4 ms·

I also have no problem with this and never understood the issue. Certainly if being a 1099 contractor for Uber (for example) wasn't the best option for someone

I also have no problem with this and never understood the issue. Certainly if being a 1099 contractor for Uber (for example) wasn't the best option for someone, they simply wouldn't do it, right? No one is forcing anyone to be a contractor so the arguments against it from the perspective of the contractor seems odd. People will take the best employment option that works for them. If it's the difference between being a W2 McDonnald's employee or a on-demand 1099 driver, I'd take the 1099 as well.

revmoo 11y ago
You'd almost certainly make more money at McDonalds.
colechristensen 11y ago
I _do_ have a problem with employers abusing what a 1099 is. Uber drivers don't cut it. McDonalds employees don't cut it. There are a list of things required for being a 1099 employee which involves a whole lot of autonomy for the contractor which are very commonly not provided. Likewise I wouldn't believe a similar argument about employers paying minimum wages because 'nobody is forcing them'
- exstudent2 11y ago
  I see that as a separate issue around why we feel the need to have rules around what it means to be a 1099. My point is that regardless of the current legitimacy of how Uber et al are handling this, the contractors themselves have a choice to participate or not in the system as it exists today. If it works for them, why would anyone question it?
  - colechristensen 11y ago
    "If you have the right to control or direct not only what is to be done, but also how it is to be done, then your workers are most likely employees," and "If you can direct or control only the result of the work done -- and not the means and methods of accomplishing the result -- then your workers are probably independent contractors." I have no argument with the law as it is. The number of rights/obligations in the employee/employer relationship goes up when the employer exerts. That is, these are rights that employees cannot give away. I am fine with this because if it didn't exist it wouldn't be a matter of 'employees choosing the level of employment they want' but 'employees not given the choice'
    - exstudent2 11y ago
      So you think if the rules around what it means to be 1099 were relaxed that employers would all band together to take away employee rights? Would market forces then not kick in to push up 1099 contractors rate to cover any needed expenses? It seems we're intervening with the free market where it's not needed.
      - colechristensen 11y ago
        No conspiracy needed. Especially for lower level more unskilled jobs – if employers aren't motivated to give more benefits to employees through regulation, they simply won't. The employer who does will be at a competitive disadvantage and will have a fiduciary duty to investors to get workers as cheaply as possible. In the unskilled end of the economy there are far more job seekers than employers seeking workers – if the only way you can keep a job is to accept less, then you accept less. That's not a free market.
        exstudent2 11y ago
        A free market doesn't have regulation by definition. Employers need to at least pay their workers enough to survive otherwise they won't have workers. I also don't think there's such a thing as a truly unskilled job. There will be competition for workers at some level.
        colechristensen 11y ago
        Is a "free market" for employment really free? It generally devolves into a huge power imbalance between employers and employees and then the only freedom is the freedom of those with the existing power. Take a look at the early stages of industrialization – the late 19th early 20th century in the US/England or today in any place cheap consumer goods are manufactured. The situation in these 'free markets' is universally worker-absuse and wage slavery charactarized by poor working conditions, child labor, violent unsafe and low pay environments. Where is the freedom in that? Actual freedom comes from fair regulation of both employers and employees. Though if you believe in the religion of the 'free market' then likely no thought or reason will change any of your opinions (like any religion).
wpietri 11y ago
> Certainly if being a 1099 contractor for Uber (for example) wasn't the best option for someone, they simply wouldn't do it, right? So if I understand you rightly, you have never known anyone who has done something that they later turned out to regret? You have personally never regretted a choice? And you have never seen rational individual choices that add up to a bad systemic result?
- exstudent2 11y ago
  So if I understand you correctly we should limit individual freedom because people may do something they regret? I'll pass, I can make my own mistakes.

revmoo 11y ago

You'd almost certainly make more money at McDonalds.

colechristensen 11y ago

I _do_ have a problem with employers abusing what a 1099 is. Uber drivers don't cut it. McDonalds employees don't cut it. There are a list of things required for being a 1099 employee which involves a whole lot of autonomy for the contractor which are very commonly not provided. Likewise I wouldn't believe a similar argument about employers paying minimum wages because 'nobody is forcing them'

exstudent2 11y ago
I see that as a separate issue around why we feel the need to have rules around what it means to be a 1099. My point is that regardless of the current legitimacy of how Uber et al are handling this, the contractors themselves have a choice to participate or not in the system as it exists today. If it works for them, why would anyone question it?
- colechristensen 11y ago
  "If you have the right to control or direct not only what is to be done, but also how it is to be done, then your workers are most likely employees," and "If you can direct or control only the result of the work done -- and not the means and methods of accomplishing the result -- then your workers are probably independent contractors." I have no argument with the law as it is. The number of rights/obligations in the employee/employer relationship goes up when the employer exerts. That is, these are rights that employees cannot give away. I am fine with this because if it didn't exist it wouldn't be a matter of 'employees choosing the level of employment they want' but 'employees not given the choice'
  - exstudent2 11y ago
    So you think if the rules around what it means to be 1099 were relaxed that employers would all band together to take away employee rights? Would market forces then not kick in to push up 1099 contractors rate to cover any needed expenses? It seems we're intervening with the free market where it's not needed.
    - colechristensen 11y ago
      No conspiracy needed. Especially for lower level more unskilled jobs – if employers aren't motivated to give more benefits to employees through regulation, they simply won't. The employer who does will be at a competitive disadvantage and will have a fiduciary duty to investors to get workers as cheaply as possible. In the unskilled end of the economy there are far more job seekers than employers seeking workers – if the only way you can keep a job is to accept less, then you accept less. That's not a free market.
      - exstudent2 11y ago
        A free market doesn't have regulation by definition. Employers need to at least pay their workers enough to survive otherwise they won't have workers. I also don't think there's such a thing as a truly unskilled job. There will be competition for workers at some level.
        colechristensen 11y ago
        Is a "free market" for employment really free? It generally devolves into a huge power imbalance between employers and employees and then the only freedom is the freedom of those with the existing power. Take a look at the early stages of industrialization – the late 19th early 20th century in the US/England or today in any place cheap consumer goods are manufactured. The situation in these 'free markets' is universally worker-absuse and wage slavery charactarized by poor working conditions, child labor, violent unsafe and low pay environments. Where is the freedom in that? Actual freedom comes from fair regulation of both employers and employees. Though if you believe in the religion of the 'free market' then likely no thought or reason will change any of your opinions (like any religion).

wpietri 11y ago

> Certainly if being a 1099 contractor for Uber (for example) wasn't the best option for someone, they simply wouldn't do it, right? So if I understand you rightly, you have never known anyone who has done something that they later turned out to regret? You have personally never regretted a choice? And you have never seen rational individual choices that add up to a bad systemic result?

exstudent2 11y ago
So if I understand you correctly we should limit individual freedom because people may do something they regret? I'll pass, I can make my own mistakes.