Uber Eats avoids ruling on workers' status by settling with delivery rider | Hacker News Reader

Uber Eats avoids ruling on workers' status by settling with delivery rider

theguardian.com

65 pointssamizdis18 comments

> [Federal court judge Mordecai Bromberg said in court] “Everybody knows what function Uber plays. The restaurant’s function is to prepare the food. Uber’s function is to deliver the food; isn’t that right? The very name Uber would convey to the ordinary person some form of transportation service; wouldn’t it?”

> [Uber's barrister] Neil replied: “We could not accept that.”

Hah, amazing. I wish there was a place that I could easily go to which catalogued these fascinating interactions in the court room.

The New York Times had a set of videos called 'Verbatim" where actors acted out scenes from real deposition transcripts.

I wish they continued that, there's probably thousands of these sorts of things both in court, and depositions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/opinion/verbatim-what-is-...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=7vN_PEmeKb0 This one was funny enough to be voice acted verbatim by the Rick and morty cast, and put to animation. Warning, it's very nsfw

I'm reminded of the Vitamin Water court case where the judge issued a ruling against coca cola, whose lawyers said the suit was "ridiculous" on the grounds that "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking Vitaminwater was a healthy beverage"

But the Uber's side is right - they are not only deliverying but providing other stuff like discovery.

Related to this theme of worker status, but in Europe:

Uber, Gig Companies Seek Labor Deals to Avoid Workers Becoming Employees

https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-gig-companies-seek-labor-d...

Edited to add: archived version at https://archive.is/3YR8N

Personally I have no problem with Uber drivers being contractors but I wish it were more like eBay in that you could set your own prices and routes as a driver and then as a “buyer” set your own maximum price.

For example if I’m going to New York in a month I’d love to say hey I need a ride from Penn Station to Brooklyn and I’m willing to pay $10. Ideally then the driver could, with the help of the app consolidate these requests and then pick me and maybe a few others up and complete the route.

but I wish it were more like eBay in that you could set your own prices and routes as a driver and then as a “buyer” set your own maximum price.

That's the definition of "contractor" that many companies would prefer to ignore. See also: Amazon delivery drivers, which are just employees without benefits who also have to pay for their own tools to get the job done. In other words, "contractors", except for that pesky autonomy part.

> contractors", except for that pesky autonomy part.

Wouldn't setting your own working hours, literally minute to minute, qualify?

Also, setting prices as a driver also exists, at least in CA: https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/

A key factor in US law is that a company can't use independent contractors for its primary business function.

Also, an independent contractor isn't bound by the clients requirements for how the job is performed, only the result of the work. Uber requires specific cars and behavioral standards, and specific moments for the work it assigns.

https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm

> A key factor in US law is that a company can't use independent contractors for its primary business function

Uber maintains that their business function is providing a marketplace for drivers and passengers to buy/sell "chauffeur" contracts, the way eBay does for goods.

Whether this interpretation is the one the courts should accept is what's in question, as there are obvious differences with the well-established eBay example. But its not facially ridiculous, and ignoring their claim entirely just provides more heat than light.

Regarding your link, it refers to a law passed in Sept 2019 that was superseded by a proposition passed in Nov 2020: https://www.zenefits.com/workest/what-does-californias-prop-...

To be clear, I don't think Uber is necessarily right here; my complaint was narrowly about the GP's /r/politics-quality comment about "companies choosing to ignore that pesky autonomy requirement" without engaging at all with the arguments being put forth by each side.

Sounds neat in theory, but practically speaking that is a UX nightmare.

Why do you think it would be a UX nightmare? You can already schedule rides and algorithms to find rides already exist.

That makes sense, but wouldn’t work from a product POV as your transactions are real time with Uber vs EBay. Uber was found a nice loophole, where they get all the benefits of a contracted workforce while putting guardrails similar to an employee. But since it benefits consumers a lot, governments have struggled to regulate it and their recent victory in California puts them on a much solid footing

This already exists for Uber drivers in California: https://uber.com/blog/set-your-fares/

I don't think it will have much impact since small undifferentiated suppliers are largely price takers in a competitive market.

Is there a good primer on the good faith arguments on both sides for the employee vs. contractor debate for these gig companies?

I think Ben Thompson does a good job laying out the situation fairly in this article: https://stratechery.com/2019/neither-and-new-lessons-from-ub...

It’s not exactly a primer on the good faith arguments for employee vs contractor, but it does break down where each classification works and where each is problematic, and he comes to the conclusion that neither is appropriate to capture (in relation to CA’s gig classification bill from last year) “the protections and revenue-collection apparatus that California deems necessary while still preserving the flexibility and market-driven scalability that make these consumer welfare-generating platforms possible.”

Note that this case was decided in Australia. It certainly isn't the Soviet Union, but neither is it the USA. Especially where unions and employment law are concerned.

It's also worth noting that the Fair Work Commission has been stacked by the current government, which is formed by the investors' party, but the Federal Court is genuinely apolitical. The workers' party has spent most of the last 30 years in opposition.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/07/coali...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com