7 ms·

Because benefits like healthcare are gated on the number of hours worked. Uber isn't going to (and can't possibly afford to) pay healthcare for someone who dri

Because benefits like healthcare are gated on the number of hours worked. Uber isn't going to (and can't possibly afford to) pay healthcare for someone who drives 2 hours a week.

criddell 6y ago
Sounds like something universal health care could fix. It seems crazy that access to health care is connected to your employment status.
- munk-a 6y ago
  Yea - this is a real employment advantage up here in Canada. Due to lifetime healthcare Canadians tend to cost less in emergency procedures over their lifetime and employers don't need to worry about standard healthcare for employees (drug coverage is still a thing and WorkSafe (basically OSHA) can still end up costing a lot for on-the-job accidents though).
- ars 6y ago
  Universal healthcare is not the only way to fix that.... You could use the existing healthcare exchange, and just give people a certain percent of their salary that can only be used to buy healthcare. Then let them buy as they choose.
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    The difference being the employers have buying power for all their employees and can keep costs down, as opposed to individual buyers on the exchanges. The problem with switching healthcare in America is that any new system that doesn't allow Americans to think, "I've got mine, you can worry about you" is difficult. Whether that's forced exchanges where everyone pays the same or universal healthcare (where everyone pays the same).
- alextheparrot 6y ago
  The existence of employment tied health insurance isn’t that surprising historically. Some of the first companies to offer healthcare were risky jobs where the job could cause harm and then it became more standard as a non-wage perk under wage controls enacted during the second world war. This timing also coincides with the rise of modern medicine as we know it today (Labor, eduction, and R&D intensive). The truly crazy part is that core issues with the system weren’t addressed over the last 70 or so years. Not working should not mean that I’m only able to participate in health-seeking behaviour if I’m wealthy enough to maintain my own health care coverage. Not to mention conflicts of interest, had a former classmate who’s an ER doctor tweet that he saw a patient who’s chronic condition was causing emergency healthcare needs because insurance was paying for treatment every 4 weeks when the doctor prescribed every 3.
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    You're right. Health insurance was originally fought for by the unions, which was why they are historically provided by employers in the US. Other nations underwent similar demands from their people, but it ended up being tied to government provision, not corporation. With employee unions being neutered in the past century, and exponential privatized healthcare cost increases, you start to see broad swaths of employees go without insurance in the US, while other countries nationalized their healthcare to keep costs down and continue providing it to their people.
henryfjordan 6y ago
That's not a reason why Lyft and Uber couldn't just reclassify everyone. That's a consequence of the reclassification, but that's a distinction those companies don't want to make because they'd prefer their drivers be confused. Even if you drove 2 hours a week, there's still 1 reason to prefer being an employee over a contractor: Minimum wage. Uber drivers might only make peanuts once you factor in gas, car payments, and all the time they wait between rides. At least an employee driving 2 hours a week will get a fair paycheck.
- carlosdp 6y ago
  I highly doubt Uber or Lyft will allow an employee on their payroll to work for only 2 hours a week...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - henryfjordan 6y ago
    Why not? They currently do just that...
    - twblalock 6y ago
      > Why not? They currently do just that... Right now they do that for contractors. After the drivers are reclassified as employees, things might change.
      - henryfjordan 6y ago
        Things might also stay the same. There's inertia in the current system and the drivers clearly value their flexibility. Why would things change?
        twblalock 6y ago
        Because operating costs increased substantially because of the requirement to provide benefits to workers.

Because benefits like healthcare are gated on the number of hours worked. Uber isn't going to (and can't possibly afford to) pay healthcare for someone who drives 2 hours a week.

criddell 6y ago

Sounds like something universal health care could fix. It seems crazy that access to health care is connected to your employment status.

munk-a 6y ago
Yea - this is a real employment advantage up here in Canada. Due to lifetime healthcare Canadians tend to cost less in emergency procedures over their lifetime and employers don't need to worry about standard healthcare for employees (drug coverage is still a thing and WorkSafe (basically OSHA) can still end up costing a lot for on-the-job accidents though).
ars 6y ago
Universal healthcare is not the only way to fix that.... You could use the existing healthcare exchange, and just give people a certain percent of their salary that can only be used to buy healthcare. Then let them buy as they choose.
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  The difference being the employers have buying power for all their employees and can keep costs down, as opposed to individual buyers on the exchanges. The problem with switching healthcare in America is that any new system that doesn't allow Americans to think, "I've got mine, you can worry about you" is difficult. Whether that's forced exchanges where everyone pays the same or universal healthcare (where everyone pays the same).
alextheparrot 6y ago
The existence of employment tied health insurance isn’t that surprising historically. Some of the first companies to offer healthcare were risky jobs where the job could cause harm and then it became more standard as a non-wage perk under wage controls enacted during the second world war. This timing also coincides with the rise of modern medicine as we know it today (Labor, eduction, and R&D intensive). The truly crazy part is that core issues with the system weren’t addressed over the last 70 or so years. Not working should not mean that I’m only able to participate in health-seeking behaviour if I’m wealthy enough to maintain my own health care coverage. Not to mention conflicts of interest, had a former classmate who’s an ER doctor tweet that he saw a patient who’s chronic condition was causing emergency healthcare needs because insurance was paying for treatment every 4 weeks when the doctor prescribed every 3.
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  You're right. Health insurance was originally fought for by the unions, which was why they are historically provided by employers in the US. Other nations underwent similar demands from their people, but it ended up being tied to government provision, not corporation. With employee unions being neutered in the past century, and exponential privatized healthcare cost increases, you start to see broad swaths of employees go without insurance in the US, while other countries nationalized their healthcare to keep costs down and continue providing it to their people.

henryfjordan 6y ago

That's not a reason why Lyft and Uber couldn't just reclassify everyone. That's a consequence of the reclassification, but that's a distinction those companies don't want to make because they'd prefer their drivers be confused. Even if you drove 2 hours a week, there's still 1 reason to prefer being an employee over a contractor: Minimum wage. Uber drivers might only make peanuts once you factor in gas, car payments, and all the time they wait between rides. At least an employee driving 2 hours a week will get a fair paycheck.

carlosdp 6y ago
I highly doubt Uber or Lyft will allow an employee on their payroll to work for only 2 hours a week...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- henryfjordan 6y ago
  Why not? They currently do just that...
  - twblalock 6y ago
    > Why not? They currently do just that... Right now they do that for contractors. After the drivers are reclassified as employees, things might change.
    - henryfjordan 6y ago
      Things might also stay the same. There's inertia in the current system and the drivers clearly value their flexibility. Why would things change?
      - twblalock 6y ago
        Because operating costs increased substantially because of the requirement to provide benefits to workers.