7 ms·
Examining this case from a "similarity to employee" perspective neglects a crucial factor: the expectations between the parties at the time of contract. It's p
by jaked89 7y ago
Examining this case from a "similarity to employee" perspective neglects a crucial factor: the expectations between the parties at the time of contract.
It's patently obvious no Uber driver expected to be treated as an employee, as no employment contract was signed, and the Uber model is known and clear.
The court merely implements "social justice", which is nor social nither justice, destroying basic trust in society. Progressivism is cancer.
- rtkwe 7y agoMost employment law isn't about protecting people from being surprised by an employer it's about setting limits to what an employer can require of an employee. Both parties expecting at signing that you'll only get paid for half the hours you work or that you'll be paid below the required minimums doesn't make it any more legal for the business to do that.
- Polylactic_acid 7y agoA contract isn't law. I can write a piece of paper saying that you agree to work for me for $1 per hour and even if you sign it, you are still able to take legal action against me because this contract is illegal. Preventing megacorps from exploiting those with few options is obviously a net benefit.
- jaked89 7y agoThis has nothing to do with my point. Law exists to establish peace and consensus. Contacts are the most basic construct enabling modern life in a crowded society. Reinterpreting contracts in a liberal, unreasonable manner destroys peace and introduces chaos. It prevents members of society from ever trusting one another, and makes all agreements tentative, subjective to the retroactive whims of politicians and court. It serves the court, positioning it as an ultimate dictator, not the society.
- Polylactic_acid 7y agoLaw exists to ensure the best possibly outcome for society. Companies finding creative ways to redefine work so they get all the benefit while offloading any of the costs is not helpful for society. I might be inclined to agree with you on contracts if it wasn't for the huge imbalance of power here. An individual who works for these taxi companies has basically no negotiating power against uber so they will never be able to come to a fair contract. Employment protections exist to solve this and they have been rightfully applied to uber like they are to every other company. Laws should adapt to changing reality rather than let companies work around them.
- duxut_staglatz 7y agoWhile it is possible to argue against it on a philosophical ground, in French law contracts are not the most basic construct, and they have to comply with higher legal norms such as law or the constitution. Hence a contact must be "reinterpreted" (i.e. is void) if it does not follow the law. > On ne peut déroger, par des conventions particulières, aux lois qui intéressent l'ordre public et les bonnes moeurs. > Le contrat ne peut déroger à l'ordre public ni par ses stipulations, ni par son but, que ce dernier ait été connu ou non par toutes les parties. > Chacun est libre de contracter ou de ne pas contracter, de choisir son cocontractant et de déterminer le contenu et la forme du contrat dans les limites fixées par la loi.
- duxut_staglatz 7y agoLabour law (in France at least, I do not know about the US) is based on - for the lack of a better expression - reals over feelz: what matters is the actual relationship between the driver and Uber, not whether either party felt surprise at some point. The court merely implements "French labour laws", as it should.