Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasode | Hacker News Reader

>Uber on the other hand, definitely has an ongoing relationship with their drivers,

But Uber drivers can also have simultaneous business relationships with Lyft, and be a NY taxicab driver, and offer driving services on Craigslist, etc.

Employers such as Apple Inc or Microsoft would not tolerate an employee working simultaneously for Google Inc.

The folks contending Uber drivers are employees have valid points. However, Uber also has valid bullet points that the drivers are contractors. I don't know which way the scales tip. I guess all this dialogue in the media, the local governments, and maybe the IRS is trying to sort it out.

View on HN

I can work at McDonalds in the mornings and Burger King at night.

And does the worker at McDonalds and/or Burger King bring his own grease fryer, bun warmers, and soda dispensers?

In contrast, Uber/Lyft drivers own/lease their own cars. Who provides the equipment to do the work is also another IRS factor.[1]

And btw, I don't think sniping with one liners that biases one viewpoint is quality discussion.

[1] see item #14: "FURNISHING OF TOOLS AND MATERIALS."

https://www.mdc.edu/hr/Operations/AFS/IRSFactorTest.pdf

Pizza delivery drivers bring their own vehicles and are still considered employees.

The actual product is arguably the "pizza" much more so than the "driving" evidenced by the fact that customers themselves will sometimes drive to Papa John's or Dominoes to pick up their own pizzas. In that framework, the standard would be for the pizza driver to also provide his own pizza dough, pepperoni, and baking ovens. If the pizza companies eventually figure out how to use flying drones to drop off pizzas and eliminate drivers, I'm sure the customers would be fine with it. The customers weren't really "buying the driver"; they were buying the pizza with the convenience of delivery.

With Uber/Lift, the "driving" itself is 100% the product.

And why does the discussion continue to be "one bullet point" at a time instead of a combination of factors?

If parents provide all the equipment & materials for the babysitter (infant formula, diapers, toys, Walt Disney DVDs, etc) along with the premises to do the work (the parents' home), does that make babysitter an employee?

If a dog owner provides the leash, the pet treats, and the back yard for the pet sitter to walk and exercise the dog, should the pet sitter be classified as "employee"?

Is it one factor or a combination of factors?

No I think you're wrong there.

The job description for a Pizza Hut driver is to drive no different to an Uber driver. Whether they are delivering pizza or people is irrelevant. It's all about the nature of the work.

>It's all about the nature of the work.

No, it's not _all_ about the nature of the work. Again, that's just applying one-dimensional criteria. To re-emphasize: is the employee/contractor classification just one factor or a combination of factors?

The concept of "driving" does not automatically mean an "employee" relationship. Many (probably most) 18-wheel truck drivers are independent contractors. Many drivers of tour & charter buses are subcontractors as well. Those charter bus drivers transport people like Uber drivers too.

Likewise, the "nature of photography work" does not instantly categorize it as employee vs freelancer. Sports Illustrated had some staff/employee photographers. But National Geographic has freelance photographers.

Another most obvious example to HN would be the existence of both contract and employee programmers.

It isn't just about the "nature of work".

It isn't just about who provides the equipment.

It isn't just about who decides the hours of when the work is performed.

It's isn't just _one_ criteria.

I buy my own notepads and pens that I use in my job. Does that mean I'm an independent contractor? Half the employee devs I work with use their own laptops out of preference.

Some form of BYOD policy is pretty much the standard at most companies outside of say finance or insurance these days. So surely this rule would be out of date.

The only reason you can't work at Apple and Microsoft simultaneous is because of the overlapping working hours.

I worked at Apple years ago and nothing was in my contract to say that I couldn't work for another company. Because we all do this when we are running startups on the side.

>The only reason you can't work at Apple and Microsoft simultaneous is because of the overlapping working hours.

I worked at Apple years ago and nothing was in my contract to say that I couldn't work for another company.

It is naive to think one can work at both companies simultaneously without repercussions if the manager(s) find out. The managers would not allow an employee to have a badge to the premises and access to the employees' email system at both companies. It would be legitimate grounds for termination. The employee can't sue for wrongful termination because the concepts of "protecting proprietary information", "trade secrets" etc are well-tested and upheld in court.

An employee can certainly resign (or get fired) from one company and then work for the other company but it is unrealistic to say those companies would allow concurrent employee relationships.

Yet Steve Jobs was able to run Apple and Pixar simultaneously.

Is it not true he owned those businesses? He was majority shareholder in Pixar until 2006.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com