Re: English-speaking taxi number?
On 29 July 2018 at 15:23, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> On 07/29/2018 07:52 AM, John Sullivan wrote:
>> (trying to avoid direct use of Uber due to the proprietary software
>> required)
>
> You have more a problem with the fact that UBER uses proprietary software
> than the fact that they are exploiting their workers through by declaring
> them as "contractors" through the help of loopholes in the law? [1, 2]
That is incorrect, since the drivers issue their own invoices to the
passengers, they decide when and how much they want to drive, and they
enjoy freedoms not usually available to employees, like working any
number of hours they like or having as many rides as they want. I do
agree Uber might provide them some benefits usually available to
employees only, but that is a different issue.
Quoting the WIkipedia article you referenced:
> …a worker is an employee if the employer can control what is to be done and how it is to be done.
> By contrast, if the worker controls the means and method of achieving the required results,
> leaving the employer with the right only to define the desired result, they are correctly
> classified as an independent contractor.
In case of Uber, Uber doesn’t control what and how needs to be done,
it’s the driver who does, which makes them rightfully contractors, not
employees.
Uber has many (and in the past had even more) different issues (e.g.
company culture and their attitude towards certain issues), but fake
contractorship is not one of them.
--
Cheers,
Andrej
Reply to: