An attorney suing Uber, Lyft, GrubHub and a dozen California tech firms

Yeah, that's just the fund for claims from employees.

I agree those are all things that should happen. But can Uber be profitable in that configuration? I would argue not, but maybe they pull it off.

Employer provided insurance is a mess. Ideally, we would have only the most basic labor laws, but a guaranteed income or similar safety net to make up for it.

But we don't have that. What we have is an awkward balance where employer provided benefits are a big part of the safety net. While that remains the case, it's really important to make sure that companies follow the rules.

The fact that the core problem is more systemic than a specific company and set of grievances doesn't mean there isn't value in litigation.

Would forcing Uber to pay into state disability and worker's comp fix all of the problems our country has with labor / insurance / etc? Absolutely not. But at an absolute minimum, would it improve life somewhat in the short term for current Uber drivers? Probably.

The way that inappropriate laws get fixed in the US is that new laws get passed, not that people violate the laws that seem irrelevant to them. I have no objection to Uber lobbying for laws to introduce a new class of employees (and I have absolutely no objection to Uber or anyone else making life hard for the taxi lobby). I do have a strong objection to Uber deciding to treat employees in a way prohibited by law because they, on their own, think it makes more sense.

"Legislative gridlock" is a weak excuse. Plenty of legislation gets through, from PPACA (which had, and continues to have, widespread objection) to USA FREEDOM (even if you claim PATRIOT's expiration was the result of "deadlock", the replacement came a day later) to JOBS (specifically legalizing things that startups wanted to do!) to allowing people to unlock their cell phones (not really a Big Foo priority). If the people really want Uber and Airbnb -- which they seem to -- why can't they just get a law passed? And why can't all these innovative, well-funded startups figure out how to disrupt and fix something as obviously dysfunctional as our political system?

My worry is not so much with these particular ways they're breaking the law; it seems like this is probably reasonable (though I'd still like someone other than Uber to consider it). My worry is with the loss of the rule of law, and the precedent that we're not going to care about whether the law is followed. It's certainly true that Uber et al. aren't the first companies to break laws, but this seems like a qualitative change in what laws are being broken and what the impact on society is, and a democratic society should be able to have an opinion on it.

> The only reason developers are employees is because contract developers are more expensive than employees who don't realize sodas aren't actually that expensive for adults with real skills.

Uh, no. Being an employee has a lot of rights that a 1099 person doesn't have, like the right to unionize, the ability to collect unemployment insurance if the company you're working for goes under, being a part of a health insurance pool for lower medical costs, access to the Family and Medical Leave Act rights, etc. There are a lot of things that employees get that aren't just "free sodas".

Unironically agreed.

I feel exactly the opposite: I'm independent now, and I can walk away from my current gig without all that much disruption in my life because I don't depend on an employer for benefits or what have you. While I'm not walking away, I've got more flexibility than I might with an employer (depending on the employer).

You're 100% right about having a buffer, though. That's a pretty immovable prerequisite no matter what your professional situation is.

You are watching a classic 21st century robbery in action, where lawyers are robbing corporations and employees under some pretense of magical justice.

Counting the downvotes on comments, HN has sharply taken a socialist turn and lawyers are the new superheroes saving people from Evil startups. In other news Bernie Sanders hates Uber despite using it nearly 100% of time.[1]

[1] http://thehill.com/policy/technology/250480-bernie-sanders-s...

> How are drivers being subjugated and what law is being violated.

Drivers are being paid as independent contractors. Under the current Uber model, they are not independent contractors as defined by labor law (nor the IRS). Ergo, Uber is in violation of both labor law and tax regulations; if they are found to have violated IRS employee classification rules, they'll be liable for back taxes, penalties, and officers of the company can be held personally liable.

> What evidence is there that they are actually employees besides the fact that lawyers and union activists want them to be?

You must be blinded by some sort of belief that Uber is the victim here; my apologies. Employee vs independent contractor classifications can sometimes be difficult, but the gist of it is:

If you tell someone how to do the work, and you set the price, they're an employee; if you give someone the work, they set their prices, and they have control over how the work is performed, they're a contractor.

Guess which model Uber uses?

There are rules about what makes a worker an employee vs a contractor, and they mostly center around control - if the company controls how the work is done, you are an employee. In Uber's case, while there are a lot of things that point to the worker being a contractor (Uber has no control over their hours, workers provide their own equipment, workers can work for competing companies), some things look more like an employee relationship (Uber sets prices being a big one). See http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-and-lyft-employee-lawsui...

Can you show me how "independent contractor" Uber employees can ask more per hour?