3 ms·
DoorDash lobbies heavily against laws that would regulate labor, or classify its workers as “employees” and thus require they be covered by the minimal protecti
by matthewdgreen 7mo ago
DoorDash lobbies heavily against laws that would regulate labor, or classify its workers as “employees” and thus require they be covered by the minimal protections our country offers.
- reddozen 7mo agoIf the politicians are bought out by evil DoorDash's lobbying, why don't the voters just vote the politicians out? Do you have any evidence of a politician voting against their constituents' interests for personal gain?
- brianwawok 7mo agoIgnoring the easy second line, the answer to the first line is: we have two political parties in the US. What if neither are doing what the voters want?
- jmye 7mo agoThen people should stop being dumbfucks and engage in local (which are frequently non-partisan) and state elections and primaries, and stop pretending that "the president didn't fix everything and make this a socialist utopia, so both parties suck" is a useful or vaguely intelligent criticism.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- CPLX 7mo ago> Do you have any evidence of a politician voting against their constituents' interests for personal gain? You have to be kidding. In the current US political system, the hard part would be finding examples of a politician doing anything but.
- xienze 7mo agoTo be fair, it’s not really their fault that there are people who want to treat work that normally would be considered a way to pick up a few bucks during free time as a full time career. Sure, go ahead and make fast food delivery a highly regulated line of work that pays $30/hour with benefits. Just don’t be surprised when it no longer becomes economically viable for DoorDash to continue operating.
- matthewdgreen 7mo agoDoorDash not being able to continue operating doesn’t bother me one bit. They aren’t curing cancer, and a society with fewer food delivery options based on extorting poor people to turn their vehicle’s equity into less cash than it’s worth will still be a fine society. But I would be perfectly fine if they continued to exist and simply provided some basic guarantees like subsidized healthcare for their employees.
- cortesoft 7mo agoThe question is what happens if these sorts of micro-contract work arrangements are outlawed... is the expectation that these businesses will instead hire these people full time, thus increasing full time employment? Maybe, although it seems unlikely. These sorts of tasks aren't going to be worth most companies hiring someone to do it full time. Instead, the work simply won't be done and the business will just be a little less efficient and responsive. The other alternative is that someone would start a specialized service providing each of these types of tasks, and hire full time workers to do the work, and then contract out the services directly. Is that better for the workers? Maybe for some, they will have full time employment. But will they make more money? Maybe, but now there is a new company extracting profit, with overhead and all the related costs. Is that a better world for the average person? I don't know. I just don't think the answer is as simple as saying DoorDash obviously makes it worse.
- forbiddenvoid 7mo agoI would say that it is less that DoorDash makes it worse than it is that DoorDash's model removes any incentive for making it better.
- nradov 7mo agoA lot of that is about medical insurance. Employers generally have to offer subsidized health plans to full-time employees. If we could break that policy linkage between employment and health plan coverage then it would reduce the importance of classifying workers as employees versus independent contractors.