This right here is one of the driving forces behind American corporatism. While these cases are always launched claiming to be on the side of the angels, they ultimately ignore that all that extra legal overhead is not free, and only the currently large companies will be able to manage it, essentially barring any smaller competitors from entering the market. If a court rules that Uber drivers must be employees, then Uber can easily sue any competitors that try to enter the market unless they do the same. Uber will be able to prevent competitors from receiving the same advantages they did.
Also, look at:
> Deep-pocketed companies like Uber, which has raised nearly $5 billion in venture capital since launching, could surely afford the additional expense of putting drivers on its payroll.
The implications of this are decidedly harmful to both consumers and drivers. Once you set this precedent, it will only be the deep-pocketed companies that can afford to put drivers on their payroll. This is especially problematic in the States, where in spite of a substantial amount of their federal budget being for healthcare, lacks a comprehensive public healthcare system, so employee benefits can be quite expensive.
I've recently incorporated in Ontario, and working as/hiring people on contract is very easy. A big part of that is because, apart from issues relating to workplace safety, we're not responsible for paying for healthcare services for people who do work for us. It was also very easy to leave my cushy corporate job for a startup, because I didn't have to worry I'd be made destitute if I had to pay for a few nights in a hospital were I to contract a really bad flu or get hit crossing the street.
More and more I see the US turning into a country where you _must_ work for a large, established corporation. Lawyers like this are just helping those already on top stay there, at the expense of those in the middle or bottom.
Also, look at:
> Deep-pocketed companies like Uber, which has raised nearly $5 billion in venture capital since launching, could surely afford the additional expense of putting drivers on its payroll.
The implications of this are decidedly harmful to both consumers and drivers. Once you set this precedent, it will only be the deep-pocketed companies that can afford to put drivers on their payroll. This is especially problematic in the States, where in spite of a substantial amount of their federal budget being for healthcare, lacks a comprehensive public healthcare system, so employee benefits can be quite expensive.
I've recently incorporated in Ontario, and working as/hiring people on contract is very easy. A big part of that is because, apart from issues relating to workplace safety, we're not responsible for paying for healthcare services for people who do work for us. It was also very easy to leave my cushy corporate job for a startup, because I didn't have to worry I'd be made destitute if I had to pay for a few nights in a hospital were I to contract a really bad flu or get hit crossing the street.
More and more I see the US turning into a country where you _must_ work for a large, established corporation. Lawyers like this are just helping those already on top stay there, at the expense of those in the middle or bottom.