"Prior to the judge’s ruling, San Francisco-based Uber indicated it had a long-term solution to the debate about driver classification: driverless vehicles. Uber said earlier Thursday it plans to begin testing autonomous vehicles in Pittsburgh as soon as this month, featuring technology that would eventually make human drivers obsolete."
Well I guess that's one way to accelerate innovation lol
If the human drivers become painpoint this innovation is going to go a lot faster. I think driver of the world can untie and pressurize the government to stop this innovation in infancy :P
This isn't the forum for memes and image replies. Tn13 may not have the best grasp of the English language, but I was able to understand what he/she said and felt they added value to the conversation. Memes do not.
Actually I dislike uber because of how they flout regulations and hurt workers. But if they get rid of the workers altogether, It would be hard to complain. Especially if fairs become a fraction of the price.
What regulations have they flouted? I'd be interested to learn more because I hear this claim occasionally but haven't heard the details behind it. Could you share more details?
Could you be more specific? In which jurisdiction do they provide a taxi service without a license? Could you provide a source?
Many (most?) jurisdictions differentiate between for-hire-vehicles and taxis, and Uber doesn't operate unlicensed taxis as far as I know. I don't want to claim to know everything about Uber - but services like their black car and UberX service are not considered taxis in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of, for a number of reasons including because they accept only rides that were arranged in advance, they have no special paint job or advertising, etc. According to Quora, Uber does operate "UberTaxis" and those are actual medallioned taxis: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-an-Uber... - so it seems to me that Uber's classic services were never regulated by taxi laws to begin with, and the actual taxi services they have now comply with them.
I'd like to learn more about this topic though, since I find the boundary between business and law interesting in this case, so I will be glad to review further details if someone can provide them. (I have no connection to Uber nor that industry except as a once-in-a-while customer.)
The only reason taxi license (and most other licenses in general) exist so that one group of people can monopolize a business without worry of competition. And with that you get smelly rude taxi drivers.... who drive away if they don't like your destination and are crazy drivers. If uber is guilty of "flouting regulations", that makes me like them even more.
Especially if fairs become a fraction of the price.
I wonder if prices will drop that much. Is owning and maintaining a massive fleet of driver-less cars really that much cheaper than just paying a bunch drivers that own and maintain their own car?
First, efficiency of utilisation: Driverless cars can be driven around the clock (modulo maintenance and refueling time), so car depreciation/maintenance gets amortised amongst more passengers.
Second, efficiency of scale in maintenance: It is extremely unlikely that the maintenance costs that uber drivers take on - buying parts retail and taking their car to the nearest garage for repairs - are lower than what would be a dedicated factory-like maintenance shop for thousands of automatic cabs.
And third of course: direct wage costs of the driver once you subtract car maintenance from fares is still a lot bigger than zero, so eliminating that saves money.
Note, that most of those points: Buying parts, cars, repairing is stuff they don't pay a dime for now. They only pay a wage to drivers. The structure of their cost changes completely - which is very hard to make any sane calculations on.
And if they are not first with driverless cars, big national cab-companies are also in the run.
So in theory can normal cars. Many taxi companies (and I'm assuming at least some Uber drivers) share one car between 2-5 drivers to maximize the time on the road.
The other aspect you're not considering is that even after you take economies of scale into account a driverless car will almost certainly cost more than the market price of the current median Uber car. I'm guessing that $3000-5000 will get you a perfectly Uber-worthy car that will give you years of fairly trouble free use. What will a driverless car cost?
And that is ignoring the fact that most Uber drivers would have owned and maintained a car even if they had had a different job, so the only 'cost' is the marginal cost of extra maintenance being used as an Uber car causes.
Also I wouldn't be surprised if maintenance costs will also be higher at least in the short-to-medium term due the complicated and experimental nature of the components involved.
So even if there are long term savings I imagine that they will take a long time to materialize and even longer to show up in fare-prices, unless Uber decides to subsidize driverless fare to kick start the market.
Taxi's drive around looking for fares. Uber can better optimize the time used through an algorithm. I'm betting there's a lot of time wasted for cabs that rely on street hails.
