• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Uber drivers win key employment case

Nilly said:
Uber don't hire or train the drivers.

Drivers decide to come on and are screened.

Uber does find and select customers, and takes a percentage of payment (depends if you look at it like Uber gets paid and gives the driver a percentage, or vice versa). It also insures drivers and passengers during the rides, but also inbetween rides when the driver is on the uber platform.

At the end of the day though, what it's not providing is the product.
Click to expand...

That's like saying the hospital isn't providing the product because a nurse gives me the IV.
 
Nilly said:
Every last employee and employer agreed to the terms of contracts without coercions. Do you take the same stance as Henrin on these issues? That any govt oversight when it comes to employment is bad?

It is the interest of the elected government because the interests of the elected govt are supposed to mirror the interests of the electorate. The exploitation comes because one of the parties in the contract has a position of power (i.e. the ability to dictate terms) and the other does not.

To reiterate my position here, I think that the govt has a place in overseeing to ensure that terms between employers and employees are fair. However, in this particular case, I do not see the relationship between uber and the people who utilize uber to make money as an employee/employer relationship that needs such protections.

To quote the IRS:
Click to expand...

To the first. (Henrin) Pretty much. Nobody is forced to participate or stay with Uber.

I don't think the government has any business becoming involved in contracts between two informed entities. Either side can remove themselves from the situation if they find it not to their benefit.

I don't see the preponderance of power of one side or the other. Neither side has an obligation to remain in the deal. Both entered voluntarily. We're not talking about the electorate. I'm part of the electorate. I have no interest in Uber that needs government protection. I can call Uber and get a ride or not.

Sorry, but what is fair to you has no bearing on what I consider fair to me. Like me, if you choose to drive or not drive for Uber, that's your decision.

Just to be clear, I'm addressing the Uber situation only in this post. Other employment/employee/government situations are not the subject of this thread.
 
Deuce said:
That's like saying the hospital isn't providing the product because a nurse gives me the IV.
Click to expand...

If the nurse works her own hours, from her own home, owns the IV and is only referred the patient by the hospital, who takes a referral fee, then the hospital is not providing the product. You're making false comparisons here.

jimbo said:
To the first. (Henrin) Pretty much. Nobody is forced to participate or stay with Uber.

I don't think the government has any business becoming involved in contracts between two informed entities. Either side can remove themselves from the situation if they find it not to their benefit.

I don't see the preponderance of power of one side or the other. Neither side has an obligation to remain in the deal. Both entered voluntarily. We're not talking about the electorate. I'm part of the electorate. I have no interest in Uber that needs government protection. I can call Uber and get a ride or not.

Sorry, but what is fair to you has no bearing on what I consider fair to me. Like me, if you choose to drive or not drive for Uber, that's your decision.

Just to be clear, I'm addressing the Uber situation only in this post. Other employment/employee/government situations are not the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...

I think we're on the same page, but the two bolded parts of your post are confusing me.

When it comes to uber, I think this is a govt overreach, because I don't believe the relationship between uber and uber drivers is analogous to a employee/employer relationship.

I certainly do think that the govt has a role in oversight in many different types of contracts between informed entities. It's not black and white, there are situations where govt oversight is relevant, some where it is not.

Here, such oversight is not necessary.
 
Henrin said:
It is kind of goofy to say you were exploited when you are the party that wanted the deal in the first place and even agreed to the terms free of coercion. I can only assume their own stupidity must have been the party that exploited them.
Click to expand...

It depends on how desperate they were for a job.
 
jimbo said:
Why does an agreed upon contract between two consenting adults suddenly become someone else's business?
Click to expand...

Because history bro, read it.
 
Deuce said:
Uber isn't forced to operate a taxi service and people aren't forced to work for them.

But they are employees. It's dumb to think businesses should be able to bypass employment laws by saying their employees aren't really employees.
Click to expand...

Uber is not operating a taxi service though, they are connecting customers to people who want customers and have cars.

You ever been to portland Oregon? visit Jubitz Truck stop, exit 307 off of I-5 in North Portland out by Marine Drive.

They have a load board for individual truck drivers who own their own trucks (called "Owner Operators") to find freight, basically shippers in the Portland Area put down their contact info on this load board so that truck drivers looking for freight can contact them and arrange a load. by your logic, Jubitz by providing this service to their customers is actually a trucking company and all these truckers who can make over six figures driving their own rigs (and managing the regulatory that goes along with that) should settle for .34 cents a mile to be employees, does that make sense to you?
 
Deuce said:
That's like saying the hospital isn't providing the product because a nurse gives me the IV.
Click to expand...

