3 ms·

Isn't this what it means to be a contractor? When the contractee doesn't need your labor then they don't hire you. If your want guaranteed work become an empl

Isn't this what it means to be a contractor? When the contractee doesn't need your labor then they don't hire you. If your want guaranteed work become an employee.

philosopher1234 2y ago
When a company plays hard ball in negotiations we call it good business, but when workers do it we spit in their face.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  It clearly depends on what constitutes hardball, and we typically exclude illegal actions. Withholding labor or employment is hardball, shoving a gun in someone's face isn't. The question then becomes: are these workers breaking the law when they obstruct the streets and inconvenience 3rd parties. Does the law not apply to them because they are workers in a labor dispute? If not, which laws can and cant they break with impunity? If someone drags my life into their personal negotiation and breaks the law, I think they should face the consequences.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  ? Nothing wrong with drivers wanting to be employees. However, they should be upfront with what they want.
AlexandrB 2y ago
Uber can't have it both ways. They can't treat drivers like contractors when it's convenient, but then flip to treating them like employees when they want more control. If Uber drivers are contractors, fine. But then Uber should not be able to micromanage every aspect of the contractor's work.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Uber clearly wants contractors. The issue is that states generally detest contracting and wants workers to be paid hourly, not per contract.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  You can have a lot of control over contractors. You can offer them $X (i.e. set/negotiate pay). You can tell them what hours they can have access to your building (i.e. set hours). You can restrict their tools. (i.e. no flame torch, only ProPress). You can set expectations. (i.e. transfer the passenger from pointA to pointB). Afaik, you can't restrict their employment so no you can't drive for Lyft. While you can with employee. What restrictions does Uber do that they couldn't do over a different contractor? It might not be good for the US to transform into a Gig Economy but that's an entirely different discussion.
nerdjon 2y ago
I keep wondering about this an no one is giving a clean answer on this. I have no doubt that Uber and Lyft are in some ways doing this to game the system and I really don't want to defend how they treat their drivers. But at the same time, if you are going to be paying an hourly wage you would expect some threshold of work activity during that time. If there are too many drivers on the road and that utilization is too low, than you are paying for people that you don't need. That is how most hourly jobs work, you hire for the amount of work (or expected amount of work) that you expect needs to be done with an expectation of busy time. All of the reporting has been about screwing over the drivers, but it seems like a thing you would do in any normal situation. The problem here is these companies before the law could have any number of cars on the road and it didn't matter how many people were using it. And any of the drivers were not interviewed in a traditional sense for the work.
stahtops 2y ago
No, it’s not quite the same. If they didn’t need the labor, you would be active in the app and would get no rides because there isn’t enough demand. This is more like a business needs an employee to work, but they will book someone else who is below a regulatory threshold to avoid you being considered “full-time”. This usually results in more regulations or unions.

Isn't this what it means to be a contractor? When the contractee doesn't need your labor then they don't hire you. If your want guaranteed work become an employee.

philosopher1234 2y ago

When a company plays hard ball in negotiations we call it good business, but when workers do it we spit in their face.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
It clearly depends on what constitutes hardball, and we typically exclude illegal actions. Withholding labor or employment is hardball, shoving a gun in someone's face isn't. The question then becomes: are these workers breaking the law when they obstruct the streets and inconvenience 3rd parties. Does the law not apply to them because they are workers in a labor dispute? If not, which laws can and cant they break with impunity? If someone drags my life into their personal negotiation and breaks the law, I think they should face the consequences.
lesuorac 2y ago
? Nothing wrong with drivers wanting to be employees. However, they should be upfront with what they want.

AlexandrB 2y ago

Uber can't have it both ways. They can't treat drivers like contractors when it's convenient, but then flip to treating them like employees when they want more control. If Uber drivers are contractors, fine. But then Uber should not be able to micromanage every aspect of the contractor's work.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Uber clearly wants contractors. The issue is that states generally detest contracting and wants workers to be paid hourly, not per contract.
lesuorac 2y ago
You can have a lot of control over contractors. You can offer them $X (i.e. set/negotiate pay). You can tell them what hours they can have access to your building (i.e. set hours). You can restrict their tools. (i.e. no flame torch, only ProPress). You can set expectations. (i.e. transfer the passenger from pointA to pointB). Afaik, you can't restrict their employment so no you can't drive for Lyft. While you can with employee. What restrictions does Uber do that they couldn't do over a different contractor? It might not be good for the US to transform into a Gig Economy but that's an entirely different discussion.

nerdjon 2y ago

I keep wondering about this an no one is giving a clean answer on this. I have no doubt that Uber and Lyft are in some ways doing this to game the system and I really don't want to defend how they treat their drivers. But at the same time, if you are going to be paying an hourly wage you would expect some threshold of work activity during that time. If there are too many drivers on the road and that utilization is too low, than you are paying for people that you don't need. That is how most hourly jobs work, you hire for the amount of work (or expected amount of work) that you expect needs to be done with an expectation of busy time. All of the reporting has been about screwing over the drivers, but it seems like a thing you would do in any normal situation. The problem here is these companies before the law could have any number of cars on the road and it didn't matter how many people were using it. And any of the drivers were not interviewed in a traditional sense for the work.

stahtops 2y ago

No, it’s not quite the same. If they didn’t need the labor, you would be active in the app and would get no rides because there isn’t enough demand. This is more like a business needs an employee to work, but they will book someone else who is below a regulatory threshold to avoid you being considered “full-time”. This usually results in more regulations or unions.