3 ms·

If you read the article, you'll clearly see that they want to provide something, as long as it doesn't obligate them to provide a huge package. I assume their r

If you read the article, you'll clearly see that they want to provide something, as long as it doesn't obligate them to provide a huge package. I assume their reasons for wanting this are to compete for employees. See, the current regulation is a very odd copenhagen theory of ethics type mess. It bans providing a small packages of benefits - either provide a big one or provide nothing.

crdoconnor 11y ago
>If you read the article, you'll clearly see that they want to provide something I know they said that. I just don't believe it for a second. They want a new legal designation for their employees that does not require them to provide any benefits at all. They claim that despite this new-found freedom from legal culpability they will definitely provide some benefits. Honest. But don't force us to provide benefits or anything. The current status of their drivers as contractors opens them up to an awful lot of legal risk which they'd like to mitigate, ideally without it costing them anything other than an easily broken promise.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  People irrationally overvalue benefits (relative to money). Plus many benefits are tax advantaged aUnd they are also easier for big players to provide. If they were allowed to provide limited benefits without being obligated to provide full benefits, it would provide a barrier to entry for competitors. How will Gett (a little guy competing with Uber in Manhattan below 110th only) find drivers if it can't provide benefits? Economics >> moral posturing.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >People irrationally overvalue benefits People giving their own opinions irrationally undervalue citations. >Plus many benefits are tax advantaged aUnd they are also easier for big players to provide. I guess that explains why Uber is fighting tooth and nail not to provide any benefits at all rather than embracing a new competitive advantage. Oh wait. >If they were allowed to provide limited benefits without being obligated to provide full benefits, it would provide a barrier to entry for competitors. As opposed to the regulatory arbitrage they do where their early entrance to new markets depends upon the vast amount of cash they spend on lobbying and unchallenged legal loopholes. >Economics >> moral posturing. What passes for supposedly objective economics these days is mostly disguised moral posturing. Some entire schools including Monetarism and Chicago pretty much only do that which is why they have a horrible prediction record. Other supposedly objective economic reasoning leads to bizarre conclusions like the idea that Uber would lobby hard against legal reforms that would give them a competitive advantage.

crdoconnor 11y ago

>If you read the article, you'll clearly see that they want to provide something I know they said that. I just don't believe it for a second. They want a new legal designation for their employees that does not require them to provide any benefits at all. They claim that despite this new-found freedom from legal culpability they will definitely provide some benefits. Honest. But don't force us to provide benefits or anything. The current status of their drivers as contractors opens them up to an awful lot of legal risk which they'd like to mitigate, ideally without it costing them anything other than an easily broken promise.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
People irrationally overvalue benefits (relative to money). Plus many benefits are tax advantaged aUnd they are also easier for big players to provide. If they were allowed to provide limited benefits without being obligated to provide full benefits, it would provide a barrier to entry for competitors. How will Gett (a little guy competing with Uber in Manhattan below 110th only) find drivers if it can't provide benefits? Economics >> moral posturing.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >People irrationally overvalue benefits People giving their own opinions irrationally undervalue citations. >Plus many benefits are tax advantaged aUnd they are also easier for big players to provide. I guess that explains why Uber is fighting tooth and nail not to provide any benefits at all rather than embracing a new competitive advantage. Oh wait. >If they were allowed to provide limited benefits without being obligated to provide full benefits, it would provide a barrier to entry for competitors. As opposed to the regulatory arbitrage they do where their early entrance to new markets depends upon the vast amount of cash they spend on lobbying and unchallenged legal loopholes. >Economics >> moral posturing. What passes for supposedly objective economics these days is mostly disguised moral posturing. Some entire schools including Monetarism and Chicago pretty much only do that which is why they have a horrible prediction record. Other supposedly objective economic reasoning leads to bizarre conclusions like the idea that Uber would lobby hard against legal reforms that would give them a competitive advantage.