of anything. Just asking questions and making logical connections.

And Demon asked if drivers set their own prices (assumedly implying that "no, therefore we're employees"). I was hoping he would answer. So many seem to think this "set yr own prices" matters. Do Herbalife sellers set their own prices? Those people aren't employees are they, but they don't set their prices.



bpm45 said:


> It wasn't a wise thing to establish "value pricing" where Uber takes a greater and greater share of the fare. This further establishes Uber as an employer. If we were real independent contractors, then we would be able to determine what we are willing to work for. The computer systems can be adapted to this new requirement quite easily.


And Uber could say "we don't like that price for the riders we represent and whom we connect with a ride. We only connect riders with a ride at our price or lower. If u don't like it, take yr 'driving company' and get yr own riders who want to pay what u want them to pay." I think they could say thay anyways. Probably could/would.


----------



## I have nuts

Strange Fruit said:


> So are franchise owners employees? Not sure if either of these are real answers or jokes. By the logic of most of the "I'm an employee" posts, franchise owners are employees, I mean according to these two answers if they're accurate. I know every McDs I've been in seemed like they were doing exactly as corporate told them to. Idk much of anything. Just asking questions and making logical connections.
> 
> And Demon asked if drivers set their own prices (assumedly implying that "no, therefore we're employees"). I was hoping he would answer. So many seem to think this "set yr own prices" matters. Do Herbalife sellers set their own prices? Those people aren't employees are they, but they don't set their prices.
> 
> And Uber could say "we don't like that price for the riders we represent and whom we connect with a ride. We only connect riders with a ride at our price or lower. If u don't like it, take yr 'driving company' and get yr own riders who want to pay what u want them to pay." I think they could say thay anyways. Probably could/would.


Yes technically franchises are "business owners" and not "employees". My point was that they have very little say so in the company, they are at the mercy of the parent company. As far uber and them perpetuating this fraud that we are "independent contractors" and they are a "technology company" that matches drivers with pax, if that were the case then drivers would/should be able to set their own rates, and pick and choose with pax they want to drive.


----------



## nyla

Uber will have to give up controlling whether a driver does or doesn't accept rides. That is a sticking point for every court. Uber wants too much control. They can't have it both ways. Either we get choice or drivers will become employees.


----------



## Ms.Doe

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Here we go again. The only thing Uber drivers are is naive, ignorant and gullible. Give me the name of just 1 driver that has completed a W-4 for Uber Technologies/Raiser LLC prior to downloading the driver app. You do know that a W-4 is a federal form that is required by law to be completed by every EMPLOYEE prior to receiving any compensation from any company or entity.
> It's sure pathetic when people don't get their way they start throwing a tantrum and blaming others for their own stupidity. But it's sure great that we live in a country in which we can try and set legal precedence for our own stupidity.
> 
> 1000's of companies that do contract work for govt's at the federal, state and local levels don't get to set their own price. Cab drivers have been IC's for years, in fact the phrase independent contractor is usually blocked in letters on the driver's side door, and the cab company is the one that sets the rates. In some municipalities it's the gov't that sets the rates.


Taxi drivers have the right to refuse any passenger or fare they choose.



CapeCodDriver said:


> This is an interesting thread because it exposes a few things.
> 1. There are some legal issues with how Uber works today, and it will have to change one way or another to survive.
> 2. Drivers are on both sides of the fence on this issue, and obviously have very strong opinions about which they think is right or best for various economic and legal reasons.
> 3. It makes me realize that there may be room in the market for both employees and ICs. If you want a guaranteed rate for a guaranteed number of hours, you can be an employee. But you have to answer to Uber to schedule your shifts, and you'll be used with Uber's best interests in mind. If you want to be an IC, imagine a future version of the app where you can set filters to only get pings above a certain rate/boost/surge. And that will tell you the distance you're traveling and the estimated payout before you accept. Riders have upfront pricing....so should we! You can still go on and offline as you want, but your acceptance rate can be single digits because you only take the fares you want to. But as long as you're rated highly by pax, you don't get deactivated.


Well said. I concur!


----------



## OdiousRhetoric

Certain Judgment said:


> You can't sue me for discrimination against a geographic location, as I pick up people of all pigmentations outside of those areas. You can run along now.


Not running anywhere. If you feel your bigotry is legal, let's put it before a judge. You need to be sued and have your person destroyed. Your wages need to garnishing as well. Or are you afraid?



SEAL Team 5 said:


> That's a horrible comparison. What example of contracting that I posted was illegal like the felony assault that you posted.


Why would one wife complain if the other doesn't? Doesn't that mean the tx is standard?


----------



## SCdave

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber in the US, in my opinion, is driving the gig economy to the Supreme Court, which will dump the whole labor issue back into Congress' lap - where it belongs.
> 
> The FLSA needs to be updated to reflect the today's work environment and the will of Congress (min wage protections, prevention of exploitation of labor) to cover gig workers with a new category of worker - a hybrid, something in-between employee and contractor. It should (again, just imo) end up with the corporation paying the employer share of 'employer taxes' (SSI/Medicare) & unemployment insurance on their labor force - but still allowing the worker the independence of a contractor.
> 
> hehe... and to hell with the other 99% of drivers!


Read this.

Don't think "backwards" on this issue of drivers wanting to be employees. That is not the point and shouldn't be the focus.

Think "forward" about why there needs to be a definition of what the Gig Economy OnDemand Worker is (there is no unifying definition at this point).

So how do we provide a flexible worker marketplace so entrepreneurs can create new and innovative services?

And investors can provide capital?

AND OnDemand Workers, as Independent Contractors, have a legal definition of who they are, what they are, how this relates to individual worker taxes, possibly a modified schedule of what percentage of state/federal tax obligations are paid by the Corporate "App" and the OnDemand Worker, and what state/federal benefits are available when the OnDemand worker is unemployed, temporarily sick/injured, or disabled?

That's the way I see it going forward.

As a Driver, I do not want to become an employee.

But Uber has so much control over me and the way I drive for "their transportation company", that Uber needs to either pay/provide benefits like an employer OR give up much much more control of their transportation business to me.

Just can't have it both ways going forward like Uber currently does.


----------



## SpecialK8

Yea people are making this out to be drivers preferring being an employee to a contractor; that's not the case at all. This is about drivers wanting to be treated like a contractor is legally supposed to be treated.

The USDOL and IRS have guidelines in place to protect workers from being classified as a contractor while being treated like an employee. To be an actual contractor, the worker is supposed to have at least *some* control over not only hours and work schedule, but also pay and where and most importantly *how* the work is performed.

Uber exercises almost complete control over the *how* it is performed, going so far to set policies and punish for poor performance. That goes against the government labor guidelines. To truly be a contractor, a business is supposed to cede at least some control over how the worker performs his or her work. You can't just call them a contractor and tell them they have to abide by all your guidelines. You can pay a set amount for a project and dictate that the project be completed in a timely manner for a set price, but you can't also then dictate how, where and when they perform the work.

This isn't about wanting to be an employee. And should this threaten Uber's model, this doesn't mean they are forced to make everyone an employee. It simply means they might have to actually give some level of control over to the drivers as actual contractors... which is exactly what most of us want in the first place. We want to be treated like actual contractors, not like employees they merely call contractors.


----------



## Safe_Driver_4_U

^^^^ yep, that is why I keep talking about complete disruption of the current business models. Create a driver (ICs) owned TNC, a non profit mutual benefit corporation, the Corporate Declarations are the drivers terms (good ones, better than a union), make the Board of Directors drivers, and operations people employees, in addition to very good mileage compensation, return excess revenue directly back to drivers as cash distributions based upon individual revenue generated.


----------



## Certain Judgment

OdiousRhetoric said:


> Not running anywhere. If you feel your bigotry is legal, let's put it before a judge. You need to be sued and have your person destroyed. Your wages need to garnishing as well. Or are you afraid?


Liberalism is a mental disorder. I still have my self-preservation instincts intact, and my family would prefer I keep them that way.

You seem to be very angry and full of hate.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

SEAL Team 5 said:


> I'm really not talking about what courts are arguing as much as EVERY driver joined Uber KNOWING full well that they were an IC. Now that the drivers are facing the reality of this business they're wanting to be bailed out by the courts granting them employee status. Three years ago these 700,000 drivers never even considered being in the fare for hire business. Now this country has 700,000 more professional drivers, but they're all *****in. Why doesn't everyone go back to what they were doing 3 years ago and let the IC's that have been doing this profession for over a century keep doing it.
> Just a side note; Uber has been in business for almost 9 years and for the first 7 years there was NEVER a complaint about the IC status of drivers. Not until rates dropped did any driver ever complain.


Yes, drivers signed up actually thinking they would be treated like independent contractors and when it became clear we were not being treated like independent contractors of course drivers are going to complain and file lawsuits and file for unemployment benefits.

The audacity of drivers not to roll over and play dead for Uber.

Now if Uber was completely treating drivers like independent contractors then I can see you criticizing drivers but clearly we are not being treated like independent contractors so the only person whining is people like you.



SpecialK8 said:


> Uber basically just delivers requests to drivers they say are contracting with the client to drive.


If Uber was simply routing requests to drivers and not specifying the million things that go attached with each ride and how to go about doing rides then yeah we would be independent contractors.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Certain Judgment said:


> Schools and taverns. But it says nothing about my automobile and that is my point.


This is been discussed pretty extensively another threads, but just to clarify, while it may be perfectly legal for you to bring a firearm concealed or otherwise to work with you, if the company's policy is no firearms then they have the right to fire you.

Just because it is perfectly legal for you to carry, does not mean that company policy cannot dictate what you may or may not do while working.

For example under the First Amendment we have the right to dress anyway we want and to express our opinions as we wish. However a company can have a dress code for work, and prohibit certain types of speech. While the way you dress and the way you speak may not be illegal, they can still get you fired.


----------



## Certain Judgment

Michael - Cleveland said:


> This is been discussed pretty extensively another threads, but just to clarify, while it may be perfectly legal for you to bring a firearm concealed or otherwise to work with you, if the company's policy is no firearms then they have the right to fire you.
> 
> Just because it is perfectly legal for you to carry, does not mean that company policy cannot dictate what you may or may not do while working.
> 
> For example under the First Amendment we have the right to dress anyway we want and to express our opinions as we wish. However a company can have a dress code for work, and prohibit certain types of speech. While the way you dress and the way you speak may not be illegal, they can still get you fired.


But if I am not an employee, than I cannot be fired, right?

Better to be deactivated by one than carried by six.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

uberdriverfornow said:


> Yes, drivers signed up actually thinking


That's the problem. Drivers were not thinking when they signed up. Why is it that when UberX first started there was nothing but "this is the best thing since sliced bread" comments from every driver? The ONLY aspect of the X platform that changed was the rates. When the rates were $2.25/mile I never heard a peep about IC/employee status issues. Only when Uber slashed the prices to sub $1/mile did any of the drivers complain. Instead of complaining they should of quit. It was funny that the more Uber cut the rates the more drivers joined. Not one driver should have joined Uber after June '14. 
I would love for all the drivers in this forum to post the date and rate of Uber for when they started. I'll go first.
March 2012 @ $5/mile. No pay for time


----------



## Uberdriverlasvegas

KevRyde said:


> No. Drivers agree to the rates that Uber sets when they sign the contract. How do you not know this?


Not all signed contracts are legal or enforceable


----------



## SCdave

SEAL Team 5 said:


> That's the problem. Drivers were not thinking when they signed up. Why is it that when UberX first started there was nothing but "this is the best thing since sliced bread" comments from every driver? The ONLY aspect of the X platform that changed was the rates. When the rates were $2.25/mile I never heard a peep about IC/employee status issues. Only when Uber slashed the prices to sub $1/mile did any of the drivers complain. Instead of complaining they should of quit. It was funny that the more Uber cut the rates the more drivers joined. Not one driver should have joined Uber after June '14.
> I would love for all the drivers in this forum to post the date and rate of Uber for when they started. I'll go first.
> March 2012 @ $5/mile. No pay for time


Majority of drivers did and do quit.

Quitting and complaining and pointing out how Uber IS actually a Transportation Company with Drivers who can be/should be classified as Employees are all separate issues.

I can just quit and be silent.

I can keep driving and be silent.

I can quit and also keep voicing my opinions about Uber, Driving, and the OnDemand Worker.

I can keep driving, adapt to make whatever net meets my needs... and still voice my opinions.

I don't understand the if you don't like it, just quit, and never again voice your opinion on the matter dialog.

Uber is currently the largest corporation based on an OnDemand Workforce. But there will be many more and likely some larger than Uber.

Drivers today are helping to shape the definition of OnDemand Worker labor laws into the future.

Even if we see the same complaints over and over and over and it seems annoying now, it is still important.

So ya, just quit is an option but not the only one.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Just because it is perfectly legal for you to carry, does not mean that company policy cannot dictate what you may or may not do while working


And this is one of the many many reasons the judges rule time and time again that we are employees. Uber has every right to tell us we can't carry a concealed weapon IF they are employing us.

Uber simply connects us with passengers, is what they say time and time again but that couldn't further from the truth.


----------



## SpecialK8

SEAL Team 5 said:


> That's the problem. Drivers were not thinking when they signed up. Why is it that when UberX first started there was nothing but "this is the best thing since sliced bread" comments from every driver? The ONLY aspect of the X platform that changed was the rates. When the rates were $2.25/mile I never heard a peep about IC/employee status issues. Only when Uber slashed the prices to sub $1/mile did any of the drivers complain. Instead of complaining they should of quit. It was funny that the more Uber cut the rates the more drivers joined. Not one driver should have joined Uber after June '14.
> I would love for all the drivers in this forum to post the date and rate of Uber for when they started. I'll go first.
> March 2012 @ $5/mile. No pay for time


I'm honestly not even sure what your point is. If your point is that drivers aren't willing to tolerate Uber's policies now because they're making a lot less than they were... so what? It has no legal merit. It's an irrelevant point and one that has no impact on the courts' decisions. Not all drivers have been around long enough to see rates slashed. The ones that have, well let's just say it's pretty natural to expect one is willing to put up with a lot more crap when they make more money. Welcome to every job in America, pal.

Anyhow, many of these "employee" or "contractor" lawsuits are coming from people that are canned because of rider complaints or acceptance/cancellation rates. Considering that is the kind of behavior you would see from an employer, it makes sense that anyone would want to seek unemployment or wrongful termination against Uber. Uber shouldn't act like a boss if it's not wanting or pretending to be one.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

SpecialK8 said:


> I'm honestly not even sure what your point is.



