12 ms·

It seems backward that the government, instead of fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers, wants to force independent workers to

It seems backward that the government, instead of fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers, wants to force independent workers to become employees so that the government doesn't have to fix anything. It is abdication of responsibility for social outcomes. Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so. In these cases, the only people that benefit are the politicians that can go on ignoring the real problems.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
It makes sense if you realize that everyone wants everyone else to have a minimum quality of life, but everyone is also trying to pay/sacrifice the least to achieve it. We want employers to provide benefits, as opposed to the government because that means higher taxes. Then you put a million exclusions and tax deductions and other loopholes, so no one knows what they're really getting, but we can say we did something and that benefits do exist to serve as arguments against broadly, easily accessible benefits to serve as a floor on quality of life.
- giantg2 6y ago
  "It makes sense if you realize that everyone wants everyone else to have a good quality of life, but everyone is also trying to pay/sacrifice the least to achieve it." And what defines a good quality of life depends on who you ask.
  - treeman79 6y ago
    What about people that can not handle a normal job? I have a chronic condition and for a year the only reason family didn’t end up on street is because of gig jobs. Most days 12-16 hours a day in bed essentially blind in horrific pain. But sometimes totally fine. Disability straight up laughed at me.
    - zepto 6y ago
      This. so much policy is designed around the idea that people should work a 9-5 at a corporation, without any consideration for the fact that this simply doesn’t support a lot of people’s needs. We need more flexibility not less. Ironically this completely flies in the face of any motion or ‘diversity and inclusion’.
    - lupire 6y ago
      Are you claiming that gig/piece work isn't a "job" for an "employee"?
      - novok 6y ago
        If you are an employee, the employer has the right to dictate your schedule and put significant more restrictions on how and when you work, which they do because it's more economically efficient for them to do so (think: time and transition costs). When your a contractor, not so much.
    - wtf42 6y ago
      What you described is called "sick leave" in Europe and you are entitled to sick pay by law.
      - xyzzyz 6y ago
        In Europe, any time he wanted to get this sick leave, he would need to go to a doctor every single time. That means multiple visits at a doctor every week. After a few weeks or months of being only available randomly, he would get fired from most jobs anyway (which happens regularly in Europe too, there is just a few more hoops to jump through).
        robertlagrant 6y ago
        While I agree with the thrust of your statement, he'd probably only need to go once a week at most.
  - minimuffins 6y ago
    There are certain things that aren't in question about this. Enough income to afford decent housing and food, healthcare, etc. It's not so mysterious.
    - citilife 6y ago
      I know multiple people who have never worked a day in their lives. They get food stamps, free health care and live in a $300/month apartment subsidized by the state (aka free). They basically make money buying and selling items occasionally, when they see a deal. That's enough for them to buy all the "luxuries" they want ($5k car, $2k laptop) every couple years. I think there's a big difference between peoples desires/definition of acceptable and what they put in to obtain them.
      - hobs 6y ago
        Buying and selling items is in fact considered work!
    - umvi 6y ago
      Again though, define "decent". It will vary depending on who you ask.
      - minimuffins 6y ago
        There is enough space to move around in the dwelling. It is not falling apart. It is not infested with rats. There is clean running water. Come on. Stop pretending this is a hard question.
        Domenic_S 6y ago
        It is bad faith or sheer ignorance to think this isn't a hard question. Consider that even people spending their own money on their own housing often can't define their own parameters, which is why touring houses is a thing. Now scale this out to the population of a country and creating a single bar of "decent housing" is incredibly hard. And then that's just talking about the structure. What about the location - if a person's entire support system is in one location but the available free housing is 75 miles away and they don't have a car, that isn't decent. This comes up all the time re the affordability of the Bay Area where locals get priced out, someone says "just move to stockton" and the resident feels it's not fair (or "decent") to have to leave where they were born and raised. You could link location to workplace I suppose but then that would create massive downward pressure on wages since people would be willing to sacrifice pay in order to live where they prefer. This sounds like a net negative. This question is only hard if you haven't thought about it for more than like 2 seconds.
  - dhritzkiv 6y ago
    For starters, there's what many developed nations have agreed the minimum is, including: 2 or more weeks of paid time off, statutory holidays, parental leave and benefits, and –most importantly– socialised healthcare. Some –certainly not all– have taken it a step further and offer pharmacare, daycare, a livable minimum wage, and free higher education. Still, worldwide, there's an uneven or inequitable provision of other basics, such as disability benefits, guaranteed housing, food, and internet access. All of which I would argue is even more necessary for a good quality of life for all.
- taurath 6y ago
  I’d say you have the first statement wrong - some will give but only not if they’re forced, some won’t give anything in any circumstance, and some would give a lot of not blocked by the other two. I don’t want to be chained to my employer for benefits, for retirement, for healthcare. It’s stupid to put a sociopathic entity with no accountability to you in charge of your basic needs.
  - hagy 6y ago
    Similarly, many of us don't want to be chained to a comparably sociopathic and unaccountable government entity. We'd instead prefer to independently manage our own unique needs using our own individual economic agency.
    - taurath 6y ago
      Sorry you think government is sociopathic and unaccountable, it honestly seems like a rough life if that’s what you’ve experienced.
      - hagy 6y ago
        How can anyone look at the atrocities committed by every major government over the centuries of its existence and not see that large governments are orders of magnitude more sociopathic than the worst corporations? Its just a general feature of large and powerful organizations; shared by governments and corporations alike. Governments simply hold the power to commit larger atrocities. Just look at how the city of Flint, MI poisoned their own citizens water while suppressing knowledge of their actions. [0] While in the grand scheme of government atrocities this actually appears relatively minor, this issue happened in very recent times. One could fill pages listing government atrocities before even getting to basic incompetence and mismanagement. While inefficiencies happen in all bureaucratic organizations, governments hold singular power over their citizens in a way that no corporation could ever dream of. This is not an argument against government. There are some services that only the government can provide. E.g., a strong military. Nor is this an argument against government playing some role in promoting general welfare. I just personally would like the option to not be further dependent upon our government and would rather use my own economic agency to provide for my own unique needs. Many other people feel similarly and therefore reject this further intrusion of government in dictating our labor relations with employers. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis
- manigandham 6y ago
  A "minimum quality of life" has nothing to do with your worker qualification. People can, and should, have the freedom to choose how they work. The obvious solutions include new hybrid classifications or mandating certain benefits based on tenure. Why is this not considered? Why take away choice from those who specifically decided not to get a full-time driving job (which have always existed)?
  - throwaway1777 6y ago
    I choose the work minimally, maybe 2 hours a month for doordash. Can I collect my benefits still?
    - KMnO4 6y ago
      Almost all discussion on this topic suggests a minimum amount of work to qualify.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      There are always basic limits. For example you don't get all of your healthcare coverage or benefits on the first day of your job, and certain things like vacation time are accrued as you work. It's not a complex problem to solve.
    - d4mi3n 6y ago
      I see things like this that seem to me to imply that in order to deserve benefits, someone needs to work. I think a more productive line of debate would be: 1. Do we, as a society, believe we should only care for those who can be productive? 2. Do we, as a society, value things other than productivity? 3. Do we, as a society, believe it is the place of a governing body to ensure a standard quality of life (whatever that standard may be)? Putting barriers around who deserves what doesn't really serve to do much other than exclude people who don't know how to work the system, or those who are unable to work the system.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- nerdponx 6y ago
  > We want employers to provide benefits, as opposed to the government because that means higher taxes This is a silly argument. You pay for your healthcare no matter what, it's just a question of who administers it. > Then you put a million exclusions and tax deductions and other loopholes, so no one knows what they're really getting This is precisely the current state of employer-sponsored healthcare, and also the wildly complicated medicare/medicaid system. Universal coverage combined with higher taxes (ideally on people who already have lots of money and therefore place very little value on marginal income) is arguably better and easier to reason about than a mandate for employer-provided coverage and its associated opaque and complicated effects on labor markets, including higher fixed costs of hiring people and decreased ability for people to move between regions, industries, and even jobs within the same industry/career.
  - munk-a 6y ago
