14 ms·

This last year, I drove for GrubHub for about 6 months in order to pay rent while trying to build a business as well as do web development contract work(I'm now

This last year, I drove for GrubHub for about 6 months in order to pay rent while trying to build a business as well as do web development contract work(I'm now employed full time). The whole time, I was active in various gig economy subreddits. There are some people out there who only want to drive for companies like GrubHub, but most of the drivers are people who already have jobs and are using the gig as supplementary income. The topic has come up before in these communities about whether they want to be employees or contractors. At the end of the day, most people want to stay contractors because they already have other jobs and want to make some extra cash during their off hours and weekends, and being an employee would actually mean being their GrubHub's bitch because then they could be told that they can't refuse to pick up orders that are too far away. While I do see the argument that businesses shouldn't be using contractors as a replacement for employees, unless we solve the problem of stagnating wages, doing so will take away a lot of needed extra income from people who don't feel wronged by these companies.

e40 7y ago
If you have another job, you have benefits, right? If you don't have another job, being an employee and getting benefits (e.g., health insurance) would be a huge deal.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Not all jobs offer benefits, and not all benefits are worth much.
- jlawson 7y ago
  The real issue here is the struture of the US healthcare system, which massively penalizes the provision of healthcare as part of any plan besides benefits from a job. We should have either a heavily government-subsidized user-pay system like Japan, or a real open market without the absurd straitjacket or US healthcare market regulations. With needs-based welfare in both cases. If the medical part of the economy wasn't so ridiculously wrongly regulated, it wouldn't be so distorting the rather academic difference between "contractor" and "employee".
  - zaroth 7y ago
    ACA, particularly so in Medicaid Expansion states, is perfectly described as a “heavily government-subsidized user-pay system”.
    - amluto 7y ago
      And the exchange plans are, nonetheless, dramatically worse at a given price point than employer plans. The primary reasons appear to be the giant tax subsidy for employer plans and the fact that insurers aggressively discriminate against people who don’t have employer plans.
      - zrail 7y ago
        It's not that they actively discriminate. It's because ACA plans are lumped into one big risk pool per market and ACA plans, by nature, attract more expensive people.
        edoceo 7y ago
        But what if it had everyone in the USA in the plan? It seems this, bigger, lumpier pool could aggregate the costs and reduce burden for everyone.
        zrail 7y ago
        Yes. This is the nature of many of the “Medicare for all” plans that are winding their way through Congress.
        sambull 7y ago
        Seems like the only answer would be one risk pool then.
        zrail 7y ago
        Yes. That is one way to think about the invisible high risk pools and reinsurance plans that some states have now for their ACA plans. Essentially they cap the per-individual risk in each pool and transfer the excess to the state as a whole. Several national plans like that have been proposed in Congress over the years but have failed mostly for partisan reasons.
baggy_trough 7y ago
This is certainly terrible news for the drivers, but the companies will get by.
DataWorker 7y ago
So the drivers think they are getting away with something (not being grubhub’s bitch) and the company is actually turning that misperception into profit. Sounds like good old fashioned exploitation to me. And I think if people had a first job that paid them a livable wage there would be no need for supplementary income. People don’t deliver pizza as a hobby, they do it for financial reasons.
- xfitm3 7y ago
  Sometimes a living wage isn’t enough.
momokoko 7y ago
I really get confused about this. I wonder if it is because I'm a bit older. Plenty of part time employment is like that. For example, many people that work retail or service part time have very flexible schedules. They typically have an availability chart and then if they need a day off last minute, they are often required to find someone else to cover for them. The reality is that the contractor part of this is to hide them(GrubHub) from the risk involved. That's what no one understands here. Bicycle messengers were notoriously the original "gig economy" job. The reason no one wanted to make them employees is that they would then be responsible for workers compensation when they got in an accident. This is the same as GrubHub. You were lucky. You did not get in an accident. Someone else working for GrubHub somewhere else in the country probably did. And they very likely had very expensive medical expenses. Workers compensation also covers permanent long term disability payments if someone is injured and can no longer work. This can be millions of dollars. When anyone does the math with these gig jobs, they leave out risk. That's the difference. GrubHub is pushing the risk of long term disability, and other things like unemployment due to business slowdown, entirely onto you. As well as other risks they are free from if you are not an employee.
- lbotos 7y ago
  > Plenty of part time employment is like that. For example, many people that work retail or service part time have very flexible schedules. They typically have an availability chart and then if they need a day off last minute, they are often required to find someone else to cover for them. I think you are missing a large part of it. The "gig" economy is "on-demand" labor. There is no schedule to coordinate at the "worker level". Just a network of demand and a worker pool that grows and shrinks to meet demand. "Oh, I'm free for the next 3 hours, maybe I'll make some money" vs. "I need to let my boss know I'm not coming in tomorrow so we have coverage" That marketplace effect is "freedom".
  - jashmatthews 7y ago
    This is exactly what casual/zero hours job contracts are for in the UK and other common law countries. Treating casual employees as contractors bollocks in a large part of the work.
sharadov 7y ago
In LA, a lot of drivers are struggling actors, who need flexible schedules, and nothing like working for ride-share companies.
esturk 7y ago
I feel like your argument is biased towards the contractor argument probably caused by your own experiences. Have you considered the opposite side where there are people who _only_ wants to be a full time employee so there's stability in their lives? Its hard to take your words that _most_ people want it without anything backing.
aiisjustanif 7y ago
Is the majority people who have other jobs and this is just their side job, or is their "gig job" their main job.

