14 ms·

I think the strongest argument against this point of view is that the drivers can opt to work for multiple car services to get a handle on their price structure

I think the strongest argument against this point of view is that the drivers can opt to work for multiple car services to get a handle on their price structures. It's certainly possible for a traditional employer to allow that arrangement, but you have to admit it is an uncommon thing. It's much more analogous to a contractor working for a general contractor -- if I'm a plumber I can take gigs from multiple general contractors, and my ability to negotiate with the customer directly is very limited; instead I'm usually left negotiating with the general contractor, often just with a take it or leave it price. The general contractor is not the employer in this case.

scirocco 7y ago
Imagine ride-sharing companies bidding for different drivers in real-time where drivers would set their minimum fare.
bitxbitxbitcoin 7y ago
But do general contractors in your example punish plumbers if they are found to be working for multiple general contractors?
- d1zzy 7y ago
  When does that happen? Almost every Uber/Lyft driver I've seen lately has both logos on their car...
  - mstade 7y ago
    This might depend on jurisdiction though. I too have seen cars with all kinds of stickers at the same time in some countries, and in others they are exclusively one or the other.
    - Larrikin 7y ago
      Whenever I've asked why a driver is only driving for one its usually for one of two reasons. They don't know they can do both and went with what they believed to be the most popular. These are usually uber only drivers. They had a bad experience with too many customers on one platform. These are usually Lyft drivers that are actually using the platform for the occasional side money instead of a full on job.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    Why do the drivers usually have two different phones?
    - d0100 7y ago
      To have both HUD's on all the time?
    - Jommi 7y ago
      Ease-of-use, and iPhones don't have multi-use.
michaelmrose 7y ago
If target allowed you also work for Walmart that wouldn't transform their employees into contractors.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Target pays workers hourly wages. It would be quite something if they allowed you to work at Walmart during the hours you're being paid an hourly wage by Target.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    Worker protections exist to ensure that employers don't exploit their position of power to take advantage of their workers. Full stop. Obviously that doesn't apply to the plumber you hired to fix your toilet or the painters the company hired to paint the walls but anytime you have a continuing open ended relationship when you alone provide at least a substantial fraction of the employees total income I have to wonder how on earth the same protections don't apply. The situations where a contractor relationship applies are plain and obvious. Any time you have to ask if someone is an employee you are probably exploiting the fine line to avoid having to follow the law. Kind of like if you have to ask if you are actually committing fraud you probably are. Depending on which side of the fine line a judge comes down on you may or may not be punished for it but you aren't a better person for it.
  - nicoburns 7y ago
    Well one can't simultaneously drive a passenger obtained via Uber, and a passenger obtained via Lyft either.
    - mcv 7y ago
      Can't they? What happens if they're driving an Uber passenger and do pick up a Lyft passenger who happens to be on the same route?
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      Neither can a contractor build a gazebo for one client at the same time as they're building a gazebo for a different client. But there is a difference between getting paid for hours and getting paid for tasks.
jrumbut 7y ago
If people were taking home $100k driving for Uber I would accept this argument, since I wouldn't want to interrupt the good opportunity with regulations. As it is, I see the preponderance of arguments on the side of it being regular employment without the expected benefits. For what it's worth every Uber ride I've taken I would have taken at double the price, it's possible they could afford to pay their full time drivers benefits.
- eru 7y ago
  > If people were taking home $100k driving for Uber I would accept this argument, since I wouldn't want to interrupt the good opportunity with regulations. So only rich people should have opportunities?
  - ludamad 7y ago
    How did you get that conclusion? What he is saying if there were advantages over normal employment, it would be more palatable
    - eru 7y ago
      Evidently, there are enough advantages for people to voluntarily take on those jobs. And 'normal employment' means 'unemployment' for a lot of people in France these years. France should encourage more companies to enter and contest the market that Uber is in. See https://www.idiosyncraticwhisk.com/2019/05/uber-and-wages-in-free-economy.html https://www.idiosyncraticwhisk.com/2019/05/uber-and-wages-in... for how when Uber and eg Lyft are both operating in the same market, the result is almost a textbook case of perfect competition.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > As it is, I see the preponderance of arguments on the side of it being regular employment without the expected benefits. Let's evaluate this for a moment. Suppose the people driving for Uber could get a job somewhere else as an employee. In this case they willingly chose the driving job with e.g. more flexible hours over the other job with employment status, so why are we second guessing their choice and trying to take it away? Now suppose the other job isn't available to them. Job prospects for unskilled workers are pretty bad, so it's either Uber or unemployment. Then it's the same thing -- they'd rather drive for Uber as a contractor than be unemployed, so why should we take that option away from them? The theory behind forcing them to be employees is that it's "better" for them. If they're employees they get employee benefits. But then they can't work part time anymore, because if the company is going to pay full time benefits then they're going to want full time hours. Flexible hours go away too, because if they're forced to pay benefits they can use them to attract people who don't need flexible hours and no longer have to accommodate people who do. Then the benefits cost money, but the company's margins are pretty thin so the only place to get the money is by making rides more expensive. That hurts all the working class people who have to pay more for rides, but it also lowers demand for rides. Lower demand, fewer drivers. So a lot of the existing drivers, and specifically the most vulnerable of them who can't find another job or need the flexible schedule, lose their jobs. They might be better off if we don't "help" them like this.
alistairSH 7y ago
That building contractor can generally set hours, sub out the work, etc. Pricing negotiation is only one of several tests to determine whether or not a worker is an employee or contractor.
Shivetya 7y ago
Now they will probably lock a driver to their service and then a new fight will ensue when courts try to rule that is not allowed and find a new class to these drivers in.
- eru 7y ago
  My prediction is that this backlash won't happen. At least not in France.

scirocco 7y ago

Imagine ride-sharing companies bidding for different drivers in real-time where drivers would set their minimum fare.

bitxbitxbitcoin 7y ago

But do general contractors in your example punish plumbers if they are found to be working for multiple general contractors?

d1zzy 7y ago
When does that happen? Almost every Uber/Lyft driver I've seen lately has both logos on their car...
- mstade 7y ago
  This might depend on jurisdiction though. I too have seen cars with all kinds of stickers at the same time in some countries, and in others they are exclusively one or the other.
  - Larrikin 7y ago
    Whenever I've asked why a driver is only driving for one its usually for one of two reasons. They don't know they can do both and went with what they believed to be the most popular. These are usually uber only drivers. They had a bad experience with too many customers on one platform. These are usually Lyft drivers that are actually using the platform for the occasional side money instead of a full on job.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Why do the drivers usually have two different phones?
  - d0100 7y ago
    To have both HUD's on all the time?
  - Jommi 7y ago
    Ease-of-use, and iPhones don't have multi-use.

michaelmrose 7y ago

If target allowed you also work for Walmart that wouldn't transform their employees into contractors.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
Target pays workers hourly wages. It would be quite something if they allowed you to work at Walmart during the hours you're being paid an hourly wage by Target.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  Worker protections exist to ensure that employers don't exploit their position of power to take advantage of their workers. Full stop. Obviously that doesn't apply to the plumber you hired to fix your toilet or the painters the company hired to paint the walls but anytime you have a continuing open ended relationship when you alone provide at least a substantial fraction of the employees total income I have to wonder how on earth the same protections don't apply. The situations where a contractor relationship applies are plain and obvious. Any time you have to ask if someone is an employee you are probably exploiting the fine line to avoid having to follow the law. Kind of like if you have to ask if you are actually committing fraud you probably are. Depending on which side of the fine line a judge comes down on you may or may not be punished for it but you aren't a better person for it.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  Well one can't simultaneously drive a passenger obtained via Uber, and a passenger obtained via Lyft either.
  - mcv 7y ago
    Can't they? What happens if they're driving an Uber passenger and do pick up a Lyft passenger who happens to be on the same route?
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Neither can a contractor build a gazebo for one client at the same time as they're building a gazebo for a different client. But there is a difference between getting paid for hours and getting paid for tasks.

jrumbut 7y ago

If people were taking home $100k driving for Uber I would accept this argument, since I wouldn't want to interrupt the good opportunity with regulations. As it is, I see the preponderance of arguments on the side of it being regular employment without the expected benefits. For what it's worth every Uber ride I've taken I would have taken at double the price, it's possible they could afford to pay their full time drivers benefits.

eru 7y ago
> If people were taking home $100k driving for Uber I would accept this argument, since I wouldn't want to interrupt the good opportunity with regulations. So only rich people should have opportunities?
- ludamad 7y ago
  How did you get that conclusion? What he is saying if there were advantages over normal employment, it would be more palatable
  - eru 7y ago
    Evidently, there are enough advantages for people to voluntarily take on those jobs. And 'normal employment' means 'unemployment' for a lot of people in France these years. France should encourage more companies to enter and contest the market that Uber is in. See https://www.idiosyncraticwhisk.com/2019/05/uber-and-wages-in-free-economy.html https://www.idiosyncraticwhisk.com/2019/05/uber-and-wages-in... for how when Uber and eg Lyft are both operating in the same market, the result is almost a textbook case of perfect competition.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> As it is, I see the preponderance of arguments on the side of it being regular employment without the expected benefits. Let's evaluate this for a moment. Suppose the people driving for Uber could get a job somewhere else as an employee. In this case they willingly chose the driving job with e.g. more flexible hours over the other job with employment status, so why are we second guessing their choice and trying to take it away? Now suppose the other job isn't available to them. Job prospects for unskilled workers are pretty bad, so it's either Uber or unemployment. Then it's the same thing -- they'd rather drive for Uber as a contractor than be unemployed, so why should we take that option away from them? The theory behind forcing them to be employees is that it's "better" for them. If they're employees they get employee benefits. But then they can't work part time anymore, because if the company is going to pay full time benefits then they're going to want full time hours. Flexible hours go away too, because if they're forced to pay benefits they can use them to attract people who don't need flexible hours and no longer have to accommodate people who do. Then the benefits cost money, but the company's margins are pretty thin so the only place to get the money is by making rides more expensive. That hurts all the working class people who have to pay more for rides, but it also lowers demand for rides. Lower demand, fewer drivers. So a lot of the existing drivers, and specifically the most vulnerable of them who can't find another job or need the flexible schedule, lose their jobs. They might be better off if we don't "help" them like this.

alistairSH 7y ago

That building contractor can generally set hours, sub out the work, etc. Pricing negotiation is only one of several tests to determine whether or not a worker is an employee or contractor.

Shivetya 7y ago

Now they will probably lock a driver to their service and then a new fight will ensue when courts try to rule that is not allowed and find a new class to these drivers in.

eru 7y ago
My prediction is that this backlash won't happen. At least not in France.