    > This is precisely the current state of employer-sponsored healthcare, and also the wildly complicated medicare/medicaid system. I'm happy to talk about manufacturer drug rebates which is an amazingly crazy portion of the healthcare market that would be illegal in almost any other market due to the perverse market incentives it creates. But yea, the short version is that the private healthcare market is incredibly inefficient.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > This is a silly argument. You pay for your healthcare no matter what, it's just a question of who administers it. But who administers it has a lot to do with how much you pay for it. For example, a high deductible plan will save you a lot of money as long as you aren't in the 99th percentile of healthcare needs, and (unless the deductible is really high) still not bankrupt you if it turns out you are. Any kind of government plan that doesn't give you that choice because it's paid from taxes rather than premiums is plausibly going to cost you more money. And that's true even on average, because high deductible plans make people more price sensitive, which exerts downward pressure on costs. (The fact that US healthcare regulations disfavor high deductible plans is one of the reasons costs remain high.) The US system is also uniquely screwed because the rest of the world piggybacks on US medical R&D while in practice regulating prices even for products under patent. The result is that the US market is paying a disproportionate share of the R&D cost. Cost comparisons to single payer systems that pretend that single payer systems are inherently less expensive are ignoring the lower contribution of those systems to worldwide medical R&D. Moreover, the recipient companies are disproportionately in the US and have lobbyists and large numbers of voter-employees, so implementing a single payer system here would be unlikely to remove those costs. Then you're left with the resulting increase in price insensitivity and the US system becomes even more unaffordable. It's actually a hard problem. The solution probably has to involve the other countries paying more of the R&D.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  I don't want government or employers to provide benefits. I want people to keep their money and decide what is best for themselves. I don't believe the government or my employer has my best interest at heart, nor are they equipped to cater to my unique family needs..
  - ddingus 6y ago
    Sadly, you do not live in a vacuum. The system needs to serve everyone and make sense. Everyone choosing what is exactly right for them implies those choices are all possible and the complexity, risk and cost profile also makes sense. Those things are not true, and the outcome is rapidly escalating cost and risk exposure. This has been addressed in many ways, and one of the easier ways is to have government fund those bennies to provide a respectable floor. People who need more can choose to do that and the market for such things would make much more sense and be lower cost and risk for everyone. An example seen worldwide is supplemental plans that operate in addition to primary plans, which are actually illegal in many parts of the world due to the inherent conflict between profit motive and health care. You wanting to keep your money and make choices is very different from wanting other people to keep their money, which is an overreach frankly. Further, in the current scenario, you really can't be sure medical people have your best interests in mind because the priority is making money not making sure we have healthy people. When medical people are free to actually make healthy people a priority, the discussion about best interests becomes a much easier one.
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      I don’t want to argue with you or change your mind. I just don’t want to live in the same country with you.
      - ddingus 6y ago
        Again, sadly, unless you find new land to settle, ideally with some very committed peers to help against risk, you will be living with people, many who will express the same sentiments, pretty much anywhere you go in this world. Rough state of affairs, I would imagine.
- ddingus 6y ago
  And that really is a priority discussion. Universal healthcare, say Medicare for All style, does not have to mean higher taxes. And it would make a big difference to gig workers and the ones working for the likes of Walmart. A very high percentage of Walmart employees need government assistance due to their income not actually being enough to pay the laborer what their labor costs them to deliver. At a minimum, labor needs to exist reasonably and show up for work. Healthcare is a part of that, right along with the basics. All of us are subsidizing labor for a few of us to put profit, or more peak profit in the bank. The priority discussion boils down to what makes the most sense for the nation. Do we cut back on the military industrial complex? Maybe we decide subsidizing labor makes sense. That would also mean not shaming and blaming people who seek and obtain help from the government. Doing that is baked in right now, in that no matter what those people do, a large percentage of them will need help. Or, we simply change nothing and yes, taxes are higher, but the national spend is lower overall. Many of us will benefit. We could prioritize it so employers are more on the hook in various ways. Some of them will not be viable. Even if they all are, we may not have enough jobs. Government could be an employer to make sure everyone has a work opportunity that pays enough to exist and show up for work. There are many options. Not all mean higher taxes, but all that discussion means a national priority talk also has to happen. If we do nothing, our priority is not having people make it, exist reasonably and show up for work. Predictably, lots of people are not making it, may do crime, are homeless, may not have health care, maybe will show up for work, if they can get it. If our priority becomes about people existing reasonably and showing up for work, we will see that, but will have higher taxes, or back off some other things we currently make a priority.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    > Universal healthcare, say Medicare for All style, does not have to mean higher taxes. How would that be? It seems like it certainly would to me. Maybe by less than employees plus employers currently pay in aggregate healthcare costs, but I can't imagine a way where the government pays for Medicare-for-all and taxes don't go up. Do you have a specific idea in mind that I'm missing?
    - deleted 6y ago
- mikestew 6y ago
  We want employers to provide benefits "We" don't necessarily think benefits should be provided by the whims of private businesses. as opposed to the government because that means higher taxes. The assumption here being that benefits from the government are paid with higher taxes, and benefits from employers being paid from the kindness of the CEO's heart and not from wages that would have otherwise been paid you.
  - reedjosh 6y ago
    >We want >"We" don't I want the money that my employer pays into health insurance to be paid to me into an HSA like tax sheltering of healthcare funds, and then I want no health insurance middleman. Poof---there goes all the corrupt incentives and ridiculous administrative overhead.
    - warkdarrior 6y ago
      > I want no health insurance middleman That is literally impossible. Even if insurance companies are made illegal tomorrow, that role of market maker between providers (doctors and hospitals, drug companies) and customers (patients, employers) will always exist. This is because such a role is needed. Patients do not have the capacity nor the knowledge to find the best doctor, the best hospital, or the best drug maker for them.
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        ...do not have the capacity nor the knowledge... Health insurance was invented in the late 1930s as a political ploy to forestall government health programs. Did patients all get stupid at that time, or was it the case that they were all going to the wrong doctors and hospitals before then? Please give human beings a little credit. We make decisions every day, some of which are a lot more substantial than which state-licensed physician to hire. ps. you don't know what "market maker" means...
      - reedjosh 6y ago
        > That is literally impossible. Okay, but I didn't mean literally outlaw insurance middlemen. I mean fix the incentive structure such that I have the option to forego insurance middlemen. > Patients do not have the capacity nor the knowledge I completely disagree, and what business of yours or anyone's is it to say I'm `lacking in capacity and knowledge` to such a degree I shouldn't be allowed to make my own healthcare decisions!? Worse still, right now the US government puts a cap on the percentage of profit an insurance company can take from premiums which coupled with the current near monopolistic healthcare insurance system incentivizes paying as much as possible for treatment to justify higher premiums.
duxup 6y ago
What do you imagine " fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers" would be?
- analog31 6y ago
  I'm thinking: Free health care, paid time off, a robust safety net, better protections for workplace safety, etc. Level the playing field.
  - cobaltoxide 6y ago
    If they are "independent contractors" then who exactly is paying for this time off, etc?
    - arrosenberg 6y ago
      I'm not sure how it would work for vacations, since it's kind of your job as the contractor to earn enough to set aside your own vacation time. Parental leave should be administered as a public insurance pool that ICs pay into through self-employment taxes.
  - trentnix 6y ago
    Level the playing field Otherwise known as, redistribute the wealth. Heinlein's "bad luck" incoming...
    - _vertigo 6y ago
      “Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck.” This quote assumes that what held true for most of history holds true today, when machines and computers can complete the tasks necessary for ensuring the flourishing of our species orders of magnitude more efficiently than ever before. Why should we assume that poverty would be the normal condition of man today?
osipov 6y ago
>>so that the government doesn't have to fix anything sounds like you are naive to how the government works
freeone3000 6y ago
What, specifically, are those disadvantages? And are they actually related to employee classification, or are merely privileges not usually granted to employees?
- giantg2 6y ago
  For my wife, she can get more hours and higher pay as an independent contractor. Part of this is because we get insurance through my job. They also give her more autonomy than an employee would have.
  - itake 6y ago
    Off-topic, but do you think its a problem that gig workers have no upward mobility? A worker with 10 years of experience will be paid exactly the same as a worker with 1 month.
