6 ms·

Just because it allows them to function doesn't make it correct.

by Qworg 10y ago

brightball 10y ago
Signing up for a job as an independent contractor agreed upon by both the contractor and the company...and then after the fact being told that they are actually employees isn't protecting either party involved in the initial agreement. It's using the government to protect OUTSIDE parties by by crippling the business with additional expenses.
- wickawic 10y ago
  But the children in the mines contractually agreed to their positions! Who is the government to interfere with this business partnership?
  - biocomputation 10y ago
    Can't upvote you enough!
  - brightball 10y ago
    Are the children adults legally able to enter a contract....?
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      Before the overreaching government stepped in and got in the way, parents had the freedom to get gainful employment for their idle children. Some parents even took it upon themselves to increase their productivity by having the kids do piecework at home. For example, 6 year olds were able to roll cigars at home.
      - ZoF 10y ago
        What is the premise of your argument here? That bad things happened in the past so there's now no such thing as too much regulation? Because child labor existed we should now consider independent contractors employees...? Care to actually provide a somewhat coherent response instead of baselessly denigrating the parents ideology and implying it represents forced child labor. I find this kind of cheap, tangentially related strawman so intellectually lazy it's actually offensive.
        Spooky23 10y ago
        I guess you're easily offended. Society reached consensus a long time ago about what an employee is and isn't. Companies have been nipping at the edges of this for years to push more risks on "independent" contractors, which in reality means pushing business risk to society at large.
        RangerScience 10y ago
        ...Which I think would be fine - employment liquidity seems good just like monetary liquidity - except that we do a shit job of providing benefits (like health insurance, and maternity/paternity leave) via the government. Making them employees of Uber isn't an answer. Making a Union isn't an answer (I don't think; again, too much overhead, and the point isn't negotiating power anyway). Government probably isn't an answer (regardless of "should", look at effeciveness). Maybe needs a rethink from first principles?
        Spivak 10y ago
        > employment liquidity seems good just like monetary liquidity Right, but such liquidity is formed either on the basis that individuals don't have to work to survive, or on the basis that employees are so scare and desirable that mobility becomes a non-issue. I don't disagree that we could address some of these problems by starting over from first principles, but that kind of change takes lifetimes to implement -- we still have to do something about the current people.
        thedufer 10y ago
- hinkley 10y ago
  The thing about contract law is that a contract that requires one party to break the law isn't binding. If you build a business around invalid contracts that's on you or crappy legal advice. Not on the person who signed your predatory contract.
  - brightball 10y ago
    At what point does "I will perform this task for compensation in the amount of $X" become illegal?
    - danharaj 10y ago
      When it's illegal. There's no underlying abstraction. The law is ad hoc.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      It has always been illegal if an employer tells you you're an independent contractor but without meeting the requirements of an independent contractor relationship. Last time someone ignored that, it cost them $240 million. I'm interested to see how much it costs Uber. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fedex-settlement-idUSKCN0Z229Q http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fedex-settlement-idUSKCN0Z...
      - brightball 10y ago
        So what's the difference between that and using a personal LLC. It's legal nitpicking about a persons choice.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        > It's legal nitpicking about a persons choice. That's actually what the law is: interpretation of statute, or what you call "nitpicking".
        brightball 10y ago
LizardLarry 10y ago
/n
- rangibaby 10y ago
  ???
- jsloss 10y ago
  This should be a place of constrictive conversation. Your post is not. Perhaps you want to give it another shot?
  - LizardLarry 10y ago
    My apologies. Here's another shot. Taxis and public transportation systems SUCK. At least within the Los Angeles area. It's obscene to pay regular taxi fares. You can take the bus but good luck getting anywhere within a reasonable time and with the risk of some stupid random event that slows the process down. Not to mention the cognitive taxation of being around strangers of varying quality. It's not something you think about until you're in the bus and you're standing up and the guy behind you smells and the bus is stuck in godamn traffic and you have 30 more godamn stops to go... Uber and Lyft and the other ride-sharing apps are positively godamn humanitarian in comparison to having to use the other options. I have strong feelings because discussions that focus on the needs and wants of bus drivers and taxi drivers ignores the heavy taxation laid onto the customer for the crime of not having a car (at least in LA). I would rather a hundred thousand more rides accomplishing the personal goals of a hundred thousand people than a thousand pensions for a thousand bus drivers.
    - RangerScience 10y ago
      As a fellow Angeleno, this mirrors my experience. Public transit is getting better, but it's still not there, and the taxis pretty much suck in all the ways it's possible to suck. Worse vehicles, worse drivers, worse prices, more hassle. (I think the next hurdle for LA Public Transit is express busses / trains, that DON'T stop everywhere.)
    - 10y ago

Just because it allows them to function doesn't make it correct.

by Qworg 10y ago

Just because it allows them to function doesn't make it correct.

Signing up for a job as an independent contractor agreed upon by both the contractor and the company...and then after the fact being told that they are actually employees isn't protecting either party involved in the initial agreement. It's using the government to protect OUTSIDE parties by by crippling the business with additional expenses.

wickawic 10y ago
But the children in the mines contractually agreed to their positions! Who is the government to interfere with this business partnership?
- biocomputation 10y ago
  Can't upvote you enough!
- brightball 10y ago
  Are the children adults legally able to enter a contract....?
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Before the overreaching government stepped in and got in the way, parents had the freedom to get gainful employment for their idle children. Some parents even took it upon themselves to increase their productivity by having the kids do piecework at home. For example, 6 year olds were able to roll cigars at home.
    - ZoF 10y ago
      What is the premise of your argument here? That bad things happened in the past so there's now no such thing as too much regulation? Because child labor existed we should now consider independent contractors employees...? Care to actually provide a somewhat coherent response instead of baselessly denigrating the parents ideology and implying it represents forced child labor. I find this kind of cheap, tangentially related strawman so intellectually lazy it's actually offensive.
      - Spooky23 10y ago
        I guess you're easily offended. Society reached consensus a long time ago about what an employee is and isn't. Companies have been nipping at the edges of this for years to push more risks on "independent" contractors, which in reality means pushing business risk to society at large.
        RangerScience 10y ago
        ...Which I think would be fine - employment liquidity seems good just like monetary liquidity - except that we do a shit job of providing benefits (like health insurance, and maternity/paternity leave) via the government. Making them employees of Uber isn't an answer. Making a Union isn't an answer (I don't think; again, too much overhead, and the point isn't negotiating power anyway). Government probably isn't an answer (regardless of "should", look at effeciveness). Maybe needs a rethink from first principles?
        Spivak 10y ago
        > employment liquidity seems good just like monetary liquidity Right, but such liquidity is formed either on the basis that individuals don't have to work to survive, or on the basis that employees are so scare and desirable that mobility becomes a non-issue. I don't disagree that we could address some of these problems by starting over from first principles, but that kind of change takes lifetimes to implement -- we still have to do something about the current people.
      - thedufer 10y ago
hinkley 10y ago
The thing about contract law is that a contract that requires one party to break the law isn't binding. If you build a business around invalid contracts that's on you or crappy legal advice. Not on the person who signed your predatory contract.
- brightball 10y ago
  At what point does "I will perform this task for compensation in the amount of $X" become illegal?
  - danharaj 10y ago
    When it's illegal. There's no underlying abstraction. The law is ad hoc.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    It has always been illegal if an employer tells you you're an independent contractor but without meeting the requirements of an independent contractor relationship. Last time someone ignored that, it cost them $240 million. I'm interested to see how much it costs Uber. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fedex-settlement-idUSKCN0Z229Q http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fedex-settlement-idUSKCN0Z...
    - brightball 10y ago
      So what's the difference between that and using a personal LLC. It's legal nitpicking about a persons choice.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        > It's legal nitpicking about a persons choice. That's actually what the law is: interpretation of statute, or what you call "nitpicking".
        brightball 10y ago

LizardLarry 10y ago

rangibaby 10y ago
???
jsloss 10y ago
This should be a place of constrictive conversation. Your post is not. Perhaps you want to give it another shot?
- LizardLarry 10y ago
  My apologies. Here's another shot. Taxis and public transportation systems SUCK. At least within the Los Angeles area. It's obscene to pay regular taxi fares. You can take the bus but good luck getting anywhere within a reasonable time and with the risk of some stupid random event that slows the process down. Not to mention the cognitive taxation of being around strangers of varying quality. It's not something you think about until you're in the bus and you're standing up and the guy behind you smells and the bus is stuck in godamn traffic and you have 30 more godamn stops to go... Uber and Lyft and the other ride-sharing apps are positively godamn humanitarian in comparison to having to use the other options. I have strong feelings because discussions that focus on the needs and wants of bus drivers and taxi drivers ignores the heavy taxation laid onto the customer for the crime of not having a car (at least in LA). I would rather a hundred thousand more rides accomplishing the personal goals of a hundred thousand people than a thousand pensions for a thousand bus drivers.
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    As a fellow Angeleno, this mirrors my experience. Public transit is getting better, but it's still not there, and the taxis pretty much suck in all the ways it's possible to suck. Worse vehicles, worse drivers, worse prices, more hassle. (I think the next hurdle for LA Public Transit is express busses / trains, that DON'T stop everywhere.)
  - 10y ago