Well in some ways it may work like that, many doctors are actually independent with the right to practice or admit to a certain hospital and are not hospital employees. see my post to you about the truck stops. not every relationship in which one party is compensating another is employment, especially since uber is not compensating the drivers, the rider is paying the driver, and uber is simply a clearning house for the customer to find and pay a driver and for a driver to find business. they deduct a percentage as compensation for this service.
 
Deuce said:
Uber isn't forced to operate a taxi service and people aren't forced to work for them.

But they are employees. It's dumb to think businesses should be able to bypass employment laws by saying their employees aren't really employees.
Click to expand...

An employee is under the direct control of the employer. That's not the case with Uber drivers. They are free to work or not work as they please. I can't understand how this would ever fly in the states. Are franchise holders employees of the franchise company? Not so far they're not. Are taxi cab drivers employees of the taxi company? Not so far they're not. Are Realtors employees of the company they represent? No. And so many other examples.

This sounds like a very strange ruling. Makes me wonder about the end game.
 
jimbo said:
Sorry, that's librospeak, not an answer.
Click to expand...

it is an answer. you and henrin know full well why employment matters are regulated.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
it is an answer. you and henrin know full well why employment matters are regulated.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't. I am fully capable of deciding matters that concern me.

Henrin can speak for himself.
 
jimbo said:
Actually I don't. I am fully capable of deciding matters that concern me.

Henrin can speak for himself.
Click to expand...

Then you are a sad victim of the lack of history education in this country, if you wish to learn, we can discuss my rates for one on one history tutoring.

For self reading, start by picking up a copy of Upton Sinclair's excellent book The Jungle
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Then you are a sad victim of the lack of history education in this country, if you wish to learn, we can discuss my rates for one on one history tutoring.

For self reading, start by picking up a copy of Upton Sinclair's excellent book The Jungle
Click to expand...

I've read The Jungle. Like 50 years or a thousand books ago. Do you actually have a point?
 
jimbo said:
I've read The Jungle. Like 50 years or a thousand books ago. Do you actually have a point?
Click to expand...



If you actually had read it you would understand the point
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Do you like laws that block employees from unionizing? Or do you only favor laws that protect the employer?
Click to expand...

What laws prevent employees from forming unions?

I just found out today that there are union employees in dealerships on the west coast

I wasn't aware of any union employees in dealerships anywhere

If they can be formed there, they "can be" formed anywhere.....well, that is, if the employees want them

I would be interested in laws on the books that prevent it though

Regional laws? Local? State? Or are you talking federal?
 
Nilly said:
Whilst I agree, I think it's important to note that as well as being a booking platform Uber also controls the rates, and enforces rules on drivers accepting certain numbers of requests, as well as a few other things.
Click to expand...

Then maybe one needs to go after the price fixing and not the entrepreneurial structure?
 
Henrin said:
How do that work? How does the employees right to association nullify the employers right to association?
Click to expand...

How is joining a union or starting a union nullify the employers right to association?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
How is joining a union or starting a union nullify the employers right to association?
Click to expand...

That's what I asked you. My view is that people can be fired for starting a union and that the employer never has to talk to them if he so chooses. What is your view on such matters? The governments view is that employers can not fire people for starting a union and they must negotiate with them in "good faith"(defined by the government of course).
 
gdgyva said:
What laws prevent employees from forming unions?

I just found out today that there are union employees in dealerships on the west coast

I wasn't aware of any union employees in dealerships anywhere

If they can be formed there, they "can be" formed anywhere.....well, that is, if the employees want them

I would be interested in laws on the books that prevent it though

Regional laws? Local? State? Or are you talking federal?
Click to expand...

There are plenty laws that block unions being formed. A easy example that comes to my mind is the classification of the worker. If the worker is not classified as a employee then they cannot form a union. For example in the case of uber, they are all classified as "self employed" so they cannot form a union.
 
Henrin said:
That's what I asked you. My view is that people can be fired for starting a union and that the employer never has to talk to them if he so chooses. What is your view on such matters? The governments view is that employers can not fire people for starting a union and they must negotiate with them in "good faith"(defined by the government of course).
Click to expand...

I hold the belief that employees have the right to unionize and there should be laws in place that outlaw employers from firing people because they want to start a union.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I hold the belief that employees have the right to unionize and there should be laws in place that outlaw employers from firing people because they want to start a union.
Click to expand...

So you don't see how that view amounts to forced association?
 
Henrin said:
I really really despise governments telling employers what terms they must accept. The idea that somehow that is human right just down right pisses me off. No one has the right to force other parties to agree to contractual terms. PERIOD.
Click to expand...

That includes employers in humane societies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom