• UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE

Uber has to pay Alaska for claiming drivers are IC

Sacto Burbs

Well-Known Member
And another state sets the bar

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/09/03/uber-agrees-to-pay-state-78k-for-misclassifying-employees/


Uber to pay state $78K for misclassifying drivers
By Anne Hillman, Urban Affairs Desk | September 3, 2015


Uber, the taxi-like ridesharing service, has agreed to pay the state $77,925 because they misclassified drivers as independent contractors instead of employees.

The company operated in Anchorage for six months then pulled out in March because Uber could not come to an agreement with the municipality to legally operate in the city. The muni said the company was violating the taxi ordinance. Now, the company is also prohibited from operating in the state until they comply with the state’s classification laws.

According to a statement from the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, labeling workers as contractors lets companies avoid paying unemployment insurance, taxes, and worker compensation premiums. It also violates the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act. The money will go toward covering uninsured injured workers claims.

Similar lawsuits have been brought against the company throughout the country.
 

glados

Active Member
1) Uber settled without an admission of guilt, this does not set a precedent in any state.

2) Uber found it cheaper to settle for $78k than to continue the lawsuit.

3) Uber is actually CLOSING DOWN in Alaska... Is this what you want? :smiles:

------

Facts about being treated as employees:

- No more surges or flexibility. Your Uber manager can tell you to get out and work when there's high demand... no need for surges anymore (which pax hates).

- No more driving vehicle of your choice. If you don't have a low maintenance vehicle like a Prius, you're out.

- No driving for other ridesharing companies. If you're employed with Uber, they can prohibit you from working for other ridesharing companies.

- Less take home pay. Uber will have to pay burdenous overhead and red tape to make regulators and the state happy, like payrolls tax, unemployment fund, etc. These come out of YOUR pay.
 
Last edited:

Michael - Cleveland

Well-Known Member
Moderator
Facts about being treated as employees:
- No more surges or flexibility. Your Uber manager can tell you to get out and work when there's high demand... no need for surges anymore (which pax hates).
- No more driving vehicle of your choice. If you don't have a low maintenance vehicle like a Prius, you're out.
- No driving for other ridesharing companies. If you're employed with Uber, they can prohibit you from working for other ridesharing companies.
- Less take home pay. Uber will have to pay burdenous overhead and red tape to make regulators and the state happy, like payrolls tax, unemployment fund, etc. These come out of YOUR pay.
Everything you suggest is POSSIBLE -
but far from being "Facts about being treated as employees"
 

MarkR

Active Member
And another state sets the bar

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/09/03/uber-agrees-to-pay-state-78k-for-misclassifying-employees/


Uber to pay state $78K for misclassifying drivers
By Anne Hillman, Urban Affairs Desk | September 3, 2015


Uber, the taxi-like ridesharing service, has agreed to pay the state $77,925 because they misclassified drivers as independent contractors instead of employees.

The company operated in Anchorage for six months then pulled out in March because Uber could not come to an agreement with the municipality to legally operate in the city. The muni said the company was violating the taxi ordinance. Now, the company is also prohibited from operating in the state until they comply with the state’s classification laws.

According to a statement from the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, labeling workers as contractors lets companies avoid paying unemployment insurance, taxes, and worker compensation premiums. It also violates the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act. The money will go toward covering uninsured injured workers claims.

Similar lawsuits have been brought against the company throughout the country.
WHEN IS THIS GOING TO HAPPEN IN NJ? I want to be in the courtroom that day!
 

Sacto Burbs

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
1) Uber settled without an admission of guilt, this does not set a precedent in any state.

2) Uber found it cheaper to settle for $78k than to continue the lawsuit.

3) Uber is actually CLOSING DOWN in Alaska... Is this what you want? :smiles:

------

Facts about being treated as employees:

- No more surges or flexibility. Your Uber manager can tell you to get out and work when there's high demand... no need for surges anymore (which pax hates).

- No more driving vehicle of your choice. If you don't have a low maintenance vehicle like a Prius, you're out.

- No driving for other ridesharing companies. If you're employed with Uber, they can prohibit you from working for other ridesharing companies.

- Less take home pay. Uber will have to pay burdenous overhead and red tape to make regulators and the state happy, like payrolls tax, unemployment fund, etc. These come out of YOUR pay.
You don't get it. We WANT to be REAL independent contractors. No deactivation for bad ratings, no more say "tips are not necessary" no more being forced to unwitting take a $4 ride - for $2.40 net - and most importantly SETTING OUR OWN RATES. Uber has you brainwashed, bucko. Their curent way is ILLEGAL. We have 100 years of labour laws here to protect people. And so do you down under ...
 

