9 ms·

I'm coming to the view that gig workers are neither employees nor independent contractors. Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own hours, and contract

I'm coming to the view that gig workers are neither employees nor independent contractors. Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own hours, and contractors don't get prices unilaterally dictated to them or barred from their profession if their rating falls too low. All this regulatory squabbling is arguing over whether a square peg fits a round hole or fits a triangular hole. We need a third classification for gig workers that affords them some protections while preserving the economic viability of ridesharing companies. Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers.

cycomanic 7y ago
Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. Moreover, while there might be an immediate benefit to consumers, as the article notes it might as well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  You are correct that some business models are inherently bad. Ones that require violence like slavery or fraud like Ponzi schemes especially. But I don't care for California to make sure privately hired cars are theoretically X% cheaper. If there are protections that are needed for drivers so their net income is more obvious or something, let's do that.
- bko 7y ago
  > Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor? > well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. I don't buy it. The math that claims that these designations cost taxpayers is naive. As though applying additional costs to the employers would somehow just generate wealth and tax revenue from nowhere. The money would come from somewhere (consumers and gig workers), and would result in less business as an artificially higher price would scale back quantity demanded. > The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders. Most of these businesses are losing a lot of money. They're not fleecing anyone. It might not be viable by any means but increasing the costs arbitrarily would decrease their chances. It's important to remember that most of these gig workers work these jobs because they prefer them over any other job available to them. So removing options for them is unlikely to benefit them.
  - Shikadi 7y ago
    OC wasn't comparing voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor, they were giving an example of something good for the consumer that we don't want as a business model. My personal opinion on your last statement about removing options being unlikely to benefit, the other way of looking at it is a race to the bottom. If you create a job market segment where employees are being underpaid, but they're accepting it because there aren't better options for them, the overall job market can suffer. Hypothetically, some place like Walmart could see a chance to pay less for their workers, and if they actually went through with it then one of the largest employers would be taking a massive chunk of money out of the working class. They're a good example because they're already a burden on tax payers (about 6.2 billion depending on your source) since so many of their workers are on welfare. The reality is, if you let companies exploit workers, they will, and the workers will be happy to be exploited until it's too late. See: Working conditions in China over the past few decades I'm not an economist, so maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject can hopefully put it more eloquently, or maybe even give an explanation as to why I might be wrong
    - bko 7y ago
      The whole point of a voluntary exchange of labor or goods is that it has to benefit both parties for it to take place. Companies, including Walmart, don't set wages arbitrarily. Despite their size, they can't control the market for labor. They don't pay what they do because they are generous. There are frictions with hiring and onboarding people. They want their employees to be happy. And even if they were a significantly large employer, the market is not a closed system and things change Regarding your welfare claim, it depends how you look at it. Walmart is offering these people the best employment opportunity they can get, otherwise they would work elsewhere. If they lost that opportunity which certainly some would with increased costs, they would likely be moved to more generous government benefits.
      - jacobolus 7y ago
        There is a long history of people deliberately selling themselves into slavery. Just because there is consent involved doesn’t mean it should be legal; there are many types of desperate / coercive situations under which people will make choices that compromise their own bodily autonomy or sacrifice their values. > [Walmart] wants their employees to be happy There is little evidence for this that I have seen. Rather, they want to provide as little support for employees possible consistent with maintaining their profits. But there are many, many horrific stories of Walmart abusing and taking unethical (often illegal) advantage of employees. In addition Walmart spends considerable effort and money lobbying governments to undermine basic worker rights and protections.
- morpheuskafka 7y ago
  Slavery deprives someone of a basic human freedom. A free market is the exact opposite of that.
  - unknownkadath 7y ago
    I think that second sentence this isn't as obvious as the first.
- will4274 7y ago
  Parent is suggesting a new regulatory category. Even if we accept that the gig economy is detrimental overall today, in theory this new regulation would bring it up to a different point. I'm not sure how you can conclude that it's "detrimental overall" without better defining the regulation. That is, I'm not sure your comment really addresses parent's comment.
wiggler00m 7y ago
Well said. The legal origins of the separation between contractors and employees pre-date computers, not to mention the internet.
johnchristopher 7y ago
> We need a third classification for gig workers that affords them some protections while preserving the economic viability of ridesharing companies. Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers. How about the ridesharing companies should provide - by law - for food and shelter (paid for with a pay cut from the gigs) until the employee/contractor can get his own food and roof ? That would offer some protections to people while keeping the economy going on ? It would also allow really poor people to get on the job wagon with some kind of peace of mind regarding the end of the month. The companies could make a year-contract euro style so they would be certain the original investment isn't wasted and the employee/contractor has a job for a year until he becomes a regular contractor.
- m0zg 7y ago
  They'll do that right as soon as you are required, by law, to use their services no matter the price.
- threatofrain 7y ago
  Do you want employers to provide housing because you think employers can spend money on housing and food better than employees? Believable. But I am wary of the efficiency of company towns. In my perspective, things like housing, food, and medicine are "power vacuum" issues, where not taking up these issues is the same as leaving power (and responsibility) on the table for someone else to grab. I also think once power is taken away it's hard to get back. I view the issues you're talking about as social and government issues, and I'm wary about ceding more and more responsibility to businesses simply because we think government sucks.
- kmlx 7y ago
  "How about the ridesharing companies should provide - by law - for food and shelter " so basically making gig workers even more dependent on the company?
  - wutbrodo 7y ago
    I have never understood the impulse of supposedly pro-labor people to expand the responsibility of employers towards their workers. Government is intended as the expression of our collective will, and as such is the conduit of our collective responsibility, including providing people with a resource floor to live with dignity. Most people figure out as children that responsibility and power are intimately tied together, but apparently that concept escapes some people even into adulthood...
kartan 7y ago
> Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers. I am all for ridesharing. But Uber and Lyft, as an example, has nothing to do with that concept. It is not like your Uber driver was coincidentally going to the exact place that you were going. Ridesharing, as understood before the gig economy, was someone in the company realizing that there were more employees in her neighbourhood and providing a ride for them for a price (some times just sharing gas expenses). That is a really good approach. Uber/Lyft and others hide their business model calling themselves ridesharing when they are not, calling their employees contractors, when they are not, etc.
- chungleong 7y ago
  A service like BlaBlaCar (in Europe) is what can legitimately be called ride-sharing. Uber is fleet of pirate taxis.
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    In many cities of Europe (like Prague, where I live) we call Uber "savior". Using taxis used to be flat out dangerous (crazy drivers with no regards for anything, often drunk or on cocaine or meth) and it was guaranteed you're going to pay at least 3 but usually 5 times more than you should - Uber fixed that and is cheaper than the "correct" (by law) price, it solves safety, I don't have to wait 30+ minutes, ... And the drivers are satisfied. I made a point to ask each one and they really like it, much more than any traditional work and MUCH more than being an "official" taxi.
    - StavrosK 7y ago
      In many cities of Europe, and Greece, where I live we have apps like Beat that are basically Uber for actual taxis. That way you get good drivers, ratings, they have an incentive to be good or get booted off the platform and lose customers, etc, without the indentured servitude of Uber.
      - 7y ago
hrktb 7y ago
> Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own hours Doesn’t it depends on the contract ? Nothing stops a company from letting their employee set their own hours. That’s actually close to how door to door sales contracts work in some fields, where the company doesn’t care about how long or where the salesman works, and mostly pays by the sales number.
gowld 7y ago
This is of course correct. Classifying workers into exactly two categories is logically absurd, but that's what the old law does, at least in USA.

