# UberLAWSUIT | Uber Files Motion Opposing Driver Class-Action Suit



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/1...osing-driver-class-action-suit.html?referrer=


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber To Judge: There's No Such Thing As A Typical Driver*
*By Booyah *
*http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiy...no-such-thing-as-a-typical-driver#.tsY5ajgyKo*


----------



## startin trouble (Apr 6, 2015)

Delay tactic expect many more.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber Says Drivers Oppose Lawsuit That Would Make Them Employees*
*http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...m=social&utm_channel=Business&linkId=15424989*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Do Uber Drivers Really Want to Be Full-Time Employees?*
*https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...qQIwAA&usg=AFQjCNH5RZdr5C1t6MmBWnw56GqrkcfS8Q*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber: We're not a taxi service, we're a 'lead generation' app*
*http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-fights-california-class-action-lawsuit-2015-7*


----------



## startin trouble (Apr 6, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber: We're not a taxi service, we're a 'lead generation' app*
> *http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-fights-california-class-action-lawsuit-2015-7*


That's odd the license you just paid 100 grand for says you are a TNC and you seemed to have registered roughly 25,000 drivers who's TNC stickers were issued because they said they drove for your company.

I'm very confused Mr uber lawyer


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

Uber drivers are not employees. They are slaves with flexible work schedules.


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber: We're not a taxi service, we're a 'lead generation' app*
> *http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-fights-california-class-action-lawsuit-2015-7*


On their own rider app they admit that they're an taxi and limo company


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Lead Uber attorney Ted Boutrous
(@BoutrousTed): *https://twitter.com/BoutrousTed?s=09*
on Bloomberg:
*http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-07-09/uber-drivers-are-they-employees-or-contractors-*


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Lead Uber attorney Ted Boutrous
> (@BoutrousTed): *https://twitter.com/BoutrousTed?s=09*
> on Bloomberg:
> *http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-07-09/uber-drivers-are-they-employees-or-contractors-*


His analysis re: commonality re the drivers for purpose of class certification is total bullshit. The commonality is the drivers common relationship/partner agreement with Uber not whether they all have common outside interests and their reasons for driving Uber. I would certainly doubt that Judge Chen will buy this flimsy argument.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> His analysis re: commonality re the drivers for purpose of class certification is total bullshit. The commonality is the drivers common relationship/partner agreement with Uber not whether they all have common outside interests and their reasons for driving Uber. I would certainly doubt that Judge Chen will buy this flimsy argument.


Now I know why Uber sent the email to the California drivers asking for the drivers to tell their stories... I thought it was a PR stunt. However, this is likely how they got drivers to give affidavits for this lawsuit. Sleezy. Of course, I wouldn't respond for either reason.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> Now I know why Uber sent the email to the California drivers asking for the drivers to tell their stories... I thought it was a PR stunt.


You're too trusting & kind. 
Please remember that this is Uber we're talking about here.

PS. I gave Shannon a heads up about what Uber was asking during these affidavit/testimonial seasons with Drivers who'd responded to Uber's email.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> You're too trusting & kind.
> Please remember that this is Uber we're talking about here.
> 
> PS. I gave Shannon a heads up about what Uber was asking during these affidavit/testimonial seasons with Drivers who'd responded to Uber's email.


Well, they certainly need good PR as well w/ all the bad press about drivers.  I'm sure Shannon can adequately rebut their arguments, which are actually not strong at all. I should do some research on the Fedex case. I'm sure on class certification this issue is similar. BTW I just saw an article about the lawsuit Shannon filed in Mass. on behalf of cleaning people who are hired via an App. This topic of I/C and App companies is hot right now. The outcome of this cases will have wide implications in the area of labor law.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Do Uber Drivers Really Want to Be Full-Time Employees?*
> *https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...qQIwAA&usg=AFQjCNH5RZdr5C1t6MmBWnw56GqrkcfS8Q*


The problem now is that the rates are so low and drivers are not making minimum wage in many cases when considering all the drivers' costs in operating their vehicles out of their own pockets. If Uber took better care of the drivers by paying a decent living wage and were not so arbitrary and deceptive in some of their practices towards drivers, it is very likely they would not be in the position they are in right now defending these driver lawsuits. They could have avoided all of this if they were not so greedy. The issue of whether a driver wants to be an employee v. and IC is not really the issue. The drivers want to be reasonably compensated for their time worked and expenses incurred to driver for Uber. The end result for the drivers is reasonable compensation and fair business practices (not whether they are classified for tax and labor law purposes as employees or ICs). However, because Uber has reduced the fares so low and saturated the markets with drivers, many drivers are not even making minimum wage and this argument is the easiest way for drivers to win against Uber. They put themselves in this situation....


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

Hey Uber... of course drivers don't want to be employees.... so stop treating them like they are, which will cause a court to rule that they are.... you dumbasses!!!


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

UberHammer said:


> Hey Uber... of course drivers don't want to be employees.... so stop treating them like they are, which will cause a court to rule that they are.... you dumbasses!!!


Exactly! But, they want their cake and to eat it too!!! You can't have both (let's hope)....


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> You're too trusting & kind.
> Please remember that this is Uber we're talking about here.
> 
> PS. I gave Shannon a heads up about what Uber was asking during these affidavit/testimonial seasons with Drivers who'd responded to Uber's email.


What is interesting is that 400 drivers who gave affidavits out of the alleged 10,000 drivers in California is a pretty low percentage of drivers.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

How many drivers WANT to be classified as employees and were not offered opportunity to file an affidavit stating this by Uber?

