This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
California Judge Grants Class-Action Status To Uber Drivers' Suit
On Tuesday U.S. District Judge Edward Chen granted class action status to suits filed by Uber drivers who claimed they were owed benefits from the company claiming they were treated as employees but paid like contractors. The original suit, O’Connor v. Uber Technologies involved only four drivers, Douglas O’Connor, Thomas Colopy, Matthew Manahan, and Elie Gurfinkel. They initially sued Uber for reimbursement for various expenses such as vehicle maintenance and fuel. This class action suit will allow them to prosecute this lawsuit against Uber on behalf of themselves and a putative class of approximately 160,000 other “UberBlack, UberX and UberSUV drivers who have driven for Uber in the state of California at any time since August 16, 2009.”
In response, Uber claimed the case would actually affect only a few hundred drivers as Abby Horrigan, the managing counsel for employment at Uber pointed out, “the ruling found that only drivers who either stopped driving before June 2014 or drove after June 2014 but chose to opt out of the arbitration option in their agreements, are eligible.” However, it excluded Uber drivers who work for third-party companies (which would actually eliminate Colopy from the class) and more recent drivers who are bound by Uber’s 2014 arbitration clause, which waives their right to be part of a class-action suit.
Uber has also argued there is “no typical Uber driver” and the vast majority of its drivers would rather be classified as independent contractors as it offers them a fair amount of flexibility. The company went so far as to submit 400 written declarations from drivers to the court stating as such. In response, Judge Chen questioned the relevance of the 400 drivers claiming the testimonials as “statistically insignificant.” From the ruling:
“First, while Uber claims that “countless drivers” hail the firm as a “liberator” from traditional employment, Uber has only submitted evidence of the beliefs of a small fraction of its California drivers: 400 out of 160,000 (0.25%). Notably, even out of these 400 declarations, Uber identified only about 150 where the driver actually stated that she prefers to remain an independent contractor. See Evangelis Decl., Ex. 10 (chart listing roughly 150 “Drivers Who Want To Be Treated As Independent Contractors With Uber”). There is simply no basis in the record supporting Uber’s claim that some innumerable legion of drivers prefer to remain independent contractors rather than become employees.”
Despite the Judge’s ruling, Ted Boutrous, an attorney for Uber, commented that the company is “likely to pursue an appeal for this decision because it is based on several key legal errors,” which exhibit that “two plaintiffs do not and cannot represent the interests of the thousands of other drivers who value the complete flexibility and autonomy they enjoy as independent contractors.”
The implications of this suit could spell disaster for Uber’s business model as well as those of others that operate in the so-called ‘1099 economy.’ Despite the fact that the company has raised enough capital to achieve a valuation over $50 billion, having to provide traditional protections like minimum wage, health insurance and other benefits would inevitably have negative impacts on the company’s bottom line. The ruling could also set precedence for this type of lean business model, forcing the next generation of startups to find other alternatives to classify their workers and still operate as cheaply as possible. In short, the next startup empire we see could likely not rely on independent contractors.
[original]
»
- advertisements -
The problem isn’t Uber. The problem is many Americans need their bellies full.
Like you guys said, Uber provides a service linking drivers w/passengers.
Similar to a cash register linking a transaction for a buyer with a seller.
Why is insurance so necessary for every aspect of someones life---so the house can take a cut?? so the lawyers can take a cut?? so the gov't can get it's part of the profit of someones misforune??
Or is it the inate goodness of the mandated expence to make sure we aren't ripped of by our fellow man who is really a greedy prick --unlike the insurance companies and the lawyers who chase the ambulance.
UBER has no business model, other than to try to sidestep labor laws. Hence the cheerleading on Uber from the GOP.
I am not supporting UBER but these fucking people knew they were independent contractors. Now they sue for benifits. Its because of assholes like these that corps have time limits on contractors. So when I find a nice cushy contract it has a max shelf life because some douchebags sued Microsoft years ago. I know I make a higher hourly wage because I don't get benefits..period.
I agree....it is the same as teachers suing for more money. You chose that shit job and you knew exactly what it paid. Then when you get the job you strike for higher wages. Just like these $15 an hour fucks. If you were motivated, truely motivated, then you wold do it. Now with Uber...I also agree they are attempting to sideskirt laws. They figured it out for now...but not for long. I would NEVER use my car for this. The time, the miles, the damage, and their is NO WAY that my Insurance comapny would cover some person in a wreck that was riding with me. Can you imagine. You get in a wreck that is not even your fault...your passenger gets injured, your insurance company finds out your driving as a buisness...they won't coverr your passengers injuries...your sued personally. This thing just has "Disaster" written all over it. My wife and I werre talking about the "Weirdo" factor also. There is nothing that keeps creepers (My Wifes favorite word for perverts) from doing this just dreaming of having that young boy in the car. The barrier to entry on this is too low. Just my thoughts.
