7 ms·

Say John make a platform right now and set the rule that there's no negotiations permitted. Builders accepting the proposal must accept at the listed price. Obv

by m11a 7y ago

Say John make a platform right now and set the rule that there's no negotiations permitted. Builders accepting the proposal must accept at the listed price. Obviously there remains a variation in the quality of the different proposals (some builders may be more polite, or use better wood). Obviously, the key difference here is that I would be able to choose what builder I want, but the customer on Uber doesn't get to decide that. So let's place one more restriction: the platform decides which builder gets the job behind the scenes. Now, would you say that builder is employed by this website? If so, at what point did this turn from self-employment to employment? > Similar argument for changing toppings on a cake - a caterer can negotiate changes to the cake - an Uber driver has no such flexibility. If the customer wants a cake for wedding: vanilla with 3 layers and a cherry on top it seems a bit inappropriate to contact them saying "I can't make a vanilla cake but how about chocolate?" It's a limitation of the platform (limitations made to improve customer experience - imagine if you had to negotiate for every taxi ride, you don't do this for local companies). I'd argue that the hypothetical platform described can set any number of limitations, as long as the builder can hop off and get his work elsewhere at any point. Really, imo, the key here is how much control the Uber driver has to refuse tasks, and if they can seek the same work elsewhere (eg is Lyft available in the city?). You wouldn't tell your boss "eyy sorry chief, bit tired, gonna head home, give the fare to someone else, byeee!! hangs up" -- but you can on Uber.

alistairSH 7y ago
I'd argue that in the builder-app, the builder has now been transformed into an employee, same as an Uber driver. To me, "setting prices" is more than just refusing/accepting prices set by an algorithm/app, but the ability to negotiate those independently. In the cake example, a baker absolutely could attempt to negotiate for chocolate. They might not "win" the negotiation, but they have the option. Edit - in the taxi driver (traditional taxi in US), I'd argue that most of them should be employees too. Sometimes they are employed directly by "Acme Cab" or whatever. But, in the case of the local airport taxi company (Washington Flyer), the company has a monopoly on airport transport, but drivers are independent contractors - this always struck me as a very lopsided and questionable arrangement. If a driver wants to pick up at Dulles, they have to contract for Wash Flyer at fixed rates, renting a company car, etc. And I'll freely admit this all can be a bit ambiguous. And that I'm not a fan of the "gig economy" in general - I'm convinced corporations are using it to reduce wages and benefits and effectively foist the cost of those lower wages/benefits on society as a whole.
- m11a 7y ago
  >And I'll freely admit this all can be a bit ambiguous. And that I'm not a fan of the "gig economy" in general - I'm convinced corporations are using it to reduce wages and benefits and effectively foist the cost of those lower wages/benefits on society as a whole. I think it's ambiguous too. Though I disagree with the criteria set by this court, I'm not entirely sure on what the right criteria is. I think Uber play a line between employment and self-employment to keep it ambiguous, and I certainly agree it's to make sure they don't have to provide full employment benefits to their drivers, but I still think the classification/distinction is tricky. If drivers are indeed employees, as I mentioned in my other comment, I think Uber gain a lot of rights over their drivers that they don't currently have.
- WanderPanda 7y ago
  - I'm convinced corporations are using it to reduce wages and benefits and effectively foist the cost of those lower wages/benefits on society as a whole. The customer demand (customer being the drivers) tells a completely different story of people being more productive than legacy taxi systems by taking responsibility themselves. I think a lean "gig economy" without the full load of bureaucracy is largely positive and really dislike how it is torn down here in Europe...
  - alistairSH 7y ago
    The legacy taxi system, at least in the US, was ripe for disruption. No argument there. However, disruption doesn't necessarily require shafting "employees" out of wages and benefits. Reform to medallion systems (at least in the cities that have them) might have had similar benefits, without the negatives associated with "gig" employment.
  - avianlyric 7y ago
    I would be more inclined to agree with you if there was clear evidence that people really understood all the “responsibility” they’re taking on when picking up gig-economy work. Responsibilities like the value depreciation of their vehicle, or paying for sick leave and time off. Full time employment provides strong protection against unexpected illness. The gig-economy doesn’t. Companies like Uber seem to prey on large pools of semi-innumerate drivers who either don’t realise they’re operating a loss and too desperate to care. The result is your productivity gains, which only exist because some of the costs simply aren’t accounted for and ignored. These aren’t real productivity gains, that’s just socialising costs and clever accounting to justify it.
mongol 7y ago
Another difference is that the Uber app is not an ad board. It also manages the monetary transactions. This effectively removes the ability to negotiate the price. If you in your example include that aspect it starts to resemble the Uber situation.
dpwm 7y ago
> Now, would you say that builder is employed by this website? Probably yes. The terms are being set by the platform. > It's a limitation of the platform (limitations made to improve customer experience - imagine if you had to negotiate for every taxi ride, you don't do this for local companies). I've never used Uber. Does the customer get to choose the driver? On this hypothetical platform, does the customer get to choose the builder?
- alistairSH 7y ago
  With Uber (or Lyft), neither party can select the other. The app dispatches drivers as rides are requested. This is in general... A driver can decline rides before accepting (because destination is out of their desired area or time exceeds 45 minutes), but that can impact driver rating (or at least, it used to do so). Drivers can also refuse drunk passengers, unaccompanied minors, and a few other things like that. I'm not aware of any way for a passenger to refuse a driver, short of cancelling the ride completely (which has a fee associated if done close to actual pick-up). And, if you make another ride request, you might get the same driver again.

by m11a 7y ago

alistairSH 7y ago

I'd argue that in the builder-app, the builder has now been transformed into an employee, same as an Uber driver. To me, "setting prices" is more than just refusing/accepting prices set by an algorithm/app, but the ability to negotiate those independently. In the cake example, a baker absolutely could attempt to negotiate for chocolate. They might not "win" the negotiation, but they have the option. Edit - in the taxi driver (traditional taxi in US), I'd argue that most of them should be employees too. Sometimes they are employed directly by "Acme Cab" or whatever. But, in the case of the local airport taxi company (Washington Flyer), the company has a monopoly on airport transport, but drivers are independent contractors - this always struck me as a very lopsided and questionable arrangement. If a driver wants to pick up at Dulles, they have to contract for Wash Flyer at fixed rates, renting a company car, etc. And I'll freely admit this all can be a bit ambiguous. And that I'm not a fan of the "gig economy" in general - I'm convinced corporations are using it to reduce wages and benefits and effectively foist the cost of those lower wages/benefits on society as a whole.

m11a 7y ago
>And I'll freely admit this all can be a bit ambiguous. And that I'm not a fan of the "gig economy" in general - I'm convinced corporations are using it to reduce wages and benefits and effectively foist the cost of those lower wages/benefits on society as a whole. I think it's ambiguous too. Though I disagree with the criteria set by this court, I'm not entirely sure on what the right criteria is. I think Uber play a line between employment and self-employment to keep it ambiguous, and I certainly agree it's to make sure they don't have to provide full employment benefits to their drivers, but I still think the classification/distinction is tricky. If drivers are indeed employees, as I mentioned in my other comment, I think Uber gain a lot of rights over their drivers that they don't currently have.
WanderPanda 7y ago
- I'm convinced corporations are using it to reduce wages and benefits and effectively foist the cost of those lower wages/benefits on society as a whole. The customer demand (customer being the drivers) tells a completely different story of people being more productive than legacy taxi systems by taking responsibility themselves. I think a lean "gig economy" without the full load of bureaucracy is largely positive and really dislike how it is torn down here in Europe...
- alistairSH 7y ago
  The legacy taxi system, at least in the US, was ripe for disruption. No argument there. However, disruption doesn't necessarily require shafting "employees" out of wages and benefits. Reform to medallion systems (at least in the cities that have them) might have had similar benefits, without the negatives associated with "gig" employment.
- avianlyric 7y ago
  I would be more inclined to agree with you if there was clear evidence that people really understood all the “responsibility” they’re taking on when picking up gig-economy work. Responsibilities like the value depreciation of their vehicle, or paying for sick leave and time off. Full time employment provides strong protection against unexpected illness. The gig-economy doesn’t. Companies like Uber seem to prey on large pools of semi-innumerate drivers who either don’t realise they’re operating a loss and too desperate to care. The result is your productivity gains, which only exist because some of the costs simply aren’t accounted for and ignored. These aren’t real productivity gains, that’s just socialising costs and clever accounting to justify it.

mongol 7y ago

Another difference is that the Uber app is not an ad board. It also manages the monetary transactions. This effectively removes the ability to negotiate the price. If you in your example include that aspect it starts to resemble the Uber situation.

dpwm 7y ago

> Now, would you say that builder is employed by this website? Probably yes. The terms are being set by the platform. > It's a limitation of the platform (limitations made to improve customer experience - imagine if you had to negotiate for every taxi ride, you don't do this for local companies). I've never used Uber. Does the customer get to choose the driver? On this hypothetical platform, does the customer get to choose the builder?

alistairSH 7y ago
With Uber (or Lyft), neither party can select the other. The app dispatches drivers as rides are requested. This is in general... A driver can decline rides before accepting (because destination is out of their desired area or time exceeds 45 minutes), but that can impact driver rating (or at least, it used to do so). Drivers can also refuse drunk passengers, unaccompanied minors, and a few other things like that. I'm not aware of any way for a passenger to refuse a driver, short of cancelling the ride completely (which has a fee associated if done close to actual pick-up). And, if you make another ride request, you might get the same driver again.