I don't know. Uber is probably thinking about it. Also it would be a lot harder to skirt taxes when they own the cars. They don't have a choice but to be ahead of this.
However, you can't just put in more money into development of a technology and get linear returns. Eventually you're gonna hit diminishing returns, so there's not too much they can do to accelerate it beyond what they're already doing (except adding more researchers, possibly).
I would be surprised if Uber gets very far with their autonomous vehicle testing, especially in difficult driving conditions where LIDAR and sensors don't perform so well, until they can't reliably export it to other markets. There are some of the smartest minds in the world working on this and still haven't figured it out, and Uber's researchers are no exception. And this also completely disregards the legislation side of things, which would prove to be a huge obstacle as well, even with Uber's obscene amount of money they pour into it.
2) Use to skirting laws that get in their way - so they may just start cutting back on costs later. Maybe have the human operator remote in, instead of actually sit in the car.
Number 2 is a good idea until you realize most uber drivers are lower income people with relatively high latency connections. Add in that most of them will probably be on WiFi and its a non-starter.
I was thinking more about adding a high-quality custom a/v/control setup directly to the car, with "drivers" going to some office with a crap-ton of monitors.
Uber wants to own the self-driving cars, rather than use other people's cars.
This does indeed change their business significantly, because now they have to buy and operate all of those cars themselves, rather than being "just an app" that takes a commission from what the drivers make.
If Uber is not careful with cost management, it could very well sink the company.
Why partner with Uber when you can keep the margins yourself (Like GM, Ford, BMW, and Tesla, all who can build the vehicles and have signaled they will be offering autonomous vehicles). Without a factory to make their own vehicles, Uber has no advantage.
Do we have any evidence that Uber would be any good at pulling that off? So far their core competence has been finding more or less creative workarounds for local laws. That's not exactly the quality that I look for in a supplier of autonomous driving services.
Are Uber's customers even ready for driverless taxis? It's one thing to trust your Tesla, when you're behind the wheel and can re-take control. It's another mental leap to get in the back-seat.
I would be hesitant to trust a new technology developed by a company with a record of skirting laws and regulations.
It's 2016 and drivers have to sue to try and get basic employment benefits from a company. They have to first overcome a clause which tries to enforce mandatory arbitration to prevent class action lawsuits.
I use Uber, but I don't like Uber.
> Founders and investors say reclassifying contractors as employees could drive up their labor costs by at least 20%, upending their pricing models and making their services more expensive.
... too bad?
> As employees they would likely have more stringent work schedules and other requirements like wearing a uniform and undergoing time-consuming training.
But it's 2016. Tell them they have a cap of X hours per week and just track hours worked using your app.
A uniform? Why?
Time-consuming training? To do the job better? Isn't that better for everyone?
> Drivers would also be allowed to post signs in their cars soliciting tips from riders.
See, I think this should be the other way around. As "contractors" who is uber to tell them they can't do that?
Fuck tipping though. The day I have to start giving Uber drivers tips is the day I start finding another service. Actually it's not even that, it's the convenience of the app. if I can toss in an extra little bit when I go to rate the driver I would be okay with that. I'm not subsidizing uber fares by tacking on 20%. I refuse. Raise your prices.
I still don't get how uber can call their drivers contractors.
edit: To clarify on the tip thing. Some guy let me take my dog (in a crate) in his van on an uber trip. Helped me get her in and out (big dog) as well. I'd be happy to give him a good tip for that. I object to the idea that adequate service deserves extra. I'd rather just pay a fair amount (probably a bit more than now really).
edit the second: Wait, I thought the contractor status issue was already decided in california and uber lost? They get to pay a one time fee to get around the law?
Generally, distinctions of "employee" versus "contractor" come down to things like the level of control exercised over a person's activities, when and how they perform those activities, etc. It appears California found that those factors tipped more to the "employee" side.
And it may well be that if taxi drivers sued at least some of them would also be ruled employees. Until then all we can say with certainty is that taxi companies claim their drivers are contractors.
