Uber drivers are workers, UK supreme court rules

[garbon]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/suits-seek-to-force-lyft-and-uber-to-treat-drivers-as-employ#.uln5ZZXbE

Suits Seek To Force Lyft And Uber To Treat Drivers As Employees

Lyft and Uber are facing separate federal lawsuits brought by drivers who contend they are misclassified as independent contractors and should be categorized and treated as formal employees. Although the cases are distinct, both involve similar issues. A win for the plaintiffs could compel Uber and Lyft to radically change their business models to treat drivers as employees and give drivers either hourly wages or salaries as well as benefits, and possibly reimburse them for expenses.

The summary judgment hearing for Lyft's case was held this morning in San Francisco Federal Court. This was just an initial step of a process in which the plaintiffs are seeking class action status. Although the plaintiffs have yet to indicate which damages they are seeking, they may eventually seek expense reimbursement.

"It's the most significant damages under California law," the plaintiffs' attorney in both cases Shannon Liss-Riordan told BuzzFeed News. "That includes [reimbursement for] owning or leasing their vehicles, gas, car maintenance... That alone is extremely significant for the drivers. What those companies have done is really shifted expenses for operating car services onto their drivers."

Liss-Riordan also told BuzzFeed News she's quite pleased with how the hearing went. "The judge seemed very skeptical of Lyft's argument," she said. "We look forward to seeing his decision."

Lyft declined to comment.

Lyft argues that drivers are independent contractors because they can choose when and how much they work. However, drivers contend that because they can be fired or deactivated without any notice, and because they are told how to behave and interact with passengers and risk termination if they don't follow those guidelines, then they should be treated as employees.

"Drivers also constantly receive emails from Uber, advising them about how to improve their ratings (so as not to be deactivated) or where to locate themselves to get customers, and warning them if they are at risk of suspension or deactivation for various reasons, including customer complaints, low customer ratings, cancelling [sic] too many rides, or for failing to accept enough rides while 'on-duty,'" the plaintiffs' opposition to Uber's motion for a summary judgment briefing reads. "While these 'best practices' are couched as 'suggestions,' a driver's failure to comply with them can lead to their termination."

As the IRS states: "You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action.

What matters is that the employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are performed. If an employer-employee relationship exists (regardless of what the relationship is called), you are not an independent contractor and your earnings are generally not subject to Self-Employment Tax."

"Most of the inquiry looks at how much control the company has and in both cases I think there's lot of evidence both companies have a lot of control over the drivers," Liss-Riordan said.

Uber requested that documents submitted by the plaintiffs, such as emails, be sealed because they would "expose trade secrets" and because it infringed on the privacy of the individuals named in the emails submitted, but Judge Edward Chen rejected the request, stating that names could be redacted and that there were no instances of information that could reveal trade secrets present.

Judge Chen is presiding over the hearings for both cases. Uber will go to court tomorrow.

Uber did not respond to a request for comment from BuzzFeed News.

[grumbler]

I suspect that Uber and Lyft would just change their contracts to eliminate whatever elements of the existing contracts imply that the drivers are employees.  There seems to be no reason for the companies to accept the idea that the drivers are employees.

[Jacob]

I suspect that Uber and Lyft would just change their contracts to eliminate whatever elements of the existing contracts imply that the drivers are employees.  There seems to be no reason for the companies to accept the idea that the drivers are employees.

That kind of depends on what those bits are, I'd expect.

The plaintiff's attorney alleges that the company has a fair bit of control over the drivers - that seems to be their case for being considered employees. Presumably that control, whatever it is (and whether it's enough to be considered an employee or not in the end), is there for a business reason. Eliminating that control might not be desirable from an operations or business point of view.

[grumbler]

That kind of depends on what those bits are, I'd expect.

The plaintiff's attorney alleges that the company has a fair bit of control over the drivers - that seems to be their case for being considered employees. Presumably that control, whatever it is (and whether it's enough to be considered an employee or not in the end), is there for a business reason. Eliminating that control might not be desirable from an operations or business point of view.

