7 ms·

> 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 mo

by 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.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    And watch the drivers switch to Lyft or one of the many smaller local competitors...
    - scarface74 8y ago
      Why do you suppose that Lyft wouldn't do the same thing? It's not like the equally unprofitable Lyft could just take the hit. If the drivers go to one of the local competitors that no one has heard of, what are the chances that people from out of town or even native New Yorkers will have heard of them? The drivers have to go where the users are. All of the companies will either have to raise rates or cut the amount they are paying drivers. Uber and Lyft can't just keeping banking on their VC benefactors forever. Eventually they have to turn a profit.
      - mmt 8y ago
        > Uber and Lyft can't just keeping banking on their VC benefactors forever. The other accusation I've heard, relevant to the discussion at hand, is that they're (also) banking on shifting the costs of externalities onto the drivers and/or the social safety net. > Eventually they have to turn a profit. Or go out of business, which could be considered beneficial if they're banking more on the externalities than VCs.
    - woolvalley 8y ago
      The law would equally apply to them. Remember the original & current taxi model is to rent a medallion car for $3000/month as an independent contractor. Except in this model, you are $3k in debt at the start of the month and have to work an undefined amount of hours to make up that debt + have enough to live on at the end of it. In that world, Uber is an improvement.
randomdata 8y ago
> But they also aren't a totally independent contractor either as their livelihood is so closely tied to the platform of a private entity. Does this also mean that, say, an iOS developer could be considered an employee of Apple due to their livelihood being closely tied to that platform?
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  Sure, why not. Especially since Apple forces indie IOS devs to provide their service via the App Store and takes a cut and enforces a bunch of rules and regs about what it takes to be allowed to be in the store in the first place.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Does that mean all console app makers should also be employees of Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo since you either have to sell your app digitally through their store or even if you sell your app on a physical disc it still has to be approved by the platform owner and they get a cut.
  - msla 8y ago
    OK, if they're employees, can they be fired? Can they be fired based on workplace policies, like "no long hair on men" or "no discussion of politics on social media"? How would that interact with state employment laws, which may or may not recognize a different mix of protected classes?
    - candiodari 8y ago
      You know we do have labor laws. You're acting as if we're going to rewrite them from scratch. So, given current laws: 1) "no long hair on men" - yes, if presentation is reasonably considered important (which I would say it probably is). Obviously not without a few warnings. 2) "no discussion of politics on social media" - no, you can't fire for this. Also, the IRS has rules about when someone is an employee versus contractor: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contractor-designation https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contr... Whilst they are open to interpretation to some degree, I would say that Uber drivers are clearly employees, as the degree of behavioral and financial control Uber has is extreme, and Uber provides benefits (insurance), and the relationship is indefinite, and Sony game publishers (aside from the obvious difference in size, which makes the argument entirely ridiculous) are contractors.
callalex 8y ago
I agree that privatizing unemployment insurance would lower costs for reliable, low risk employees by shifting the burden to higher risk people, but is that a good thing? The kind of people that can’t hold down a job are exactly the people that need unemployment benefits the most. Not everyone can’t hold down a job just lazy, many have mental or physical disabilities that make holding a job more challenging, and those are exactly the kind of people that can’t afford extra insurance in the first place.
- totalrobe 8y ago
  Exactly - why do some people consider it a win when folks that are already low risk (and likely high income and most able to afford it) get to pay less?
thanatropism 8y ago
This is a lot like the story of slave-like labor conditions for Nike in Indonesia or Bangladesh and such. From our comfy seats and nice intellectually stimulating jobs, it really looks like Bangladesh should be standing up for its workers and telling Nike what's what. But then Nike will just move to neighboring starving Nepal, and Bangladeshis will have to return to farming and being affected by flooding and having a really, really bad time. It's bad that things are bad, but it's good that they could be worse otherwise.
- c22 8y ago
  Obviously the alternatives have to be worse in order for exploitive business models to thrive. If there were better options, people wouldn't allow themselves to be exploited. This still doesn't justify running a business on exploitation and it definitely doesn't turn the practice into some sort of charitable good.
  - malandrew 8y ago
    Unless someone buys 100% fair-trade products, they are basically complicit in the exploitation. People most likely to purchase exploitative goods are those that are earning the least. Making these goods more expensive will just plunge people into poverty. This is why more people in 4-season climates freeze to death in the winter when the price of oil goes up. We're all part of complex systems and collectively as buyers we act as a forcing function on prices that leads to these practices you disapprove of.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      No. The people running these companies are adults, who are fully capable of being responsible for their own actions. They know right from wrong. The fault of exploiting workers is 100000% on them, and them alone.
  - thanatropism 8y ago
    > If there were better options, Please tell me if there's a better way to run this system than "global universal basic income". Because man, world government has its downsides too.
rayiner 8y ago
> Unemployment insurance, as it's implemented in the USA through effectively a tax collected by a private entity, is a scamola. In every state I'm aware of, unemployment insurance is managed by the State. It is a form of social welfare, and the government will intervene to e.g. extend unemployment benefits during periods of high unemployment. Applicants for benefits also cannot be denied on a case-by-case basis, and certain groups of people almost certainly receive more in benefits than they pay in. Private insurance would not achieve the same objectives.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Applicants can be denied unemployment benefits if the reason for their unemployment is their fault, such as not showing up to work, poor work performance, tardiness, resignation, etc. Employers' unemployment premiums rise in proportion to the number of former employees they have that qualify for unemployment benefits. Hence why it's important for employers to document the reasons for terminating someone, as it will result in more people being denied for unemployment insurance (if it was their fault) and employer saves money on their premiums.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    That's true--people fired for cause are categorically ineligible. What I mean is that individuals cannot be denied based on case-by-case analysis of their job history i.e. actuarial analysis of whether they are likely to receive more in insurance payouts than they pay in.
athenot 8y ago
> If someone drives for Uber for 1-ride per month should Uber pay $1000/mo for that driver's health insurance? It's no different than any other company. Most places have benefit levels tied to work levels. Working full time you get full benefits, for part time your benefits are lower and below a threshold, there are almost no benefits.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
protonimitate 8y ago
>> But they also aren't a totally independent contractor either as their livelihood is so closely tied to the platform of a private entity. It's this weird middle-area that I think is causing the most friction. As a thought experiment, I wonder what would happen if these platforms allowed drivers to set their own rates on a per trip or per session basis. As an independent contractor, you have complete control over how much you charge in order to make up for the burden of no benefits and heavy taxes.
galazzah 8y ago
> My gut says to err on the side of not imposing restrictions or mandates until we figure out the right balance. I would rather not wait until more workers lose their lives.
will_brown 8y ago
>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. Something tells me you’re not very familiar with the history of Uber’s business practices. It’s pretty easy to “create jobs” when you can move into jurisdictions and skirt the local laws. In some cases, for example Pensacola Florida (where ride sharing was criminal), Uber solicited drivers from other counties where ride sharing was legal, with bonuses, to provide services in Pensacola during spring break. One of those drivers was arrested almost immediately. In counties throughout Florida where ride sharing was illegal (civilly and criminally) Uber drivers racked up millions in fines that have never been paid. Why? Because Uber paid for their own lobbiest (who is a lawyer) to represent the drivers in court and then literally did nothing on their case and just let them linger. This is all beneficial to Uber and damaging to drivers. Not to mention other issues such as Uber training driver in these jurisdictions on how to avoid detection by police. One day someone might put together a study of the total numbers of drivers who now have criminal records for nothing more that becoming an Uber driver...when you get a criminal record for doing what you were hired to do, that should fit the very definition of exploitation.
- scarface74 8y ago
  The other side is not innocent either. It’s called “regulatory capture”. The entrenched interests - the taxi companies - have a vested interest in the status quo. It’s similsr to the auto dealers preventing Tesla from selling directly.
  - will_brown 8y ago
    The taxi companies were operating under a certain regulatory framework...it’s easy to “disrupt” the industry is you break the law while others are complying with the regulatory frame work. Consider if a new “start up” pharmacy started selling drugs without prescriptions...then claiming the existing pharmacies aren’t innocent and have a vested interest in the status quo. It’s easy to “disrupt” when you ignore the law. You also gloss over this idea...no taxi driver is breaking the law and gets arrest purely for doing what they were hired to do. Uber hired drivers and fed them rides in jurisdictions where the activity was illegal. It’s those drivers with criminal records who have paid the price not Uber, that’s Uber’s current vested interest shifting legal liability for their illegal business activities to their drivers.
heroprotagonist 8y ago
> My gut says to err on the side of not imposing restrictions or mandates until we figure out the right balance. The biggest problem with this approach is that it's often used to delay action until it's well beyond the point where it becomes necessary. It's very similar to the 'Well, we just don't know, and we need to do research' approach that tobacco companies used, very successfully, for decades in the arguments about whether their products cause cancer. In the case of Uber, one state implementing these stricter measures is actually a good way to collect the needed data to make these decisions on a wider scale across the country. NY will take this approach and we'll see the results. Other states can look at those results and try to figure out a better way.
- malandrew 8y ago
  This is a very blatant straw man argument. For every tobacco industry, you can find dozens of examples where we ended up with onerous regulation passed by an overzealous congress person.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I don't think you'll find more instances of overburdensome regulation than you'll find of too little regulation.
    - woolvalley 8y ago
      The GDPR would like to talk to you, and the looming new EU 'copyright' law would also like to talk to you.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        Yes, the GDPR is an excellent example of there being too little regulation in an area, allowing ad companies to hoover up every bit of personal information without consequence. The GDPR should have been enacted long ago.
talltimtom 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?” Yes! A thousand times yes! Just because Uber is letting everyone i the door doesn’t mean they should get to dictate new terms of what employment means. Imagine your employeer removing your healthcare and defending the decision with the argument “well we’ve now set it up so anyone can just walk in the door and start working and we’ll pay them per hour worked. I know that’s not what you are doing but we have to treat everyone the same so we’re also cutting your pay”.
- malandrew 8y ago
  Your policy would not have the impact of getting Uber to pay the $1000/mo in unemployment insurance for everyone that wants to drive for them. Instead it would have the impact of eliminating the offer of jobs to anyone not driving enough to justify the unemployment insurance. It's essentially a job destroying policy in a time when we see increasing automation and therefore very counterproductive.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I flat out do not buy this argument. Business is always going to complain about any kind of worker's rights, claiming they'll "kill jobs". Given the record low unemployment rate, I do not believe them.
    - tomnipotent 8y ago
      No, it's Basic Business 101. It's called managing cash flow and a balance sheet, and this sort of arrangement would drain them of all their cash without any benefit to the company. A company with no cash employs 0 people and then nobody wins.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        I don't buy this argument. Of course a company doesn't want to spend money on their employees, and so they will do whatever they can to avoid it. That doesn't mean they should be able to get away with it. This kind of argument, that regulations "kill jobs" is not supported by reality, and is just them threatening to take their ball and go home if they don't get their way, like the spoiled child on the playground.

by koolba 8y ago

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.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  And watch the drivers switch to Lyft or one of the many smaller local competitors...
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Why do you suppose that Lyft wouldn't do the same thing? It's not like the equally unprofitable Lyft could just take the hit. If the drivers go to one of the local competitors that no one has heard of, what are the chances that people from out of town or even native New Yorkers will have heard of them? The drivers have to go where the users are. All of the companies will either have to raise rates or cut the amount they are paying drivers. Uber and Lyft can't just keeping banking on their VC benefactors forever. Eventually they have to turn a profit.
    - mmt 8y ago
      > Uber and Lyft can't just keeping banking on their VC benefactors forever. The other accusation I've heard, relevant to the discussion at hand, is that they're (also) banking on shifting the costs of externalities onto the drivers and/or the social safety net. > Eventually they have to turn a profit. Or go out of business, which could be considered beneficial if they're banking more on the externalities than VCs.
  - woolvalley 8y ago
    The law would equally apply to them. Remember the original & current taxi model is to rent a medallion car for $3000/month as an independent contractor. Except in this model, you are $3k in debt at the start of the month and have to work an undefined amount of hours to make up that debt + have enough to live on at the end of it. In that world, Uber is an improvement.

randomdata 8y ago

> But they also aren't a totally independent contractor either as their livelihood is so closely tied to the platform of a private entity. Does this also mean that, say, an iOS developer could be considered an employee of Apple due to their livelihood being closely tied to that platform?

pnw_hazor 8y ago
Sure, why not. Especially since Apple forces indie IOS devs to provide their service via the App Store and takes a cut and enforces a bunch of rules and regs about what it takes to be allowed to be in the store in the first place.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Does that mean all console app makers should also be employees of Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo since you either have to sell your app digitally through their store or even if you sell your app on a physical disc it still has to be approved by the platform owner and they get a cut.
- msla 8y ago
  OK, if they're employees, can they be fired? Can they be fired based on workplace policies, like "no long hair on men" or "no discussion of politics on social media"? How would that interact with state employment laws, which may or may not recognize a different mix of protected classes?
  - candiodari 8y ago
    You know we do have labor laws. You're acting as if we're going to rewrite them from scratch. So, given current laws: 1) "no long hair on men" - yes, if presentation is reasonably considered important (which I would say it probably is). Obviously not without a few warnings. 2) "no discussion of politics on social media" - no, you can't fire for this. Also, the IRS has rules about when someone is an employee versus contractor: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contractor-designation https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contr... Whilst they are open to interpretation to some degree, I would say that Uber drivers are clearly employees, as the degree of behavioral and financial control Uber has is extreme, and Uber provides benefits (insurance), and the relationship is indefinite, and Sony game publishers (aside from the obvious difference in size, which makes the argument entirely ridiculous) are contractors.

