4 ms·

I think really what is needed is a new employment classification to deal with gig workers. It's clear that they're somewhere in the middle between an employee a

by mattm 5y ago

I think really what is needed is a new employment classification to deal with gig workers. It's clear that they're somewhere in the middle between an employee and contractor/freelancer.

topkai22 5y ago
Definitely, although the legislative slog that would present makes me believe it'll be tough to get there. Part of the Uber/Lyft "ickiness" factor is that you have a giant company that has defined a "contracting" relationship with 100s of thousands of individuals. That is big power and capcity differential. Its not unreasonable to expect that the gig service companies be required to provide more services for their drivers than, say, local independent window washer who contracts individually with many businesses. Automatic tax payments, minimum wage for callouts and depreciation payments for self provided equipment are not unreasonble past a certain scale point. That being said, the people I've known personally who have drove for Uber/Lyft (around 4, so a small number admitadly) really were doing it just for a bit of extra cash on the side and would not have wanted or been able to be an employee of Uber/Lyft.
randomsearch 5y ago
Why should the gig economy even be a thing? It seems really great for the companies (make huge amounts of money), pretty great for users (cheap taxis, cheap accommodation), and absolutely terrible for most others - whether that’s the drivers (I’m sure some are happy, but the fact is the pay absolutely stinks, which is how the companies want it) or people suffering from increased traffic (Uber) or the disturbance of community (Airbnb). It’s just an incredible feat of mental acrobatics that hacker news convinces itself that the gig economy must be a good thing and must exist and it’s the government that’s behind, rather than the more obvious conclusion that _we have worker protections for a reason_ and these companies are not “disrupting” anything other than employment laws that protect the exploitation of workers, and other laws that protect wider society. Just because some says it is “tech” doesn’t meant it’s good or we have to support it. Just feels like massive groupthink or lack of experience of the reality on the ground for most people.
junar 5y ago
This actually exists: it's called "statutory employee". But according to current regulations, only a few specific types of workers can be classified this way. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/statutory-employees https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...

by mattm 5y ago

I think really what is needed is a new employment classification to deal with gig workers. It's clear that they're somewhere in the middle between an employee and contractor/freelancer.

topkai22 5y ago

Definitely, although the legislative slog that would present makes me believe it'll be tough to get there. Part of the Uber/Lyft "ickiness" factor is that you have a giant company that has defined a "contracting" relationship with 100s of thousands of individuals. That is big power and capcity differential. Its not unreasonable to expect that the gig service companies be required to provide more services for their drivers than, say, local independent window washer who contracts individually with many businesses. Automatic tax payments, minimum wage for callouts and depreciation payments for self provided equipment are not unreasonble past a certain scale point. That being said, the people I've known personally who have drove for Uber/Lyft (around 4, so a small number admitadly) really were doing it just for a bit of extra cash on the side and would not have wanted or been able to be an employee of Uber/Lyft.

randomsearch 5y ago

Why should the gig economy even be a thing? It seems really great for the companies (make huge amounts of money), pretty great for users (cheap taxis, cheap accommodation), and absolutely terrible for most others - whether that’s the drivers (I’m sure some are happy, but the fact is the pay absolutely stinks, which is how the companies want it) or people suffering from increased traffic (Uber) or the disturbance of community (Airbnb). It’s just an incredible feat of mental acrobatics that hacker news convinces itself that the gig economy must be a good thing and must exist and it’s the government that’s behind, rather than the more obvious conclusion that _we have worker protections for a reason_ and these companies are not “disrupting” anything other than employment laws that protect the exploitation of workers, and other laws that protect wider society. Just because some says it is “tech” doesn’t meant it’s good or we have to support it. Just feels like massive groupthink or lack of experience of the reality on the ground for most people.

junar 5y ago

This actually exists: it's called "statutory employee". But according to current regulations, only a few specific types of workers can be classified this way. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/statutory-employees https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...