The original contract was written to establish this as a contractor relationship, and was almost certainly written by lawyers who understood perfectly well what the laws and regulations on the subject are.  The plaintiffs' lawyer thinks he has found a loophole that would make the drivers employees.  He may have.  But, if he has, it is just that:  a loophole.  If it was impossible to write a contract in which the drivers were legally contractors, Uber's and Lyft's lawyers would have told them that long ago.

[Jacob]

Fair point.

[garbon]

Uber deserved to lose its licence – Londoners' safety must come first
by Sadiq Khan

From the steam engine to the web, Britain has a long history of inventing and embracing brilliant new technology, often with London leading the way with the very latest developments.

In recent years, we have seen great leaps forward in areas such as green technology, medical innovations and contactless payments on the underground, but also with mobile phone applications that can make the lives of Londoners easier – whether it's ordering food, renting a flat or doing financial transactions.

As we move through the next stage of 21st century innovation, I want London to continue to be at the forefront of these developments and to be a natural home for exciting new companies that help Londoners by providing a better and more affordable service.

I welcome and embrace these innovations - not only because they can improve the everyday lives of Londoners, but because they can spark new ideas for business, new possibilities for jobs in our city and new opportunities to cement London as a global capital of digital technology.

However, as with every other sector doing business in this city, from the financial services to manufacturing, all companies in London must play by the rules and adhere to the high standards we expect – above all when it comes to the safety of customers.

Providing an innovative service is not an excuse for it being unsafe.

Today, Transport for London has made the formal decision not to renew Uber's operating licence. This was made independently by TfL as the regulator. I know this decision will be controversial in some quarters. Uber has become a popular service for many Londoners. But I fully understand the decision that has been taken.

It would be simply wrong for TfL to continue to license Uber if there was any way this could pose a threat to Londoners' safety or security. TfL has said it believes Uber's conduct demonstrates a lack of corporate responsibility around a number of issues that have potential public safety and security implications. These include Uber's approach to reporting serious criminal offences, and the way it obtains medical certificates and security checks (Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service) for their drivers.

All private-hire operators in London need to play by the rules. The safety and security of customers must be paramount.

Uber's current licence does not expire until the end of September so the service will continue, for now. The company will also be able to continue to operate until the appeals process has been exhausted.

Around the world, new private-hire vehicle companies and other disruptive technology businesses are springing up all the time, with new and different ways of working. We know it is possible to combine innovative technology within these fields while also ensuring the necessary safety standards are met. It would not be right for exceptions to be made.

I have repeatedly said the regulatory environment is critical in protecting Londoners' safety, maintaining workplace standards for drivers and sustaining a vibrant taxi and private hire market with space for a range of providers to flourish. It is not simply regulation for regulation's sake.

One of the reasons why London has become such a success with international business over centuries is because of our professionalism and sense of British fair play, with transparent rules, laws and regulations. This ensures that all companies are treated equally – something we would never want to lose.

I suspect it will take some time before this situation with Uber fully plays out. In the meantime, I will continue my work to help support innovative businesses in London and to create a vibrant and safe taxi and private hire market.

During the mayoral election, I promised I would be the most pro-business mayor London has ever had. That promise is reflected in the work we are doing from City Hall to support companies and entrepreneurs who are reinventing and reviving many of our traditional business sectors.

As we go forward in the months and years ahead, I know London will continue to be an incredible hotbed of innovation and new technology, as well as a city where businesses understand that they have no choice but to adhere to the rules like everyone else – especially when it comes to the safety of Londoners.

[CountDeMoney]

Lol, suck it, Übër.  Go taxis.

[The Brain]

Yeah the major problem facing London the coming years is Uber.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah the major problem facing London the coming years is Uber.

Not anymore.

[Tamas]

I, for one, am glad I will be spared of service providers competing for my business. We need more medieval guild systems ruling our economy, not less.

[garbon]

My stance is probably clear. I'm glad to see Uber get comeuppance. Basically does all the shady shit that I don't want corporations doing.

[HVC]

lyft's still cool though, right?

[garbon]

I don't know enough about lyft though glad they removed those weird moustaches in front of the cars.

[derspiess]

Lol, suck it, Übër.  Go taxis.

  Uber was way quicker and cheaper than a taxi when I was there last fall.

[Grey Fox]

Fuck Uber. It deserves to die.