9 ms·

I'm conflicted about this because i believe drivers deserve benefits but also uber should not be forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit o

I'm conflicted about this because i believe drivers deserve benefits but also uber should not be forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night. Where is the line of hours driven until you get benefits? I dont know, but I think that is the wrong question. The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. If we offered national healthcare, like many other countries, it would solve the problem across the board. It could be funded by Uber and all other companies through some type of tax. That seems a lot more efficient than trying to solve the problem piecemeal.

akiselev 6y ago
> Where is the line? I dont know, but I think that is the wrong question. 40 hours according to the California Department of Industrial Relations and 30 hours according to the Affordable Care Act. > The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. It's not just healthcare. It's also about unemployment insurance, paid time off, 401k contributions/matching, how the tax burden is split, and on and on.
- gruez 6y ago
  >40 hours according to the California Department of Industrial Relations and 30 hours according to the Affordable Care Act. So uber can avoid this requirement by only allowing drivers to work for 40/30 hours per week?
  - ianlevesque 6y ago
    I see you’re familiar with retail jobs.
  - Shebanator 6y ago
    Well, yes and no. They can avoid healthcare requirements by not allowing people to work 30+ hours per week (as Walmart and MacDonalds often do), but that doesn't get rid of their other obligations to employees (disability, unemployment, social security, payroll tax, etc.). They already provide these services for their non-driver employees, so the issue here is purely cost.
gamblor956 6y ago
The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. Because one political party has spent the last 4 decades fighting to prevent "national healthcare," forcing states and businesses to deal with it. Hell, they've spent the last 10 years trying to demolish a law that the overwhelming majority of voters support, including those within their own party.
- TuringNYC 6y ago
  Totally agree on the root cause here. Curious though - can California deal with this by offering some a state-level single-payer benefit and charging employers? That would be a broader solution that would address many things in one swoop.
  - Shebanator 6y ago
    California has seriously discussed doing exactly that. But given the situation in DC, it is likely that they would be actively sabotaged by the federal government if they tried. So much for "states rights"....
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    They have tried, but the aforementioned political party blocked such efforts at the state level in the past, and currently federal law (again, due to that same political party) requires the state to get permission from the federal government to implement a single-payer healthcare system. However, as currently envisioned, the single-payer system would not charge employers; it would be part of the taxes levied on all taxpayers (including employers), which would spread out the costs more.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Do Californians get a lot of benefit for the high taxes they currently pay? Californians seem to be voting with their feet, moving to lower tax states: https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/31/190122-more-people-left-california-last-year-vs-arrived-a-38-jump/ https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/31/190122-more-people-lef... Do you feel strongly that one more tax would solve all of California's problems?
mrlala 6y ago
>The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. Because that's the way the stupid system currently works? So it's both- Uber should be forced to work in the current confines of the system, and there should be questions like national healthcare >If we offered national healthcare, like many other countries, it would solve the problem across the board. It could be funded by Uber and all other companies through some type of tax. That seems a lot more efficient than trying to solve the problem piecemeal. As others has said, it's not just healthcare.. payroll taxes, other benefits etc.. Uber is basically trying to avoid all of this by pretending that 100% of their workforce are "contractors" even though many work 40+ hours a week like a normal employee.
dehrmann 6y ago
> ...forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night. And for their competitor. Dara Khosrowshahi is right that there needs to be a "third way." Uber would obviously prefer contractors, and maybe the "third way" talk is just them realizing that's not politically viable, but however they reached the conclusion, they're right that this is a different category of work.
- thewebcount 6y ago
  No he's not. This is no different than someone working the morning shift at McDonald's and working the evening shift at Burger King. It should work exactly the same as that.
  - jquery 6y ago
    If you have a job at McDonalds, you can’t take 6 months off (without even notifying anyone!) and come back like nothing has happened. You can’t switch your schedule to a morning shift at Burger King and an evening shift at McDonald’s at will. Being an employee comes with certain benefits, but also certain responsibilities. Not everyone wants to be saddled with those obligations. Some of us want to be able to earn cash whenever we feel like it. EDIT: To a reply saying I don’t understand how fast food restaurants operate, I certainly do, I’ve worked fast food in my life. While they certainly try to be flexible, you can’t just decide to show up approximately “whenever you feel like it.” The closest approximation to that is to only have 4 hours a week regularly scheduled (otherwise they can’t call you an employee), and then you call in whenever you feel like working to see if they need help (often they will say “yes” but sometimes they will say “no”). However, this arrangement only works once you have enough experience that you can come in and basically work any position in the restaurant, and it’s not something that can be scaled to every worker at the restaurant.
    - cool_dude85 6y ago
      Luckily for Uber, if they don't want their new employees working for Lyft while they're on the clock, they can make it a condition of employment. Bingo bongo, problem solved.
tzs 6y ago
> I'm conflicted about this because i believe drivers deserve benefits but also uber should not be forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night. > Where is the line of hours driven until you get benefits? I dont know, but I think that is the wrong question. I wonder if there is a reason it could't work like this: • If you work N hours in a week for employer X, where N meets the benefit threshold, T, for some type of benefit, the employer has to provide that benefit. • If N does not meet that threshold, the employer has to make a payment of N/T x C to the State, where C is the weekly cost for the person to pay for that benefit themselves. • The State keeps track of these payments on a per worker basis and works with the benefit providers to use them as a subsidy on the worker's cost to buy the benefit. For example, for health insurance, if Bob drove 40 hours a week for Uber, Uber would have to offer Bob the same health insurance they provide their full time employees. If Bob only drives 10 hours a week for Uber, delivers food for Grubhub 15 hours a week, and does 10 hours waiting tables at a cafe, none of those would have to provide health insurance, because the threshold is 30 hours. But Uber would have to contribue 1/3 C, Grubhub 1/2 C, and the cafe 1/3 C to the State for Bob's health insurance. That would be enough to cover Bob getting health insurance on his state's ACA market. It would actually be more than enough. If the excess carries over to be used in weeks when Bob works less than 30 hours total, then as long as Bob averages 30 hours of work a week, he has health insurance.

