4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoNo, 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 agoI 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 agoIt'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 agoAnd 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.