Most taxi drivers essentially rent out the car and medallion each day for a set fee, after which they are free to do whatever they want including just idling all day. Many of them aren't even contractors, they're sole proprietors or operating under their own LLC. Uber drivers are beholden to the app at the risk of being dropped from Uber all together, which ticks a few boxes on the legal guidelines for how to classify someone as an employee vs contractor. The California Uber case is particularly enlightening.
Taxi drivers who do it that way sign a contract with the owner of the medallion but that does not make them contractors just like signing a mobile plan contract doesn't make you a contractor for Verizon or TMobile. They rent the car and medallion so that makes them renters.
What if I don't want to be an employee? For some people, the flexible schedule is really important. Why does everything have to be this draconian 'you're either one or the other'? People are so obsessed with these regulations and proving that Uber drivers are employees (to stick it to the evil corp, I guess) that they don't even consider what the people affected even want.
So it's murky with Uber, as far as classifying the drivers as independent vs employees. On one end, the drivers work their own hours, own their own car, and are "kinda" their own boss. On the other, they have to go through mandatory training as part of their job, have to keep minimum hours on the platform to keep their job, can't solicit tips, and don't have as much freedom to decide to decline a passenger (as far as I understand Uber will lower their internal rating if they don't accept passengers, so they're penalized when they/lack freedom to decline a passenger).
I don't know all of the specifics, but from what I've read Uber is taking more control from the driver than what a normal employer employing an independent contractor does and it really is hard to argue that they're fully independent contractors. There is the argument that there should be a third classification for cases like this because the employment law is outdated, but generally speaking, I would be surprised if this goes to jury that Uber would win even with their amazing counsel. If they lost this lawsuit, their main business model would be severely hurt (fully driverless cars are not realistic for multiple reasons in the next 3-5 years, let's not kid ourselves) and their valuation would take a big hit. Uber has an uphill battle with this if they have to go through the entire process, and has a lot at stake.
You list many reasons why Uber drivers might be considered employees. It's worth noting two more absolutely huge ones: they have literally no ability to set the price of their work, and no ability to subcontract it to someone else. Those are two attributes that are characteristic of employees.
They do have the ability to subcontract it to someone else. Uber actually has some in-app facility for this -- you can sign up as like a fleet and have your employees, driving your cars, have some revenue-split with you, the owner. I drove with an Uber that had that going on. I was surprised.
This was a few years ago, I suppose it's possible that they've removed it.
It's been a year or so since I drove last, but I don't recall the ability to see a customer's identity or destination before accepting their ride.
That would mean that declining a ride can only possibly mean that you were not actually ready despite signaling being ready (by being online in the app).
ex: 20. Right to Terminate. If the worker has the right to end his or her relationship with
the person for whom the services are performed at any time he or she wishes without incurring
liability, that factor indicates an employer-employee relationship.
PS: Don't forget companies can generally just classify people as employees unless it's very clear they are not. It's only when they are trying to be sketchy that they have issues.
Neat! Let's go through this list. I've got some insight here having driven for the company:
1. . A worker who is required to comply with other persons' instructions about when, where, and how he or she is to work is ordinarily an employee.
When and where are off the table since the answer is "wherever" and "whenever". "How" is limited to staying offline unless you're ready to drive, clicking the button at pickup and dropoff, and not annoying your passenger. How you get the passenger from point A to point B is entirely up to the driver.
I'd judge this one in favor of an independent contractor.
2. Training a worker by requiring an experienced employee to work with the worker, by corresponding with the worker, by requiring the worker to attend meetings, or by using other methods, indicates that the person or persons for whom the services are performed want the services performed in a particular method or manner.
The only "training" provided by Uber is a one time video at signup. I think this is iffy enough to lean in favor of contractor, but I see how it could be viewed the other way.
3. . Integration of the worker's services into the business operation generally shows that the worker is subject to direction and control.
No question here, this one tends towards employee. An Uber driver is nothing if not integrated with their operation - that's the whole point.
4. If the services must be rendered personally presumably the person or persons for whom the services are performed are interested in the methods used to accomplish the work as well as in the result.
Yes, your passenger probably cares about how you drive and whether you get them where they're going. Employee.
