“Do you know what the problem is?” Uber driver Hakim Benamran – bald head, large sunglasses, heavy Amsterdam accent – gets straight to the point, Thursday morning on the square in front of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. “The customer is well off. Uber has it right. Not the driver.”
On Thursday, the FNV and Uber unions faced each other in summary proceedings, which had been brought by the union. In it, FNV demanded that Uber pay a penalty of 100,000 euros per day, with a maximum of 10 million euros, if it does not comply with a court decision in September last year. The judge then ruled that the taxi app is bound by the collective labor agreement for Taxi transport and must employ its Dutch drivers.
Despite the judge’s ruling, Uber drivers are still self-employed nine months later. Maurits Schönfeld (Uber director for Northern Europe) said the judge’s decision is “too complex” to implement, he said in a conversation before the hearing. “It is almost impossible to oversee. And many drivers don’t want to, which makes it very difficult.” The FNV stated on Thursday that it “expects a listed company to simply comply with a court decision”.
In the Netherlands, about four thousand drivers drive for Uber, who mainly work in and around Amsterdam. The judge ruled in September that Uber treats its drivers as ‘false self-employed’. They are officially self-employed, but Uber behaves like an employer. The company determines the mileage allowance, company clothing and routes that drivers must drive. Drivers who cancel too many short trips must come to the Uber office to provide explanations.
There are drivers, it is unclear how many, who completely depend on Uber for their livelihood and do not take advantage of the benefits of an employment contract. But there are also many drivers for whom this does not apply: they occasionally switch on the Uber app between regular journeys. Wage employment means that although they receive more employee rights (pension, holiday pay), their income often declines.
Drivers such as taxi entrepreneur Ronald Prins from Vlijmen in Brabant, who has other clients in addition to Uber. In the hallway outside the court, he says that an employment contract with Uber means that he will earn less than half. He should therefore ‘not think’ about employment.
Read more about Uber’s strategy: Uber silently lobbies against unfavorable verdict
big fight
There is a lot at stake for both sides. For the union, the fight with Uber is a prestige battle, with the FNV trying to bring a large American platform company to its knees. Uber is everything the FNV does not want: an intermediary that evades a collective labor agreement and prevents employees from uniting.
Meanwhile, the case has huge consequences for Uber. Loss on appeal later this year means the company will have to adapt the app, skyrocket taxi prices and overhaul its entire business model. Uber’s lawyer said during Thursday’s hearing that loss represents “a tax and administrative nightmare” for the company and as a result Uber must “sever its relationship with thousands of drivers.” It is not inconceivable that Uber will then leave the Netherlands, although Schönfeld says that such a scenario “is not high on the list”.
Both FNV and Uber have used plenty of lobbying power to take on the case. Both sides organized talks with journalists before the hearing to convey their views – including NRC spoke to both Uber and FNV this week. In addition, both camps put forward drivers who do or consciously do not want an employment contract with Uber.
Earlier research by NRC showed that Uber financially helped a group of drivers to set up a foundation that publicly opposes an employment contract, the Foundation for Independent Drivers (SvZC). The foundation received help from an experienced lobbyist and distributed flyers at the taxi rank to convince drivers to turn against the FNV. In their own words, “hundreds” of drivers have now joined the foundation.
Uber had a small success in that area on Thursday. During the hearing, opponents of an employment contract were given the opportunity to explain their objections to the judge for the first time. They argued that compulsory salaried employment for taxi companies with multiple clients actually means that they will stop using Uber.
Employed or not, according to taxi driver Hakim Benamran, that is not the problem at all, he says in the square in front of the Court of Appeal. The real problem, according to all drivers: Uber’s low fare in combination with high inflation and fuel prices. “Man, this is all one big puppet show,” says Benamran. “An employment contract? What we really need is better compensation.”
The judge is expected to rule on August 2.