4 ms·

To me this just means the workers need to be able to negotiate for either a standard or driver-selected minimum shift duration for billing purposes, just like m

To me this just means the workers need to be able to negotiate for either a standard or driver-selected minimum shift duration for billing purposes, just like most independent contractors can achieve by negotiating the terms of their contracts when finding clients. Every time I hire a moving company the hourly rate bills a contractual minimum number of hours per job regardless of actual time needed. Nothing about this concept is incompatible with flexible gig work. I realize that individual drivers have far less power in setting the terms of the relationships with Uber and Lyft than individual moving companies have over their client relationships, so drivers’ negotiations here will require either union-style collective action or advocacy for changes to NYC’s rules here.

elmerfud 2y ago
I'm not saying it shouldn't change. What I'm saying is this is more commonplace than what people believe. Hair stylists, auto mechanics, construction workers in many places, they all work under these conditions and have for many years. There's many more professions that offer flexibility that also work under these conditions. Often times these same people because they're individuals do not have any collective bargaining to make a better deal. They simply take the deal that's available and hope to make it work. Often times it doesn't work but for some it does and works consistently. I do think there's a general expectation that a flexible work when you want styled job should only be a benefit to the employee. They seem to feel that the employer shouldn't be able to tell them when their work is no longer required. Because there are other jobs besides Uber and if they wanted to work those less flexible jobs they could. Those less flexible jobs tend to come with the kind of contractual stability you're talking about. For example your hiring of a moving company is something you can track for in advance. That contract is in place they can provide the laborers when and where they're needed. I don't believe it's a fair example to compare to Uber. Uber would be more akin to a pool of day laborers. Contractors show up they need five guys to roof a house. When they get to the job site maybe they realize that nothing is ready so they all go home with a pittance if anything at all. And that is the risk of the flexibility of day labor. Is it right? Well that kind of flexibility in your work comes with risks and downsides. Because sometimes the contractor will show up and they'll need 25 guys to frame five houses that day but there's only a pool of 10 people. So that risk cuts both ways.
- tremon 2y ago
  Hair stylists, auto mechanics, construction workers [..] all work under these conditions Please specify under what conditions you mean here, because I know of no hair stylists nor construction workers that work by only doing the jobs that are allocated to them by a single company yet have no employment contract with that company. Either they own the hair salon/garage, or they get paid whenever they are available for work at said hair salon/garage by said owner.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >because I know of no hair stylists nor construction workers that work by only doing the jobs that are allocated to them by a single company yet have no employment contract with that company. Can't a rideshare driver work for both uber and lyft? Moreover, how much job hopping actually happens for hair stylists or auto mechanics?
    - jkaplowitz 2y ago
      For a long time I used a hairdresser (aka barber or hair stylist - but I’m male with simple short hair) who worked at two salons (aka barber shop from the mindset of customers like me) every week. It definitely happens. A typical model in that area (NYC) for hairdressers who didn’t own the salon was to rent a chair at a salon, but they weren’t employees and were totally allowed to do part-time chair rentals at multiple salons at once. Her contract with my salon prevented her from telling me her other salon, so I had to switch hairdressers instead of staying with her when she stopped working at that salon. The other hairdresser I switched to later bought the salon from the previous owner when he retired, complete with a rename of the salon from his name to hers. I still use her when I need a haircut and am in NYC. And yes, there are still other hairdressers working there, presumably each renting a chair as she previously did.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >Contractors show up they need five guys to roof a house. When they get to the job site maybe they realize that nothing is ready so they all go home with a pittance if anything at all. I worked in construction for about a decade, including with companies that supplemented crews with day labour when required, and we were always required to pay at least 4 hours (even if we sent them home after 5 minutes).
Aurornis 2y ago
> Nothing about this concept is incompatible with flexible gig work. Your example (movers) assumes the workers are already paired up with a customer. They don’t get paid if there isn’t a customer. The analogy doesn’t hold. The only way to support minimum shift durations would be to average out fares collected and distribute them to everyone who was technically working a shift, even if they weren’t driving. So the people actually driving would receive less payment in order to subsidize the people not driving. Once you open the door to paying people for not driving, the game becomes to find a way to park somewhere that allows you to participate in a shift while minimizing the number of customers assigned. Immediately, you’d get drivers strategically parking in far away locations to reduce their chances of picking anyone up, because if you’re getting paid for the time on shift you’d rather sit and do nothing than actually drive. So actually, the concept is completely incompatible with gig work.
- jkaplowitz 2y ago
  Nah, the idea just needs additional elaboration to protect it against gaming the system like you describe, without introducing systemic discrimination against passengers in less trendy areas. Here is a quick brainstorm of one possible fix, without any promises I didn’t overlook a flaw in this idea: maybe the minimum wage per some suitably granular time period when not currently or recently driving a passenger could be made to vary somewhat depending on whether enough other vehicles from the fleet are in the area, and could then potentially have a percentage penalty subtracted for not accepting and timely arriving to a high enough percentage of offered ride opportunities. Plus, of course, if some drivers game the system, Uber and Lyft can notice those abusive patterns in the data and stop working with them, disincentivizing other drivers from similar abuse. That’s the biggest countermeasure. The problem we are discussing is only Uber and Lyft abruptly locking out a driver mid-shift purely to save money. Nobody is objecting to Uber ending a relationship abruptly due to documented driver abuse or even doing so without driver misconduct but with reasonable notice. And no, I don’t assume that movers are already paired up with customers. They present the minimum number of billable hours per visit as part of their standard terms during the first conversation with a new potential customer, and at least in the residential moving space, customers don’t generally argue with it. The reason customers don’t argue with it is largely because movers can easily get another customer by doing almost nothing (at least in the big cities where I’ve lived) whereas it’s a hassle for customers to juggle too many different potential moving companies when planning the move. But another factor is that the minimum hourly rate billings are reasonable, typically 1-3 hours per visit in my personal experience, likely because there is enough competition among moving companies that offering unreasonable terms will lose them customers. I completely realize the power dynamic is different in the ride-sharing space, and I acknowledged that in my previous comment. But that just changes how the negotiation has to occur in order to balance out Uber and Lyft’s disproportionate power, not whether it can work in a gig worker context.

elmerfud 2y ago

I'm not saying it shouldn't change. What I'm saying is this is more commonplace than what people believe. Hair stylists, auto mechanics, construction workers in many places, they all work under these conditions and have for many years. There's many more professions that offer flexibility that also work under these conditions. Often times these same people because they're individuals do not have any collective bargaining to make a better deal. They simply take the deal that's available and hope to make it work. Often times it doesn't work but for some it does and works consistently. I do think there's a general expectation that a flexible work when you want styled job should only be a benefit to the employee. They seem to feel that the employer shouldn't be able to tell them when their work is no longer required. Because there are other jobs besides Uber and if they wanted to work those less flexible jobs they could. Those less flexible jobs tend to come with the kind of contractual stability you're talking about. For example your hiring of a moving company is something you can track for in advance. That contract is in place they can provide the laborers when and where they're needed. I don't believe it's a fair example to compare to Uber. Uber would be more akin to a pool of day laborers. Contractors show up they need five guys to roof a house. When they get to the job site maybe they realize that nothing is ready so they all go home with a pittance if anything at all. And that is the risk of the flexibility of day labor. Is it right? Well that kind of flexibility in your work comes with risks and downsides. Because sometimes the contractor will show up and they'll need 25 guys to frame five houses that day but there's only a pool of 10 people. So that risk cuts both ways.

tremon 2y ago
Hair stylists, auto mechanics, construction workers [..] all work under these conditions Please specify under what conditions you mean here, because I know of no hair stylists nor construction workers that work by only doing the jobs that are allocated to them by a single company yet have no employment contract with that company. Either they own the hair salon/garage, or they get paid whenever they are available for work at said hair salon/garage by said owner.
- gruez 2y ago
  >because I know of no hair stylists nor construction workers that work by only doing the jobs that are allocated to them by a single company yet have no employment contract with that company. Can't a rideshare driver work for both uber and lyft? Moreover, how much job hopping actually happens for hair stylists or auto mechanics?
  - jkaplowitz 2y ago
    For a long time I used a hairdresser (aka barber or hair stylist - but I’m male with simple short hair) who worked at two salons (aka barber shop from the mindset of customers like me) every week. It definitely happens. A typical model in that area (NYC) for hairdressers who didn’t own the salon was to rent a chair at a salon, but they weren’t employees and were totally allowed to do part-time chair rentals at multiple salons at once. Her contract with my salon prevented her from telling me her other salon, so I had to switch hairdressers instead of staying with her when she stopped working at that salon. The other hairdresser I switched to later bought the salon from the previous owner when he retired, complete with a rename of the salon from his name to hers. I still use her when I need a haircut and am in NYC. And yes, there are still other hairdressers working there, presumably each renting a chair as she previously did.
ziddoap 2y ago
>Contractors show up they need five guys to roof a house. When they get to the job site maybe they realize that nothing is ready so they all go home with a pittance if anything at all. I worked in construction for about a decade, including with companies that supplemented crews with day labour when required, and we were always required to pay at least 4 hours (even if we sent them home after 5 minutes).

Aurornis 2y ago

> Nothing about this concept is incompatible with flexible gig work. Your example (movers) assumes the workers are already paired up with a customer. They don’t get paid if there isn’t a customer. The analogy doesn’t hold. The only way to support minimum shift durations would be to average out fares collected and distribute them to everyone who was technically working a shift, even if they weren’t driving. So the people actually driving would receive less payment in order to subsidize the people not driving. Once you open the door to paying people for not driving, the game becomes to find a way to park somewhere that allows you to participate in a shift while minimizing the number of customers assigned. Immediately, you’d get drivers strategically parking in far away locations to reduce their chances of picking anyone up, because if you’re getting paid for the time on shift you’d rather sit and do nothing than actually drive. So actually, the concept is completely incompatible with gig work.

jkaplowitz 2y ago
Nah, the idea just needs additional elaboration to protect it against gaming the system like you describe, without introducing systemic discrimination against passengers in less trendy areas. Here is a quick brainstorm of one possible fix, without any promises I didn’t overlook a flaw in this idea: maybe the minimum wage per some suitably granular time period when not currently or recently driving a passenger could be made to vary somewhat depending on whether enough other vehicles from the fleet are in the area, and could then potentially have a percentage penalty subtracted for not accepting and timely arriving to a high enough percentage of offered ride opportunities. Plus, of course, if some drivers game the system, Uber and Lyft can notice those abusive patterns in the data and stop working with them, disincentivizing other drivers from similar abuse. That’s the biggest countermeasure. The problem we are discussing is only Uber and Lyft abruptly locking out a driver mid-shift purely to save money. Nobody is objecting to Uber ending a relationship abruptly due to documented driver abuse or even doing so without driver misconduct but with reasonable notice. And no, I don’t assume that movers are already paired up with customers. They present the minimum number of billable hours per visit as part of their standard terms during the first conversation with a new potential customer, and at least in the residential moving space, customers don’t generally argue with it. The reason customers don’t argue with it is largely because movers can easily get another customer by doing almost nothing (at least in the big cities where I’ve lived) whereas it’s a hassle for customers to juggle too many different potential moving companies when planning the move. But another factor is that the minimum hourly rate billings are reasonable, typically 1-3 hours per visit in my personal experience, likely because there is enough competition among moving companies that offering unreasonable terms will lose them customers. I completely realize the power dynamic is different in the ride-sharing space, and I acknowledged that in my previous comment. But that just changes how the negotiation has to occur in order to balance out Uber and Lyft’s disproportionate power, not whether it can work in a gig worker context.