Dogs Sleeping Forum

wutang wrote:Court case in New York ruled that 3 drivers were employees

“Uber took steps to modify the claimants’ behavior, as typical in an employer-employee relationship,” administrative law judge Michelle Burrowes wrote on June 9. “The overriding evidence establishes that Uber exercised sufficient supervision, direction, and control over key aspects of the services rendered by claimants such that an employer-employee relationship was created.”

“The message here is simple: If you’re going to control the workers to maximize your profits off their labor, you owe them their rights and benefits under the law,” Bhairavi Desai, executive director of the NYTWA, said in a statement.

https://qz.com/1005254/three-uber-drive ... ork-state/

“Uber took steps to modify the claimants’ behavior, as typical in an employer-employee relationship,” administrative law judge Michelle Burrowes wrote on June 9. “The overriding evidence establishes that Uber exercised sufficient supervision, direction, and control over key aspects of the services rendered by claimants such that an employer-employee relationship was created.”

“The message here is simple: If you’re going to control the workers to maximize your profits off their labor, you owe them their rights and benefits under the law,” Bhairavi Desai, executive director of the NYTWA, said in a statement.

Maddog wrote:They are independent contractors that have an app that helps them solicit business for a fee. They work when they want and where they want as they don't have an employer except themselves.

Maddog wrote:

wutang wrote:Uber CEO is in town this week to discuss the issue.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/03/uber-lo ... h-tfl.html

A more important issue is regarding workers rights - something that Uber is desperately trying to resist around the world.

On top of the TFL decision, Uber is awaiting a decision from an employment tribunal which is ruling on whether drivers for the company are workers or self-employed. If they are deemed to be workers, that would entitle them to benefits such as paid leave. The tribunal met last week, but a decision has not been made.

They are independent contractors that have an app that helps them solicit business for a fee. They work when they want and where they want as they don't have an employer except themselves.

wutang wrote:Uber CEO is in town this week to discuss the issue.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/03/uber-lo ... h-tfl.html

A more important issue is regarding workers rights - something that Uber is desperately trying to resist around the world.

On top of the TFL decision, Uber is awaiting a decision from an employment tribunal which is ruling on whether drivers for the company are workers or self-employed. If they are deemed to be workers, that would entitle them to benefits such as paid leave. The tribunal met last week, but a decision has not been made.

On top of the TFL decision, Uber is awaiting a decision from an employment tribunal which is ruling on whether drivers for the company are workers or self-employed. If they are deemed to be workers, that would entitle them to benefits such as paid leave. The tribunal met last week, but a decision has not been made.

Markey mark wrote:

Cannydc wrote:These days there are things called satnavs. The Knowledge is simply a method of keeping black cabs as a closed shop.

It's antiquated, outdated and utterly unnecessary, but useful to keep out Johny Foreigner[/quot


Bull shit , you can ask a black cab any club , restaurant, landmark and he take you straight there , if there’s a traffic tram on route , the cab driver will find the shortest route around the traffic hold up , if you forgot the name of the road or street, but named a block of flats , pub, restaurant etc , 9 times of 10 the cab driver will know what street you want , plus you can have a good old chin wag with a black driver , not with Uber drivers that can’t speak a word of English ,

Maddog wrote:

Guest wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Why would a Libertarian want a law changed to give extra powers to the state?

Because the state has an obligation to protect people who have been attacked or threatened with attack.

Surely you are familiar with the NAP?

So the state has records of an assailants drivers license, car registration, address, bank information, auto insurance and can't find a sexual assailant?

What do you do when you are on the run?
Do you go to an address known by the authorities?

I don't know, I've never done it. But I guess you never return home, never use your banking account, never use your car, and never use your cell phone.

Guest wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Why would a Libertarian want a law changed to give extra powers to the state?

Because the state has an obligation to protect people who have been attacked or threatened with attack.

Surely you are familiar with the NAP?

So the state has records of an assailants drivers license, car registration, address, bank information, auto insurance and can't find a sexual assailant?

What do you do when you are on the run?
Do you go to an address known by the authorities?

Maddog wrote:

Why would a Libertarian want a law changed to give extra powers to the state?

Because the state has an obligation to protect people who have been attacked or threatened with attack.

Surely you are familiar with the NAP?

So the state has records of an assailants drivers license, car registration, address, bank information, auto insurance and can't find a sexual assailant?

Why would a Libertarian want a law changed to give extra powers to the state?