MarkR

Active Member
You don't get it. We WANT to be REAL independent contractors. No deactivation for bad ratings, no more say "tips are not necessary" no more being forced to unwitting take a $4 ride - for $2.40 net - and most importantly SETTING OUR OWN RATES. Uber has you brainwashed, bucko. Their curent way is ILLEGAL. We have 100 years of labour laws here to protect people. And so do you down under ...
They break a lot of laws currently.
1) WE ARE EMPLOYEES!! - they provide insurance and have policies on us.
2) THEY TELL US WE HAVE TO DO THINGS A CERTAIN WAY- bullshit! My business, my way. I'll continue paying a 20% royalty for use of the app. YES! Royalty! What we pay is a licensing fee. SHARK TANK WOULD PROBABLY TELL YOU THE SAME THING.
3) THEY LIE TO CUSTOMERS - I tell riders enjoy the app, they break laws, enjoy it while it's still here.
 

UberHammer

Well-Known Member
Past Sponsor
1) Uber settled without an admission of guilt, this does not set a precedent in any state.

2) Uber found it cheaper to settle for $78k than to continue the lawsuit.

3) Uber is actually CLOSING DOWN in Alaska... Is this what you want? :smiles:

------

Facts about being treated as employees:

- No more surges or flexibility. Your Uber manager can tell you to get out and work when there's high demand... no need for surges anymore (which pax hates).

- No more driving vehicle of your choice. If you don't have a low maintenance vehicle like a Prius, you're out.

- No driving for other ridesharing companies. If you're employed with Uber, they can prohibit you from working for other ridesharing companies.

- Less take home pay. Uber will have to pay burdenous overhead and red tape to make regulators and the state happy, like payrolls tax, unemployment fund, etc. These come out of YOUR pay.
Uber will never take on drivers as employees.

The government calling out Uber for treating drivers as employees will push Uber towards actually treating drivers as independent contractors.
 

MarkR

Active Member
Uber will never take on drivers as employees.

The government calling out Uber for treating drivers as employees will push Uber towards actually treating drivers as independent contractors.
We already are employees. THEY HAVE INSURANCE ON US, they also dictate who we have to take, what tips??, our management does not allow tipping.

WE ARE EMPLOYEES - TREATED AS ILLIGALS - WE WORK FOR THEM BUT NOT REALLY. Lol enjoy now they may disappear. They do treat us like employees.
 
Last edited:

UberHammer

Well-Known Member
Past Sponsor
We already are employees. THEY HAVE INSURANCE ON US, they also dictate who we have to take, what tips??, our management does not allow tipping.

WE ARE EMPLOYEES - TREATED AS ILLIGALS - WE WORK FOR THEM BUT NOT REALLY. Lol enjoy now they may disappear.
That's the point. Since Uber is treating drivers like employees, then either Uber starts ponying up for the burdens employees are legally responsible for, or Uber stops treating drivers like employees. There is 0.0001% chance Uber ponies up to the legal burdens of being an employer, and 99.9999% chance it forces Uber to stop treating drivers like employees. I can't for the life of me understand why drivers want the status quo.
 

UberNorthStar

Well-Known Member
Mark said:
WE ARE EMPLOYEES!! - they provide insurance and have policies on us.
What do you think the Safe Rider Fees (driver & rider are charged) go to pay? Insurance! Uber does not give us anything.

A Well-Known Member is welcome to correct me should I be wrong.
 

MarkR

Active Member
That's the point. Since Uber is treating drivers like employees, then either Uber starts ponying up for the burdens employees are legally responsible for, or Uber stops treating drivers like employees. There is 0.0001% chance Uber ponies up to the legal burdens of being an employer, and 99.9999% chance it forces Uber to stop treating drivers like employees. I can't for the life of me understand why drivers want the status quo.
I have no idea either. They want it both ways! You can't have a business and NOT have the tax liabilty. NJ should wake up and either get UBER out of the state or give us our W4 to fill out so we can have the taxes taken out. In the mean time, UBER should stop telling pax not to tip as I don't work for UBER and that's what EMPLOYERS DO!
 

glados

Active Member
If Uber lost in court, it would reduce pax usage, and result in lower earnings for drivers.

Do you REALLY want Uber to be unable to deactivate someone who made unwanted sexual advances on a pax, borderlining on rape but not enough for a criminal prosecution? Will that pax still use Uber?

Do you REALLY want Uber to be unable to deactivate drivers who take 30 mile "scenic routes" instead of the shortest 10 mile route? Will that pax still use Uber if they are unable to get a fare adjustment?

Uber makes money only when you make money. The incentives are currently aligned, but if lawyers get their way it won't benefit partners -- only them.
 

UberNorthStar

Well-Known Member
glados said:
Partners??? (Yes, this is a C&P of another post of UNS)

If Uber (U) had an agreement with its ICs that was not so one-sided, we would not be witching!

1. Allow us to be represented as a group by an outside agency to be sure the agreement is in the ICs' best interest. U has its lawyers for its representation.
2. No discouraging of tipping by U in any way, shape, or form. To reverse previous messages to pax, U will put a statement on rider's app that "Tip is not included.".
3. Rates/fees per mile/min are to be set no less than 75% of the average local major taxi cab companies in each city.
4. U drops its commission to no more than 15% on all platforms. No more raising commissionson for high platforms to make up for low rates on X & XL platforms.
5. If U keeps commission at 20%, U is to pay each driver 18¢ per mile on the # of miles clocked on each driver's pay period while driving to pax until pax is at destination or trip is ended to pay 1/2 the cost of running a car.
5. ICs will not be limited to driving just on U app. IC's outside legal business is of no concern to U.
6. Ratings on drivers will cease. If a rider has a comment on a rider, U will provide a B.I.T.C.H. link for such.
B-eautiful
I-ntelligent
T-alented
C-harming
H-elpful

No comments? The driver is good to go. :smiles:
 

glados

Active Member
There would be no Uber if it operated under these abhorrent terms. With no ratings system, Uber will not be able to detect and deactivate drivers for serious incidents and riders will stop riding Uber due to the poor experience.

