4 ms·

Yeah, but I'd rather focus on what you brought up originally.

by diob 4y ago

Eumenes 4y ago
We can go back and forth on the yes/no for the questionnaire, but its up for interpretation which is why this will probably go to the Supreme Court one day. I disagree with how you interrupted a few of them, but even looking at that, you seem to mostly agree with mine. This was helpful: https://www.argbackoffice.com/arg/1099_irs_checklist.pdf https://www.argbackoffice.com/arg/1099_irs_checklist.pdf See, #1 to me is an obvious no (you pick when to work, you don't have to work the same area of town). If you worked for a taxi company as w2, they may tell you to work a certain neighborhood or only to/from the airport. #3 is a yes. #4 is no (you can't subcontract out your uber work, because its dependent on your DL/driving record). #5 - probably a no. "hired, supervised, or paid individuals to assist the worker" it would clearly state, providing a service (an app), but it means actual people. #6 should be no - what makes the relationship continuing? #7 is no (some drivers pick nights, or weekends, or after class), #8 is no (there are many less than FT drivers) #18 should be yes -- they can work for other gig work apps that do similar things at the same time, not just 1 company, thus servicing more of the general public I am happy to not be a lawyer :)
- diob 4y ago
  Yeah, it's very tricky. I don't think the IRS / government was prepared for how complex the future would be. Like #1, turning down a ride or job you don't want could eject you from the platform. It's seems to imply "telling you where / when to work". Does that count? I'd say so, but IANAL. Like #5, they provide hired support for issues, and I would argue (IANAL) that engineers making the app are assisting the worker. Overall I think the fact their business can't exist without the drivers means they should be classified as something other than gig workers. What that is, I don't know. It sounds like we need something new to handle this. To your other anecdote though, don't underestimate the impact of the massive spending these companies engage in to push propaganda to their gig workers. There's propaganda on both sides for sure. Ultimately I would say most gig workers don't realize their exploitation until it's too late (health issues, car maintenance, etc.).

Yeah, but I'd rather focus on what you brought up originally.

by diob 4y ago

Yeah, but I'd rather focus on what you brought up originally.

We can go back and forth on the yes/no for the questionnaire, but its up for interpretation which is why this will probably go to the Supreme Court one day. I disagree with how you interrupted a few of them, but even looking at that, you seem to mostly agree with mine. This was helpful: https://www.argbackoffice.com/arg/1099_irs_checklist.pdf https://www.argbackoffice.com/arg/1099_irs_checklist.pdf See, #1 to me is an obvious no (you pick when to work, you don't have to work the same area of town). If you worked for a taxi company as w2, they may tell you to work a certain neighborhood or only to/from the airport. #3 is a yes. #4 is no (you can't subcontract out your uber work, because its dependent on your DL/driving record). #5 - probably a no. "hired, supervised, or paid individuals to assist the worker" it would clearly state, providing a service (an app), but it means actual people. #6 should be no - what makes the relationship continuing? #7 is no (some drivers pick nights, or weekends, or after class), #8 is no (there are many less than FT drivers) #18 should be yes -- they can work for other gig work apps that do similar things at the same time, not just 1 company, thus servicing more of the general public I am happy to not be a lawyer :)

diob 4y ago
Yeah, it's very tricky. I don't think the IRS / government was prepared for how complex the future would be. Like #1, turning down a ride or job you don't want could eject you from the platform. It's seems to imply "telling you where / when to work". Does that count? I'd say so, but IANAL. Like #5, they provide hired support for issues, and I would argue (IANAL) that engineers making the app are assisting the worker. Overall I think the fact their business can't exist without the drivers means they should be classified as something other than gig workers. What that is, I don't know. It sounds like we need something new to handle this. To your other anecdote though, don't underestimate the impact of the massive spending these companies engage in to push propaganda to their gig workers. There's propaganda on both sides for sure. Ultimately I would say most gig workers don't realize their exploitation until it's too late (health issues, car maintenance, etc.).