9 ms·

No one's saying you can't freelance. But there are some pretty clear rules about what you should be able to do in order to really be a freelancer: choose which

by lutorm 5y ago

No one's saying you can't freelance. But there are some pretty clear rules about what you should be able to do in order to really be a freelancer: choose which jobs you take, set your own hours, decide how you want to do the job, how you dress, etc. What's not OK is when the company wants all the advantages of having contractors but still wants to dictate all these things.

briandear 5y ago
The rules around that are pretty clear already. And in the case of Uber, you not only can drive when you want, you can drive for multiple providers at the same time.
- paulpauper 5y ago
  I think uber has rules about declining rides that may not be as profitable despite being in close vicinity.
tqi 5y ago
I think it's less clear than one would expect. What does set your own hours look like? If I hire someone to mow my lawn, and want it to happen while I'm at the store, am I setting that person's hours? What does decide how you want to do the job look like? If I specifically want them to use an electric mower for noise reasons, am I deciding how they do the job for them? Ultimately I feel like we are trying to shoehorn a fundamentally new model into preexisting paradigms, and as a result we waste time haggling over who is what. It feels like instead we should just say this is a new thing, and create a new set of laws to regulate it in the way that we think is best.
- hellomyguys 5y ago
  None of the your examples are relevant to how Uber and Lyft treats their employees.
- dheera 5y ago
  > want it to happen while I'm at the store, am I setting that person's hours? > If I specifically want them to use an electric mower for noise reasons The fundamental difference is you, as a customer, can want these things, but the person doing the mower is self-employed and they can negotiate and figure out whether or not they can come to a mutual agreement with you. They could also just simply not come to an agreement with you and the worst that would happen is they don't get your money, and move on with their work and life. It's different than if there was Uber Mowing Co. that managed them and forced them to forgo their lunch and mow your lawn while you were at the store or be fired.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - whitexn--g28h 5y ago
    Uber mowing co does not manage them or fire them. They are a marketplace where a large amount of customers who trust Uber to negotiate prices on their behalf the cost of a ride from A to B and have that trip made available to willing drivers.
    - brbsix 5y ago
      Uber doesn't inform drivers what they will be paid for a trip. Except where mandated by state law, they don't even inform them of the trip duration or destination until after it is accepted. It is hardly a marketplace when one side of the exchange knows next to nothing about what they will selling until after it is sold. Uber may not "fire" them, but failure to accept gigs will significantly impair your ability to be offered more in the future.
    - ska 5y ago
      > They are a marketplace [...] negotiate prices on their behalf t These two things are in fundamental conflict, which is part of the issue.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      "They are a marketplace.. Uber to negotiate prices on their behalf" Are you even hearing how ridiculous this sounds.
- Bukhmanizer 5y ago
  I agree that we are dealing with a new paradigm and should treat it that way. But I don’t think your examples are relevant. The customer should be able to request as much as they want on the gig worker, as long as there is no middle man employer forcing the worker to agree to subpar conditions.
  - ska 5y ago
    > I agree that we are dealing with a new paradigm and should treat it that way. I don't think it's that clear - it's more like people are still arguing about a) is it really a new paradigm and b) if so, is it on net enough benefit to be worth doing.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  There are a bunch of criteria for employee vs gig, but the law isn't written prescriptively - so the person's work for you satisfies some of one and some of the other, then someone will have to decide how much control the contractor has over the working conditions (the greater the control, the more likely the classification of "contractor"). Generally, contractors should have expertise, use their own equipment, decide how the job should be done, and have a risk of losing money. If you insist they use your lawnmower, that's a very quick employee classification (from what I've experienced). My gardener refuses to use any soil/mulch/whatever we own - likely for this reason. I've worked with real estate folks, and when they do a flip, they're very careful not to buy raw materials for the contractors lest some of them sue to be classified as an employee and collect benefits. They'll even use SW to set up an order with Home Depot, which emails the contractor's a simple way to place that order at HD and pick up, and then they'll ask the contractor to add the raw materials cost to the invoice. But they will not buy the materials for them. Also, if I screw up my current job, I'll merely get fired. My employer cannot demand I repay wages (generally). If your situation with your contractor is comparable, he will be classified as an employee. They must take on risk of losing money if they negotiate poorly or screw up a job. > It feels like instead we should just say this is a new thing, and create a new set of laws to regulate it in the way that we think is best. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this.