cycomanic 7y ago

Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. Moreover, while there might be an immediate benefit to consumers, as the article notes it might as well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders.

humanrebar 7y ago
You are correct that some business models are inherently bad. Ones that require violence like slavery or fraud like Ponzi schemes especially. But I don't care for California to make sure privately hired cars are theoretically X% cheaper. If there are protections that are needed for drivers so their net income is more obvious or something, let's do that.
bko 7y ago
> Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor? > well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. I don't buy it. The math that claims that these designations cost taxpayers is naive. As though applying additional costs to the employers would somehow just generate wealth and tax revenue from nowhere. The money would come from somewhere (consumers and gig workers), and would result in less business as an artificially higher price would scale back quantity demanded. > The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders. Most of these businesses are losing a lot of money. They're not fleecing anyone. It might not be viable by any means but increasing the costs arbitrarily would decrease their chances. It's important to remember that most of these gig workers work these jobs because they prefer them over any other job available to them. So removing options for them is unlikely to benefit them.
- Shikadi 7y ago
  OC wasn't comparing voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor, they were giving an example of something good for the consumer that we don't want as a business model. My personal opinion on your last statement about removing options being unlikely to benefit, the other way of looking at it is a race to the bottom. If you create a job market segment where employees are being underpaid, but they're accepting it because there aren't better options for them, the overall job market can suffer. Hypothetically, some place like Walmart could see a chance to pay less for their workers, and if they actually went through with it then one of the largest employers would be taking a massive chunk of money out of the working class. They're a good example because they're already a burden on tax payers (about 6.2 billion depending on your source) since so many of their workers are on welfare. The reality is, if you let companies exploit workers, they will, and the workers will be happy to be exploited until it's too late. See: Working conditions in China over the past few decades I'm not an economist, so maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject can hopefully put it more eloquently, or maybe even give an explanation as to why I might be wrong
  - bko 7y ago
    The whole point of a voluntary exchange of labor or goods is that it has to benefit both parties for it to take place. Companies, including Walmart, don't set wages arbitrarily. Despite their size, they can't control the market for labor. They don't pay what they do because they are generous. There are frictions with hiring and onboarding people. They want their employees to be happy. And even if they were a significantly large employer, the market is not a closed system and things change Regarding your welfare claim, it depends how you look at it. Walmart is offering these people the best employment opportunity they can get, otherwise they would work elsewhere. If they lost that opportunity which certainly some would with increased costs, they would likely be moved to more generous government benefits.
    - jacobolus 7y ago
      There is a long history of people deliberately selling themselves into slavery. Just because there is consent involved doesn’t mean it should be legal; there are many types of desperate / coercive situations under which people will make choices that compromise their own bodily autonomy or sacrifice their values. > [Walmart] wants their employees to be happy There is little evidence for this that I have seen. Rather, they want to provide as little support for employees possible consistent with maintaining their profits. But there are many, many horrific stories of Walmart abusing and taking unethical (often illegal) advantage of employees. In addition Walmart spends considerable effort and money lobbying governments to undermine basic worker rights and protections.
morpheuskafka 7y ago
Slavery deprives someone of a basic human freedom. A free market is the exact opposite of that.
- unknownkadath 7y ago
  I think that second sentence this isn't as obvious as the first.
will4274 7y ago
Parent is suggesting a new regulatory category. Even if we accept that the gig economy is detrimental overall today, in theory this new regulation would bring it up to a different point. I'm not sure how you can conclude that it's "detrimental overall" without better defining the regulation. That is, I'm not sure your comment really addresses parent's comment.

