This “settlement” sounded like a bad deal for the drivers from the beginning with the attorney representing the class looking for a fast, large payday at the expense of the “clients’. It was more her conspiring with Uber to get a clean bill of health than representing her clients.
At $100 million being spread over 385k clients she was getting less than $300 for each client, before you even reduced the settlement amount for the attorney fees and the cost of administration to disburse the settlement—her clients would have been lucky to get as much as $200 each while she walked off with millions.
I don’t know, dabear – I don’t know why filing a class action should automatically mean a payday for either attorneys or drivers. They’re NOT employees, and they are demanding to be paid for not working – and it’s only California’s bizarre laws that have kept Uber mired in this. The attorneys are trying to change the conditions of the contract from what the drivers & Uber agreed to, and that cannot be good for the shared economy model in general.
Since Uber and Lyft first got started it seemed like they wanted to have all the benefits of directing the drivers as if they were employees, yet get all the financial benefits of calling them independent contractors. If they are truly contractors, then apart from requiring valid insurance and a running vehicle, then they should not be allowed to direct any other aspects of those contractors and the TNC should only be compensated for providing the app and not a part of each fare.
Every employer in America that hires contractors or other contingent workers wants to have “all the benefits of directing the (workers) as if they were employees, yet get all the financial benefits of calling them independent contractors.” I predict that in the next 20 years the Feds will force companies to do away with ALL contingent worker classifications (contractor, temp, etc.) and force them to consider anyone who does any work for the company as an employee (except, perhaps, short-term consulting work). Yet another example of employer greed spoiling a good deal for both employer and worker.
Hope Uber went into business with eyes wide open, recognizing that many of their drivers would be litigious, lazy dead-beats, sorta’ like almost every tow-truck driver is a lazy dead-beat. When your business model gives you little discretion in your screening and hiring practices — coupled with the low-cost-of-labor requirement in order for the model to work — it is inevitable that those you hire, contractor or not, will always be your biggest headache.
This “settlement” sounded like a bad deal for the drivers from the beginning with the attorney representing the class looking for a fast, large payday at the expense of the “clients’. It was more her conspiring with Uber to get a clean bill of health than representing her clients.
At $100 million being spread over 385k clients she was getting less than $300 for each client, before you even reduced the settlement amount for the attorney fees and the cost of administration to disburse the settlement—her clients would have been lucky to get as much as $200 each while she walked off with millions.
I don’t know, dabear – I don’t know why filing a class action should automatically mean a payday for either attorneys or drivers. They’re NOT employees, and they are demanding to be paid for not working – and it’s only California’s bizarre laws that have kept Uber mired in this. The attorneys are trying to change the conditions of the contract from what the drivers & Uber agreed to, and that cannot be good for the shared economy model in general.
Since Uber and Lyft first got started it seemed like they wanted to have all the benefits of directing the drivers as if they were employees, yet get all the financial benefits of calling them independent contractors. If they are truly contractors, then apart from requiring valid insurance and a running vehicle, then they should not be allowed to direct any other aspects of those contractors and the TNC should only be compensated for providing the app and not a part of each fare.
Every employer in America that hires contractors or other contingent workers wants to have “all the benefits of directing the (workers) as if they were employees, yet get all the financial benefits of calling them independent contractors.” I predict that in the next 20 years the Feds will force companies to do away with ALL contingent worker classifications (contractor, temp, etc.) and force them to consider anyone who does any work for the company as an employee (except, perhaps, short-term consulting work). Yet another example of employer greed spoiling a good deal for both employer and worker.
Hope Uber went into business with eyes wide open, recognizing that many of their drivers would be litigious, lazy dead-beats, sorta’ like almost every tow-truck driver is a lazy dead-beat. When your business model gives you little discretion in your screening and hiring practices — coupled with the low-cost-of-labor requirement in order for the model to work — it is inevitable that those you hire, contractor or not, will always be your biggest headache.