3 ms·
The thing that always bugs me with these arguments is that people don't seem to bring up the idea of creating a new legal class for these types of workers. Argu
by jackschultz 7y ago
The thing that always bugs me with these arguments is that people don't seem to bring up the idea of creating a new legal class for these types of workers. Arguing whether those workers fit contractors or employees isn't great to read about because frankly, they fit in neither.
From Uber/Lyft drivers, to Door Dash delivery workers, to any other sort of up and coming on demand work which I'm sure keep coming and evolving, I believe creating a new legal class would be well worth the effort rather than arguing about where they fit in the current system.
This type of solution isn't easy. With all the arguments about if the drivers are contractors or employees, creating a new class of workers will easily be just as difficult; instead of legal fees for the law interpretation, it'd be legal fees for law creation.
- SilasX 7y agoAgreed, but I would say that the whole employment/social insurance system is due for a big "refactoring". We have this hodge-podge of sorta-overlapping requirements based on long-obsolete and assumptions and models about how the labor force works that's we're expecting to meet some desiderata that it also incentivizes against. We've already lost the game when we're counting angels on a pin to decide whether you're "really" an employee so your employer can be forced to provide insurance or pay into unemployment. But these things shouldn't be coupled at all. Everyone, regardless of how they get income, should pay into an employer-decoupled fund that can pay out for unemployment or health insurance. That frees up admin costs from employers and cleans up labor markets to compete over things that are actually relevant. Contractor vs employee distinctions should only matter for liability, not for taxes or benefits.