4 ms·

Mixed feelings on this. It tends to expand the recent meme of "Everyone's a contractor, nobody's an employee". There's no minimum wage or other worker protect

Mixed feelings on this. It tends to expand the recent meme of "Everyone's a contractor, nobody's an employee". There's no minimum wage or other worker protections if you sign contracts for services. The social contract is never signed, & it's getting abandoned more & more.

thethimble 13y ago
Isn't being an employee unnecessary bureaucracy for a messenger service? If anything, I think Uber is doing a great service here to all parties involved by connecting supply and demand in a low-friction way.
- johnvschmitt 13y ago
  Yes, it's not new, & yes Uber is doing well in connecting supply & demand with a great UX. For Uber to be worth its high hype & valuation, it's going to essentially expand these types non-employee situations. That's why I'm "mixed" feeling about this, as I like great UX, smooth marketplaces, & know many people who want part-time work, not full time. But, I also know many folks who had "decent jobs" (nothing special, but they can raise a family) driving UPS trucks or other things like that.
  - cnaut 13y ago
    I think it is more than just connecting supply and demand with a great UX. The UX is actually creating demand. With taxis, Uber has created a whole new market of people who use uber but didn't use taxies before. I see a similar thing happening with couriering.
emperorcezar 13y ago
My understanding is that this is how the bike messenger industry has been for a while?
- bertil 13y ago
  One aspect that Uber seems to have over-looked is that bike messengers traditionally rely on a network of relations, and commitment to the job -- it’s not a very gratifying job, therefore very low chances of finding another employment, legal or not, are qualifications. This allows the dispatcher to hire anyone with a pulse and calves, but trust some more and have them handle the occasional key delivery. An truly Uber-like equivalent for parcels might be problematic. Imagine a couple of company shills, posing as a putative messengers, near your competitors’ headquarters.
  - the_watcher 13y ago
    If they compete on price and keep the same quality of delivery service - my guess is they'll be fine. Or current bike messengers will just join Uber as it's an extremely powerful lead generation tool, similar to cleaners and Homejoy (as we've seen at least some small level of cabbies joining Uber - I don't have hard numbers, but I have at least one anecdote that this has happened before).
- AJ01 13y ago
  I am a big fan of challenger brands like uber, but this doesn't seem to be news. Keep on challenging the old taxi industries around the world.
oleganza 13y ago
The "social contract" is a religious non-proven abstraction. There was never any social contract anywhere. And even if there was, it does not bind you or me in any way. And even if it could, we could impose our own versions of a social contract on each other making it irrelevant. The consensus on social norms is not a consensus if it's enforced by some group on another - that's just bullying, not agreement. If our ideas of how society should function differ, we can either reach some compromise to mutual satisfaction (==consensus) or start fighting and guy with 51% of power will win. But that wouldn't be a "contract", "consensus" or "morality" in it. It'll be just an outcome of a brutal conflict.
- tsax 13y ago
  The most amusing part about the fictitious 'social' contract is that its proponents are loathe to respect ACTUALLY SIGNED contracts.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    Because "society" is more important than your greedy individualistic exploitative capitalistic contracts.
    - tsax 13y ago
      Conveniently enough, 'society' as such is defined by the activist, the benevolent overseer. No thanks.
- johnvschmitt 13y ago
  Yes, the "social contract" is a very vague term indeed, & has been applied in bad ways in the past. Here, I'm applying that there is social give & take & expectations/norms throughout our society. Yes, any social norm/contract/expectation is, by definition, constraining/conservative & thus counter to any progress/disruption. These are not absolutes, as any difficult moral argument is usually balancing competing, legitimate concerns. We do have an American social "contract" that is eroding: Things like "If you're born poor, and good in school, study hard, work hard your whole life, stay clean, then you have a great chance of getting out of poverty".
netcan 13y ago
I'm not sure that this is necessarily a terrible thing. In some cases, its just a way of avoiding employment laws. In others, it is a genuine fragmentation of a big business into many units. Independent contractors can benefit from this and the whole system can become more efficient. If a new technology is involved, the latter is more likely. Technology can reduce transaction costs and replace firms with markets made up of smaller firms. A really interesting and accessible (but usually misinterpreted via soundbite) famous work in economics is ' The Nature of the Firm' by Ronald Coase. I think this is the best framework for understanding the key dynamic here. Whether employees or independent "contractors" make economic sense is most influenced by transaction costs. For example if the cost of hiring, negotiating and communicating with a graphic designer every time was low enough, there would be no reason for a company to hire a graphic designer. But realistically if you add up all the things an in house designer does (including making the decisions about what needs to be done) in a month and try to get those done by freelancers, I would estimate the cost at 3-4X higher. As things stand now, I think that a company contracting over 10-20 hrs per week of design work is probably better off with a full time employee. The main reason is transaction costs. Technology can cause big changes in transaction costs. What was previously done by companies can be done by markets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm
- the_watcher 13y ago
  >> try to get those done by freelancers, I would estimate the cost at 3-4X higher A lot of times you can get things done with a freelancer for cheaper. The cost comes A) when you want to change things and have to start over, potentially with someone who has never worked on your project before and B) you don't have someone thinking about your project design/code/product full time, so you are unable to push improvements or respond to issues continuously. To grow past a certain point, you need someone who has a financial incentive to put your project at the front of their mind - something employment is great at. For the Uber v. employee model - employees would give Uber better control over supply, independent contractors get more control over when they can work (hence the number of people I know who drive Uber/Lyft/Sidecar a few weekends a month just to pay their SF parking costs).
the_watcher 13y ago
There are numerous people and professions who intentionally remain independent contractors (my father is one), rather than becoming an at-will employee. Each party should have a choice: the worker about whether he joins a company as an employee (and gets the benefits and "security") or remain a contractor (and remove the cap on income and have more control over their work), and the company about whether they'd like to offer benefits and "security" as a method to attract the best talent, or if they'd like to operate with independent contractors (which generally will mean more work finding them, managing them, and maintaining quality).\ Really, it should basically be the choice between being a freelancer or an employee, and the choice between hiring an engineer/designer or just one off freelancers.
- netcan 13y ago
  You are assuming that this is a situation where a contractor is very similar to an employee. These only really exist as employers try to avoid employment laws. This is an employee, not a firm in the context of that paper. A "real" contractor negotiates rates regularly and with different pricing models, takes work from multiple contractors, pay for their own tools etc. In some cases you genuinely have a "firm" with one client but that's rare. The question is are these uber contractors contractors in this sense? I think they are.
  - the_watcher 13y ago
    I didn't assume that this was similar to being an employee. I'm saying that people do make the conscious choice to be contractors over being an employee (this is empirically true, and you just named a few reasons why one might). I think Uber is absolutely a contractor model - the drivers buy their own tools (car), experiment with pricing (can work with any car sharing company, can move to areas with more demand), and take work from all the carsharing companies.
    - netcan 13y ago
      OK I misunderstood.

