Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

In South Africa, that seems to be exactly the case, at least for most of the rides I've taken on Uber. The vehicle owners are not the same as the drivers (most of the Uber drivers here wouldn't be able to afford their own vehicles). Uber invoices are issued on behalf of third parties that employ the drivers and own the cars (drivers are still rated directly as individuals on the Uber app).

This seems an extension of the existing South African minibus taxi industry model, where drivers make a daily quota for taxi owners, then keep the rest. (It has also led to at least one early-afternoon Uber ride with a very sleepy driver who was up from before dawn making his quota for his owner).

In any case, in South Africa, at least, Uber is clearly acting as a facilitator, rather than a direct employer.

I think it would be a pity if rulings like the one in OP lead to the worldwide emergence of capital-rich fleet owners taking on the role of employers, because Uber became hesitant to deal with individual driver/owners for fear of being designated as their employer.



That's the case for most taxi drivers in general in Vietnam & China. One family member/friend gets the taxi license and lends the car out while he's sleeping/drinking.

It's a little rare to actually see the same person driving as is in the official picture in the cab. But then again, the cab is used 24/7 for maximum efficiency...


In the case of South Africa, taxi owners tend to own fleets of vehicles, rather than a single vehicle being shared.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: