8 ms·

This 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

by hobls 8y ago

This 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 ago
It 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 ago
  once change is achieved it needs to be preserved and defended from attack, forever.
- hobls 8y ago
  I 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 ago
  The 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 ago
  We absolutely should be fighting for more. But we shouldn't be so hardlined on more that we lose what we have.
ythn 8y ago
It'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 ago
    It 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 ago
      Uber 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 ago
        And, 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 ago
Can 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 ago
  There 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 ago
    I 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Your 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 ago
    The "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 ago
  Are 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 ago
    Uber 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.
    - mbesto 8y ago
      Source please?
      - slededit 8y ago
        https://work.qz.com/1296208/gig-economy-data-from-the-bls-the-federal-government-is-about-to-release-statistics-on-nontraditional-employment/ https://work.qz.com/1296208/gig-economy-data-from-the-bls-th...
rayvd 8y ago
People 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 ago
    A 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 ago
  You 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 ago
Yes 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 ago
  Uber 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 ago
    What 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 ago
      It 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 ago
        Shouldn'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 ago
    And 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 ago
It 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.

by hobls 8y ago

crunchlibrarian 8y ago

It 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 ago
once change is achieved it needs to be preserved and defended from attack, forever.
hobls 8y ago
I 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 ago
The 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 ago
We absolutely should be fighting for more. But we shouldn't be so hardlined on more that we lose what we have.

ythn 8y ago

It'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 ago
  It 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 ago
    Uber 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 ago
      And, 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 ago

Can 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 ago
There 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 ago
  I 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 ago

The 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 ago
Your 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 ago
  The "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 ago
Are 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 ago
  Uber 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.
  - mbesto 8y ago
    Source please?
    - slededit 8y ago
      https://work.qz.com/1296208/gig-economy-data-from-the-bls-the-federal-government-is-about-to-release-statistics-on-nontraditional-employment/ https://work.qz.com/1296208/gig-economy-data-from-the-bls-th...

rayvd 8y ago

People 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 ago
  A 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 ago
You 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 ago

Yes 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 ago
Uber 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 ago
  What 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 ago
    It 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 ago
      Shouldn'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 ago
  And 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 ago

It 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.