Uber drivers “employees” for unemployment purposes, NY labor board says(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Uber drivers “employees” for unemployment purposes, NY labor board says
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/uber-drivers-employees-for-unemployment-purposes-ny-labor-board-says/
192 comments
> This is important. We’re at risk of the “gig economy” undoing over a century of hard fought gains in workers rights.
There's definitely work to be done to modernize our employment laws with the changes to the economy. It's not a clear cut "Everybody is an employee" though.
If someone drives for Uber for 1-ride per month should Uber pay $1000/mo for that driver's health insurance? How about 1-ride per week? How about if they have the app "on" but never accept a ride? Should they be paid for the time they didn't do any driving?
Clearly the driver isn't an employee in the traditional sense of the word. But they also aren't a totally independent contractor either as their livelihood is so closely tied to the platform of a private entity. My gut says to err on the side of not imposing restrictions or mandates until we figure out the right balance.
> Minimum wage laws, unemployment, etc, these are good things that should be preserved.
Unemployment insurance, as it's implemented in the USA through effectively a tax collected by a private entity, is a scamola. A better idea would be having the employee get their own private unemployment insurance. That would also lead to lower costs of insurance for workers that are less likely to be discharged.
> Uber has clearly shown that they’re happy to be as exploitative as they’re allowed to be. (And that even when they’re specifically disallowed they’ll do everything they can to ignore it and fight the laws.)
Nobody is forcing drivers to drive for Uber. An argument may be that they were enticed with higher rates that were subsequently lowered in some markets. There's also the argument that a lot of the drivers don't under the total costs involved (double payroll tax, depreciation, etc) but by itself offering work in the "gig economy" isn't exploitation. Uber (and Lyft, and ...) should be lauded for (net) creating thousands of jobs.
There's definitely work to be done to modernize our employment laws with the changes to the economy. It's not a clear cut "Everybody is an employee" though.
If someone drives for Uber for 1-ride per month should Uber pay $1000/mo for that driver's health insurance? How about 1-ride per week? How about if they have the app "on" but never accept a ride? Should they be paid for the time they didn't do any driving?
Clearly the driver isn't an employee in the traditional sense of the word. But they also aren't a totally independent contractor either as their livelihood is so closely tied to the platform of a private entity. My gut says to err on the side of not imposing restrictions or mandates until we figure out the right balance.
> Minimum wage laws, unemployment, etc, these are good things that should be preserved.
Unemployment insurance, as it's implemented in the USA through effectively a tax collected by a private entity, is a scamola. A better idea would be having the employee get their own private unemployment insurance. That would also lead to lower costs of insurance for workers that are less likely to be discharged.
> Uber has clearly shown that they’re happy to be as exploitative as they’re allowed to be. (And that even when they’re specifically disallowed they’ll do everything they can to ignore it and fight the laws.)
Nobody is forcing drivers to drive for Uber. An argument may be that they were enticed with higher rates that were subsequently lowered in some markets. There's also the argument that a lot of the drivers don't under the total costs involved (double payroll tax, depreciation, etc) but by itself offering work in the "gig economy" isn't exploitation. Uber (and Lyft, and ...) should be lauded for (net) creating thousands of jobs.
> But they also aren't a totally independent contractor either as their livelihood is so closely tied to the platform of a private entity.
Does this also mean that, say, an iOS developer could be considered an employee of Apple due to their livelihood being closely tied to that platform?
Does this also mean that, say, an iOS developer could be considered an employee of Apple due to their livelihood being closely tied to that platform?
Sure, why not. Especially since Apple forces indie IOS devs to provide their service via the App Store and takes a cut and enforces a bunch of rules and regs about what it takes to be allowed to be in the store in the first place.
Does that mean all console app makers should also be employees of Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo since you either have to sell your app digitally through their store or even if you sell your app on a physical disc it still has to be approved by the platform owner and they get a cut.
OK, if they're employees, can they be fired?
Can they be fired based on workplace policies, like "no long hair on men" or "no discussion of politics on social media"?
How would that interact with state employment laws, which may or may not recognize a different mix of protected classes?
Can they be fired based on workplace policies, like "no long hair on men" or "no discussion of politics on social media"?
How would that interact with state employment laws, which may or may not recognize a different mix of protected classes?
You know we do have labor laws. You're acting as if we're going to rewrite them from scratch.
So, given current laws:
1) "no long hair on men" - yes, if presentation is reasonably considered important (which I would say it probably is). Obviously not without a few warnings.
2) "no discussion of politics on social media" - no, you can't fire for this.
Also, the IRS has rules about when someone is an employee versus contractor:
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contr...
Whilst they are open to interpretation to some degree, I would say that Uber drivers are clearly employees, as the degree of behavioral and financial control Uber has is extreme, and Uber provides benefits (insurance), and the relationship is indefinite, and Sony game publishers (aside from the obvious difference in size, which makes the argument entirely ridiculous) are contractors.
So, given current laws:
1) "no long hair on men" - yes, if presentation is reasonably considered important (which I would say it probably is). Obviously not without a few warnings.
2) "no discussion of politics on social media" - no, you can't fire for this.
Also, the IRS has rules about when someone is an employee versus contractor:
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contr...
Whilst they are open to interpretation to some degree, I would say that Uber drivers are clearly employees, as the degree of behavioral and financial control Uber has is extreme, and Uber provides benefits (insurance), and the relationship is indefinite, and Sony game publishers (aside from the obvious difference in size, which makes the argument entirely ridiculous) are contractors.
> If someone drives for Uber for 1-ride per month should Uber pay $1000/mo for that driver's health insurance?
