4 ms·

I think you're gas lighting us by ignoring the fact that these types of choices aren't fully unconstrained. People aren't assuming this risk because they prefer

by matmann2001 6y ago

I think you're gas lighting us by ignoring the fact that these types of choices aren't fully unconstrained. People aren't assuming this risk because they prefer to, but rather they have limited choices available to them given their resources and background.

macinjosh 6y ago
> but rather they have limited choices available to them given their resources and background. So let's take one more choice away!? Not every person looking to make some money is looking for something with as much commitment as employment. Not every business needs people to work according to their schedule at a specific place. While you think you're giving full-time employment and benefits to all of these people what you're really doing is taking certain kinds of opportunities away.
- matmann2001 6y ago
  Yes! If the free market results in employers offering shitty choices that take advantage of workers with limited options, the government should step in and attempt to correct the power-imbalance that puts the workers at life- and liberty-threatening disadvantages. Extrapolating from your logic, indentured servitude would still be allowed to exist.
  - username90 6y ago
    Banning a form of work where workers owns the means of production doesn't seem to be in the workers interest. I'd rather they regulate it in a better way, for example rewrite union laws to make it possible for gig workers to unionize.
    - matmann2001 6y ago
      Where did I mention the banning of a form of work?
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Uber drivers do not own the means of production, as ruled by the recent California courts, because they do not own the capital of their employers, which is the IP of Uber. This is why socialists are developing and operating open-source and decentralized alternatives to Uber in many countries, so that they will indeed own the means of production. That said, I agree that employment laws need a rewrite for these situations, but we won't get the needed reform to get the gig-worker system to work under either Biden or Trump, so not for at least 6 years.
- asdasfasdfasdf 6y ago
  >While you think you're giving full-time employment and benefits to all of these people what you're really doing is taking certain kinds of opportunities away. This is some of the most phenomenal bullshit I've ever read. There's nothing stopping Uber and Lyft from allowing people to work their own hours and also giving them benefits if they meet hourly qualifications. You're talking about people making <$30k a year while shouldering most of the risk and using their own cars as if they're shopping around for the best FAANG salary.
  - username90 6y ago
    > There's nothing stopping Uber and Lyft from allowing people to work their own hours and also giving them benefits if they meet hourly qualifications. There is, if the driver drives in bad hours making their income not come up to minimum wage uber would be forced to pay the driver anyway. In order to avoid this uber would be forced to limit when and where people can drive. Being an employee means that the company has to ensure that the employees time is well spent so that it is worth the minimum wage and benefits at least. Being a contractor means that the contractor himself is responsible for what he is doing is profitable enough for him to live on. So changing them to employees means that now uber has to ensure every driver only drives when it is profitable for uber. So everyone who wants to handle this responsibility themselves don't want to be an employee.
    - asdasfasdfasdf 6y ago
      >if the driver drives in bad hours making their income not come up to minimum wage uber would be forced to pay the driver anyway is this a California specific law? There are lots of variable hour workers out there that may skirt by below the hour threshold for a short amount of time, but generally the employer can set reasonable adjustment periods where they'd lose their benefits for continuing to do so.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Uber can simply adjust their algorithm and refuse to give shifts to drivers if there is enough drivers to cover the "bad" time period, which would be the exact equivalent of Uber drivers right now not getting rides (and not getting paid) when there is no demand.

macinjosh 6y ago

> but rather they have limited choices available to them given their resources and background. So let's take one more choice away!? Not every person looking to make some money is looking for something with as much commitment as employment. Not every business needs people to work according to their schedule at a specific place. While you think you're giving full-time employment and benefits to all of these people what you're really doing is taking certain kinds of opportunities away.

matmann2001 6y ago
Yes! If the free market results in employers offering shitty choices that take advantage of workers with limited options, the government should step in and attempt to correct the power-imbalance that puts the workers at life- and liberty-threatening disadvantages. Extrapolating from your logic, indentured servitude would still be allowed to exist.
- username90 6y ago
  Banning a form of work where workers owns the means of production doesn't seem to be in the workers interest. I'd rather they regulate it in a better way, for example rewrite union laws to make it possible for gig workers to unionize.
  - matmann2001 6y ago
    Where did I mention the banning of a form of work?
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Uber drivers do not own the means of production, as ruled by the recent California courts, because they do not own the capital of their employers, which is the IP of Uber. This is why socialists are developing and operating open-source and decentralized alternatives to Uber in many countries, so that they will indeed own the means of production. That said, I agree that employment laws need a rewrite for these situations, but we won't get the needed reform to get the gig-worker system to work under either Biden or Trump, so not for at least 6 years.
asdasfasdfasdf 6y ago
>While you think you're giving full-time employment and benefits to all of these people what you're really doing is taking certain kinds of opportunities away. This is some of the most phenomenal bullshit I've ever read. There's nothing stopping Uber and Lyft from allowing people to work their own hours and also giving them benefits if they meet hourly qualifications. You're talking about people making <$30k a year while shouldering most of the risk and using their own cars as if they're shopping around for the best FAANG salary.
- username90 6y ago
  > There's nothing stopping Uber and Lyft from allowing people to work their own hours and also giving them benefits if they meet hourly qualifications. There is, if the driver drives in bad hours making their income not come up to minimum wage uber would be forced to pay the driver anyway. In order to avoid this uber would be forced to limit when and where people can drive. Being an employee means that the company has to ensure that the employees time is well spent so that it is worth the minimum wage and benefits at least. Being a contractor means that the contractor himself is responsible for what he is doing is profitable enough for him to live on. So changing them to employees means that now uber has to ensure every driver only drives when it is profitable for uber. So everyone who wants to handle this responsibility themselves don't want to be an employee.
  - asdasfasdfasdf 6y ago
    >if the driver drives in bad hours making their income not come up to minimum wage uber would be forced to pay the driver anyway is this a California specific law? There are lots of variable hour workers out there that may skirt by below the hour threshold for a short amount of time, but generally the employer can set reasonable adjustment periods where they'd lose their benefits for continuing to do so.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Uber can simply adjust their algorithm and refuse to give shifts to drivers if there is enough drivers to cover the "bad" time period, which would be the exact equivalent of Uber drivers right now not getting rides (and not getting paid) when there is no demand.