5 ms·

Downvoted because this is true of any job. You cannot have a five day 9-5 work week if your salary income doesn't cover your rent, food, and healthcare and you

Downvoted because this is true of any job. You cannot have a five day 9-5 work week if your salary income doesn't cover your rent, food, and healthcare and you have no other income. Gig work is no more or less special than that.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Full time employment comes with benefits and protections gig work does not (the entire point of this article).
- tathougies 7y ago
  If healthcare is decoupled from employment, as the comment chain suggests, what benefit is tied in with full-time employment. We should be seeking to decouple benefits from employment not solidifying the arrangement. What protections does employment have? Hopefully very little.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    I am entirely happy to revisit employment arrangements....once universal healthcare has been delivered, and not a moment sooner. It is an atomic commit.
    - bhupy 7y ago
      And I am entirely happy to revisit universal healthcare once employment arrangements are fixed, and not a moment sooner. It is an atomic commit, after all. This line of uncompromising thinking is not really constructive.
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        You want to pull out one of the few safety nets left for American citizens (employment benefits) without providing for healthcare needs. Sometimes compromise isn’t possible. Whomever comes with the most leverage wins. I acknowledge my side needs additional leverage. Maybe that’s COVID, maybe that’s the ensuing global recession.
        tathougies 7y ago
        Employment benefits aren't a safety net though. They're not even universally required, and are completely up to the employment contract.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    First you solve decoupling healthcare from employment, then you can loosen things around the gig economy. Going the other way around is massively unethical considering the state of healthcare in this country and the dependence on employment for health benefits.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      A gig economy doesn't need anything loosened. It's a natural part of a free society in which parties can engage in contracts.
- bhupy 7y ago
  So then the next question is: who should be responsible for providing the quality of life floor? We as a society (rightly) demand a minimum standard of living for everyone, and we collectively pay for that one way or the other. Either we pay taxes to fund a welfare state (single payer healthcare, UBI, food stamps), or we pay inflated prices for goods and services to maintain wage floors. I'd argue that paying taxes for welfare is more progressive, as the burden falls on richer people. Paying inflated prices for goods and services is regressive as it's a burden that falls equally on the rich and the poor. What we're clearly seeing is a well functioning market driving down the cost of driver labor to the minimum possible price (ignoring for a moment the need to make sure externalities are included in the price via congestion taxes). This is good for consumers, since the good/service is now accessible to people lower on the socioeconomic ladder. If the problem is that some of these drivers aren't making enough to survive, then wouldn't a more optimum solution be to simply give them a little bit of money (or in-kind services)?
- maxerickson 7y ago
  That's typically a matter of the employment agreement and not a regulatory condition: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/full-time https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/full-time Overtime compensation tends to be regulated. Unemployment is also sort of tied to work hours, but it's not particularly a job benefit (it's operated as insurance, so it's basically coming out of wages...).
- siruncledrew 7y ago
  That’s not completely true though. A person could be a full time W2 employee and not get health insurance or benefits if the employer falls under a certain FTE count and depending on the state. In such case, FTE and gig workers would both be stuck getting their own insurance.
- xhkkffbf 7y ago
  Protections? Tell that to all of the "full-time" workers that were laid off within days of the economic crash. If the money isn't coming into the business, it won't be going out of the business in paychecks. Period. You can wave your hands about magical "protections" but accounting is the real master. Gig work lets the businesses and the workers adapt weekly, daily or even hourly. Full-time work is onerous to startup and so businesses wait until they're desperate before hiring anyone. You would do the same. None of us have extra cash to toss around.
  - kube-system 7y ago
    > Protections? Tell that to all of the "full-time" workers that were laid off within days of the economic crash. Full time employees get benefits like unemployment, health insurance, COBRA, FICA contributions etc. And tons of other legal protections that contractors do not normally get.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      Unemployment though is structured as an insurance. Those employees pay unemployment premiums. There is no reason (other than a sloppy tax code) why the same thing couldn't be asked of gig workers (who do have to pay tax on their earnings anyway).
    - bhupy 7y ago
      > Full time employees get benefits like unemployment, health insurance, COBRA, FICA contributions etc. A huge part of the problem is that full-time employees get benefits like health insurance and COBRA. They're all band-aids on top of one cardinal sin: that benefits are tied to employment. We don't really talk about employees receiving car insurance benefits, or food benefits, or housing benefits.
      - kube-system 7y ago
        > We don't really talk about employees receiving car insurance benefits, or food benefits, or housing benefits. I don't know why we don't talk about them, but it's not because they don't exist. These benefits aren't even really uncommon. They're just more frequently called: 'company cars', 'employee meals', and 'corporate housing'.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

Full time employment comes with benefits and protections gig work does not (the entire point of this article).

tathougies 7y ago
If healthcare is decoupled from employment, as the comment chain suggests, what benefit is tied in with full-time employment. We should be seeking to decouple benefits from employment not solidifying the arrangement. What protections does employment have? Hopefully very little.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  I am entirely happy to revisit employment arrangements....once universal healthcare has been delivered, and not a moment sooner. It is an atomic commit.
  - bhupy 7y ago
    And I am entirely happy to revisit universal healthcare once employment arrangements are fixed, and not a moment sooner. It is an atomic commit, after all. This line of uncompromising thinking is not really constructive.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      You want to pull out one of the few safety nets left for American citizens (employment benefits) without providing for healthcare needs. Sometimes compromise isn’t possible. Whomever comes with the most leverage wins. I acknowledge my side needs additional leverage. Maybe that’s COVID, maybe that’s the ensuing global recession.
      - tathougies 7y ago
        Employment benefits aren't a safety net though. They're not even universally required, and are completely up to the employment contract.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  First you solve decoupling healthcare from employment, then you can loosen things around the gig economy. Going the other way around is massively unethical considering the state of healthcare in this country and the dependence on employment for health benefits.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    A gig economy doesn't need anything loosened. It's a natural part of a free society in which parties can engage in contracts.
bhupy 7y ago
So then the next question is: who should be responsible for providing the quality of life floor? We as a society (rightly) demand a minimum standard of living for everyone, and we collectively pay for that one way or the other. Either we pay taxes to fund a welfare state (single payer healthcare, UBI, food stamps), or we pay inflated prices for goods and services to maintain wage floors. I'd argue that paying taxes for welfare is more progressive, as the burden falls on richer people. Paying inflated prices for goods and services is regressive as it's a burden that falls equally on the rich and the poor. What we're clearly seeing is a well functioning market driving down the cost of driver labor to the minimum possible price (ignoring for a moment the need to make sure externalities are included in the price via congestion taxes). This is good for consumers, since the good/service is now accessible to people lower on the socioeconomic ladder. If the problem is that some of these drivers aren't making enough to survive, then wouldn't a more optimum solution be to simply give them a little bit of money (or in-kind services)?
maxerickson 7y ago
That's typically a matter of the employment agreement and not a regulatory condition: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/full-time https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/full-time Overtime compensation tends to be regulated. Unemployment is also sort of tied to work hours, but it's not particularly a job benefit (it's operated as insurance, so it's basically coming out of wages...).
siruncledrew 7y ago
That’s not completely true though. A person could be a full time W2 employee and not get health insurance or benefits if the employer falls under a certain FTE count and depending on the state. In such case, FTE and gig workers would both be stuck getting their own insurance.
xhkkffbf 7y ago
Protections? Tell that to all of the "full-time" workers that were laid off within days of the economic crash. If the money isn't coming into the business, it won't be going out of the business in paychecks. Period. You can wave your hands about magical "protections" but accounting is the real master. Gig work lets the businesses and the workers adapt weekly, daily or even hourly. Full-time work is onerous to startup and so businesses wait until they're desperate before hiring anyone. You would do the same. None of us have extra cash to toss around.
- kube-system 7y ago
  > Protections? Tell that to all of the "full-time" workers that were laid off within days of the economic crash. Full time employees get benefits like unemployment, health insurance, COBRA, FICA contributions etc. And tons of other legal protections that contractors do not normally get.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    Unemployment though is structured as an insurance. Those employees pay unemployment premiums. There is no reason (other than a sloppy tax code) why the same thing couldn't be asked of gig workers (who do have to pay tax on their earnings anyway).
  - bhupy 7y ago
    > Full time employees get benefits like unemployment, health insurance, COBRA, FICA contributions etc. A huge part of the problem is that full-time employees get benefits like health insurance and COBRA. They're all band-aids on top of one cardinal sin: that benefits are tied to employment. We don't really talk about employees receiving car insurance benefits, or food benefits, or housing benefits.
    - kube-system 7y ago
      > We don't really talk about employees receiving car insurance benefits, or food benefits, or housing benefits. I don't know why we don't talk about them, but it's not because they don't exist. These benefits aren't even really uncommon. They're just more frequently called: 'company cars', 'employee meals', and 'corporate housing'.