3 ms·

idk, maybe Uber shouldn't be allowed to operate illegally by declaring all its employees as contractors. I'm not allowed to do this so I don't really understan

by pfisch 11y ago

idk, maybe Uber shouldn't be allowed to operate illegally by declaring all its employees as contractors. I'm not allowed to do this so I don't really understand why Uber can. If you have a job how would you like being reclassified as a contractor right now. It would only double your tax burden.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mgraczyk 11y ago
If my current job were as a taxi driver and my choices were retain my current job or become a contractor at Uber, I would switch to Uber. Uber would not have been able to succeed early on if it didn't classify its drivers as contractors. The drivers are better off for it. That doesn't mean the drivers shouldn't sue Uber to be employees now that Uber is successful. It's in their self-interest to do so. However, everybody including current Uber drivers would likely be better off long term if they could not sue.
- pfisch 11y ago
  "If my current job were as a taxi driver and my choices were retain my current job or become a contractor at Uber, I would switch to Uber." Why? I don't think it is very clear that being a Uber driver is better than a taxi driver.
  - ddoscampaign 11y ago
    I had a long chat to a taxi driver medallioned in Chico, Sacramento and SF the other day.# It seems Uber is doing good to bring the fight to the pay-to-play bureaucracy, but it doesn't seem to be showing enough demonstrative acts that their drivers are making more/have better conditions than non-Uber drivers. # This summer, it seemed there were only 1-2 Uber X drivers in Chico which didn't work weekends. If they did, I had a credit to use which would've meant a free ride. Also, the rules in Chico is that a Paradise (a nearby town) company can't pickup in Chico and vice-versa.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  So basically you're saying that if they didn't cheat, they wouldn't be where they are? I'm not seeing anything in your post that justifies them ignoring labor laws.
  - closetnerd 11y ago
    I understand it differently. Labor laws aren't inherently good for either parties, employers or employees, necessarily. Perhaps the labor laws need to be reformed and/or scaled back.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Perhaps the labor laws need to be reformed and/or scaled back. Perhaps if you want to suggest specific alterations and arguments for them, that would be productive.
      - closetnerd 11y ago
        Well in this case, the need to classify Uber drivers as employees.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      I do not see how labor laws are not good for employees. Unless you're an apologist who says that unless we let employers fuck people over, they won't bless us with their benevolence and jobs.
  - mgraczyk 11y ago
    No, I'm saying that if they hadn't "cheated", none of the jobs that Uber drivers currently have would exist. Many of them would be employed by Taxi companies, many would be doing something else entirely, some would be unemployed. I just don't see how Uber's existence could have been possible if they strictly followed employment law, nor do I see how Uber drivers would be better off if Uber didn't exist. Therefore Uber drivers are better off because Uber did not strictly follow employment laws.
rubbingalcohol 11y ago
Uber's entire business is based around about exploiting a contract labor force with no collective bargaining rights. They should be forced to stop externalizing their operating costs onto their workers, especially in light of how tightly they control the pay.
- mgraczyk 11y ago
  I'm confused. Don't Uber drivers decide to work for Uber voluntarily? Does Uber have a monopsony in California? How are the drivers being exploited when they choose to leave their current employment to work at Uber? I would be willing to entertain your premise if Uber had put Taxi companies out of business before drivers had left Taxis to work at Uber in droves, but that's not what happened.
  - pfisch 11y ago
    If mcdonalds or walmart started paying below minimum wage would that be exploitative?
    - mgraczyk 11y ago
      Walmart has a labor monopsony in much of the rural United States. It would be exploitative for them to pay below a reasonable wage because their employees have no other options for employment. That is not the case for Uber in California and will likely not be the case in the future. Uber mainly operates in heavily populated areas where alternative employment is available. Additionally, Uber drivers are not geographically restricted in their employment by the nature of the job. They have a car and drive all over town for Uber, so they would be able to find a job "driving distance" away from where they live.
    - bro-stick 11y ago
      Exactly. People might agree to work for peanuts but it's not going to sustain them.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Don't Uber drivers decide to work for Uber voluntarily? I would expect that, to the extent that is true, they largely do so in a context in which Uber's adherence in that employment relationship to applicable labor law is presumed in that decision.

