4 ms·

The current scenario is that you can turn the app on and do work any time you want to do it. If you are an hourly-paid employee, you can't just choose the times

The current scenario is that you can turn the app on and do work any time you want to do it. If you are an hourly-paid employee, you can't just choose the times that suit you, because it might not suit what's going on at that time. You can't just drive where you want, because it might not suit what's going on. So the only solution is going to be something like what you usually think of for employed work. Set hours and times etc.

justinjlynn 7y ago
Why are your requirements strictly necessary? If you try to refute your own answer, it'll likely be a much more fruitful conversation.
- docker_up 7y ago
  Because part of the equation for Uber is having enough workers out there to fill demand by random chance. If they have to pay a full-time employee, they can schedule the employee and force them to drive to a certain location, and do a certain number of trips, otherwise they would just fire them. They can squeeze out more efficiency from a single driver rather than hope that there's enough random drivers to fulfill all the demand.
  - whyenot 7y ago
    Why "random chance"? Instead, Uber could encourage more people to be "on the clock" at high demand times by increasing hourly wages during those times. It feels like you are making mountains out of molehills.
    - docker_up 7y ago
      Why would they want to pay people who aren't actually doing work? That's the point if they are forced to take full-time employees, those employees should be working all the time, instead of at their leisure the way it currently is. There is no requirement to take a ride if you don't want to right now, but if there's surge, drivers will be encouraged to work. If they are full-time employees, they just work for a flat rate and at the places and times that the employer requires them to be, in order for them to be maximally used. Hiring people to just sit around and do nothing doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
      - distances 7y ago
        > That's the point if they are forced to take full-time employees Where does it say this?
jaaron 7y ago
"If you are an hourly-paid employee, you can't just choose the times that suit you" Why not? Or more specifically: the law doesn't require this, so why would it have to change? The bill merely states, "hey, this flexible way you've been working, that's not independent contracting, that's employment and the employer have to abide by all these other regulations." Those regulations in no way require Uber to make workers work for specific hours, pay them hourly, or schedule their work differently. In fact, it just says, "the way you're already working, that's employment." So why do you think they'd have to change how they work?
- TuringNYC 7y ago
  The law may not state it but economics does. Even the cheapest insurance plans cost 500/mo. If you drive an hour a month and earn $100 for the month, it is not cost effective to issue a full health plan for that. There is a break even point of course. But that break even point will not allow driver flexibility.
  - SturgeonsLaw 7y ago
    The real problem here is the coupling of healthcare with employment. Other than health insurance, there's very little in the way of benefits that would really need to be paid for a gig worker, I'm sure a lot of them would just prefer extra money. If the cost of healthcare was borne by the taxpayer, rather than a component of wages, then a case could be made that small shifts are feasible.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    If its not legal to drive uninsured and your insurance wont cover you driving commercially why is it OK for you to drive in such a way such that if you hurt someone they are screwed because you can't pay and your insurance wont? I think most of planet earth only wants to work 1 gig or at most 2 for somewhere between 20 and 40 hours. I doubt people who want to work a tiny number of hours make up a meaningful proportion of the workforce. In other words much ado about nothing.
    - 7y ago

justinjlynn 7y ago

Why are your requirements strictly necessary? If you try to refute your own answer, it'll likely be a much more fruitful conversation.

docker_up 7y ago
Because part of the equation for Uber is having enough workers out there to fill demand by random chance. If they have to pay a full-time employee, they can schedule the employee and force them to drive to a certain location, and do a certain number of trips, otherwise they would just fire them. They can squeeze out more efficiency from a single driver rather than hope that there's enough random drivers to fulfill all the demand.
- whyenot 7y ago
  Why "random chance"? Instead, Uber could encourage more people to be "on the clock" at high demand times by increasing hourly wages during those times. It feels like you are making mountains out of molehills.
  - docker_up 7y ago
    Why would they want to pay people who aren't actually doing work? That's the point if they are forced to take full-time employees, those employees should be working all the time, instead of at their leisure the way it currently is. There is no requirement to take a ride if you don't want to right now, but if there's surge, drivers will be encouraged to work. If they are full-time employees, they just work for a flat rate and at the places and times that the employer requires them to be, in order for them to be maximally used. Hiring people to just sit around and do nothing doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
    - distances 7y ago
      > That's the point if they are forced to take full-time employees Where does it say this?

jaaron 7y ago

"If you are an hourly-paid employee, you can't just choose the times that suit you" Why not? Or more specifically: the law doesn't require this, so why would it have to change? The bill merely states, "hey, this flexible way you've been working, that's not independent contracting, that's employment and the employer have to abide by all these other regulations." Those regulations in no way require Uber to make workers work for specific hours, pay them hourly, or schedule their work differently. In fact, it just says, "the way you're already working, that's employment." So why do you think they'd have to change how they work?

TuringNYC 7y ago
The law may not state it but economics does. Even the cheapest insurance plans cost 500/mo. If you drive an hour a month and earn $100 for the month, it is not cost effective to issue a full health plan for that. There is a break even point of course. But that break even point will not allow driver flexibility.
- SturgeonsLaw 7y ago
  The real problem here is the coupling of healthcare with employment. Other than health insurance, there's very little in the way of benefits that would really need to be paid for a gig worker, I'm sure a lot of them would just prefer extra money. If the cost of healthcare was borne by the taxpayer, rather than a component of wages, then a case could be made that small shifts are feasible.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  If its not legal to drive uninsured and your insurance wont cover you driving commercially why is it OK for you to drive in such a way such that if you hurt someone they are screwed because you can't pay and your insurance wont? I think most of planet earth only wants to work 1 gig or at most 2 for somewhere between 20 and 40 hours. I doubt people who want to work a tiny number of hours make up a meaningful proportion of the workforce. In other words much ado about nothing.
  - 7y ago