9 ms·

These were always a disaster. It's essentially trying to 'Uberify' the entire economy. Be your own boss etc...People just end up sitting by the phone waiting fo

These were always a disaster. It's essentially trying to 'Uberify' the entire economy. Be your own boss etc...People just end up sitting by the phone waiting for 2 or 3 hours of minimum wage work a day. Maybe this is possible with living with mum and dad as a youngster, or living with a higher earning spouse and looking after children...A normal person could never realistically do them it was a stupid idea to begin with

monero-xmr 7mo ago
The UK is poor and getting poorer every year. People simply don’t start companies there. Making the labor market even worse isn’t going to fix the structural issues that are reducing living standards year after year
- n4r9 7mo ago
  That claim doesn't hold up to the figures: https://www.smeweb.com/total-number-of-uk-businesses-rises-driven-by-increase-in-sole-traders-and-micro-companies/ https://www.smeweb.com/total-number-of-uk-businesses-rises-d...
  - Anonyneko 7mo ago
    >the number of employing businesses decreasing by 9,000 (0.7%), but the number of non-employing businesses rising by 201,000 (4.9%) Isn't "non-employing business" an euphemism of sorts for "Uber driver"? No idea though if the UK is already forcing Uber to hire drivers and couriers as employees or not yet.
    - lnsru 7mo ago
      I am self employed electrician in Germany. I will never ever hire someone due to sick regulations here. I can work with clothing and tools I want. I can use my old stable ladder. For my employee I must get very expensive hardware and be liable for his work and his health. So thanks, it will never happen. I work all the time with other self employed people and they do share same opinion.
      - Timon3 7mo ago
        I don't want to misinterpret you, and your point about very expensive hardware surely has merit... But what makes it a "sick regulation" for you to "be liable for his work and his health"? That seems like the absolute bare minimum?
    - pseudalopex 7mo ago
      > Isn't "non-employing business" an euphemism of sorts for "Uber driver"? It was older than Uber. But it includes Uber drivers now.
- jen20 7mo ago
  Most of the fall in living standards since 2016 can be attributed solely to one thing: Brexit.
nickdothutton 7mo ago
The amount of regulation a company has to comply with to hire and retain a "real" (non-uberised) worker in the UK has been increased to a great degree since the mid 90s. Gig work allows these companies to offer work without commitment, while the worker may offers his labour without commitment. There is no limit to the number of platforms/firms he can sign on with. If company x provides too few hours or undesirable terms then he can add company y and company z. Uberization is a predictable outcome where hiring risk is increased and assigned solely to the employer.
- tikkabhuna 7mo ago
  Zero our contracts is used far beyond the "Uber"-style gig work where people can choose when they want to work. Often its used in for any sort of minimum wage job where there is a significant imbalance where employers have the power to offer as little/much work as they want and penalise workers who can't/won't take those shifts.
  - nickdothutton 7mo ago
    Unfortunately the UK now has an economy which is 83% services vs around 50% in 1970. Services are much more volatile with less certainty than say manufacturing or primary industry. So employment in services is going to be volatile and hard to predict, certainty has declined for all, employers and workers. A given employer only has the power if he is the only, or one of just a few in town. If not then the worker has the opportunity to seek hours somewhere else from someone else, at least if these jobs/gigs are relatively unskilled, which most are. What I don't agree with, the underpayment of workers enabled by government "subsidies". A barista in London may be offered £21K per year to work all his shifts (I'm looking at a job ad), yet needs double that to live, so government "subsidises" the employer by providing the other "missing" £20K in universal credit, housing benefit, and so on. It's no wonder employers take advantage of this. Meanwhile the customer thinks his coffee costs him £3, in fact the true cost is a multiple of that because of the ~£20K "subsidy". Meanwhile you can hear the faint sound of laughter, which is the employer, knowing that the taxpayer is picking up half his true wage bill.
samiv 7mo ago
This is a tremendous opportunity for the capitalists and industrialists to dodge their obligations towards normal employees. Essentially outsource their costs, healthcare, pension, unemployment etc employee protections to the working class while additionally driving down the wages. They profit and the rest of the society (Ie the tax payers that still remain) have to shoulder the cost. A labour union in Finland interviewed some Wolt gig workers and found that after discounting for time waited for delivery and expenses their effective take home pay was around 2.5€ per hour. We can expect this to spread more and more from taxis and delivery service to wider spectrums.
- lotsofpulp 7mo ago
  > costs, healthcare, pension, unemployment etc employee protections It makes no sense for these to be the responsibility of a buyer. Let people buy and sell products and services, and let the government collect tax and provide subsidies.
  - HPsquared 7mo ago
    I was thinking the same. Isn't it a bit of a power imbalance for your employer to look after all of those aspects of your life? It's not far from there to company towns. If you lose/quit the job, you lose health insurance and so on. Not a good bargaining position.
    - array_key_first 7mo ago
      I think it makes sense to give some of the cost to businesses because they also create some of the cost. For example, in the US you have to pay unemployment tax based off of your business' turnover. If you hire and fire a lot of people, you cause more unemployment, so you have to pay more taxes to cover your societal cost. It makes sense. The key point is that it's just a tax. The government should still be the one doing unemployment, although they're not, but that would be the ideal. So maybe if you have, say, a dangerous business you pay more healthcare tax or something. That could work instead of letting companies provide health insurance.
  - 7mo ago
nephihaha 7mo ago
Uberify? Funny, I continually tell people I refuse to use Uber because of its labour policies and it fails to register for them. I have never used Uber, Deliveroo or Just Eat which are trashy, exploitative companies.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
em-bee 7mo ago
gig economy is like working as a freelancer except the pay is lower. and that's the problem. working as a freelancer only works out because i get a higher per hour rate so that i can deal with downtimes where i get no work. gig work should have a higher minimum wage. double from normal at least. if minimum wage is $12 per hour. then gig-minimum should be $24 per hour. and there should be minimum hours of work guaranteed. these may be negotiable, but the big issue is that gig workers don't have the negotiation power and competence to work this out on their own. that's the whole reason why we have laws to protect employees in the first place. as a freelancer i have no protection, but i knew that going in and made a choice. gig-workers don't know that, and they often do gig work as a last resort, so they have no choice. laws haven't caught up yet to protect them.

monero-xmr 7mo ago

The UK is poor and getting poorer every year. People simply don’t start companies there. Making the labor market even worse isn’t going to fix the structural issues that are reducing living standards year after year

n4r9 7mo ago
That claim doesn't hold up to the figures: https://www.smeweb.com/total-number-of-uk-businesses-rises-driven-by-increase-in-sole-traders-and-micro-companies/ https://www.smeweb.com/total-number-of-uk-businesses-rises-d...
- Anonyneko 7mo ago
  >the number of employing businesses decreasing by 9,000 (0.7%), but the number of non-employing businesses rising by 201,000 (4.9%) Isn't "non-employing business" an euphemism of sorts for "Uber driver"? No idea though if the UK is already forcing Uber to hire drivers and couriers as employees or not yet.
  - lnsru 7mo ago
    I am self employed electrician in Germany. I will never ever hire someone due to sick regulations here. I can work with clothing and tools I want. I can use my old stable ladder. For my employee I must get very expensive hardware and be liable for his work and his health. So thanks, it will never happen. I work all the time with other self employed people and they do share same opinion.
    - Timon3 7mo ago
      I don't want to misinterpret you, and your point about very expensive hardware surely has merit... But what makes it a "sick regulation" for you to "be liable for his work and his health"? That seems like the absolute bare minimum?
  - pseudalopex 7mo ago
    > Isn't "non-employing business" an euphemism of sorts for "Uber driver"? It was older than Uber. But it includes Uber drivers now.
jen20 7mo ago
Most of the fall in living standards since 2016 can be attributed solely to one thing: Brexit.

nickdothutton 7mo ago

The amount of regulation a company has to comply with to hire and retain a "real" (non-uberised) worker in the UK has been increased to a great degree since the mid 90s. Gig work allows these companies to offer work without commitment, while the worker may offers his labour without commitment. There is no limit to the number of platforms/firms he can sign on with. If company x provides too few hours or undesirable terms then he can add company y and company z. Uberization is a predictable outcome where hiring risk is increased and assigned solely to the employer.

tikkabhuna 7mo ago
Zero our contracts is used far beyond the "Uber"-style gig work where people can choose when they want to work. Often its used in for any sort of minimum wage job where there is a significant imbalance where employers have the power to offer as little/much work as they want and penalise workers who can't/won't take those shifts.
- nickdothutton 7mo ago
  Unfortunately the UK now has an economy which is 83% services vs around 50% in 1970. Services are much more volatile with less certainty than say manufacturing or primary industry. So employment in services is going to be volatile and hard to predict, certainty has declined for all, employers and workers. A given employer only has the power if he is the only, or one of just a few in town. If not then the worker has the opportunity to seek hours somewhere else from someone else, at least if these jobs/gigs are relatively unskilled, which most are. What I don't agree with, the underpayment of workers enabled by government "subsidies". A barista in London may be offered £21K per year to work all his shifts (I'm looking at a job ad), yet needs double that to live, so government "subsidises" the employer by providing the other "missing" £20K in universal credit, housing benefit, and so on. It's no wonder employers take advantage of this. Meanwhile the customer thinks his coffee costs him £3, in fact the true cost is a multiple of that because of the ~£20K "subsidy". Meanwhile you can hear the faint sound of laughter, which is the employer, knowing that the taxpayer is picking up half his true wage bill.

samiv 7mo ago

This is a tremendous opportunity for the capitalists and industrialists to dodge their obligations towards normal employees. Essentially outsource their costs, healthcare, pension, unemployment etc employee protections to the working class while additionally driving down the wages. They profit and the rest of the society (Ie the tax payers that still remain) have to shoulder the cost. A labour union in Finland interviewed some Wolt gig workers and found that after discounting for time waited for delivery and expenses their effective take home pay was around 2.5€ per hour. We can expect this to spread more and more from taxis and delivery service to wider spectrums.

lotsofpulp 7mo ago
> costs, healthcare, pension, unemployment etc employee protections It makes no sense for these to be the responsibility of a buyer. Let people buy and sell products and services, and let the government collect tax and provide subsidies.
- HPsquared 7mo ago
  I was thinking the same. Isn't it a bit of a power imbalance for your employer to look after all of those aspects of your life? It's not far from there to company towns. If you lose/quit the job, you lose health insurance and so on. Not a good bargaining position.
  - array_key_first 7mo ago
    I think it makes sense to give some of the cost to businesses because they also create some of the cost. For example, in the US you have to pay unemployment tax based off of your business' turnover. If you hire and fire a lot of people, you cause more unemployment, so you have to pay more taxes to cover your societal cost. It makes sense. The key point is that it's just a tax. The government should still be the one doing unemployment, although they're not, but that would be the ideal. So maybe if you have, say, a dangerous business you pay more healthcare tax or something. That could work instead of letting companies provide health insurance.
- 7mo ago

nephihaha 7mo ago

Uberify? Funny, I continually tell people I refuse to use Uber because of its labour policies and it fails to register for them. I have never used Uber, Deliveroo or Just Eat which are trashy, exploitative companies.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

em-bee 7mo ago

gig economy is like working as a freelancer except the pay is lower. and that's the problem. working as a freelancer only works out because i get a higher per hour rate so that i can deal with downtimes where i get no work. gig work should have a higher minimum wage. double from normal at least. if minimum wage is $12 per hour. then gig-minimum should be $24 per hour. and there should be minimum hours of work guaranteed. these may be negotiable, but the big issue is that gig workers don't have the negotiation power and competence to work this out on their own. that's the whole reason why we have laws to protect employees in the first place. as a freelancer i have no protection, but i knew that going in and made a choice. gig-workers don't know that, and they often do gig work as a last resort, so they have no choice. laws haven't caught up yet to protect them.