Uber Drivers Forum banner
1 - 20 of 75 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,314 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Earlier updates have said the same thing, but in different words and they created ambiguity:
'Uber doesn't 'hire' or engage drivers'
The latest update removes all the ambiguity and says it clearly:
Uber doesn't pay drivers...
Drivers pay Uber for access to the driver app..

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Uber Driver Agreement
Platform Access Agreement Updated as of January 1, 2022

1. Relationship with Uber
1.1. Contracting Parties.

The relationship between the parties is solely as independent business enterprises, each of whom operates a separate and distinct business enterprise that provides a service outside the usual course of business of the other.

This is not an employment agreement and you are not an employee.

You confirm the existence and nature of that contractual relationship each time you access our Platform.

We are not hiring or engaging you to provide any service;
You are engaging us to provide you access to our Platform
.

Nothing in this Agreement creates, will create, or is intended to create, any employment, partnership, joint venture, franchise or sales representative relationship between you and us. The parties do not share in any profits or losses. You have no authority to make or accept any offers or representations on our behalf. You are not our agent and you have no authority to act on behalf of Uber.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,314 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
Then we need to 1099 Uber at the end of the year for the fees we paid them?
You could - but their corporate tax reporting already covers that.
(A 1099 is generally issued to individuals so as to document the payment and the revenue. Corporations already report those revenues in their quarterly tax filings and financial reports)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,761 Posts
Earlier updates have said the same thing, but in different words and they created ambiguity:
'Uber doesn't 'hire' or engage drivers'
The latest update removes all the ambiguity and says it clearly:
Uber doesn't pay drivers...
Drivers pay Uber for access to the driver app..

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Uber Driver Agreement
Platform Access Agreement Updated as of January 1, 2022

1. Relationship with Uber
1.1. Contracting Parties.

The relationship between the parties is solely as independent business enterprises, each of whom operates a separate and distinct business enterprise that provides a service outside the usual course of business of the other.

This is not an employment agreement and you are not an employee.

You confirm the existence and nature of that contractual relationship each time you access our Platform.

We are not hiring or engaging you to provide any service;
You are engaging us to provide you access to our Platform
.

Nothing in this Agreement creates, will create, or is intended to create, any employment, partnership, joint venture, franchise or sales representative relationship between you and us. The parties do not share in any profits or losses. You have no authority to make or accept any offers or representations on our behalf. You are not our agent and you have no authority to act on behalf of Uber.
with raising cost of gas...soon ants will be paying Fuber more than they make...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,059 Posts
You didn’t know before now that DRIVERS are Uber’s customer, not the pax?

We essentially pay them fees out of a pax’s fare, for us to use their technology that connects us with our customers - the pax - and processes the payments for us.
The only time Uber's ever used that bogus "customer" claim was on their SEC IPO application. I've never seen a single quote from Dara or any other Uber executive refer to the drivers as their customers.

Suffice to say the SEC's decision to allow that classification was controversial, incompetent, and possibly corrupt.

I've yet to see any contract reference to the drivers being "customers", nor any reference to drivers "paying" Uber anything.

Good luck trying to find financial talking heads or anyone else in the world of business who has ever referred to the drivers as Uber's customers. I strongly doubt any of them buy into that classification.

It's pure BS.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,314 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
And yet, Uber makes the rules we operate by, and if we don’t like it, they “fire “ us.
If we don't like it, then we don't have to accept the work offer.
If we accept the work and do not perform the work to the standards we agreed to, then they do not supply us with any more offers of work.

That's not being 'fired' - that's being an independent contractor.
And it's not for everyone...

So, anyone who doesn't like it (and why should anyone 'like' being exploited?) can go get a job or another gig.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,314 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
The only time Uber's ever used that bogus "customer" claim was on their SEC IPO application. I've never seen a single quote from Dara or any other Uber executive refer to the drivers as their customers.

Suffice to say the SEC's decision to allow that classification was controversial, incompetent, and possibly corrupt.

I've yet to see any contract reference to the drivers being "customers", nor any reference to drivers "paying" Uber anything.
1. The Uber Driver Agreement has ALWAYS said, in one way or another, that driver's PAY Uber for access to the Uber platform. The quote in the thread starter I posted here says it most succinctly:
"We are not hiring or engaging you to provide any service; You are engaging us to provide you access to our Platform."

Back in Kalanick's day, Uber called drivers "Driver Partners" (!! lol !!) If you have never seen the language that describes how drivers pay Uber for access to the app and that the relationship between the rider and the driver is a "direct" one with Uber acting as a "third party payor" then you have never read an Uber Driver Agreement.

2. The SEC has nothing to do with "classifying" workers, employees, drivers, partners or customers or anything else.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,084 Posts
The only time Uber's ever used that bogus "customer" claim was on their SEC IPO application. I've never seen a single quote from Dara or any other Uber executive refer to the drivers as their customers.

Suffice to say the SEC's decision to allow that classification was controversial, incompetent, and possibly corrupt.

I've yet to see any contract reference to the drivers being "customers", nor any reference to drivers "paying" Uber anything.

Good luck trying to find financial talking heads or anyone else in the world of business who has ever referred to the drivers as Uber's customers. I strongly doubt any of them buy into that classification.

It's pure BS.
Be mad all you want, but this is most definitely the legal relationship they have with us. Like it or not. That’s how it is.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,343 Posts
Earlier updates have said the same thing, but in different words and they created ambiguity:
'Uber doesn't 'hire' or engage drivers'
The latest update removes all the ambiguity and says it clearly:
Uber doesn't pay drivers...
Drivers pay Uber for access to the driver app..

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Uber Driver Agreement
Platform Access Agreement Updated as of January 1, 2022

1. Relationship with Uber
1.1. Contracting Parties.

The relationship between the parties is solely as independent business enterprises, each of whom operates a separate and distinct business enterprise that provides a service outside the usual course of business of the other.

This is not an employment agreement and you are not an employee.

You confirm the existence and nature of that contractual relationship each time you access our Platform.

We are not hiring or engaging you to provide any service;
You are engaging us to provide you access to our Platform
.

Nothing in this Agreement creates, will create, or is intended to create, any employment, partnership, joint venture, franchise or sales representative relationship between you and us. The parties do not share in any profits or losses. You have no authority to make or accept any offers or representations on our behalf. You are not our agent and you have no authority to act on behalf of Uber.
That’s how it always was but Uber’s lawyers tried to get too fancy which just muddied the waters.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,343 Posts
1. The Uber Driver Agreement has ALWAYS said, in one way or another, that driver's PAY Uber for access to the Uber platform. The quote in the thread starter I posted here says it most succinctly:
"We are not hiring or engaging you to provide any service; You are engaging us to provide you access to our Platform."

Back in Kalanick's day, Uber called drivers "Driver Partners" (!! lol !!) If you have never seen the language that describes how drivers pay Uber for access to the app and that the relationship between the rider and the driver is a "direct" one with Uber acting as a "third party payor" then you have never read an Uber Driver Agreement.

2. The SEC has nothing to do with "classifying" workers, employees, drivers, partners or customers or anything else.
Partners. Hahaha!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,059 Posts
2. The SEC has nothing to do with "classifying" workers, employees, drivers, partners or customers or anything else.
The SEC is the agency that's empowered to approve or disapprove the terms of IPOs. If the SEC had said no, Uber wouldn't have been able to include that term in the IPO. The actual classification of workers is not handled by the SEC.

The term "engaged" means entering into an arrangement with another party, period. That arrangement COULD be as a customer but it could also have nothing whatsoever to do with being a customer.

I've read every version of the contract and nowhere has Uber ever stated drivers pay them. If such a clause exists, post a screenshot of it.

Uber has always deliberately made their contracts vague. The reason the contract has never referred to drivers as customers or "paying" Uber for services rendered is that to do so would open a major can of worms as far as consumer protection law, consumer lawsuits, and even civil rights laws.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,059 Posts
It doesn’t matter that it’s all legalese BS. All that matters is that this is the “driver partner” relationship.
I've said on many occasions that our relationship with these gig companies as well as the gig economy itself is built on lies. The same applies to the entire "independent contractor" employment model.

The entire system is long overdue for major reform.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,151 Posts
Uber and Lyft have had similar verbiage for some time. It's all rather nonsense. However Uber and Lyft conduct themselves is immaterial to how they define things in an adhesion contract. It may be more mind games on the part of Uber to make the signors doubt their ability to bring a case - not necessarily fool a court (or arbiter) that we're contractors that pay Uber to use its software.
 
1 - 20 of 75 Posts
Top