Same w/the asshole dock workers wanting 200 grand for moving a shipping container from a boat to a flat bed truck…. Highway man.
Got that right. Hey, Id like more money too. And if I sued my employer (private corporation, owned by a billionaire) Id probably join the legion of unwilling organ donors and be found in a ditch minus a kidney.
Uber promised drivers could make $50-$100k a year working part time.
People signed up and found out that by the time you pay for tolls, gas, and proper insurance you might only pull in $3 an hour.
Uber has only continued to exist because people continue to sign up to be drivers thinking it is easy money.
If drivers are classified as employees, Uber would have to reimburse drivers $.56 per mile driven on top of any fare. If the business model becomes, "Drive for Uber and make $.56 per mile." Nobody would sign up.
The reason why you need commercial auto insurance really isn't for you, but the person you are driving around. If they are injured and you don't have insurance to cover them, good luck keeping anything you have. You just gave every lawyer within 200 miles a wet dream.
I up voted you because you know about the insurance requirement. I hope you survive the apocalypse.
Oh yeah, imagine how many people would sign up if they had to carry commercial hackney auto insurance AND a hefty liability policy as well. Just wait till Olga Schmetzenheim climbs into their uber cab, scrapes her ankle on the door jam, and sues for 3 million. They'll find out just how expensive it really is to be an 'independen' cabbie, without the license and insurance.
And what about traceability? You really trust any average nut off the street to drive you around? At least a cab company doesn't deny its a cab company.
LoL.. only CDL drivers had a chance, all the other drivers where esentially breaking the law as California's laws comply with FedDOT's regulations, but now that it is a class action, well the CDL drivers should have known better than to sign up with Uber as this case is going to spin out of control and Uber will crash and burn with its drivers.
They're not CDL drivers. They are people like me, broke, and have a car, and need money, who thought they had a path to *easy* money. Id sell my car and ride my son's 10 speed before Id sign up with Uber.
deliver pizza and do uber on the side
I have zero problems with this. At the current rate, everyone's going to be a contractor and not one fucking employer will have liability for absolutely anything. This has profound implications in many areas and a big one is safety. Imagine layoffs coming up and who's gona keep a job. They guy trying to be safe, or the fucking maniac walking hi-beams and carrying a 100lb of tools with no fall protection?
Race to the bottom.
An UBER driver is the perfect example of an independent contractor...the contractor determine's his own schedule (check), the contractor owns and maintains his own equipment (check), the contractor does not perform work in a corporately-owned facility (check)...seems Über-logical to me.
Typically an independent contractor gets to pick his own terms and payment. If the company wants to pay, then they will. If not the contractor will move on.
Uber does not let the contractor choose terms. In fact Uber says a driver will make a certain amount of money, and even promises a level of payment, but then breaks that promise and changes payment terms on the fly.
Independent contractors also charge for equipment they use and expenses incurred while on the job.
Uber doesn't do anything other than match a fare with a driver and process a payment. They take a huge chunk of cash for that "service".
There is no difference between Uber and me painting a pink stripe on my car driving around trying to solicit rides. People today are so brainwashed into thinking a company is actually looking out for them, that they will get into a car with a complete stranger who is 99% certain to be breaking the law because an app says it is OK.
If you do not have proper insurance while driving your car, you do not have insurance and are therefore breaking the law while driving. If there is an incident, not only are you not covered, the person you are driving around is not covered as well.
Uber is another get rich by manipulating the Wall Street mechanism scam.
And another wonderful thing about this 'ground floor' opportunity, is that its only loosing 500 million a year! Buy in now!
...
Zion doesn't like to share.
All these people are all for Uber until they or a loved one gets killed or seriously injured in one of their unlicensed, uninsured taxis. The it's not such a good idea.
injured or killed?...many Uber drivers have nice late model Suburbans, w/leather...then there's you riding in a prius taxi, in practical terms, who is really safer?
The discussion was about insurance, not safety. When you get T-boned in an Uber Pseudo Taxi by a pizza delivery guy, who pays for the surgery, hospital, rehab, and laswuit?
BTW, I think that the average guy who is so financially desparate that he needs to drive for Uber does not have a large, safe car.