e40 7y ago

If you have another job, you have benefits, right? If you don't have another job, being an employee and getting benefits (e.g., health insurance) would be a huge deal.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
Not all jobs offer benefits, and not all benefits are worth much.
jlawson 7y ago
The real issue here is the struture of the US healthcare system, which massively penalizes the provision of healthcare as part of any plan besides benefits from a job. We should have either a heavily government-subsidized user-pay system like Japan, or a real open market without the absurd straitjacket or US healthcare market regulations. With needs-based welfare in both cases. If the medical part of the economy wasn't so ridiculously wrongly regulated, it wouldn't be so distorting the rather academic difference between "contractor" and "employee".
- zaroth 7y ago
  ACA, particularly so in Medicaid Expansion states, is perfectly described as a “heavily government-subsidized user-pay system”.
  - amluto 7y ago
    And the exchange plans are, nonetheless, dramatically worse at a given price point than employer plans. The primary reasons appear to be the giant tax subsidy for employer plans and the fact that insurers aggressively discriminate against people who don’t have employer plans.
    - zrail 7y ago
      It's not that they actively discriminate. It's because ACA plans are lumped into one big risk pool per market and ACA plans, by nature, attract more expensive people.
      - edoceo 7y ago
        But what if it had everyone in the USA in the plan? It seems this, bigger, lumpier pool could aggregate the costs and reduce burden for everyone.
        zrail 7y ago
        Yes. This is the nature of many of the “Medicare for all” plans that are winding their way through Congress.
      - sambull 7y ago
        Seems like the only answer would be one risk pool then.
        zrail 7y ago
        Yes. That is one way to think about the invisible high risk pools and reinsurance plans that some states have now for their ACA plans. Essentially they cap the per-individual risk in each pool and transfer the excess to the state as a whole. Several national plans like that have been proposed in Congress over the years but have failed mostly for partisan reasons.

baggy_trough 7y ago

This is certainly terrible news for the drivers, but the companies will get by.

DataWorker 7y ago

So the drivers think they are getting away with something (not being grubhub’s bitch) and the company is actually turning that misperception into profit. Sounds like good old fashioned exploitation to me. And I think if people had a first job that paid them a livable wage there would be no need for supplementary income. People don’t deliver pizza as a hobby, they do it for financial reasons.

xfitm3 7y ago
Sometimes a living wage isn’t enough.

momokoko 7y ago

I really get confused about this. I wonder if it is because I'm a bit older. Plenty of part time employment is like that. For example, many people that work retail or service part time have very flexible schedules. They typically have an availability chart and then if they need a day off last minute, they are often required to find someone else to cover for them. The reality is that the contractor part of this is to hide them(GrubHub) from the risk involved. That's what no one understands here. Bicycle messengers were notoriously the original "gig economy" job. The reason no one wanted to make them employees is that they would then be responsible for workers compensation when they got in an accident. This is the same as GrubHub. You were lucky. You did not get in an accident. Someone else working for GrubHub somewhere else in the country probably did. And they very likely had very expensive medical expenses. Workers compensation also covers permanent long term disability payments if someone is injured and can no longer work. This can be millions of dollars. When anyone does the math with these gig jobs, they leave out risk. That's the difference. GrubHub is pushing the risk of long term disability, and other things like unemployment due to business slowdown, entirely onto you. As well as other risks they are free from if you are not an employee.

lbotos 7y ago
> Plenty of part time employment is like that. For example, many people that work retail or service part time have very flexible schedules. They typically have an availability chart and then if they need a day off last minute, they are often required to find someone else to cover for them. I think you are missing a large part of it. The "gig" economy is "on-demand" labor. There is no schedule to coordinate at the "worker level". Just a network of demand and a worker pool that grows and shrinks to meet demand. "Oh, I'm free for the next 3 hours, maybe I'll make some money" vs. "I need to let my boss know I'm not coming in tomorrow so we have coverage" That marketplace effect is "freedom".
- jashmatthews 7y ago
  This is exactly what casual/zero hours job contracts are for in the UK and other common law countries. Treating casual employees as contractors bollocks in a large part of the work.

sharadov 7y ago

In LA, a lot of drivers are struggling actors, who need flexible schedules, and nothing like working for ride-share companies.

esturk 7y ago

I feel like your argument is biased towards the contractor argument probably caused by your own experiences. Have you considered the opposite side where there are people who _only_ wants to be a full time employee so there's stability in their lives? Its hard to take your words that _most_ people want it without anything backing.

aiisjustanif 7y ago

Is the majority people who have other jobs and this is just their side job, or is their "gig job" their main job.