It's just another Uber spin.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber To Judge: There's No Such Thing As A Typical Driver*
> *By Booyah *
> *http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiy...no-such-thing-as-a-typical-driver#.tsY5ajgyKo*


Fedex case article on class certification rulings. Uber doesn't have a chance on this one. It looks like the drivers will likely be broken down into subclasses by State and the commonality will be determine based on State laws applicable to the drivers.

http://www.law360.com/articles/51308/fedex-drivers-from-19-states-win-class-certification


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> I'm sure Shannon can adequately rebut their arguments, which are actually not strong at all.


 I think Shannon is more than capable of handling anything Uber's Big Money Legal Guns For Hire throw at her!


*Uber Pushes Back Against Potential Class-Action Suit, Says There Is No 'Typical' Driver*
*http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhu...er/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter*

_Uber also takes a swing at Liss-Riordan, saying there is "considerable doubt" that her firm has the time and personnel to handle the cases. Liss-Riordan has made a name for herself recently in a wave of misclassification lawsuits against on-demand companies like Postmates,Instacart, Handy, Washio, Caviar, and more. "Although there are just seven attorneys employed at Ms. Liss-Riordan's law firm, Ms. Liss-Riordan has filed nearly a dozen lawsuits and arbitration proceedings (including many class actions) in the last 6 months alone-all of which will divert substantial time and energy from prosecution of this case," the motion says._


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> I think Shannon is more than capable of handling anything Uber's Big Money Legal Guns For Hire throw at her!
> 
> 
> *Uber Pushes Back Against Potential Class-Action Suit, Says There Is No 'Typical' Driver*
> ...


These guys at Gibson are really idiots. In this economy and given the condition of the legal profession post recession, there is an abundance of very qualified attorneys on the market to help her on these case on a temporary basis. Also, other firms could co-counsel if she needs more help.

Firms like hers that take cases on a contingency are used to this. They operate leanly until they get a good case and then ramp up. Gibson, is a fat good ole boy law firm. They don't know how to operate like these savvy plaintiff law firms nor are they efficient... That's why many of the best litigators in this country come from very small firms.


----------



## YouWishYouKnewMe (May 26, 2015)

Haha Ubers got some nerve 
Since when did diversity of the contractor pool become a relevant factor in determining employment


----------



## Adbam (Jun 25, 2015)

Gemgirlla said:


> What is interesting is that 400 drivers who gave affidavits out of the alleged 10,000 drivers in California is a pretty low percentage of drivers.


They just recorded the 400 good ones and ignored the 5000 bad.


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

Gemgirlla said:


> The problem now is that the rates are so low and drivers are not making minimum wage in many cases when considering all the drivers' costs in operating their vehicles out of their own pockets. If Uber took better care of the drivers by paying a decent living wage and were not so arbitrary and deceptive in some of their practices towards drivers, it is very likely they would not be in the position they are in right now defending these driver lawsuits. They could have avoided all of this if they were not so greedy. The issue of whether a driver wants to be an employee v. and IC is not really the issue. The drivers want to be reasonably compensated for their time worked and expenses incurred to driver for Uber. The end result for the drivers is reasonable compensation and fair business practices (not whether they are classified for tax and labor law purposes as employees or ICs). However, because Uber has reduced the fares so low and saturated the markets with drivers, many drivers are not even making minimum wage and this argument is the easiest way for drivers to win against Uber. They put themselves in this situation....


Yep yep yep. And sadly my only concern is that Drivers win lawsuit but Uber makes minimal changes. Yes Uber will write a big check, but Uber writes a lot of big checks. So Uber tweaks the IC platform and it's business as usual. Just harder for next plaintiff. Sorta like when Uber changed 'tip included' to 'no need to tip'. Jerks.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

So Uber's argument is that some of the drivers don't want to be employees? Then they release a statement trying to scare drivers by telling them how bad things will be as an employee. So shady and not truthful! But what does any of that have with the lawsuit? Hahaha. Weak, weak, weak.

What some of the employees or the employer want has nothing to do with being classified as an IC or employee.


----------



## startin trouble (Apr 6, 2015)

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> So Uber's argument is that some of the drivers don't want to be employees? Then they release a statement trying to scare drivers by telling them how bad things will be as an employee. So shady and not truthful! But what does any of that have with the lawsuit? Hahaha. Weak, weak, weak.
> 
> What some of the employees or the employer want has nothing to do with being classified as an IC or employee.


For an idea of how weak this argument is just apply it to any other labor case.
"Your honor I have affidavits from several other employees who were paid correctly"
"Your honor I have affidavits from several other employees that have had no side affects from the asbestos"
"Your honor I have several affidavits from employees that had no problem with the sexual harassment, some say it has boosted their self esteem"


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

UberRidiculous said:


> Yep yep yep. And sadly my only concern is that Drivers win lawsuit but Uber makes minimal changes. Yes Uber will write a big check, but Uber writes a lot of big checks. So Uber tweaks the IC platform and it's business as usual. Just harder for next plaintiff. Sorta like when Uber changed 'tip included' to 'no need to tip'. Jerks.


It's hard to say how they would change the business model if they lose the case. It would cost them a lot of money to reimburse drivers for car expenses and give them a cut of the fares at the current pricing. If they do as they usually do, they would find a way to net the same regardless of how the drivers are classified. I will say they probably would need to have a lot fewer drivers on the platform. As it is now, there is a surplus of drivers sitting around waiting for business. If these drivers were employees, they would have to pay them regardless of whether they were taking rides. Not unlike when the drivers were on a guarantee. I don't think paying drivers the guarantee was a very profitable situation for them.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

YouWishYouKnewMe said:


> Haha Ubers got some nerve
> Since when did diversity of the contractor pool become a relevant factor in determining employment


Since never....


