5 ms·

> If a driver is logged into Uber and Doordash and GrubHub on 3 phones waiting for a delivery they probably should not be accruing $17.96*3 per hour at that tim

> If a driver is logged into Uber and Doordash and GrubHub on 3 phones waiting for a delivery they probably should not be accruing $17.96*3 per hour at that time. Why not? The entire shtick of Uber et al is that employees choose their hours and gain "freedom" from employees. This is what freedom looks like. Employers can't tell freelance contractors how they should behave. They decide a contract, they get a service and get their job done.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Employers can't tell freelance contractors how they should behave. They decide a contract, they get a service and get their job done. The contract can absolutely require exclusivity if paying by time.
- tyingq 3y ago
  Yes, but it does contribute to the somewhat fuzzy rules on whether someone is a contractor or employee. See: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc762 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc762 It's mostly not whether they can contractually demand any one particular thing. It's the sum total of behavioral and financial control they exert. Exclusivity would be a pretty big ticked box. If Uber/Doordash tick enough of those questions, then they are at risk of having to treat their drivers as employees. Which is more expensive.
dtech 3y ago
The agreement is that if you earn a wage you have your time available for the employer, so they could no longer reject offers. You're saying that they should get both the benefits of freelancers (pick work) and employees (minimum wage).
- DannyBee 3y ago
  So? The employer can refuse to contract with them if they can't fulfill their obligations
  - valval 3y ago
    How will they stay in business? Of course they would have to raise prices significantly, but people just wouldn’t order takeout anymore and would rather pick up themselves. Other than the obvious authoritarianism, that would also harm the environment with people driving a lot more.
    - martin8412 3y ago
      That's for them to find out? Adapt or die. If they can't afford to pay their expenses, the they can't afford to stay in business.
_8j50 3y ago
Not employees but contractors. If they are employees they can be forced to sign non-competes.
- treyfitty 3y ago
  NYC made non competes illegal a few weeks ago.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    i think parent means that the company can stop them from working two jobs at the same time. not allowing that is still legal. illegal non-competes are only about switching jobs.
    - _8j50 3y ago
      Yeah, that's what I meant. I wonder if it is even legal to work two jobs as an employee paid by the hour at the same time. Sounds like that might be fraud.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Employers can't tell freelance contractors how they should behave. They decide a contract, they get a service and get their job done. The contract can absolutely require exclusivity if paying by time.

tyingq 3y ago
Yes, but it does contribute to the somewhat fuzzy rules on whether someone is a contractor or employee. See: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc762 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc762 It's mostly not whether they can contractually demand any one particular thing. It's the sum total of behavioral and financial control they exert. Exclusivity would be a pretty big ticked box. If Uber/Doordash tick enough of those questions, then they are at risk of having to treat their drivers as employees. Which is more expensive.

dtech 3y ago

The agreement is that if you earn a wage you have your time available for the employer, so they could no longer reject offers. You're saying that they should get both the benefits of freelancers (pick work) and employees (minimum wage).

DannyBee 3y ago
So? The employer can refuse to contract with them if they can't fulfill their obligations
- valval 3y ago
  How will they stay in business? Of course they would have to raise prices significantly, but people just wouldn’t order takeout anymore and would rather pick up themselves. Other than the obvious authoritarianism, that would also harm the environment with people driving a lot more.
  - martin8412 3y ago
    That's for them to find out? Adapt or die. If they can't afford to pay their expenses, the they can't afford to stay in business.

_8j50 3y ago

Not employees but contractors. If they are employees they can be forced to sign non-competes.

treyfitty 3y ago
NYC made non competes illegal a few weeks ago.
- em-bee 3y ago
  i think parent means that the company can stop them from working two jobs at the same time. not allowing that is still legal. illegal non-competes are only about switching jobs.
  - _8j50 3y ago
    Yeah, that's what I meant. I wonder if it is even legal to work two jobs as an employee paid by the hour at the same time. Sounds like that might be fraud.