callalex 8y ago

I agree that privatizing unemployment insurance would lower costs for reliable, low risk employees by shifting the burden to higher risk people, but is that a good thing? The kind of people that can’t hold down a job are exactly the people that need unemployment benefits the most. Not everyone can’t hold down a job just lazy, many have mental or physical disabilities that make holding a job more challenging, and those are exactly the kind of people that can’t afford extra insurance in the first place.

totalrobe 8y ago
Exactly - why do some people consider it a win when folks that are already low risk (and likely high income and most able to afford it) get to pay less?

thanatropism 8y ago

This is a lot like the story of slave-like labor conditions for Nike in Indonesia or Bangladesh and such. From our comfy seats and nice intellectually stimulating jobs, it really looks like Bangladesh should be standing up for its workers and telling Nike what's what. But then Nike will just move to neighboring starving Nepal, and Bangladeshis will have to return to farming and being affected by flooding and having a really, really bad time. It's bad that things are bad, but it's good that they could be worse otherwise.

c22 8y ago
Obviously the alternatives have to be worse in order for exploitive business models to thrive. If there were better options, people wouldn't allow themselves to be exploited. This still doesn't justify running a business on exploitation and it definitely doesn't turn the practice into some sort of charitable good.
- malandrew 8y ago
  Unless someone buys 100% fair-trade products, they are basically complicit in the exploitation. People most likely to purchase exploitative goods are those that are earning the least. Making these goods more expensive will just plunge people into poverty. This is why more people in 4-season climates freeze to death in the winter when the price of oil goes up. We're all part of complex systems and collectively as buyers we act as a forcing function on prices that leads to these practices you disapprove of.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    No. The people running these companies are adults, who are fully capable of being responsible for their own actions. They know right from wrong. The fault of exploiting workers is 100000% on them, and them alone.
- thanatropism 8y ago
  > If there were better options, Please tell me if there's a better way to run this system than "global universal basic income". Because man, world government has its downsides too.

rayiner 8y ago

> Unemployment insurance, as it's implemented in the USA through effectively a tax collected by a private entity, is a scamola. In every state I'm aware of, unemployment insurance is managed by the State. It is a form of social welfare, and the government will intervene to e.g. extend unemployment benefits during periods of high unemployment. Applicants for benefits also cannot be denied on a case-by-case basis, and certain groups of people almost certainly receive more in benefits than they pay in. Private insurance would not achieve the same objectives.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
Applicants can be denied unemployment benefits if the reason for their unemployment is their fault, such as not showing up to work, poor work performance, tardiness, resignation, etc. Employers' unemployment premiums rise in proportion to the number of former employees they have that qualify for unemployment benefits. Hence why it's important for employers to document the reasons for terminating someone, as it will result in more people being denied for unemployment insurance (if it was their fault) and employer saves money on their premiums.
- rayiner 8y ago
  That's true--people fired for cause are categorically ineligible. What I mean is that individuals cannot be denied based on case-by-case analysis of their job history i.e. actuarial analysis of whether they are likely to receive more in insurance payouts than they pay in.

athenot 8y ago

> If someone drives for Uber for 1-ride per month should Uber pay $1000/mo for that driver's health insurance? It's no different than any other company. Most places have benefit levels tied to work levels. Working full time you get full benefits, for part time your benefits are lower and below a threshold, there are almost no benefits.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

protonimitate 8y ago

>> But they also aren't a totally independent contractor either as their livelihood is so closely tied to the platform of a private entity. It's this weird middle-area that I think is causing the most friction. As a thought experiment, I wonder what would happen if these platforms allowed drivers to set their own rates on a per trip or per session basis. As an independent contractor, you have complete control over how much you charge in order to make up for the burden of no benefits and heavy taxes.

galazzah 8y ago

> My gut says to err on the side of not imposing restrictions or mandates until we figure out the right balance. I would rather not wait until more workers lose their lives.