On the day you signed up to drive I would like to here what you honestly thought Uber was going to be and why?


----------



## Ca$h4

*Are State Workplace Preemption Laws on the Rise?*

*https://www.bna.com/state-workplace-preemption-n73014444995/*


----------



## SCdave

SEAL Team 5 said:


> On the day you signed up to drive I would like to here what you honestly thought Uber was going to be and why?


I kind of get somewhat the "just quit" as one way or solution to not liking the current Uber Gig. Really I do.

But it has nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## SpecialK8

Listen to how Uber describes itself in the driver-partner agreement (you know, the one that we are 'contractually obligated' to follow)...

Here are some recitals, in Uber's legal team's own words, at the nature of our relationship:

"Company, a subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber"), *provides lead generation to independent providers of rideshare or peer-to-peer (collectively, "P2P") passenger transportation services* using the Uber Services (as defined below). "

"You acknowledge and agree that Company is a *technology services provider that does not provide transportation services*."

Catch that? Uber itself is NOT in the business of providing transportation service. It merely "provides lead generation to independent providers."

"1.13 "Uber Services" mean Uber's on-demand lead generation and related services licensed by Uber to Company that enable transportation providers to seek, receive and fulfill on-demand requests for transportation services by Users seeking transportation services; such Uber Services include access to the Driver App and Uber's software, websites, payment services as described in Section 4 below, and related support services systems, as may be updated or modified from time to time."

Again, Uber is merely providing on-demand lead generation to "transportation providers" (us) to fulfill user requests. Uber does not provide the service. It is merely a facilitator according to its own agreement and also a payment processor (more on that in a moment).

A particularly funny excerpt from 2.2 (provision of transportation services):

"As between Company and you, you acknowledge and agree that: (a) *you shall be solely responsible for determining the most effective, efficient and safe manner to perform each instance of Transportation Services*; and (b) except for the Uber Services or any Company Devices (if applicable), you shall provide all necessary equipment, tools and other materials, at your own expense, necessary to perform Transportation Services."

So Uber is saying we, the drivers, are supposed to determine our routes and safety practices. Anyone actually agree Uber is in compliance with this provision? Uber acts like the warlord when it comes to telling us if we took an efficient route or whenever there's a 'safety' issue brought up by a rider.

NOW HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART. PAY ATTENTION (excerpt of 2.3):

"2.3 Your Relationship with Users. *You acknowledge and agree that your provision of Transportation Services to Users creates a direct business relationship between you and the User*."

This is the point I've made over and over in this thread. Uber spells it out directly in our partner agreement: the business relationship is between the driver and the rider. It is NOT between Uber and the Rider. Uber is a third party. If we truly are independent contractors creating a relationship with the end-user (the passenger), then why is Uber creating policies for us?

By Uber's own definition, it is OUR client, not Uber's. This is spelled out plain as day.

Now Uber's relationship with us (excerpt of 2.4):

"Your Relationship with Company. *You acknowledge and agree that Company's provision to you of the Driver App and the Uber Services creates a direct business relationship between Company and you. Company does not, and shall not be deemed to, direct or control you generally or in your performance under this Agreement specifically, including in connection with your provision of Transportation Services, your acts or omissions, or your operation and maintenance of your Vehicle. You retain the sole right to determine when, where, and for how long you will utilize the Driver App or the Uber Services. You retain the option, via the Driver App, to attempt to accept or to decline or ignore a User's request for Transportation Services via the Uber Services, or to cancel an accepted request for Transportation Services via the Driver App, subject to Company's then-current cancellation policies*."

Again, Uber says plain as day that this is supposed to be OUR control. Those of you saying we are contractually obligated to follow Uber's policies... well Uber is basically saying the opposite. We are supposed to be under our own control. So which is it? Are we contractually obligated to follow Uber's policies or not?

Now my favorite portion where Uber reiterates in 4.1 (Fare Calculation and Your Payment) that it is acting on our behalf:

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

Again, Uber says it's merely a payment processor and acts on our behalf. We have the right to charge a lesser amount, but Uber tells us we can't charge more (even though Uber goes on to say they can charge more if they want, we just don't get to share in the extra amount. How clever.)

Now my favorite contradiction, remember when Uber said in 2.2 it was up to us, the Driver(s), to determine the most efficient route(s)? Well it's funny how that's supposed to be our call, and then they say:

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

On a side note, as far as Uber charging the passengers extra (dynamic pricing) and not giving the drivers a cut... this seems to be in direct violation of 4.4 (service fee):

"In consideration of Company's provision of the Driver App and the Uber Services for your use and benefit hereunder, *you agree to pay Company a service fee on a per Transportation Services transaction basis calculated as a percentage of the Fare determined by the Fare Calculation (regardless of any Negotiated Fare)*, as provided to you via email or otherwise made available electronically by Company from time to time for the applicable Territory ("Service Fee")."

So if they're charging a higher fare estimate through a dynamic pricing model, to eliminate this fee from the driver's cut appears to violate their own terms.

Anyhow, the Relationship clause. Once more, Uber reiterates it's merely a "limited payment collection"...

"13. Relationship of the Parties 
13.1 *Except as otherwise expressly provided herein with respect to Company acting as the limited payment collection agent solely for the purpose of collecting payment from Users on your behalf, the relationship between the parties under this Agreement is solely that of independent contracting parties. The parties expressly agree that: (a) this Agreement is not an employment agreement, nor does it create an employment relationship, between Company and you; and (b) 
no joint venture, partnership, or agency relationship exists between Company and you.*"

Uber is merely a collection agent. It says so several times. So why is a collection agent telling us how to do our work when it specifically tells us in our agreement that it is not?


----------



## SEAL Team 5

SpecialK8 said:


> Listen


Damn, you couldn't spell out Indepedent Contractor any more clearly. I think you guys have a better case of Breach of Contract then employee status.
And the little part in which it states "you shall provide all equipment, tools and other material necessary for providing transportation services" has been a misconception for years as Uber has provided the insurance for any pax or peril.


----------



## SpecialK8

SEAL Team 5 said:


> On the day you signed up to drive I would like to here what you honestly thought Uber was going to be and why?


I'm not going to spend much time on your question not because I want to be rude or avoid it, but it really doesn't matter as it pertains to the discussion. I will tell you that I never really had an expectation one way or another. I tried it out on a whim since I've always been a freelancer/contractor so it seemed right up my alley.

I will say one thing: Uber's primary advertising touted 'being your own boss' which implies a large degree of discretion how to perform your own job. Uber certainly hasn't lived up to that promotion.

It's been two years of driving for me and a year of doing it full time. I make a nice living and I'm willing to overlook some of the hypocrisy, legal maneuvering, holier than thou 'support' staff and all the passive aggressive alerts & emails. For me, as long as the money is there, I'll live with the frustrating antics. But if I were ever deactivated for one of their so called policies that their own agreement spells out should be up to us? You better believe I'll have them in court the very next day.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

SpecialK8 said:


> But if I were ever deactivated for one of their so called policies that their own agreement spells out should be up to us? You better believe I'll have them in court the very next day.


That's the ticket. You can get them for misrepresentation, breach of agreement and misleading. But not for employee status. Only hard part will be proving your damages.


----------



## SpecialK8

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Damn, you couldn't spell out Indepedent Contractor any more clearly. I think you guys have a better case of Breach of Contract then employee status.
> And the little part in which it states "you shall provide all equipment, tools and other material necessary for providing transportation services" has been a misconception for years as Uber has provided the insurance for any pax or peril.


It's probably a little of both but I agree with you that there are a few cases of pretty clear breach. I think the employee issue could still be made the way they enforce policies and deactivate drivers, but they're more directly going against their own stated contractual terms.

If Uber were truly living up to the agreement, you would be absolutely correct that it would spell out Independent Contractor. It's pretty letter of the law drafted to spell out contractor. But because they're breaching their contract, they're also creating a de Facto employer-employee relationship. The government could still say you're an employee even if the agreement spells out a contractor perfectly because their actions are more important than their words.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

SpecialK8 said:


> Listen to how Uber describes itself in the driver-partner agreement (you know, the one that we are 'contractually obligated' to follow)...
> 
> Here are some recitals, in Uber's legal team's own words, at the nature of our relationship:
> 
> "Company, a subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber"), *provides lead generation to independent providers of rideshare or peer-to-peer (collectively, "P2P") passenger transportation services* using the Uber Services (as defined below). "
> 
> "You acknowledge and agree that Company is a *technology services provider that does not provide transportation services*."
> 
> Catch that? Uber itself is NOT in the business of providing transportation service. It merely "provides lead generation to independent providers."
> 
> "1.13 "Uber Services" mean Uber's on-demand lead generation and related services licensed by Uber to Company that enable transportation providers to seek, receive and fulfill on-demand requests for transportation services by Users seeking transportation services; such Uber Services include access to the Driver App and Uber's software, websites, payment services as described in Section 4 below, and related support services systems, as may be updated or modified from time to time."
> 
> Again, Uber is merely providing on-demand lead generation to "transportation providers" (us) to fulfill user requests. Uber does not provide the service. It is merely a facilitator according to its own agreement and also a payment processor (more on that in a moment).
> 
> A particularly funny excerpt from 2.2 (provision of transportation services):
> 
> "As between Company and you, you acknowledge and agree that: (a) *you shall be solely responsible for determining the most effective, efficient and safe manner to perform each instance of Transportation Services*; and (b) except for the Uber Services or any Company Devices (if applicable), you shall provide all necessary equipment, tools and other materials, at your own expense, necessary to perform Transportation Services."
> 
> So Uber is saying we, the drivers, are supposed to determine our routes and safety practices. Anyone actually agree Uber is in compliance with this provision? Uber acts like the warlord when it comes to telling us if we took an efficient route or whenever there's a 'safety' issue brought up by a rider.
> 
> NOW HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART. PAY ATTENTION (excerpt of 2.3):
> 
> "2.3 Your Relationship with Users. *You acknowledge and agree that your provision of Transportation Services to Users creates a direct business relationship between you and the User*."
> 
> This is the point I've made over and over in this thread. Uber spells it out directly in our partner agreement: the business relationship is between the driver and the rider. It is NOT between Uber and the Rider. Uber is a third party. If we truly are independent contractors creating a relationship with the end-user (the passenger), then why is Uber creating policies for us?
> 
> By Uber's own definition, it is OUR client, not Uber's. This is spelled out plain as day.
> 
> Now Uber's relationship with us (excerpt of 2.4):
> 
> "Your Relationship with Company. *You acknowledge and agree that Company's provision to you of the Driver App and the Uber Services creates a direct business relationship between Company and you. Company does not, and shall not be deemed to, direct or control you generally or in your performance under this Agreement specifically, including in connection with your provision of Transportation Services, your acts or omissions, or your operation and maintenance of your Vehicle. You retain the sole right to determine when, where, and for how long you will utilize the Driver App or the Uber Services. You retain the option, via the Driver App, to attempt to accept or to decline or ignore a User's request for Transportation Services via the Uber Services, or to cancel an accepted request for Transportation Services via the Driver App, subject to Company's then-current cancellation policies*."
> 
> Again, Uber says plain as day that this is supposed to be OUR control. Those of you saying we are contractually obligated to follow Uber's policies... well Uber is basically saying the opposite. We are supposed to be under our own control. So which is it? Are we contractually obligated to follow Uber's policies or not?
> 
> Now my favorite portion where Uber reiterates in 4.1 (Fare Calculation and Your Payment) that it is acting on our behalf:
> 
> "4.1 Fare Calculation and Your Payment. You are entitled to charge a fare for each instance of completed Transportation Services provided to a User that are obtained via the Uber Services ("Fare"), where such Fare is calculated based upon a base fare amount plus distance (as determined by Company using location-based services enabled through the Device) and/or time amounts, as detailed at www.uber.com/cities for the applicable Territory ("Fare Calculation"). You acknowledge and agree that the Fare provided under the Fare Calculation is the only payment you will receive in connection with the provision of Transportation Services, and that neither the Fare nor the Fare Calculation includes any gratuity. You are also entitled to charge User for any Tolls, taxes or fees incurred during the provision of Transportation Services, if applicable. *You: (i) appoint Company as your limited payment collection agent solely for the purpose of accepting the Fare, applicable Tolls and, depending on the region and/or if requested by you, applicable taxes and fees from the User on your behalf via the payment processing functionality facilitated by the Uber Services; and (ii) agree that payment made by User to Company (or to an Affiliate of Company acting as an agent of Company) shall be considered the same as payment made directly by User to you. In addition, the parties acknowledge and agree that as between you and Company, the Fare is a recommended amount, and the primary purpose of the pre-arranged Fare is to act as the default amount in the event you do not negotiate a different amount. You shall always have the right to: (i) charge a fare that is less than the pre-arranged Fare; or (ii) negotiate, at your request, a Fare that is lower than the prearranged Fare (each of (i) and (ii) herein, a "Negotiated Fare"). *Company shall consider all such requests from you in good faith. Company agrees to remit, or cause to be remitted, to you on at least a weekly basis: (a) the Fare less the applicable Service Fee; (b) the Tolls; and (c) depending on the region, certain taxes and ancillary fees. If you have separately agreed that other amounts may be deducted from the Fare prior to remittance to you (e.g., vehicle financing payments, lease payments, mobile device usage charges, etc.), the order of any such deductions from the Fare shall be determined exclusively by Company (as between you and Company)."
> 
> Again, Uber says it's merely a payment processor and acts on our behalf. We have the right to charge a lesser amount, but Uber tells us we can't charge more (even though Uber goes on to say they can charge more if they want, we just don't get to share in the extra amount. How clever.)
> 
> Now my favorite contradiction, remember when Uber said in 2.2 it was up to us, the Driver(s), to determine the most efficient route(s)? Well it's funny how that's supposed to be our call, and then they say:
> 
> "4.3 Fare Adjustment. Company reserves the right to: *(i) adjust the Fare for a particular instance of Transportation Services (e.g., you took an inefficient route*, you failed to properly end a particular instance of Transportation Services in the Driver App, technical error in the Uber Services, etc.); or (ii) cancel the Fare for a particular instance of Transportation Services (e.g., User is charged for Transportation Services that were not provided, in the event of a User complaint, fraud, etc.). Company's decision to reduce or cancel the Fare in any such manner shall be exercised in a reasonable manner."
> 
> On a side note, as far as Uber charging the passengers extra (dynamic pricing) and not giving the drivers a cut... this seems to be in direct violation of 4.4 (service fee):
> 
> "In consideration of Company's provision of the Driver App and the Uber Services for your use and benefit hereunder, *you agree to pay Company a service fee on a per Transportation Services transaction basis calculated as a percentage of the Fare determined by the Fare Calculation (regardless of any Negotiated Fare)*, as provided to you via email or otherwise made available electronically by Company from time to time for the applicable Territory ("Service Fee")."
> 
> So if they're charging a higher fare estimate through a dynamic pricing model, to eliminate this fee from the driver's cut appears to violate their own terms.
> 
> Anyhow, the Relationship clause. Once more, Uber reiterates it's merely a "limited payment collection"...
> 
> "13. Relationship of the Parties
> 13.1 *Except as otherwise expressly provided herein with respect to Company acting as the limited payment collection agent solely for the purpose of collecting payment from Users on your behalf, the relationship between the parties under this Agreement is solely that of independent contracting parties. The parties expressly agree that: (a) this Agreement is not an employment agreement, nor does it create an employment relationship, between Company and you; and (b)
> no joint venture, partnership, or agency relationship exists between Company and you.*"
> 
> Uber is merely a collection agent. It says so several times. So why is a collection agent telling us how to do our work when it specifically tells us in our agreement that it is not?