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber - Opposition to Motion for Class Certification (1) on Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/doc/271072643*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

UberRidiculous said:


> chi1cabby I got a gun poll at this link.


It's loading up fine for me.


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

Gemgirlla said:


> It's hard to say how they would change the business model if they lose the case.....
> ......If they do as they usually do, they would find a way to net the same regardless of how the drivers are classified......
> .....If these drivers were employees, they would have to pay them regardless of whether they were taking rides.


What if LAndreas is right?



LAndreas said:


> Which lawsuit are we talking about now? The only one that really matters will be the one that seeks to classify us ICs as employees based on Uber's past and current practices.......
> 
> ......It won't change Uber's business model in the long run. They'll still run it with ICs, they'll just have to tweak how they manage us on their platform to make sure they are in compliance.....
> ....Once they have some experience and a larger legal department, they'll set up so that we all labor independently in accordance with the letter of the law.


So here's my question. Who or How is it decided if drivers become employees? 
If LAndreas is right that Uber can tweak a few things and leave drivers as ICs THEN Uber will essentially be doubling down. (like usual) Uber would certainly make 'just enough' changes to the IC platform. So Uber would calculate risks. Uber chooses:
A.) Make drivers employees which means new business model = valuation shrinkage = slower growth + dried up billionaire investor capital
B.) Leave drivers ICs and tweak IC business model so that future lawsuits become less interesting to attorneys, more expensive for drivers to litigate and harder for drivers to win a 2nd time.


----------



## OrlUberOffDriver (Oct 27, 2014)

There is a fall back to this case as I see it, it will NOT be beneficial to us drivers. 
If and when we will be classified as "Employees" there will be many set backs and not at the expense of Uber. 
The scenario looks like this. 
Uber will pay us minimum wage against a draw. 
So, we will be able to work as much or as little as we want, let's say I work 10 hours Uber will pay minimum wage for that time worked, if I earn $200 in fares for those 10 hours Uber will then take away from that the amount that they paid in minimum wages. 
Even if Uber will pay for partial expenses, they will only pay for those expenses incurred during a bona fide "fare" & time "Log on", which again it will be deducted from your total fares. 
Another draw back is that Uber could institute a monthly "Draw against fares" system, where us drivers will only be paid minimum for the full month, then Uber will reconcile fares vs draw once a month. This will be a way to thin down the driver pool. 
I think this suit is a "Win/lose" case, where yes we will put Uber on notice but we will lose in the end. 
The only ones that may win are those drivers that have been at this for a while, where Uber may have to reimburse - going back to a certain period of time (Probable but unlikely).

In the end Uber WINS!
Yes, we will get minimum wage and our fares will pay that. 
Yes, we will get partial expenses paid and our fares will pay that. 
There is NOTHING good that is going to come out of this.


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

OrlUberOffDriver said:


> There is a fall back to this case as I see it, it will NOT be beneficial to us drivers.
> If and when we will be classified as "Employees" there will be many set backs and not at the expense of Uber.
> The scenario looks like this.
> Uber will pay us minimum wage against a draw.
> ...


Okay so I do see some flaws with a lot of this but what I really want to ask you is what do you propose is the right answer or the best alternative for Uber drivers? Are you saying do nothing & maintain status quo? Or what are you saying drivers should do?


----------



## UberComic (Apr 17, 2014)

I believe that Uber is run by a bunch of assholes that didn't know what they were doing and just somehow got lucky. They probably thought the independent contractor route was legal, and it would never be put in question. That was before they pissed off hundreds of thousands of drivers by cutting fares, adding fees, introducing profit killing UberPool, and all the while telling them it was for their own good. Many of these drivers started digging before figuring out that they should have been employees, and are due back what will add up to a shitload of money. Now Uber is trying to fight these drivers in what appears to be a losing battle by hiring high dollar lawyers who don't mind spending some of those billions in investor money in the courtroom. 

Personally at this point I'd love to receive a huge check from Uber, and just move on. I'm sure I'm not the only one.


----------



## OrlUberOffDriver (Oct 27, 2014)

Yes, we must and will win this! 
But, is it going to be a win for us or Uber?
The business model will change, the question is will it benefit us or Uber?
Uber is already planning a change, look at the "gas cards" it is already a draw against your earnings. This is an easy fix for Uber to say: OK, you dumb **** drivers you want to be employees? Here are the rules! (See previous post)
Uber Wins, we Loose. 
My thought is that there must be a tremendous number of drivers willing & able to say enough is enough! 
UberOFF! Across this great nation for a full day!


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

OrlUberOffDriver said:


> There is a fall back to this case as I see it, it will NOT be beneficial to us drivers.
> If and when we will be classified as "Employees" there will be many set backs and not at the expense of Uber.
> The scenario looks like this.
> Uber will pay us minimum wage against a draw.
> ...


No such thing as partial expenses.

As an employee Uber would have to pay all expenses, from app on to app off.

It will be up to Uber to keep drivers busy to maximize Ubers expenses.


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

UberComic said:


> I believe that Uber is run by a bunch of assholes that didn't know what they were doing and just somehow got lucky. They probably thought the independent contractor route was legal, and it would never be put in question. That was before they pissed off hundreds of thousands of drivers by cutting fares, adding fees, introducing profit killing UberPool, and all the while telling them it was for their own good. Many of these drivers started digging before figuring out that they should have been employees, and are due back what will add up to a shitload of money. Now Uber is trying to fight these drivers in what appears to be a losing battle by hiring high dollar lawyers who don't mind spending some of those billions in investor money in the courtroom.
> 
> Personally at this point I'd love to receive a huge check from Uber, and just move on. I'm sure I'm not the only one.


