7 ms·

Turning ordinary employees in to independent contractors is a disturbing trend that is eliminating traditional workers rights. Although some new companies have

Turning ordinary employees in to independent contractors is a disturbing trend that is eliminating traditional workers rights. Although some new companies have legitimate reasons for hiring contractors, for most it's not part of some new amazing model of labor, it's simply a way to save money. Usually it's illegal, but the IRS is being destroyed by budget cuts and can no longer enforce the law. Filing against your employer in these cases takes years to resolve. I guess if you believe in no protection of workers and mass exploitation of the working class, then it's a good thing. I personally think it's destroying a lot of markets. If people don't have any money they can't buy your shiny new product.

colechristensen 11y ago
It depends on the relationship, being an actual independent contractor is truly liberating. Choosing your own hours, working only on things you want to, setting your own salary based on how much you want to t work. There is real freedom in that as long as you get paid appropriately and actually get that freedom. Companies wanting to save money on benefits while having 9-5 workers with no freedom of choice of when or how to work and no freedom to take other jobs? That's abuse of the system and illegal. The difference is important.
- SonicSoul 11y ago
  > Choosing your own hours, working only on things you want to, setting your own salary you pretty much described the best case scenario here. On the contrary my dad was an independent contractor most of his life in construction (which was a also in a boom period making some people rich). For him this meant working 6-7 days / week (10-14 hrs), clipping coupons, and saving for a decade to buy a $70k house to avoid getting in debt. This while having sub-contractors working for him. He eventually did well (decades of hard work later) but I believe this situation is not so rosy for an average contractor unless you are at the top of your game in a very in demand industry
- doki_pen 11y ago
  Yes, but when this article talks about the growing number of contract workers, that growing number is people doing regular jobs and being labelled contractors. I'm working right now, but feel free to google about this growing problem of workers being illegally mislabeled as contractors.
- mhurron 11y ago
  > That's abuse of the system and illegal. Everything is legal as long as you don't get caught, and it doesn't seem like anyone is interested in doing any catching.
  - hn_ 11y ago
    I think part of the problem might be that workers don't know their rights.
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  > It depends on the relationship No, it depends on leverage. If you've got the most leverage, the relationship will be pleasant. If you don't, the relationship will be abusive. Just like everything else in capitalism. Supply/demand balance and friction matter far more than how "nice" your customer/employer is. The distinction is crucially important: if relationship quality were an independent variable, everyone would be able to find decent relationships by hopping between jobs every now and again. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. The market determines what employers can and can't get away with, so someone stuck in a crummy relationship is likely to find a bunch of equally crummy relationships when they go job shopping.
  - paganel 11y ago
    > No, it depends on leverage. If you've got the most leverage, the relationship will be pleasant. If you don't, the relationship will be abusive. Just like everything else in capitalism. Exactly. And it's not for nothing that "Workers of the world, unite!" is included in the Communist Manifesto, as uniting themselves against their employers was one of the few methods of gaining leverage for 19th-century workers. If it counts I'm more of a Libertarian kind of guy, but even so I'm wondering for how long these growing power-unbalances will be ignored by both those "in power" (corporate employers, politicians, finance people) who just seem to crave for more and more, and also by us, the "normal people", who just carry on with our lives like things have never been better. Because at the end of it all private property is merely a social construct, and once 100, 1000, 10000 people will find it strange that their combined earnings amount to what a "capitalist" or financier earns, then, just maybe, those people will decide to put that rich guy/girl in front of a wall and shoot him/her down. It happened before (see the Bolsheviks, for example), not sure why it couldn't happen again.
    - paintrayne 11y ago
      >not sure why it couldn't happen again. Drones. And you better believe the powers that be will criminalize any movement that might level the playing field. The window of opportunity for change is closing.
- walshemj 11y ago
  But most seem to be w2 who don't get the benefits of being independent or employed. Like most things in employment crappy poor employers spoil it for the rest.
- mtbcoder 11y ago
  > Choosing your own hours, working only on things you want to, setting your own salary based on how much you want to t work. I've said this a few times before, but to pull this off takes a tremendous amount of work, effort and luck. Finding work and marketing yourself is another job in its own right that you have to do on top of existing client work. Furthermore, all of the risks that were once handled by the employer are now on the contractors shoulders. For most people, all this simply isn't realistic or sustainable.