Exactly.

Best post ever at this forum.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

SEAL Team 5 said:


> That's the ticket. You can get them for misrepresentation, breach of agreement and misleading. But not for employee status. Only hard part will be proving your damages.


lol

If you get them for all of the above you are automatically getting them for violating employee status laws.

You're really missing a good thread here.


----------



## Uberdriverlasvegas

promergranite112 is correct, but only touched the tip of the iceberg so to speak. 

Make no mistake, there is an express-train headed towards Uber and will hit head-on unless c-level execs take immediate action to resolve this matter once and for all. A good first-step would be to hire a seasoned VP of Human Resources with a verifiable track-record of working with tech startups and keeping ICs at an 'arm's-length' in accordance with federal and state guidelines/laws. Second, I for one would not be opposed to Uber firing its current lawfirm for approving such a poorly written, one-sided and erroneous IC agreement to begin with, followed by finding another law firm that specializes in this particular area of law.


----------



## WaveRunner1

Honestly it is great we are having this constructive discussion. We must hold Uber accountable and protest against any potential abuse of power. I'm still active about the upfront fares scam and how they usually charge more and pocket the difference. Even if something is in a policy agreement doesn't mean we can't stand against it.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol
> 
> If you get them for all of the above you are automatically getting them for violating employee status laws.
> 
> You're really missing a good thread here.


A good thread? You can go back a year in this forum and pretty much get exact word for word posts about the CA class action lawsuit of employee status for drivers. I'm almost positive that CA drivers are still classified as IC's.


----------



## CarterPeerless

The feds need to step up and create a new classification - the Dependent Contractor. Something that rides the middle ground between employee and IC. It's clear that rideshare drivers do not fit perfectly into either category, so describe the reality and set some appropriate protections. 

I know that it is not a new suggestion, just that the feds have the ability to fix this and they have been sitting on their hands. It is a problem that isn't going away.


----------



## HumungousDill

KevRyde said:


> It continues to boggle my mind that so many posters on here equate independent contractor status with the ability to make up your own terms and conditions and do anything you want.


No the independent contractor status gives Uber the ability to do whatever they want, such as deactivate us for whatever reason etc


----------



## SEAL Team 5

CarterPeerless said:


> The feds need to step up and create a new classification.


They already have one. It's called a taxi driver.

Taxi driver leases car to contract driving
Uber driver leases car to contract driving
Taxi driver owns car to contract driving
Uber driver owns car to contract driving
Taxi driver pays for all fuel
Uber driver pays for all fuel
Taxi driver charges company set price
Uber driver charges company set price
Taxi driver must display signage
Uber driver must display signage
Taxi driver receives dispatched fares
Uber driver receives dispatched fares
Taxi driver gets terminated for actions
Uber driver gets terminated for actions
Taxi driver uses company liability insurance 
Uber driver uses company liability insurance
Taxi driver submits to drug test (mostly)
Uber driver admits heroin use to a cop


----------



## uberdriverfornow

SEAL Team 5 said:


> A good thread? You can go back a year in this forum and pretty much get exact word for word posts about the CA class action lawsuit of employee status for drivers. I'm almost positive that CA drivers are still classified as IC's.


Yes, and at the conclusion of this lawsuit, when drivers are determined to be employees, you will have no choice but to admit we are employees.

And when I said you're missing a good thread I meant you're not paying attention to this one.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> And this is one of the many many reasons the judges rule time and time again that we are employees.


 _ADMINISTRATIVE_ judges - for the purpose of unemployment benefits. And time and time again the courts uphold the IC status of Uber drivers.


> Uber has every right to tell us we can't carry a concealed weapon IF they are employing us.


Great point!



SEAL Team 5 said:


> They already have one. It's called a taxi driver.
> 
> Taxi driver leases car to contract driving
> Uber driver leases car to contract driving
> Taxi driver owns car to contract driving
> Uber driver owns car to contract driving
> Taxi driver pays for all fuel
> Uber driver pays for all fuel
> Taxi driver charges company set price
> Uber driver charges company set price
> Taxi driver must display signage
> Uber driver must display signage
> Taxi driver receives dispatched fares
> Uber driver receives dispatched fares
> Taxi driver gets terminated for actions
> Uber driver gets terminated for actions
> Taxi driver uses company liability insurance
> Uber driver uses company liability insurance
> Taxi driver submits to drug test (mostly)
> Uber driver admits heroin use to a cop


lol... well done!



uberdriverfornow said:


> Yes, and at the conclusion of this lawsuit, when drivers are determined to be employees, you will have no choice but to admit we are employees.


Please do let us know when that happens... but in the meantime, like it or not, Uber drivers are contractors.


----------



## SpecialK8

SEAL Team 5 said:


> A good thread? You can go back a year in this forum and pretty much get exact word for word posts about the CA class action lawsuit of employee status for drivers. I'm almost positive that CA drivers are still classified as IC's.


They are but it wasn't based on a court decision. Like New York's administrative judge, the California Labor Commission ruled against Uber's contractor status. Uber settled for $84 million to keep it from going to court and risk setting a legal precedent.


Michael - Cleveland said:


> _ADMINISTRATIVE_ judges - for the purpose of unemployment benefits. And time and time again the courts uphold the IC status of Uber drivers. Great point!
> 
> lol... well done!


I wouldn't say time and time again. To be honest, the actual courts haven't ruled that frequently on the matter. Both in Cali and Mass, the settlement was reached before the courts ruled. The Florida case earlier this year is actually the only situation I'm aware of where the court ruled on the matter. However, it's only a matter of time before another district rules differently which will probably wind up pushing a possible Supreme Court situation, as they would have to settle the matter with different districts opposing.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

SpecialK8 said:


> They are but it wasn't based on a court decision. Like New York's administrative judge, the California Labor Commission ruled against Uber's contractor status. Uber settled for $84 million to keep it from going to court and risk setting a legal precedent.
> 
> I wouldn't say time and time again. To be honest, the actual courts haven't ruled that frequently on the matter. Both in Cali and Mass, the settlement was reached before the courts ruled. The Florida case earlier this year is actually the only situation I'm aware of where the court ruled on the matter. However, it's only a matter of time before another district rules differently which will probably wind up pushing a possible Supreme Court situation, as they would have to settle the matter with different districts opposing.


I'm afraid you're incorrect - the CA and MA cases were merged, and the settlement reached was rejected by the court... then the appeals court over-ruled the lower court's ruling on the 'class', reducing the number of drivers in the suit to a few thousand. The case has not been settled or yet gone to trial. And 18 (I believe) states have now ruled that that TNC drivers are ICs - and the state legislatures have codified that in their TNC laws.


----------



## SpecialK8

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I'm afraid you're incorrect - the CA and MA cases were merged, and the settlement reached was rejected by the court... then the appeals court over-ruled the lower court's ruling on the 'class', reducing the number of drivers in the suit to a few thousand. The case has not been settled or yet gone to trial. And 18 (I believe) states have now ruled that that TNC drivers are ICs - and the state legislatures have codified that in their TNC laws.


I confess that I missed the news about the settlement being overruled. However, the point still stands that the court has not actually ruled on the merits.

Your point about the state laws are irrelevant. Those state laws have no relevance on IRS and DOL classification. The laws themselves could simply be challenged in Federal court as part of the suit. That states passed those laws does not at all say anything about the possible misclassification of employee/contractor. As I'm sure you're aware, legislators often draft laws that are in disagreement with federal statute. Often these disagreements are settled in district courts, if not beyond.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

SpecialK8 said:


> I confess that I missed the news about the settlement being overruled. However, the point still stands that the court has not actually ruled on the merits.
> 
> Your point about the state laws are irrelevant. Those state laws have no relevance on IRS and DOL classification. The laws themselves could simply be challenged in Federal court as part of the suit. That states passed those laws does not at all say anything about the possible misclassification of employee/contractor.


lots of if's and 'could's there. State laws are relevant to everyone living and working in a state.
I am barred from filing for unemployment benefits if I am deactivated from driving with a TNC. I cannot seek reimbursement for expenses. I cannot bring a claim against a TNC for not meeting the state's min wage requirements (which are higher than the federal min wage).


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Please do let us know when that happens... but in the meantime, like it or not, Uber drivers are contractors.


Not according to the *New York Administrative Judge That says Uber Drivers are Employees*



Michael - Cleveland said:


> And time and time again the courts uphold the IC status of Uber drivers.


Not at all. Quit making stuff up.


----------



## SpecialK8

Michael - Cleveland said:


> lots of if's and 'could's there. State laws are relevant to everyone living and working in a state.
> I am barred from filing for unemployment benefits if I am deactivated from driving with a TNC. I cannot seek reimbursement for expenses. I cannot bring a claim against a TNC for not meeting the state's min wage requirements (which are higher than the federal min wage).


And you are also able to take the issue up with a lawsuit in Federal court over the issue if you believe that state law is in violation of the FLSA with how the states and Uber have classified you.

What you present here is a fallacy. We are discussing the overriding factors that contribute to misclassifying employees as contractors based on federal laws and your argument is what state legislators have drafted on the matter. The courts, not the state legislators, are ultimately going to be the ones that decide this based on what federal (not state) laws say on the matter.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> lots of if's and 'could's there. State laws are relevant to everyone living and working in a state.
> I am barred from filing for unemployment benefits if I am deactivated from driving with a TNC. I cannot seek reimbursement for expenses. I cannot bring a claim against a TNC for not meeting the state's min wage requirements (which are higher than the federal min wage).


No you're not. You are just choosing not to. I don't know anyone outside the state of Florida that was ever denied unemployment benefits from Uber. We always win. They even have special unemployment benefit questionaire papers just for Uber drivers.


----------



## SpecialK8

uberdriverfornow said:


> No you're not. You are just choosing not to. I don't know anyone outside the state of Florida that was ever denied unemployment benefits from Uber. We always win. They even have special unemployment benefit questionaire papers just for Uber drivers.


He's referring to Ohio's ride-sharing law which classifies TNC drivers as independent contractors specifically. Ohio's law, like others, states those drivers are barred from seeking benefits/unemployment.

However, it's a false premise because the FLSA is the overriding potential breach so state laws have always been somewhat irrelevant to the discussion. The employee/contractor debate was always going to be settled fully only if/when a Federal court or Supreme Court rules. States were always going to differ on the subject. Some have ruled against, some are ruling for, others have not ruled. Since Federal classification is the real matter here, state laws aren't the key issue.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> No you're not. You are just choosing not to.


Yes - I am barred. Read the Ohio TNC law.



SpecialK8 said:


> However, it's a false premise because the FLSA is the overriding potential breach so state laws have always been somewhat irrelevant to the discussion.


 The employee benefits I referred to are administered by the states - Since the FLSA protections apply to employees, the fact that the state has declared TNC drivers to be ICs is not only relevant - it is defining.


> The employee/contractor debate was always going to be settled fully only if/when a Federal court or Supreme Court rules.


 Exactly. But until then, each state - and eventually each federal circuit court, will rule as they see fit.


----------



## Demon

Strange Fruit said:


> So are franchise owners employees? Not sure if either of these are real answers or jokes. By the logic of most of the "I'm an employee" posts, franchise owners are employees, I mean according to these two answers if they're accurate. I know every McDs I've been in seemed like they were doing exactly as corporate told them to. Idk much of anything. Just asking questions and making logical connections.
> 
> And Demon asked if drivers set their own prices (assumedly implying that "no, therefore we're employees"). I was hoping he would answer. So many seem to think this "set yr own prices" matters. Do Herbalife sellers set their own prices? Those people aren't employees are they, but they don't set their prices.
> 
> And Uber could say "we don't like that price for the riders we represent and whom we connect with a ride. We only connect riders with a ride at our price or lower. If u don't like it, take yr 'driving company' and get yr own riders who want to pay what u want them to pay." I think they could say thay anyways. Probably could/would.


Could you please cite the court case where a judge ruled Herbalife people are IC's and also explain what Herbalife is.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Demon said:


> Could you please cite the court case where a judge ruled Herbalife people are IC's and also explain what Herbalife is.


Herbalife is a long-established Multi-Level-Marketing (MLM) company - much like Mar Kay Cosmetics, Avon, and Amway.
They were challenged on their labor force classification as ICs and decided to change what they call them from "distributors" to "members". http://nypost.com/2013/07/30/herbalife-debuts-new-member-classification-to-deflect-criticism/


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yes - I am barred. Read the Ohio TNC law.
> 
> The employee benefits I referred to are administered by the states - Since the FLSA protections apply to employees, the fact that the state has declared TNC drivers to be ICs is not only relevant - it is defining. Exactly. But until then, each state - and eventually each federal circuit court, will rule as they see fit.


You're still not barred. You can file, get denied, and appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court. It's up to the courts to determine whether a law is constitutional or not.

You do remember that other thread where you stated all the cases that made their way to the Supreme Court.

Again, it's your choice if you don't want to file.


----------



## Rat

Steve2967 said:


> Really? So you can get a job and the boss says "hey just come to work when you want." Yeah that doesn't happen ever.


No, you misunderstand. Employee status doesn't require set hours. Flexible hours doesn't denote contractor status.


----------



## Demon

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Herbalife is a long-established Multi-Level-Marketing (MLM) company - much like Mar Kay Cosmetics, Avon, and Amway.
> They were challenged on their labor force classification as ICs and decided to change what they call them from "distributors" to "members". http://nypost.com/2013/07/30/herbalife-debuts-new-member-classification-to-deflect-criticism/


They weren't challenged in court.