5. If the person or persons for whom the services are performed hire, supervise, and pay assistants, that factor generally shows control over the workers on the job.
Uber has no concept of assistants - irrelevant.
6. A continuing relationship between the worker and the person or persons for whom the services are performed indicates that an employer-employee relationship exists.
You drive whenever, Uber pays you on a schedule, you have to use their app and processes. Employee.
7. The establishment of set hours of work by the person or persons for whom the services are performed is a factor indicating control.
Nope - there are no obligations beyond driving once every few months to keep your account alive, and I personally know that getting reactivated involves sending an email. Contractor.
8. If the worker must devote substantially full time to the business of the person or persons for whom the services are performed, such person or persons have control over the amount of time the worker spends working and impliedly restrict the worker from doing other gainful work. An independent contractor, on the other hand, is free to work when and for whom he or she chooses.
The whole point of Uber is that you can drive wherever you want. Nothing is stopping an Uber driver from having the Lyft app going and taking the first ride that comes in. Contractor.
9. If the work is performed on the premises of the person or persons for whom the services are performed, that factor suggests control over the worker, especially if the work could be done elsewhere.
Uber drivers don't have a premises and work wherever. Contractor.
10. If a worker must perform services in the order or sequence set by the person or persons for whom the services are performed, that factor shows that the worker is not free to follow the worker's own pattern of work but must follow the established routines and schedules of the person or persons for whom the services are performed.
Unclear - the order or sequence involves the "accept-drive-dropoff" model that literally any taxi driver uses and any reasonable person is familiar with. Could go either way.
1. Employee, Work is to pick up a specific person at a specific person and drop them off. Not working aka the app being off is irrelevant in the relationship. So, there is no choice in location, how work is carried out is no more informative than which side of the room a painter starts with.
2. Is iffy as you say and has minimal impact. Of note star ratings strongly suggest Employee.
3. Employee
4. Employee mostly due to background check.
5. Employee see background check.
6. Employee this manly relates to set end dates for a project.
7. Contractor, no set schedule. Note, this is the only time schedule is part of consideration and other questions are asking about something else.
8. (depends on judge), You can't do Uber and Lyft at the same time but you can work 4 hours a week.
9. (depends on judge) Employee, the specific job site can change but you need to go to the location specified by Uber. Counter argument, you can decide which city to work in.
10. Employee, work is highly directed and driver has no way to alter the schedule.
11. Employee, every single pickup and drop off is logged. Compare to an advertising agency which might go a week without talking to their client.
12. Contractor
13. Weak Contractor (depends on judge)
14. Employee, worker must install and use application written by Uber. If Uber could send text messages like many delivery companies, but instead requires specific software. Further, some count far more than others a strong Employee on 5 of these may be enough.
15. Employee, Application maintained by Uber and cars are typically maintained by workers. Note, office workers often uses their own cars to get places with mileage reimbursement being very common so this is a normal situation.
16. Weak Employee. Payment is fixed and unprofitable work can be declined. Accidents are normal for employees #15 and don't really fit.
17. Employee, Uber currently does not permit people to use both Uber an Lyfit apps at the same time without being dropped.
18. Employee, most Uber drivers don't/can't accept random rides outside the app unless working with another service.
19. Employee, Uber regularly dismisses people. If they could refuse payment if a driver gave a low star review that would suggest contractor. But, instead it's binary working vs. not.
20. Employee.
Also of note the default in Employee unless the relationship is clearly not. So a strong Employee on even just 5 of these may be enough.
Point 1: "How you get the passenger from point A to point B is entirely up to the driver."
No - it must be in the vehicle that you nominated to Uber, which must meet currency and cleanliness requirements as set by Uber, and must be in a manner that costs the customer the least amount of money (most direct route).
A contractor could choose the vehicle with freedom, could drive the route they chose.
Point 8: "Nothing is stopping an Uber driver from having the Lyft app going and taking the first ride that comes in. Contractor."
Not true. If you are online with both Uber and Lyft and accept a ride with one, you run the risk of being given a ride that you can't decline with the other. You technically can, but there is the potential for penalties including termination of your agreement.
