5 ms·

I 100% am not agreeing with your position. I was coming at it from the point of view of the customer. Negotiating a sale price is not exclusive to independent

I 100% am not agreeing with your position. I was coming at it from the point of view of the customer. Negotiating a sale price is not exclusive to independent agents. Some stores and indeed some chains will allow their employees(supervisor/manager) to accept a lower price. That is not exclusive to or indicative of an independent contractor. Someone who drives for Uber has the agency to turn down work that Uber puts in front of them with 0 reason needed to be given (either to customer or Uber). Related, if a software contracting firm says: 'hey, there's a gig that pays $x an hour, no negotiations - do you want it?' I don't suddenly become an employee of the firm I'm contracting for just because I didn't get a chance to negotiate the price. I had agency to accept or decline the contract. If I'm going for a job as an employee and negotiate my salary, they don't suddenly mark me down as a contractor.

arrosenberg 6y ago
No doubt, Uber has responded to regulatory pressure by making minor concessions in a (now successful) attempt to circumvent State law. > Related, if a software contracting firm says: 'hey, there's a gig that pays $x an hour, no negotiations - do you want it?' That's not what is happening here. The driver and the rider are not forming a carriage contract. Uber is forming a contract with the rider, and employing drivers to fulfill those contracts. Even with the concessions Uber has offered, they are still using their platform power to control activity via incentives, and whatever games they play with the algorithm once the heat is off. At the end of the day, as long as the labor pool remains unorganized, Uber still retains pricing power. None of these drivers own the customer relationship (again, they are not forming a contract with the riders). That means that (without violating the TOS) these drivers are not holding any equity in the business. In your proposed scenario, if you accept the software contract and do good work, there is a likelihood of more work at higher rates, and increased business through word of mouth. With no opportunity to build wealth, I can't imagine how rideshare drivers would be considered independent. It's fine to look at the problem from a customer-centric viewpoint, and I realize that doing so has been a fairly orthodox economic strategy for the past 50 years, but that doesn't make it correct or good. None of the ride share companies seem to be able to turn a profit, even with a questionable model built on exploiting labor laws, yet they had $200M to pass Prop22. That kind of strategy only makes sense if your goal is to gain a monopoly position, and it is right to oppose these companies in doing so. Devaluing labor maybe optimal for some individuals, but it's bad for labor as a whole, which is exactly why we pass law that raise the floor.

arrosenberg 6y ago

No doubt, Uber has responded to regulatory pressure by making minor concessions in a (now successful) attempt to circumvent State law. > Related, if a software contracting firm says: 'hey, there's a gig that pays $x an hour, no negotiations - do you want it?' That's not what is happening here. The driver and the rider are not forming a carriage contract. Uber is forming a contract with the rider, and employing drivers to fulfill those contracts. Even with the concessions Uber has offered, they are still using their platform power to control activity via incentives, and whatever games they play with the algorithm once the heat is off. At the end of the day, as long as the labor pool remains unorganized, Uber still retains pricing power. None of these drivers own the customer relationship (again, they are not forming a contract with the riders). That means that (without violating the TOS) these drivers are not holding any equity in the business. In your proposed scenario, if you accept the software contract and do good work, there is a likelihood of more work at higher rates, and increased business through word of mouth. With no opportunity to build wealth, I can't imagine how rideshare drivers would be considered independent. It's fine to look at the problem from a customer-centric viewpoint, and I realize that doing so has been a fairly orthodox economic strategy for the past 50 years, but that doesn't make it correct or good. None of the ride share companies seem to be able to turn a profit, even with a questionable model built on exploiting labor laws, yet they had $200M to pass Prop22. That kind of strategy only makes sense if your goal is to gain a monopoly position, and it is right to oppose these companies in doing so. Devaluing labor maybe optimal for some individuals, but it's bad for labor as a whole, which is exactly why we pass law that raise the floor.