13 ms·
Uber drivers “employees” for unemployment purposes, NY labor board says
- hobls 8y agoThis is important. We’re at risk of the “gig economy” undoing over a century of hard fought gains in workers rights. Minimum wage laws, unemployment, etc, these are good things that should be preserved. Uber has clearly shown that they’re happy to be as exploitative as they’re allowed to be. (And that even when they’re specifically disallowed they’ll do everything they can to ignore it and fight the laws.)
- crunchlibrarian 8y agoIt seems like most of those rights have been eroded to near nothing. Effective wages (and minimum wage) have gone down in many places since the 1970s. Unemployment insurance is a luxury for white collar workers, few people get that benefit anymore. What are we preserving exactly? The memory of some ghost? That's the wrong stance, if you want to advocate for something in this area it should be with shameless and unbridled aggression for change and new systems, not defensiveness or preservation.
- pasquinelli 8y agoonce change is achieved it needs to be preserved and defended from attack, forever.
- hobls 8y agoI absolutely agree. We need to be fighting for modern legislation to protect workers as well as trying to hold on to badly eroded victories of many decades past. I must admit that I’ve been working white collar engineering jobs for nearly 15 years now, so I’m not exactly an authority on being a minimum wage worker. I thought you were still eligible for unemployment and that it was paid for by your employer?
- chimeracoder 8y ago> I must admit that I’ve been working white collar engineering jobs for nearly 15 years now, so I’m not exactly an authority on being a minimum wage worker. I thought you were still eligible for unemployment and that it was paid for by your employer? Yes, this is correct.
- knuththetruth 8y agoThe two things are not opposed to each other. The Fight for 15 movement has been successful in many places by explicitly invoking the true legacy of a “minimum wage,” socialized healthcare is more popular than ever under the banner of “Medicare for All.” I agree that it’s important to push intellectually beyond a reform-minded liberalism that seeks to “take the edges off” of Capitalism. But that doesn’t exclude using the history of labor protections or organization as a jumping off point.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoWe absolutely should be fighting for more. But we shouldn't be so hardlined on more that we lose what we have.
- ythn 8y agoIt's basically impossible to have nice things because people will always try to any little thing into a career and then complain when it isn't viable. Made an app so that kids can deliver lemonade on weekends to neighbors for a few bucks? Someone will try to make a career out of delivering lemonade full time and sue you because it doesn't pay a living wage with benefits.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> It's basically impossible to have nice things If by “nice things” you mean “maximally exploitative capitalist businesses”, sure.
- ythn 8y agoIt doesn't even have to be intentionally exploitative. People will exploit themselves. If I wanted to help clean up local communities, I could make an app that allows you to post trash bounties on your neighborhood, to be collected by people that accept the bounty and go clean it up. Soon: "CleanCommunities is an evil company! They maximally exploit professional trash bounty hunters with below minimum wage and no benefits, no protective equipment, etc!!!" Like, geez, I wasn't trying to exploit people, I just saw a litter problem in my community and tried to fix it... I didn't even intend for people to turn this into a full time job, more like a "volunteer service with benefits" type deal...
- e1ven 8y agoUber has tens of thousands of people who depend on it for a livelihood. They made $2.5 billion in profits last quarter. We're not talking about a lemonade stand.. It is far past the tipping-point where Uber has a social obligation to those workers.
- dragonwriter 8y agoAnd, sure, if the capitalist class got behind high higher taxes on capital income to pay for a UBI and/or otherwise much stronger social safety net, i’d be happy to consider weakening some employer obligations: there's a good argument that many are quasi-feudal and reduce mobility within and out of the proletariat by creating greater dependence on employers, and leave the chronically unemployed it in the cold and make it harder for them to move out of that state. But the idea that Uber is done kind of community service that doesn't center business around reducing wages in an existing area, and that the low wages are instead an example of people exploiting themselves in a way Uber in no way intended and intended to profit from is farcical.
- whb07 8y agoCan you explain to me why in other countries min-wage laws have been enacted as a racist policy to keep employment for a chosen people and suppression of the minorities?
- dragonwriter 8y agoThere have been groups (not just foreign) that have pushed minimum wage laws with that motivation (whether or not that effect would have been, or was for the efforts that passed, actually achieved.) Some key words of this: (1) the common belief that minimum wage suppresses employment overall (while there is much recent research suggesting that in real conditions this effect is not present or much smaller than naive assumptions, it is a common belief and moreso prior to that research; of it did do that, it is reasonable to expect the suppression would disproportionately impact groups that are already disadvantaged in wages, as targeted minorities often are. (2) in some cases, these laws were proposed in the context of existing racist policies and social institutions which produce the racially biased effect in conjunction with minimum wage, rather than minimum wage being the prime driver, e.g., in apartheid South Africa, white-only labor unions in industries that would normally employ whites exclusively but bring in black workers at abysmal wages as strike breakers if the cost differential was high enough proposed minimum wages to prevent that practice. (3) Minimum wage law can apply industry Specifically exceptions or differential wages, where there are pre-existing racial employment biases, to acheive racist ends. Can minimum wage be racist in effect, or motivation? Yes. Is it inherently so? No, details and context matter.
- whb07 8y agoI don’t think context matters in this case. It is interesting to note that the “context” in which minimum wage laws are argued for in different countries might be different, but the outcome is just the same. Whether it is out of ignorance or malice, the result is the same. A distortion of the markets and inevitable back firing. In the US the arguments for a minimum wage appear to be put forth under the auspices of “helping” the disadvantaged. Once the help gets established, the unemployment rates for minorities sky rockets. Calling a turd a flower doesn’t make it less of a turd. Below is a link to the great economist Thomas Sowell. It is always interesting to have a non economist and in this particular case a white lady try to tell him what the facts are regarding black employment as it relates to minimum wages. https://youtu.be/r4SIEl1j8e4 https://youtu.be/r4SIEl1j8e4
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Minimum wage laws, unemployment, etc, these are good things that should be preserved. Well, they are clumsy patches on top of an inhumane system of exploitation, and we could probably do a lot better, but preserving them is better than retrograde progress.
- slededit 8y agoThe number of contract workers is actually down since 2005. The BLS just released updated numbers recently. The "gig" economy is a made up story.
- e1ven 8y agoYour observation about the number of workers this effects seems out of place. For the many people who do work these jobs, this ruling strengthens their protection.
- slededit 8y agoThe "gig economy" perpetuates a false narrative that traditional jobs are being replaced with contractors. The numbers simply don't bear that out. It's tangential to whether or not contract worker protections should be enhanced. I correct misinformation when I see it. The world is awash in false information.
- Cthulhu_ 8y agoAre gig economy people included in that figure? It seems like a category on its own, contract workers (the way I see it) still get to work full-time instead of 'whatever the market demands'.
- slededit 8y agoUber drivers are contract workers (except in NY I guess). Yes they are included. A month ago we didn't have post Uber data. Now we do.
- rayvd 8y agoPeople choose to work where they work, right? Why should you or someone else get to define the conditions they think are mutually acceptable? Also, last I knew, Uber wasn't driving around forcing people to work for their service. The only thing exploitative here is the state and Taxi Lobby imposing conditions on the agreements you or I make with an employer. In the end it will mean fewer jobs for prospective Uber drivers and higher costs for people taking advantage of the service.
- heegemcgee 8y ago>People choose to work where they work, right? I chose to work as CEO of Amazon, but Amazon had other ideas.
- lliamander 8y agoA choice does not need to be completely unrestrained by logic or reality to be a free choice. The fact that you cannot choose to be the author of _War and Peace_ does not diminish the freedom you have in choosing to author non sequiturs on the internet.
- malvosenior 8y agoYou are 100% correct, it’s just not a popular opinion around here. I take Uber a lot and not once has a driver had anything bad to say about the “gig economy”. Most are thankful to make a couple extra bucks during their free time. Their ability to make that money is under constant attack by those who supposedly “know better” than they do about how they should be earning a living.
- jjulius 8y ago>I take Uber a lot and not once has a driver had anything bad to say about the “gig economy”. Most are thankful to make a couple extra bucks during their free time. Playing devil's advocate here, doesn't the need to provide quality customer service come into play? I'm not arguing that you can't provide good customer service while also communicating a negative opinion about the company you're driving for, but I've got to imagine that at least a portion of drivers feel like it might be uncouth to discuss something like that and opt to not complain.
- Cthulhu_ 8y agoYes they are; the idea of the gig economy is great, like, doing the odd job in your own time and earn some money, but there's so many people that went ahead and are doing it full time as their primary source of income. The employees then compete with each other, driving the price down. And Uber's laughing all the way to the bank because they don't need to care about it, they'll make money either way. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Uber was lowering the prices to get more consumers to use ubers more often.
- malvosenior 8y agoUber has been raising prices lately. > there's so many people that went ahead and are doing it full time as their primary source of income. Did you ever think that they do this because it’s their best opportunity and they’re acting rationally? That taking away the opportunity to drive for Uber would be bad for them? It’s a way to make money that didn’t used to exist and people want to kill it because it’s vaguely incompatible with their political ideas.
- hobls 8y agoWhat I’m suggesting is that if someone is driving for Uber they should be getting paid at or above minimum wage, and that they should have standard employment protections such as unemployment. This is not the same as wanting to kill Uber.
- lliamander 8y agoIt will significantly raise prices for customers. Do you use Uber presently(or other such services)? Would you use it if prices went up 50% or more?
- jpetso 8y agoShouldn't I have to factor in all externalities into my choice of transportation, and use the one that's the best choice overall? Why should I pay for the full price of my car but get a discount from Uber for offloading costs onto other people? (Note that I'm not saying Uber is actually doing this, that's just what the ruling implies.) If the two can't compare on equal footing then sure, why not skip the Uber instead.
- koolba 8y ago> This is important. We’re at risk of the “gig economy” undoing over a century of hard fought gains in workers rights. There's definitely work to be done to modernize our employment laws with the changes to the economy. It's not a clear cut "Everybody is an employee" though. If someone drives for Uber for 1-ride per month should Uber pay $1000/mo for that driver's health insurance? How about 1-ride per week? How about if they have the app "on" but never accept a ride? Should they be paid for the time they didn't do any driving? Clearly the driver isn't an employee in the traditional sense of the word. But they also aren't a totally independent contractor either as their livelihood is so closely tied to the platform of a private entity. My gut says to err on the side of not imposing restrictions or mandates until we figure out the right balance. > Minimum wage laws, unemployment, etc, these are good things that should be preserved. Unemployment insurance, as it's implemented in the USA through effectively a tax collected by a private entity, is a scamola. A better idea would be having the employee get their own private unemployment insurance. That would also lead to lower costs of insurance for workers that are less likely to be discharged. > Uber has clearly shown that they’re happy to be as exploitative as they’re allowed to be. (And that even when they’re specifically disallowed they’ll do everything they can to ignore it and fight the laws.) Nobody is forcing drivers to drive for Uber. An argument may be that they were enticed with higher rates that were subsequently lowered in some markets. There's also the argument that a lot of the drivers don't under the total costs involved (double payroll tax, depreciation, etc) but by itself offering work in the "gig economy" isn't exploitation. Uber (and Lyft, and ...) should be lauded for (net) creating thousands of jobs.
- ceejayoz 8y ago> If someone drives for Uber for 1-ride per month should Uber pay $1000/mo for that driver's health insurance? How about 1-ride per week? How about if they have the app "on" but never accept a ride? Should they be paid for the time they didn't do any driving? We already account for these situations due to part-time jobs. NY requires a certain amount of wages be met to be eligible for unemployment benefits, for example.
- scarface74 8y agoAnd watch Uber cut the pay of drivers to pay for unemployment benefits. A company has to pay into a state unemployment fund for drivers.
- chimeracoder 8y ago> This is important. We’re at risk of the “gig economy” undoing over a century of hard fought gains in workers rights. Not in this case. In New York, taxi drivers are licensed but not employees. Uber and Lyft drivers are all licensed by the TLC, so they're no different legally from any other black cab service. The situation may be different in other cities, but in New York, all of the established precedent so far classifies TLC drivers as independent contractors or self-employed.
- amyjess 8y ago> We’re at risk of the “gig economy” undoing over a century of hard fought gains in workers rights Consumer rights too. I've seen some really horrendous people on /r/Lyft arguing that they are well within their rights as independent contractors to refuse service to disabled people and if Lyft kicks them off the platform for it, they can sue Lyft for violating their rights as contractors. And you can replace "refuse service to disabled people" with any other form of mistreating customers, and you'll see people on /r/Lyft arguing for it and claiming that Lyft can't kick them off the platform for it. The gig economy needs to go.
