5 ms·

Why would the bill eliminate this niche market? The bill does NOT say, Uber drivers need to change the way they work. The bill does say, the way Uber drivers

by jaaron 7y ago

Why would the bill eliminate this niche market? The bill does NOT say, Uber drivers need to change the way they work. The bill does say, the way Uber drivers work is considered employment with respect to the law. It changes the definition of employment to include the type of flexible work Uber drivers are currently doing. In other words, Uber (or any similar gig-economy business) could keep working with their employees as they always have, it's just that they'll now have to provide those employees with a bunch of benefits they currently do not provide and pay a number of taxes they currently do not pay. The idea that "employee" means particular way of scheduling hours is false. The bill doesn't say that. The law doesn't say that. There's nothing that requires that. These newly defined employees could keep all the flexibility they've had. If Uber reduces that flexibility, that's Uber's decision.

TuringNYC 7y ago
Ok but let’s consider the left end of the distribution — someone who drives four hours a week — is it really sensible for Uber it any gig platform to pay benefits? What about a single Amazon Mechanical Turk hIt — would that also carry benefits? This wouldn’t be cost effective. I think over half these problems go away with government issued healthcare. Companies and workers can be more dynamic.
- jonny_eh 7y ago
  Is that addressed in the bill?
  - mikekchar 7y ago
    I think that the objection is not that the bill is unclear about this situation. It's that the increased cost of treating Uber drivers (or similar work) as employees will mean that it is infeasible to hire people as they do now. The bill doesn't address (I assume -- I haven't read the bill) because it's not a think the bill is intended to address. If I understand correctly, the bill is intended to address the situation where large companies are avoiding paying employment tax and benefits because they hire the majority of their employees to do piecemeal work. Will it really result in the side effect that piecemeal work will cease to exist if workers have to be hired as employees? I don't know, but I think that's what's being suggested.
- bsder 7y ago
  > I think over half these problems go away with government issued healthcare. Companies and workers can be more dynamic. Making companies pay these benefits will actually drive them to start lobbying for just that, no?
- NikkiA 7y ago
  One of the responsibilities an employer has in the UK is to pay national insurance taxes, that are ostensibly believed to be how the NHS is funded (it's not), this is a responsibility that Uber/Lyft were shirking by their 'creative use of employment law' initially until they were forced to treat drivers as employees. So no, government issued healthcare is likely to make the issue even more starkly obviously wrong.
  - AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
    So... Why not make contractors pay National Insurance?
    - NikkiA 7y ago
      They do, like all employees, but the employer usually pays a contribution too, by insisting that workers are 'self-employed contractors' it reduces the money being paid to the NI fund. Contractor fees are somewhat assumed to include the rates necessary for a genuine contractor to pay the full NI amount, but Uber/Lyft relies on their 'contractors' not really being fully aware of that.
      - mattkrause 7y ago
        I’m not following.... In the US, employers pay part of some taxes, with the employees themselves responsible for the rest. Self-employed folks pick up both halves, so the government gets a similar amount of money either way. Does this not happen in the UK? Otherwise, it seems like it would be fairly easy to audit Uber (etc) “contractors” and to collect that money.
        NikkiA 7y ago
        > Otherwise, it seems like it would be fairly easy to audit Uber (etc) “contractors” and to collect that money. Yes, this could, and should happen, most Uber drivers would not be correctly filing their taxes and NI contributions, almost all would likely end up with hefty fines or prison time. Most of those drivers are going to then be pissed at Uber for not making it clear to them that as contractors they are responsible for paying NI contributions and properly filing self-employed contractor status taxes. It wouldn't be pretty, but it'd be fun. But since Uber were simply forced to accept that their drivers are employees, and thus Uber is responsible for the 13% NI contributions, it won't happen to Uber at least.
PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
"they'll now have to provide those employees with a bunch of benefits they currently do not provide and pay a number of taxes they currently do not pay." Thereby driving them out of business and eliminating this form of employment (which is clearly contractual and not "regular").

by jaaron 7y ago

TuringNYC 7y ago

Ok but let’s consider the left end of the distribution — someone who drives four hours a week — is it really sensible for Uber it any gig platform to pay benefits? What about a single Amazon Mechanical Turk hIt — would that also carry benefits? This wouldn’t be cost effective. I think over half these problems go away with government issued healthcare. Companies and workers can be more dynamic.

jonny_eh 7y ago
Is that addressed in the bill?
- mikekchar 7y ago
  I think that the objection is not that the bill is unclear about this situation. It's that the increased cost of treating Uber drivers (or similar work) as employees will mean that it is infeasible to hire people as they do now. The bill doesn't address (I assume -- I haven't read the bill) because it's not a think the bill is intended to address. If I understand correctly, the bill is intended to address the situation where large companies are avoiding paying employment tax and benefits because they hire the majority of their employees to do piecemeal work. Will it really result in the side effect that piecemeal work will cease to exist if workers have to be hired as employees? I don't know, but I think that's what's being suggested.
bsder 7y ago
> I think over half these problems go away with government issued healthcare. Companies and workers can be more dynamic. Making companies pay these benefits will actually drive them to start lobbying for just that, no?
NikkiA 7y ago
One of the responsibilities an employer has in the UK is to pay national insurance taxes, that are ostensibly believed to be how the NHS is funded (it's not), this is a responsibility that Uber/Lyft were shirking by their 'creative use of employment law' initially until they were forced to treat drivers as employees. So no, government issued healthcare is likely to make the issue even more starkly obviously wrong.
- AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
  So... Why not make contractors pay National Insurance?
  - NikkiA 7y ago
    They do, like all employees, but the employer usually pays a contribution too, by insisting that workers are 'self-employed contractors' it reduces the money being paid to the NI fund. Contractor fees are somewhat assumed to include the rates necessary for a genuine contractor to pay the full NI amount, but Uber/Lyft relies on their 'contractors' not really being fully aware of that.
    - mattkrause 7y ago
      I’m not following.... In the US, employers pay part of some taxes, with the employees themselves responsible for the rest. Self-employed folks pick up both halves, so the government gets a similar amount of money either way. Does this not happen in the UK? Otherwise, it seems like it would be fairly easy to audit Uber (etc) “contractors” and to collect that money.
      - NikkiA 7y ago
        > Otherwise, it seems like it would be fairly easy to audit Uber (etc) “contractors” and to collect that money. Yes, this could, and should happen, most Uber drivers would not be correctly filing their taxes and NI contributions, almost all would likely end up with hefty fines or prison time. Most of those drivers are going to then be pissed at Uber for not making it clear to them that as contractors they are responsible for paying NI contributions and properly filing self-employed contractor status taxes. It wouldn't be pretty, but it'd be fun. But since Uber were simply forced to accept that their drivers are employees, and thus Uber is responsible for the 13% NI contributions, it won't happen to Uber at least.

PunksATawnyFill 7y ago

"they'll now have to provide those employees with a bunch of benefits they currently do not provide and pay a number of taxes they currently do not pay." Thereby driving them out of business and eliminating this form of employment (which is clearly contractual and not "regular").