    - jandrewrogers 6y ago
      That depends on the type of gig. There are some gigs where experience and skill command a substantial premium.
      - itake 6y ago
        The largest gig employers (Uber, Lyft, Doordash, etc.) do not seem to provide a substantial premium for experience. In 5-10 years, what will be the current driver's expectations for pay?
        giantg2 6y ago
        Beyond a month or two of experience, what would more experience benefit in that role?
    - adamiscool8 6y ago
      Plenty of employees have no upward mobility either. Though with 10 years of positive ratings, I would think The Algorithm would reward them with more frequent/better gigs?
hctaw 6y ago
Backwards as it may be it's far easier to change a regulatory interpretation or judicial test than to make a fundamental change to government services, like healthcare. >Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so Then companies that want to attract gig workers can give them the freedoms that are set by statute, regulatory bodies, and precedent. Like setting their own rates and picking which contracts to fulfill.
jayd16 6y ago
You can (and actually must) work in both directions simultaneously. We can't do nothing in the hopes of sweeping changes. You have to work within the system that is in place even if you are also working to replace that system (and many are).
jdasdf 6y ago
> instead of fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers, You're mistaken. It is not independent workers that are disadvantaged, but employees who as a result of those laws are less attractive to hire. The solution here is to remove those arbitrary restrictions, not to expand them.
kube-system 6y ago
I disagree. There are jobs that are reasonable under the construct of "independent contractor". The issue is that the classification has been grossly abused to the point where the majority of people who employers attempt to classify that way really shouldn't be eligible. I have real independent contractors in my family, they might work 2 hours each for 50 different customers in a year. They do their job exactly how they want to. It's not like it makes sense for any one of their customers to provide benefits of any kind. This is the kind of stuff this classification was meant for.
- yibg 6y ago
  Isn't the solution here to turn contractor vs employee issue into a question of choice and benefit for the employee vs the employer? If retirement, time off and health benefits are also equally available to contractors then people can make the choice for the type of work they want without being disadvantaged.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    What does "time off" mean for someone who is unambiguously a contractor (such as a one-person plumber, handyman, maid, babysitter, landscaper, CPA, lawyer, etc)? They already have as much time off as they choose to have. It's all (obviously) unpaid as "who would pay them?"
    - yibg 6y ago
      Yea time off is a bit iffy here. Some of the gig companies currently (due to covid) provides some level of "paid" sick days. But yea as a contractor it's probably less relevant than retirement and healthcare.
    - Frost1x 6y ago
      Time off is one of the greatest scams in the modern economy. Unless you work a position where the time increment of your work is less than the amount of time you take off, ultimately you end up being pushed to do the same amount of work in less time. You might as well have skipped your vacation or planned your PTO during a less busy time. Really all PTO is for most salary exempt positions anymore is ability to delay work without getting fired. Now if you work in a position where you churn out things on a daily basis or less and someone will fill in for you while you're gone, PTO is actually PTO.
mschuster91 6y ago
> It seems backward that the government, instead of fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers, wants to force independent workers to become employees so that the government doesn't have to fix anything. It is abdication of responsibility for social outcomes. Quite the contrary: the government acts to prevent a ruthless race to the bottom as someone who skips e.g. on health insurance or on worker protection laws (e.g. daily work time maximums) can outcompete someone who sticks to the rules. Especially with health insurance, the government has to pay the tab of those who skip it and then can't pay for the hospital. > Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so. The only reason I see why people want to voluntarily go gig worker is schedule flexibility - they don't want a regular full time or part time schedule because of children, elder care or whatever. And for what it's worth employment regulations should be made more flexible in that regard, but it must be prevented that employers go and abuse it to exploit their workers (e.g. by arbitrarily cutting their hours).
birdyrooster 6y ago
Not to mention that the people forced into the "gig" economy are often ADOS, black and/or latino. It helps to cement their bottom caste statuses in this country. The white/asian people on HN cling to their classist agenda and aren't willing to talk about race because of how privileged they are and how segregated their workplaces are. They just don't know the experience and make abstract claims about what is fair based on class.
mountainb 6y ago
Under the law as it is written, the labor secretary is basically correct. It's not the labor secretary's job to rewrite the law. What congress should have done several years ago is to address the emergence of the gig economy with a new designation that is distinct from both independent contractors and employees. Lots of issues in modern US business arise from laziness / stupidity / corruption / uselessness of Congress. I believe that there should be reform and that we should be working towards a better legal environment for informal workers and companies that want to use them at scale facilitated by technology. You can believe that and still recognize that the law as written would not support a definition of these workers as independent contractors (because they are not and it really is not a gray area due to the way that they are managed/directed). It's also an issue for the US that we can go many years under an enforcement regime that assumes that we basically have this new category of worker that we are, for reasons of convenience, defining as independent contractors, but that the law clearly states do not meet the definition of independent contractors. Then we get a new administration that decides it will enforce the law as it's written instead of tacitly recognizing the fake pseudo reform of non enforcement that we had from earlier administrations. That isn't good government.
- auiya 6y ago
  >Lots of issues in modern US business arise from laziness / stupidity / corruption / uselessness of Congress. And by extension lots of issues in Congress arise from laziness / stupidity / corruption / uselesssness of the electorate that put them there. Invest heavily in education and revisit in a few generations.
  - spaetzleesser 6y ago
    What kind of education?
    - auiya 6y ago
      The kind that doesn't result in an intellectual race to the bottom as we're witnessing today, where people eat tide pods, purposefully hasten pandemic spread, and bottles of Windex have to have legal disclaimers like "do not spray directly into eyes".
omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
One solution to that is to allow employees to opt out of being employees. The government policy would prevent companies from misclassifying employees as independent contractors, and any individuals who did not want to be employees could opt out of that classification, but that's up to the individual, not the company.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  How long before Uber starts assigning mandatory job hours (as inconveniently as necessary to suit their needs) for drivers who have not opted out of employee status? I'd guess a maximum of two sprints.
  - hagy 6y ago
    Many employees will be assigned inconvenient hours regardless. That is a key difference between employees and gig workers. When there are more people who prefer convenient hours than shifts available, some will only have the option to take inconvenient ones. As hourly employees, Uber can't use dynamic pay to manage supply and demand imbalances. I dealt this as a teenager working at McDonald's. Most of us didn't want closing shift, and occasionally at 25 cent/hour incentive would be added. But more often than not, the demand for any hours was sufficient. Labor supply simply exceeded demand. Still think Uber and likes should be regulated away until we have true self driving cars. That may take a decade or more.
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    They can. It'll work where the labor supply exceeds demand and won't work where it doesn't. It also won't be as effective as ride sharing becomes more of a commodity.
vegetablepotpie 6y ago
According to an Uber survey in October, 20%, of uber drivers are unsatisfied working for the company [1]. If you want to work for Uber, and you can work any time you'd like, why would you be dissatisfied with working there? The reason people work for Uber is that it's available as an opportunity, with a fairly low bar of entry, in a way that a lot of other employment opportunities are not. The "gig economy" is a legal hack by corporations to pay workers less than minimum wage [2]. We can talk a lot about problems with government (there are a lot of issue there), but the fact that the government has issues does not act as a free pass to allow private institutions to pay workers less. [1] https://mashable.com/article/uber-driver-survey-pandemic/ https://mashable.com/article/uber-driver-survey-pandemic/ [2] https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-uber-driver-wages-20180518-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-uber-driver-w...
- megaman821 6y ago
  So if the other 80% are satisfied working there because they get to pick their hours, it is best to change that because the 20% would be more satisfied with a full-time job and benefits? I don't even get your initial point. Have you never worked a job you didn't like? Many jobs suck, but people have to earn money. They will hopefully, eventually move on to more satisfying jobs.
  - OkayPhysicist 6y ago
    When Uber gives drivers the ability to set their prices, I'll believe they're independent contractors. As it stands, Uber doesn't even let their drivers know what the value of a given ride is going to be until they've already started it.
  - vegetablepotpie 6y ago
    I apologize for not being more clear about my point, I stated it implicitly for brevity. The job satisfaction quote was a rebuttal of what the parent said, which was > Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees I’ll be more clear, I have two points, point 1 is that “workers do not choose gig economy jobs because they offer flexibility, they choose them because they have low barriers to entry”. This means that employee classification is irrelevant to workers, they do not explicitly want to be contractors. The 20% job dissatisfaction statistic is sufficient to prove my point because if there were alternatives, those 1/5 of workers would not be working for Uber. Point 2 is “the gig economy benefits employers more than traditional employment and disadvantages workers more than traditional employment” I support this claim with the statement that Uber drivers have been paid less than minimum wage.
slantedview 6y ago
> wants to force independent workers to become employees Sounds exactly like a gig industry talking point, a classic conflation of making something a right with forcing it onto people. At the moment, being categorized as an employee is not even an option for gig workers. How's that for choice?
- pvarangot 6y ago
  There's a lot of jobs as a driver where you are categorized as an employee. I work for Lyft so I'm familiar with most of the talking points and I'll reserve my opinion on which ones are bullshit or which ones are not. That being said, that _most_ drivers don't want to be employees is undeniable, and even on polls that unions conduct the outcome is something like half and half. You can say that they can't decide for themselves because they are being oppressed, etc, etc... and while I agree with the sentiment I don't think "oppression" here is that bad as to force people to vote what gig economy companies want them to vote on an independent poll.
  - jcims 6y ago
    The one thing i find absent from most of these conversations is the perspective of the workforce in question. Probably because neither side locked in this debate actually care what they think.
hellbannedguy 6y ago
"Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees." I think most know the worker routine. If they don't look a certain way, the right age, the right resume, they won't get the job. And the fact once they are an employee, they lose any bit of autonomy they think they have by being a independant? It's too bad that we have a huge line of people: 1. Buying a vechicle specific four door vechicle Uber approves of before even applying to use the app. That is a huge upfront expence. Uber makes it sound like we all have a late model four door sedan collecting dust in the four car garage? People are going bankrupt at best, but usually ruining credit, buying this huge asset in order to drive at the whims of Uber. There's no guarantes whatsoever. Want a deal on a four door sedan? Look at Craigslist used vechicle sales. Look for the last year Uber allows independents to drive. Actually I have noticed guys get another newer vechicle a couple of years before their vechicle ages out of Ubers strict year requirements. Some keep the useless four door sedan to drive a few more years under Lyft, or that's what I heard. 2. The guys whom are making a livible wage are usually driving to a big city. (A guy I know drives from santa Rosa to SF 7 days a week to make it work financially, and he is barely making it. He's working 80 hrs week.) 3. No health, they pay for gas, and insurance. 4. Yes--I'm picking on Uber. My point is before Uber Bought the proposition, many drivers wanted better working conditions, and most seemed excited Uber might have to give them a vechicle, and working conditions would be better. Then reality/fear set in? They will probally be fired next, or never hired me in the first place? Maybe I'll just stick with this chitty job? America has become the king of chitty jobs. And we have a lot of desperate people who will take these lousy jobs.
- toast0 6y ago
  > 1. Buying a vechicle specific four door vechicle Uber approves of before even applying to use the app. That is a huge upfront expence. Uber makes it sound like we all have a late model four door sedan collecting dust in the four car garage? I'm not seeing it anymore, but I recall seeing an Uber related lease program, and now I'm seeing Uber related rental car programs. In the Seattle area, it looks like I could rent a car from two different companies for about $220 per week that's intended to be used for unlicensed taxi services. If I were going to drive for Uber, and they didn't like my current vehicle, I'd drive a rental for a few weeks at least, to make sure it met my needs before dumping a bunch of money into a car.
throwaway_isms 6y ago
It seems to go without saying Employee protection laws are for the benefit and protection of the Employee. The law specifically prohibits employers from improperly reclassifying employees as independent contracts by simply titling a worker agreement/contract as an Independent Contractor Agreement in lieu of an Employment Agreement. If these drivers want to be independent contractors and not employees, great, if these laws were fully enforced from the beginning it would be the drivers that organized and owned the ride sharing business and UBER would have never been able to compete with them (UBER's own S-1 admits this risk, and acknowledges if drivers were Employees it would be an existential threat to their business). Its also no surprise this legal inevitability comes after their public offering. Sure many gig workers may not want to be employees, but they were, they just were not being provided the benefits and protections. I don't think the politicians are the only ones who benefited clearly the UBER investors and private shareholders pre-IPO were the single largest beneficiary. Is there any reason on the merits you disagree with the current legal standards distinguishing employee vs independent contractor? I mean the drivers desires is not part of the standard, and in fairness, I don't think you are able to collectively speak on behalf of all drivers and say that's what they wanted, clearly based on the number of lawsuits and employment claims many of them did want the employee status and benefits that come with it.
geofft 6y ago
There are many successful independent workers in the US, from your local plumber to Paul Graham. And they have plenty of support in government policy. The people who are not successful are independent workers who are dependent on an employer. The government cannot fix a logical contradiction.
JKCalhoun 6y ago
> It seems backward that the government, instead of fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers There are all manner of things we seem to lean on business to provide that government does not. Health insurance is the obvious one. But we also seem to have a large part of our electorate that like it that way — that don't want government involved in our welfare. If you want to tip the table toward government taking more responsibility and corporate America less, that is a tougher battle.
mbesto 6y ago
> Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so. In these cases, the only people that benefit are the politicians that can go on ignoring the real problems. I agree with the ethos of your response, but not the rationale. Many people don't understand the costs associated with being gig workers. Many people don't understand the value of benefits given to them by employers. This is a big reason why democracies exist - many people simply can't make decisions for themselves.
- megaman821 6y ago
  I always love the, "People are too stupid to make decisions for themselves" argument. People are more than adequate in making important decisions that directly touch their lives.
  - mbesto 6y ago
    I always love the various countries[0] who implement direct democracies because "people are more than adequate in making important decisions that directly touch their lives." [0] - There's only one for the record and it's Switzerland.
    - megaman821 6y ago
      You must have no understanding of the word "directly" then. Do you think the military, trade deals, etc directly touch people's lives? Of course the average person isn't going to waste time educating themselves on these topics, they are going to pick someone who represents them to. I think most people might know a little something about their own jobs.
      - mbesto 6y ago
        > I think most people might know a little something about their own jobs. So then why do articles like this exist? If people know all of the things that directly affect them, why do they make so many mistakes? https://blog.stridehealth.com/post/1099-tax-mistakes https://blog.stridehealth.com/post/1099-tax-mistakes https://www.taxslayer.com/blog/rideshare-drivers-avoid-these-5-common-tax-mistakes/ https://www.taxslayer.com/blog/rideshare-drivers-avoid-these... https://www.ayroyal.com/uber-tax-form-mistakes-avoid/ https://www.ayroyal.com/uber-tax-form-mistakes-avoid/ https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/top-5-uber-lyft-tax-mistakes/ https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/top-5-uber-lyft-tax-mistak...
xpe 6y ago
> It seems backward that the government, instead of fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers, wants to force independent workers to become employees so that the government doesn't have to fix anything. It is abdication of responsibility for social outcomes. There is a logical fallacy here, but I'm not sure if there is a name for it. In essence, the above argument is assuming "the government" is one actor who is able to choose between various options at the same time. In practice, "the government" is a collection of actors, with many competing interests, with different mechanisms of influence available at different times. Aside: for anyone that thinks technology is hard, I would suggest running for office -- even a 'minor' role like being a school board member. This might shed some light on the difficulties of leading in a broader context. There is a reason it is called 'public service'.
Spooky23 6y ago
No, the government gets stuck picking up the slack when employers evade the law. Gig workers should be able to organize and effectively negotiate reasonable contracts instead of getting the shaft. My brothers union contract for musical performance crates a more free market environment than the whims of companies like Doordash.
xpe 6y ago
> Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so. On what basis do you say this? Have you found good unbiased survey research?
MomoXenosaga 6y ago
That would be fine but these self employed people aren't exactly saving money for retirement or healthcare. Gig worker falls off a ladder and ends up a paraplegic. Guess who will be footing the bill?
esolyt 6y ago
In normal countries, the government provides you healthcare, no matter what your job is, or if you have a job at all. In America, we already gave up on that fight. Instead, we made it your employer's responsibility to provide you healthcare. And now the government is yelling at Uber for not giving you healthcare. Fascinating.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

It makes sense if you realize that everyone wants everyone else to have a minimum quality of life, but everyone is also trying to pay/sacrifice the least to achieve it. We want employers to provide benefits, as opposed to the government because that means higher taxes. Then you put a million exclusions and tax deductions and other loopholes, so no one knows what they're really getting, but we can say we did something and that benefits do exist to serve as arguments against broadly, easily accessible benefits to serve as a floor on quality of life.

giantg2 6y ago
"It makes sense if you realize that everyone wants everyone else to have a good quality of life, but everyone is also trying to pay/sacrifice the least to achieve it." And what defines a good quality of life depends on who you ask.
- treeman79 6y ago
  What about people that can not handle a normal job? I have a chronic condition and for a year the only reason family didn’t end up on street is because of gig jobs. Most days 12-16 hours a day in bed essentially blind in horrific pain. But sometimes totally fine. Disability straight up laughed at me.
  - zepto 6y ago
    This. so much policy is designed around the idea that people should work a 9-5 at a corporation, without any consideration for the fact that this simply doesn’t support a lot of people’s needs. We need more flexibility not less. Ironically this completely flies in the face of any motion or ‘diversity and inclusion’.
  - lupire 6y ago
    Are you claiming that gig/piece work isn't a "job" for an "employee"?
    - novok 6y ago
      If you are an employee, the employer has the right to dictate your schedule and put significant more restrictions on how and when you work, which they do because it's more economically efficient for them to do so (think: time and transition costs). When your a contractor, not so much.
  - wtf42 6y ago
    What you described is called "sick leave" in Europe and you are entitled to sick pay by law.
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      In Europe, any time he wanted to get this sick leave, he would need to go to a doctor every single time. That means multiple visits at a doctor every week. After a few weeks or months of being only available randomly, he would get fired from most jobs anyway (which happens regularly in Europe too, there is just a few more hoops to jump through).
      - robertlagrant 6y ago
        While I agree with the thrust of your statement, he'd probably only need to go once a week at most.
- minimuffins 6y ago
  There are certain things that aren't in question about this. Enough income to afford decent housing and food, healthcare, etc. It's not so mysterious.
  - citilife 6y ago
    I know multiple people who have never worked a day in their lives. They get food stamps, free health care and live in a $300/month apartment subsidized by the state (aka free). They basically make money buying and selling items occasionally, when they see a deal. That's enough for them to buy all the "luxuries" they want ($5k car, $2k laptop) every couple years. I think there's a big difference between peoples desires/definition of acceptable and what they put in to obtain them.
    - hobs 6y ago
      Buying and selling items is in fact considered work!
  - umvi 6y ago
    Again though, define "decent". It will vary depending on who you ask.
    - minimuffins 6y ago
      There is enough space to move around in the dwelling. It is not falling apart. It is not infested with rats. There is clean running water. Come on. Stop pretending this is a hard question.
      - Domenic_S 6y ago
        It is bad faith or sheer ignorance to think this isn't a hard question. Consider that even people spending their own money on their own housing often can't define their own parameters, which is why touring houses is a thing. Now scale this out to the population of a country and creating a single bar of "decent housing" is incredibly hard. And then that's just talking about the structure. What about the location - if a person's entire support system is in one location but the available free housing is 75 miles away and they don't have a car, that isn't decent. This comes up all the time re the affordability of the Bay Area where locals get priced out, someone says "just move to stockton" and the resident feels it's not fair (or "decent") to have to leave where they were born and raised. You could link location to workplace I suppose but then that would create massive downward pressure on wages since people would be willing to sacrifice pay in order to live where they prefer. This sounds like a net negative. This question is only hard if you haven't thought about it for more than like 2 seconds.
- dhritzkiv 6y ago
  For starters, there's what many developed nations have agreed the minimum is, including: 2 or more weeks of paid time off, statutory holidays, parental leave and benefits, and –most importantly– socialised healthcare. Some –certainly not all– have taken it a step further and offer pharmacare, daycare, a livable minimum wage, and free higher education. Still, worldwide, there's an uneven or inequitable provision of other basics, such as disability benefits, guaranteed housing, food, and internet access. All of which I would argue is even more necessary for a good quality of life for all.
taurath 6y ago
I’d say you have the first statement wrong - some will give but only not if they’re forced, some won’t give anything in any circumstance, and some would give a lot of not blocked by the other two. I don’t want to be chained to my employer for benefits, for retirement, for healthcare. It’s stupid to put a sociopathic entity with no accountability to you in charge of your basic needs.
- hagy 6y ago
  Similarly, many of us don't want to be chained to a comparably sociopathic and unaccountable government entity. We'd instead prefer to independently manage our own unique needs using our own individual economic agency.
  - taurath 6y ago
    Sorry you think government is sociopathic and unaccountable, it honestly seems like a rough life if that’s what you’ve experienced.
    - hagy 6y ago
      How can anyone look at the atrocities committed by every major government over the centuries of its existence and not see that large governments are orders of magnitude more sociopathic than the worst corporations? Its just a general feature of large and powerful organizations; shared by governments and corporations alike. Governments simply hold the power to commit larger atrocities. Just look at how the city of Flint, MI poisoned their own citizens water while suppressing knowledge of their actions. [0] While in the grand scheme of government atrocities this actually appears relatively minor, this issue happened in very recent times. One could fill pages listing government atrocities before even getting to basic incompetence and mismanagement. While inefficiencies happen in all bureaucratic organizations, governments hold singular power over their citizens in a way that no corporation could ever dream of. This is not an argument against government. There are some services that only the government can provide. E.g., a strong military. Nor is this an argument against government playing some role in promoting general welfare. I just personally would like the option to not be further dependent upon our government and would rather use my own economic agency to provide for my own unique needs. Many other people feel similarly and therefore reject this further intrusion of government in dictating our labor relations with employers. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis
manigandham 6y ago
A "minimum quality of life" has nothing to do with your worker qualification. People can, and should, have the freedom to choose how they work. The obvious solutions include new hybrid classifications or mandating certain benefits based on tenure. Why is this not considered? Why take away choice from those who specifically decided not to get a full-time driving job (which have always existed)?
- throwaway1777 6y ago
  I choose the work minimally, maybe 2 hours a month for doordash. Can I collect my benefits still?
  - KMnO4 6y ago
    Almost all discussion on this topic suggests a minimum amount of work to qualify.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    There are always basic limits. For example you don't get all of your healthcare coverage or benefits on the first day of your job, and certain things like vacation time are accrued as you work. It's not a complex problem to solve.
  - d4mi3n 6y ago
    I see things like this that seem to me to imply that in order to deserve benefits, someone needs to work. I think a more productive line of debate would be: 1. Do we, as a society, believe we should only care for those who can be productive? 2. Do we, as a society, value things other than productivity? 3. Do we, as a society, believe it is the place of a governing body to ensure a standard quality of life (whatever that standard may be)? Putting barriers around who deserves what doesn't really serve to do much other than exclude people who don't know how to work the system, or those who are unable to work the system.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
nerdponx 6y ago
> We want employers to provide benefits, as opposed to the government because that means higher taxes This is a silly argument. You pay for your healthcare no matter what, it's just a question of who administers it. > Then you put a million exclusions and tax deductions and other loopholes, so no one knows what they're really getting This is precisely the current state of employer-sponsored healthcare, and also the wildly complicated medicare/medicaid system. Universal coverage combined with higher taxes (ideally on people who already have lots of money and therefore place very little value on marginal income) is arguably better and easier to reason about than a mandate for employer-provided coverage and its associated opaque and complicated effects on labor markets, including higher fixed costs of hiring people and decreased ability for people to move between regions, industries, and even jobs within the same industry/career.
- munk-a 6y ago
  > This is precisely the current state of employer-sponsored healthcare, and also the wildly complicated medicare/medicaid system. I'm happy to talk about manufacturer drug rebates which is an amazingly crazy portion of the healthcare market that would be illegal in almost any other market due to the perverse market incentives it creates. But yea, the short version is that the private healthcare market is incredibly inefficient.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > This is a silly argument. You pay for your healthcare no matter what, it's just a question of who administers it. But who administers it has a lot to do with how much you pay for it. For example, a high deductible plan will save you a lot of money as long as you aren't in the 99th percentile of healthcare needs, and (unless the deductible is really high) still not bankrupt you if it turns out you are. Any kind of government plan that doesn't give you that choice because it's paid from taxes rather than premiums is plausibly going to cost you more money. And that's true even on average, because high deductible plans make people more price sensitive, which exerts downward pressure on costs. (The fact that US healthcare regulations disfavor high deductible plans is one of the reasons costs remain high.) The US system is also uniquely screwed because the rest of the world piggybacks on US medical R&D while in practice regulating prices even for products under patent. The result is that the US market is paying a disproportionate share of the R&D cost. Cost comparisons to single payer systems that pretend that single payer systems are inherently less expensive are ignoring the lower contribution of those systems to worldwide medical R&D. Moreover, the recipient companies are disproportionately in the US and have lobbyists and large numbers of voter-employees, so implementing a single payer system here would be unlikely to remove those costs. Then you're left with the resulting increase in price insensitivity and the US system becomes even more unaffordable. It's actually a hard problem. The solution probably has to involve the other countries paying more of the R&D.
Consultant32452 6y ago
I don't want government or employers to provide benefits. I want people to keep their money and decide what is best for themselves. I don't believe the government or my employer has my best interest at heart, nor are they equipped to cater to my unique family needs..
- ddingus 6y ago
  Sadly, you do not live in a vacuum. The system needs to serve everyone and make sense. Everyone choosing what is exactly right for them implies those choices are all possible and the complexity, risk and cost profile also makes sense. Those things are not true, and the outcome is rapidly escalating cost and risk exposure. This has been addressed in many ways, and one of the easier ways is to have government fund those bennies to provide a respectable floor. People who need more can choose to do that and the market for such things would make much more sense and be lower cost and risk for everyone. An example seen worldwide is supplemental plans that operate in addition to primary plans, which are actually illegal in many parts of the world due to the inherent conflict between profit motive and health care. You wanting to keep your money and make choices is very different from wanting other people to keep their money, which is an overreach frankly. Further, in the current scenario, you really can't be sure medical people have your best interests in mind because the priority is making money not making sure we have healthy people. When medical people are free to actually make healthy people a priority, the discussion about best interests becomes a much easier one.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    I don’t want to argue with you or change your mind. I just don’t want to live in the same country with you.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      Again, sadly, unless you find new land to settle, ideally with some very committed peers to help against risk, you will be living with people, many who will express the same sentiments, pretty much anywhere you go in this world. Rough state of affairs, I would imagine.
ddingus 6y ago
And that really is a priority discussion. Universal healthcare, say Medicare for All style, does not have to mean higher taxes. And it would make a big difference to gig workers and the ones working for the likes of Walmart. A very high percentage of Walmart employees need government assistance due to their income not actually being enough to pay the laborer what their labor costs them to deliver. At a minimum, labor needs to exist reasonably and show up for work. Healthcare is a part of that, right along with the basics. All of us are subsidizing labor for a few of us to put profit, or more peak profit in the bank. The priority discussion boils down to what makes the most sense for the nation. Do we cut back on the military industrial complex? Maybe we decide subsidizing labor makes sense. That would also mean not shaming and blaming people who seek and obtain help from the government. Doing that is baked in right now, in that no matter what those people do, a large percentage of them will need help. Or, we simply change nothing and yes, taxes are higher, but the national spend is lower overall. Many of us will benefit. We could prioritize it so employers are more on the hook in various ways. Some of them will not be viable. Even if they all are, we may not have enough jobs. Government could be an employer to make sure everyone has a work opportunity that pays enough to exist and show up for work. There are many options. Not all mean higher taxes, but all that discussion means a national priority talk also has to happen. If we do nothing, our priority is not having people make it, exist reasonably and show up for work. Predictably, lots of people are not making it, may do crime, are homeless, may not have health care, maybe will show up for work, if they can get it. If our priority becomes about people existing reasonably and showing up for work, we will see that, but will have higher taxes, or back off some other things we currently make a priority.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  > Universal healthcare, say Medicare for All style, does not have to mean higher taxes. How would that be? It seems like it certainly would to me. Maybe by less than employees plus employers currently pay in aggregate healthcare costs, but I can't imagine a way where the government pays for Medicare-for-all and taxes don't go up. Do you have a specific idea in mind that I'm missing?
  - deleted 6y ago
mikestew 6y ago
We want employers to provide benefits "We" don't necessarily think benefits should be provided by the whims of private businesses. as opposed to the government because that means higher taxes. The assumption here being that benefits from the government are paid with higher taxes, and benefits from employers being paid from the kindness of the CEO's heart and not from wages that would have otherwise been paid you.
- reedjosh 6y ago
  >We want >"We" don't I want the money that my employer pays into health insurance to be paid to me into an HSA like tax sheltering of healthcare funds, and then I want no health insurance middleman. Poof---there goes all the corrupt incentives and ridiculous administrative overhead.
  - warkdarrior 6y ago
    > I want no health insurance middleman That is literally impossible. Even if insurance companies are made illegal tomorrow, that role of market maker between providers (doctors and hospitals, drug companies) and customers (patients, employers) will always exist. This is because such a role is needed. Patients do not have the capacity nor the knowledge to find the best doctor, the best hospital, or the best drug maker for them.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      ...do not have the capacity nor the knowledge... Health insurance was invented in the late 1930s as a political ploy to forestall government health programs. Did patients all get stupid at that time, or was it the case that they were all going to the wrong doctors and hospitals before then? Please give human beings a little credit. We make decisions every day, some of which are a lot more substantial than which state-licensed physician to hire. ps. you don't know what "market maker" means...
    - reedjosh 6y ago
      > That is literally impossible. Okay, but I didn't mean literally outlaw insurance middlemen. I mean fix the incentive structure such that I have the option to forego insurance middlemen. > Patients do not have the capacity nor the knowledge I completely disagree, and what business of yours or anyone's is it to say I'm `lacking in capacity and knowledge` to such a degree I shouldn't be allowed to make my own healthcare decisions!? Worse still, right now the US government puts a cap on the percentage of profit an insurance company can take from premiums which coupled with the current near monopolistic healthcare insurance system incentivizes paying as much as possible for treatment to justify higher premiums.

