Uber in Supreme Court over drivers employment rights
Multi-million dollar rideshare company Uber took it's fight over drivers employment rights to the Supreme court today. The Court is deciding whether it's drivers should be considered employees. This could give the drivers benefits such as leave entitlements, minimum wage and holiday pay. Bill Hickman reports.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Donald Trump announces 30 percent tariffs on Mexico and the European Union
US President Donald Trump. Photo: AFP/NICOLAS TUCAT US President Donald Trump threatened duties of 30 percent on products from Mexico and the European Union, two of America's biggest trading partners, in an ongoing tariff campaign that's upended global trade since he retook office in January. "The United States of America has agreed to continue working with the European Union, despite having one of our largest Trade Deficits with you. Nevertheless, we have decided to move forward, but only with more balanced and fair TRADE," Trump wrote in the letter to Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, which he posted to Truth Social. Trump has imposed a slate of tariffs on US trading partners this year - then paused, modified, raised or lowered them, in a chaotic barrage of policy actions that's left everyone from major nations to individual Americans trying to figure out how to plan for the future even as economic uncertainty grows. The EU and Mexico join a growing list of countries whose imports will face updated duties on 1 August, since Trump began posting tariff letters on Monday (local time) with rates of up to 40 percent. In his letters to the EU and Mexico, Trump said that all imports were subject to the 30 percent tariff, excluding "Sectoral Tariffs," such as the 25 percent auto tariff. Von der Leyen said in a statement that the EU remains "ready to continue working towards an agreement" by the August 1 deadline. But, she said, a 30 percent tariff on EU exports would hurt supply chains, businesses and consumers on both sides of the Atlantic. The EU "will take all necessary steps to safeguard EU interests, including the adoption of proportionate countermeasures if required," von der Leyen wrote. French President Emmanuel Macron agreed on X that the European Commission must "resolutely defend European interests". "In particular, this implies speeding up the preparation of credible countermeasures, by mobilising all the instruments at its disposal, including anti-coercion, if no agreement is reached by August 1st," he wrote in his post. Macron and von der Leyen's sentiments were echoed by other European Union officials in the strongest public pushback to the Trump administration's political pressure and trade whiplash that ensued in May. Products from Mexico, meanwhile, have mostly been able to enter the country duty-free, granted they were compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Trump negotiated in his first term. In his letter addressed to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, Trump said that tariff barriers were imposed to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States, which he has previously used to justify earlier tariffs on Mexico as well. "Mexico has been helping me secure the border, BUT, what Mexico has done, is not enough," Trump wrote. Mexico's economy minister Marcelo Ebrard posted on X that a Mexican delegation told United States officials during a Friday meeting that plans to establish a new tariff rate would be "unfair treatment and that we did not agree." But the United States and Mexico are negotiating to find an "alternative to protect businesses and jobs on both sides of the border". "The letter clearly states that the aim is to reach an agreement so that these tariffs are not imposed," Sheinbaum said Saturday (local time) in a speech in the city of Guaymas, adding that she is confident about reaching an agreement and better trade terms with the United States. In the tariff letters, which were dated on Friday, Trump said that any retaliation of tariffs charged on US imports would be met with pushback from the United States. Trump said that "whatever the number you choose to raise (tariffs) by, will be added onto the 30 percent that we charge." He blamed both tariff and non-tariff trade barriers as additional reasons for imposing tariffs on the EU and Mexico. The Trump administration has taken particular issue with value-added and digital services taxes, which are prominent in several EU member countries. Digital service taxes are levied on the gross revenue that online firms collect from offering services to users. Countries with these taxes would be able to tax all the revenue large companies that operate online collect - even if the business is unprofitable. That can include what they collect from selling data, advertising as well as payments they receive for subscriptions, software and other kinds of online services users pay for. Trump and members of his administration said on multiple occasions that the EU was not negotiating in good faith. And two months ago, Trump was so enraged by the lack of progress in trade talks that he was prepared to slap a 50 percent tariff on goods from the EU come 1 June. "I'm not looking for a deal," he said at the time. A 30 percent tariff on the EU is more than the 20 percent "reciprocal" tariff which goods from there faced before Trump paused them in mid-April. After Trump made the threat in May, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a Fox News interview that the "EU proposals have not been of the same quality that we've seen from our other important trading partners." On Saturday afternoon, Bessent posted on X that the United Kingdom "smartly secured an early deal". The letters to the EU and Mexico come after Trump threatened 35 percent tariffs on some Canadian goods on Thursday. According to the US Trade Representative's office, EU member countries are together America's largest trading partner at nearly US$976 billion in two-way goods traded in 2024. Mexico traded nearly US$840 billion in two-way goods and Canada traded just over US$762 billion in two-way goods with the United States. - CNN
1News
5 hours ago
- 1News
Trump considering 'taking away' Rosie O'Donnell's US citizenship
US President Donald Trump says he is considering 'taking away' the American citizenship of a longtime rival, actress and comedian Rosie O'Donnell, despite a decades-old Supreme Court ruling that expressly prohibits such an action by the government. 'Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship,' Trump wrote in a social media post on Saturday. He added that O'Donnell, who moved to Ireland in January, should stay in Ireland 'if they want her.' The two have criticised each other publicly for years, an often bitter back-and-forth that predates Trump's involvement in politics. In recent days, O'Donnell on social media denounced Trump and recent moves by his administration, including the signing of a massive GOP-backed tax breaks and spending cuts plan. It's just the latest threat by Trump to revoke the citizenship of people with whom he has publicly disagreed, most recently his former adviser and one-time ally, Elon Musk. ADVERTISEMENT But O'Donnell's situation is notably different from Musk, who was born in South Africa. O'Donnell was born in the United States and has a constitutional right to US citizenship. The US State Department notes on its website that US citizens by birth or naturalisation may relinquish US nationality by taking certain steps – but only if the act is performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing US citizenship. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, noted the Supreme Court ruled in a 1967 case that the Fourteen Amendment of the Constitution prevents the government from taking away citizenship. 'The president has no authority to take away the citizenship of a native-born U.S. citizen," Frost said in an email Saturday. 'In short, we are nation founded on the principle that the people choose the government; the government cannot choose the people.' O'Donnell moved to Ireland after Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris to win his second term. She has said she's in the process of obtaining Irish citizenship based on family lineage. ADVERTISEMENT Responding to Trump Saturday, O'Donnell wrote on social media that she had upset the president and 'add me to the list of people who oppose him at every turn.'
