And on the other hand, plenty of stories of the opposite happening. I'm not sure how much anecdotes add to a story like this. Especially when the story here is not about if Uber is offering a better service to customers than "normal" taxis, but when the story is about that Uber is exploiting their employees (which they refuse to even call "employees").
If one business offers better service than another, but, the first business exploits their employees, which service should be investigated? I'd agree the second business should be aiming at improving their service, of course, but we also need to clamp down on businesses who are exploiting people.
They aren't quite "employees" given that they can reject my trip request without needing to provide any excuse, which by the way happens frustratingly often esp. during rush hours.
I'd like to see an actual employee do that - like a waiter in a restaurant ("nah, I won't serve you, I'm busy and don't feel like it"); you'd have a word with their boss. And when things don't work that way, we're probably talking about some form of freelancing. Like a barber renting a chair at a barbershop. He (or she) is not an employee of the barbershop owner, as implied by the fact you can't really complain to the owner if they refuse to serve you.
> They aren't quite "employees" given that they can reject my trip request without needing to provide any excuse, which by the way happens frustratingly often esp. during rush hours.
Doing so enough times will lead to Uber penalizing the driver. Does that sound like a freelancer to you?
Obviously, the definition will change depending on the country. Referring to a previous court case UK (Employment Tribunal: Uber BV v. Aslam), this is why they think Uber drivers are employees, not freelancers:
> Uber set the fare which meant that they dictated how much drivers could earn
> Uber set the contract terms and drivers had no say in them
> Request for rides is constrained by Uber who can penalise drivers if they reject too many rides
> Uber monitors a driver's service through the star rating and has the capacity to terminate the relationship if after repeated warnings this does not improve
With those things in mind, it's hard to not feel like Uber drivers are in fact employees of Uber, not freelancers that can freely engage in business while only being "supported" by Uber or using Ubers app.
> Doing so enough times will lead to Uber penalizing the driver.
Apparently it doesn't hurt their profitability worse than not being free to choose their clients would. And I see pretty solid evidence of that: they're using this option extensively, I'd be surprised if they did that despite being worse off as a result.
For the waiter from my example "enough times" changes into "even once".
> Does that sound like a freelancer to you?
Well, I mean, if you were a shop trading on Amazon, and you'd keep on cancelling orders, I can imagine you could even get kicked off the platform.
I'm sure you also don't have much say when it comes to contract terms, the provision etc., and then there's the good ol' star rating just the same.
It doesn't mean Amazon is your employer though.
(By the way, a lot of Uber drivers don't drive for Uber directly. They get contracted by some smaller local company which rents them cars etc. Then even if you argue they should have employee status, it's not on Uber, one should hold that local firm accountable. But this fact is conveniently glossed over, because corporations).
> Obviously, the definition will change depending on the country.
Sure, and that's not just because along with the country comes such and such legislation - there's also the political / lobbying aspect.
When thousands of taxi drivers protest by blocking the capital (which happened in several countries), the powers that be do pay attention. Maybe it shouldn't affect how things turn out at courts, and in a perfect world it doesn't, but I think we all know that in our world it does.
So anyhow I'm not speaking for courts, only sharing how I see these things, trying to apply common sense here. Obviously at the end of the day these matters are settled in courts, but this goes without saying.
I'd be penalised if, in my freelancing, I failed to keep to verbals deals etc. even where a contract permits me to walk away whenever I wanted. The test is if they derive a certain % of their income/hours from a single employer, no? At least that's what I've seen when looking at UK visas (self-employment visas in general often require a diversity of work etc.)
Taxi drivers can also, and often do, reject trip requests ^_^. At least in Mexico, where I live, if you ask to go to an inconvenient zone to the driver, they may refuse to take you and you need to wait for another taxi.
> As a freelancer in IT: yes, 100%. If I keep rebuffing my clients, they eventually stop calling.
They might, unless you're the best freelancer in a niche, and they have no other choice.
The difference between you in that situation, and a driver "working" for Uber, is that you or your clients decide if you get any work in that situation, while for the Uber driver, Uber decides if you get any work or not.
So how should this relation work in order for you to accept that Uber drivers don't have to be regarded as employees? Should Uber not have the right to stop pairing the driver with Uber's users no matter what the driver does? Honest question.
It's exactly the same discussion about cheap clothing from H&M made with child labor. The counter argument usually is "but children are not forced to work there!" - while basically true, is avoiding the exploitation point.
If one business offers better service than another, but, the first business exploits their employees, which service should be investigated? I'd agree the second business should be aiming at improving their service, of course, but we also need to clamp down on businesses who are exploiting people.