3 ms·

I think it's disingenuous of Uber and Lyft to tie working hour flexibility to employee status. Yes many full-time employees don't have that level of flexibility

I think it's disingenuous of Uber and Lyft to tie working hour flexibility to employee status. Yes many full-time employees don't have that level of flexibility, but being a full-time employee does not de-facto prevent you from having that flexibility. They tie the two issues together in order to get their "contractors" on their side. Also, you mention twice "these aren't the people they will hire", in the context of Uber/Lyft drivers and teachers, but labour isn't infinite. There aren't millions of highly qualified people sitting around unemployed waiting for these jobs to pay better – those people are employed in other jobs that do pay better. If teachers were paid more it may incentivise many to get better qualifications and training (that they can't currently justify). If the US pays terrible salaries for teachers, no one is going to want to go to an expensive university and rack up large student debt in order to get a teaching job. The causality may be the other way around from what you're suggesting.

aianus 7y ago
> Also, you mention twice "these aren't the people they will hire", in the context of Uber/Lyft drivers and teachers, but labour isn't infinite. Neither is the demand for Uber's services. If prices for rides go up to pay for mandatory drivers' vacation and sick pay and dental insurance, the reality is they will, as a group, have even less money than before because customers will switch back to cabs, public transit, or worse, driving drunk.
- vidarh 7y ago
  If Uber's prices can't pay for reasonable wages for their drivers, then it might well be for the best to remove that competitive pressure on employers that can. To me it seems like awful public policy to let companies get away with paying too little, as society ends up effectively subsidizing competition against employers that treat their workers better, through benefits and lower taxes. In doing so we're also hiding the real costs of a lot of products and services
  - danpalmer 7y ago
    Agreed, plus (un)employment is used as a fairly common headline statistic which strongly informs government policy. If you have 2% unemployment but 20% of the workforce without healthcare and working multiple jobs, it's much easier to ignore the problem than if you had 20% unemployment – a figure that would likely trigger a huge and immediate government response as it indicates a crisis, even though those people may not be that much worse off given social security programs (although I don't know much about the US social security programs).
Camillo 7y ago
> Yes many full-time employees don't have that level of flexibility, but being a full-time employee does not de-facto prevent you from having that flexibility. They tie the two issues together in order to get their "contractors" on their side. They are actually tied on the other side, AFAIU. It's being an independent contractor that _requires_ having that flexibility. So if Uber/Lyft want to keep that arrangement, they have the obligation (and, symmetrically, the contractors have the right) to keep their hours flexible. If the drivers become employees, Uber/Lyft no longer have any obligation to maintain that flexibility.

aianus 7y ago

> Also, you mention twice "these aren't the people they will hire", in the context of Uber/Lyft drivers and teachers, but labour isn't infinite. Neither is the demand for Uber's services. If prices for rides go up to pay for mandatory drivers' vacation and sick pay and dental insurance, the reality is they will, as a group, have even less money than before because customers will switch back to cabs, public transit, or worse, driving drunk.

vidarh 7y ago
If Uber's prices can't pay for reasonable wages for their drivers, then it might well be for the best to remove that competitive pressure on employers that can. To me it seems like awful public policy to let companies get away with paying too little, as society ends up effectively subsidizing competition against employers that treat their workers better, through benefits and lower taxes. In doing so we're also hiding the real costs of a lot of products and services
- danpalmer 7y ago
  Agreed, plus (un)employment is used as a fairly common headline statistic which strongly informs government policy. If you have 2% unemployment but 20% of the workforce without healthcare and working multiple jobs, it's much easier to ignore the problem than if you had 20% unemployment – a figure that would likely trigger a huge and immediate government response as it indicates a crisis, even though those people may not be that much worse off given social security programs (although I don't know much about the US social security programs).

Camillo 7y ago

> Yes many full-time employees don't have that level of flexibility, but being a full-time employee does not de-facto prevent you from having that flexibility. They tie the two issues together in order to get their "contractors" on their side. They are actually tied on the other side, AFAIU. It's being an independent contractor that _requires_ having that flexibility. So if Uber/Lyft want to keep that arrangement, they have the obligation (and, symmetrically, the contractors have the right) to keep their hours flexible. If the drivers become employees, Uber/Lyft no longer have any obligation to maintain that flexibility.