  - mike00632 5y ago
    One thing that grinds my gears is that Uber has standards of what types of cars they will allow their drivers to use. Uber even provides financing services for drivers to use to buy or rent a car. So drivers not only don't have the final say in what tools they use but also have to PAY FOR their tools. It's really the worst of both worlds in terms of employee vs contractor: all of the costs but without the freedom.
- balls187 5y ago
  > I think it's less clear than one would expect. In WA State (https://esd.wa.gov/employer-taxes/independent-contractors https://esd.wa.gov/employer-taxes/independent-contractors), there is a three part test. If you force someone to mow your lawn with specific equipment, and at a certain time, they would be en employee; they are not free from control.
  - tqi 5y ago
    Hm is there a difference between hiring a person and telling them to mow my lawn at 2pm vs choosing a person who is only available at 2pm?
    - ev1 5y ago
      Neither of these really compare to the part where "If you don't accept all jobs assigned to you, we will no longer assign jobs to you and remove you from the platform entirely, also we are nearly the entire platform - you will find <1% of the jobs you previously could anywhere else"
  - synsynack 5y ago
    You are not forcing them. Say you post a gig to craiglist, I need someone to mow my lawn, with this law mower, at this time. Those are the details of the gig offer, take it or leave it, and complete it in any way that meets the requirements of the gig
    - mike00632 5y ago
      Except Craigslist doesn't take the pay from the gigs and then give a wage to those performing the gigs. Actually, Uber/Lyft/etc would be way less controversial if they operated similarly to Craigslist. When I order an Uber I can never get a ride from a 1980 Ford truck or a snowmobile because those vehicles don't meet Uber's standards and I'm actually scheduling a gig with a representative of Uber who adheres to Uber's standards and acts in line with Uber's policies and takes pay from Uber that is disconnected from what I pay them. There is virtually nothing "independent" about the driver except they independently chose to work for Uber. Yet the driver still bears the costs of equipment maintenance and liability, which happens to be the exact costs that business newbies overlook the most. It's exploitative.
- Baeocystin 5y ago
  Yes in both cases, and you'll get landscapers/gardeners who won't take the job because of it. The services around here let you pick a day, but you have no say in exactly what time or what equipment they're using. This gets you a cheaper price, and lets them work through that week's client list effectively. The important thing is them passing on not doing your job won't affect their next one, unlike what happens if an uber driver declines too many rides.
gshulegaard 5y ago
I think you might be more in agreement with the original comment than how I interpreted your comment. Personally, I think OP is calling out that most of the issues with current Uber (and similar companies) is the asymmetry of information. Only Uber knows where all the riders are, what they are paying, and where they are going. They also are the only ones that know where all the drivers are and how much they are expecting to be paid. This information asymmetry allows them to expose just enough information to both rider and driver to facilitate the outcome Uber wants. In my mind, when Uber (or anyone else) starts controlling the flow of information they cease to be simply a platform/market place. The majority of issues (in my mind) resolve themselves when this data asymmetry is removed. Driver's have more freedom of choice if they can see all available fares rather than just a yes/no prompt on an individual basis, for example. I also think there is far more gray area to these types of employment relationships that is generally acceptable when it comes to things like how you do the job, how you dress, etc. For example, if you are an independent delivery driver but enter into a contract with FedEx it is acceptable for FedEx to stipulate that you wear a FedEx uniform while delivering FedEx parcels. If you don't find that stipulation acceptable, you can decline the contract. Likewise, if FedEx discovers you aren't following contractual obligations they can terminate the relationship.
sameboat632746 5y ago
It is not just that. The biggest test for contractor vs employees is IRS classification. If a person earns majority of their income from one entity, then they are classified as employee. There is no official percentage cutoff like 51% or even 95%, IRS supposed to look at the whole situation. Majority of tech contractors are actually employees of contracting company, so that is one way to get around it. At one point, I was freelancing, and I had only one client. My/their accountant had me open an LLC for this reason. Now there are a lot of gig workers who are on all of the platforms and probably earn equal amount of money from each platform. But there are plenty who are only on one platform, so they will need to be classified as employees.
burlesona 5y ago
I certainly agree with that, and I’m not sure how it contradicts what I posted?