I am lifting a comment from Lance Corvette from a diff blog.
"business model is based on encouragiing law breaking and lying
as are the business models for banks, brokerages, law firms, independant military contractors, international corporations, local contractors doing gov't contracts, and a large part of the gov't monopoly "licenced" businesses that violate the bidding process laws. --Whats your point??
Why not? It works for Govt.
Better to sell weed anyway. No liability insurance needed.
"So Uber’s basic business model is based on encouraging law breaking and lying. That’s not a healthy basis on which to found and run a business."
In this age of tyranny, where "law" is nothing more than an instrument of plunder, all that is being "broken" is the ability of those controlling the "law," tyranny, to plunder as much as they would like.
Or, put another way, in the age of Corzine, what is "breaking" the "law?"
Zion is a scheme, not an ethnicity..
The law is plunder, and voting is picking unicorns.
There shouldn't even be something called an "employee". It's a fascist perversion of work.
CA judiciary is filled with commie anchor baby judges that will do anything to protect political franchises like taxis.
The Statists overplay their hand on this.
The solution will be an open source platform using bit coin for transactions and ffor tracking reputation.
Then the bastards wont even be able to steal taxes from the drivers or passengers.
All Congress has to do is pass a tax on Bitcoin. The NSA has already cracked it and if not they can monitor all Bitcoin transactions in real time simply by man in the middle spooking.
Actually the Statists are UNDERplaying their hand right now.
"All Congress has to do is pass a tax on Bitcoin."
Sorry, but the government can't tax what it can't find. And we've only just begun:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jamie_bartlett_how_the_mysterious_dark_net_is_g...
Go back to playing fantasy games on your X-Bone kid. A transaction is a transaction is a transaction. Bitcoin ATMs, "We accept Bitcoins" signs at physical retail and on web sites, Bitcoins being traded, etc. etc. Once a transaction has been made you are visible. Besides, all the NSA has to do is look at meta data such as purchases and bank accounts. If they see you accumulating stuff of any sort or your bank account changes without the associated "real currency" behind it....odds are you're doing something elicit, possibly with Bitcoin. Then all they have to do is either hack your Bitcoin miner CPU or watch your transactions with man in the middle techniques.
*DING* Go upstairs out of the basement junior. Your Hot Pockets are done.
Good idea. Take the money out of their hands before they get it, just as they have done to us all these years.
Perhaps we can plumb the depths, fathom the cesspool, gauge the distance between Reality's illusion and actual fact. Suppose Uber was set up to do precisely that, viz., eliminate the "independent contractor"! Where does such a line of inquiry lead us? Let us have an exploratory, informative thread here and now, shall we?
Unless I'm missing the point of your question, between FICA, benefits, compliance and general overhead, Uber would see their labor costs double.
Maybe triple ? this is an excellent example of a company that has circumvented what everybody else is forced to do and they got caught ? I imagine in Kawleefornya they will get hosed. I agree we have far too many regulations and laws , but if I have to do it how is it fair for you not too ?
The new America under BHO and crew is all about cheating and telling bigger lies !
So Uber might go Unter ??
The rules to determine if someone is classified as an Indpendent Contractor are one of the few rules, the IRS has, that a layman can understand. I say that UBER wins the lawsuit.
And should the driver not purchase the correct insurance, I predict that Uber will eventually get hit as a deep pocket that wasn't as insulated as they assumed.
That's a good point, however Uber could have all of their drivers sign an acknowledgement agreeing to the sub contrator terms. If the driver takes the job, the onus is on him.
They have a web platform and therefore should be able to implement a poll for all drivers - what is your choice? What, an Uber driver won't answer that question?
Let's not fucking bullshit in this age of data.
That's all we need - more frick'n WEALTHY lawyer scum to keep destroying this country..
Behavioral control
Facts that show whether the business has a right to direct and control how the worker does the task for which the worker is hired include the type and degree of:
Instructions the business gives the worker. An employee is generally subject to the business' instructions about when, where, and how to work. All of the following are examples of types of instructions about how to do work:
When and where to do the work
What tools or equipment to use
What workers to hire or to assist with the work
Where to purchase supplies and services
What work must be performed by a specified individual
What order or sequence to follow
The amount of instruction needed varies among different jobs. Even if no instructions are given, sufficient behavioral control may exist if the employer has the right to control how the work results are achieved. A business may lack the knowledge to instruct some highly specialized professionals; in other cases, the task may require little or no instruction. The key consideration is whether the business has retained the right to control the details of a worker's performance or instead has given up that right.