eldavido 11y ago
Right, except (1) it's your obligation to change the law as a voter and (2) profit-maximizing companies have every obligation to act in their shareholder's best interests, within the bounds of the law. So really, it's up to us as citizens to decide what's fair, and get the appropriate legislation passed to change it.
- Delmania 11y ago
  With regards to (1), I'll leave this here: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 The vast majority of people who are effected by this in a negative fashion do not have the money needed to get their officials to listen.
  - eldavido 11y ago
    Two great books on this topic you may have already read - Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" as well as Supercapitalism by Robert Reich. Reading these two works has really shifted my view on regulation and govenment in general from "something other people do" to something I think about in a more participatory way. Putnam especially makes the point that an entire generation of Americans is growing up (I include myself here) treating government and politics as a spectator sport -- the province of party hacks -- rather than something ordinary people do during their off-hours. I'd highly recommend reading both in case you haven't.
- benmathes 11y ago
  yeah... if I could vote for a candidate that would do anything _remotely_ like this, I would. But the primary filtering is how much money the candidate can raise. The candidates might not be corrupt, but the electoral system is corrupted.
- lhc- 11y ago
  Do they have an obligation to ignore the law because it's very difficult for citizens to enforce it? Because that's closer to what the parent is describing.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
steamy 11y ago
The author is a shill for the capitalists and corporations and he's just trying to make a buck here glamorizing underemployment and selling poverty and desperation to the masses in the name of modernity and progress.
benmathes 11y ago
We'll probably have to go through a bunch of pain for this new working class until it gets so bad that the "union for mobile" is figured out and used to counterbalance the centralized power of the on-demand labor companies.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Alternatively, someone could create a model to the centralized company that just exploits labor without sharing ownership.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
It took 200 years and a lot of bloodshed to establish those working rights. It's ironic how they're now being destroyed and workers themselves let this happen. I guess the social memory is capped at the timespan of two generations.
- Florin_Andrei 11y ago
  > It took 200 years and a lot of bloodshed to establish those working rights. It's ironic how they're now being destroyed and workers themselves let this happen. Chain the bodies, and the slaves will fight you tooth and nail. Chain the minds, and they will defend their own servitude.
rogerbinns 11y ago
The core underlying problem is traditional society benefits have been pushed onto employers in the US. This is absurd and hurts everyone. Employers don't have the same societal incentives, are less efficient at delivering them, it isn't part of their business anyway, and puts them in a position of power. Workers have a choice of not much of a safety net, or having to pick the least worst employers. If those benefits were moved back to being provided by society then it would raise the bar for all employers. For example if paternity/maternity leave and income were society provided, then an employer could only be more generous. Even if they do nothing and fire the employees, at least those employees would get the leave and some income certainty. The same principle applies to healthcare, wages (compete with minimum wages/basic incomes etc) etc. I think that instead of making more and more laws (each of which has more and more unintended consequences, loopholes, expenditures etc), go ahead and simplify. Treat everyone in society well, and make that treatment come from society, and not some idiotic stick poking at employers who have completely different incentives and competencies.
- crpatino 11y ago
  The problem is that businesses want to both not pay direct benefits for their workers and not pay taxes to fund government controlled benefits. How about having unions, guilds and professional organizations provide the social safety net you cherish so much in the abstract. I am sure there would be many problems but at least there would be no doubt where the funding would come. "You deal with one of us, you deal with all of us. And if you play dirty we will make sure you don't get the service we provide at ANY price on this side of bankruptcy"
  - fennecfoxen 11y ago
    > The problem is that businesses want to both not pay direct benefits for their workers and not pay taxes to fund government controlled benefits. That's not necessarily a problem. One could cut the corporate tax rate and fund benefits through income/dividend/capital-gains/sales/VAT taxes.
    - crpatino 11y ago
Florin_Andrei 11y ago
> Usually it's illegal, but the IRS is being destroyed by budget cuts and can no longer enforce the law. A civilization so small you can drown it in a bathtub.