by lutorm 5y ago

briandear 5y ago

The rules around that are pretty clear already. And in the case of Uber, you not only can drive when you want, you can drive for multiple providers at the same time.

paulpauper 5y ago
I think uber has rules about declining rides that may not be as profitable despite being in close vicinity.

tqi 5y ago

I think it's less clear than one would expect. What does set your own hours look like? If I hire someone to mow my lawn, and want it to happen while I'm at the store, am I setting that person's hours? What does decide how you want to do the job look like? If I specifically want them to use an electric mower for noise reasons, am I deciding how they do the job for them? Ultimately I feel like we are trying to shoehorn a fundamentally new model into preexisting paradigms, and as a result we waste time haggling over who is what. It feels like instead we should just say this is a new thing, and create a new set of laws to regulate it in the way that we think is best.

hellomyguys 5y ago
None of the your examples are relevant to how Uber and Lyft treats their employees.
dheera 5y ago
> want it to happen while I'm at the store, am I setting that person's hours? > If I specifically want them to use an electric mower for noise reasons The fundamental difference is you, as a customer, can want these things, but the person doing the mower is self-employed and they can negotiate and figure out whether or not they can come to a mutual agreement with you. They could also just simply not come to an agreement with you and the worst that would happen is they don't get your money, and move on with their work and life. It's different than if there was Uber Mowing Co. that managed them and forced them to forgo their lunch and mow your lawn while you were at the store or be fired.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- whitexn--g28h 5y ago
  Uber mowing co does not manage them or fire them. They are a marketplace where a large amount of customers who trust Uber to negotiate prices on their behalf the cost of a ride from A to B and have that trip made available to willing drivers.
  - brbsix 5y ago
    Uber doesn't inform drivers what they will be paid for a trip. Except where mandated by state law, they don't even inform them of the trip duration or destination until after it is accepted. It is hardly a marketplace when one side of the exchange knows next to nothing about what they will selling until after it is sold. Uber may not "fire" them, but failure to accept gigs will significantly impair your ability to be offered more in the future.
  - ska 5y ago
    > They are a marketplace [...] negotiate prices on their behalf t These two things are in fundamental conflict, which is part of the issue.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "They are a marketplace.. Uber to negotiate prices on their behalf" Are you even hearing how ridiculous this sounds.
Bukhmanizer 5y ago
I agree that we are dealing with a new paradigm and should treat it that way. But I don’t think your examples are relevant. The customer should be able to request as much as they want on the gig worker, as long as there is no middle man employer forcing the worker to agree to subpar conditions.
- ska 5y ago
  > I agree that we are dealing with a new paradigm and should treat it that way. I don't think it's that clear - it's more like people are still arguing about a) is it really a new paradigm and b) if so, is it on net enough benefit to be worth doing.
BeetleB 5y ago
There are a bunch of criteria for employee vs gig, but the law isn't written prescriptively - so the person's work for you satisfies some of one and some of the other, then someone will have to decide how much control the contractor has over the working conditions (the greater the control, the more likely the classification of "contractor"). Generally, contractors should have expertise, use their own equipment, decide how the job should be done, and have a risk of losing money. If you insist they use your lawnmower, that's a very quick employee classification (from what I've experienced). My gardener refuses to use any soil/mulch/whatever we own - likely for this reason. I've worked with real estate folks, and when they do a flip, they're very careful not to buy raw materials for the contractors lest some of them sue to be classified as an employee and collect benefits. They'll even use SW to set up an order with Home Depot, which emails the contractor's a simple way to place that order at HD and pick up, and then they'll ask the contractor to add the raw materials cost to the invoice. But they will not buy the materials for them. Also, if I screw up my current job, I'll merely get fired. My employer cannot demand I repay wages (generally). If your situation with your contractor is comparable, he will be classified as an employee. They must take on risk of losing money if they negotiate poorly or screw up a job. > It feels like instead we should just say this is a new thing, and create a new set of laws to regulate it in the way that we think is best. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this.
- mike00632 5y ago
  One thing that grinds my gears is that Uber has standards of what types of cars they will allow their drivers to use. Uber even provides financing services for drivers to use to buy or rent a car. So drivers not only don't have the final say in what tools they use but also have to PAY FOR their tools. It's really the worst of both worlds in terms of employee vs contractor: all of the costs but without the freedom.
balls187 5y ago
> I think it's less clear than one would expect. In WA State (https://esd.wa.gov/employer-taxes/independent-contractors https://esd.wa.gov/employer-taxes/independent-contractors), there is a three part test. If you force someone to mow your lawn with specific equipment, and at a certain time, they would be en employee; they are not free from control.
- tqi 5y ago
  Hm is there a difference between hiring a person and telling them to mow my lawn at 2pm vs choosing a person who is only available at 2pm?
  - ev1 5y ago
    Neither of these really compare to the part where "If you don't accept all jobs assigned to you, we will no longer assign jobs to you and remove you from the platform entirely, also we are nearly the entire platform - you will find <1% of the jobs you previously could anywhere else"
- synsynack 5y ago
  You are not forcing them. Say you post a gig to craiglist, I need someone to mow my lawn, with this law mower, at this time. Those are the details of the gig offer, take it or leave it, and complete it in any way that meets the requirements of the gig
  - mike00632 5y ago
    Except Craigslist doesn't take the pay from the gigs and then give a wage to those performing the gigs. Actually, Uber/Lyft/etc would be way less controversial if they operated similarly to Craigslist. When I order an Uber I can never get a ride from a 1980 Ford truck or a snowmobile because those vehicles don't meet Uber's standards and I'm actually scheduling a gig with a representative of Uber who adheres to Uber's standards and acts in line with Uber's policies and takes pay from Uber that is disconnected from what I pay them. There is virtually nothing "independent" about the driver except they independently chose to work for Uber. Yet the driver still bears the costs of equipment maintenance and liability, which happens to be the exact costs that business newbies overlook the most. It's exploitative.
Baeocystin 5y ago
Yes in both cases, and you'll get landscapers/gardeners who won't take the job because of it. The services around here let you pick a day, but you have no say in exactly what time or what equipment they're using. This gets you a cheaper price, and lets them work through that week's client list effectively. The important thing is them passing on not doing your job won't affect their next one, unlike what happens if an uber driver declines too many rides.

