3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoNo 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.