Uber，優步，已在全世界十多個國家設立據點，但爭議頗多。據了解，在台灣，Uber 是經認許的外國公司，但其營業項目為「資訊管理、營業顧問」，而不包括計程車客運服務或小客車租賃業；但 Uber 早已在台灣招募司機以載運乘客，是否牴觸相關法令？實不消多說。

今天要討論的，倒不是 Uber 的經營是否違反台灣法令，而是Uber與其招募的司機之間的法律關係。在美國加州勞工委員會裁決 Uber 和司機之間是屬於僱傭關係之後，在美國激起了相當熱烈的討論；而同樣的爭點，很快的，也會出現在台灣。

現在的企業經營者，都十分聰明和「狡詐」。為了避免負擔雇主的義務（包括提供醫療保險、繳納社會福利稅捐等），Uber 堅稱其與司機之間的法律關係是”Contractor”（與我國承攬契約十分相近的概念）。但日前加州勞工委員會裁決：司機乃是Uber所僱用的「員工」(employee)，而與我國的「僱傭契約」相當。

今兒個就來藉題發揮一下，重談這個「亙古彌新」的議題：僱傭vs.承攬vs.委任的區別。

古早的教科書都這麼寫著：僱傭契約的受僱人，從屬性最高，完全按照僱用人的指揮服勞務，就提供勞務的內容與方式，毫無裁量的權限，猶如僱用人的「手腳」的延伸。但誠如恩師黃茂榮老師所說的，這樣的判斷標準，毫無助益，因為不會有任何一位老闆，願意僱用一位不用腦子的員工，像個機器人一樣，叫他（她）動一下，他（她）絕對不會動第二下；交辦一件事，他（她）絕對不會舉一反三的把其它相關的事辦好！如果繼續延用那個「古早」的標準，這世界上早已經沒有僱傭契約的存在了。

很傳神又一針見血的評論吧！於是，黃茂榮老師說，僱傭契約的特色是：勞務提供的方法，是以時間的長度來衡量與界定。所以，朝九晚五的上班族，可說是最典型的「僱傭契約」的受僱人。其餘更詳細的分析，礙於這兒的篇幅有限，請參見我的小書，《債法各論》，元照出版，頁 337 之問題 1。

以此為爭點的實務案例，不在少數。臺灣臺北地方法院 96 年勞訴字第 170 號判決即為一個絕佳的例子（已收錄於我的小書，《債法各論》，元照出版，頁 315；詳細的評論則可參見頁 317~321）。補充說明的是：為什麼勞資雙方就僱傭還是承攬，爭得如此面紅耳赤呢？其中的奧妙是～勞方可否適用勞基法，而享有該法的保障？當然關係重大囉！

好了，接著來看看本案。據報載內容，Uber 的經營方式是先就前來應徵的司機予以篩選、提供車輛給司機駕駛、統一規範應收車資、所有收入統歸 Uber，然後再依照司機的工作時數給予「報酬」。如果本案發生在台灣，妳（你）認為 Uber 和司機之間的法律關係，應如何定位呢？

提醒各位注意的是，以上所述是從「契約法」的角度，談僱傭契約的類型化特徵；但這和民法第 188 條的「僱用人」和「受僱人」的認定，是兩碼子事。民法第 188 條是侵權行為法的規範，出發點不同、立場不同、保護法益不同，自然不能採取同樣標準。因此，在民法第 188 條，學說和實務向來採取寬鬆的「事實上僱傭關係說」，甚至於像最高法院 99 年台上字第 1975 號判決事實，肇事車輛只是掛著某某醫院的字樣，肇事司機即被認定為該醫院的受僱人，該醫院得一併負起僱用人之連帶損害賠償責任。相關案例說明及更多的分析，請參見我的小書，《財產法(II)－侵權行為法‧物權法》，高點文化出版，頁 6-16 以下。契約法和侵權行為法就同一法律概念，採取不同的解釋，「僱傭契約 vs. 僱用人與受僱人」是為一例，契約法所保護的「利益」與侵權行為法並不相同，又是另一個重要的適例。以後遇到適當的案例時，再來作更深入的分析。

以下的節錄自華爾街日報的報導，非常鼓勵各位仔細讀讀。多讀英文報紙，不但可以增進英文閱讀能力，再配合前面的法律分析，又可以提升民法的理解程度，一舉兩得喔！

【 Uber Dealt a Setback on Labor Rules 】

Californias labor commissioner has ruled that a driver for Uber Technologies Inc. should be classified as an employee of the company, a decision that marks the latest setback for the ride-hailing companys labor model.

The ruling doesnt set a precedent for how Uber compensates its 200,000 drivers, but it is one of a growing number of court decisions that may have far-reaching implications for the company. Uber says its drivers are independent contractors and not employees, a designation that means it isnt responsible for paying drivers insurance or job-related expenses and allows the company to operate and expand at relatively low cost.

Uber has been ordered to pay Barbara Berwick, a San Francisco driver for Uber from July to September of last year, more than $4,100 to cover the cost of vehicle mileage and tolls, the commissioner said in a June 3 ruling that was filed in California state court on Tuesday.

The regulator found that Uber is “involved in every aspect of the operation, ”from vetting drivers and their vehicles to setting rates for trip fares, and therefore is legally an employer of its drivers. Uber had unsuccessfully argued that because it is just a smart-phone service that matches passenger with rides, its drivers should be classified as contractors.

The labor commission disputed that drivers control all aspects of their work, noting that, among other things, passengers pay Uber for their rides and Uber, in turn, pays drivers “a nonnegotiable service fee.”

The company could alter its contract with drivers, perhaps tweaking it to fall just under the employee threshold on test of drivers status. But that isnt as easy as it sounds, said Jeff Hirsch, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law.

No ruling related to a single company like Uber will be applied to all firms in the sharing economy. Determining whether a worker is an employee is “a very fact-intensive inquiry,” Mr. Schiller said, and so judges and agencies must base their decisions on a companys specific arrangements with workers.

Uber is fighting several lawsuits in California challenging its ability to classify drivers as contractors. If the plaintiffs are successful, the cases could help clarify a murky area of employment law and force Uber to pay new costs to cover employee benefits and driving costs.