----------



## Haskel45

SEAL Team 5 said:


> On the day you signed up to drive I would like to here what you honestly thought Uber was going to be and why?


I thought they were going to be a 3rd party agent like they represented themselves to be in their TOS.

After doing it a few weeks though I came to realize that was not the case.

The TOS doesnt set any guidelines as to expected performance and possible reprimands in regards to said performance i.e. cancellation rates etc.

They misrepresented the nature of their function, this isnt up for debate.

Your argument seems to be "Uber can do whatever they want and if you dont like it kick rocks"

If that's your position fine, the rest of us who believe in law and order have a different position.


----------



## The Mollusk

I predict that the case goes all the way to the top and ultimately is decided in Uber's favor. Trumps Muslim ban did the same.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

uberdriverfornow said:


> Yes, and at the conclusion of this lawsuit, when drivers are determined to be employees, you will have no choice but to admit we are employees.
> 
> And when I said you're missing a good thread I meant you're not paying attention to this one.


Ok, I get it. But I'm not the one that's going to be embarrassed by admitting I'm an Uber employee. I'm an employee of a company that loses almost a billion dollars a quarter, I'm an employee of a company that has over 500 lawsuits against them, I'm an employee of a company that endorses sexual harassment, I'm an employee of a company that has an employee and management turnover rate that's astronomical and I'm an employee of a company that every employee hates.


----------



## RipCityWezay

My wife has a JD and she said this is crap.

Persuasive precedent at best. 

I fail to understand how people do not get that we provide a service for money. 

The app facilitates this. 

That's all.


----------



## Grand Master B

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Here we go again. If the drivers really want to be employees then start practice saying "would you like that super sized?" and go apply at your local McDonalds.
> I'm getting sick of this employee crap. Idiots get involved in something that they have no clue about and when things don't work out they try and find blame to get a free ride. Almost reminds me of some of the new recruits in boot camp. The whining of some people is disgusting. If you did not know what you were getting involved in then why in the hell did you sign up to drive?
> If you were naive enough to fall for the "be your own boss, work when you want to" crap then you need to find a way to rebound on your own. Hope you learned a valuable lesson about believing everything you read on the Internet.
> P.S. YOU"LL NEVER BE AN EMPLOYEE!!!!


uber's csr hard at work. get a real job, sucka.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Grand Master B said:


> uber's csr hard at work. get a real job, sucka.


Thank you for acknowledging my hard work. By the way, is the B in your name short for Baiter?



RipCityWezay said:


> My wife has a JD and she said this is crap.
> 
> Persuasive precedent at best.
> 
> I fail to understand how people do not get that we provide a service for money.
> 
> The app facilitates this.
> 
> That's all.


Easily well put.


----------



## Grand Master B

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Thank you for acknowledging my hard work. By the way, is the B in your name short for Baiter?


how much is uber paying u to post in this forum? $0.72/page?


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Grand Master B said:


> how much is uber paying u to post in this forum? $0.72/page?


They were paying me $5/mile until all you ignorant drivers signed up on the X platform to drive for sub $1/mile rates. Uber was awesome back in 2012/13. If there was a driver's forum back then you would have thought that the cure for cancer was discovered by all the posts. I bet not one Uber Black/SUV driver would have ever consider wanting to be an employee. 
When did you accept your first Uber fare and what were your rates?


----------



## SUV warrior

All THESE JUDGES SAYING :
UBER IS TAXI CONPANY And DRIVERS ARE EMPLOYEES 
THEY KNOW THE LAW BETTER THAN ANYONE IN THIS FORUM KISSING UBER'S ASS


----------



## NachonCheeze

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Here we go again. If the drivers really want to be employees then start practice saying "would you like that super sized?" and go apply at your local McDonalds.
> I'm getting sick of this employee crap. Idiots get involved in something that they have no clue about and when things don't work out they try and find blame to get a free ride. Almost reminds me of some of the new recruits in boot camp. The whining of some people is disgusting. If you did not know what you were getting involved in then why in the hell did you sign up to drive?
> If you were naive enough to fall for the "be your own boss, work when you want to" crap then you need to find a way to rebound on your own. Hope you learned a valuable lesson about believing everything you read on the Internet.
> P.S. YOU"LL NEVER BE AN EMPLOYEE!!!!


I understand the principle of what you are saying....however... just because a nitwit signs a contract it does not necessarily make it a legal contract. As a country there are laws in place to protect nitwits from being taken advantage of....as an example: A parent could sign a contract to have their child work 12 hours a day chained to a sewing machine. While the parent agreed to the contract it would not be a legal contract. In addition the thought of "hey the idiot signed it so that's his problem" cannot be the deciding factor. The protective laws of the state/country supersede and the issue must be resolved.

Similarly there are laws that define the difference between employee and contractor. These laws were put into place (primarily) to protect employees as dishonest business would try to claim an employee to be a contractor to avoid legal responsibilities. Again the issue must be resolved regardless of the nitwit signing a contract.

IMO fUber has overstepped the line but I believe a balance can be achieved.


----------



## Ca$h4

*



*


----------



## SurgeMachine

The amount of stupid Uber drivers is pretty clear when you have so many wanting to become employees. I guess you just love having a boss and a schedule and getting paid an hourly minimum wage all so that you can have "benefits" which consist of the same exact crap you can get with obama care. I pay $5 a month for Kaiser bronze HMO that is normally $250/month and I pay $14/month for dental. What the hell is wrong with you people wanting benefits so damn bad? Only an idiot thinks benefits are what defines a good job. Nah, I'll take getting paid commission and take care of myself. Literally only the drivers who suck at making money with Uber and complain all the time are the ones wanting to become employees.


----------



## Grand Master B

SEAL Team 5 said:


> They were paying me $5/mile until all you ignorant drivers signed up on the X platform to drive for sub $1/mile rates. Uber was awesome back in 2012/13. If there was a driver's forum back then you would have thought that the cure for cancer was discovered by all the posts. I bet not one Uber Black/SUV driver would have ever consider wanting to be an employee.
> When did you accept your first Uber fare and what were your rates?


is uber paying you $0.73/page? u sellout.



SurgeMachine said:


> The amount of stupid Uber drivers is pretty clear when you have so many wanting to become employees. I guess you just love having a boss and a schedule and getting paid an hourly minimum wage all so that you can have "benefits" which consist of the same exact crap you can get with obama care. I pay $5 a month for Kaiser bronze HMO that is normally $250/month and I pay $14/month for dental. What the hell is wrong with you people wanting benefits so damn bad? Only an idiot thinks benefits are what defines a good job. Nah, I'll take getting paid commission and take care of myself. Literally only the drivers who suck at making money with Uber and complain all the time are the ones wanting to become employees.


u don't pay $5/month for bronze health coverage. sell ur lies in uber's board meeting. btw, that $14/month dental coverage is basically a coupon book for preventive care.


----------



## nyla

I don't want to be an Uber employee. Was not my point. But Uber has too much control -- if they don't want to be an employer they need to give up control or the courts will force them to do it.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

uberdriverfornow said:


> You're still not barred. You can file, get denied, and appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court. It's up to the courts to determine whether a law is constitutional or not.
> 
> You do remember that other thread where you stated all the cases that made their way to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Again, it's your choice if you don't want to file.


That's true, you are right - I am not barred from filing a suit. 
But I am barred under the law from collecting benefits.
Happy?!


----------



## SurgeMachine

The reason for why Uber tries to control things is because most Uber drivers are uneducated brainless bottom feeding foreign non english speaking desperate for a job individuals who have no idea what to do unless directed! What do you expect!?! I mean seriously how many people here even have a college degree that drive full time? I'll bet its mostly the part timers that have other jobs are the only ones with college degrees. Most the full timers are probably uneducated and stuck with this job!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Demon said:


> They weren't challenged in court.


I didn't say they were.
I don't know much about the challenge, but assume a case was filed... in any case, the company had to stop calling it's labor force 'distributors' and instead define them as 'members'. If anyone wants to take the time do find and post more details, I'd be interested in reading more.

In more Herblaife news, the company faced a claim of fraud from the FTC and was forced into a settlement that required a complete restructuring of their MLM business plan. It's an interesting read if you've ever dealt with or wondered about MLM companies.


----------



## UberLaLa

These cases will always fail when lawyers get the facts wrong...Uber's lawyers easily _take the lawsuit to task_ with inaccuracies like this: _Drivers are expected to accept 90 percent of ride requests received.
_
Good lawyers get the Facts straight, first.



SEAL Team 5 said:


> Ok, I get it. But I'm not the one that's going to be embarrassed by admitting I'm an Uber employee. I'm an employee of a company that loses almost a billion dollars a quarter, I'm an employee of a company that has over 500 lawsuits against them, I'm an employee of a company that *ignor*es sexual harassment, I'm an employee of a company that has an employee and management turnover rate that's astronomical and I'm an employee of a company that every employee hates. *I'm an employee of a company that has no remaining Officers (e.g. CEO, CFO, COO etc.*


Fixed that up a bit for ya.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

UberLaLa said:


> Fixed that up a bit for ya.


I actually meant to write endorses as with regards to Travis' speech to his party goers at a Las Vegas function. Check the news section in this forum for the particulars of that speech.
I went to school back in the day when an education meant something unlike today.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

SEAL Team 5 said:


> How is being punished for not fulfilling your contractual obligation being treated like an employee? Hell, you should see some of the daily fines contractors get for not completing projects on time.


I don't know what other states have in their workers' rights laws. But here in Texas it SPECIFICALLY says that agreeing to be a contractor does not make you one. There are guidelines as to who is an employee and who is a contractor. We can argue about where uber drivers fit (and that's the issue, this is new so maybe we need a third classification)
but the law states it's not about what you OR the erstwhile employer WANT, it's about what you ARE.

If that were not the case then McDonald's and Walmart would simply not "employ" anyone who wouldn't sign a contract agreeing to be a contractor.

You can't sign away your rights as an employee. The rules say you are one or you're not. It doesn't matter what you "agree" to.

I do think employers have been flouting the rules for a long time. Uber has just brought this to the forefront IMO.



SEAL Team 5 said:


> Ok, I get it. But I'm not the one that's going to be embarrassed by admitting I'm an Uber employee. I'm an employee of a company that loses almost a billion dollars a quarter, I'm an employee of a company that has over 500 lawsuits against them, I'm an employee of a company that endorses sexual harassment, I'm an employee of a company that has an employee and management turnover rate that's astronomical and I'm an employee of a company that every employee hates.


What does embarrassment have to do with anything? Why do you keep bringing up matters that are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand?



SEAL Team 5 said:


> That's the problem. Drivers were not thinking when they signed up. Why is it that when UberX first started there was nothing but "this is the best thing since sliced bread" comments from every driver? The ONLY aspect of the X platform that changed was the rates. When the rates were $2.25/mile I never heard a peep about IC/employee status issues. Only when Uber slashed the prices to sub $1/mile did any of the drivers complain. Instead of complaining they should of quit. It was funny that the more Uber cut the rates the more drivers joined. Not one driver should have joined Uber after June '14.
> I would love for all the drivers in this forum to post the date and rate of Uber for when they started. I'll go first.
> March 2012 @ $5/mile. No pay for time


Again, irrelevant.



SEAL Team 5 said:


> They already have one. It's called a taxi driver.
> 
> Taxi driver leases car to contract driving
> Uber driver leases car to contract driving
> Taxi driver owns car to contract driving
> Uber driver owns car to contract driving
> Taxi driver pays for all fuel
> Uber driver pays for all fuel
> Taxi driver charges company set price
> Uber driver charges company set price
> Taxi driver must display signage
> Uber driver must display signage
> Taxi driver receives dispatched fares
> Uber driver receives dispatched fares
> Taxi driver gets terminated for actions
> Uber driver gets terminated for actions
> Taxi driver uses company liability insurance
> Uber driver uses company liability insurance
> Taxi driver submits to drug test (mostly)
> Uber driver admits heroin use to a cop


Maybe taxi drivers should be pissed off also? As I said, I think there's been abuse of the employee vs contractor status long before uber. Doesn't mean it's not an issue for uber.


----------



## uberlyfting123

What's the point? I have no desire to be an employee. More pay means more drivers and less for all. The issue is getting letting less drivers online.


----------



## aeiou_-

Someone please start arguing that we are independent contractors, and that we just want "those" protections to avoid getting continually screwed by uber and passengers alike. No one wants to be a damn employee.


----------



## Ca$h4

The biggest reason Uber is an employer is the fact that Uber distributes rides unfairly. Uber's algorithm favors some Drivers over others. The Unfairness isn't mentioned in the Courts yet, but the Uberpeople Drivers have discussed this overlooked decisive fact.

*https://uberpeople.net/threads/a-ma...lgorithm-lowest-cost-trip-fulfillment.142859/*


----------



## RedoBeach

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Here we go again. If the drivers really want to be employees then start practice saying "would you like that super sized?" and go apply at your local McDonalds.
> I'm getting sick of this employee crap. Idiots get involved in something that they have no clue about and when things don't work out they try and find blame to get a free ride. Almost reminds me of some of the new recruits in boot camp. The whining of some people is disgusting. If you did not know what you were getting involved in then why in the hell did you sign up to drive?
> If you were naive enough to fall for the "be your own boss, work when you want to" crap then you need to find a way to rebound on your own. Hope you learned a valuable lesson about believing everything you read on the Internet.
> P.S. YOU"LL NEVER BE AN EMPLOYEE!!!!


I think you're missing the larger implication here.. The IRS and state labor departments have special teams designed to go after companies who misclassify their employees based on the simple fact that misclassification of workers allows corporations to skirt paying millions of dollars in taxes and benefits, not to mention health insurance, workers comp, social security, unemployment, and disability insurance.

It is not an optionable matter in whether to classify a worker as an employee or a contractor. Either your company controls the work behavior of the worker and require that that they can only do the same work with the tools you provide them as an employer, or you contract an outside business who dictates the terms of the work and the rates.

You don't get to call people contractors simply because you want to save money and avoid employer liability. I suggest you educate yourself accordingly.