colechristensen 11y ago

It depends on the relationship, being an actual independent contractor is truly liberating. Choosing your own hours, working only on things you want to, setting your own salary based on how much you want to t work. There is real freedom in that as long as you get paid appropriately and actually get that freedom. Companies wanting to save money on benefits while having 9-5 workers with no freedom of choice of when or how to work and no freedom to take other jobs? That's abuse of the system and illegal. The difference is important.

SonicSoul 11y ago
> Choosing your own hours, working only on things you want to, setting your own salary you pretty much described the best case scenario here. On the contrary my dad was an independent contractor most of his life in construction (which was a also in a boom period making some people rich). For him this meant working 6-7 days / week (10-14 hrs), clipping coupons, and saving for a decade to buy a $70k house to avoid getting in debt. This while having sub-contractors working for him. He eventually did well (decades of hard work later) but I believe this situation is not so rosy for an average contractor unless you are at the top of your game in a very in demand industry
doki_pen 11y ago
Yes, but when this article talks about the growing number of contract workers, that growing number is people doing regular jobs and being labelled contractors. I'm working right now, but feel free to google about this growing problem of workers being illegally mislabeled as contractors.
mhurron 11y ago
> That's abuse of the system and illegal. Everything is legal as long as you don't get caught, and it doesn't seem like anyone is interested in doing any catching.
- hn_ 11y ago
  I think part of the problem might be that workers don't know their rights.
jjoonathan 11y ago
> It depends on the relationship No, it depends on leverage. If you've got the most leverage, the relationship will be pleasant. If you don't, the relationship will be abusive. Just like everything else in capitalism. Supply/demand balance and friction matter far more than how "nice" your customer/employer is. The distinction is crucially important: if relationship quality were an independent variable, everyone would be able to find decent relationships by hopping between jobs every now and again. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. The market determines what employers can and can't get away with, so someone stuck in a crummy relationship is likely to find a bunch of equally crummy relationships when they go job shopping.
- paganel 11y ago
  > No, it depends on leverage. If you've got the most leverage, the relationship will be pleasant. If you don't, the relationship will be abusive. Just like everything else in capitalism. Exactly. And it's not for nothing that "Workers of the world, unite!" is included in the Communist Manifesto, as uniting themselves against their employers was one of the few methods of gaining leverage for 19th-century workers. If it counts I'm more of a Libertarian kind of guy, but even so I'm wondering for how long these growing power-unbalances will be ignored by both those "in power" (corporate employers, politicians, finance people) who just seem to crave for more and more, and also by us, the "normal people", who just carry on with our lives like things have never been better. Because at the end of it all private property is merely a social construct, and once 100, 1000, 10000 people will find it strange that their combined earnings amount to what a "capitalist" or financier earns, then, just maybe, those people will decide to put that rich guy/girl in front of a wall and shoot him/her down. It happened before (see the Bolsheviks, for example), not sure why it couldn't happen again.
  - paintrayne 11y ago
    >not sure why it couldn't happen again. Drones. And you better believe the powers that be will criminalize any movement that might level the playing field. The window of opportunity for change is closing.
walshemj 11y ago
But most seem to be w2 who don't get the benefits of being independent or employed. Like most things in employment crappy poor employers spoil it for the rest.
mtbcoder 11y ago
> Choosing your own hours, working only on things you want to, setting your own salary based on how much you want to t work. I've said this a few times before, but to pull this off takes a tremendous amount of work, effort and luck. Finding work and marketing yourself is another job in its own right that you have to do on top of existing client work. Furthermore, all of the risks that were once handled by the employer are now on the contractors shoulders. For most people, all this simply isn't realistic or sustainable.

eldavido 11y ago

Right, except (1) it's your obligation to change the law as a voter and (2) profit-maximizing companies have every obligation to act in their shareholder's best interests, within the bounds of the law. So really, it's up to us as citizens to decide what's fair, and get the appropriate legislation passed to change it.

