Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I'm not sure how we could possibly not be using LYFT after you've spent 3 of your 8 posts on CP to tell us about them over the past few months. Might want to sprinkle a few more non-Lyft posts on the site so it isn't so obvious.

Who cares, the man has something to say that obviously he cares enough to post about, why belittle him for posting? That type of attitude drives away new users from the community. Clearly he's not a spam bot or corporate shill, which is what we want to discourage.

I think he's right too. Uber gets all the press up here in Canada, but Lyft is very similar but has some key features that are appealing

- Their "surge" like pricing tops out at 3x.
- Drivers keep more

I think Lyft would do well here, especially if the enter the market amidst the "rage" against Uber's surge "gouging". While I don't agree with the outrage, good time to strike while the iron's hot. Too bad they're still not in Canada. Although the $500M deal with Ford gives them a lot of credibility in layman's eyes.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Who cares, the man has something to say that obviously he cares enough to post about, why belittle him for posting? That type of attitude drives away new users from the community. Clearly he's not a spam bot or corporate shill, which is what we want to discourage.

I think he's right too. Uber gets all the press up here in Canada, but Lyft is very similar but has some key features that are appealing

- Their "surge" like pricing tops out at 3x.
- Drivers keep more

I think Lyft would do well here, especially if the enter the market amidst the "rage" against Uber's surge "gouging". While I don't agree with the outrage, good time to strike while the iron's hot. Too bad they're still not in Canada. Although the $500M deal with Ford gives them a lot of credibility in layman's eyes.

It wasn't as mean spirited as you think. I was just poking fun at the fact that he's clearly invested in the company in some way. If he is and he believes in what they're doing and wants to spread it here, then more power to him.

[GP_Matt]

Does anyone remember the taxi hailing app that came out a few years ago. It connected riders with taxis in a very similar fashion to how Uber works now. It worked great and was becoming popular but the taxi companies fought like crazy to have it banned. All it did was connect drivers to passengers.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

There is some pretty good CRA interpretations of employee vs. independent contractor available on their website. There is next to no chance an Uber driver would be considered an employee for Canadian tax purposes.

That's very debatable. Here are all the things that Uber does with its drivers that are evidence of an employee relationship for the CRA:

• The relationship is one of subordination. The payer will often direct, scrutinize, and effectively control many elements of how and when the work is carried out.
• The payer controls the worker with respect to both the results of the work and the method used to do the work.
• The payer chooses and controls the method and amount of pay.
• The worker receives training or direction from the payer on how to do the work. The overall work environment between the worker and the payer is one of subordination.
• The payer chooses to listen to the worker's suggestions but has the final word.
• The worker cannot hire helpers or assistants.
• The worker does not have the ability to hire and send replacements. The worker has to do the work personally.
• The worker has no capital investment in the payer's business.
• The worker does not have a business presence.

Whether that is enough to affirmatively consider drivers employees would still be up to the courts; but the results from recent cases in the US say yes.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Checker has seemed to do a pretty good job of copying it. Their app is very similar to Uber's.

still a long way to go and a lot of bugs to solve before their app is close to as reliable as Uber's

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by jayswin

It wasn't as mean spirited as you think. I was just poking fun at the fact that he's clearly invested in the company in some way. If he is and he believes in what they're doing and wants to spread it here, then more power to him.

Fair enough.

Hopefully Lyft begins a push into Toronto and the eventual move West. As long as there will be competition against cabs, there had better be competition against Uber.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Does anyone remember the taxi hailing app that came out a few years ago. It connected riders with taxis in a very similar fashion to how Uber works now. It worked great and was becoming popular but the taxi companies fought like crazy to have it banned. All it did was connect drivers to passengers.

