3 ms·

> The government never allowed it. Pull the other leg. It works once it works for them until now ? ? You're either not paying attention to the article, or you'

> The government never allowed it. Pull the other leg. It works once it works for them until now ? ? You're either not paying attention to the article, or you're set in your ways, which id love to hear. > The company is responsible for correctly paying social security of their employees Fine.. But that was not the agreement drivers had when they signed up. They signed up for cash on the job, gig economy. I'm not saying its good, I do think it should be unionized, but you guys are defending the same companies that are going to give the costs onto the riders. Morons. Not seeing the trees for the forest. YC

lwkl 6y ago
> Pull the other leg. It works once it works for them until now ? ? You're either not paying attention to the article, or you're set in your ways, which id love to hear. That's not an excuse. If someone is caught for murder and during the investigation it is discovered that they murdered 60 people over the last 5 years. Should they only be prosecuted for the most recent murder because it worked for them until they got caught? > Fine.. But that was not the agreement drivers had when they signed up. They signed up for cash on the job, gig economy. Exactly but the agreement the drivers signed falsely classified them as contractors. This is called false self-employment [1]. So the courts decided gig workers are classified as employees according to current laws which means the employer was acting illegally. These laws exist because food delivery apps aren't the first to try to get out of paying social security and other obligations from having employees by declaring they are contractors. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_self-employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_self-employment