3 ms·

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 legitima

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
        This is a really important point, and I think it derives from a fundamental asymmetry. Employees have ~1 job, but employers have lots of employees. The end of an employee-employer relationship is necessarily way harder on the employee than the employer. Employers can cause way more trouble for employees than vice versa. And employers can amortize the cost of trickery. A good example is contract negotiation. Employers can sneak in terms that many employees won't understand. The ones who do understand have a much harder time fighting, and pay a much higher proportional cost to do so. Hiring a good employment lawyer to help negotiate could easily cost 10% of a median employee's annual salary, and a lawsuit could cost 5-10x a median salary. (For lower-paid workers, it's proportionally even worse.) But those same costs for employers are generally negligible. Market outcomes are much more likely to be optimal when you have many agents of approximately equal power. As you move toward strong power asymmetries (that is, toward monopolies and monopsonies) you get much lower odds of optimal outcomes. So the common counter to this is where employees band together to negotiate as a unit: unions. And regulations let us rule out things that it's basically a waste of time for everybody to negotiate, or where allowing negotiation will lead to systemically poor outcomes. For example, CA basically forbids noncompete clauses in worker contracts. This is possibly bad for individual employers, but it's way better for employees and employers as a whole, because it increases innovation and therefore total wealth.

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
        This is a really important point, and I think it derives from a fundamental asymmetry. Employees have ~1 job, but employers have lots of employees. The end of an employee-employer relationship is necessarily way harder on the employee than the employer. Employers can cause way more trouble for employees than vice versa. And employers can amortize the cost of trickery. A good example is contract negotiation. Employers can sneak in terms that many employees won't understand. The ones who do understand have a much harder time fighting, and pay a much higher proportional cost to do so. Hiring a good employment lawyer to help negotiate could easily cost 10% of a median employee's annual salary, and a lawsuit could cost 5-10x a median salary. (For lower-paid workers, it's proportionally even worse.) But those same costs for employers are generally negligible. Market outcomes are much more likely to be optimal when you have many agents of approximately equal power. As you move toward strong power asymmetries (that is, toward monopolies and monopsonies) you get much lower odds of optimal outcomes. So the common counter to this is where employees band together to negotiate as a unit: unions. And regulations let us rule out things that it's basically a waste of time for everybody to negotiate, or where allowing negotiation will lead to systemically poor outcomes. For example, CA basically forbids noncompete clauses in worker contracts. This is possibly bad for individual employers, but it's way better for employees and employers as a whole, because it increases innovation and therefore total wealth.