duxup 6y ago

What do you imagine " fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers" would be?

analog31 6y ago
I'm thinking: Free health care, paid time off, a robust safety net, better protections for workplace safety, etc. Level the playing field.
- cobaltoxide 6y ago
  If they are "independent contractors" then who exactly is paying for this time off, etc?
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    I'm not sure how it would work for vacations, since it's kind of your job as the contractor to earn enough to set aside your own vacation time. Parental leave should be administered as a public insurance pool that ICs pay into through self-employment taxes.
- trentnix 6y ago
  Level the playing field Otherwise known as, redistribute the wealth. Heinlein's "bad luck" incoming...
  - _vertigo 6y ago
    “Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck.” This quote assumes that what held true for most of history holds true today, when machines and computers can complete the tasks necessary for ensuring the flourishing of our species orders of magnitude more efficiently than ever before. Why should we assume that poverty would be the normal condition of man today?

osipov 6y ago

>>so that the government doesn't have to fix anything sounds like you are naive to how the government works

freeone3000 6y ago

What, specifically, are those disadvantages? And are they actually related to employee classification, or are merely privileges not usually granted to employees?

giantg2 6y ago
For my wife, she can get more hours and higher pay as an independent contractor. Part of this is because we get insurance through my job. They also give her more autonomy than an employee would have.
- itake 6y ago
  Off-topic, but do you think its a problem that gig workers have no upward mobility? A worker with 10 years of experience will be paid exactly the same as a worker with 1 month.
  - jandrewrogers 6y ago
    That depends on the type of gig. There are some gigs where experience and skill command a substantial premium.
    - itake 6y ago
      The largest gig employers (Uber, Lyft, Doordash, etc.) do not seem to provide a substantial premium for experience. In 5-10 years, what will be the current driver's expectations for pay?
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Beyond a month or two of experience, what would more experience benefit in that role?
  - adamiscool8 6y ago
    Plenty of employees have no upward mobility either. Though with 10 years of positive ratings, I would think The Algorithm would reward them with more frequent/better gigs?

