Uber announced on Friday that it will be appealing a decision made by the Commission for the Regulation of Employment Relationship (CAR) to reclassify three Uber Eats delivery drivers as salaried employees. The company expressed regret at the outcome of the decision, stating that it was based on specific circumstances and does not apply to all couriers.
In December 2023, three couriers from Uber Eats questioned the committee about whether registering as self-employed on the platform was in compliance with the law. They also inquired if their work should have been classified as that of an employee. The committee determined that the freedom of the delivery drivers was limited and ordered them to be reclassified as salaried workers.
Thousands of independent couriers choose Uber’s app for its flexibility in deciding when, where, and how much they work. However, this decision by CAR has raised questions about worker classification in the gig economy. As the case moves to the labor court, it will have implications not only for Uber Eats couriers but also for the larger gig economy and how workers are classified in this sector.
Uber stated that it will appeal the decision made by CAR and continue to advocate for flexible working arrangements for its drivers. The company believes that classifying workers as salaried employees would restrict their ability to control their work schedules and limit their earning potential.
The ongoing discussions around worker classification in the gig economy highlight concerns about job security, benefits, and fair wages for gig workers. As technology continues to disrupt traditional employment models, companies must find ways to balance flexibility with worker rights and protections.
As a journalist covering this issue closely, I believe it is important for companies like Uber to prioritize worker rights while also providing them with flexibility in their work arrangements. By doing so, they can create a more sustainable business model while ensuring that workers are fairly compensated and protected from exploitation.
The outcome of this case will set a precedent for future disputes around worker classification in
