4 ms·

This right here is one of the driving forces behind American corporatism. While these cases are always launched claiming to be on the side of the angels, they u

by jkoudys 12y ago

This right here is one of the driving forces behind American corporatism. While these cases are always launched claiming to be on the side of the angels, they ultimately ignore that all that extra legal overhead is not free, and only the currently large companies will be able to manage it, essentially barring any smaller competitors from entering the market. If a court rules that Uber drivers must be employees, then Uber can easily sue any competitors that try to enter the market unless they do the same. Uber will be able to prevent competitors from receiving the same advantages they did. Also, look at: > Deep-pocketed companies like Uber, which has raised nearly $5 billion in venture capital since launching, could surely afford the additional expense of putting drivers on its payroll. The implications of this are decidedly harmful to both consumers and drivers. Once you set this precedent, it will only be the deep-pocketed companies that can afford to put drivers on their payroll. This is especially problematic in the States, where in spite of a substantial amount of their federal budget being for healthcare, lacks a comprehensive public healthcare system, so employee benefits can be quite expensive. I've recently incorporated in Ontario, and working as/hiring people on contract is very easy. A big part of that is because, apart from issues relating to workplace safety, we're not responsible for paying for healthcare services for people who do work for us. It was also very easy to leave my cushy corporate job for a startup, because I didn't have to worry I'd be made destitute if I had to pay for a few nights in a hospital were I to contract a really bad flu or get hit crossing the street. More and more I see the US turning into a country where you _must_ work for a large, established corporation. Lawyers like this are just helping those already on top stay there, at the expense of those in the middle or bottom.

rayiner 12y ago
That's kind of an entitled attitude. Society puts certain obligations on businesses, and providing certain benefits to employees is one of them. If you're too small to meet those obligations, then you shouldn't get a free pass on them. That just leaves the workers out in the cold.[1] I'm certainly willing to entertain the notion that we should pay for those benefits with taxes instead of pushing the burden on employers, but that's a separate argument. [1] Although I'm actually not convinced the premise of Uber drivers being employees is correct.
- jkoudys 12y ago
  _American_ society puts those obligations on businesses, and those obligations have created an economy that rewards those who are either already wealthy, or the backing of those who are. This is very directly giving more power to the rich. I don't see how criticising the very necessity of health benefits, one of the biggest costs of hiring employees, is at all a separate argument. There are many other countries which don't have such strict requirements around employee classification, yet are still serious about important obligations such as workplace safety and protections against harassment. I don't want to spend my morning dumping on the US, but I'm amazed at just how often your poor and very poor are convinced to support causes that only help the very rich.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    In many European countries those looser requirements on employee classification are just used to get around their even tighter regulations on employee treatment. It is almost impossible to fire employees in many European countries. Solution: only hire people as temp workers. I think it is odd that you are calling out America for putting employment obligations on business when most decry the lack of protection America gives to employees. Only than a few Asian countries, American employer obligations are among the lightest compared to other first world nations.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Don't the very richest companies in the US tend to lobby against employer health care mandates? Wouldn't Walmart, for instance, be much better off in a single-payer system?
    - jkoudys 12y ago
      Walmart was very in-favour of the PPACA, at least in favour of it applying to other companies. In practice, they have teams of lawyers and accountants making sure they pay as little as possible. It's the SMBs, on the other hand, who now pay twice: once to meet their obligation to their own employees, and again to pay for government assistance for all the Walmart employees we expected would be receiving company benefits. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/09/walmart-bails-on-obamacare-sticks-taxpayers-with-employee-healthcare-costs/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/09/walmart-bai...
wpietri 12y ago
I agree US businesses would be better off if we make our health care system work like any other civilized country. Tying health care to employers has turned out to be a terrible mess. But I think you're wrong about the general dynamic of class action suits. There are two basic approaches to running a functioning society. You can establish a fair bit of regulation on how each thing is supposed to work and enforce it vigorously, or you can establish some relatively basic principles and then give people a right of private action through the courts. Every country does some of each, of course. But America leans more heavily on the latter. And I think it's generally good, because it allows for more innovation. The government doesn't have to try to regulate each new thing. Companies know that if they fuck up and harm people, they'll end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. One problem with this approach is that it doesn't work well for small harms. If I find a way to fuck over every American to the tune of $10 each, I make $3b. That pile of cash lets me easily fend off the few Don Quixotes who sue me over $10. A class action suit, though, lets one lawyer sue on behalf of every American, and the opportunity of winning back $3b makes the gamble worth it. As an entrepreneur, I much prefer the American approach. As long as I'm responsible, lawsuits aren't a huge risk, and I don't have to get advance approval from the Department of Commerce, Internet Apps Division, before I ship each new version.
- nulltype 12y ago
  Is there a way to remove the distinction between employee and contractor? It feels artificial to me, like everyone should be one or the other. Removing the link between health care and employment seems like a good start. Does the distinction serve a useful purpose? It seems like they are both "people you hire to do work".
  - AJ007 12y ago
    Books could be written to answer this. A contractor could be viewed as a business relationship -- here is the contract, do what it says or don't get paid/the money back from you. Certainly there is value for having work done on a contract. The contractor should be able to do it themselves or subcontract it out. An employee could be seen as a single individual who shows up on time and is paid for doing so. It is the employer's job to make sure the individual is doing something productive whatever those tasks may be. That is a very simple separation and not really correct, but certainly there are good reasons for there to be legal separations. Also consider there are so many legal expectations for the two depending on where one is located. A big challenge for startups riding the line. Personally I am more concerned about basic labor rights & employer abuse rather than guarantees of benefits and minimum wages. One only has to look at migrant labor abroad to get a good idea of just how bad it gets -- slavery alive and well.
greggyb 12y ago
>While these cases are always launched claiming to be on the side of the angels, they ultimately ignore that all that extra legal overhead is not free, and only the currently large companies will be able to manage it, essentially barring any smaller competitors from entering the market. This is a well known phenomenon in public choice economics, colloquially referred to as "Bootleggers and Baptists"[0] after an observation during Prohibition. In brief, the morally righteous and the morally suspect share a common interest in some regulatory goal. The righteous, or "Baptists," want to make the world a better place, e.g. by restricting the sale of alcohol. The morrally suspect, or "Bootleggers," want the same restriction in place because it protects their source of income, i.e. it is more profitable for a bootlegger to sell illegal alcohol than legal and the illegality of their venture discourages competition. That being said, I am never convinced by a statement akin to the article's "Deep-pocketed companies like Uber, which has raised nearly $5 billion in venture capital since launching, could surely afford the additional expense of putting drivers on its payroll." Being cash-rich, high-revenue, or any other sign of corporate success does not indicate that arbitrary costs can be imposed with trivial impact. It may be true in any specific case, but it is a bold claim requiring more analysis and backing than "they're rich." Affluence does not indicate immunity to costs, nor does it change any reasonable cost-benefit analysis. Ninja Edit: An effect we see with this phenomenon is that the "Baptists" often move on to their next righteous cause after securing regulation/legislation against the first vicious behavior, content that they have addressed an evil in society. Authorities can point to the Good Thing they did, and bootleggers continue on with their vicious trade. I would also like to note that I hope we don't get hung up in the language of morality I have used. I chose the morally heavy verbiage primarily because the name of the phenomenon lends itself to such discussion. I am not herein passing any sort of moral judgment on either side of the issue (in my examples or in the case at hand in the article), merely using the language to help identify the goals and motivations of the actors playing either role. The important thing to note is that, regardless of actual moral quality or efficacy, the "Baptist" believes they are doing good for society at large, and the "Bootlegger" has a self-serving interest. These motivations do not imply that the "Baptist" is actually doing good (intention != results), nor do they imply that the "Bootlegger" is actually doing bad ("It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."[1]). [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists [1]http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN1.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN1.html I.2.2
sjg007 12y ago
It's always been that way if you want good healthcare (or have a union). Hopefully this will push things towards single payer. I'd rather pay out my taxes than pay out of my pre tax income.