Perhaps Hailo?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hailo

[GGG]

Originally Posted by accord1999

That's very debatable. Here are all the things that Uber does with its drivers that are evidence of an employee relationship for the CRA:

• The relationship is one of subordination. The payer will often direct, scrutinize, and effectively control many elements of how and when the work is carried out.
• The payer controls the worker with respect to both the results of the work and the method used to do the work.
• The payer chooses and controls the method and amount of pay.
• The worker receives training or direction from the payer on how to do the work. The overall work environment between the worker and the payer is one of subordination.
• The payer chooses to listen to the worker's suggestions but has the final word.
• The worker cannot hire helpers or assistants.
• The worker does not have the ability to hire and send replacements. The worker has to do the work personally.
• The worker has no capital investment in the payer's business.
• The worker does not have a business presence.

Whether that is enough to affirmatively consider drivers employees would still be up to the courts; but the results from recent cases in the US say yes.

Uber is quite clever though in how they have it set up to flout these criteria. Uber the lead generation company sells leads to the independent contractor and the contractor pays uber. The passenger through a payment company pays the driver who then pays uber.

How do regular cabs work. I thought they were independent contractors that used a dispatch service.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by GGG

Uber is quite clever though in how they have it set up to flout these criteria. Uber the lead generation company sells leads to the independent contractor and the contractor pays uber. The passenger through a payment company pays the driver who then pays uber.

Right, though I think they remain all wholly owned subsidiaries so I'd expect that a close look by the courts would still consider them all the same because they're not arm-length.

How do regular cabs work. I thought they were independent contractors that used a dispatch service.

From what I've read, the things that distinguish regular cab drivers to be ICs are that once they have the cab, they can effectively work whenever and wherever they want during the shift (assuming they don't care about dispatch), they're the ones handling customer pay, and things like the fee are actually set by a third-party government affiliated organization and not by the taxi company.

Though I still wonder if taxi drivers really aren't employees. It seems to be a fine line.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by accord1999

That's very debatable. Here are all the things that Uber does with its drivers that are evidence of an employee relationship for the CRA:

• The relationship is one of subordination. The payer will often direct, scrutinize, and effectively control many elements of how and when the work is carried out.
• The payer controls the worker with respect to both the results of the work and the method used to do the work.
• The payer chooses and controls the method and amount of pay.
• The worker receives training or direction from the payer on how to do the work. The overall work environment between the worker and the payer is one of subordination.
• The payer chooses to listen to the worker's suggestions but has the final word.
• The worker cannot hire helpers or assistants.
• The worker does not have the ability to hire and send replacements. The worker has to do the work personally.
• The worker has no capital investment in the payer's business.
• The worker does not have a business presence.

Whether that is enough to affirmatively consider drivers employees would still be up to the courts; but the results from recent cases in the US say yes.

That is a very flawed analysis and nowhere near the CRA's interpretation. Those are secondary factors at best. All the primary tests clearly point towards independent contractor. Most taxi drivers themselves are considered independent contractors. If you are correct, there is tens of thousands of people with nasty tax exposures.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Right, though I think they remain all wholly owned subsidiaries so I'd expect that a close look by the courts would still consider them all the same because they're not arm-length.

From what I've read, the things that distinguish regular cab drivers to be ICs are that once they have the cab, they can effectively work whenever and wherever they want during the shift (assuming they don't care about dispatch), they're the ones handling customer pay, and things like the fee are actually set by a third-party government affiliated organization and not by the taxi company.

Though I still wonder if taxi drivers really aren't employees. It seems to be a fine line.

Taxis are independent contractors because in general they own their car, they pick and choose when they work, there ability to earn profit is solely dependent on themselves, etc. They nail all tbe primary considerations in the independent contractors analysis. This is backed by multiple case precedence. Uber would be no different.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

That is a very flawed analysis and nowhere near the CRA's interpretation. Those are secondary factors at best. All the primary tests clearly point towards independent contractor. Most taxi drivers themselves are considered independent contractors. If you are correct, there is tens of thousands of people with nasty tax exposures.

Aren't the primary tests about control, tools, profit and loss, integration in Canada? And they are the same tests that led to the California Labor Commission ruling for a Uber driver to be considered an employee and leading to the current class action lawsuit.

[GGG]

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/rc4110/rc4110-15e.pdf

Here's a link to the document. I think one key element that makes them a contractor is that they are free to work when they want and can work for multiple competitors. A driver can work for both lyft and uber at the same time.