will_brown 8y ago

>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. Something tells me you’re not very familiar with the history of Uber’s business practices. It’s pretty easy to “create jobs” when you can move into jurisdictions and skirt the local laws. In some cases, for example Pensacola Florida (where ride sharing was criminal), Uber solicited drivers from other counties where ride sharing was legal, with bonuses, to provide services in Pensacola during spring break. One of those drivers was arrested almost immediately. In counties throughout Florida where ride sharing was illegal (civilly and criminally) Uber drivers racked up millions in fines that have never been paid. Why? Because Uber paid for their own lobbiest (who is a lawyer) to represent the drivers in court and then literally did nothing on their case and just let them linger. This is all beneficial to Uber and damaging to drivers. Not to mention other issues such as Uber training driver in these jurisdictions on how to avoid detection by police. One day someone might put together a study of the total numbers of drivers who now have criminal records for nothing more that becoming an Uber driver...when you get a criminal record for doing what you were hired to do, that should fit the very definition of exploitation.

scarface74 8y ago
The other side is not innocent either. It’s called “regulatory capture”. The entrenched interests - the taxi companies - have a vested interest in the status quo. It’s similsr to the auto dealers preventing Tesla from selling directly.
- will_brown 8y ago
  The taxi companies were operating under a certain regulatory framework...it’s easy to “disrupt” the industry is you break the law while others are complying with the regulatory frame work. Consider if a new “start up” pharmacy started selling drugs without prescriptions...then claiming the existing pharmacies aren’t innocent and have a vested interest in the status quo. It’s easy to “disrupt” when you ignore the law. You also gloss over this idea...no taxi driver is breaking the law and gets arrest purely for doing what they were hired to do. Uber hired drivers and fed them rides in jurisdictions where the activity was illegal. It’s those drivers with criminal records who have paid the price not Uber, that’s Uber’s current vested interest shifting legal liability for their illegal business activities to their drivers.

heroprotagonist 8y ago

> My gut says to err on the side of not imposing restrictions or mandates until we figure out the right balance. The biggest problem with this approach is that it's often used to delay action until it's well beyond the point where it becomes necessary. It's very similar to the 'Well, we just don't know, and we need to do research' approach that tobacco companies used, very successfully, for decades in the arguments about whether their products cause cancer. In the case of Uber, one state implementing these stricter measures is actually a good way to collect the needed data to make these decisions on a wider scale across the country. NY will take this approach and we'll see the results. Other states can look at those results and try to figure out a better way.

malandrew 8y ago
This is a very blatant straw man argument. For every tobacco industry, you can find dozens of examples where we ended up with onerous regulation passed by an overzealous congress person.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I don't think you'll find more instances of overburdensome regulation than you'll find of too little regulation.
  - woolvalley 8y ago
    The GDPR would like to talk to you, and the looming new EU 'copyright' law would also like to talk to you.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Yes, the GDPR is an excellent example of there being too little regulation in an area, allowing ad companies to hoover up every bit of personal information without consequence. The GDPR should have been enacted long ago.

talltimtom 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?” Yes! A thousand times yes! Just because Uber is letting everyone i the door doesn’t mean they should get to dictate new terms of what employment means. Imagine your employeer removing your healthcare and defending the decision with the argument “well we’ve now set it up so anyone can just walk in the door and start working and we’ll pay them per hour worked. I know that’s not what you are doing but we have to treat everyone the same so we’re also cutting your pay”.

malandrew 8y ago
Your policy would not have the impact of getting Uber to pay the $1000/mo in unemployment insurance for everyone that wants to drive for them. Instead it would have the impact of eliminating the offer of jobs to anyone not driving enough to justify the unemployment insurance. It's essentially a job destroying policy in a time when we see increasing automation and therefore very counterproductive.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I flat out do not buy this argument. Business is always going to complain about any kind of worker's rights, claiming they'll "kill jobs". Given the record low unemployment rate, I do not believe them.
  - tomnipotent 8y ago
    No, it's Basic Business 101. It's called managing cash flow and a balance sheet, and this sort of arrangement would drain them of all their cash without any benefit to the company. A company with no cash employs 0 people and then nobody wins.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      I don't buy this argument. Of course a company doesn't want to spend money on their employees, and so they will do whatever they can to avoid it. That doesn't mean they should be able to get away with it. This kind of argument, that regulations "kill jobs" is not supported by reality, and is just them threatening to take their ball and go home if they don't get their way, like the spoiled child on the playground.