Point 14: I thought Uber gave the driver an iPhone? Maybe that's changed recently.
61 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadWell I guess that's one way to accelerate innovation lol
Actually I dislike uber because of how they flout regulations and hurt workers. But if they get rid of the workers altogether, It would be hard to complain. Especially if fairs become a fraction of the price.
Many (most?) jurisdictions differentiate between for-hire-vehicles and taxis, and Uber doesn't operate unlicensed taxis as far as I know. I don't want to claim to know everything about Uber - but services like their black car and UberX service are not considered taxis in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of, for a number of reasons including because they accept only rides that were arranged in advance, they have no special paint job or advertising, etc. According to Quora, Uber does operate "UberTaxis" and those are actual medallioned taxis: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-an-Uber... - so it seems to me that Uber's classic services were never regulated by taxi laws to begin with, and the actual taxi services they have now comply with them.
I'd like to learn more about this topic though, since I find the boundary between business and law interesting in this case, so I will be glad to review further details if someone can provide them. (I have no connection to Uber nor that industry except as a once-in-a-while customer.)
Googling 'uber pays lawyers to drivers' also gives matches for NA although I didn't look the details.
I wonder if prices will drop that much. Is owning and maintaining a massive fleet of driver-less cars really that much cheaper than just paying a bunch drivers that own and maintain their own car?
First, efficiency of utilisation: Driverless cars can be driven around the clock (modulo maintenance and refueling time), so car depreciation/maintenance gets amortised amongst more passengers.
Second, efficiency of scale in maintenance: It is extremely unlikely that the maintenance costs that uber drivers take on - buying parts retail and taking their car to the nearest garage for repairs - are lower than what would be a dedicated factory-like maintenance shop for thousands of automatic cabs.
And third of course: direct wage costs of the driver once you subtract car maintenance from fares is still a lot bigger than zero, so eliminating that saves money.
And if they are not first with driverless cars, big national cab-companies are also in the run.
So in theory can normal cars. Many taxi companies (and I'm assuming at least some Uber drivers) share one car between 2-5 drivers to maximize the time on the road.
The other aspect you're not considering is that even after you take economies of scale into account a driverless car will almost certainly cost more than the market price of the current median Uber car. I'm guessing that $3000-5000 will get you a perfectly Uber-worthy car that will give you years of fairly trouble free use. What will a driverless car cost?
And that is ignoring the fact that most Uber drivers would have owned and maintained a car even if they had had a different job, so the only 'cost' is the marginal cost of extra maintenance being used as an Uber car causes.
Also I wouldn't be surprised if maintenance costs will also be higher at least in the short-to-medium term due the complicated and experimental nature of the components involved.
So even if there are long term savings I imagine that they will take a long time to materialize and even longer to show up in fare-prices, unless Uber decides to subsidize driverless fare to kick start the market.
I would be surprised if Uber gets very far with their autonomous vehicle testing, especially in difficult driving conditions where LIDAR and sensors don't perform so well, until they can't reliably export it to other markets. There are some of the smartest minds in the world working on this and still haven't figured it out, and Uber's researchers are no exception. And this also completely disregards the legislation side of things, which would prove to be a huge obstacle as well, even with Uber's obscene amount of money they pour into it.
1) Plenty of cash coming in for research
2) Use to skirting laws that get in their way - so they may just start cutting back on costs later. Maybe have the human operator remote in, instead of actually sit in the car.
How are they going to convince the owners of the autonomous vehicles to lend them their cars for free? :-)
Wouldn't this change Uber, since now they'd have to make a massive capital investment to operate?
This does indeed change their business significantly, because now they have to buy and operate all of those cars themselves, rather than being "just an app" that takes a commission from what the drivers make.
If Uber is not careful with cost management, it could very well sink the company.
It seems unlikely to me though.
I would be hesitant to trust a new technology developed by a company with a record of skirting laws and regulations.
I use Uber, but I don't like Uber.
> Founders and investors say reclassifying contractors as employees could drive up their labor costs by at least 20%, upending their pricing models and making their services more expensive.
... too bad?
