Newsletter

Get the latest updates

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed about trending topics.

Ride-Hailing Driver Earns Meager $57 After Two Weeks, Exposing Exploitative Labor Practices

A recent incident in Changsha has come to light where a man earned a meager 400 yuan ($57) after driving for a ride-hailing company for over two weeks, despite generating a revenue of 4,600 yuan during this period. The company's contractual terms and hefty deductions left the driver with a paltry sum, raising questions about the fairness and transparency of the company's treatment of its drivers. This case has sparked intense scrutiny over the contractual arrangements between drivers and the platforms they work for, with many accusing the company of exploiting its workers and engaging in unfair labor practices.

Background Image

14 March 2025

Mr. Zhang, a resident of Changsha, signed a three-month contract with Longsha Dida New Energy Automobile Service Co., Ltd. to work as an online ride-hailing driver. Before signing the contract, the company's customer service informed him that he would only need to work 8 hours a day, with an hourly income of 40-50 yuan, and that he could earn a minimum of 170 yuan in dividends after completing the daily target of 298 yuan in business. However, Mr. Zhang soon discovered that the reality was far from the company's promises. He often had to start working at 5 am to charge his car and would only finish his shift at 11 pm, with barely any time to rest. Despite working long hours, he found that the number of orders assigned to him was limited, and he could only barely meet the daily target by working over 12 hours a day.

After working for 15 days, Mr. Zhang decided to quit and return the car, citing concerns about his physical health. According to the platform's data, Mr. Zhang's total business income for the 15 days was 4,613 yuan, which meant he had met the daily target every day. However, when the company settled his income, they deducted various fees, including a 3,000 yuan penalty for terminating the contract early, and only paid him 418 yuan. The company explained that the customer service's promise of an hourly income of 40-50 yuan was based on normal platform data, but the actual income could be affected by various factors such as regional differences. They also claimed that Mr. Zhang was a new driver and therefore was assigned fewer and less lucrative orders.

Lawyer Yao Zhitou from Beijing argues that Mr. Zhang's demand for a refund has a certain degree of reasonableness, and the company should not unilaterally deduct the penalty. Yao emphasizes that the contract between Mr. Zhang and the company was essentially a labor contract, and that the company's deduction of the penalty was not in line with the relevant laws and regulations. According to the Labor Contract Law in China, employers must provide employees with a written contract that outlines the terms of employment, including job responsibilities, working hours, remuneration, and termination conditions. If the relationship between the ride-hailing company and the driver is indeed deemed a labor contract, the company would be legally obligated to adhere to the law's provisions, including the payment of wages as agreed upon in the contract.

Tweet Image

The incident raises significant questions about the fairness of the company's practices and the legality of the penalty. Yao suggests that Mr. Zhang could take legal action to challenge the company's decision and seek a refund. The legal community's perspective on this issue highlights the need for stricter enforcement of labor laws in the gig economy. As the ride-hailing industry continues to grow, it is imperative that the legal rights of drivers are safeguarded, ensuring they receive fair compensation and treatment under the law.

Tweet Image

The case of Mr. Zhang highlights the plight of many drivers who face unfair treatment from companies. Mr. Zhang can seek legal recourse by filing a lawsuit to revoke the termination agreement and demanding a refund of part of the deposit, thereby safeguarding his rights. This incident has sparked public concern and discussion about the need for stricter regulations to protect the rights of laborers, including those working in the gig economy. Experts emphasize that protecting labor rights and improving work efficiency are crucial for achieving high-quality development, but this requires a gradual process rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. As the debate surrounding the protection of labor rights continues, it is essential to prioritize the welfare of workers and ensure that their rights are respected. By doing so, we can promote a more equitable and sustainable work environment that benefits both employees and employers. Ultimately, the key to resolving these issues lies in striking a balance between economic development and social responsibility, and it is crucial that we approach this challenge with a long-term, objective, and comprehensive perspective.


Comments

新华网
新华网Fri Mar 14 07:52:13 +0800 2025
【试试看!#圆周率能背到小数点后第几位#】今天是3月14日,是一个跟圆周率有关的日子。利用超级计算机,可将圆周率计算到小数点后62.8万亿位,你能背到小数点后第几位?评论区晒出你的成绩。#今天数学浓度太高了#网页链接 Read more
119
5
科技Mentor
科技MentorThu Mar 13 22:28:17 +0800 2025
#男子开网约车半月到手工资仅400元##律师谈男子开网约车半月工资仅400#打工人血汗钱也坑?宣传月入过万,实际累死累活干15天倒贴!公司画大饼说轻松赚钱,转头用格式合同扣光违约金,新手司机跑单少难道不是平台派单机制的问题?律师都说了这种"卖身契"不合法,凭什么扣我们辛苦钱?打工人维权太难了,这种套路合同早该管管了! Read more
20
15
现在是四点十六分
现在是四点十六分Thu Mar 13 22:19:00 +0800 2025
#男子开网约车半月到手工资仅400元#是哪家网约车公司啊?可以让司机师傅们避/雷一下,辛辛苦苦开半月才拿到400元,真的有点欺负人了公司还找那么多原因 Read more
21
4
潇湘晨报
潇湘晨报Thu Mar 13 19:25:32 +0800 2025
【#男子开网约车半月到手工资仅400元##律师谈男子开网约车半月工资仅400#】3月13日,长沙张先生向@潇湘晨报反映,他在长沙嘀嗒新能源汽车服务有限公司做网约车司机,入职前客服告诉他,每天只需工作8小时,一小时营业额40—50元,工作约8小时就能完成298元的营业指标,完成后司机可获得最少170元的分成,“上班时间自由安排,多劳多得。”。张先生介绍,这是他第一次做网约车司机,“感觉可以完成,挺轻松的。”2月18日,他和公司签了为期3个月的合同,并支付了1000元履约保证金。当天他就在“妥妥E行”开始接单工作,但发现实际并不轻松。“经常早上5点起来充电,跑到晚上11点多。”张先生表示,实际给他派的单不多,天天都要跑12个小时左右,才能勉强完成指标。3月5日,在工作了15天后,张先生选择放弃退车,“这样下去,怕身体吃不消。”平台数据显示,张先生15天的营业额共4613元,算下来每天都是达标的。可让他意外的是,公司从中扣除相应分成、3000元违约金等,只给他结算了418元的工资。张先生认为,公司宣传与实际不符,这3000元的违约金应该退给他。3月13日,记者来到该公司,工作人员介绍,客服所说的“一小时40—50元”是平台正常情况下的数据,但实际中受到区域等各种因素影响会有偏差。平台对司机有等级评定,张先生属于新手司机,所以给派的单比较普通,营业额不高。该工作人员表示,张先生如果能持续做下去,提高等级,就能接到更优质的单,营业额就高了。其展示了3月9日当天平台司机营业额排名,前3名均有约900元。该工作人员解释,按照合同规定,张先生中途解约,他这4600多元的营业额,加上保证金共5600多元,是无法抵消3000元的违约金、平台抽成(又名车辆使用费)等费用的,但考虑到张先生也辛辛苦苦干了15天,就给他退了400多元。但违约金不能退,“他做了2周就走,公司也是亏损的。”此事中,张先生认为,公司的宣传与实际不符,因此需退还违约金。张先生的诉求,有无相关法律依据?北京市京师律师事务所的姚志斗律师表示,张先生诉求有一定合理性,公司方不应强势单方扣除。姚志斗表示,双方虽然签订书面的《合作协议书》,但从公司宣传的入职招聘条件来看,张先生的岗位是公司平台司机,由公司为其缴纳社保,工作内容只需要按照公司的派单开车接送,符合《劳动合同法》员工按照公司的指派进行工作,而且有保底薪资和任务提成及其他水电补贴等,实际上双方应当是劳动合同关系。姚志斗表示,根据《合同法》规定,劳动者违反服务期和竞业限制约定的,应当按照约定向用人单位支付违约金。除上述情形外,用人单位不得与劳动者约定由劳动者承担违约金。而且这种合同是公司经常利用劳动者急于获得工作的心理,或者担心劳动者工作失误造成公司损失等,在格式化的合同中加入不合理的违约金条款。因此,公司以工作时间短为由扣除违约金,不合法也不合理。公司若拒绝退还押金,张先生该怎么办?姚志斗表示,张先生虽然与公司签署《终止合作协议》,但该协议性质属于用人单位与员工在解除或终止劳动关系时签订的离职协议的效力。根据《最高人民法院关于审理劳动争议案件适用法律问题的解释(一)》相应的规定,“劳动者与用人单位就解除或者终止劳动合同办理相关手续、支付工资报酬、加班费、经济补偿或者赔偿金等达成的协议,不违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定,且不存在欺诈、胁迫或者乘人之危情形的,应当认定有效。前款协议存在重大误解或者显失公平情形,当事人请求撤销的,人民法院应予支持。”因此,张先生依法可以向法院起诉撤销该终止协议,主张公司退还该部分押金。长沙潇湘晨报的微博视频 Read more
2419
203
昭桜初沅
昭桜初沅Thu Mar 13 23:26:13 +0800 2025
#男子开网约车半月到手工资仅400元#这就和中介宣传跑外卖月入过万一样,头部骑手是可以达到的,但是新手肯定不行,中介无非是要赚你人头费,租车费,甚至租房中介费 Read more
18
1
Ride-Hailing Driver Earns Meager $57 After Two Weeks, Exposing Exploitative Labor Practices - Trending on Weibo