And with that, there is a changing of the guard, and the baton is handed down to the next group of drivers and we start all over.


----------



## OrlUberOffDriver (Oct 27, 2014)

observer said:


> As an employee Uber would have to pay all expenses, from app on to app off.


You are correct. And that is what I said!
And since most of us use our vehicles for personal use, Uber will prorate the miles driver for Uber app "On to Off" and that is why the gas card wants the mileage at the pump.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

I'm thinking they will keep things simple. 

Pay mileage .575 per mile plus hourly. Hourly will be minimum but could go up depending on pax demand, or driver saturation in that particular area, kinda like "surge pricing".


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

OrlUberOffDriver said:


> You are correct. And that is what I said!
> And since most of us use our vehicles for personal use, Uber will prorate the miles driver for Uber app "On to Off" and that is why the gas card wants the mileage at the pump.


They could just program their app to track miles driven from app on to app off. They akready do this for pax in car.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

observer said:


> They could just program their app to track miles driven from app on to app off. They akready do this for pax in car.


This would be a much simpler way to control mileage. Done in house, without having to go through card provider.


----------



## OrlUberOffDriver (Oct 27, 2014)

observer said:


> This would be a much simpler way to control mileage. Done in house, without having to go through card provider.


Yes. Very easy to do. When you Log on, we will be required to enter ODO reading and to log off again. 
The gas card will become a way to check total miles driven in the vehicle then prorate the expenses for Uber total miles driven. And a way to cross check.


----------



## startin trouble (Apr 6, 2015)

OrlUberOffDriver said:


> There is a fall back to this case as I see it, it will NOT be beneficial to us drivers.
> If and when we will be classified as "Employees" there will be many set backs and not at the expense of Uber.
> The scenario looks like this.
> Uber will pay us minimum wage against a draw.
> ...


Holy flying ****ing shit balls I am very old.
As an employee you get all your expenses, 100%, every penny. You also get social security, workman comp, Medicaid. You also get damages to your property, you also get a safe, non hostile working environment. You also get protection under the FLSA (fair labor standards act) and the ability to go to your labor board to keep your employer in line. For example the all powerful driver ratings, uber terminating someone because of those they better be able to document each one that caused you to fall below the termination threshold and apply those same standards to each and every driver without exception. They will also have to throw out the ones like and you can Google this "just had the most ghetto ass driver her name was actually Shenaqua 1 star" shit like that will not fly anymore. Also this clearly won't apply to just uber. Lift, taxis, and all the other driver for hire companies will now be focused on quality instead of quantity so you will have companies going after the best drivers and coming up with all sorts of creative ways to top each other for the best drivers services. Your personal insurance worries go away, giving out your personal phone number and information to riders all that shit stops and so on.
The problem is not what Uber does to tweak their module to comply with the employee classification it's what they do to **** with the contractor and employee classification laws and create their much sought after hybrid third employee classification which could really do so much damage it's unthinkable for me anyways, because 9 out of every 10 employers in this country would tweak their business module so that their employees were classified into the new hybrid category, which would at lightning speed put us on course for third world nation status.


----------



## SCdave (Jun 27, 2014)

OrlUberOffDriver said:


> Yes. Very easy to do. When you Log on, we will be required to enter ODO reading and to log off again.
> The gas card will become a way to check total miles driven in the vehicle then prorate the expenses for Uber total miles driven. And a way to cross check.


OBDII device with Bluetooth reads odometer/mileage automatically. This is what Metromile Insurance uses to calculate their "pay by mile" insurance.


----------



## OrlUberOffDriver (Oct 27, 2014)

Good point! This OBD2 tool are very inexpensive and the Uber app will be able to automatically read mileage.


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

startin trouble said:


> Holy flying ****ing shit balls I am very old.
> As an employee you get all your expenses, 100%, every penny. You also get social security, workman comp, Medicaid. You also get damages to your property, you also get a safe, non hostile working environment. You also get protection under the FLSA (fair labor standards act) and the ability to go to your labor board to keep your employer in line. For example the all powerful driver ratings, uber terminating someone because of those they better be able to document each one that caused you to fall below the termination threshold and apply those same standards to each and every driver without exception. They will also have to throw out the ones like and you can Google this "just had the most ghetto ass driver her name was actually Shenaqua 1 star" shit like that will not fly anymore. Also this clearly won't apply to just uber. Lift, taxis, and all the other driver for hire companies will now be focused on quality instead of quantity so you will have companies going after the best drivers and coming up with all sorts of creative ways to top each other for the best drivers services. Your personal insurance worries go away, giving out your personal phone number and information to riders all that shit stops and so on.
> The problem is not what Uber does to tweak their module to comply with the employee classification it's what they do to **** with the contractor and employee classification laws and create their much sought after hybrid third employee classification which could really do so much damage it's unthinkable for me anyways, because 9 out of every 10 employers in this country would tweak their business module so that their employees were classified into the new hybrid category, which would at lightning speed put us on course for third world nation status.


startin trouble maybe you can answer my question. What is the downside if Uber loses and decides to maintain drivers as IC status and tweaks the business model just enough to discourage new lawsuits. This lawsuit being decided by a jury means it is absolutely not a slam dunk. If drivers win this jury, Uber will learn from it what tweaks to make so any new jury is not as sure next time, making attorneys less likely to want the case without a retainer. And all kinds of new roadblocks to a new repeat lawsuit.


----------



## startin trouble (Apr 6, 2015)

UberRidiculous said:


> startin trouble maybe you can answer my question. What is the downside if Uber loses and decides to maintain drivers as IC status and tweaks the business model just enough to discourage new lawsuits. This lawsuit being decided by a jury means it is absolutely not a slam dunk. If drivers win this jury, Uber will learn from it what tweaks to make so any new jury is not as sure next time, making attorneys less likely to want the case without a retainer. And all kinds of new roadblocks to a new repeat lawsuit.


I can't think of anything wrong with uber having TRUE independent contractors. I can't see it happening because I don't think uber wants to give up that kind of control. Uber wants things the way they are now. They want to be a TNC company, sorry I mean a software provider, oops no I mean a lead generation app that makes all of the rules and shoulders none of the costs, obligations or responsibilities.


----------



## ARIV005 (Mar 4, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> *Do Uber Drivers Really Want to Be Full-Time Employees?*
> *https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...qQIwAA&usg=AFQjCNH5RZdr5C1t6MmBWnw56GqrkcfS8Q*


If it will raise rates and make them pay for everything.... Absolutely. Watch that 50mil evaluation go down to 50 rupees.... Haha!


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

startin trouble said:


> I can't think of anything wrong with uber having TRUE independent contractors. I can't see it happening because I don't think uber wants to give up that kind of control. Uber wants things the way they are now. They want to be a TNC company, sorry I mean a software provider, oops no I mean a lead generation app that makes all of the rules and shoulders none of the costs, obligations or responsibilities.


Right! So my expectations are that Uber will go 1/2 or 1/4 of the way to true IC, just enough to avert new lawsuits but not enough to correct.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

UberRidiculous said:


> What if LAndreas is right?
> 
> So here's my question. Who or How is it decided if drivers become employees?
> If LAndreas is right that Uber can tweak a few things and leave drivers as ICs THEN Uber will essentially be doubling down. (like usual) Uber would certainly make 'just enough' changes to the IC platform. So Uber would calculate risks. Uber chooses:
> ...


I think you are correct about option B.) They were hogs, that's why they have found themselves in this situation. They wanted their cake and to eat it too.... I don't know how they get out of this now though... If drivers are classified by a federal court in the 9th Circuit as employees, I think it will be difficult for them to declassify them quickly back to I/C regardless of how they change their business practices. This may be why they would want to settle the cases. It will be interesting to see how Fedex has dealt with their situation post settlement.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

startin trouble said:


> Holy flying ****ing shit balls I am very old.
> As an employee you get all your expenses, 100%, every penny. You also get social security, workman comp, Medicaid. You also get damages to your property, you also get a safe, non hostile working environment. You also get protection under the FLSA (fair labor standards act) and the ability to go to your labor board to keep your employer in line. For example the all powerful driver ratings, uber terminating someone because of those they better be able to document each one that caused you to fall below the termination threshold and apply those same standards to each and every driver without exception. They will also have to throw out the ones like and you can Google this "just had the most ghetto ass driver her name was actually Shenaqua 1 star" shit like that will not fly anymore. Also this clearly won't apply to just uber. Lift, taxis, and all the other driver for hire companies will now be focused on quality instead of quantity so you will have companies going after the best drivers and coming up with all sorts of creative ways to top each other for the best drivers services. Your personal insurance worries go away, giving out your personal phone number and information to riders all that shit stops and so on.
> The problem is not what Uber does to tweak their module to comply with the employee classification it's what they do to **** with the contractor and employee classification laws and create their much sought after hybrid third employee classification which could really do so much damage it's unthinkable for me anyways, because 9 out of every 10 employers in this country would tweak their business module so that their employees were classified into the new hybrid category, which would at lightning speed put us on course for third world nation status.


Absolutely!!! Well said.

If these companies like Uber are allowed to get away with this, it would undue all of the hard work, energy, time and money past generations have spent for decades that resulted in the American people having the protections we are afforded by decent labor as well as OSHA laws. Left to corporate America, children could be employed in factories again...

Because of the protections workers in the US have secured, 20 years or so ago, US corporations started shipping ("outsourced") jobs to third world countries like China, India, etc. that don't have the labor, OSHA and environmental laws we have and thus offered cheaper labor.

Companies like Uber took advantage of the high unemployment rates in the US resulting from the recession (which are still high despite the statistics) by devising this hybrid "IC" status to avoid the application of labor, tax and OSHA laws. They are trying to turn the working climate in the USA to be comparable to those in the third world so they can have cheap labor here . Let's all pray that this does not work. It's bad for American workers.

They try to manipulate US workings into working for them by saying you have "flexibility" and it's your own business... we all know now that's a lie given how many hours you have to work to make a subpar living and how many actual restrictions come w/ working for them....


----------



## startin trouble (Apr 6, 2015)

UberRidiculous said:


> Right! So my expectations are that Uber will go 1/2 or 1/4 of the way to true IC, just enough to avert new lawsuits but not enough to correct.


You can't be a little bit pregnant, if they loose this case their feet will be held to the fire.


----------



## LADriver (Aug 28, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> His analysis re: commonality re the drivers for purpose of class certification is total bullshit. The commonality is the drivers common relationship/partner agreement with Uber not whether they all have common outside interests and their reasons for driving Uber. I would certainly doubt that Judge Chen will buy this flimsy argument.


Please go to Diva Limousine Class-Action Lawsuit.


Gemgirlla said:


> His analysis re: commonality re the drivers for purpose of class certification is total bullshit. The commonality is the drivers common relationship/partner agreement with Uber not whether they all have common outside interests and their reasons for driving Uber. I would certainly doubt that Judge Chen will buy this flimsy argument.