They own their own tools to do the job
They take the capital risk
The worker controls profit and loss and is paid a flat rate for their services. Their efficiency at delivering the service determines profit or loss. They can't set the rate though sot hat would favour employee

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The CRA's guidelines aren't determinative. You need to go to the case law, and the case law really just asks one question: whose business is this? In the circumstances, someone is doing business here - this isn't a hobby... so, is it the driver's business, or Uber's?

All of these factors - and legally, it's the Wiebe Door factors that actually make the real difference most of the time, regardless of what CRA puts on its website - are certainly taken into consideration. But more and more, this determination is made on, basically, a smell test.

[FNL]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I'm not sure how we could possibly not be using LYFT after you've spent 3 of your 8 posts on CP to tell us about them over the past few months. Might want to sprinkle a few more non-Lyft posts on the site so it isn't so obvious.

I vaguely remembered those posts, but for some reason thought they were on a different board.

That said, the most recent was in response to someone who clearly hadn't seen the previous ones. And the point is valid - we're not really debating Uber in a vacuum, we're talking about the whole ride-share business model.

Lyft is relevant because for one, it shows a different perspective on the matter. Singularly, we may read about some of Uber's sketchy business practices, so without seeing other companies being succesful a little more ethically, we might think the whole model works that way.

Further, to the matter of whether drivers are employees or contractors - in cities where they have both Uber and Lyft, many if not most drivers drive through both services (and most prefer Lyft), which at least in Canada moves the needle towards them being contractors, not employees.

For the record, I have no affiliation with LYFT or Uber other than having been a customer of both, and preferring LYFT over Uber (and Uber over cabs). My interest is in seeing the ride-share business model succeed in Canada, and Calgary, and Uber alone isn't enough.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The CRA's guidelines aren't determinative. You need to go to the case law, and the case law really just asks one question: whose business is this? In the circumstances, someone is doing business here - this isn't a hobby... so, is it the driver's business, or Uber's?

All of these factors - and legally, it's the Wiebe Door factors that actually make the real difference most of the time, regardless of what CRA puts on its website - are certainly taken into consideration. But more and more, this determination is made on, basically, a smell test.

This was our first year moot. Thanks for the memories.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The CRA's guidelines aren't determinative. You need to go to the case law, and the case law really just asks one question: whose business is this? In the circumstances, someone is doing business here - this isn't a hobby... so, is it the driver's business, or Uber's?

All of these factors - and legally, it's the Wiebe Door factors that actually make the real difference most of the time, regardless of what CRA puts on its website - are certainly taken into consideration. But more and more, this determination is made on, basically, a smell test.

I would add that the CRA has taken runs at many businesses, including oil and gas, where the smell test is far stinkier (former employee gets canned, rehired as a contractor, basically goes back to his old office, computer and does the same stuff, but gets paid by the hour and doesn't get benefits) and is still considered a contractor. I think in many of those cases, it is pushing it a bit, but the Uber situation seems far clearer, if the individual owns the car and decides for himself when to drive. The fact that they utilize Uber technology to find rides wouldn't counter that, in my view.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Anyone else not have a problem with Uber bullying taxi industries?

I didn't mean they were bullying taxi companies. I haven't heard of anything like that. The only people i have seen banging on car windows and threatening drivers have been cabbies.

The bullying that Im talking about has been its tactics in forcing their way into jurisdictions where governments have openly opposed them or declared them illegal. Uber working with city councils is a relatively new phenomenon, especially after the tactic almost destroyed them in Europe.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, but if Uber loses the battle in the US, they are probably done for.

Different tax rules.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

This was our first year moot. Thanks for the memories.

I wish it was ours; we had a criminal code issue. No word of a lie, ours was a fact pattern involving a criminal law professor who had allegedly sexually assaulted a student. It was as if the prof was going, "now, I'm not saying I'm going to do this, but if I were to do it, let's do a few test runs and see if I could get away with it, how about?"