by pfisch 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mgraczyk 11y ago

If my current job were as a taxi driver and my choices were retain my current job or become a contractor at Uber, I would switch to Uber. Uber would not have been able to succeed early on if it didn't classify its drivers as contractors. The drivers are better off for it. That doesn't mean the drivers shouldn't sue Uber to be employees now that Uber is successful. It's in their self-interest to do so. However, everybody including current Uber drivers would likely be better off long term if they could not sue.

pfisch 11y ago
"If my current job were as a taxi driver and my choices were retain my current job or become a contractor at Uber, I would switch to Uber." Why? I don't think it is very clear that being a Uber driver is better than a taxi driver.
- ddoscampaign 11y ago
  I had a long chat to a taxi driver medallioned in Chico, Sacramento and SF the other day.# It seems Uber is doing good to bring the fight to the pay-to-play bureaucracy, but it doesn't seem to be showing enough demonstrative acts that their drivers are making more/have better conditions than non-Uber drivers. # This summer, it seemed there were only 1-2 Uber X drivers in Chico which didn't work weekends. If they did, I had a credit to use which would've meant a free ride. Also, the rules in Chico is that a Paradise (a nearby town) company can't pickup in Chico and vice-versa.
s73v3r 11y ago
So basically you're saying that if they didn't cheat, they wouldn't be where they are? I'm not seeing anything in your post that justifies them ignoring labor laws.
- closetnerd 11y ago
  I understand it differently. Labor laws aren't inherently good for either parties, employers or employees, necessarily. Perhaps the labor laws need to be reformed and/or scaled back.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Perhaps the labor laws need to be reformed and/or scaled back. Perhaps if you want to suggest specific alterations and arguments for them, that would be productive.
    - closetnerd 11y ago
      Well in this case, the need to classify Uber drivers as employees.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    I do not see how labor laws are not good for employees. Unless you're an apologist who says that unless we let employers fuck people over, they won't bless us with their benevolence and jobs.
- mgraczyk 11y ago
  No, I'm saying that if they hadn't "cheated", none of the jobs that Uber drivers currently have would exist. Many of them would be employed by Taxi companies, many would be doing something else entirely, some would be unemployed. I just don't see how Uber's existence could have been possible if they strictly followed employment law, nor do I see how Uber drivers would be better off if Uber didn't exist. Therefore Uber drivers are better off because Uber did not strictly follow employment laws.

rubbingalcohol 11y ago

Uber's entire business is based around about exploiting a contract labor force with no collective bargaining rights. They should be forced to stop externalizing their operating costs onto their workers, especially in light of how tightly they control the pay.

mgraczyk 11y ago
I'm confused. Don't Uber drivers decide to work for Uber voluntarily? Does Uber have a monopsony in California? How are the drivers being exploited when they choose to leave their current employment to work at Uber? I would be willing to entertain your premise if Uber had put Taxi companies out of business before drivers had left Taxis to work at Uber in droves, but that's not what happened.
- pfisch 11y ago
  If mcdonalds or walmart started paying below minimum wage would that be exploitative?
  - mgraczyk 11y ago
    Walmart has a labor monopsony in much of the rural United States. It would be exploitative for them to pay below a reasonable wage because their employees have no other options for employment. That is not the case for Uber in California and will likely not be the case in the future. Uber mainly operates in heavily populated areas where alternative employment is available. Additionally, Uber drivers are not geographically restricted in their employment by the nature of the job. They have a car and drive all over town for Uber, so they would be able to find a job "driving distance" away from where they live.
  - bro-stick 11y ago
    Exactly. People might agree to work for peanuts but it's not going to sustain them.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Don't Uber drivers decide to work for Uber voluntarily? I would expect that, to the extent that is true, they largely do so in a context in which Uber's adherence in that employment relationship to applicable labor law is presumed in that decision.