Discussion
  • Read More
    NJHamilton Nolan
    4/22/16 12:26pm

    I am a tax attorney. In my opinion, Uber is correctly classifying the drivers as independent contractors, based on the 20 factor test. At the end of the day, Uber has very little control over the drivers. The drivers provide their own vehicle, pay their own expenses (without reimbursement), and set their own times/places of work. There are a couple of factors that lean the other way, but when you consider the totality of the circumstances, I’d say they’re closer to contractors than they are to employees.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Sluicer's ghostNJ
      4/22/16 12:33pm

      Thanks for that! And as a (well, very well paid) contractor in that same "gig economy" it means that they are open to exploitation, no benefits and eventually being out of work because, technology.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      humble2themaxNJ
      4/22/16 12:41pm

      “20 factor test”? What ever happened to the ABC (assent, benefit, control) test?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Sluicer's ghostHamilton Nolan
    4/22/16 12:30pm

    Thanks for the update... is NOT driving for Uber an option? And now is the time to do stop driving for them, because as soon as it is possible and the cars are self driving, guess what?: They will be out of work. Thus, their fate is already sealed, and it is just a matter of time.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      lwleanderSluicer's ghost
      4/22/16 12:37pm

      I don’t know, is NOT paying your energy bill, NOT eating three full meals a day, NOT sleeping in a warm bed with a roof over your head an option?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Sluicer's ghostlwleander
      4/22/16 12:40pm

      Point taken; however, if driving for Uber is all that stands between someone and being destitute, well, they are ripe for exploitation and in truth have a bigger problem that catching the next fare.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    tito_swinefluHamilton Nolan
    4/22/16 12:29pm

    $100 million is 30-40 million for the lawyers, right? That’s a good reason to settle, unfortunately. I’ve got friends involved in similar stuff with delivery companies, and with few enough lawyers, 100 million is plenty. Uber must be thrilled. They can keep their underclass under their thumb for only 1% of their valuation.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Lawyerheretito_swineflu
      4/22/16 12:37pm

      It’s not. The lawyers don’t get 1/3 in class action cases, but instead keep track of their hours (although bills are padded) and end up with an hourly rate that will still be many millions. I’d estimate 10 million in a case like this.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      StopArmchairLawyeringLawyerhere
      4/22/16 1:09pm

      Nope. If this case had gone to trial, or the plaintiff had won on summary judgment, that would be the case. In a negotiated settlement like this, I have no doubt that the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees were in the 30-40 million range. It's pretty standard in settlement for the fees to be 1/3, regardless of what stage (and how many hours have been put in).

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Armando stillettoHamilton Nolan
    4/22/16 12:27pm

    If they sue and lose, they get no fees. If they sue and win, there is no guarantee of getting attorneys fees because the “American Model”, unlike the British system, does not generally make the losing party pay the winner’s fees.

    OTOH if the lawyers settle, they receive a portion of the gross settlement as their fee. I would suggest this gives the lawyers a financial incentive to settle.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      The Double DeuceArmando stilletto
      4/22/16 12:29pm

      Nobody ever wins a fight.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Armando stillettoArmando stilletto
      4/22/16 12:31pm

      ...Clarification, if they sue and win they could get fees if the statute or reg under which they sued contained a fee shifting provision.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Sid and FinancyHamilton Nolan
    4/22/16 12:24pm

    I think the better, more equitable approach that would level the playing field without choking our dynamic economic innovators and job creators would be to eliminate benefits and other legal protections for employees. It’s win-win!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      BobbySeriousSid and Financy
      4/22/16 12:33pm

      LOL, I once wrote this onion-style satirical piece for some website about how the GOP was proposing a bill to retract Labor Day as a national holiday as at the end of the day all it does is cost companies productivity and revenue which in turns just hurts the worker. I went on to say that 55% of the America public support the measure, and that the only thing holding up the bill is Obama’s veto pen, but negotiations are moving forward.

      The piece fell flat....because it was too realistic.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      sunshineonthebay1Sid and Financy
      4/22/16 1:44pm

      I know you’re being sarcastic, but you’re onto something that even many liberals agree with. Disassociate benefits such as healthcare from employment, tax employers, and put that money towards a single-payer systems.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Johnny ChundersHamilton Nolan
    4/22/16 12:37pm

    Did Uber retain the rights to the drivers’ souls during the intervals where the drivers are logged in?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      PoodletimeJohnny Chunders
      4/22/16 12:45pm

      The time you spend waiting to get yours back after you sign out of the system is unbilled time, like at Amazon. The incentive this creates for the drivers to simply wander off is too horrible to contemplate.... ; )

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ARP2Hamilton Nolan
    4/22/16 12:46pm

    Note, a few creative lawyers are trying to use this decision against them, by saying Uber is being anticompetitive by fixing prices with all its “independent contractors.”

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/04/01…

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      IskaralPustARP2
      4/22/16 1:04pm

      That’s an interesting argument, thanks for the link.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    portland1Hamilton Nolan
    4/22/16 1:07pm

    A question for people supporting this corporation would have to be: Why choose to support this corporation’s exploitation of labor? What makes this corporation’s greed somehow more acceptable than General Electric or Monsanto’s? I have yet to figure out the hipster habit of exempting Uber from revolutionary jargon, and my suspicious dark heart sometimes tells me that it’s because the current revolutionary fervor gripping our nation is just a sprayed-on affectation.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ARP2portland1
      4/22/16 1:26pm

      Uber actually has a useful service and it’s really easy to use. So, they get a pass. Apple has their cool factor and they make good (but no longer great) products. If it directly benefits them or has a sufficiently “cool” reputation, they seem OK with it.

      GE is too remote, despite the fact that most of the shit they buy, probably wouldn’t be possible without the likes of GE or IBM.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      AllenRosevereportland1
      4/22/16 1:33pm

      Uber is a poster-child for our the holy, driving force in our modern economy: innovative, creative, tech startups. It is cool and hip, and really smart people started it! Jump in, in the water’s acid! It’s innovation!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    JohannesClimacusHamilton Nolan
    4/22/16 12:32pm

    Still needs to be approved by Judge Chen. Judge Chen is a thoughtful guy and not afraid to assert the court’s authority with respect to protecting the interests of absent class members. So it's not over yet.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      norbiznessHamilton Nolan
      4/22/16 12:24pm

      See also: recent concussion settlement where the NFL can continue to hide its records, except that at least had the “enjoy some rather than no money before you die” extortion explaining its acceptance by the plaintiffs.

      Reply
      <