4 ms·

Great to see that over 100 years of labour laws won by the workers' movements can't be innovated away in SOME countries.

gpvos 5y ago
Well, you can fool all of the people some of the time, so it was possible for many years.
- trompetenaccoun 5y ago
  How were they fooled? In the Netherlands, no one is forced to work anywhere. People drive Ubers out of their own volition, whether we think it's stupid or not. I'm not sure about other countries but in China where the market used to be even less regulated, both drivers and customers switched in droves from traditional taxis to ride hailing apps. For various reasons they just like it better. And it's not exactly difficult to see the advantages even if you have concerns about labor laws. There's always a case to be made that any form of employment is exploitation. Sararīman, as the corporate slave is known in Japan. The question is how much regulation do we want. And do we want it for regulation's sake, or does it actually benefit the people. There are many labor laws that hinder innovation and keep employment down.
  - paulluuk 5y ago
    > There are many labor laws that hinder innovation and keep employment down I think it's fair to say that the huge majority of labor laws actually protect laborers, and have been won through blood and sweat over many generations. To opt on "the safe side" and say "look, yes jobs at Uber are complicated, but if you work there 40 hours per week then it's a fulltime job and we should treat it as such" is quite fair.
umvi 5y ago
But does every single way to make money have to provide a living wage with full health benefits, etc.? Seems like you limit types of innovation that could otherwise happen. For example, say you create some kind of trash cleanup/recycling incentive app that pays out some small amount for trash/recyclables picked up and turned in. Soon: everyone is outraged that some poor person can't make a living wage picking up recyclables and they try to force you to hire all users of your app as full time employees with full health benefits, etc. That doesn't seem right.
- Spivak 5y ago
  I agree with this in theory but you have to contend with how people actually engage with these kinds of gig jobs. You can't just legalese "this isn't a full time job" when people are working it as a full time job.
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  This already exists but without an app. Anyone can collect scrap and sell it to a recycling center. Plenty of homeless people use this as a primary income source. No one has ever tried to classify it as employment.
- yawaworht1978 5y ago
  Can't compare that app to Uber, Uber hasn't innovated much of anything besides a tracking app with a payment integration. Lift forked their product in no time. They have undercut the competition, skirted laws, pay horrible wages, promised a self driving fleet , this is the funniest to me. I bet they want that released without too much regulatory friction too. There was this incident where their fsd fleet car run over 6 red lights consecutively. The break it ask for forgiveness later approach is generally not welcome in Europe, it's regarded as borderline criminal practice. And then delay court procedures and are the other slimy practices. Always easier to make a buck when breaking the law when everyone else is not breaking it. These companies have compliance departments and lawyers not to see what's legal, but to see how much they can get away with. Today, a Dutch Judge showed them the demarcation lines.
bthrn 5y ago
The other side of this is that many laws do not neatly accommodate advances in technology. There are currently laws in place that predate cars, predate the internet, predate electricity. At some point, in some contexts, they will be a hinderance rather than a benefit.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > At some point, in some contexts, they will be a hinderance rather than a benefit. This is extremely vague. The legal system changes continuously and quickly, especially when under pressure from big money. If something doesn't either it's because it's not important or somebody is benefiting from it.

gpvos 5y ago

Well, you can fool all of the people some of the time, so it was possible for many years.

trompetenaccoun 5y ago
How were they fooled? In the Netherlands, no one is forced to work anywhere. People drive Ubers out of their own volition, whether we think it's stupid or not. I'm not sure about other countries but in China where the market used to be even less regulated, both drivers and customers switched in droves from traditional taxis to ride hailing apps. For various reasons they just like it better. And it's not exactly difficult to see the advantages even if you have concerns about labor laws. There's always a case to be made that any form of employment is exploitation. Sararīman, as the corporate slave is known in Japan. The question is how much regulation do we want. And do we want it for regulation's sake, or does it actually benefit the people. There are many labor laws that hinder innovation and keep employment down.
- paulluuk 5y ago
  > There are many labor laws that hinder innovation and keep employment down I think it's fair to say that the huge majority of labor laws actually protect laborers, and have been won through blood and sweat over many generations. To opt on "the safe side" and say "look, yes jobs at Uber are complicated, but if you work there 40 hours per week then it's a fulltime job and we should treat it as such" is quite fair.

umvi 5y ago

But does every single way to make money have to provide a living wage with full health benefits, etc.? Seems like you limit types of innovation that could otherwise happen. For example, say you create some kind of trash cleanup/recycling incentive app that pays out some small amount for trash/recyclables picked up and turned in. Soon: everyone is outraged that some poor person can't make a living wage picking up recyclables and they try to force you to hire all users of your app as full time employees with full health benefits, etc. That doesn't seem right.

Spivak 5y ago
I agree with this in theory but you have to contend with how people actually engage with these kinds of gig jobs. You can't just legalese "this isn't a full time job" when people are working it as a full time job.
nonameiguess 5y ago
This already exists but without an app. Anyone can collect scrap and sell it to a recycling center. Plenty of homeless people use this as a primary income source. No one has ever tried to classify it as employment.
yawaworht1978 5y ago
Can't compare that app to Uber, Uber hasn't innovated much of anything besides a tracking app with a payment integration. Lift forked their product in no time. They have undercut the competition, skirted laws, pay horrible wages, promised a self driving fleet , this is the funniest to me. I bet they want that released without too much regulatory friction too. There was this incident where their fsd fleet car run over 6 red lights consecutively. The break it ask for forgiveness later approach is generally not welcome in Europe, it's regarded as borderline criminal practice. And then delay court procedures and are the other slimy practices. Always easier to make a buck when breaking the law when everyone else is not breaking it. These companies have compliance departments and lawyers not to see what's legal, but to see how much they can get away with. Today, a Dutch Judge showed them the demarcation lines.

bthrn 5y ago

The other side of this is that many laws do not neatly accommodate advances in technology. There are currently laws in place that predate cars, predate the internet, predate electricity. At some point, in some contexts, they will be a hinderance rather than a benefit.

goodpoint 5y ago
> At some point, in some contexts, they will be a hinderance rather than a benefit. This is extremely vague. The legal system changes continuously and quickly, especially when under pressure from big money. If something doesn't either it's because it's not important or somebody is benefiting from it.