According to Edward Chen, United States District Judge, plaintiffs claimed that Uber misclassified drivers as independent contractors rather than employees (“Order Denying Plaintiffs”, 1). In addition, O’Connor and plaintiffs contended that drivers did not receive any proceeds from gratuity such as tips. Ultimately, both of these claims violate California Labor Codes and California’s Unfair Competition Law. On the other hand, Uber has argued that their drivers set their own work schedule and hours, which would consider its drivers cannot be employees (“Order Denying Plaintiffs”, 3). However, O’Connor and plaintiffs argued that Uber exercised authority and supervision over driver’s provision of transportation services. To determine whether
…show more content…
It has two formulations. The first is “act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will to be universal moral laws. The second is “act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a means to an end” (Quinn, 68).
In this case O’Connor vs. Uber Technologies, the formulations of Kantianism display some flaws in Uber’s ideas and plans for its business. The Kantian formulation of treating people as ends only and never as means to an end is contradicted by Uber’s ideas with keeping their drivers as private contractors. By keeping drivers as contractors, Uber is withholding employee benefits. Uber is taking advantage of these drivers and using them as means to an end; the end being making more profit from not distributing employee benefits.
O’Connor’s side of this case follows closely with Kantianism and the other formulation of moral rules should be seen as universal laws. With opposing Uber, O’Connor is attempting to bring employee rights to all drivers, not just himself as a driver for Uber. This backing from Kantianism is a bit of a stretch, however. The strongest case against Uber while using Kantianism is keeping drivers as private contractors as means to an end instead of making drivers the end to the …show more content…
By releasing that if they began classifying drivers as employees, they would be forced to take away time-flexibility. Without the flexibility that Uber currently offers, many drivers think that the job loses its appeal.
CONCLUSION
With respect to the previous information provided, one can conclude that O’Connor and plaintiffs were correct to battle against Uber and its allegations. The legal evidence proved Uber’s claims that its drivers being private contractors was an invalid statement. Also, ethical theories such as Kantianism and Ethical Egoism provided further evidence that O’Connor and plaintiffs’ were philosophically correct. Hopefully, this case will set an example for corporations or companies that treat their employees as means to an end and never a means to an
It has two formulations. The first is “act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will to be universal moral laws. The second is “act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a means to an end” (Quinn, 68).
In this case O’Connor vs. Uber Technologies, the formulations of Kantianism display some flaws in Uber’s ideas and plans for its business. The Kantian formulation of treating people as ends only and never as means to an end is contradicted by Uber’s ideas with keeping their drivers as private contractors. By keeping drivers as contractors, Uber is withholding employee benefits. Uber is taking advantage of these drivers and using them as means to an end; the end being making more profit from not distributing employee benefits.
O’Connor’s side of this case follows closely with Kantianism and the other formulation of moral rules should be seen as universal laws. With opposing Uber, O’Connor is attempting to bring employee rights to all drivers, not just himself as a driver for Uber. This backing from Kantianism is a bit of a stretch, however. The strongest case against Uber while using Kantianism is keeping drivers as private contractors as means to an end instead of making drivers the end to the …show more content…
By releasing that if they began classifying drivers as employees, they would be forced to take away time-flexibility. Without the flexibility that Uber currently offers, many drivers think that the job loses its appeal.
CONCLUSION
With respect to the previous information provided, one can conclude that O’Connor and plaintiffs were correct to battle against Uber and its allegations. The legal evidence proved Uber’s claims that its drivers being private contractors was an invalid statement. Also, ethical theories such as Kantianism and Ethical Egoism provided further evidence that O’Connor and plaintiffs’ were philosophically correct. Hopefully, this case will set an example for corporations or companies that treat their employees as means to an end and never a means to an