- Agustus 8y agoIt should be noted that minimum wage laws are not good, from their original implementation to today. The original law was put in place to keep unskilled persons (read minorities of color) from taking white's jobs. The hard working unskilled people were learning the skills to take the white people's jobs at a lower rate, so they passed a bill that made it impossible to effectively climb up the wage ladder. Today it is used to keep people subservient to the government when the wage gets higher than an economy can bear, look at Puerto Rico and how unemployment was so high, the only jobs available were government jobs. Any economist who can look themselves in the mirror will tell you this.
- rayvd 8y agoScore one for Big Taxi!
- SamReidHughes 8y agoHow does this work if they drive for both Uber and Lyft?
- Cthulhu_ 8y agoThat's an interesting conundrum. I don't think Uber or Lyft has it in their terms that they forbid it. At the same time, they don't seem to compete enough on worker rights and pay either, so for the drivers it's not beneficial to go exclusive.
- e1ven 8y agoI would presume it would work the same as if you had two other part-time jobs, such as working at both Walmart and Best Buy.
- thanatropism 8y agoIt's different though. Part-time retail workers pledge their loyalty to Walmart from 9-13 and to Best Buy from 18-22. They're not instantly choosing which boss is paying better for the next 15 mins. You actually have to get someone to cover your shift if you need a mental health break or something -- otherwise, your relationship with Bestmart is strained and you might be out of work. For all of the phoniness behind phrases like "ride-sharing" and "gig economy", workers have never had a more horizontal relationship with their bosses -- except, perhaps, in higher pay-grade service sectors where "bosses" are referred to as "clients".
- TillE 8y ago> Part-time retail workers pledge their loyalty to Walmart from 9-13 and to Best Buy from 18-22. It's extremely common to not have fixed shifts. You ask for hours, and you get what you get. It's really not that different from accepting individual driving jobs.
- woolvalley 8y agoThere is also a dynamic where you are assigned shifts and if you don't make it your fired. Gets pretty dicy when you have two of them.
- cwilkes 8y agoI can understand filing for benefits if you were terminated by Uber (first one was for low ratings) but one of the plaintiffs quit because of low pay. Quitting for non egregious reasons (bad work environment, harassment, etc) is usually a blocker for filing for claims.
- ceejayoz 8y agoA significant drop in wages is generally considered "constructive dismissal" for unemployment purposes.
- chimeracoder 8y ago> A significant drop in wages is generally considered "constructive dismissal" for unemployment purposes. A significant drop in wages can be considered constructive dismissal, but it's generally difficult to prove without explicit evidence of the intention behind it. And in this case, it's pretty hard to make the argument that it constitutes constructive dismissal, since there is zero evidence that Uber acted in a way to target the driver by intentionally cutting their earnings specifically, whether or not those actions were intended to target or retaliate against the driver.
- ceejayoz 8y agoMy understanding is that wages are a bit of a special case. You'd have to demonstrate intent/targeting for something like "they made me shovel elephant poop instead of my usual tasks". A significant wage drop is inherently constructive dismissal as wage/salary tends to be most people's single most important criteria for accepting the job.
- chimeracoder 8y ago> A significant wage drop is inherently constructive dismissal as wage/salary tends to be most people's single most important criteria for accepting the job. For a job in which pay directly correlates to job performance (such as tipped labor, or number of passengers driven, as in this case), you would have to demonstrate a number of things, including: (a) the low pay represented a change (if the pay was consistently and comparably low since the beginning, nothing was constructed) (b) the change in pay did not stem from a change in performance or the drivers' choice of hours worked In this case, it's not clear that (a) applies, and it's almost certain that (b) does not, because there's no evidence that Uber made decisions that changed the take-home pay of the driver directly (such as reducing the driver's share, except insofar as any initial signup promotions expired, which would not constitute constructive dismissal).
- cm2012 8y agoAnd yet Taxis weren't for 100 years? Taxi drivers were even more restricted and were still not employees.
- ceejayoz 8y agoA neighbor of mine is a taxi driver. I can call the number on their cab (or their business card) and get them, specifically. I can also hail them if I see them on the street. That seems like a far more legitimate "independent contractor" relationship than the one Uber sets up between drivers and riders.
