3 ms·

The gig economy is individuals leveraging their time and personal assets to make money. They aren’t employees, just like a musician playing a pub isn’t an emplo

The gig economy is individuals leveraging their time and personal assets to make money. They aren’t employees, just like a musician playing a pub isn’t an employee. purpose of a company to provide a product or service on a scale larger than one person could provide. A company’s primary goal isn’t to police employees the same way Facebook isn’t responsible for the content I write on their website. They have some duty to clean up afterwords but they do very little in the way of supervision. If someone does an investigation and finds criminal behavior the company has a responsibility to report that behavior to authorities. A company wants to avoid damaging its reputation over something like a laundering scheme. The Uber and Airbnb model is more like a credit card gateway for a specific industry and their ideal user is, ‘I’m an individual who does whatever I want with my time and property and I would like to make some money on the side’ that is not an employee’s mindset. Its a little upsetting that there are people who are more invested in their Airbnb and Uber status therefore claim employee status. If my YouTube channel takes off and I make a bunch of money on views can I claim employee status at yt? Clearly the answer is no

kerkeslager 9y ago
Eh, user and employee are just labels used to communicate a narrative; there's no objective truth in either one. The point is, the hotel industry is structured such that it solves this problem. If we're allowing AirBnB to disrupt the hotel industry, we need to address the same problems. The gig economy claims to be more efficient, but it's not more efficient in the context of society if it's merely offloading parts of the problem it solves onto other parts of society.
- headShrinker 9y ago
  > user and employee are just labels used to communicate a narrative; there's no objective truth in either one. I completely disagree. A company vets and makes a pledge to a employee, there is commitment in the form of promised work and potential advancement. Employees have a work future and maybe the potential grow. Consults, Ehem I mean, "Users" are here now and understand that once they finish this single task in accordance with any contract, or task list they are done. They are free to leave and there is no promise to stay. A company has no responsibility to a user or consultant other than all civil caselaw, don't slander, impersonate, discriminate, stalk, etc. 'For hire' work is compensated on in the agreed upon terms. Something to the extent of "There is no guaranty for future or ongoing work. You are compensated for the services and time you have rendered. Compensation changes must be agreed upon by both parties." 'For hire' contracts, TOS, consultant contracts are not employee contracts.
  - kerkeslager 9y ago
    No one is confused about what the word "consultant" means; you don't need to explain it. Your narrative (and Uber's) is that all Uber has to do to abdicate all the responsibilities that society previously demanded from a cab company is declare that they will make their drivers consultants. Obviously Uber drivers as they are now are consultants, but it's far from clear that this is beneficial for riders, drivers, society as a whole, or anyone other than Uber. I am unconvinced that we should accept Uber's narrative and allow them to make their drivers consultants.
ojgojegoj 9y ago
Seeing as you're already upset, I hate to break it to you that special purpose credit card gateways have similar regulatory requirements. That said, your characterization of Uber and such is egregiously inaccurate. Uber does not hire individuals who do whatever they want with their time and property. They hire individuals who are willing to use only very specific property, in very specific age and condition, to make money in specific places, in an exceedingly specific manner, while following very specific rules. As such, you're not just peddling a false dichotomy, you're doing so using grossly distorted portrayals of reality.
- headShrinker 9y ago
  'Upset' and 'not thrilled' are interchangeable in my lexicon. Didn't mean to convey hyperbole. It's generally understood that employees have all the rules you mention. I have been a contractor for 20 years and I have all those rules as well. So when does a consultant become an employee? Is it when I'm a 1099 or a W2 in the eyes of the IRS? The difference is in the initial negotiation; the benefits and a promise of future work for employees, but no such commitment for consultants. It's negotiated up front and must be renegotiated by both parties for any change. If I'm hired as a consultant, I don't get to claim I'm an employee later on because they worked me too hard. I have been worked too hard, but I know the rules, I made it through what ever the commitment I made, then either renegotiated or fired the client. That's what consultants have to do every day.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
  The use of the word 'Hire' in your comment is leading (as in a leading question). You are coloring your argument that the drivers on Uber's platform are their employees by using colored words like 'hire'.
totalZero 9y ago
There are several statutes that put the onus on financial institutions, arguably including any "credit card gateway" thanks to the Patriot Act, to detect and prevent money laundering. So by your own language, irrespective of what the purpose or the goal of the company is, anti-money laundering laws still apply.

kerkeslager 9y ago

Eh, user and employee are just labels used to communicate a narrative; there's no objective truth in either one. The point is, the hotel industry is structured such that it solves this problem. If we're allowing AirBnB to disrupt the hotel industry, we need to address the same problems. The gig economy claims to be more efficient, but it's not more efficient in the context of society if it's merely offloading parts of the problem it solves onto other parts of society.

headShrinker 9y ago
> user and employee are just labels used to communicate a narrative; there's no objective truth in either one. I completely disagree. A company vets and makes a pledge to a employee, there is commitment in the form of promised work and potential advancement. Employees have a work future and maybe the potential grow. Consults, Ehem I mean, "Users" are here now and understand that once they finish this single task in accordance with any contract, or task list they are done. They are free to leave and there is no promise to stay. A company has no responsibility to a user or consultant other than all civil caselaw, don't slander, impersonate, discriminate, stalk, etc. 'For hire' work is compensated on in the agreed upon terms. Something to the extent of "There is no guaranty for future or ongoing work. You are compensated for the services and time you have rendered. Compensation changes must be agreed upon by both parties." 'For hire' contracts, TOS, consultant contracts are not employee contracts.
- kerkeslager 9y ago
  No one is confused about what the word "consultant" means; you don't need to explain it. Your narrative (and Uber's) is that all Uber has to do to abdicate all the responsibilities that society previously demanded from a cab company is declare that they will make their drivers consultants. Obviously Uber drivers as they are now are consultants, but it's far from clear that this is beneficial for riders, drivers, society as a whole, or anyone other than Uber. I am unconvinced that we should accept Uber's narrative and allow them to make their drivers consultants.

ojgojegoj 9y ago

Seeing as you're already upset, I hate to break it to you that special purpose credit card gateways have similar regulatory requirements. That said, your characterization of Uber and such is egregiously inaccurate. Uber does not hire individuals who do whatever they want with their time and property. They hire individuals who are willing to use only very specific property, in very specific age and condition, to make money in specific places, in an exceedingly specific manner, while following very specific rules. As such, you're not just peddling a false dichotomy, you're doing so using grossly distorted portrayals of reality.

headShrinker 9y ago
'Upset' and 'not thrilled' are interchangeable in my lexicon. Didn't mean to convey hyperbole. It's generally understood that employees have all the rules you mention. I have been a contractor for 20 years and I have all those rules as well. So when does a consultant become an employee? Is it when I'm a 1099 or a W2 in the eyes of the IRS? The difference is in the initial negotiation; the benefits and a promise of future work for employees, but no such commitment for consultants. It's negotiated up front and must be renegotiated by both parties for any change. If I'm hired as a consultant, I don't get to claim I'm an employee later on because they worked me too hard. I have been worked too hard, but I know the rules, I made it through what ever the commitment I made, then either renegotiated or fired the client. That's what consultants have to do every day.
kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
The use of the word 'Hire' in your comment is leading (as in a leading question). You are coloring your argument that the drivers on Uber's platform are their employees by using colored words like 'hire'.

totalZero 9y ago

There are several statutes that put the onus on financial institutions, arguably including any "credit card gateway" thanks to the Patriot Act, to detect and prevent money laundering. So by your own language, irrespective of what the purpose or the goal of the company is, anti-money laundering laws still apply.