Jupiter and a Moon / NASA
Professor Steven Davidoff Solomon writes that the "Uber Case Highlights Outdated Worker Protection Laws" in the "Business Day" Section of the New York Times (Wednesday, September 16, 2015). Based on the actual evidence on the Uber issue, the reality is that the Uber case highlights something else entirely that is lurking behind its business model.
The "ride-selling" economy is not a social phenomenon, as Prof. Solomon seems to suggest. It is an age-old business model dressed up in today's fashions. What the ride-selling economy is offering is not "sharing," but buying and selling. Prof. Solomon asserts as fact the Uber company line that "Uber is something new in employee-employer relations." This is because, in his judgment, Uber makes no demands on its employees. The only evidence he offers is his expressed belief that "Uber drivers can work for other services like Lyft seamlessly." That is not what I understand from news reports about how Uber operates, including news reports published in the New York Times. Uber gives its drivers no time to work for other services like Lyft at all, let alone seamlessly.
Uber in fact makes demands on its employees, certainly on its drivers. A driver for Uber is required to be available virtually 24/7 to sell a ride to someone who wants to buy a ride from Uber. If an employee is required to be available on call at virtually any time, this is not "sharing" and it is certainly not "seamless."
For every Uber driver injured on the job, someone has to pay medical bills, lost wages, property damage, and other damages. Those costs of doing business will be paid not by Uber as a part of its business, but by Uber drivers if Uber does not provide insurance or benefits based on an urban myth that these drivers are not under its control and so they are not its employees -- and therefore, or so Uber argues, Uber should not be held responsible for the costs of doing business such as paying insurance premiums.
There are also the costs that come with exposure to liability to other people besides the Uber drivers. God forbid that other people should be injured and the property of other people should be damaged by these drivers, but it has happened already. The inevitability of risk is the main reason for the existence of the automobile insurance industry just as it is the reason-for-being of the entire liability insurance industry, so we can be fairly certain that injuries and damages from automobile accidents will continue to happen, even in Professor Solomon's ride-selling economy.
If the Uber drivers cannot pay those costs, and Uber refuses to be responsible for them, then you and I will. None dare call that "sharing," because it's not.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2015 by Dennis J. Wall, author of "Lender Force-Placed Insurance Practices" (American Bar Association 2015). All rights reserved.
Comments