> As employees they would likely have more stringent work schedules and other requirements like wearing a uniform and undergoing time-consuming training.
But it's 2016. Tell them they have a cap of X hours per week and just track hours worked using your app.
A uniform? Why?
Time-consuming training? To do the job better? Isn't that better for everyone?
> Drivers would also be allowed to post signs in their cars soliciting tips from riders.
See, I think this should be the other way around. As "contractors" who is uber to tell them they can't do that?
Fuck tipping though. The day I have to start giving Uber drivers tips is the day I start finding another service. Actually it's not even that, it's the convenience of the app. if I can toss in an extra little bit when I go to rate the driver I would be okay with that. I'm not subsidizing uber fares by tacking on 20%. I refuse. Raise your prices.
I still don't get how uber can call their drivers contractors.
edit: To clarify on the tip thing. Some guy let me take my dog (in a crate) in his van on an uber trip. Helped me get her in and out (big dog) as well. I'd be happy to give him a good tip for that. I object to the idea that adequate service deserves extra. I'd rather just pay a fair amount (probably a bit more than now really).
edit the second: Wait, I thought the contractor status issue was already decided in california and uber lost? They get to pay a one time fee to get around the law?
https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/17/uber-drivers-deemed-employ...
And it may well be that if taxi drivers sued at least some of them would also be ruled employees. Until then all we can say with certainty is that taxi companies claim their drivers are contractors.
What exactly do you think a contractor is?
Then stop. Companies do this crap in large part because customers don't care.
I don't know all of the specifics, but from what I've read Uber is taking more control from the driver than what a normal employer employing an independent contractor does and it really is hard to argue that they're fully independent contractors. There is the argument that there should be a third classification for cases like this because the employment law is outdated, but generally speaking, I would be surprised if this goes to jury that Uber would win even with their amazing counsel. If they lost this lawsuit, their main business model would be severely hurt (fully driverless cars are not realistic for multiple reasons in the next 3-5 years, let's not kid ourselves) and their valuation would take a big hit. Uber has an uphill battle with this if they have to go through the entire process, and has a lot at stake.
This was a few years ago, I suppose it's possible that they've removed it.
"Mandatory training": A 7 minute video explaining how the system works the first time you log in to the driver app
"Minimum hours": One ride every 6 months
"Cant decline": Being online in the driver app indicates willingness to drive. Going offline is two taps.
Can they refuse a specific customer?
That would mean that declining a ride can only possibly mean that you were not actually ready despite signaling being ready (by being online in the app).
http://www.krwa.net/downloads/downloads/Twenty%20Factor%20Ch...
ex: 20. Right to Terminate. If the worker has the right to end his or her relationship with the person for whom the services are performed at any time he or she wishes without incurring liability, that factor indicates an employer-employee relationship.
PS: Don't forget companies can generally just classify people as employees unless it's very clear they are not. It's only when they are trying to be sketchy that they have issues.
1. . A worker who is required to comply with other persons' instructions about when, where, and how he or she is to work is ordinarily an employee.
When and where are off the table since the answer is "wherever" and "whenever". "How" is limited to staying offline unless you're ready to drive, clicking the button at pickup and dropoff, and not annoying your passenger. How you get the passenger from point A to point B is entirely up to the driver.
I'd judge this one in favor of an independent contractor.
2. Training a worker by requiring an experienced employee to work with the worker, by corresponding with the worker, by requiring the worker to attend meetings, or by using other methods, indicates that the person or persons for whom the services are performed want the services performed in a particular method or manner.
The only "training" provided by Uber is a one time video at signup. I think this is iffy enough to lean in favor of contractor, but I see how it could be viewed the other way.
3. . Integration of the worker's services into the business operation generally shows that the worker is subject to direction and control.
No question here, this one tends towards employee. An Uber driver is nothing if not integrated with their operation - that's the whole point.
4. If the services must be rendered personally presumably the person or persons for whom the services are performed are interested in the methods used to accomplish the work as well as in the result.
Yes, your passenger probably cares about how you drive and whether you get them where they're going. Employee.
5. If the person or persons for whom the services are performed hire, supervise, and pay assistants, that factor generally shows control over the workers on the job.
