[schemy]

Yes and?

If I owned slaves and called them unpaid indefinite interns the law would rightly disagree. You can call the relationship whatever you like, but the law is there to keep the playing field level for everyone. That it's taken Uber so long to play by the same rules as everyone else is a travesty and should take a billion dollar law suit or two for damages to sort out.

[Gunax]

Uber is in a legal grey area.

They are independent contractors in the sense that they can choose how much and when to work.

They are employees in that they cannot negotiate rates.

I don't think it's so clear cut.

[lackbeard]

> They are employees in that they cannot negotiate rates.

Hmm... How is an Uber driver different from a plumber here?

Let's say Google needs some pipes fixed at one of its offices and they tell me how much they'll pay, refusing to budge from that figure. That doesn't make me Google's employee. I can choose to do the work for that price, or I can go fix Apple's pipes instead. What am I missing?

[nl]

Because Uber sets the rates the customer pays, and the driver gets what Uber chooses.

The driver doesn't have the ability to turn up a dial and say "I'm going to charge more now".

(This isn't the only distinction between an employee and contractor though of course)

[anticensor]

> The driver doesn't have the ability to turn up a dial and say "I'm going to charge more now".

A licenced taxi driver cannot do that, either.

[nl]

Yes, and them being reclassified as employees is a possible outcome: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-gi...

[lackbeard]

I don't see how Uber's relationship with the passenger has any bearing on a driver's relationship with Uber.

If instead, my analogy were that I was a general contractor who built water slides and a water park put out a bid on construction of a water slide and refused to negotiate, my only option is to take that bid or leave it. Why does it matter what the water park is going to charge the people to ride the slide?

[p1necone]

Your analogy doesn't map to this situation. Google and Apple would be the people you're driving around, not Uber. The company that employs you as a plumber maps to Uber, which of course would just be you if you were self employed.

[aspenmayer]

Many service companies are passed down in the family, or bought out for plum rates by star employees. Others are sole proprietorships. The service worker analogy is problematic because of the storied history of regulatory capture in the taxi industry, and the century of bad legal rulings that allowed it to continue. I guess licensed professions and gatekeeping like the AMA does to limit residency spots are the closest analogues I can think of off the cuff, but I also think those things are wrong for similar reasons, so moving on.

Now that the app driving companies turned over the apple cart by essentially cyber-squatting on the legal system while backed by high power lawyers paid by VC cash, the driving companies themselves want to cry foul when they don’t get the way they bought and paid for. I guess what they didn’t foresee is the long view of judgeship, and their concomitant dim view of cheaters, no matter the problem domain.

It’s too ironic to be believed. The judges apparently agree with me.

[lackbeard]

Seems like it maps to me. Google and Apple are hiring me to do work, then they are selling the output of that work to someone else (indirectly, in this case, but I don't see how that matters.)

[shrimpx]

You're not missing anything.

[rdtwo]

That google and apple talk and have chosen not to compete

[malandrew]

Given that rates are determined collectively by deciding whether or not it's worth your time to go online given the current level of surge. If enough drivers decide it's not worth it, the price will change. This is a pretty standard pricing mechanism in any market for an easily fungible good or service (read: commodity).

[eru]

> [...] but the law is there to keep the playing field level for everyone.

What makes you think so?