Posted on 06/17/2015 8:49:00 AM PDT by Theoria
BS. They get to clock on and off when they want to. Employment laws and lawyers are massively out of control.
Who the hell wants to do business in California?
One would think that. But they are doing ok. Sure, they have problems, but the tech side is carrying the day, as of now.
A.J. Francis, Dolphins defensive tackle, moonlights as an Uber driver
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13038503/aj-francis-miami-dolphins-defensive-tackle-moonlights-uber-driver
However, crowds of illegal immigrants who gather nationwide at 7-11’s and other locations to hire out as day laborers are quite OK. In both cases, the decisions favor the Democrat Party.
My son had a business in CA.....worker’s comp can take all your profit.
At the rate of California insanity, pretty soon drug users will need to declare their drug dealers as employees, and pay for their health care.
The “establishment” is doing all it can to kill Uber!
In NYC, they are not ticketing Uber drivers at the Airport (it is questionable if they are actually breaking any laws), they are taking their cars!
Taxi driver lobby is winning the day, so far. Technology be damned!
(I have no opinion one way or the other; just amazing to sit back and watch new companies that threaten the old ways get hammered by the establishment)
it’s odd that she only work 2 months and then sued and got $4000.
ha ha ha that’s what you get from doing biz in Mexifornia. Now they will have the pay the foreign invaders who make up the majority of Uber drivers at least minimum wage plus time and half overtime, plus health insurance, even though Mexifornia voted last month to give the foreign invader health insurance, plus SS and the ten billion other things that comes with doing biz in Mexifornia.
Tax decisions by the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB) provide some guidance as to whether workers in the taxicab industry will be classified as employees or independent contractors.
In Santa Cruz Transportation, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1991) 235 CA 3d 1363; 1 Cal Rptr 2d 641, the Appeals Court held the drivers who paid the taxicab company a fixed-fee to lease a taxicab were common law employees of the company. The Appeals Court found the following were indicators of employment:
• The terms of the lease allowed the company to terminate the drivers.
• The drivers could be terminated under the lease agreement if they did not maintain good relations with the public.
• The lease agreement designated the time period when the shift began and ended.
• The company had the right to coordinate their meal breaks.
• The drivers were prohibited from using the taxicab for personal use.
• The drivers were required to accept charge slips from certain customers.
• The company maintained a dress code.
• The company required the drivers to account for the fares they received by maintaining trip sheets. There was no evidence that the city required the drivers to maintain trip sheets.
• The work did not require the expertise of a skilled professional.
• The drivers depended on the company’s dispatcher for their livelihood.
• The drivers did not set their own rates, but were paid according to the number and distance of fares they carried. There was no evidence of entrepreneurial risk.
• The company owned the taxicabs and municipal taxicab license. The taxicab company operated a fleet of cabs for public carriage.
• The customers called the company and the company arranged for the performance of the services.
• The taxicab company’s name was on the taxicab.
• The drivers did not advertise their services.
• The driver’s work was part of the regular business of the taxicab company.
The above-mentioned case may not encompass the entire set of factors used by the CUIAB in establishing an employee or independent contractor status in the taxicab industry and is presented here as an example only. The EDD and the CUIAB will determine status on a case-by-case basis by applying the applicable CUIC Sections to the specific facts existing in a particular working relationship.
That’s pretty crazy because there’s always the chance he could get shot and robbed. I don’t like this Uber at all because it’s like pizza deliveries. The thugs call up for a pizza and when they delivery guy comes they rob him. Same thing with this.
San Francisco and the State of California are desperate, truly desperate, for money. This is what is behind this whole thing.
“We are not going to leave (Uber cars) alone. We are tracking these colleagues and hunting them down,”
This is a bogus ruling done solely to impose massive tax and regulatory burdens on Uber.
Will this kill off Uber in California ? Stay tuned. There’s a big difference legally between being an employee and being an independent contractor.
Some of the animals are more equal than the others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.