4 ms·
This perfectly lays bare why I disagree with the ruling: you don't actually think drivers are employees, you just want them classified as employees so they get
by dahfizz 6y ago
This perfectly lays bare why I disagree with the ruling: you don't actually think drivers are employees, you just want them classified as employees so they get X benefits. It's a legislative hack.
It's seems so obvious to me that we need to create a third kind of worker: not an employee, not a contractor, but a new category that has some of the extra freedom of contracting and some of the benefits of employment.
It's important that we maintain integrity in our legal system. Uber drivers are not employees, and saying "we need to classify them as employees so they get insurance" is fundamentally backwards.
- sudosysgen 6y agoNo, they pretty much are employees, sorry. Under the current framework, they fit the definition of employee well in the letter and perfectly in the spirit. Employees can have literally every single freedom that Uber drivers have. Nothing is disqualifying. I agree that once we reform Healthcare and Unemployment, we can create a third category if we want, but there are actually no inherent disadvantages in freedom of being an employee in this case. The classification as contractor only really benefits Uber and hurts the common man.
- DangitBobby 6y ago>once we reform Healthcare Your optimism is inspiring, but there's been "bipartisan support" for meaningful healthcare reform going as far back as Nixon. Probably further. If the people who actually make the rules wanted it done, it would be done.
- sudosysgen 6y agoI share your pessimism, it was a rhetorical device, hence the "Once we're done reforming", which will likely never happen. Since Biden is against any form of Universal Healthcare, it is literally impossible before 6 years into the future.