3 ms·

> How much help did he earn? How much does he deserve? The money a driver gets paid is the help. That seems naïve and inhumane. Compensation and benefits are u

> How much help did he earn? How much does he deserve? The money a driver gets paid is the help. That seems naïve and inhumane. Compensation and benefits are understood to be separate things in the US at this time. From social security to health insurance, the costs of securing such things without an employer (an entity on the other side of the wealth gap, usually) are often untenable. > Forcing Lyft to hire employees instead of contractors won't mean there will be more workers with a safety-net; it means there won't be any Lyft. That would be bad for both drivers and the people being driven. The choice between untenably-expensive benefits as a contractor or untenably-unaffordable benefits as an unemployed person is no choice at all--especially for people with health problems/children/debt. Ignoring the people being driven (I'mma say that the benefit to the most needy customers of Lyft is negligible compared to the costs/benefits to the drivers in this scenario--otherwise we should have a different discussion about whether or not rides-for-hire should be a public utility), I think saying "you got paid your safety net in your insultingly-low wages last week" is deliberately obtuse and fails to engage with the issue at hand.

viscanti 8y ago
> The choice between untenably-expensive benefits as a contractor or untenably-unaffordable benefits as an unemployed person is no choice at all--especially for people with health problems/children/debt. It appears that lots of people choose to drive for Lyft knowing they won't get those benefits. Why ignore their choice? If they're choosing to do it and Lyft can't give them the same opportunity along with the benefits it's effectively saying they shouldn't have any opportunity for work until they have the perfect opportunity. I'm not convinced that it's better for someone to starve than to have the opportunity to drive for Lyft. The people choosing to drive for Lyft do so over all other work opportunities. If there was something equally good that also provided health benefits, then Lyft wouldn't have any drivers as everyone would pick that better alternative. Given there's not a better alternative, why pick on Lyft? They're the most appealing opportunity for work for lots of people.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  A lot of people choose to drive for Lyft because there aren't many other options to make money. When you have a choice between $0 and $Something, you're going to choose $Something. Companies know this and take advantage of this in order to underpay people who might not have other options. It gets even worse if you consider people who already have a job which can't support them or their family. People can and do make bad choices, such as people who choose to forgo health insurance which then burden hospitals and tax payers in a way that affects everyone else. The solution is to either force Lyft to play ball and not allow them to avoid things like minimum wage laws by calling their workers contractors, or to ensure that the government covers their healthcare.
- rat87 8y ago
  > It appears that lots of people choose to drive for Lyft knowing they won't get those benefits. Why ignore their choice? Because we live in a democracy that has some minimal protections for workers(not as much as we should). We have minimum wage laws and child labor laws and worker safety protections.
denormalfloat 8y ago
How could that be inhumane? The worker and the payer agree ahead of time how much is to be paid and what goods and services are delivered. Both parties have to agree, or else one will walk away. You say it's inhumane because one party didn't get something (healthcare) from the other? How is that fair to the other person? I'm asking if the deal was agreed to by consenting parties, nothing more.
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  The worker has a Sophie's choice to make: earn some money being exploited or starve. Consent implies both parties are peers.

viscanti 8y ago

> The choice between untenably-expensive benefits as a contractor or untenably-unaffordable benefits as an unemployed person is no choice at all--especially for people with health problems/children/debt. It appears that lots of people choose to drive for Lyft knowing they won't get those benefits. Why ignore their choice? If they're choosing to do it and Lyft can't give them the same opportunity along with the benefits it's effectively saying they shouldn't have any opportunity for work until they have the perfect opportunity. I'm not convinced that it's better for someone to starve than to have the opportunity to drive for Lyft. The people choosing to drive for Lyft do so over all other work opportunities. If there was something equally good that also provided health benefits, then Lyft wouldn't have any drivers as everyone would pick that better alternative. Given there's not a better alternative, why pick on Lyft? They're the most appealing opportunity for work for lots of people.

fzeroracer 8y ago
A lot of people choose to drive for Lyft because there aren't many other options to make money. When you have a choice between $0 and $Something, you're going to choose $Something. Companies know this and take advantage of this in order to underpay people who might not have other options. It gets even worse if you consider people who already have a job which can't support them or their family. People can and do make bad choices, such as people who choose to forgo health insurance which then burden hospitals and tax payers in a way that affects everyone else. The solution is to either force Lyft to play ball and not allow them to avoid things like minimum wage laws by calling their workers contractors, or to ensure that the government covers their healthcare.
rat87 8y ago
> It appears that lots of people choose to drive for Lyft knowing they won't get those benefits. Why ignore their choice? Because we live in a democracy that has some minimal protections for workers(not as much as we should). We have minimum wage laws and child labor laws and worker safety protections.

denormalfloat 8y ago

How could that be inhumane? The worker and the payer agree ahead of time how much is to be paid and what goods and services are delivered. Both parties have to agree, or else one will walk away. You say it's inhumane because one party didn't get something (healthcare) from the other? How is that fair to the other person? I'm asking if the deal was agreed to by consenting parties, nothing more.

JetSpiegel 8y ago
The worker has a Sophie's choice to make: earn some money being exploited or starve. Consent implies both parties are peers.