wiggler00m 7y ago

Well said. The legal origins of the separation between contractors and employees pre-date computers, not to mention the internet.

johnchristopher 7y ago

> We need a third classification for gig workers that affords them some protections while preserving the economic viability of ridesharing companies. Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers. How about the ridesharing companies should provide - by law - for food and shelter (paid for with a pay cut from the gigs) until the employee/contractor can get his own food and roof ? That would offer some protections to people while keeping the economy going on ? It would also allow really poor people to get on the job wagon with some kind of peace of mind regarding the end of the month. The companies could make a year-contract euro style so they would be certain the original investment isn't wasted and the employee/contractor has a job for a year until he becomes a regular contractor.

m0zg 7y ago
They'll do that right as soon as you are required, by law, to use their services no matter the price.
threatofrain 7y ago
Do you want employers to provide housing because you think employers can spend money on housing and food better than employees? Believable. But I am wary of the efficiency of company towns. In my perspective, things like housing, food, and medicine are "power vacuum" issues, where not taking up these issues is the same as leaving power (and responsibility) on the table for someone else to grab. I also think once power is taken away it's hard to get back. I view the issues you're talking about as social and government issues, and I'm wary about ceding more and more responsibility to businesses simply because we think government sucks.
kmlx 7y ago
"How about the ridesharing companies should provide - by law - for food and shelter " so basically making gig workers even more dependent on the company?
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  I have never understood the impulse of supposedly pro-labor people to expand the responsibility of employers towards their workers. Government is intended as the expression of our collective will, and as such is the conduit of our collective responsibility, including providing people with a resource floor to live with dignity. Most people figure out as children that responsibility and power are intimately tied together, but apparently that concept escapes some people even into adulthood...

kartan 7y ago

> Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers. I am all for ridesharing. But Uber and Lyft, as an example, has nothing to do with that concept. It is not like your Uber driver was coincidentally going to the exact place that you were going. Ridesharing, as understood before the gig economy, was someone in the company realizing that there were more employees in her neighbourhood and providing a ride for them for a price (some times just sharing gas expenses). That is a really good approach. Uber/Lyft and others hide their business model calling themselves ridesharing when they are not, calling their employees contractors, when they are not, etc.

chungleong 7y ago
A service like BlaBlaCar (in Europe) is what can legitimately be called ride-sharing. Uber is fleet of pirate taxis.
- TomMarius 7y ago
  In many cities of Europe (like Prague, where I live) we call Uber "savior". Using taxis used to be flat out dangerous (crazy drivers with no regards for anything, often drunk or on cocaine or meth) and it was guaranteed you're going to pay at least 3 but usually 5 times more than you should - Uber fixed that and is cheaper than the "correct" (by law) price, it solves safety, I don't have to wait 30+ minutes, ... And the drivers are satisfied. I made a point to ask each one and they really like it, much more than any traditional work and MUCH more than being an "official" taxi.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    In many cities of Europe, and Greece, where I live we have apps like Beat that are basically Uber for actual taxis. That way you get good drivers, ratings, they have an incentive to be good or get booted off the platform and lose customers, etc, without the indentured servitude of Uber.
    - 7y ago

hrktb 7y ago

> Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own hours Doesn’t it depends on the contract ? Nothing stops a company from letting their employee set their own hours. That’s actually close to how door to door sales contracts work in some fields, where the company doesn’t care about how long or where the salesman works, and mostly pays by the sales number.

gowld 7y ago

This is of course correct. Classifying workers into exactly two categories is logically absurd, but that's what the old law does, at least in USA.