hctaw 6y ago

Backwards as it may be it's far easier to change a regulatory interpretation or judicial test than to make a fundamental change to government services, like healthcare. >Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so Then companies that want to attract gig workers can give them the freedoms that are set by statute, regulatory bodies, and precedent. Like setting their own rates and picking which contracts to fulfill.

jayd16 6y ago

You can (and actually must) work in both directions simultaneously. We can't do nothing in the hopes of sweeping changes. You have to work within the system that is in place even if you are also working to replace that system (and many are).

jdasdf 6y ago

> instead of fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers, You're mistaken. It is not independent workers that are disadvantaged, but employees who as a result of those laws are less attractive to hire. The solution here is to remove those arbitrary restrictions, not to expand them.

kube-system 6y ago

I disagree. There are jobs that are reasonable under the construct of "independent contractor". The issue is that the classification has been grossly abused to the point where the majority of people who employers attempt to classify that way really shouldn't be eligible. I have real independent contractors in my family, they might work 2 hours each for 50 different customers in a year. They do their job exactly how they want to. It's not like it makes sense for any one of their customers to provide benefits of any kind. This is the kind of stuff this classification was meant for.

yibg 6y ago
Isn't the solution here to turn contractor vs employee issue into a question of choice and benefit for the employee vs the employer? If retirement, time off and health benefits are also equally available to contractors then people can make the choice for the type of work they want without being disadvantaged.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  What does "time off" mean for someone who is unambiguously a contractor (such as a one-person plumber, handyman, maid, babysitter, landscaper, CPA, lawyer, etc)? They already have as much time off as they choose to have. It's all (obviously) unpaid as "who would pay them?"
  - yibg 6y ago
    Yea time off is a bit iffy here. Some of the gig companies currently (due to covid) provides some level of "paid" sick days. But yea as a contractor it's probably less relevant than retirement and healthcare.
  - Frost1x 6y ago
    Time off is one of the greatest scams in the modern economy. Unless you work a position where the time increment of your work is less than the amount of time you take off, ultimately you end up being pushed to do the same amount of work in less time. You might as well have skipped your vacation or planned your PTO during a less busy time. Really all PTO is for most salary exempt positions anymore is ability to delay work without getting fired. Now if you work in a position where you churn out things on a daily basis or less and someone will fill in for you while you're gone, PTO is actually PTO.

mschuster91 6y ago

> It seems backward that the government, instead of fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers, wants to force independent workers to become employees so that the government doesn't have to fix anything. It is abdication of responsibility for social outcomes. Quite the contrary: the government acts to prevent a ruthless race to the bottom as someone who skips e.g. on health insurance or on worker protection laws (e.g. daily work time maximums) can outcompete someone who sticks to the rules. Especially with health insurance, the government has to pay the tab of those who skip it and then can't pay for the hospital. > Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so. The only reason I see why people want to voluntarily go gig worker is schedule flexibility - they don't want a regular full time or part time schedule because of children, elder care or whatever. And for what it's worth employment regulations should be made more flexible in that regard, but it must be prevented that employers go and abuse it to exploit their workers (e.g. by arbitrarily cutting their hours).

birdyrooster 6y ago

Not to mention that the people forced into the "gig" economy are often ADOS, black and/or latino. It helps to cement their bottom caste statuses in this country. The white/asian people on HN cling to their classist agenda and aren't willing to talk about race because of how privileged they are and how segregated their workplaces are. They just don't know the experience and make abstract claims about what is fair based on class.

mountainb 6y ago

Under the law as it is written, the labor secretary is basically correct. It's not the labor secretary's job to rewrite the law. What congress should have done several years ago is to address the emergence of the gig economy with a new designation that is distinct from both independent contractors and employees. Lots of issues in modern US business arise from laziness / stupidity / corruption / uselessness of Congress. I believe that there should be reform and that we should be working towards a better legal environment for informal workers and companies that want to use them at scale facilitated by technology. You can believe that and still recognize that the law as written would not support a definition of these workers as independent contractors (because they are not and it really is not a gray area due to the way that they are managed/directed). It's also an issue for the US that we can go many years under an enforcement regime that assumes that we basically have this new category of worker that we are, for reasons of convenience, defining as independent contractors, but that the law clearly states do not meet the definition of independent contractors. Then we get a new administration that decides it will enforce the law as it's written instead of tacitly recognizing the fake pseudo reform of non enforcement that we had from earlier administrations. That isn't good government.

auiya 6y ago
>Lots of issues in modern US business arise from laziness / stupidity / corruption / uselessness of Congress. And by extension lots of issues in Congress arise from laziness / stupidity / corruption / uselesssness of the electorate that put them there. Invest heavily in education and revisit in a few generations.
- spaetzleesser 6y ago
  What kind of education?
  - auiya 6y ago
    The kind that doesn't result in an intellectual race to the bottom as we're witnessing today, where people eat tide pods, purposefully hasten pandemic spread, and bottles of Windex have to have legal disclaimers like "do not spray directly into eyes".

omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago

One solution to that is to allow employees to opt out of being employees. The government policy would prevent companies from misclassifying employees as independent contractors, and any individuals who did not want to be employees could opt out of that classification, but that's up to the individual, not the company.

sokoloff 6y ago
How long before Uber starts assigning mandatory job hours (as inconveniently as necessary to suit their needs) for drivers who have not opted out of employee status? I'd guess a maximum of two sprints.
- hagy 6y ago
  Many employees will be assigned inconvenient hours regardless. That is a key difference between employees and gig workers. When there are more people who prefer convenient hours than shifts available, some will only have the option to take inconvenient ones. As hourly employees, Uber can't use dynamic pay to manage supply and demand imbalances. I dealt this as a teenager working at McDonald's. Most of us didn't want closing shift, and occasionally at 25 cent/hour incentive would be added. But more often than not, the demand for any hours was sufficient. Labor supply simply exceeded demand. Still think Uber and likes should be regulated away until we have true self driving cars. That may take a decade or more.
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  They can. It'll work where the labor supply exceeds demand and won't work where it doesn't. It also won't be as effective as ride sharing becomes more of a commodity.

vegetablepotpie 6y ago

According to an Uber survey in October, 20%, of uber drivers are unsatisfied working for the company [1]. If you want to work for Uber, and you can work any time you'd like, why would you be dissatisfied with working there? The reason people work for Uber is that it's available as an opportunity, with a fairly low bar of entry, in a way that a lot of other employment opportunities are not. The "gig economy" is a legal hack by corporations to pay workers less than minimum wage [2]. We can talk a lot about problems with government (there are a lot of issue there), but the fact that the government has issues does not act as a free pass to allow private institutions to pay workers less. [1] https://mashable.com/article/uber-driver-survey-pandemic/ https://mashable.com/article/uber-driver-survey-pandemic/ [2] https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-uber-driver-wages-20180518-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-uber-driver-w...

megaman821 6y ago
So if the other 80% are satisfied working there because they get to pick their hours, it is best to change that because the 20% would be more satisfied with a full-time job and benefits? I don't even get your initial point. Have you never worked a job you didn't like? Many jobs suck, but people have to earn money. They will hopefully, eventually move on to more satisfying jobs.
- OkayPhysicist 6y ago
  When Uber gives drivers the ability to set their prices, I'll believe they're independent contractors. As it stands, Uber doesn't even let their drivers know what the value of a given ride is going to be until they've already started it.
- vegetablepotpie 6y ago
  I apologize for not being more clear about my point, I stated it implicitly for brevity. The job satisfaction quote was a rebuttal of what the parent said, which was > Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees I’ll be more clear, I have two points, point 1 is that “workers do not choose gig economy jobs because they offer flexibility, they choose them because they have low barriers to entry”. This means that employee classification is irrelevant to workers, they do not explicitly want to be contractors. The 20% job dissatisfaction statistic is sufficient to prove my point because if there were alternatives, those 1/5 of workers would not be working for Uber. Point 2 is “the gig economy benefits employers more than traditional employment and disadvantages workers more than traditional employment” I support this claim with the statement that Uber drivers have been paid less than minimum wage.