----------



## Ca$h4

RedoBeach said:


> I think you're missing the larger implication here.. The IRS and state labor departments have special teams designed to go after companies who misclassify their employees based on the simple fact that misclassification of workers allows corporations to skirt paying millions of dollars in taxes and benefits, not to mention health insurance, workers comp, social security, unemployment, and disability insurance.
> 
> It is not an optionable matter in whether to classify a worker as an employee or a contractor. Either your company controls the work behavior of the worker and require that that they can only do the same work with the tools you provide them as an employer, or you contract an outside business who dictates the terms of the work and the rates.
> 
> You don't get to call people contractors simply because you want to save money and avoid employer liability. I suggest you educate yourself accordingly.


There is a long list of factors that determine a person as employee or IC. 
I suggest you educate yourself accordingly.


----------



## Lee239

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It's important to understand that, just like in CA and FL, the findings are those of an ALJ ("administrative law judge) - not a judge in a court. Uber will appeal this decision to an appeals board - and if they lose there, they will appeal the state court.


 They can keep appealing but drivers in every city can file against them and eventually Uber will lose and appeal and drivers will be deemed employees, and will have to pay into the unemployment fund.


----------



## melusine3

Maven said:


> Uber loses another round in the contractor vs. Employee battle.
> _____________
> 
> 
> *New York ALJ Takes Uber for a Ride *
> Lexicology June 29 2017
> *
> Why it matters*
> 
> In a decision with potentially significant implications, a New York administrative law judge (ALJ) held that Uber drivers are employees of the ride-sharing company. The case arose after three drivers had their accounts deactivated and sought unemployment benefits. Uber contended that because the drivers set their own schedules, selected their work areas, were not required to report absences and were not provided with fringe benefits, they should be considered independent contractors. But the ALJ disagreed, finding that Uber did not use an "arms' length approach as would typify an independent contractor arrangement," instead demonstrating substantial involvement with the drivers. "I find that while there are some indicia of claimant's independence, 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," the ALJ wrote. Importantly, she added that her decision applied not just to the three drivers involved in the case but "others similarly situated" as well. Uber-which has been battling the issue across the country with mixed results-said it intends to appeal the decision.
> 
> *Detailed discussion*
> 
> Are Uber drivers employees or independent contractors? Three New York drivers sought unemployment benefits after their accounts with the ride-sharing service were deactivated. Uber balked, arguing that the drivers were independent contractors. The state's Department of Labor issued an initial determination holding that the drivers were eligible to receive benefits, and Uber requested a hearing to appeal.
> 
> Following the hearing-complete with testimony from the drivers and Uber representatives-ALJ Michelle Burrowes overruled Uber's objection and found that the drivers were employees.
> 
> The ALJ walked through the process of becoming an Uber driver, explaining the "on-boarding process" beginning with the requirement of certain documents (a driver's license, vehicle registration and a license from the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission). Drivers were shown a video explaining how the Uber app works and depicting best practices guidelines, such as maintaining a clean vehicle and wearing professional attire.
> 
> Uber also published a Code of Conduct for its drivers, setting forth the minimum standards of conduct to which it expects both riders and drivers to adhere, with an explanation that failure to do so risks deactivation of access to the app. In addition, Uber published a Welcome Packet, described as containing "essential information for new Uber partners" and maintained online support resources for drivers.
> 
> Drivers needed a vehicle and smartphone to provide rides through the app, with Uber compiling a list of the vehicles it deemed acceptable. For those looking to lease their vehicles, Uber referred drivers to an affiliated third party and, in one case, intervened when a driver became delinquent, negotiating with the lessor for an alternative payment schedule. Uber also provided one driver with a smartphone and another with a phone charger and cable.
> 
> When a rider was picked up, the Uber app suggested a route, but drivers were expected to follow the route suggested by a rider, if given; the company also imposed rules about how long drivers had to wait for a rider. During the time period drivers are logged in to the app, Uber has the capacity to collect and review data regarding their activities, such as their acceptance and cancellation rates, the ALJ noted. Drivers are expected to accept 90 percent of ride requests received.
> 
> The company did not provide drivers with paid vacation, sick leave, health insurance coverage or other fringe benefits, nor did Uber impose a work schedule on the drivers. Instead, drivers autonomously decided when, where and how long they would work. Drivers were allowed to procure rides from Uber's competitors and had the ability to sub-contract drivers if they wanted.
> 
> After relating all these facts, the ALJ found the evidence demonstrated "that Uber exercised sufficient supervision and control over substantial aspects" of the drivers' work. "Uber did not employ an arms' length approach to the claimants as would typify an independent contractor arrangement," Burrowes wrote. "Uber remained involved with the means by which claimants provided transportation services for its Riders," such as requiring compliance with a list of approved vehicles.
> 
> "Additionally, Uber does not dispute that when [two of the] complainants lacked proper credit to secure their own vehicles, Uber not only referred them to their third-party affiliates to lease vehicles without credit, but also Uber took the additional step of withholding monies from these claimants' fares and making lease payments on their behalf. Uber even intervened when [one claimant] was delinquent in his lease payments to the third-party lessor, to arrange an alternate payment plan &#8230; to address his arrears."
> 
> The ALJ rejected Uber's position that the drivers signed a contract designating them as independent contractors as well as its characterization of the company as simply "a technology company that generates leads for drivers."
> 
> Uber set a mandatory wait time for riders before leaving a pickup site, the ALJ noted, retained the sole discretion to determine if that rider would be charged a wait fee, and had complete control over the fare for the ride, which was calculated by Uber's app algorithm.
> 
> Further, Uber continuously monitored its drivers, Burrowes found. "Uber took steps to modify the claimants' behavior, as typical in an employer-employee relationship," the ALJ said, publishing several documents including a Code of Conduct, which warned drivers that if they failed to accept 90 percent of all ride requests, they could face deactivation.
> 
> "Uber also used its Riders' responses on its five-star rating system &#8230; to monitor and evaluate a Driver's performance in providing ride service and to determine if that Driver's rating was unacceptable such that he should be deactivated from the app," the ALJ wrote.
> 
> A review of the record showed that each driver was "subjected to substantial supervision and control by Uber," Burrowes said. "I find that while there are some indicia of claimant's independence, 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. I conclude, therefore, that the claimants, and others similarly situated, are/were employees of the employer, Uber."
> 
> To read the decision, click here.


Not to mention they use fake surges to entice drivers to under-served areas AND change the fee structure whenever they want. We are at their mercy.


----------



## Rakos

Since WHEN was mercy...

ever a trait of Uber...

that you noticed...?

Rakos


----------



## dmcgeary1965

If all you people don't like Uber, then don't f'n drive for them!!! Some of us want some part time money to supplement our full time jobs. That's what Uber is built for. But no, too many of you want it all, especially in the fascist state of New York where they absolutely HAVE to sh*t on anything that may benefit hard working middle class people.


----------



## RedoBeach

Ca$h4 said:


> There is a long list of factors that determine a person as employee or IC.
> I suggest you educate yourself accordingly.


Um yeah.. I am aware, as I have testified on exactly that.. Doh!!

There are two manners of determination, both of them centering around how much control an employer exhibits, and if the worker is able to exhibit the same function of work independent of the company. Your statement offers nothing to refute the claim.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Rakos said:


> Since WHEN was mercy...
> 
> ever a trait of Uber...
> 
> that you noticed...?
> 
> Rakos


When Travis was tipping her on stage at the last Uber corporate function in Vegas.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Lee239 said:


> They can keep appealing but drivers in every city can file against them and eventually Uber will lose and appeal and drivers will be deemed employees, and will have to pay into the unemployment fund.


Unemployment benefits are not the biggest issue overall (although I'm sure it's important to some drivers). Min wage, expenses, health insurance contributions, the employer half of the SSI tax, overtime - those are the employee benefits that matter to most. Since Uber doesn't cover those costs - then the fare rates they force on us (as contractors) should cover them.


----------



## RedoBeach

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Unemployment benefits are not the biggest issue overall (although I'm sure it's important to some drivers). Min wage, expenses, health insurance contributions, the employer half of the SSI tax, overtime - those are the employee benefits that matter to most. Since Uber doesn't cover those costs - then the fare rates they force on us (as contractors) should cover them.


Well said, Michael.


----------



## run26912

Trebor said:


> Yup. If we are "partners" imagine how bad they will treat us once we become employees.
> 
> 1) Uniforms - (you have to purchase)
> 2) Scheduled Shifts
> 3) Scheduled Shifts also means pre determined areas
> 3) Waitress/Waiter min. wage + tips (at least we will get a mileage reimbursement
> 4) Acceptance rate falls under 99%? Get ready to be fired


Actually, I'm surprised no one is suing Uber for calling it's drivers "partners". True partners get a K-1 at the end of the year, equity stakes and profit sharing... then again, there are NO profits, but at least we'd get the capital loss.

Also, the way Uber does the 1099s, it's almost as if WE are the employer and they are the IC acting as an agent on behalf of the driver to collect the revenues. Even tho they have two different sets of fares and keep their manipulated %s and fees, they have the nerve to dump all revenues collected onto the driver's 1099, rather than just posting what the driver was paid as a normal IC would expect to receive. They are so shady...

Back to me tacos..

BONG!!!


----------



## Fritz Duval

Safe_Driver_4_U said:


> I don't want to be an employee, I would lose my tax write off. Driving for Uber and Lyft is a superb opportunity for those that need to lose money, why ruin it with "employee" status?


THE GAINS OF A FEW, DO NOT OUT WEIGH THE MANY....JUST A THOUGHT BRO


----------



## RedoBeach

SEAL Team 5 said:


> They were paying me $5/mile until all you ignorant drivers signed up on the X platform to drive for sub $1/mile rates. Uber was awesome back in 2012/13. If there was a driver's forum back then you would have thought that the cure for cancer was discovered by all the posts. I bet not one Uber Black/SUV driver would have ever consider wanting to be an employee.
> When did you accept your first Uber fare and what were your rates?


If you continued driving for lower rates, you cannot disclude yourself from being part of the problem. I get it, it was much nicer back then (I agree) but you know as well as I do that our continuing to drive after each rate reduction has ultimately affected Uber's decided payment threshold as much as all the new driver sign ups (most that don't stick with it anyway).



Fuzzyelvis said:


> I don't know what other states have in their workers' rights laws. But here in Texas it SPECIFICALLY says that agreeing to be a contractor does not make you one. There are guidelines as to who is an employee and who is a contractor. We can argue about where uber drivers fit (and that's the issue, this is new so maybe we need a third classification)
> but the law states it's not about what you OR the erstwhile employer WANT, it's about what you ARE.
> 
> If that were not the case then McDonald's and Walmart would simply not "employ" anyone who wouldn't sign a contract agreeing to be a contractor.
> 
> You can't sign away your rights as an employee. The rules say you are one or you're not. It doesn't matter what you "agree" to.
> 
> I do think employers have been flouting the rules for a long time. Uber has just brought this to the forefront IMO.
> 
> What does embarrassment have to do with anything? Why do you keep bringing up matters that are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand?
> 
> Again, irrelevant.
> 
> Maybe taxi drivers should be pissed off also? As I said, I think there's been abuse of the employee vs contractor status long before uber. Doesn't mean it's not an issue for uber.


Exactly. America didn't become America because people stopped asserting their rights and just accepted things because they were told they should.

Since it's not 2012 SEAL Team 5 and it's also not 1933, maybe we can focus our attention on 2017, since the present is the only thing that matters.



UberLaLa said:


> These cases will always fail when lawyers get the facts wrong...Uber's lawyers easily _take the lawsuit to task_ with inaccuracies like this: _Drivers are expected to accept 90 percent of ride requests received.
> _
> Good lawyers get the Facts straight, first.


Maybe you are not aware, but this was an explicit requirement often stated by Uber a couple years ago. The attorney is accurate. You are not.



SEAL Team 5 said:


> A good thread? You can go back a year in this forum and pretty much get exact word for word posts about the CA class action lawsuit of employee status for drivers. I'm almost positive that CA drivers are still classified as IC's.


California has approved many drivers who have filed claims as employees.



uberlyfting123 said:


> What's the point? I have no desire to be an employee. More pay means more drivers and less for all. The issue is getting letting less drivers online.


Being an employee does not neccesarily mean you do not get to determine when you work. In fact, based on Uber's current management structure, almost nothing would change if you were reclassified as an employee outside of payments, taxes, minimum wage amd overtime. Munchery drivers were reclassified as employees to avoid similiar legal issues around the same time Uber was filed against here and nearly nothing about their working habits had to change. That's typical when an employee has been misclassified as a contractor.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> This is been discussed pretty extensively another threads, but just to clarify, while it may be perfectly legal for you to bring a firearm concealed or otherwise to work with you, if the company's policy is no firearms then they have the right to fire you.
> 
> Just because it is perfectly legal for you to carry, does not mean that company policy cannot dictate what you may or may not do while working.
> 
> For example under the First Amendment we have the right to dress anyway we want and to express our opinions as we wish. However a company can have a dress code for work, and prohibit certain types of speech. While the way you dress and the way you speak may not be illegal, they can still get you fired.


When you are an independent contractor you are working for your own business, therefor your own business determines the rules, not the contracting company. They are hiring your business to do the work for them, not hiring an individual to work for their business under their guidelines.. There is a HUGE difference. If they do not like the rules of your business, they simply choose not to hire your business again. That's why contracting is competitive.. That's why contracting allows the independence to choose your rates based on your marketability and experience. That's why contracting by definition allows the independent contractor's business to use multiple different workers to complete their work for the term of their contract and employees don't have that option to substitute someone to work in their place.

That's why true independent contractors provide their own contract aand write their terms, not the company they are contracting for.


----------



## RedoBeach

HumungousDill said:


> No the independent contractor status gives Uber the ability to do whatever they want, such as deactivate us for whatever reason etc


You can also fire an employee for any reason.. (at least here in Cali you can, a "right to work state," aka, a right to fire.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

uberlyfting123 said:


> What's the point? I have no desire to be an employee. More pay means more drivers and less for all. The issue is getting letting less drivers online.


Your desire is completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Read my previous post. It's not about whether you want to be an employee, it's about whether you are.


----------



## RedoBeach

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I'm afraid you're incorrect - the CA and MA cases were merged, and the settlement reached was rejected by the court... then the appeals court over-ruled the lower court's ruling on the 'class', reducing the number of drivers in the suit to a few thousand. The case has not been settled or yet gone to trial. And 18 (I believe) states have now ruled that that TNC drivers are ICs - and the state legislatures have codified that in their TNC laws.


All California drivers that were formerly incuded in the class are now considering filing individual suits for each independent claim, most of them identically lead by sam Attorney, Liss-Riorden.


