4 ms·

the idea that flexibility of employment is a binary is a tool Uber are using to shape the perception of the issue. Nothing stops Uber from offering security and

the idea that flexibility of employment is a binary is a tool Uber are using to shape the perception of the issue. Nothing stops Uber from offering security and flexibility, except the economics — which is Ubers burden to carry, not drivers.

toma_caliente 4y ago
Do you have any examples of companies currently structured like this? Employee contracted but work whenever they please?
- rileymat2 4y ago
  Isn't it common in the transcription industry?
- profile53 4y ago
  Nursing is one. Per diem staff pick up shifts whenever they want.
qeternity 4y ago
This is not one of economics. There are plenty of drivers willing to drive for Uber under the current arrangement. This is a legal issue, a burden which falls to legislators and their constituents.
- phphphphp 4y ago
  I’m not sure what you mean. Uber could immediately offer flexible employment in almost all jurisdictions within which they operate, the reason they don’t is because it’s substantially more expensive to have employees than it is to have contractors. There’s no legal reasons why Uber don’t have drivers as employees (with flexible schedules): they don’t because it would be too expensive, benefits are expensive, guaranteed earnings are expensive. There are plenty of drivers willing to drive under the current arrangement because they don’t have a choice: if you offered them the same flexibility but with the benefits of employment, they would of course take it.
  - qeternity 4y ago
    > There are plenty of drivers willing to drive under the current arrangement because they don’t have a choice: if you offered them the same flexibility but with the benefits of employment, they would of course take it. This is of course absurd. Every driver has a choice to work for Uber, or to do something else. And they chose to work for Uber. It’s not economic because these people are willing to work for Uber under this arrangement, despite having alternatives, and Uber is willing to pay them for services rendered under this arrangement. The economic problem is solved. The government has decided to step in and say that two consenting parties should not be able to engage in this.
ahallock 4y ago
It would have to be codified into law. It's funny that on the one hand they're vilified for taking advantage of drivers, yet are to be entrusted with offering a flexible work schedule for employees.

toma_caliente 4y ago

Do you have any examples of companies currently structured like this? Employee contracted but work whenever they please?

rileymat2 4y ago
Isn't it common in the transcription industry?
profile53 4y ago
Nursing is one. Per diem staff pick up shifts whenever they want.

qeternity 4y ago

This is not one of economics. There are plenty of drivers willing to drive for Uber under the current arrangement. This is a legal issue, a burden which falls to legislators and their constituents.

phphphphp 4y ago
I’m not sure what you mean. Uber could immediately offer flexible employment in almost all jurisdictions within which they operate, the reason they don’t is because it’s substantially more expensive to have employees than it is to have contractors. There’s no legal reasons why Uber don’t have drivers as employees (with flexible schedules): they don’t because it would be too expensive, benefits are expensive, guaranteed earnings are expensive. There are plenty of drivers willing to drive under the current arrangement because they don’t have a choice: if you offered them the same flexibility but with the benefits of employment, they would of course take it.
- qeternity 4y ago
  > There are plenty of drivers willing to drive under the current arrangement because they don’t have a choice: if you offered them the same flexibility but with the benefits of employment, they would of course take it. This is of course absurd. Every driver has a choice to work for Uber, or to do something else. And they chose to work for Uber. It’s not economic because these people are willing to work for Uber under this arrangement, despite having alternatives, and Uber is willing to pay them for services rendered under this arrangement. The economic problem is solved. The government has decided to step in and say that two consenting parties should not be able to engage in this.

ahallock 4y ago

It would have to be codified into law. It's funny that on the one hand they're vilified for taking advantage of drivers, yet are to be entrusted with offering a flexible work schedule for employees.