This Class Action Battle has already been fought and won years ago in California. Just go to Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine , LTD.

http://www.californiaemploymentlawr...s-action-certified-for-limousine-driver-case/

Diva Limousine's attorneys tried to ATOMIZE the plaintiffs argument by saying that drivers are so different and individual that they cannot be considered as a class. Well, the Appellate Court ruled that Diva's drivers were ASCERTAINABLE, NUMEROUS and met the SUPERIORITY to be certified as a class.

UBER lawyers must have this appellate precedent on their desk. So why are they even filing this lame motion? They know they are going to go down in flames. And I'm not even a lawyer, I'm an UBERX slave, with a Philosophy background by the way.


----------



## LADriver (Aug 28, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> What is interesting is that 400 drivers who gave affidavits out of the alleged 10,000 drivers in California is a pretty low percentage of drivers.


I've read there are 20,000 UBERX drivers in Los Angeles alone. And 5,000 in Orange County. So the state wide number has to be much more than what you're talking about.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber Case May Hinge On What The Drivers Want*
*http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...ay-hinge-on-whether-drivers-want-to-be-in-it/*

_The central question at that hearing will be whether there are elements of Uber's rules and the contracts drivers sign that are common to every driver. The lawsuit claims, for example, that Uber drivers are shortchanged by the company's "no-tip" policy, which steers money customers might have given drivers as a tip into Uber's pockets instead. The lawsuit also claims Uber should be paying for their necessary expenses including fuel and vehicle maintenance.

Uber says its drivers are too diverse to share such common complaints, with many of them driving cars owned by livery and taxi companies and disagreement even among the three named plaintiffs over whether they take tips._


----------



## Super G (Jan 28, 2015)

Gemgirlla said:


> Now I know why Uber sent the email to the California drivers asking for the drivers to tell their stories... I thought it was a PR stunt. However, this is likely how they got drivers to give affidavits for this lawsuit. Sleezy. Of course, I wouldn't respond for either reason.


They're asking us in DC too


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Here's Uber's Ridiculous Argument That Its Drivers Aren't Employees*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber Could Have to Pay an Additional $208 Million to Reclassify Its Drivers in California*
*http://recode.net/2015/07/14/uber-c...lion-to-reclassify-its-drivers-in-california/*


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

ARIV005 said:


> If it will raise rates and make them pay for everything.... Absolutely. Watch that 50mil evaluation go down to 50 rupees.... Haha!


POST # 49/ARIV005: Must be the Bas-
tille Day Festivities
in Your NoNewj Township affecting Your
Old World Math! $50 MILL...with an "M"
Million this week ? How Refreshingly....
ah...um...tip-of-my-tongue ☆DISRUPTIVE☆
....YEAH, that's "The Ticket!" Imagine the
Deflated F O R M E R...T E C H.... T I T A N
reduced to *.....shudder.....* Pedestrian
Status...sigh....Maybe the l.....o......n....g
w...a ...l...k off "The Short Pier" would be
a Fitting 'Francisco Finale for the
Nabob of Northridge.

Bison CAN dream.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

LADriver said:


> Please go to Diva Limousine Class-Action Lawsuit.
> 
> This Class Action Battle has already been fought and won years ago in California. Just go to Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine , LTD.
> 
> ...


POST # 54/LADriver: Needs an Immed-iate Blood Test and
DNA Workup STAT! You, Sir, are Laying
Down SCOTUS QUALITY SmackTalk vs.
the feebledollargrubbings of the "boobers."

@Socratic Driving Method ?
@Plato's Breakfast of Champions?

All this AND MORE on "Championship
UPNFery" ! Check Your Local Cable/Sat-
telite Provider for Information....at least THEY have a Phone Number.

Bison Tightly Wound.


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

Do not underestimate the Bison, it may cost you in the end.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

ubershiza said:


> Do not underestimate the Bison, it may cost you in the end.
> View attachment 9887


POST # 62/ubershiza: Bostonian Bison
recognizes and
Thanks You for this Most Apropos
Honorific.

Happy Bastille Day to ALL UPNFers!


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> Absolutely!!! Well said.
> 
> If these companies like Uber are allowed to get away with this, it would undue all of the hard work, energy, time and money past generations have spent for decades that resulted in the American people having the protections we are afforded by decent labor as well as OSHA laws. Left to corporate America, children could be employed in factories again...
> 
> ...


The unemployment rate is not the whole story. Labor participation rate for June 2015 was 62.6%. That is the lowest since the mid seventies. People have just dropped out looking for work. The BLS counts temporary or part time work as unemployed. Way to many people are underemployed. Henceforth why Uber exists. We as a country are in a pickle.


----------



## ARIV005 (Mar 4, 2015)

Casuale Haberdasher said:


> POST # 49/ARIV005: Must be the Bas-
> tille Day Festivities
> in Your NoNewj Township affecting Your
> Old World Math! $50 MILL...with an "M"
> ...


Oops, unfortunately my brain can't wrap itself around the notion of this quack company getting 50 Billion... So 50 mil is modest.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Does anyone know how this affected FedEx Ex in the end?

As employees under labor laws as I remember them . . .

1- We would be paid minimum wage for up to 8 hrs /day logged into the app with a max of 40 hours a week.
Uber then would tell us the min average # of trips per hour we need to complete while online.
2- After 4 hours straight of being on the app drivers _would be required_ to take a 30 minute break (off app) that Uber does not pay for.
3 - For the mileage during fares Uber would pay us the IRS amount per mile.
4- We would be able to collect tips. Like restaurants Uber would claim a percentage of each driver's total receipts for the week as tips reported to the IRS.