----------



## tohunt4me

Maven said:


> Uber loses another round in the contractor vs. Employee battle.
> _____________
> 
> 
> *New York ALJ Takes Uber for a Ride *
> Lexicology June 29 2017
> *
> Why it matters*
> 
> In a decision with potentially significant implications, a New York administrative law judge (ALJ) held that Uber drivers are employees of the ride-sharing company. The case arose after three drivers had their accounts deactivated and sought unemployment benefits. Uber contended that because the drivers set their own schedules, selected their work areas, were not required to report absences and were not provided with fringe benefits, they should be considered independent contractors. But the ALJ disagreed, finding that Uber did not use an "arms' length approach as would typify an independent contractor arrangement," instead demonstrating substantial involvement with the drivers. "I find that while there are some indicia of claimant's independence, 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," the ALJ wrote. Importantly, she added that her decision applied not just to the three drivers involved in the case but "others similarly situated" as well. Uber-which has been battling the issue across the country with mixed results-said it intends to appeal the decision.
> 
> *Detailed discussion*
> 
> Are Uber drivers employees or independent contractors? Three New York drivers sought unemployment benefits after their accounts with the ride-sharing service were deactivated. Uber balked, arguing that the drivers were independent contractors. The state's Department of Labor issued an initial determination holding that the drivers were eligible to receive benefits, and Uber requested a hearing to appeal.
> 
> Following the hearing-complete with testimony from the drivers and Uber representatives-ALJ Michelle Burrowes overruled Uber's objection and found that the drivers were employees.
> 
> The ALJ walked through the process of becoming an Uber driver, explaining the "on-boarding process" beginning with the requirement of certain documents (a driver's license, vehicle registration and a license from the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission). Drivers were shown a video explaining how the Uber app works and depicting best practices guidelines, such as maintaining a clean vehicle and wearing professional attire.
> 
> Uber also published a Code of Conduct for its drivers, setting forth the minimum standards of conduct to which it expects both riders and drivers to adhere, with an explanation that failure to do so risks deactivation of access to the app. In addition, Uber published a Welcome Packet, described as containing "essential information for new Uber partners" and maintained online support resources for drivers.
> 
> Drivers needed a vehicle and smartphone to provide rides through the app, with Uber compiling a list of the vehicles it deemed acceptable. For those looking to lease their vehicles, Uber referred drivers to an affiliated third party and, in one case, intervened when a driver became delinquent, negotiating with the lessor for an alternative payment schedule. Uber also provided one driver with a smartphone and another with a phone charger and cable.
> 
> When a rider was picked up, the Uber app suggested a route, but drivers were expected to follow the route suggested by a rider, if given; the company also imposed rules about how long drivers had to wait for a rider. During the time period drivers are logged in to the app, Uber has the capacity to collect and review data regarding their activities, such as their acceptance and cancellation rates, the ALJ noted. Drivers are expected to accept 90 percent of ride requests received.
> 
> The company did not provide drivers with paid vacation, sick leave, health insurance coverage or other fringe benefits, nor did Uber impose a work schedule on the drivers. Instead, drivers autonomously decided when, where and how long they would work. Drivers were allowed to procure rides from Uber's competitors and had the ability to sub-contract drivers if they wanted.
> 
> After relating all these facts, the ALJ found the evidence demonstrated "that Uber exercised sufficient supervision and control over substantial aspects" of the drivers' work. "Uber did not employ an arms' length approach to the claimants as would typify an independent contractor arrangement," Burrowes wrote. "Uber remained involved with the means by which claimants provided transportation services for its Riders," such as requiring compliance with a list of approved vehicles.
> 
> "Additionally, Uber does not dispute that when [two of the] complainants lacked proper credit to secure their own vehicles, Uber not only referred them to their third-party affiliates to lease vehicles without credit, but also Uber took the additional step of withholding monies from these claimants' fares and making lease payments on their behalf. Uber even intervened when [one claimant] was delinquent in his lease payments to the third-party lessor, to arrange an alternate payment plan &#8230; to address his arrears."
> 
> The ALJ rejected Uber's position that the drivers signed a contract designating them as independent contractors as well as its characterization of the company as simply "a technology company that generates leads for drivers."
> 
> Uber set a mandatory wait time for riders before leaving a pickup site, the ALJ noted, retained the sole discretion to determine if that rider would be charged a wait fee, and had complete control over the fare for the ride, which was calculated by Uber's app algorithm.
> 
> Further, Uber continuously monitored its drivers, Burrowes found. "Uber took steps to modify the claimants' behavior, as typical in an employer-employee relationship," the ALJ said, publishing several documents including a Code of Conduct, which warned drivers that if they failed to accept 90 percent of all ride requests, they could face deactivation.
> 
> "Uber also used its Riders' responses on its five-star rating system &#8230; to monitor and evaluate a Driver's performance in providing ride service and to determine if that Driver's rating was unacceptable such that he should be deactivated from the app," the ALJ wrote.
> 
> A review of the record showed that each driver was "subjected to substantial supervision and control by Uber," Burrowes said. "I find that while there are some indicia of claimant's independence, 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. I conclude, therefore, that the claimants, and others similarly situated, are/were employees of the employer, Uber."
> 
> To read the decision, click here.


----------



## kdyrpr

uberlyfting123 said:


> What's the point? I have no desire to be an employee. More pay means more drivers and less for all. The issue is getting letting less drivers online.


100% correct. The real legislation should be demanding that UBER put a cap on their drivers. Over saturation is by far the biggest detriment to earnings. By far.



Ca$h4 said:


> The biggest reason Uber is an employer is the fact that Uber distributes rides unfairly. Uber's algorithm favors some Drivers over others. The Unfairness isn't mentioned in the Courts yet, but the Uberpeople Drivers have discussed this overlooked decisive fact.
> 
> *https://uberpeople.net/threads/a-ma...lgorithm-lowest-cost-trip-fulfillment.142859/*


This "favoritism" needs to be explained by UBER. If they are steering rides to higher rated drivers then....maybe I can see it. At least it is merit based. But to steer rides towards newer drivers just to try to hook them in is entirely something else. The rides should be directed to senior drivers. WTF!


----------



## UberLaLa

RedoBeach - Uber drivers might be 'expected' to keep their Acceptance Rate at 90% but the Court has already Ruled that Uber can NOT do anything if the driver/s do not. Uber can not Deactivate over Acceptance Rates.


----------



## Lee239

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Unemployment benefits are not the biggest issue overall (although I'm sure it's important to some drivers). Min wage, expenses, health insurance contributions, the employer half of the SSI tax, overtime - those are the employee benefits that matter to most. Since Uber doesn't cover those costs - then the fare rates they force on us (as contractors) should cover them.


Overtime is usually for hourly workers and would not really apply in this case, plus it's hard to calculate how many hours you work, since just being online is not considered work. I think a lot of taxi drivers are considered independent contractors so it's a slippery slope to prove what Uber drivers are. Uber can even change things so that every driver can only work part time and they don't have to provide full benefits.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

RedoBeach said:


> That's why contracting by definition allows the independent contractor's business to use multiple different workers to complete their work for the term of their contract and employees don't have that option...


 Yup - One of the (many) IRS 'tests' for contractor status is whether or not the IC can hire others to do the work contracted for. However, Uber _does_ have a means by which a driver can hire other drivers. It's not the easiest thing to set-up with Uber - but it can be done and is available to drivers who can qualify.



Lee239 said:


> Overtime is usually for hourly workers and would not really apply in this case, plus it's hard to calculate how many hours you work, since just being online is not considered work.


According to the DoL, waiting time to be called to perform work is indeed work - the worker is "engaged to wait".


> ...Uber can even change things so that every driver can only work part time and they don't have to provide full benefits.


? The FLSA does not define different protections for 'full-time' workers and part-time workers. Min wage applies even if you normally only work 20 hrs/wk - but put in a week of 50 hours. The only benefit available to a worker who averages 30 hrs/wk that is not available to a worker averaging fewer hours, is a health insurance benefit.

On the overtime issue, this gets a little technical - but mandated overtime is not for 'hourly workers'. Under the law, overtime is for '_non-exempt_' workers. According to the Dept. of Labor, you can be paid a salary, for instance, but that salary must meet the minimums of the Wage and Hour Division of the DoL.

Example:
You agree to a salary of $500/wk for 40 hours of work. That comes out to $12.50/hr - and is acceptable to the DoL.
But if you agree to a $500/wk salary for 70 hours of work, the wage equals only $7.14/hr, below the US min wage of $7.25/hr.

At 70 hours a wk, the salary must meet the federal standard of $7.25/hr for the first 40 hours worked and $10.88/hr for the 30 hours of overtime.
The min weekly salary for 70 hours/wk in the US is $616.25/wk.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

run26912 said:


> Also, the way Uber does the 1099s, it's almost as if WE are the employer and they are the IC acting as an agent on behalf of the driver to collect the revenues.


"almost"?! Between the 'we're just a technology company', 'your relationship with a rider is a direct one', 'and you authorize us to act as your third party payer and collect your fares from the riders' - that's EXACTLY how the Uber Driver Agreement reads.

According to driver agreements, we are paying uber to use their app... they are not paying us.


----------



## Trebor

run26912 said:


> Actually, I'm surprised no one is suing Uber for calling it's drivers "partners". True partners get a K-1 at the end of the year, equity stakes and profit sharing... then again, there are NO profits, but at least we'd get the capital loss.
> 
> Also, the way Uber does the 1099s, it's almost as if WE are the employer and they are the IC acting as an agent on behalf of the driver to collect the revenues. Even tho they have two different sets of fares and keep their manipulated %s and fees, they have the nerve to dump all revenues collected onto the driver's 1099, rather than just posting what the driver was paid as a normal IC would expect to receive. They are so shady...
> 
> Back to me tacos..
> 
> BONG!!!


Have you been around long enough to notice the app changed from "Uber Partner" to "Uber Driver"?


----------



## djnsmith7

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> "Free and clear of all deductions"
> 
> That's a clause in employment law that will sink uber.
> 
> If uber/lyft loses employee classification nationwide ride sharing is dead.


Considering how Uber & Lyft manage ridesharing, underpay and undervalue their drivers, I'd be ok with this. I've been saying for a while now that the ridesharing business in its current form relies heavily on driver ignorance. Take a guess as to how many drivers run the numbers like those of us on this forum; I'll tell you this, it's probably 50% less than the number you think it is, and they're banking on that.

Just imagine if that number doubled this month, then doubled again next month, and repeated until the majority of drivers crunched the numbers like we do. Suddenly, the majority of drivers would realize they're underpaid & undervalued, and begin searching for new employment. If these companies think driver retention is bad now, wait until the majority of drivers catch on to where we've been for 3 years. That would quickly turn into a day of reckoning.

I've been saying for two years now that ridesharing is one step away from being vaporized. From day one, ridesharing has never truly benefited the drivers. The beneficiaries have always been the company & customer, but never the driver. It's much worse now, as we've sustained a dozen pay cuts and the introduction of Pool, which worsened the situation significantly for drivers. I'm glad to see progress being made, as breakthroughs like the classification can ultimately force business practices to change.

I know there's not a single driver on this board that is ok with giving $4 - 5 fares, regardless of distance. Fellow drivers, every single one of us is worth a whole lot more than a lousy $4.00. Consider this; if you have an older V-6 or V-8 vehicle, that doesn't even cover your gas for the trip, and that probably goes all the way to about a $7 fare with current gas prices. So, at that point, you're driving these people around for free.


----------



## LA_Native

djnsmith7 said:


> Fellow drivers, every single one of us is worth a whole lot more than a lousy $4.00. Consider this; if you have an older V-6 or V-8 vehicle, that doesn't even cover your gas for the trip, and that probably goes all the way to about a $7 fare with current gas prices. So, at that point, *you're driving these people around for free*.


...and they'd still complain.


----------



## tohunt4me

djnsmith7 said:


> Considering how Uber & Lyft manage ridesharing, underpay and undervalue their drivers, I'd be ok with this. I've been saying for a while now that the ridesharing business in its current form relies heavily on driver ignorance. Take a guess as to how many drivers run the numbers like those of us on this forum; I'll tell you this, it's probably 50% less than the number you think it is, and they're banking on that.
> 
> Just imagine if that number doubled this month, then doubled again next month, and repeated until the majority of drivers crunched the numbers like we do. Suddenly, the majority of drivers would realize they're underpaid & undervalued, and begin searching for new employment. If these companies think driver retention is bad now, wait until the majority of drivers catch on to where we've been for 3 years. That would quickly turn into a day of reckoning.
> 
> I've been saying for two years now that ridesharing is one step away from being vaporized. From day one, ridesharing has never truly benefited the drivers. The beneficiaries have always been the company & customer, but never the driver. It's much worse now, as we've sustained a dozen pay cuts and the introduction of Pool, which worsened the situation significantly for drivers. I'm glad to see progress being made, as breakthroughs like the classification can ultimately force business practices to change.
> 
> I know there's not a single driver on this board that is ok with giving $4 - 5 fares, regardless of distance. Fellow drivers, every single one of us is worth a whole lot more than a lousy $4.00. Consider this; if you have an older V-6 or V-8 vehicle, that doesn't even cover your gas for the trip, and that probably goes all the way to about a $7 fare with current gas prices. So, at that point, you're driving these people around for free.


----------



## WaveRunner1

The more realistic approach is to demand more autonomy from Uber's strict supervision as opposed to being classified as employees and receive whatever benefits it comes with.


----------



## tohunt4me

WaveRunner1 said:


> The more realistic approach is to demand more autonomy from Uber's strict supervision as opposed to being classified as employees and receive whatever benefits it comes with.


Too Little.
Too Late.


----------



## LA_Native

WaveRunner1 said:


> The more realistic approach is to demand more autonomy from Uber's strict supervision as opposed to being classified as employees and receive whatever benefits it comes with.


And that's what's good about Uber's worry of possibly being classified as employees. If they just generate leads, let the pax decided if they want to pay a 4.0 driver, or ride in a car that's older than 15 years.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Trebor said:


> Have you been around long enough to notice the app changed from "Uber Partner" to "Uber Driver"?


Not just the app - the Uber Driver Agreement, too.



djnsmith7 said:


> From day one, ridesharing has never truly benefited the drivers.


Me, too. My'complaint' is that Uber has built its rideshare business with drivers paying the expense. And we have no one to blame but ourselves for participating. If ever there was an argument to be made in favor of government regulation, Uber is it. (That ought to raise the ire of the libertarians here  )

But then, what business was ever started with the notion that "_We have a great product to sell, so let's start a company to make money for our labor force_" ?


----------



## ganerbangla

Good news for the driver


----------



## phillipzx3

Safe_Driver_4_U said:


> I don't want to be an employee, I would lose my tax write off. Driving for Uber and Lyft is a superb opportunity for those that need to lose money, why ruin it with "employee" status?


Serious? You can't find a better (smarter) way to shelter income other than driving for Uber?


----------



## Cary Grant

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber in the US, in my opinion, is driving the gig economy to the Supreme Court, which will dump the whole labor issue back into Congress' lap - where it belongs.
> 
> The FLSA needs to be updated to reflect the today's work environment and the will of Congress (min wage protections, prevention of exploitation of labor) to cover gig workers with a new category of worker - a hybrid, something in-between employee and contractor. It should (again, just imo) end up with the corporation paying the employer share of 'employer taxes' (SSI/Medicare) & unemployment insurance on their labor force - but still allowing the worker the independence of a contractor.
> 
> hehe... and to hell with the other 99% of drivers!


This already exists: * Statutory Employee *(vs. the Common Law Employee that gets a wage or salary). Look it up on IRS.gov

It may require some amendments to the existing law, because drivers usually own their own car, and have a "substantial investment" at risk, but that's not a change that could kill the addition of ridesharing drivers to the Statutory Employee class.

Having been one several times, the upside is a Statutory Employee gets matching FICA and Medicare taxes, as well as being eligible for employee benefits (major medical is almost always participatory, meaning the employee has to pay part of the premium), plus retirement plans like a 401(k). In my experience, benefits included Workers Compensation, as well as group term life, and accidental death & dismemberment. Plus, you still get to deduct business expenses against W-2 earnings!

The downside? There's no such thing as Unemployment Compensation for Statutory Employees (in most states, CA may be an exception, but I haven't kept track of the legal morass that oozes from that place). There's no Minimum Wage, either. It's "eat what you kill" just like any other Statutory Employee arrangement (i.e., delivery drivers on commission, insurance agents on commission, some real estate agents on commission, etc.).

I would not object to classifying Rideshare drivers as Statutory Employees, but I will not drive the first minute or mile as a Common Law Employee. I prefer to set my own hours, pick and choose who I drive for, where I drive, and the other benefits and freedoms of being an independent contractor.


----------



## Trafficat

CapeCodDriver said:


> That could be illegal in some places since it could lead to driver discrimination by refusing to go to certain neighborhoods in a city, for example.


Not illegal for uber to show destinations... only illegal for the driver to discriminate. If Uber not showing destinations is discrimination, then Uber not monitoring trips to check for open containers is Uber breaking DUI laws.



SpecialK8 said:


> A few people here need to give back their cocktail napkin law degree haha
> 
> OK, a preface...I do not prefer to be an employee. I am fine with agreeing ahead of time to some of Uber's non negotiable policies and that in itself does not make me or anyone an employee. That said, clearly a few of you arguing we are contractors on the premise Uber has a right to set its policies have never read the driver-partner agreement. If you have, then you would recognize a major flaw in your legal stance and also recognize the government contract analogy is awful.
> 
> First and foremost, Uber in its partner agreement says it is AN AGENT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE DRIVER to facilitate a ride and act as a third party payment collector. The ride waybill generated is between the rider/client and the driver/service provider.
> 
> On its face, the government analogy is horrible because the government sets its own rates as a client and the provider of services can take it or leave it. Uber is saying on one hand it is merely acting on our behalf as our own third party intermediary, yet it wants to control the rates and how the services are performed. That is contradictory to its own claims that it is merely a third party. Third parties provide ancillary services and are not usually the ones that set the policies of how the work is performed.
> 
> I said before that I prefer to be a contractor. However, if someone claiming to be MY AGENT fired me because MY clients didn't like the job I was doing or which clients I took on or didn't take on, then I too would be suing the agent for not upholding the agreement. You can't say you're just a third party and then get to set and enforce how you want all the work to be done. If you do, you're no longer a third party...you're an employer.
> 
> Most of these drivers probably prefer to be contractors but they're tired of Uber trying to play both sides of a legal fence. They want to have all the control of rates, policies and talk down to and lecture drivers when riders complain, yet they say they're just a third party payment collector. Like I said, if that were true then it should be up to the driver to set rates and decide for themself how to handle wait times, cancellations, complaints, etc.
> 
> Read the freaking agreement people...Uber itself claims its a third party and acts an agent of the driver. Since when does an agent representing a client get to control how the client does all his or her work? It doesn't.


Worse is that your agent could fire you even when your client WAS happy with the job.

For instance, customer says you had a gun in the vehicle. You get fired. Even if you are rated 4.99 stars.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Maven said:


> Uber loses another round in the contractor vs. Employee battle.
> _____________
> 
> 
> *New York ALJ Takes Uber for a Ride *
> Lexicology June 29 2017
> *
> Why it matters*
> 
> In a decision with potentially significant implications, a New York administrative law judge (ALJ) held that Uber drivers are employees of the ride-sharing company. The case arose after three drivers had their accounts deactivated and sought unemployment benefits. Uber contended that because the drivers set their own schedules, selected their work areas, were not required to report absences and were not provided with fringe benefits, they should be considered independent contractors. But the ALJ disagreed, finding that Uber did not use an "arms' length approach as would typify an independent contractor arrangement," instead demonstrating substantial involvement with the drivers. "I find that while there are some indicia of claimant's independence, 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," the ALJ wrote. Importantly, she added that her decision applied not just to the three drivers involved in the case but "others similarly situated" as well. Uber-which has been battling the issue across the country with mixed results-said it intends to appeal the decision.
> 
> *Detailed discussion*
> 
> Are Uber drivers employees or independent contractors? Three New York drivers sought unemployment benefits after their accounts with the ride-sharing service were deactivated. Uber balked, arguing that the drivers were independent contractors. The state's Department of Labor issued an initial determination holding that the drivers were eligible to receive benefits, and Uber requested a hearing to appeal.
> 
> Following the hearing-complete with testimony from the drivers and Uber representatives-ALJ Michelle Burrowes overruled Uber's objection and found that the drivers were employees.
> 
> The ALJ walked through the process of becoming an Uber driver, explaining the "on-boarding process" beginning with the requirement of certain documents (a driver's license, vehicle registration and a license from the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission). Drivers were shown a video explaining how the Uber app works and depicting best practices guidelines, such as maintaining a clean vehicle and wearing professional attire.
> 
> Uber also published a Code of Conduct for its drivers, setting forth the minimum standards of conduct to which it expects both riders and drivers to adhere, with an explanation that failure to do so risks deactivation of access to the app. In addition, Uber published a Welcome Packet, described as containing "essential information for new Uber partners" and maintained online support resources for drivers.
> 
> Drivers needed a vehicle and smartphone to provide rides through the app, with Uber compiling a list of the vehicles it deemed acceptable. For those looking to lease their vehicles, Uber referred drivers to an affiliated third party and, in one case, intervened when a driver became delinquent, negotiating with the lessor for an alternative payment schedule. Uber also provided one driver with a smartphone and another with a phone charger and cable.
> 
> When a rider was picked up, the Uber app suggested a route, but drivers were expected to follow the route suggested by a rider, if given; the company also imposed rules about how long drivers had to wait for a rider. During the time period drivers are logged in to the app, Uber has the capacity to collect and review data regarding their activities, such as their acceptance and cancellation rates, the ALJ noted. Drivers are expected to accept 90 percent of ride requests received.
> 
> The company did not provide drivers with paid vacation, sick leave, health insurance coverage or other fringe benefits, nor did Uber impose a work schedule on the drivers. Instead, drivers autonomously decided when, where and how long they would work. Drivers were allowed to procure rides from Uber's competitors and had the ability to sub-contract drivers if they wanted.
> 
> After relating all these facts, the ALJ found the evidence demonstrated "that Uber exercised sufficient supervision and control over substantial aspects" of the drivers' work. "Uber did not employ an arms' length approach to the claimants as would typify an independent contractor arrangement," Burrowes wrote. "Uber remained involved with the means by which claimants provided transportation services for its Riders," such as requiring compliance with a list of approved vehicles.
> 
> "Additionally, Uber does not dispute that when [two of the] complainants lacked proper credit to secure their own vehicles, Uber not only referred them to their third-party affiliates to lease vehicles without credit, but also Uber took the additional step of withholding monies from these claimants' fares and making lease payments on their behalf. Uber even intervened when [one claimant] was delinquent in his lease payments to the third-party lessor, to arrange an alternate payment plan &#8230; to address his arrears."
> 
> The ALJ rejected Uber's position that the drivers signed a contract designating them as independent contractors as well as its characterization of the company as simply "a technology company that generates leads for drivers."
> 
> Uber set a mandatory wait time for riders before leaving a pickup site, the ALJ noted, retained the sole discretion to determine if that rider would be charged a wait fee, and had complete control over the fare for the ride, which was calculated by Uber's app algorithm.
> 
> Further, Uber continuously monitored its drivers, Burrowes found. "Uber took steps to modify the claimants' behavior, as typical in an employer-employee relationship," the ALJ said, publishing several documents including a Code of Conduct, which warned drivers that if they failed to accept 90 percent of all ride requests, they could face deactivation.
> 
> "Uber also used its Riders' responses on its five-star rating system &#8230; to monitor and evaluate a Driver's performance in providing ride service and to determine if that Driver's rating was unacceptable such that he should be deactivated from the app," the ALJ wrote.
> 
> A review of the record showed that each driver was "subjected to substantial supervision and control by Uber," Burrowes said. "I find that while there are some indicia of claimant's independence, 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. I conclude, therefore, that the claimants, and others similarly situated, are/were employees of the employer, Uber."
> 
> To read the decision, click here.


If this spreads, rates will rise and commissions will fall, and freedom will decline. Be careful what you wish for. on the other hand if they pay us the minimum wage for each region,
for example in San Diego it's 10 bucks an hour plus a mileage allowance , we will actually making more than we are now with the exception of some cities where rates are high, like san francisco.

however the costs of administering a company with minimum wage includes contributing half to payroll taxes and Social Security Etc will force the company to raise rates so high they won't even be able to compete with taxis. the long and short of it is that it will put them out of business. no big transportation company has been able to pay even the minimum wage, they all switch to cooperatives to survive-- most of them, anyway


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Cary Grant said:


> This already exists: * Statutory Employee *(vs. the Common Law Employee that gets a wage or salary). Look it up on IRS.gov
> 
> It may require some amendments to the existing law, because drivers usually own their own car, and have a "substantial investment" at risk, but that's not a change that could kill the addition of ridesharing drivers to the Statutory Employee class.
> 
> Having been one several times, the upside is a Statutory Employee gets matching FICA and Medicare taxes, as well as being eligible for employee benefits (major medical is almost always participatory, meaning the employee has to pay part of the premium), plus retirement plans like a 401(k). In my experience, benefits included Workers Compensation, as well as group term life, and accidental death & dismemberment. Plus, you still get to deduct business expenses against W-2 earnings!
> 
> The downside? There's no such thing as Unemployment Compensation for Statutory Employees (in most states, CA may be an exception, but I haven't kept track of the legal morass that oozes from that place). There's no Minimum Wage, either. It's "eat what you kill" just like any other Statutory Employee arrangement (i.e., delivery drivers on commission, insurance agents on commission, some real estate agents on commission, etc.).
> 
> I would not object to classifying Rideshare drivers as Statutory Employees, but I will not drive the first minute or mile as a Common Law Employee. I prefer to set my own hours, pick and choose who I drive for, where I drive, and the other benefits and freedoms of being an independent contractor.


Statutory employee status exists - and as you say, is not applicable to TNC drivers. Statutory employees have taxes withheld - but have none of the benefits afforded employees under the FLSA. Personally, I'm not looking to get a status where the only benefit is that the IRS collects taxes from me and holds them for up to a year before I can file a return and get them back.


----------



## Paul Vincent

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It's important to understand that, just like in CA and FL, the findings are those of an ALJ ("administrative law judge) - not a judge in a court. Uber will appeal this decision to an appeals board - and if they lose there, they will appeal the state court.


My wife is an alj it is a real Court and yes it can be appealed to another state court even the fourth district here in California all my wife's rulings have been upheld


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Paul Vincent said:


> My wife is an alj it is a real Court and yes it can be appealed to another state court even the fourth district here in California all my wife's rulings have been upheld


You're right - I worded that badly. It is a 'real court'. I hope that everyone understand the difference between administrative claims, civil claims, criminal prosecutions, etc.
Has she ever had to rule on an unemployment claim from a TNC driver?


----------



## Paul Vincent

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You're right - I worded that badly. It is a 'real court'. I hope that everyone understand the difference between administrative claims, civil claims, criminal prosecutions, etc.
> Has she ever had to rule on an unemployment claim from a TNC driver?


Not yet. She has had a case brought before her where the driver was deactivated but for good cause, only drove a couple of months, was very poorly rated and in person had a "very bad attitude". She advised in what is called a settlement conference not to proceed to trial because she would most likely rule against the driver. In a situation like this you don't want to set precedent with a meritless case.


----------



## Willy wonka

If we are not employees then... we should bid on riders request. We should be able to charge extra for pets and luggage. And we should not be told how many rides that we should accept. And. The riders would have to pay us directly. We would pay uber for the ride request.


----------



## Maven

Willy wonka said:


> If we are not employees then... we should bid on riders request. We should be able to charge extra for pets and luggage. And we should not be told how many rides that we should accept. And. The riders would have to pay us directly. We would pay uber for the ride request.


Driver self-pricing has already been implemented by one rideshare startup in NYC. I forget their name, but I do not think it caught on. The problem is cutthroat competition by people who can't do math, pushing pricing downward significantly below Uber to the point of not paying expenses and effectively losing money.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Willy wonka said:


> The riders would have to pay us directly. We would pay uber for the ride request.


According to our Uber driver Agreement, that is exactly what they do.


----------



## Willy wonka

Employees or indpendent contractors....either way... there is very little money to be made. Uber rates could be very close to taxi rates. Many riders prefer Uber over a stinky cab that runs you the longest route. The cheap rates that Uber charges is not the main reason that many riders prefer Uber. Uber needs to quit worrying about lyft and charge a decent rate. Think about this. If Uber doubled there rates and lost half of the business. We all would make more money...


----------



## garyk

Demon said:


> Then they aren't independent contractors. Thanks for clearing that up.


When I drove for Yellow Cab I was a contractor but I never set the rate. It was set by the city... How about the various cities legislate minimums that are reasonable.


