8 ms·
> We’re deeply concerned that companies will try to get around the law and continue to exploit vulnerable workers by pretending they are self-employed when they
by PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> We’re deeply concerned that companies will try to get around the law and continue to exploit vulnerable workers by pretending they are self-employed when they should enjoy the full protection of the law.
This is really the crux of the issue: why do we pretend that gig workers don't deserve the same benefits and protections that proper employees do? Even referring to it as a "gig" makes it sound more like a hobby than a livelihood.
EDIT: yea sorry I meant to imply "wages and wage guarantees" as well but I just shoved it in with "benefits and protections"
- whimsicalism 2y agoideally benefits should be provided by the state or out of pocket, not by employers - imposing requirements like full benefit coverage for gig workers would likely lower employment rates
- asdfman123 2y agoI can't help but feel the problem is that someone becomes "full time" in the US after exactly 40 hours. I feel like some kind of gradient system would be ideal. Like if you work 10 hours a week you get 25% of the cash value of benefits. That way, a company wouldn't be incentivized to keep them right below the limit.
- andrewmcwatters 2y agoThis is such a great idea that I'm surprised I've never read anyone suggest it in all of my professional life.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- asdfman123 2y agoHonestly I think the whole system runs on "let's pretend we're doing stuff for the workers but create loopholes so big business doesn't have to actually comply."
- whimsicalism 2y agothe ideal would be no benefits, just cash - and a negative income tax at the lower scales. catastrophic insurance can be paid by the state.
- marcosdumay 2y agoWhat are those benefits that don't scale with salary? I know the US has that health-care thing, is it just that or there are other ones that need a cut time somewhere?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> why do we pretend that gig workers don't deserve the same benefits and protections that proper employees do? Because some—in some cases, many—of them don’t. And in many cases, e.g. healthcare, it’s unclear why we’re still bundling something into employment that properly should be separate. Extending employment protection to gig workers is a simple solution. But it probably leaves many of them worse off than they are now. (Also, most full-time employees are paid up to 14 days after post.)
- casenmgreen 2y ago> And in many cases, e.g. healthcare, it’s unclear why we’re still bundling something into employment that properly should be separate. This, one million times over. I read an account describing how things came to be as they are. Apparently, it all started during WW2. The Government controlled wages, and so some wages were too high and some too low, and for those set too low, it became difficult to get staff. To make employment more remunerative, employers began to add benefits on the side - such as health insurance - and these were not taxed, either. The Government eventually noticed this was happening, and moved to tax such benefits, and discontent with this was so widespread the Government backed off. So then we end up with health insurance as a non-taxable benefit tacked on to employment.
- whimsicalism 2y agoyeah basically the only reason we have the current system is due to tax preferencing and any attempt at reform (like Obama’s cadillac tax) is opposed by broad interests
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> only reason we have the current system is due to tax referencing What is tax referencing?
- whimsicalism 2y agooops dropped a p
- scarface_74 2y agoWhat is the difference between a “gig worker” and an independent contractor? Jason Snell, the former editor of Macworld went independent after getting laid off from MacWorld. He purposefully put together streams of income consisting of podcasting, writing articles for different magazines - including MacWorld, writing for his own blog and writing technical books. He said out of those, because of the initial laws passed in California, it made it harder for him to be what in essence was a gig worker when writing for various websites. The little time I did spend doing C2C contracting, I also had net 30 payment terms. Yes I realize it’s different for the gig workers in the article. But the last thing we need is laws that affect all “gig workers” whether they make $10/hour or whether they are making $150/hour. On that note, I did pay a third party company $10/hour for a short term contract that I had with a former CTO. It would have been too much work on both ends to get me approved to work directly for the company so I became a subcontractor for an established company to make every thing easier even though I found the initial contract.
- stuaxo 2y agoIt's in your answer: the difference is low wages vs well paid. Once you get paid the amounts that people are in the "gig economy" it becomes exploitative, people don't have enough to live or to get out of their situation easily.
- scarface_74 2y agoI would be okay with laws that distinguish between when a worker is expected to make less than $X per hour or per job.
- jandrese 2y agoContractors get to negotiate how much they are paid.
- scarface_74 2y agoGig workers do too. Isn’t the idea behind surge pricing is that people decide whether it is worth them working or not?
- swatcoder 2y agoBecause the term "gig work" carries a history of being used for skilled tradespeople with high trust and high independence independently selling their work one gig at a time. The professionals maintain high independence by choice and have uncommon, balancing leverage when it comes to negotiating with clients because of the expertise they bring. The esteem ad other associations of that usage are now given to untrained drivers, personal shoppers, and cashiers because it helps technology firms avoid traditional worker protections.
- timewizard 2y agoTaking on unskilled gig work is the modern equivalent to moving into a scrip town.
- duxup 2y agoHell the whole gig thing is putting risk / cost of demand changes onto the worker.
- wvenable 2y agoWe gave less rights to part-time workers so companies just started making as many part-time as possible. If you create a loop-hole it will be exploited.
- wing-_-nuts 2y agoPretty much this. The ACA that said you had to offer health insurance to employees working over 30h / wk? Well, guess what, you're now only working 29.5. We should have just expanded medicare to cover everyone, but no, that'd give too much power to the workers.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> should have just expanded medicare to cover everyone Maybe the solution is to go piecemeal. We already have Medicaid for the poor--raise the limit on that. Expand Medicare to children and pregnant women. Et cetera. > that'd give too much power to the workers Medicare For All isn't popular [1]. There isn't a conspiracy, just people being cautious about a complicated and important topic. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/468401/majority-say-gov-ensure-healthcare.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/468401/majority-say-gov-ensure-...
- wing-_-nuts 2y agoI think if you put it to the American people as a referendum 'Hey, we're going to get rid of private insurance and put everyone on Medicare, here's the budget estimate from the CBO' I'm quite confident it would pass. The sheer earned disdain I've seen expressed for health insurance providers recently makes me hope this is some sort of 'Abe Moment' for the US where even conservatives can acknowledge the majority of Americans are sickened by what our healthcare system has become.
- bombcar 2y agoIt'd almost certainly fail, because for many people (who haven't researched much) they consider "Medicare" the same as "crappy healthcare". You're much better off boiling the frog by expanding the availability of medicare through various means until almost everyone has it as an option even if they're not using it.