thethimble 13y ago

Isn't being an employee unnecessary bureaucracy for a messenger service? If anything, I think Uber is doing a great service here to all parties involved by connecting supply and demand in a low-friction way.

johnvschmitt 13y ago
Yes, it's not new, & yes Uber is doing well in connecting supply & demand with a great UX. For Uber to be worth its high hype & valuation, it's going to essentially expand these types non-employee situations. That's why I'm "mixed" feeling about this, as I like great UX, smooth marketplaces, & know many people who want part-time work, not full time. But, I also know many folks who had "decent jobs" (nothing special, but they can raise a family) driving UPS trucks or other things like that.
- cnaut 13y ago
  I think it is more than just connecting supply and demand with a great UX. The UX is actually creating demand. With taxis, Uber has created a whole new market of people who use uber but didn't use taxies before. I see a similar thing happening with couriering.

emperorcezar 13y ago

My understanding is that this is how the bike messenger industry has been for a while?

bertil 13y ago
One aspect that Uber seems to have over-looked is that bike messengers traditionally rely on a network of relations, and commitment to the job -- it’s not a very gratifying job, therefore very low chances of finding another employment, legal or not, are qualifications. This allows the dispatcher to hire anyone with a pulse and calves, but trust some more and have them handle the occasional key delivery. An truly Uber-like equivalent for parcels might be problematic. Imagine a couple of company shills, posing as a putative messengers, near your competitors’ headquarters.
- the_watcher 13y ago
  If they compete on price and keep the same quality of delivery service - my guess is they'll be fine. Or current bike messengers will just join Uber as it's an extremely powerful lead generation tool, similar to cleaners and Homejoy (as we've seen at least some small level of cabbies joining Uber - I don't have hard numbers, but I have at least one anecdote that this has happened before).
AJ01 13y ago
I am a big fan of challenger brands like uber, but this doesn't seem to be news. Keep on challenging the old taxi industries around the world.

