• 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

TheDemSocialist said:
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.
Click to expand...


When you schedule your own hours, decide what shifts you will work, and have no direct supervisor as in uber drivers....you are a contract employee, not a regular employee

Got anything else?
 
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 want the employee to have all the rights, and none for the owner/manager?

How do they even know they are being fired for trying to start a union?

Could it be for other reasons?

And in at will states, most people don't even get a reason....
 
I'm not sure if I'd go full bore and classify Uber workers as true employees with all the attendant obligations and responsibilities for all parties involved, but I absolutely do think that there should be a developed set of minimum obligations to contract workers in terms of work environment/safety and compensation (with potential for being considered a de facto and de jure employee for the duration of their contract depending on its extent/nature). Guarantee of a minimum wage commensurate to hours worked should be one such obligation, otherwise you generate some pretty nasty loopholes and precedence.
 
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...

True. Many of those laws shouldn't exist in the first place.
 
Nilly said:
Uber drivers win key employment case - BBC News



Ok so I know this is just for the UK but it has potentially far reaching consequences and is bad news as far as I'm concerned. I am all for workers rights but I really think this is a massive blow to the gig economy, and I also believe that the gig economy has been a hell of a good thing for a great many people.

As far as I'm concerned, the likes of uber and airbnb opened up entirely new avenues of income for people, where they can earn money on their own terms and on their own clock, and the positives for society were amazing, making services like lift sharing, food delivery and home rental far, far, far more efficient. What this decision has done is shoehorn this new type of industry into existing models of industry, and ignores the potential and potential benefits of such services. I think it's a great example of how our legislative and judicial bodies are so far unequipped to handle how quickly the technological world moves, or maybe how they're in the pockets of existing industries that stand to lose from the gig economies successes.
Click to expand...

Why would this have far reaching consequences for anywhere other than the UK.

The laws are different in other countries.
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...
England has different laws though.
 
If the 'UBER' owners are smart they will shut their company down now.
 
VanceMack said:
If the 'UBER' owners are smart they will shut their company down now.
Click to expand...

Why? It's not like they won't still be making a profit.
 
Aristaeus said:
Why? It's not like they won't still be making a profit.
Click to expand...

Uber just invested heavily into China and got practically no return on the investment. They should limit their operations to the U.S.
 
Aristaeus said:
Why? It's not like they won't still be making a profit.
Click to expand...
Maybe...maybe not. Having to create an HR team to manage benefits and then to pay benefits may absorb whatever profits they are making.

Have you ever run a business? Have you had to pay for employees benefits?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom