4 ms·

"Since workers for most gig economy companies are considered independent contractors, not employees, they do not qualify for basic protections like overtime pay

"Since workers for most gig economy companies are considered independent contractors, not employees, they do not qualify for basic protections like overtime pay and minimum wages." "Most [drivers] said the money they earned from online platforms was essential or important to their families." What do you think would happen to the average driver if the government or labor organizers came in and mandated that these workers receive overtime pay, minimum wage or other benefits? Would ride costs be the same? Would Uber be able to hire the same number of drivers? The space is competitive, it's not like Uber has a monopoly. They make 19 cents a ride on average and lost a bunch of money last year. If anything, Uber should be celebrated for the fact it allows low skilled people without many other alternatives to be productive. Or would it be better if these people without many alternatives had... one less alternative?

1_2__3 10y ago
The counter argument would be that we learned many decades ago the societal consequences of employment that does not cover basic needs. We can't pretend a human can survive in many parts of America on that kind of wage without government assistance. So we either pay it for the Uber rides, or we pay it in social welfare, or we pay it in the consequences of insufficient social welfare. You're just complaining that it's Uber riders who would have to pay for the externalities caused by Uber's business practices.
- malandrew 10y ago
  So the alternative is having no employment options, which naturally cover none of a person's basic needs. Performing a job that meets some basic needs is strictly better than no basic needs being met because there is no job. We have welfare and other options to aid with unmet needs. Without these options, individuals who need welfare end up being a 100% burden on the system instead of a partial burden. Furthermore, those that remain unemployed for an extended period of time are increasingly likely to remain unemployed indefinitely. Having a job, even if it doesn't meet all needs, can at least serve as a more likely stepping stone to one that does. With that said, these jobs are meeting basic needs. They may not provide enough income to support a family, but they certainly do provide enough income to support an individual. And before anyone claims otherwise, realize that the economy has always had jobs that have only ever provided enough income to support individuals, not families. Such low-paying entry-level jobs are not a new phenomenon. We've always had them. We just have a lot more of them now. The problem isn't the existence of these jobs and the companies that offer them, it's the lack of other jobs that pay better. There are hundreds of thousands of people doing this kind of work, and many have been doing this kind of work for several years. That's a clear sign that these jobs are meeting needs. There is a big difference between "Are you happy working for company X?" and "Would you be better off if company X did not exist?". Even people with jobs considered good jobs by most may be unhappy working that job. Even if they don't like the job, it doesn't mean that the arrangement isn't mutually beneficial. These companies are not at fault for the current job market. Most people here are simply using them as a convenient scapegoat for other other problems.
s73ver 10y ago
I fail to see why Uber's poor business model should be praised. If they can't take care of their employees, that's their problem, no one else's.
- peacetreefrog 10y ago
  Whether the employees are "taken care of" or not is subjective. What does that mean? The drivers are free to do something else, presumably where they feel more taken care of. The fact they aren't means Uber is their best option. Take it away (either by banning it, e.g. Italy/Austin or by passing regulations that make it too expensive to operate as is) and Uber drivers will have to go to their next best option, which must be worse otherwise they'd already be doing it. And again, Uber has come up with a business model that allows people without many good alternatives (whether that's because they need flexibility, don't have as many skills, don't have connections etc) to be productive and make money. And that's a good thing.
  - s73ver 10y ago
    No, they haven't. And them taking advantage of people with no alternatives is not a good thing.

1_2__3 10y ago

The counter argument would be that we learned many decades ago the societal consequences of employment that does not cover basic needs. We can't pretend a human can survive in many parts of America on that kind of wage without government assistance. So we either pay it for the Uber rides, or we pay it in social welfare, or we pay it in the consequences of insufficient social welfare. You're just complaining that it's Uber riders who would have to pay for the externalities caused by Uber's business practices.

malandrew 10y ago
So the alternative is having no employment options, which naturally cover none of a person's basic needs. Performing a job that meets some basic needs is strictly better than no basic needs being met because there is no job. We have welfare and other options to aid with unmet needs. Without these options, individuals who need welfare end up being a 100% burden on the system instead of a partial burden. Furthermore, those that remain unemployed for an extended period of time are increasingly likely to remain unemployed indefinitely. Having a job, even if it doesn't meet all needs, can at least serve as a more likely stepping stone to one that does. With that said, these jobs are meeting basic needs. They may not provide enough income to support a family, but they certainly do provide enough income to support an individual. And before anyone claims otherwise, realize that the economy has always had jobs that have only ever provided enough income to support individuals, not families. Such low-paying entry-level jobs are not a new phenomenon. We've always had them. We just have a lot more of them now. The problem isn't the existence of these jobs and the companies that offer them, it's the lack of other jobs that pay better. There are hundreds of thousands of people doing this kind of work, and many have been doing this kind of work for several years. That's a clear sign that these jobs are meeting needs. There is a big difference between "Are you happy working for company X?" and "Would you be better off if company X did not exist?". Even people with jobs considered good jobs by most may be unhappy working that job. Even if they don't like the job, it doesn't mean that the arrangement isn't mutually beneficial. These companies are not at fault for the current job market. Most people here are simply using them as a convenient scapegoat for other other problems.

s73ver 10y ago

I fail to see why Uber's poor business model should be praised. If they can't take care of their employees, that's their problem, no one else's.

peacetreefrog 10y ago
Whether the employees are "taken care of" or not is subjective. What does that mean? The drivers are free to do something else, presumably where they feel more taken care of. The fact they aren't means Uber is their best option. Take it away (either by banning it, e.g. Italy/Austin or by passing regulations that make it too expensive to operate as is) and Uber drivers will have to go to their next best option, which must be worse otherwise they'd already be doing it. And again, Uber has come up with a business model that allows people without many good alternatives (whether that's because they need flexibility, don't have as many skills, don't have connections etc) to be productive and make money. And that's a good thing.
- s73ver 10y ago
  No, they haven't. And them taking advantage of people with no alternatives is not a good thing.