slantedview 6y ago

> wants to force independent workers to become employees Sounds exactly like a gig industry talking point, a classic conflation of making something a right with forcing it onto people. At the moment, being categorized as an employee is not even an option for gig workers. How's that for choice?

pvarangot 6y ago
There's a lot of jobs as a driver where you are categorized as an employee. I work for Lyft so I'm familiar with most of the talking points and I'll reserve my opinion on which ones are bullshit or which ones are not. That being said, that _most_ drivers don't want to be employees is undeniable, and even on polls that unions conduct the outcome is something like half and half. You can say that they can't decide for themselves because they are being oppressed, etc, etc... and while I agree with the sentiment I don't think "oppression" here is that bad as to force people to vote what gig economy companies want them to vote on an independent poll.
- jcims 6y ago
  The one thing i find absent from most of these conversations is the perspective of the workforce in question. Probably because neither side locked in this debate actually care what they think.

hellbannedguy 6y ago

"Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees." I think most know the worker routine. If they don't look a certain way, the right age, the right resume, they won't get the job. And the fact once they are an employee, they lose any bit of autonomy they think they have by being a independant? It's too bad that we have a huge line of people: 1. Buying a vechicle specific four door vechicle Uber approves of before even applying to use the app. That is a huge upfront expence. Uber makes it sound like we all have a late model four door sedan collecting dust in the four car garage? People are going bankrupt at best, but usually ruining credit, buying this huge asset in order to drive at the whims of Uber. There's no guarantes whatsoever. Want a deal on a four door sedan? Look at Craigslist used vechicle sales. Look for the last year Uber allows independents to drive. Actually I have noticed guys get another newer vechicle a couple of years before their vechicle ages out of Ubers strict year requirements. Some keep the useless four door sedan to drive a few more years under Lyft, or that's what I heard. 2. The guys whom are making a livible wage are usually driving to a big city. (A guy I know drives from santa Rosa to SF 7 days a week to make it work financially, and he is barely making it. He's working 80 hrs week.) 3. No health, they pay for gas, and insurance. 4. Yes--I'm picking on Uber. My point is before Uber Bought the proposition, many drivers wanted better working conditions, and most seemed excited Uber might have to give them a vechicle, and working conditions would be better. Then reality/fear set in? They will probally be fired next, or never hired me in the first place? Maybe I'll just stick with this chitty job? America has become the king of chitty jobs. And we have a lot of desperate people who will take these lousy jobs.

toast0 6y ago
> 1. Buying a vechicle specific four door vechicle Uber approves of before even applying to use the app. That is a huge upfront expence. Uber makes it sound like we all have a late model four door sedan collecting dust in the four car garage? I'm not seeing it anymore, but I recall seeing an Uber related lease program, and now I'm seeing Uber related rental car programs. In the Seattle area, it looks like I could rent a car from two different companies for about $220 per week that's intended to be used for unlicensed taxi services. If I were going to drive for Uber, and they didn't like my current vehicle, I'd drive a rental for a few weeks at least, to make sure it met my needs before dumping a bunch of money into a car.

throwaway_isms 6y ago

It seems to go without saying Employee protection laws are for the benefit and protection of the Employee. The law specifically prohibits employers from improperly reclassifying employees as independent contracts by simply titling a worker agreement/contract as an Independent Contractor Agreement in lieu of an Employment Agreement. If these drivers want to be independent contractors and not employees, great, if these laws were fully enforced from the beginning it would be the drivers that organized and owned the ride sharing business and UBER would have never been able to compete with them (UBER's own S-1 admits this risk, and acknowledges if drivers were Employees it would be an existential threat to their business). Its also no surprise this legal inevitability comes after their public offering. Sure many gig workers may not want to be employees, but they were, they just were not being provided the benefits and protections. I don't think the politicians are the only ones who benefited clearly the UBER investors and private shareholders pre-IPO were the single largest beneficiary. Is there any reason on the merits you disagree with the current legal standards distinguishing employee vs independent contractor? I mean the drivers desires is not part of the standard, and in fairness, I don't think you are able to collectively speak on behalf of all drivers and say that's what they wanted, clearly based on the number of lawsuits and employment claims many of them did want the employee status and benefits that come with it.

geofft 6y ago

There are many successful independent workers in the US, from your local plumber to Paul Graham. And they have plenty of support in government policy. The people who are not successful are independent workers who are dependent on an employer. The government cannot fix a logical contradiction.

JKCalhoun 6y ago

> It seems backward that the government, instead of fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers There are all manner of things we seem to lean on business to provide that government does not. Health insurance is the obvious one. But we also seem to have a large part of our electorate that like it that way — that don't want government involved in our welfare. If you want to tip the table toward government taking more responsibility and corporate America less, that is a tougher battle.

mbesto 6y ago

> Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so. In these cases, the only people that benefit are the politicians that can go on ignoring the real problems. I agree with the ethos of your response, but not the rationale. Many people don't understand the costs associated with being gig workers. Many people don't understand the value of benefits given to them by employers. This is a big reason why democracies exist - many people simply can't make decisions for themselves.

megaman821 6y ago
I always love the, "People are too stupid to make decisions for themselves" argument. People are more than adequate in making important decisions that directly touch their lives.
- mbesto 6y ago
  I always love the various countries[0] who implement direct democracies because "people are more than adequate in making important decisions that directly touch their lives." [0] - There's only one for the record and it's Switzerland.
  - megaman821 6y ago
    You must have no understanding of the word "directly" then. Do you think the military, trade deals, etc directly touch people's lives? Of course the average person isn't going to waste time educating themselves on these topics, they are going to pick someone who represents them to. I think most people might know a little something about their own jobs.
    - mbesto 6y ago
      > I think most people might know a little something about their own jobs. So then why do articles like this exist? If people know all of the things that directly affect them, why do they make so many mistakes? https://blog.stridehealth.com/post/1099-tax-mistakes https://blog.stridehealth.com/post/1099-tax-mistakes https://www.taxslayer.com/blog/rideshare-drivers-avoid-these-5-common-tax-mistakes/ https://www.taxslayer.com/blog/rideshare-drivers-avoid-these... https://www.ayroyal.com/uber-tax-form-mistakes-avoid/ https://www.ayroyal.com/uber-tax-form-mistakes-avoid/ https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/top-5-uber-lyft-tax-mistakes/ https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/top-5-uber-lyft-tax-mistak...

xpe 6y ago

> It seems backward that the government, instead of fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers, wants to force independent workers to become employees so that the government doesn't have to fix anything. It is abdication of responsibility for social outcomes. There is a logical fallacy here, but I'm not sure if there is a name for it. In essence, the above argument is assuming "the government" is one actor who is able to choose between various options at the same time. In practice, "the government" is a collection of actors, with many competing interests, with different mechanisms of influence available at different times. Aside: for anyone that thinks technology is hard, I would suggest running for office -- even a 'minor' role like being a school board member. This might shed some light on the difficulties of leading in a broader context. There is a reason it is called 'public service'.

Spooky23 6y ago

No, the government gets stuck picking up the slack when employers evade the law. Gig workers should be able to organize and effectively negotiate reasonable contracts instead of getting the shaft. My brothers union contract for musical performance crates a more free market environment than the whims of companies like Doordash.

xpe 6y ago

> Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so. On what basis do you say this? Have you found good unbiased survey research?

MomoXenosaga 6y ago

That would be fine but these self employed people aren't exactly saving money for retirement or healthcare. Gig worker falls off a ladder and ends up a paraplegic. Guess who will be footing the bill?

esolyt 6y ago

In normal countries, the government provides you healthcare, no matter what your job is, or if you have a job at all. In America, we already gave up on that fight. Instead, we made it your employer's responsibility to provide you healthcare. And now the government is yelling at Uber for not giving you healthcare. Fascinating.