3 ms·

“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

“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.
      - tomnipotent 8y ago
        It's literally financially untenable to have more costs for employees than the revenue they bring in. This is basic math and no amount of "I don't buy this" is going to change that reality.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        And the part I don't buy is that this is the case. I don't buy that Uber can't afford to treat their employees like people, and if they actually can't, then they need to go out of business so companies that can are able to grow.
woolvalley 8y ago
The problem with America is to save on budget, the govt pushes responsibilities that should be its own responsibility onto corporations themselves, create a huge host of problems beyond this uber controversy. In a country with govt healthcare & unemployment insurance, people being casual piece workers with a large corporation shouldn't be controversial beyond minimum wage. Because maybe the only difference is some tax paperwork. AFAIK, other large minimum wage corps (like restaurants) force their workers to be part time to avoid having to pay these mandated benefits. Wouldn't that apply with these 1hr/month uber drivers?
johnnycakes608 8y ago
Cabs became bloated and inefficient in most large cities in the US because of the unions/medallion system. Uber was supposed to be the answer to that, because anyone could drive a cab and make some extra money on the side. With more and more regulation, you are essentially creating another large and bloated system. It also will impact the type of people that will be able to drive for Uber. If these regulations become the norm, there will be a fraction of the amount of people driving that will have to go through more of a formal/traditional hiring process. Anything else will cost the company too much money. "Imagine your employeer removing your healthcare and defending the decision" Uber shouldn't be considered an 'employer'. I am a software contractor and sometimes complete projects that only take a week and I never talk to the client again. This client shouldn't be paying for my health insurance. It's not really Uber's fault that drivers decide to use them as their sole source of income. You really need to weigh the costs of driving, how much you earn, and if you can afford insurance. I figured this was common sense.

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.
    - tomnipotent 8y ago
      It's literally financially untenable to have more costs for employees than the revenue they bring in. This is basic math and no amount of "I don't buy this" is going to change that reality.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        And the part I don't buy is that this is the case. I don't buy that Uber can't afford to treat their employees like people, and if they actually can't, then they need to go out of business so companies that can are able to grow.

woolvalley 8y ago

The problem with America is to save on budget, the govt pushes responsibilities that should be its own responsibility onto corporations themselves, create a huge host of problems beyond this uber controversy. In a country with govt healthcare & unemployment insurance, people being casual piece workers with a large corporation shouldn't be controversial beyond minimum wage. Because maybe the only difference is some tax paperwork. AFAIK, other large minimum wage corps (like restaurants) force their workers to be part time to avoid having to pay these mandated benefits. Wouldn't that apply with these 1hr/month uber drivers?

johnnycakes608 8y ago

Cabs became bloated and inefficient in most large cities in the US because of the unions/medallion system. Uber was supposed to be the answer to that, because anyone could drive a cab and make some extra money on the side. With more and more regulation, you are essentially creating another large and bloated system. It also will impact the type of people that will be able to drive for Uber. If these regulations become the norm, there will be a fraction of the amount of people driving that will have to go through more of a formal/traditional hiring process. Anything else will cost the company too much money. "Imagine your employeer removing your healthcare and defending the decision" Uber shouldn't be considered an 'employer'. I am a software contractor and sometimes complete projects that only take a week and I never talk to the client again. This client shouldn't be paying for my health insurance. It's not really Uber's fault that drivers decide to use them as their sole source of income. You really need to weigh the costs of driving, how much you earn, and if you can afford insurance. I figured this was common sense.