by jkoudys 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

That's kind of an entitled attitude. Society puts certain obligations on businesses, and providing certain benefits to employees is one of them. If you're too small to meet those obligations, then you shouldn't get a free pass on them. That just leaves the workers out in the cold.[1] I'm certainly willing to entertain the notion that we should pay for those benefits with taxes instead of pushing the burden on employers, but that's a separate argument. [1] Although I'm actually not convinced the premise of Uber drivers being employees is correct.

jkoudys 12y ago
_American_ society puts those obligations on businesses, and those obligations have created an economy that rewards those who are either already wealthy, or the backing of those who are. This is very directly giving more power to the rich. I don't see how criticising the very necessity of health benefits, one of the biggest costs of hiring employees, is at all a separate argument. There are many other countries which don't have such strict requirements around employee classification, yet are still serious about important obligations such as workplace safety and protections against harassment. I don't want to spend my morning dumping on the US, but I'm amazed at just how often your poor and very poor are convinced to support causes that only help the very rich.
- rhino369 12y ago
  In many European countries those looser requirements on employee classification are just used to get around their even tighter regulations on employee treatment. It is almost impossible to fire employees in many European countries. Solution: only hire people as temp workers. I think it is odd that you are calling out America for putting employment obligations on business when most decry the lack of protection America gives to employees. Only than a few Asian countries, American employer obligations are among the lightest compared to other first world nations.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Don't the very richest companies in the US tend to lobby against employer health care mandates? Wouldn't Walmart, for instance, be much better off in a single-payer system?
  - jkoudys 12y ago
    Walmart was very in-favour of the PPACA, at least in favour of it applying to other companies. In practice, they have teams of lawyers and accountants making sure they pay as little as possible. It's the SMBs, on the other hand, who now pay twice: once to meet their obligation to their own employees, and again to pay for government assistance for all the Walmart employees we expected would be receiving company benefits. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/09/walmart-bails-on-obamacare-sticks-taxpayers-with-employee-healthcare-costs/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/09/walmart-bai...