oleganza 13y ago

The "social contract" is a religious non-proven abstraction. There was never any social contract anywhere. And even if there was, it does not bind you or me in any way. And even if it could, we could impose our own versions of a social contract on each other making it irrelevant. The consensus on social norms is not a consensus if it's enforced by some group on another - that's just bullying, not agreement. If our ideas of how society should function differ, we can either reach some compromise to mutual satisfaction (==consensus) or start fighting and guy with 51% of power will win. But that wouldn't be a "contract", "consensus" or "morality" in it. It'll be just an outcome of a brutal conflict.

tsax 13y ago
The most amusing part about the fictitious 'social' contract is that its proponents are loathe to respect ACTUALLY SIGNED contracts.
- oleganza 13y ago
  Because "society" is more important than your greedy individualistic exploitative capitalistic contracts.
  - tsax 13y ago
    Conveniently enough, 'society' as such is defined by the activist, the benevolent overseer. No thanks.
johnvschmitt 13y ago
Yes, the "social contract" is a very vague term indeed, & has been applied in bad ways in the past. Here, I'm applying that there is social give & take & expectations/norms throughout our society. Yes, any social norm/contract/expectation is, by definition, constraining/conservative & thus counter to any progress/disruption. These are not absolutes, as any difficult moral argument is usually balancing competing, legitimate concerns. We do have an American social "contract" that is eroding: Things like "If you're born poor, and good in school, study hard, work hard your whole life, stay clean, then you have a great chance of getting out of poverty".

netcan 13y ago

I'm not sure that this is necessarily a terrible thing. In some cases, its just a way of avoiding employment laws. In others, it is a genuine fragmentation of a big business into many units. Independent contractors can benefit from this and the whole system can become more efficient. If a new technology is involved, the latter is more likely. Technology can reduce transaction costs and replace firms with markets made up of smaller firms. A really interesting and accessible (but usually misinterpreted via soundbite) famous work in economics is ' The Nature of the Firm' by Ronald Coase. I think this is the best framework for understanding the key dynamic here. Whether employees or independent "contractors" make economic sense is most influenced by transaction costs. For example if the cost of hiring, negotiating and communicating with a graphic designer every time was low enough, there would be no reason for a company to hire a graphic designer. But realistically if you add up all the things an in house designer does (including making the decisions about what needs to be done) in a month and try to get those done by freelancers, I would estimate the cost at 3-4X higher. As things stand now, I think that a company contracting over 10-20 hrs per week of design work is probably better off with a full time employee. The main reason is transaction costs. Technology can cause big changes in transaction costs. What was previously done by companies can be done by markets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm

the_watcher 13y ago
>> try to get those done by freelancers, I would estimate the cost at 3-4X higher A lot of times you can get things done with a freelancer for cheaper. The cost comes A) when you want to change things and have to start over, potentially with someone who has never worked on your project before and B) you don't have someone thinking about your project design/code/product full time, so you are unable to push improvements or respond to issues continuously. To grow past a certain point, you need someone who has a financial incentive to put your project at the front of their mind - something employment is great at. For the Uber v. employee model - employees would give Uber better control over supply, independent contractors get more control over when they can work (hence the number of people I know who drive Uber/Lyft/Sidecar a few weekends a month just to pay their SF parking costs).

the_watcher 13y ago

There are numerous people and professions who intentionally remain independent contractors (my father is one), rather than becoming an at-will employee. Each party should have a choice: the worker about whether he joins a company as an employee (and gets the benefits and "security") or remain a contractor (and remove the cap on income and have more control over their work), and the company about whether they'd like to offer benefits and "security" as a method to attract the best talent, or if they'd like to operate with independent contractors (which generally will mean more work finding them, managing them, and maintaining quality).\ Really, it should basically be the choice between being a freelancer or an employee, and the choice between hiring an engineer/designer or just one off freelancers.

netcan 13y ago
You are assuming that this is a situation where a contractor is very similar to an employee. These only really exist as employers try to avoid employment laws. This is an employee, not a firm in the context of that paper. A "real" contractor negotiates rates regularly and with different pricing models, takes work from multiple contractors, pay for their own tools etc. In some cases you genuinely have a "firm" with one client but that's rare. The question is are these uber contractors contractors in this sense? I think they are.
- the_watcher 13y ago
  I didn't assume that this was similar to being an employee. I'm saying that people do make the conscious choice to be contractors over being an employee (this is empirically true, and you just named a few reasons why one might). I think Uber is absolutely a contractor model - the drivers buy their own tools (car), experiment with pricing (can work with any car sharing company, can move to areas with more demand), and take work from all the carsharing companies.
  - netcan 13y ago
    OK I misunderstood.