In March, I reported on a lawsuit filed against Uber by a class of its drivers claiming that the taxi company mis-classified them as independent contractors. Apparently, that is not the only claim pending against Uber on this very issue. Earlier this month, a California Labor Commission hearing officer concluded that Uber had mis-classified one of its drivers. Uber has appealed the ruling. Frankly, I think Uber has a pretty good argument on appeal.
Here’s the full decision [pdf].
The hearing officer relied on the following factors to conclude that Uber’s drivers are employees, not independent contractors (with my critique in the parenthetical).
- Drivers must provide Uber their personal address, banking information, and social security number. (Doesn’t a company want contact info for anyone providing services for it, and doesn’t it need other information so it can pay its contractors?)
- Drivers cannot drive for Uber without a background check. (If a background check is the standard for an employee, then we might as well get rid of independent contractors all together.)
- Drivers must register their cars with Uber, which cannot be more than 10 years old (Cannot a company set reasonable standards for its contractors?)
- Uber monitors drivers’ ratings from passengers, and terminates the relationship if the rating falls below 4.6. (Contractors are not guaranteed contracts for life; if a contractor falls below certain standards, a company always has the right to terminate the relationship.)
- Uber requires drivers to use its app to drive, and they cannot drive without using it. (How is this different than a taxi company tracking its drivers via GPS and directing routes; if anything, Uber drivers have more independence because they can turn down the fare at any time.)
- Drivers are paid a set percentage of the total cost of each ride. (Isn’t this the hallmark of an independent contractor—pay by the job, not by the hour?)