2 ms·

Something like “A contractor who accepts tasks through electronic communications generated by an automated system, and where the automated system could reasonab

by btown 8y ago

Something like “A contractor who accepts tasks through electronic communications generated by an automated system, and where the automated system could reasonably collect sufficient data to know how much time is spent exclusively on that task by the contractor, shall be entitled to at least minimum wage and ... for the time spent on the task.” We don’t want to remove the ability for a true contractor to work on spec, or for non-cash remuneration, when they can negotiate with a human counterparty. But if you’re being given orders by an inhuman system, you deserve at least some of the protections employees receive against inhumane employers. Unfortunately, this wipes out e.g. U.S. based Mechanical Turkers, some of whom have health or other restrictions preventing them from getting minimum wage jobs. Haven’t figured out a solve for that yet. But hopefully the actual drafters of legislation would! (Also, this really makes me want an IDE to crowdsource lawmaking, linting to make the legalese exact, with verified lawyers reviewing PRs. Give the crowd the same ability that lobbyists have to spoon-feed legislation to lawmakers.)

viscanti 8y ago
> But if you’re being given orders by an inhuman system, you deserve at least some of the protections employees receive against inhumane employers. Why? If there were better options out there then Lyft wouldn't have any drivers. Lyft has over one million drivers, which means that for those people there weren't any better opportunities. Lyft isn't profitable even at that lower level without benefits or the extra protections you're arguing for, but still over a million people choose to drive for them. Why take away the best opportunity those people have? Why not put the blame on literally every other company out there, because they all failed these Lyft drivers, leaving Lyft as their best work opportunity.
- username223 8y ago
  Haven't I read this somewhere before? Oh, yes: "Are there no prisons?" "Plenty of prisons..." "And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" "Both very busy, sir..." "Those who are badly off must go there." "Many can't go there; and many would rather die." "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

by btown 8y ago

viscanti 8y ago

> But if you’re being given orders by an inhuman system, you deserve at least some of the protections employees receive against inhumane employers. Why? If there were better options out there then Lyft wouldn't have any drivers. Lyft has over one million drivers, which means that for those people there weren't any better opportunities. Lyft isn't profitable even at that lower level without benefits or the extra protections you're arguing for, but still over a million people choose to drive for them. Why take away the best opportunity those people have? Why not put the blame on literally every other company out there, because they all failed these Lyft drivers, leaving Lyft as their best work opportunity.

username223 8y ago
Haven't I read this somewhere before? Oh, yes: "Are there no prisons?" "Plenty of prisons..." "And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" "Both very busy, sir..." "Those who are badly off must go there." "Many can't go there; and many would rather die." "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."