Seventy francs for nine hours of work: the protest

Context

TL;DR

• 70 francs after nine hours for a driver in Zurich
• Before: 1'200 francs for about 30 hours a week
• Bolt entered the Zurich market in 2024
• The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the decision in 2023

Key facts

• Main subject → Cem Kurun, an Uber driver in the Canton of Zurich since 2019
• Current earnings → just over 300 francs
• Disputed price → 10 cents above Uber's per-kilometre rate
• SECO position → drivers to be classified as employees in 2018
• Geneva → majority of drivers hired through a third-party company

After nine hours of work, Cem Kurun had earned 70 francs. The thirty-year-old has driven for Uber in the Canton of Zurich since 2019 and says that, in the meantime, his conditions have worsened: lower fares and more intense competition between private transport services and taxi drivers.

The drivers are asking the Swiss authorities for greater rights and protections. Kurun says that in the past he managed to earn 1'200 francs by working about 30 hours a week. Today he earns just over 300 francs. He links the worsening situation to the Covid pandemic and the arrival of Bolt, Uber's Estonian competitor, in the Zurich market in 2024. In his view, many drivers are forced to rely on social assistance.

Fares and algorithm

The dispute concerns not only the amount earned. Kurun claims to have little effective control over the work, even though he operates as an independent driver. He doubts that the app is truly neutral in assigning rides: he says that those who refuse too many rides risk being penalized; areas with higher earnings supposedly appear on the map and then disappear when the driver arrives.

The app theoretically allows drivers to set their own price. Kurun claims, however, that if he raises it by just 10 cents above Uber's per-kilometre rate, he stops receiving rides. Uber rejects this interpretation and maintains that drivers can accept or reject rides without penalties. The company also denies that acceptance and cancellation rates are used to match drivers and passengers or to personalize fares.

The status issue

The classification of the employment relationship has been disputed for years. Unia, Switzerland's largest trade union, considers the control exercised by Uber incompatible with genuine independence. According to the union, drivers should receive wages, expense reimbursement and social contributions as employees. SECO had supported this classification as early as 2018, a position confirmed by cantonal and federal court rulings.

In Geneva, after a long legal battle, Uber changed its model: today, the majority of drivers are employed through a third-party company, and the group agreed with the canton to pay outstanding social contributions for the preceding period. In Zurich, by contrast, the Social Insurance Court recognized in 2021 the employee status of drivers who use several Uber services; the Federal Supreme Court confirmed this in 2023. Kurun nevertheless maintains that conditions have not improved for him.

Operational details

Beyond the fare: the impact on work

The case shows why the dispute over independent status is not merely contractual. When the work is presented as self-employed, the driver remains subject to fares, ride assignments, and the app's rules. When the driver is recognized as an employee, Unia argues that wages, reimbursement of expenses, and social contributions must also be taken into account. The difference can weigh on disposable income and on costo della vita in Svizzera: Kurun links current earnings to the inability to support a family and says that some drivers turn to social assistance.

The social-security aspect helps explain why the classification matters beyond an individual ride. The social contributions referred to in the dispute can also be understood through AVS/AHV and, when the requirements are met, LPP/BVG. The minimum wage is not the lever described in the source: the dispute concerns the classification of the relationship, the control exercised by the platform, and the protections that Unia associates with employment. To follow this aspect, one can consult the AVS/LPP guide, without confusing the value of a ride with total remuneration.

Geneva and Zurich as two different signals

The comparison between the cantons avoids a mistake: a judgment does not automatically amount to an identical change for all drivers. In Geneva, the model was changed after the legal battle and the majority of drivers are employed through a third-party company. In Zurich, by contrast, the court decision coexists with Kurun's report of worsening conditions. The transition from legal recognition to actual conditions therefore remains an open question.

Uber says it has changed its model several times and that the judgments concern arrangements that are no longer current. It champions the independence and flexibility valued by the majority and cites free insurance coverage against certain risks for independent driver-partners in Switzerland. The practical test concerns the actual freedom to set the price, reject rides, and continue receiving them: on this point, the platform and drivers remain at odds.

Useful planning tools

To estimate your pension strategy, use the pension planner and the pillar 3 simulator.

Key points

A concrete check for those who drive via an app

The most solid way to turn the problem into a documented complaint is to separate four elements: time worked, money collected, app rules, and the nature of the relationship. The source does not indicate a national form or a single deadline; therefore, it is better not to add procedures that are not documented. The practical path can start from the data already cited in the investigation.

Four useful steps

1. Reconstruct the days. For each day, record hours, earnings, rides received, and fare applied. Comparing the result after nine hours with that obtained by working about 30 hours a week helps distinguish a weak day from a broader trend. These numbers remain a personal record, not an official hourly wage.

2. Verify actual freedom. Keep the price settings, rejected or canceled rides, and screenshots of zones that promise higher earnings. If a zone disappears upon arrival or rides stop after a minimal change to the fare, the data should be separated from the interpretation: Kurun considers it a penalty, while Uber denies that penalties exist.

3. Identify the contractual model. It is necessary to distinguish the activity described as independent from employment through a third-party company, which is currently indicated for the majority of drivers in Geneva. This check prevents confusing the Geneva model with the one reported by a driver in the Canton of Zurich. To organize the financial items, you can use the guide to busta paga svizzera, without turning the link into automatic proof of status.

4. Separate the claims. Wages, professional expenses, and social contributions are different items. Guillaume Lemoine said that he had taken legal action against Uber to recover sums he believes were unpaid; the dispute is still ongoing. Anyone reconstructing their own position should therefore state precisely which item they are contesting and keep communications with the platform. The source also shows that drivers are asking the Swiss authorities for greater rights and protections, but it does not replace an individual proceeding.

The checklist serves to move from a generic complaint to a readable picture: hours, amounts, fare, rides, contractual model, and contested item. To estimate the effect of variable earnings on your personal budget, use calcolatore stipendio.

Source: tvsvizzera.it