wpietri 12y ago

I agree US businesses would be better off if we make our health care system work like any other civilized country. Tying health care to employers has turned out to be a terrible mess. But I think you're wrong about the general dynamic of class action suits. There are two basic approaches to running a functioning society. You can establish a fair bit of regulation on how each thing is supposed to work and enforce it vigorously, or you can establish some relatively basic principles and then give people a right of private action through the courts. Every country does some of each, of course. But America leans more heavily on the latter. And I think it's generally good, because it allows for more innovation. The government doesn't have to try to regulate each new thing. Companies know that if they fuck up and harm people, they'll end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. One problem with this approach is that it doesn't work well for small harms. If I find a way to fuck over every American to the tune of $10 each, I make $3b. That pile of cash lets me easily fend off the few Don Quixotes who sue me over $10. A class action suit, though, lets one lawyer sue on behalf of every American, and the opportunity of winning back $3b makes the gamble worth it. As an entrepreneur, I much prefer the American approach. As long as I'm responsible, lawsuits aren't a huge risk, and I don't have to get advance approval from the Department of Commerce, Internet Apps Division, before I ship each new version.

nulltype 12y ago
Is there a way to remove the distinction between employee and contractor? It feels artificial to me, like everyone should be one or the other. Removing the link between health care and employment seems like a good start. Does the distinction serve a useful purpose? It seems like they are both "people you hire to do work".
- AJ007 12y ago
  Books could be written to answer this. A contractor could be viewed as a business relationship -- here is the contract, do what it says or don't get paid/the money back from you. Certainly there is value for having work done on a contract. The contractor should be able to do it themselves or subcontract it out. An employee could be seen as a single individual who shows up on time and is paid for doing so. It is the employer's job to make sure the individual is doing something productive whatever those tasks may be. That is a very simple separation and not really correct, but certainly there are good reasons for there to be legal separations. Also consider there are so many legal expectations for the two depending on where one is located. A big challenge for startups riding the line. Personally I am more concerned about basic labor rights & employer abuse rather than guarantees of benefits and minimum wages. One only has to look at migrant labor abroad to get a good idea of just how bad it gets -- slavery alive and well.

greggyb 12y ago

>While these cases are always launched claiming to be on the side of the angels, they ultimately ignore that all that extra legal overhead is not free, and only the currently large companies will be able to manage it, essentially barring any smaller competitors from entering the market. This is a well known phenomenon in public choice economics, colloquially referred to as "Bootleggers and Baptists"[0] after an observation during Prohibition. In brief, the morally righteous and the morally suspect share a common interest in some regulatory goal. The righteous, or "Baptists," want to make the world a better place, e.g. by restricting the sale of alcohol. The morrally suspect, or "Bootleggers," want the same restriction in place because it protects their source of income, i.e. it is more profitable for a bootlegger to sell illegal alcohol than legal and the illegality of their venture discourages competition. That being said, I am never convinced by a statement akin to the article's "Deep-pocketed companies like Uber, which has raised nearly $5 billion in venture capital since launching, could surely afford the additional expense of putting drivers on its payroll." Being cash-rich, high-revenue, or any other sign of corporate success does not indicate that arbitrary costs can be imposed with trivial impact. It may be true in any specific case, but it is a bold claim requiring more analysis and backing than "they're rich." Affluence does not indicate immunity to costs, nor does it change any reasonable cost-benefit analysis. Ninja Edit: An effect we see with this phenomenon is that the "Baptists" often move on to their next righteous cause after securing regulation/legislation against the first vicious behavior, content that they have addressed an evil in society. Authorities can point to the Good Thing they did, and bootleggers continue on with their vicious trade. I would also like to note that I hope we don't get hung up in the language of morality I have used. I chose the morally heavy verbiage primarily because the name of the phenomenon lends itself to such discussion. I am not herein passing any sort of moral judgment on either side of the issue (in my examples or in the case at hand in the article), merely using the language to help identify the goals and motivations of the actors playing either role. The important thing to note is that, regardless of actual moral quality or efficacy, the "Baptist" believes they are doing good for society at large, and the "Bootlegger" has a self-serving interest. These motivations do not imply that the "Baptist" is actually doing good (intention != results), nor do they imply that the "Bootlegger" is actually doing bad ("It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."[1]). [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists [1]http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN1.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN1.html I.2.2

sjg007 12y ago

It's always been that way if you want good healthcare (or have a union). Hopefully this will push things towards single payer. I'd rather pay out my taxes than pay out of my pre tax income.