Delmania 11y ago
With regards to (1), I'll leave this here: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 The vast majority of people who are effected by this in a negative fashion do not have the money needed to get their officials to listen.
- eldavido 11y ago
  Two great books on this topic you may have already read - Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" as well as Supercapitalism by Robert Reich. Reading these two works has really shifted my view on regulation and govenment in general from "something other people do" to something I think about in a more participatory way. Putnam especially makes the point that an entire generation of Americans is growing up (I include myself here) treating government and politics as a spectator sport -- the province of party hacks -- rather than something ordinary people do during their off-hours. I'd highly recommend reading both in case you haven't.
benmathes 11y ago
yeah... if I could vote for a candidate that would do anything _remotely_ like this, I would. But the primary filtering is how much money the candidate can raise. The candidates might not be corrupt, but the electoral system is corrupted.
lhc- 11y ago
Do they have an obligation to ignore the law because it's very difficult for citizens to enforce it? Because that's closer to what the parent is describing.
sliverstorm 11y ago

steamy 11y ago

The author is a shill for the capitalists and corporations and he's just trying to make a buck here glamorizing underemployment and selling poverty and desperation to the masses in the name of modernity and progress.

benmathes 11y ago

We'll probably have to go through a bunch of pain for this new working class until it gets so bad that the "union for mobile" is figured out and used to counterbalance the centralized power of the on-demand labor companies.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Alternatively, someone could create a model to the centralized company that just exploits labor without sharing ownership.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

It took 200 years and a lot of bloodshed to establish those working rights. It's ironic how they're now being destroyed and workers themselves let this happen. I guess the social memory is capped at the timespan of two generations.

Florin_Andrei 11y ago
> It took 200 years and a lot of bloodshed to establish those working rights. It's ironic how they're now being destroyed and workers themselves let this happen. Chain the bodies, and the slaves will fight you tooth and nail. Chain the minds, and they will defend their own servitude.

rogerbinns 11y ago

The core underlying problem is traditional society benefits have been pushed onto employers in the US. This is absurd and hurts everyone. Employers don't have the same societal incentives, are less efficient at delivering them, it isn't part of their business anyway, and puts them in a position of power. Workers have a choice of not much of a safety net, or having to pick the least worst employers. If those benefits were moved back to being provided by society then it would raise the bar for all employers. For example if paternity/maternity leave and income were society provided, then an employer could only be more generous. Even if they do nothing and fire the employees, at least those employees would get the leave and some income certainty. The same principle applies to healthcare, wages (compete with minimum wages/basic incomes etc) etc. I think that instead of making more and more laws (each of which has more and more unintended consequences, loopholes, expenditures etc), go ahead and simplify. Treat everyone in society well, and make that treatment come from society, and not some idiotic stick poking at employers who have completely different incentives and competencies.

crpatino 11y ago
The problem is that businesses want to both not pay direct benefits for their workers and not pay taxes to fund government controlled benefits. How about having unions, guilds and professional organizations provide the social safety net you cherish so much in the abstract. I am sure there would be many problems but at least there would be no doubt where the funding would come. "You deal with one of us, you deal with all of us. And if you play dirty we will make sure you don't get the service we provide at ANY price on this side of bankruptcy"
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  > The problem is that businesses want to both not pay direct benefits for their workers and not pay taxes to fund government controlled benefits. That's not necessarily a problem. One could cut the corporate tax rate and fund benefits through income/dividend/capital-gains/sales/VAT taxes.
  - crpatino 11y ago

Florin_Andrei 11y ago

> Usually it's illegal, but the IRS is being destroyed by budget cuts and can no longer enforce the law. A civilization so small you can drown it in a bathtub.