It would be interesting to see if drivers would be given the responsibility waitstaff in many restaurants are given. Drivers would be responsible for collecting their own fares via credit card. Let's say drivers are provided with the gadget for their cell phones (with a refundable deposit) & the fares are deposited into an Uber account with a receipt automatically sent to drivers' e-mails. Each day drivers would need to reconcile what was sent to to Uber vs what was paid to him.

Tips could be given as cash or Uber could have a tip option on the user app.

Anyone who works regularly over 32 hrs a week would be offered the opportunity to.purchase insurance. That cost would be deducted from the paycheck. Other deductions on payroll would be FICA (with Uber matching) & federal withholding.

M2CW


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberNorthStar said:


> Does anyone know how this affected FedEx Ex in the end?
> 
> As employees under labor laws as I remember them . . .
> 
> ...


1) Uber could require a "reasonable" minimum amount of trips per hour but they would have to make those trips available to you. These trips would have to be scheduled to be done in a safe time frame.

2) In California you may work through your 1/2 lunch but must be paid for one hour.

3) Uber is not required to pay IRS amount, they just need to pay enough to cover expenses. Paying IRS amount would be easier.

4) In CA Uber cannot keep any percentage of tips for itself. They cannot even charge the employees the credit card percentage.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

observer said:


> 4) In CA Uber cannot keep any percentage of tips for itself. They cannot even charge the employees the credit card percentage.


Allow me clarify. Restaurants do not keep any portion of tips, nor would Uber.

The IRS now requires restaurants to claim each week on.behalf of each waiter/waitress a percentage of each person's total net sales (say 10%) as tips for the week when timecards are sent to the main office.

That started at least 30 yrs ago b/c individuals were under reporting their tips. I worked for Denny 's just before the ruling went into effect. I would claim all my tips, say $100.00 for five days work while the seasoned waitresses would claim $35.

The ruling was made by the IRS to be able to collect taxes on previously what had been _unreported income.
_
This is reporting to the IRS & to state governments that have a state income tax.

I am with you on the CC companies' charge per transaction to Uber. That it's an expense of doing business for Uber.

Even if I was reimbursed 15¢ or 20¢/mile while I was transporting a fare, it would cover my current cost of gas. It would also cover some of my deadhead miles while on app. My cost per mile on my last tank of gas was 11¢/mile. (# of miles per gallon driven / cost of gas per gallon last fillup.)


----------



## bluebird (Jul 16, 2015)

ubershiza said:


> Uber drivers are not employees. They are slaves with flexible work schedules.


Did you know an entry level Job at UBER headquarters pays 20 times the average uber driver pay. Did you know the GEEKS we cart around that work for UBER make 130,000 a year to figure new ways to screw the drivers......I thought the drivers were the backbone of UBER WRONG!


----------



## bluebird (Jul 16, 2015)

Have you REALLY LOOKED AT YOUR TRUE EARNINGS. When and If you do you will throw up. Ask the passenger to tell you what they are paying for the ride then look at what Uber ends up paying you....The amount on your phone screen at the end of the ride is not what the rider pays. Sometimes it is more and sometimes less but believe me in the end you will get shorted for the ride. YOU ARE NOT EARNING WHAT YOU THINK YOU ARE....


----------



## LEAFdriver (Dec 28, 2014)

bluebird said:


> Ask the passenger to tell you what they are paying for the ride then look at what Uber ends up paying you....The amount on your phone screen at the end of the ride is not what the rider pays. Sometimes it is more and sometimes less but believe me in the end you will get shorted for the ride. YOU ARE NOT EARNING WHAT YOU THINK YOU ARE....


Please elaborate! Are you saying the amount that shows up on our phones at the end of the ride is not what the rider is charged? I must be misunderstanding you because I have never heard this before! Please clarify!


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> I think you are correct about option B.) They were hogs, that's why they have found themselves in this situation. They wanted their cake and to eat it too.... I don't know how they get out of this now though... If drivers are classified by a federal court in the 9th Circuit as employees, I think it will be difficult for them to declassify them quickly back to I/C regardless of how they change their business practices. This may be why they would want to settle the cases. It will be interesting to see how Fedex has dealt with their situation post settlement.


To reclassify them they'd have to first fire them or lay them off. That would make them all eligible for unemployment. I don't think when you're on unemployment you are required to take contractor work. You're required to take a job offer if it is commensurate with your salary and experience or lose your unemployment benefits but not contract work.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

startin trouble said:


> Holy flying ****ing shit balls I am very old.
> As an employee you get all your expenses, 100%, every penny. You also get social security, workman comp, Medicaid. You also get damages to your property, you also get a safe, non hostile working environment. You also get protection under the FLSA (fair labor standards act) and the ability to go to your labor board to keep your employer in line. For example the all powerful driver ratings, uber terminating someone because of those they better be able to document each one that caused you to fall below the termination threshold and apply those same standards to each and every driver without exception. They will also have to throw out the ones like and you can Google this "just had the most ghetto ass driver her name was actually Shenaqua 1 star" shit like that will not fly anymore. Also this clearly won't apply to just uber. Lift, taxis, and all the other driver for hire companies will now be focused on quality instead of quantity so you will have companies going after the best drivers and coming up with all sorts of creative ways to top each other for the best drivers services. Your personal insurance worries go away, giving out your personal phone number and information to riders all that shit stops and so on.
> The problem is not what Uber does to tweak their module to comply with the employee classification it's what they do to **** with the contractor and employee classification laws and create their much sought after hybrid third employee classification which could really do so much damage it's unthinkable for me anyways, because 9 out of every 10 employers in this country would tweak their business module so that their employees were classified into the new hybrid category, which would at lightning speed put us on course for third world nation status.


