Arguments Against Uber Drivers

Many scholars urge governments to classify Uber drivers as employees for several reasons. I will address these debates in the following part. Scholars often encourage courts to make such judgement based on the Anti-Domination Principle which states “a good and just democratic society must protect all its members against domination” (Rogers, p.500). Brishen Rogers the writer of “ Employment Rights in the Sharing Economy”, believes Uber is in an unequal position compared to its workers due to certain tasks it “enforces” them to follow along with its right to terminate them. Uber does provide drivers with certain Guidelines, but as already established this degree of control is not significant. These are guidelines the company provides workers
Since Uber drivers do not fall neatly in either of the employment categories, it is suggested to use the purposive approach to make a determination. This means courts need to identify the employment status by asking about the goals behind the labour law as a whole (Davidov, p.7). This means if the drivers seek protection, the purposive approach will provide them with it. However the main principle of labour law is to protect workers against unequal bargaining power and dependency. Uber workers have the sole discretion in performing their job while following some common sense guidelines to satisfy the consumers. This factor does not make the workers vulnerable nor puts them in an unequal bargaining position compared to the company.
To conclude, the current Canadian case laws establish that Uber drivers are independent contractors based on the control test and the lack of strict managerial domination from the firm. Uber drivers are in sole discretion of when, where, and how to conduct their business. Due to the controversial nature of this classification, the governments are encouraged to create specific policies addressing employment in the sharing