You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
7

[–] jasenlee 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

If this starts to catch on (classifying workers as employees rather than contractors) it will kill Uber unless they engage in some heavy lobbying to stop it (very likely) as they have over 1 million drivers today. It will ruin their entire business model. Hell... not just them. Sidecar, Lyft and anyone else in the ridesharing business will be destroyed by this.

0
3

[–] Shammyhealz 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Not just that, Uber will become liable for the drivers' actions. I know there have been a couple of crimes that involved Uber drivers (I specifically remember a rape, and someone being run over and killed). If they are considered W-2 employees, Uber could be sued for that in the same way you could sue FedEx if one of their drivers ran you over.

Driver doesn't have commercial insurance? That is now Uber's problem, not the driver's. And police will ticket them, I can guarantee it.

In all likelihood, Uber would probably just pull out of California. It becomes less desirable for everyone. Drivers are now W-2, so Uber gets to tell you when to drive and when not to drive. Uber has massively increased personnel costs. Since you're already W-2, Uber may switch to paying hourly rather than letting you choose when to drive and letting you keep a portion of what you make. Alternately, Uber may simply pull back and stop providing materials for employees, letting them maintain contractor status.

0
0

[–] obscurantist 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

So what happens is Travis Kalanick becomes Jean-Bapiste Emanuel Zorg.

0
0

[–] americanabba 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Somebody on HackerNews mentioned how the court decision exists in what amounts to a small claims court though. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9733154 The woman who brought the suit forward is also apparently an ambulance chaser (can't find the article atm, it was on medium). This isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be, although that's not to say it won't influence cases going forward.

0
2

[–] Patranus 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

SFGate had an article and said that the woman who brought the suit did so as a SJW action and she is actually a multimillionaire who made money running a sex phone number.