akiselev 6y ago

> Where is the line? I dont know, but I think that is the wrong question. 40 hours according to the California Department of Industrial Relations and 30 hours according to the Affordable Care Act. > The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. It's not just healthcare. It's also about unemployment insurance, paid time off, 401k contributions/matching, how the tax burden is split, and on and on.

gruez 6y ago
>40 hours according to the California Department of Industrial Relations and 30 hours according to the Affordable Care Act. So uber can avoid this requirement by only allowing drivers to work for 40/30 hours per week?
- ianlevesque 6y ago
  I see you’re familiar with retail jobs.
- Shebanator 6y ago
  Well, yes and no. They can avoid healthcare requirements by not allowing people to work 30+ hours per week (as Walmart and MacDonalds often do), but that doesn't get rid of their other obligations to employees (disability, unemployment, social security, payroll tax, etc.). They already provide these services for their non-driver employees, so the issue here is purely cost.

gamblor956 6y ago

The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. Because one political party has spent the last 4 decades fighting to prevent "national healthcare," forcing states and businesses to deal with it. Hell, they've spent the last 10 years trying to demolish a law that the overwhelming majority of voters support, including those within their own party.

TuringNYC 6y ago
Totally agree on the root cause here. Curious though - can California deal with this by offering some a state-level single-payer benefit and charging employers? That would be a broader solution that would address many things in one swoop.
- Shebanator 6y ago
  California has seriously discussed doing exactly that. But given the situation in DC, it is likely that they would be actively sabotaged by the federal government if they tried. So much for "states rights"....
- gamblor956 6y ago
  They have tried, but the aforementioned political party blocked such efforts at the state level in the past, and currently federal law (again, due to that same political party) requires the state to get permission from the federal government to implement a single-payer healthcare system. However, as currently envisioned, the single-payer system would not charge employers; it would be part of the taxes levied on all taxpayers (including employers), which would spread out the costs more.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Do Californians get a lot of benefit for the high taxes they currently pay? Californians seem to be voting with their feet, moving to lower tax states: https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/31/190122-more-people-left-california-last-year-vs-arrived-a-38-jump/ https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/31/190122-more-people-lef... Do you feel strongly that one more tax would solve all of California's problems?

mrlala 6y ago

>The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. Because that's the way the stupid system currently works? So it's both- Uber should be forced to work in the current confines of the system, and there should be questions like national healthcare >If we offered national healthcare, like many other countries, it would solve the problem across the board. It could be funded by Uber and all other companies through some type of tax. That seems a lot more efficient than trying to solve the problem piecemeal. As others has said, it's not just healthcare.. payroll taxes, other benefits etc.. Uber is basically trying to avoid all of this by pretending that 100% of their workforce are "contractors" even though many work 40+ hours a week like a normal employee.

dehrmann 6y ago

> ...forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night. And for their competitor. Dara Khosrowshahi is right that there needs to be a "third way." Uber would obviously prefer contractors, and maybe the "third way" talk is just them realizing that's not politically viable, but however they reached the conclusion, they're right that this is a different category of work.

thewebcount 6y ago
No he's not. This is no different than someone working the morning shift at McDonald's and working the evening shift at Burger King. It should work exactly the same as that.
- jquery 6y ago
  If you have a job at McDonalds, you can’t take 6 months off (without even notifying anyone!) and come back like nothing has happened. You can’t switch your schedule to a morning shift at Burger King and an evening shift at McDonald’s at will. Being an employee comes with certain benefits, but also certain responsibilities. Not everyone wants to be saddled with those obligations. Some of us want to be able to earn cash whenever we feel like it. EDIT: To a reply saying I don’t understand how fast food restaurants operate, I certainly do, I’ve worked fast food in my life. While they certainly try to be flexible, you can’t just decide to show up approximately “whenever you feel like it.” The closest approximation to that is to only have 4 hours a week regularly scheduled (otherwise they can’t call you an employee), and then you call in whenever you feel like working to see if they need help (often they will say “yes” but sometimes they will say “no”). However, this arrangement only works once you have enough experience that you can come in and basically work any position in the restaurant, and it’s not something that can be scaled to every worker at the restaurant.
  - cool_dude85 6y ago
    Luckily for Uber, if they don't want their new employees working for Lyft while they're on the clock, they can make it a condition of employment. Bingo bongo, problem solved.

tzs 6y ago

> I'm conflicted about this because i believe drivers deserve benefits but also uber should not be forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night. > Where is the line of hours driven until you get benefits? I dont know, but I think that is the wrong question. I wonder if there is a reason it could't work like this: • If you work N hours in a week for employer X, where N meets the benefit threshold, T, for some type of benefit, the employer has to provide that benefit. • If N does not meet that threshold, the employer has to make a payment of N/T x C to the State, where C is the weekly cost for the person to pay for that benefit themselves. • The State keeps track of these payments on a per worker basis and works with the benefit providers to use them as a subsidy on the worker's cost to buy the benefit. For example, for health insurance, if Bob drove 40 hours a week for Uber, Uber would have to offer Bob the same health insurance they provide their full time employees. If Bob only drives 10 hours a week for Uber, delivers food for Grubhub 15 hours a week, and does 10 hours waiting tables at a cafe, none of those would have to provide health insurance, because the threshold is 30 hours. But Uber would have to contribue 1/3 C, Grubhub 1/2 C, and the cafe 1/3 C to the State for Bob's health insurance. That would be enough to cover Bob getting health insurance on his state's ACA market. It would actually be more than enough. If the excess carries over to be used in weeks when Bob works less than 30 hours total, then as long as Bob averages 30 hours of work a week, he has health insurance.