Uber's commission covers variable expenses including the cost of payments processing, fraud, automated dispatching, driver and rider support, and much more. Uber is a low margin business.

And finally... one of the reasons many riders use Uber is because there is no tipping. Increased riders = more rides for drivers = more $$$. It's the same philosophy between the rate cuts that Uber does with a lot of data and testing -- Uber has reversed rate cuts in many markets according to data.
 

UberNorthStar

Well-Known Member
Increased riders = more rides for drivers = more $$$
Drivers can make only so many runs per hour.

glados said:
Uber will not be able to detect and deactivate drivers for serious incidents and riders will stop riding Uber due to the poor experience.
By adding a comment link riders can express their displeasure with a ride instead of using a numerical range of numbers which do not say "why."
 

glados

Active Member
Drivers can make only so many runs per hour.
That's where Perpetual Rides comes in. Eventually drivers may be on a paid trip 100% of the time, picking up and dropping pax along the way.

By adding a comment link riders can express their displeasure with a ride instead of using a numerical range of numbers which do not say "why."
It is simply unfeasible to pay someone to review every single comment by a rider when they say something like "Thanks for the ride", etc. A stars ratings system have been shown in studies to be scientifically accurate with large sample sizes.
 

Michael - Cleveland

Well-Known Member
Moderator
If Uber lost in court, it would reduce pax usage, and result in lower earnings for drivers.
That's an opinion about a hypothetical. Not fact.

Do you REALLY want Uber to be unable to deactivate someone who made unwanted sexual advances on a pax, borderlining on rape but not enough for a criminal prosecution? Will that pax still use Uber? Do you REALLY want Uber to be unable to deactivate drivers who take 30 mile "scenic routes" instead of the shortest 10 mile route? Will that pax still use Uber if they are unable to get a fare adjustment?
That is nonsense.
Uber can still 'deactivate' an IC or 'fire' an employee for inappropriate conduct. But if we are ICs, they can't THREATEN us with deactivation for a low acceptance rate (since we're supposed to be able to chose only the ride requests we want) and they can't threaten us over poor ratings that are provided to us anonymously, over things which we have no control - and are often the result of Uber's actions (like Surge Pricing).

Uber makes money only when you make money.
That is a flat out falsehood.
Uber makes money EVERY SINGLE TIME I GIVE A RIDE - whether I make money on the ride or lose money on the ride.
Uber makes money REGARDLESS of whether or not I make money.

The incentives are currently aligned, but if lawyers get their way it won't benefit partners -- only them.
No they're not. The incentives encourage more and shorter rides per hour because THAT is what is more profitable to Uber... not the driver.
 
Last edited:

MarkR

Active Member
That's an opinion about a hypothetical. Not fact.


That is nonsense.
Uber can still 'deactivate' an IC or 'fire' an employee for inappropriate conduct. But if we are ICs, they can't THREATEN us with deactivation for a low acceptance rate (since we're supposed to be able to chose only the ride requests we want) and they can't threaten us over poor ratings that are provided to us anonymously, over which we have no control - and are often the result of Uber's actions (like Surge Pricing).


That is a flat out falsehood.
Uber makes money EVREY SINGLE TIME I GIVE A RIDE - whether I make money on the ride or lose money on the ride.
Uber makes money REGARDLESS of whether or not I make money.


No they're not. The incentives encourage more and shorter rides per hour because THAT is what is more profitable to Uber... not the driver.
HAHAHAHA... You put a lot more time into this than I would
 

glados

Active Member
That's an opinion about a hypothetical. Not fact.
A lower passenger experience will result in less rides, which means less earnings for partners.

But if we are ICs, they can't THREATEN us with deactivation for a low acceptance rate (since we're supposed to be able to chose only the ride requests we want
By declining a significant number of rides, you are making the system unreliable as further away drivers must pick them up.

Think about it like this: Do you think Uber should let someone who times out _every single request_, increasing request ETAs and making the system unreliable? If so, should Uber deactivate someone who deactivates 99%? 98%? etc.

Uber is within the legal framework by deactivating drivers that severely impacts its operations, and that's exactly what Uber is doing. Drivers do have the right to only accept the requests they want.

Uber makes money REGARDLESS of whether or not I make money.
This is a logical fallacy. If you are not making money driving for Uber, then you should sign up for another Uber service (e.g. UberSELECT), or stop driving for Uber. As only drivers making a profit should be driving for Uber, Uber will only make money when drivers make money.
 

Top