Other courts in other countries have broadly come down on the same lines.
But not in California. The other day, the court there agreed with the people. And the people had voted in a proposition that drivers should be contractors because that’s what drivers signed up to.
The court here said: the critical point is we think that while a driver is logged into the app, that driver has no opportunity to establish any business goodwill of their own.
I guess that’s true, but it makes no sense.
In a pure gig model, you get to choose. You choose to work, or you choose to not work. It's about flexibility. The moment you are an employee, yes you get leave, but you also lose some control. Despite what the court and the four drivers think, some people like flexibility and freedom.
The court said drivers couldn’t bargain with Uber. That, of course, is correct. But that’s the whole point of a gig deal. It's predicated on the idea that if the deal is so bad no one will work for them. And the counter to the no bargain and all the other lack of overarching rules and regulations, is it’s a simple take it or leave it.
If you find it too egregious, don’t take it. If you want a union, industrial action, pay agreements, time in lieu, and stop work meetings, be a teacher or nurse.
The tricky part now, apart from the fact Uber will take it to the Supreme Court, which they should, is that the government are reviewing Workplace Relations, and given its driven by ACT, I suspect it will be looking to free things up a bit and this court case and its decision may well be a victim of what eventually gets passed as law.
No, we don’t want seven-year-olds going down mines, hence we need protections. But it's not Victorian England, it's New Zealand 2024, and if you choose to be your own person, all power to you, and the courts can stay out of your life.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
I guess that’s true, but it makes no sense.
In a pure gig model, you get to choose. You choose to work, or you choose to not work. It's about flexibility. The moment you are an employee, yes you get leave, but you also lose some control. Despite what the court and the four drivers think, some people like flexibility and freedom.
The court said drivers couldn’t bargain with Uber. That, of course, is correct. But that’s the whole point of a gig deal. It's predicated on the idea that if the deal is so bad no one will work for them. And the counter to the no bargain and all the other lack of overarching rules and regulations, is it’s a simple take it or leave it.
If you find it too egregious, don’t take it. If you want a union, industrial action, pay agreements, time in lieu, and stop work meetings, be a teacher or nurse.
The tricky part now, apart from the fact Uber will take it to the Supreme Court, which they should, is that the government are reviewing Workplace Relations, and given its driven by ACT, I suspect it will be looking to free things up a bit and this court case and its decision may well be a victim of what eventually gets passed as law.
No, we don’t want seven-year-olds going down mines, hence we need protections. But it's not Victorian England, it's New Zealand 2024, and if you choose to be your own person, all power to you, and the courts can stay out of your life.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
2 comments:
Nobody forced them to drive for Uber. If they don't like the deal leave!
They could just leave. We can always let in another 'highly skilled' immigrant that will work for nothing just to get residency.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.