----------



## Demon

garyk said:


> When I drove for Yellow Cab I was a contractor but I never set the rate. It was set by the city... How about the various cities legislate minimums that are reasonable.


Personally I would support that as it makes much more sense.


----------



## Willy wonka

I see no reason why cab, uber, lyft rates should be different. At the same rate. I bet most people would prefer Uber or Lyft over a cab.


----------



## garyk

An example is the city of Seattle trying to force the drivers to unionize when they can simply set a minimum rate that's higher than the current one that would make the wage livable for all the drivers. We just need them to regulate not legislate


----------



## Willy wonka

Yep

I would think that Uber and Lyft would want the rates to be regulated. Then the riders can choose who they want to hire. I just hope if that happens they also regulate how much Uber and lyft can screw the drivers


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Maven said:


> The problem is cutthroat competition by people who can't do math, pushing pricing downward significantly below Über.


I find that very difficult to believe. TNC drivers making poor business decisions? TNC drivers having difficulty with P/L ratios?


----------



## Willy wonka

Certain Judgment said:


> But if I am not an employee, than I cannot be fired, right?
> 
> Better to be deactivated by one than carried by six.


You can't be firied. However a company can quit doing business with you.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

garyk said:


> An example is the city of Seattle trying to force the drivers to unionize when they can simply set a minimum rate that's higher than the current one that would make the wage livable for all the drivers. We just need them to regulate not legislate


NO ONE is trying to FORCE drivers to unionize. The city is trying to make collective bargaining an OPTION for drivers.



Willy wonka said:


> You can't be firied. However a company can quit doing business with you.


But that's not how Uber is legally set up. Uber SELLS us (drivers) access to their app - but they impose rules (control) over how, when and where we are allowed to use it.


----------



## senorCRV

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Travis has pretty much said if they lose the Indy contractor deal, uber can't exist, and they will have to rework the ENTIRE business model.
> 
> On top of taxes insurance ect. Employees are legally entitled to min wage free and clear of all deductions.
> 
> Notably, employees need to make min wage AFTER per mile expenses OR vehicle rental costs.


He was 100% right.

Log in and out whenever you want? No.
Choose to accept a ride 30 minutes away? No.
Choose to stop or not stop at 12 gas stations or crack houses? No.
Choose if people smoke, drink, or eat in your car? No.
Choose what level of abuse someone can treat you with before you end the ride? No.

It's not what you think it is. You'll still not be eligible for unemployment or health care as there's no way Uber has full time employee drivers. Same goes for overtime.



KevRyde said:


> No. Drivers agree to the rates that Uber sets when they sign the contract. How do you not know this?


Actually not true at all.

You agree to the maximum rate you're allowed to charge the passenger. You, yes it's in the contract, are allowed to negotiate a lower rate with the passenger. Meaning, just like all contractors, you can be underbid and another contractor can underbid you.

Nobody does it, but you actually can email support and have them lower the rate for a ride and adjust the fare.


----------



## Willy wonka

Uber just raised there fee 30 cents per ride. None of it goes to the driver. 30 cents doesn't seem like much. Untill yot factor in millions of tifes daily.

Yesterday I did a airport ride. Backed up traffic. 54 miles, 1 hour 9 minutes. Uber paid me $29.40. No tip The cost to maintain a car + gas etc is 50 cents per mile. 50 cents x 54 = $27.00. I am pretending that I am making money?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

senorCRV said:


> You agree to the maximum rate you're allowed to charge the passenger. You, yes it's in the contract, are allowed to negotiate a lower rate with the passenger. Meaning, just like all contractors, you can be underbid and another contractor can underbid you. Nobody does it, but you actually can email support and have them lower the rate for a ride and adjust the fare.


You're right. [Many] Others disagree with me on this, but I believe that entire section on 'default' fares' is ambiguous and can't be defended in a court of law. Uber wants it both ways: IC status - but exerting control over the fare.

It is my belief that if drivers and riders have the ability to negotiate a lower fare, then by the contract definition of the direct relationship between the driver and rider, they also have the ability to negotiate a higher fare.

I would love to see this tested in a class action suit.


----------



## djnsmith7

If we are in fact 'Independent Contractors' by definition, we would have immediate access to all fare information prior to accepting the request. We would know the final destination and see an estimated fare.

'Most' contractors bid on a project, then accept related / affiliated risks & costs typically have all pertinent information about the project. Ridesharing drivers, other than a few exceptions, are the only 'contractors' that do this (and we shouldn't). We don't know the final destination, nor do we know the estimated fare. This in itself proves that we are not 'Independent Contractors.' One could argue 'we get duped' into accepting all of the requests we don't want to accept, due to a lack of information up front.

'Most' 'Independent Contractors', by definition, would have adequate information and autonomy to decide whether or not to bid on then accept a project, prior to accepting the liabilities, costs and risks. 'Most' Independent Contractors have have autonomy in setting their fee schedule. 'Most' Independent Contractors also have control over their income and P&L.

On the app, we should have an 'Accept' and 'Decline' button that appears at the time of the request, along with an 'Estimated Fare.' I won't attempt to speak for you folks, but I know that as soon as I see an 'Estimated Fare' at <$10, I'm tapping that 'Decline' button faster than a speeding bullet. Myself, my vehicle and my time are worth a lot more than $10, and I'm sure you are too.

Hope you folks aren't buying the '180 Days of Change are going to increase your wealth' fairy tale. In fact, since the announcement, my incentive options have been cut in half. How's that for increasing my wealth?

Edit: Important exception noted below. OP edited for accuracy. Thanks Michael.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

djnsmith7 said:


> An 'Independent Contractor', by definition, would have adequate information and autonomy to decide whether or not to accept a fare, prior to accepting the request. Since when does an Independent Contractor have no say whatsoever in setting their fee schedule?
> 
> Show me an Independent Contractor that has no control over their income or P&L.









​


----------



## Uber315

It’s a matter of time before many drivers are classified as employees by the courts. Changes are coming but in due time.


----------



## Maven

Uber315 said:


> It's a matter of time before many drivers are classified as employees by the courts. Changes are coming but in due time.


The question is: How long? Months? Years? Decades? Uber has been very successful in fighting reclassification efforts. They have lost some battles, but keep on fighting both in the USA and overseas.


----------



## Uber315

Maven said:


> The question is: How long? Months? Years? Decades? Uber has been very successful in fighting reclassification efforts. They have lost some battles, but keep on fighting both in the USA and overseas.


The longer the better!


----------



## Ca$h4

djnsmith7 said:


> If we are in fact 'Independent Contractors' by definition, we would have immediate access to all fare information prior to accepting the request. We would know the final destination and see an estimated fare.
> 
> 'Most' contractors bid on a project, then accept related / affiliated risks & costs typically have all pertinent information about the project. Ridesharing drivers, other than a few exceptions, are the only 'contractors' that do this (and we shouldn't). We don't know the final destination, nor do we know the estimated fare. This in itself proves that we are not 'Independent Contractors.' One could argue 'we get duped' into accepting all of the requests we don't want to accept, due to a lack of information up front.
> 
> 'Most' 'Independent Contractors', by definition, would have adequate information and autonomy to decide whether or not to bid on then accept a project, prior to accepting the liabilities, costs and risks. 'Most' Independent Contractors have have autonomy in setting their fee schedule. 'Most' Independent Contractors also have control over their income and P&L.
> 
> On the app, we should have an 'Accept' and 'Decline' button that appears at the time of the request, along with an 'Estimated Fare.' I won't attempt to speak for you folks, but I know that as soon as I see an 'Estimated Fare' at <$10, I'm tapping that 'Decline' button faster than a speeding bullet. Myself, my vehicle and my time are worth a lot more than $10, and I'm sure you are too.
> 
> Hope you folks aren't buying the '180 Days of Change are going to increase your wealth' fairy tale. In fact, since the announcement, my incentive options have been cut in half. How's that for increasing my wealth?
> 
> Edit: Important exception noted below. OP edited for accuracy. Thanks Michael.


Here is the Judge's written decision against Uber's misclassification of Uber Drivers. The Judge picks Uber's Driver misclassification apart point by point.

*http://uberlawsuit.com/NY unemployment decision.pdf*


----------



## UberPal

Steve2967 said:


> Just remember when you all get your wish and become employees you will be mandated to work a set schedule of 40 hours a week of Uber's choosing or be terminated.
> 
> You can also forget working past 40 hours and getting OT if you are doing this full time.
> 
> There is absolutely no fix for stupid.


I can also drive 5 miles an hour on each trip and take 5 bathroom breaks. Don't underestimate the power of the people, Uber needs to hire the rates so we can afford to maintain our cars and earn a good living or else they will be fighting us in court until they are gone. Travis was removed everyone is replaceable.


----------



## Maven

UberPal said:


> I can also drive 5 miles an hour on each trip and take 5 bathroom breaks. Don't underestimate the power of the people, Uber needs to hire the rates so we can afford to maintain our cars and earn a good living or else they will be fighting us in court until they are gone. Travis was removed everyone is replaceable.


The sad truth is that individual people, without significant personal resources, have very little power in America today or in the last 100 years. There are several ways to gain power:

by joining together with many other similar people, organizing into a union
by organizing politically with other people of similar beliefs

with the backing of a large law firm that sees a big payday
a massive shift to support the competition
transient power by going viral on social media
Until and unless they are forced, corporations will disregard the interests of individuals. Especially true if corporations perceive a virtually inexhaustible supply of replacements, as Uber does today. Corporations like Uber may attempt to create the appearance of caring (example: widely-publicized 180-days of change) without the substance.

Travis was removed not because of the opinions of drivers, but how his policies negatively affected employees at all levels, generated multiple law suits, a constant flow of negative publicity, gave competitors opportunities to steal market share, and most important threatening to devalue the worth of investments already made by backers.


----------



## Willy wonka

Very well put. One problem with tryimg to establish a union is. There are to many people afraid to give up their low paying jobs. The people that run Uber consider drivers to be the same as any other product. Retail store buy their merchandise at the lowest price that they can. Supply and demand works the same way with drivers. As long as there is a large supply of people willing to drive cheaply. Uber can get pleanty of drivers


----------



## garyk

SEAL Team 5 said:


> That's the problem. Drivers were not thinking when they signed up. Why is it that when UberX first started there was nothing but "this is the best thing since sliced bread" comments from every driver? The ONLY aspect of the X platform that changed was the rates. When the rates were $2.25/mile I never heard a peep about IC/employee status issues. Only when Uber slashed the prices to sub $1/mile did any of the drivers complain. Instead of complaining they should of quit. It was funny that the more Uber cut the rates the more drivers joined. Not one driver should have joined Uber after June '14.
> I would love for all the drivers in this forum to post the date and rate of Uber for when they started. I'll go first.
> March 2012 @ $5/mile. No pay for time


1.35 a mile and ,24 a minute... Made 40k gross last year 3 days a week


----------



## Willy wonka

Wow. I had no ideal what rates were when I joined. I was under the impression that I would make $20 - $30 per hour. What a joke that is.

Uber is making a big deal out of charging for waiting time. Do the math. 15 cents per minute = $9.00 per hour - Ubers 25 percent = $6.75 hourly rate. That's less than 11 cents per minute You might want to shut your vehicle off while waiting. It proubly cost more than 11 cents per minute to keep it running.


----------



## Maven

Willy wonka said:


> Wow. I had no ideal what rates were when I joined. I was under the impression that I would make $20 - $30 per hour. What a joke that is.


Uber told you the truth, but neglected to mention that was gross pay, 3 years ago, in a major market.


Willy wonka said:


> Uber is making a big deal out of charging for waiting time. Do the math. 15 cents per minute = $9.00 per hour - Ubers 25 percent = $6.75 hourly rate. That's less than 11 cents per minute You might want to shut your vehicle off while waiting. It proubly cost more than 11 cents per minute to keep it running.


May not be work shutting off car. It takes a lot of gas to start.


----------



## Willy wonka

I found a way to make money with Uber. I like to play poker. So I'll drive for Uber until I make $50.00. Then I join a poker game. The $50.00 can become $200.00 very fast. Orrrrrr. It can become $0 even faster. But atleast I'm having fun.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

Willy wonka said:


> Wow. I had no ideal what rates were when I joined. I was under the impression that I would make $20 - $30 per hour. What a joke that is.


Having no idea of what the rates were is not really a joke. It's hard to construct a business plan when the basis for revenue is an unknown.


----------



## Steve2967

UberPal said:


> I can also drive 5 miles an hour on each trip and take 5 bathroom breaks. Don't underestimate the power of the people, Uber needs to hire the rates so we can afford to maintain our cars and earn a good living or else they will be fighting us in court until they are gone. Travis was removed everyone is replaceable.


Or you could just do something else if you hate it so bad. Why would someone keep doing something they are losing money doing?

I agree that Uber needs to raise rates however, Uber is currently ina battle with competitors and raising rates at the wrong time could be the death of the company.

You see, it's very easy for all these people to pretend they know business when they fail to recognize they have competitors at their heels in virtually every market.

Add to that drivers that are driving for Uber and Lyft and thus keeping the competition in the game. One is going to have to fail or be bought out for rates to increase.

If Uber raises rates riders will simply switch to
Lyft in mass.


----------



## Willy wonka

If Uber would raise rates. I would turn my Lyft app off. I might get fewer riders. But the pay would be better. While driving for Lyft you will miss rider request for Uber

. Lyft would follow Uber and raise there rates within two weeks


----------



## Scott Aadal

No, they are NOT.


----------



## Willy wonka

No they are not what?


----------



## SpecialK8

senorCRV said:


> You agree to the maximum rate you're allowed to charge the passenger. You, yes it's in the contract, are allowed to negotiate a lower rate with the passenger. Meaning, just like all contractors, you can be underbid and another contractor can underbid you.
> 
> Nobody does it, but you actually can email support and have them lower the rate for a ride and adjust the fare.


Obviously you are absolutely correct here, as I showed this directly from the Uber driver agreement earlier in this thread.

Funny story though: this past week I requested a portion of a fare be credited back to a passenger because I messed up and missed an exit. It caused the fare to increase probably $2-2.50. It wasn't a big deal to my pax but I still wanted to credit him back some for the inconvenience.

Based on Uber's written policy, I should have had no problem doing this right? It was my call if Uber enforces its agreement correctly. I was told the fare would not be recalculated as it was "within the expected fare calculation."

I replied that as a driver I had the right to charge a lesser fare even if it wasn't necessary. I said that I did not want to be in the habit of doing that but in this case I felt it was warranted and requested a fare credit. Once again, I was denied.

These people are something else sometimes.


----------