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Gig economy on trial as Uber fights drivers' employee status
A gig is only as good as the contract and the client. Contracting traditionally offers fewer legal protections and financial security. We're talking no annual leave, KiwiSaver (another blow with the latest government contribution reduction slashed to $251 from $521 a year), sick days, maternity or bereavement leave, minimum wage, breaks, and few options for recourse if you're unfairly given the boot. Contracting can be a win-win for employers wanting to outsource the work without strings attached, but like any romantic 'situationship', power imbalances and lopsided cost-benefit splits can leave you out in the cold. That's especially true for the four Uber drivers now fighting for employee status in the Supreme Court. How did we get here? The case dates back to a landmark Employment Court decision in 2022. The contractors, through unions E Tū and First Union, sought 'employee' status prescribed in the Employment Relations Act. At the time, Chief Judge Christina Inglis considered the nature of the relationship, who called the shots, who profited, what both sides intended, and whether the drivers were genuinely seen as part of Uber's business. Despite the unorthodox employment model, Chief Judge Inglis rejected Uber's claims that it merely facilitated rides, concluding the company '... creates, dictates, and manages the circumstances under which its business is carried out, and driver labour is deployed in order to grow that business'. Same same, but different Enter the Court of Appeal decision released last year, which also found in favour of the drivers, but disagreed with the Employment Court's emphasis on the workers' vulnerability. Instead, it took the Supreme Court's Bryson v Three Foot Six approach. It compared the contractual terms with the reality on the ground, asking: How much control did Uber exercise? How integrated were the drivers into the business? Could they meaningfully operate on their own account? First, the court found the Uber-directed contract was offered on a 'take it or leave it basis with no scope for negotiation'. Clauses designed to steer away from employee status were, in Justice Lowell Goddard's words, 'window dressing'. In practice, Uber controlled almost everything: fares, terms, conditions, complaints and customer contact. Drivers could not negotiate prices or reject too many rides without being penalised, and they had no way to build goodwill of their own, the court found. Sure, they provided their own cars and phones, picked their hours and wore mufti, but this did not outweigh Uber's control or how integral drivers were to the business. No drivers, no rides, no Uber. Let a good thing lie In my view, this was a win for the underdog, with the potential to open the door for all drivers and gig workers to ask whether they too, are entitled to minimum rights. Great for worker bees but not so great for business. It's therefore no surprise we are now at the Supreme Court, where Uber has warned that the court risks rewriting the rules for 20% of the workforce, consequently increasing compliance costs. Uber claims that the court should adhere to the contract and its underlying intentions. Yes, Uber sets quality standards and prices, but drivers also determine when and where to log in, which jobs to take, and cover costs. Conversely, the drivers contend that the contract is the baseline; the law was never meant for fine print to mask the true nature of the daily grind. They argue that the real essence of the model depends on control and subordination, not genuine independence. Where to from here? As we wait with bated breath for the Supreme Court's decision, it may already be too late for contractors suffering under the weight of big business. Enter the Government's Employment Relations Amendment Bill, introduced last month. The new 'gateway' test promises, in the words of Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden, to 'provide greater certainty for all parties and allow more innovative business models'. Under the proposal, a worker will be excluded from the definition of 'employee' if all the conditions are met: the contract must specify independent contractor status, they can freely work for others, they are not required to work set times (or can subcontract), they can't be fired for turning down extra tasks, and they must have time to review the deal. If the contract's signed, sealed and delivered, even a 'take it or leave it' deal might lock you out of your rights for good. And who said romance was dead?