- chimeracoder 8y ago> That seems like a far more legitimate "independent contractor" relationship than the one Uber sets up between drivers and riders. The relationship that Uber sets up between drivers and riders in NYC is exactly the same as the relationship that all FHV services in NYC set up between licensed drivers and riders. Uber operates as an FHV service, no differently from any other. EDIT: Before downvoting, you may want to look up the facts here. In NYC, unlike some other cities, Uber and its drivers are licensed by the TLC. There is literally zero distinction between the operations of them from any other FHV service.
- ceejayoz 8y ago> Before downvoting, you may want to look up the facts here. In NYC, unlike some other cities, Uber and its drivers are licensed by the TLC. If this ruling were limited to NYC, that'd be relevant.
- chimeracoder 8y ago> If this ruling were limited to NYC, that'd be relevant. It would be relevant either way, but in this case it's a state department ruling on a case brought by a group of NYC drivers against Uber's operations in NYC. So yes, it is actually totally fair to point out that Uber's role in this case is exactly the same as the role any other FHV company plays.
- pitaj 8y agoThis is absolutely ridiculous and just more cronyism on behalf of the taxi companies. Uber and Lyft drivers are definitively independent contractors. There is no legitimate argument otherwise, and pretending like they are is just showing the bias of these bureaucrats.
- peacetreefrog 8y agoDeciding to drive for Uber is a mutually beneficial transaction between consenting adults (or an adult and a company). If the driver wasn't benefiting, they'd do something else. Well-intentioned (by some people, prob most people on HN) and not so well-intentioned (anti-competitive lobbying by taxis) efforts to make the relationship less "exploitative" are likely doing more harm than good. What happens when the gov mandates all these extra benefits? "Drivers WILL earn more money!" The answer is some combination of: Uber becomes costlier, people take fewer rides (or growth is slower than it should be), and some people who are perfectly willing and able to drive right now are unable to do so. Or (if demand is more inelastic) a bunch of new drivers decide the new benefits make it worth entering the market, and not everyone who wants to drive can/people sit around idle, etc. Either way, you're hurting consumers and many existing drivers.
- LarryDarrell 8y agoEvery gig-based employer needs to be lobbying hard for universal health care. It's not the only benefit of being a employee, but it's a big one. If we keep insisting that only employees get health care then people are going to want to be considered employees.
- peacetreefrog 8y ago"Regular" employees don't have universal health care. It's just that employers get a tax deduction for employer provided group insurance. Most economists believe this is hugely inefficient and a big policy mistake. If we're lobbying hard for pie in the sky goals, it'd be better to get rid of that (or let employers deduct contributions to individual plans instead) instead of applying the same crappy policy to gig economy jobs too.
- peacetreefrog 8y agoI really think one of the biggest blindspots of the (generally well-intentioned, smart) crowd at HN is lack of appreciation of economics and markets, and the belief that tinkering with these markets for the better is as simple as turning a dial on a knob (or passing a law, or getting a good ruling in a court case). Good article with related thoughts on this: http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2005/Robertsmarkets.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2005/Robertsmarkets....
- potlee 8y agoHow is this not going to result in even lower take home pay for drivers? Uber does not have the margins to absorb the cost. They will certainly pass it on the drivers. They could increase pricing, but that dampens demand, which given how many drivers are out there, could be really bad for driver utilization and hourly earnings.
- YoyoyoPCP 8y agoI find it so funny when the state/government requires businesses to compensate people in some minimal way. If you think people need X dollars or Y benefits to live a comfortable life, why don't you give it to them? /rant
- foepys 8y agoWho would pay for that? Businesses through higher taxes?
- YoyoyoPCP 8y agoSure! At least it would be a clear, defined system.
- ball_of_lint 8y agoThey do it precisely because of people who share that idea with you. Minimum wage may increase unemployment a small amount but the positive effects are ensuring that those people who have the lowest paying jobs are able to afford to live. Similarly with unemployment and welfare. For many people losing their jobs or taking a pay cut would mean becoming homeless or being unable to feed themselves. If you think that there are enough charitable people in the world to voluntarily sustain you through the end of your natural life, I invite you to try it out.
- YoyoyoPCP 8y agoApologies, I must have worded that too vaguely. I meant the state should minimally pay people the amount they believe to be a livable wage.
- lotsofpulp 8y agoJust like healthcare, everyone believes no one should be left to die without healthcare, but when it comes to voting for politicians who support government funded healthcare for everyone, apparently we don't believe that. Better to try and get someone else to pay for it.