gshulegaard 5y ago

I think you might be more in agreement with the original comment than how I interpreted your comment. Personally, I think OP is calling out that most of the issues with current Uber (and similar companies) is the asymmetry of information. Only Uber knows where all the riders are, what they are paying, and where they are going. They also are the only ones that know where all the drivers are and how much they are expecting to be paid. This information asymmetry allows them to expose just enough information to both rider and driver to facilitate the outcome Uber wants. In my mind, when Uber (or anyone else) starts controlling the flow of information they cease to be simply a platform/market place. The majority of issues (in my mind) resolve themselves when this data asymmetry is removed. Driver's have more freedom of choice if they can see all available fares rather than just a yes/no prompt on an individual basis, for example. I also think there is far more gray area to these types of employment relationships that is generally acceptable when it comes to things like how you do the job, how you dress, etc. For example, if you are an independent delivery driver but enter into a contract with FedEx it is acceptable for FedEx to stipulate that you wear a FedEx uniform while delivering FedEx parcels. If you don't find that stipulation acceptable, you can decline the contract. Likewise, if FedEx discovers you aren't following contractual obligations they can terminate the relationship.

sameboat632746 5y ago

It is not just that. The biggest test for contractor vs employees is IRS classification. If a person earns majority of their income from one entity, then they are classified as employee. There is no official percentage cutoff like 51% or even 95%, IRS supposed to look at the whole situation. Majority of tech contractors are actually employees of contracting company, so that is one way to get around it. At one point, I was freelancing, and I had only one client. My/their accountant had me open an LLC for this reason. Now there are a lot of gig workers who are on all of the platforms and probably earn equal amount of money from each platform. But there are plenty who are only on one platform, so they will need to be classified as employees.

burlesona 5y ago

I certainly agree with that, and I’m not sure how it contradicts what I posted?