Uber has no concept of assistants - irrelevant.
6. A continuing relationship between the worker and the person or persons for whom the services are performed indicates that an employer-employee relationship exists.
You drive whenever, Uber pays you on a schedule, you have to use their app and processes. Employee.
7. The establishment of set hours of work by the person or persons for whom the services are performed is a factor indicating control.
Nope - there are no obligations beyond driving once every few months to keep your account alive, and I personally know that getting reactivated involves sending an email. Contractor.
8. If the worker must devote substantially full time to the business of the person or persons for whom the services are performed, such person or persons have control over the amount of time the worker spends working and impliedly restrict the worker from doing other gainful work. An independent contractor, on the other hand, is free to work when and for whom he or she chooses.
The whole point of Uber is that you can drive wherever you want. Nothing is stopping an Uber driver from having the Lyft app going and taking the first ride that comes in. Contractor.
9. If the work is performed on the premises of the person or persons for whom the services are performed, that factor suggests control over the worker, especially if the work could be done elsewhere.
Uber drivers don't have a premises and work wherever. Contractor.
10. If a worker must perform services in the order or sequence set by the person or persons for whom the services are performed, that factor shows that the worker is not free to follow the worker's own pattern of work but must follow the established routines and schedules of the person or persons for whom the services are performed.
Unclear - the order or sequence involves the "accept-drive-dropoff" model that literally any taxi driver uses and any reasonable person is familiar with. Could go either way.
11. A requirement that the worker submit r...
1. Employee, Work is to pick up a specific person at a specific person and drop them off. Not working aka the app being off is irrelevant in the relationship. So, there is no choice in location, how work is carried out is no more informative than which side of the room a painter starts with.
2. Is iffy as you say and has minimal impact. Of note star ratings strongly suggest Employee.
3. Employee
4. Employee mostly due to background check.
5. Employee see background check.
6. Employee this manly relates to set end dates for a project.
7. Contractor, no set schedule. Note, this is the only time schedule is part of consideration and other questions are asking about something else.
8. (depends on judge), You can't do Uber and Lyft at the same time but you can work 4 hours a week.
9. (depends on judge) Employee, the specific job site can change but you need to go to the location specified by Uber. Counter argument, you can decide which city to work in.
10. Employee, work is highly directed and driver has no way to alter the schedule.
11. Employee, every single pickup and drop off is logged. Compare to an advertising agency which might go a week without talking to their client.
12. Contractor
13. Weak Contractor (depends on judge)
14. Employee, worker must install and use application written by Uber. If Uber could send text messages like many delivery companies, but instead requires specific software. Further, some count far more than others a strong Employee on 5 of these may be enough.
15. Employee, Application maintained by Uber and cars are typically maintained by workers. Note, office workers often uses their own cars to get places with mileage reimbursement being very common so this is a normal situation.
16. Weak Employee. Payment is fixed and unprofitable work can be declined. Accidents are normal for employees #15 and don't really fit.
17. Employee, Uber currently does not permit people to use both Uber an Lyfit apps at the same time without being dropped.
18. Employee, most Uber drivers don't/can't accept random rides outside the app unless working with another service.
19. Employee, Uber regularly dismisses people. If they could refuse payment if a driver gave a low star review that would suggest contractor. But, instead it's binary working vs. not.
20. Employee.
Also of note the default in Employee unless the relationship is clearly not. So a strong Employee on even just 5 of these may be enough.
No - it must be in the vehicle that you nominated to Uber, which must meet currency and cleanliness requirements as set by Uber, and must be in a manner that costs the customer the least amount of money (most direct route).
A contractor could choose the vehicle with freedom, could drive the route they chose.
Point 8: "Nothing is stopping an Uber driver from having the Lyft app going and taking the first ride that comes in. Contractor."
Not true. If you are online with both Uber and Lyft and accept a ride with one, you run the risk of being given a ride that you can't decline with the other. You technically can, but there is the potential for penalties including termination of your agreement.
Point 14: I thought Uber gave the driver an iPhone? Maybe that's changed recently.