I agree with a lot of what you say but it is not true that employers have to pay for every expense you have as an employee. That's why there is a line in your tax return for "unreimbursed expenses as an employee". For instance I deliver pizza. I am an employee. I used to get a certain payment for each trip. If 1 pizza delivery on that trip I got 87 cents. If 2 it was $1.25 or something. If it was more then it didn't increase. Now the computer is figuring out expected mileage and we get 27 cents per mile.

So it was not and is not paying what the IRS considers our actual expenses either way (average trip is more than was previously covered and clearly 27 cents per mile is less than most vehicles cost to run AND less than the IRS allowance).

I deduct the difference as I keep track of all miles. I don't get to deduct the entire 57 cents as I do get reimbursed for a portion.

There is no requirement to be reimbursed for any of it. Note that I have worked for different companies and different areas and they vary in how much is paid for mileage.

There may be states where all expenses have to be reimbursed but it's not a federal requirement and definitely in TX it's quite legal to not reimburse. Of course all the other benefits of being an employee apply, just not that.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

In TX pizza drivers _should be _carrying commercial or ride-for-hire insurance because th he vehicle is being used to earn money.

The 27¢ reimbursement is primarily for gasoline costs. If Uber would reimburse drivers that much for mileage during rides, that would pay for gas costs during fares and a bit towards deadhead miles leaving more profit for drivers at least for the ones in my area of TX.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

UberNorthStar said:


> In TX pizza drivers _should be _carrying commercial or ride-for-hire insurance because th he vehicle is being used to earn money.
> 
> The 27¢ reimbursement is primarily for gasoline costs. If Uber would reimburse drivers that much for mileage during rides, that would pay for gas costs during fares and a bit towards deadhead miles leaveing more profit for drivers at least for the ones in my area of TX.


Pizza delivery people can't afford commercial insurance either. And the pizza places don't require it just as uber doesn't. But I know many drivers who have had accidents and their insurance has paid out knowing what they were doing (you're wearing a shirt with the name on it and pizza in the car so it's pretty obvious).

I have State Farm. They have paid for me and know what I do. Have not had any issue with it. Another driver had Farmers and they paid out then cancelled.

But my point is the same: employers are not required to pay for ALL expenses. If they were that would include "extra" insurance.

Also unless Uber gives you a trip EXACTLY where you are deadhead miles woukd be included also. Dominos does not only figure the miles TO a delivery they also realize you have to drive BACK to the store.

And Uber encourages you to be in "busy" areas or you get paid less (guarantees). So that's dead head driving also.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

My ins agent was read the riot act for filing a claim for a client who had an accident delivering pizza. To his surprise the client's policy was not cancelled.

I agree that Ubr should not have to pay for all car costs. By my calculations it cost me 10¢>mile> gas on my last full tank. If I am correct, 27¢ would more than pay for deadhead miles.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberNorthStar said:


> My ins agent was read the riot act for filing a claim for a client who had an accident delivering pizza. To his surprise the client's policy was not cancelled.
> 
> I agree that Ubr should not have to pay for all car costs. By my calculations it cost me 10¢>mile> gas on my last full tank. If I am correct, 27¢ would more than pay for deadhead miles.


Don't forget, oil changes, tire replacement, brakes, other maintenance, and eventual vehicle replacement.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

My car costs are about 30¢/mile. This includes gas, depreciation, tires, maintenance per owners manual (major/minor/intermediate).

Thx for the reminder on brakes.

I did my calculations using this poster's suggestions. <Addition: (Uber Hammer blog)>
https://uberpeople.net/xfa-blog-entry/how-to-calculate-costs-as-an-uber-driver.23/

Uber On!


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberNorthStar said:


> My car costs are about 30¢/mile. This includes gas, depreciation, tires, maintenance per owners manual (major/minor/intermediate).
> 
> Thx for the reminder on brakes.
> 
> ...


That was a great blog post by Uberhammer. Definitely a must read for everyone.


----------



## LEAFdriver (Dec 28, 2014)

observer said:


> That was a great blog post by Uberhammer. Definitely a must read for everyone.


Oops.  Sorry UberHammer! Guess it was in reference to a different thread!


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

observer said:


> That was a great blog post by Uberhammer. Definitely a must read for everyone.





LEAFdriver said:


> Gotta give credit where credit is due!


*How To Calculate Costs As An Uber Driver*
*By UberHammer *


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

To chi1cabbie 


Uber On, LEAFdriver!


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber, driver attorneys maneuver toward crucial hearing*
*By Dan Levine *
*http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0Q526O20150731?irpc=932*


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber, driver attorneys maneuver toward crucial hearing*
> *By Dan Levine *
> *http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0Q526O20150731?irpc=932*


"Uber fired back on Thursday, saying it did not mislead anyone".

Yea... uhuh.. Uber NEVER misleads anyone.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

This is a post on how Uber collected Drivers' affidavits:


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> This is a post on how Uber collected Drivers' affidavits:
> 
> View attachment 10741


Didn't bother to tell the driver beforehand that he or she would be meeting with a attorney involved in the lawsuit..misleading yep.


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> This is a post on how Uber collected Drivers' affidavits:
> 
> View attachment 10741


Not only that BUT did the attorney type up everything OR pick and choose the best answers for Uber?


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber Drivers Say Company Misled Them on What It Means to Be a Contractor*
*http://recode.net/2015/08/03/some-uber-drivers-reverse-testimony-in-worker-classification-case/*


----------

