3 ms·

"Now, what society is really missing out on is an opportunity or reason to transition from employer-based benefits to government or society-based benefits." Th

by dcosson 11y ago

"Now, what society is really missing out on is an opportunity or reason to transition from employer-based benefits to government or society-based benefits." This was my reaction as well. If Uber drivers feel that they don't have access to typical benefits like good healthcare, life insurance, disability insurance/workers comp, etc. then it would seem that one solution is to make these things easily available to people who are not full-time employees. And that would help millions of non-Uber citizens as well. Another solution is what the court is ruling here, to force Uber to take on the complexity and cost. I can't see how this could actually be better for anyone involved in the long run. Uber will just raise their cut of the fares to cover the costs of benefits so drivers won't actually take home more money. I suppose it'll get a lot harder to fire drivers so maybe some will benefit from that? In any case, I honestly feel like it would be more reasonable if this driver could sue the state of California for not making benefits easily available to 1099 workers. Hopefully Obamacare will open up the Overton Window[0] and this is the way things are heading in the future [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Another solution is what the court is ruling here, to force Uber to take on the complexity and cost. I can't see how this could actually be better for anyone involved in the long run. The ruling here isn't a long-term solution, its an immediate (and retrospective) ruling on rights under current law. Changing the law to provide a different model is a forward-looking, longer-term approach, and not the job of the court or labor commission. That it might be better if taxes -- almost certainly new taxes, including on capital income -- shifted the model of support from employers supporting their employees for certain basic needs to the tax base as a whole supporting the citizenry at large for those needs, that doesn't create a license for employers not meeting their obligation under existing law until that new model is in place.
Dwolb 11y ago
One hypothesis could be Uber can't raise their fares if there's significant competition and outside options. That is, if Uber were to take a higher margin cut, others would undercut be able Uber. Overtime, each competitor would be subject to the same sanctions and maintain depressed margins in the highly competitive market.

by dcosson 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Another solution is what the court is ruling here, to force Uber to take on the complexity and cost. I can't see how this could actually be better for anyone involved in the long run. The ruling here isn't a long-term solution, its an immediate (and retrospective) ruling on rights under current law. Changing the law to provide a different model is a forward-looking, longer-term approach, and not the job of the court or labor commission. That it might be better if taxes -- almost certainly new taxes, including on capital income -- shifted the model of support from employers supporting their employees for certain basic needs to the tax base as a whole supporting the citizenry at large for those needs, that doesn't create a license for employers not meeting their obligation under existing law until that new model is in place.

Dwolb 11y ago

One hypothesis could be Uber can't raise their fares if there's significant competition and outside options. That is, if Uber were to take a higher margin cut, others would undercut be able Uber. Overtime, each competitor would be subject to the same sanctions and maintain depressed margins in the highly competitive market.