Federal Supreme Court Confirms that in the Light of Social Security Regulations Uber Drivers are Considered as Employees, Company Must Pay OASI Contributions
In a recent ruling, the Federal Supreme Court has once again confirmed that Uber drivers are not self-employed and must be considered as employees. As a result, the company is required to pay OASI contributions for them.
The dispute began in 2014 and has been ongoing for a long time in Zurich. After a lengthy legal battle, the cantonal compensation fund has emerged victorious. Uber's umbrella company is now obligated to provide the driver's wage documents to the compensation fund so that the amount of AHV contributions can be determined.
Uber has long maintained that its drivers are independent entrepreneurs and not employees. The driving service sees itself as a platform between the customer and the driver. However, the Federal Supreme Court disagrees, citing the company's ability to issue instructions and control drivers using the app as evidence that they are, in fact, employed.
This ruling is in line with a similar federal court decision last summer, which focused on the working conditions of Uber drivers in the canton of Geneva. The court found that most drivers should be considered employees, not independent contractors.
These court decisions are crucial as they require Uber to comply with certain regulations in favor of social security and to protect employees. They also level the playing field between Uber and traditional taxi companies.
Despite these decisions, Uber remains committed to its model with self-employed drivers for the future. The company plans to give individual drivers more autonomy to set prices and select trips themselves. It remains to be seen whether these adjustments will be accepted by authorities and courts or dismissed as cosmetic changes.
The ongoing dispute highlights the importance of establishing fair working conditions and social security protections for all employees, regardless of the industry or job. The ruling sets an important precedent and could have far-reaching implications for the gig economy as a whole.
Source:
