4 ms·

Employees might not get to claim the cost of their car (loan and depreciation), but contractors will. Healthcare doesn't come into it, NZ has government provide

Employees might not get to claim the cost of their car (loan and depreciation), but contractors will. Healthcare doesn't come into it, NZ has government provided healthcare. While you don't get vacation, you get to claim a lot of expenses. In New Zealand, it's pretty much "at-will" anyways, with the cost of removing an employee typically being 3-months wages. Personally, being a contractor was much more profitable than being an employee, even if I was on the same wage.

superb_dev 2y ago
How much time do you book keeping to claim all of that?
crowcroft 2y ago
Citation needed for New Zealand being pretty much 'at will'. Especially for large companies. From https://www.employment.govt.nz/ending-employment/dismissal https://www.employment.govt.nz/ending-employment/dismissal If an employer wants to dismiss an employee (end their employment), they must: * act in good faith * have a good reason Redundancy would cost three months reasons and Uber would be required Uber to argue, not that the person doing a job isn't a worthy employee, but that the role they perform shouldn't exist in the company anymore – a hard argument for Uber to make about their drivers I imagine. > NZ has government provided healthcare. Which contractors have to pay for through ACC levies.
- Taniwha 2y ago
  ACC levies in NZ pay for no-fault accident insurance - it's paid in part by taxpayers, and (for industrial accidents) paid for by employers (companies that employ coal miners pay more than companies that employ programmers). Our public health system (hospitals, doctors, etc) are different and is largely paid for from income tax (lower than many states in the US, 10% lower marginal rate than I was paying in CA).
  - crowcroft 2y ago
    Yea it's very different to the US, and it's much much cheaper than what people in the US would think when they think about paying health insurance, but contractors do generally need to pay ACC levies still. Flat rate is a little over 1%, and for high risk industries you would generally pay more. https://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/understanding-levies-if-you-work-or-own-a-business https://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/understanding-levies-if-y... > If you’re self-employed, a shareholder-employee or a contractor you’ll pay three different levies
beachy 2y ago
> In New Zealand, it's pretty much "at-will" anyways, with the cost of removing an employee typically being 3-months wages. No way. Removing an employee in NZ (other than for redundancy) requires a series of warnings about performance and assistance to said employee each time to get their shit together. It takes months, is easy to get wrong by missing some step, and it's nothing whatsoever like "at-will".
- muti 2y ago
  Redundancy may be the method they implied. I've seen it happen to my partner and several colleagues. It's laughable how easy it seems to tailor a redundancy to 1 or a few specific people, and the cost of fighting it is not worth it.
  - beachy 2y ago
    Faux redundancy is indeed a tool that can be used by smaller NZ employers. It's risky though for bigger companies to try it and it would never work for the homogeneous group that is Uber drivers, since they all effectively fill a single identical role, and redundancy must be about the role, not the person(s) filling it.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      In this particular case I think this might be a bit of a red-herring discussion for Uber. I doubt they care about the drivers for reasons that aren't legitimate for firing them. For example, if the driver isn't getting enough rides to justify paying them they probably are redundant.
    - CamelCaseName 2y ago
      But performance seems like a very easy thing for Uber to measure, which, according to this thread, is an allowable reason for termination?
  - yarg 2y ago
    Redundancy is complicated as well - it places burdens on hiring new people in the same position. So if you want to remove an incompetent to replace them with someone useful, you cannot do it with a redundancy.
yarg 2y ago
> NZ has government provided healthcare. We really don't. You won't be bankrupted by hospital bills, but the absolute shambles that we're working with is far from an adequately functioning healthcare system. The ACC (which is meant to cover injuries) often refuses to help, sets impossible burdens of proof, or provides completely inadequate compensation. And they've only gotten worse since covid (their website still says they require you to be fully vaccinated to visit them - even if you're visiting due to a vaccine injury).
- latentsea 2y ago
  > NZ has government provided healthcare. We really don't. You won't be bankrupted by hospital bills, but the absolute shambles that we're working with is far from an adequately functioning healthcare system. We do have it though, and it works, though it's not perfect. Wait times are definitely long unless you go private, but the public system has helped me many times. I've not had to deal with ACC, so I can't speak to that. In practice if you work for a good company you often get health insurance included or at a discount (at least all the software companies I've worked for have done this), so you get a mix of public/private healthcare and that works pretty decent. I can't imagine the stress of the nightmare inducing hospital bills you hear about in the US.
- Taniwha 2y ago
  My experience with ACC (broken achilles full reconstruction, 3 operations in the private system and physio, 80% salary for time off) has only been positive - I know some people have a different experience but IMHO when it works it works really well
  - yarg 2y ago
    When it works sure, but too often the system is adversarial and the behaviour more in line with what you'd see from a private insurer - as opposed to a government entity acting for the good of the people.

superb_dev 2y ago

How much time do you book keeping to claim all of that?

crowcroft 2y ago

Citation needed for New Zealand being pretty much 'at will'. Especially for large companies. From https://www.employment.govt.nz/ending-employment/dismissal https://www.employment.govt.nz/ending-employment/dismissal If an employer wants to dismiss an employee (end their employment), they must: * act in good faith * have a good reason Redundancy would cost three months reasons and Uber would be required Uber to argue, not that the person doing a job isn't a worthy employee, but that the role they perform shouldn't exist in the company anymore – a hard argument for Uber to make about their drivers I imagine. > NZ has government provided healthcare. Which contractors have to pay for through ACC levies.

Taniwha 2y ago
ACC levies in NZ pay for no-fault accident insurance - it's paid in part by taxpayers, and (for industrial accidents) paid for by employers (companies that employ coal miners pay more than companies that employ programmers). Our public health system (hospitals, doctors, etc) are different and is largely paid for from income tax (lower than many states in the US, 10% lower marginal rate than I was paying in CA).
- crowcroft 2y ago
  Yea it's very different to the US, and it's much much cheaper than what people in the US would think when they think about paying health insurance, but contractors do generally need to pay ACC levies still. Flat rate is a little over 1%, and for high risk industries you would generally pay more. https://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/understanding-levies-if-you-work-or-own-a-business https://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/understanding-levies-if-y... > If you’re self-employed, a shareholder-employee or a contractor you’ll pay three different levies

beachy 2y ago

> In New Zealand, it's pretty much "at-will" anyways, with the cost of removing an employee typically being 3-months wages. No way. Removing an employee in NZ (other than for redundancy) requires a series of warnings about performance and assistance to said employee each time to get their shit together. It takes months, is easy to get wrong by missing some step, and it's nothing whatsoever like "at-will".

muti 2y ago
Redundancy may be the method they implied. I've seen it happen to my partner and several colleagues. It's laughable how easy it seems to tailor a redundancy to 1 or a few specific people, and the cost of fighting it is not worth it.
- beachy 2y ago
  Faux redundancy is indeed a tool that can be used by smaller NZ employers. It's risky though for bigger companies to try it and it would never work for the homogeneous group that is Uber drivers, since they all effectively fill a single identical role, and redundancy must be about the role, not the person(s) filling it.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    In this particular case I think this might be a bit of a red-herring discussion for Uber. I doubt they care about the drivers for reasons that aren't legitimate for firing them. For example, if the driver isn't getting enough rides to justify paying them they probably are redundant.
  - CamelCaseName 2y ago
    But performance seems like a very easy thing for Uber to measure, which, according to this thread, is an allowable reason for termination?
- yarg 2y ago
  Redundancy is complicated as well - it places burdens on hiring new people in the same position. So if you want to remove an incompetent to replace them with someone useful, you cannot do it with a redundancy.

yarg 2y ago

> NZ has government provided healthcare. We really don't. You won't be bankrupted by hospital bills, but the absolute shambles that we're working with is far from an adequately functioning healthcare system. The ACC (which is meant to cover injuries) often refuses to help, sets impossible burdens of proof, or provides completely inadequate compensation. And they've only gotten worse since covid (their website still says they require you to be fully vaccinated to visit them - even if you're visiting due to a vaccine injury).

latentsea 2y ago
> NZ has government provided healthcare. We really don't. You won't be bankrupted by hospital bills, but the absolute shambles that we're working with is far from an adequately functioning healthcare system. We do have it though, and it works, though it's not perfect. Wait times are definitely long unless you go private, but the public system has helped me many times. I've not had to deal with ACC, so I can't speak to that. In practice if you work for a good company you often get health insurance included or at a discount (at least all the software companies I've worked for have done this), so you get a mix of public/private healthcare and that works pretty decent. I can't imagine the stress of the nightmare inducing hospital bills you hear about in the US.
Taniwha 2y ago
My experience with ACC (broken achilles full reconstruction, 3 operations in the private system and physio, 80% salary for time off) has only been positive - I know some people have a different experience but IMHO when it works it works really well
- yarg 2y ago
  When it works sure, but too often the system is adversarial and the behaviour more in line with what you'd see from a private insurer - as opposed to a government entity acting for the good of the people.