It's no different than any other company. Most places have benefit levels tied to work levels. Working full time you get full benefits, for part time your benefits are lower and below a threshold, there are almost no benefits.
It's no different than any other company. Most places have benefit levels tied to work levels. Working full time you get full benefits, for part time your benefits are lower and below a threshold, there are almost no benefits.
[deleted]
> My gut says to err on the side of not imposing restrictions or mandates until we figure out the right balance.
The biggest problem with this approach is that it's often used to delay action until it's well beyond the point where it becomes necessary. It's very similar to the 'Well, we just don't know, and we need to do research' approach that tobacco companies used, very successfully, for decades in the arguments about whether their products cause cancer.
In the case of Uber, one state implementing these stricter measures is actually a good way to collect the needed data to make these decisions on a wider scale across the country. NY will take this approach and we'll see the results. Other states can look at those results and try to figure out a better way.
The biggest problem with this approach is that it's often used to delay action until it's well beyond the point where it becomes necessary. It's very similar to the 'Well, we just don't know, and we need to do research' approach that tobacco companies used, very successfully, for decades in the arguments about whether their products cause cancer.
In the case of Uber, one state implementing these stricter measures is actually a good way to collect the needed data to make these decisions on a wider scale across the country. NY will take this approach and we'll see the results. Other states can look at those results and try to figure out a better way.
This is a very blatant straw man argument. For every tobacco industry, you can find dozens of examples where we ended up with onerous regulation passed by an overzealous congress person.
I don't think you'll find more instances of overburdensome regulation than you'll find of too little regulation.
The GDPR would like to talk to you, and the looming new EU 'copyright' law would also like to talk to you.
Yes, the GDPR is an excellent example of there being too little regulation in an area, allowing ad companies to hoover up every bit of personal information without consequence. The GDPR should have been enacted long ago.
> Unemployment insurance, as it's implemented in the USA through effectively a tax collected by a private entity, is a scamola.
In every state I'm aware of, unemployment insurance is managed by the State. It is a form of social welfare, and the government will intervene to e.g. extend unemployment benefits during periods of high unemployment. Applicants for benefits also cannot be denied on a case-by-case basis, and certain groups of people almost certainly receive more in benefits than they pay in. Private insurance would not achieve the same objectives.
In every state I'm aware of, unemployment insurance is managed by the State. It is a form of social welfare, and the government will intervene to e.g. extend unemployment benefits during periods of high unemployment. Applicants for benefits also cannot be denied on a case-by-case basis, and certain groups of people almost certainly receive more in benefits than they pay in. Private insurance would not achieve the same objectives.
Applicants can be denied unemployment benefits if the reason for their unemployment is their fault, such as not showing up to work, poor work performance, tardiness, resignation, etc. Employers' unemployment premiums rise in proportion to the number of former employees they have that qualify for unemployment benefits.
Hence why it's important for employers to document the reasons for terminating someone, as it will result in more people being denied for unemployment insurance (if it was their fault) and employer saves money on their premiums.
Hence why it's important for employers to document the reasons for terminating someone, as it will result in more people being denied for unemployment insurance (if it was their fault) and employer saves money on their premiums.
That's true--people fired for cause are categorically ineligible. What I mean is that individuals cannot be denied based on case-by-case analysis of their job history i.e. actuarial analysis of whether they are likely to receive more in insurance payouts than they pay in.
>An argument may be that they were enticed with higher rates that were subsequently lowered in some markets. There's also the argument that a lot of the drivers don't under the total costs involved (double payroll tax, depreciation, etc) but by itself offering work in the "gig economy" isn't exploitation. Uber (and Lyft, and ...) should be lauded for (net) creating thousands of jobs.
Something tells me you’re not very familiar with the history of Uber’s business practices.
It’s pretty easy to “create jobs” when you can move into jurisdictions and skirt the local laws.
In some cases, for example Pensacola Florida (where ride sharing was criminal), Uber solicited drivers from other counties where ride sharing was legal, with bonuses, to provide services in Pensacola during spring break. One of those drivers was arrested almost immediately.
In counties throughout Florida where ride sharing was illegal (civilly and criminally) Uber drivers racked up millions in fines that have never been paid. Why? Because Uber paid for their own lobbiest (who is a lawyer) to represent the drivers in court and then literally did nothing on their case and just let them linger. This is all beneficial to Uber and damaging to drivers.
Not to mention other issues such as Uber training driver in these jurisdictions on how to avoid detection by police.
One day someone might put together a study of the total numbers of drivers who now have criminal records for nothing more that becoming an Uber driver...when you get a criminal record for doing what you were hired to do, that should fit the very definition of exploitation.
Something tells me you’re not very familiar with the history of Uber’s business practices.
It’s pretty easy to “create jobs” when you can move into jurisdictions and skirt the local laws.
In some cases, for example Pensacola Florida (where ride sharing was criminal), Uber solicited drivers from other counties where ride sharing was legal, with bonuses, to provide services in Pensacola during spring break. One of those drivers was arrested almost immediately.
In counties throughout Florida where ride sharing was illegal (civilly and criminally) Uber drivers racked up millions in fines that have never been paid. Why? Because Uber paid for their own lobbiest (who is a lawyer) to represent the drivers in court and then literally did nothing on their case and just let them linger. This is all beneficial to Uber and damaging to drivers.
Not to mention other issues such as Uber training driver in these jurisdictions on how to avoid detection by police.
One day someone might put together a study of the total numbers of drivers who now have criminal records for nothing more that becoming an Uber driver...when you get a criminal record for doing what you were hired to do, that should fit the very definition of exploitation.
The other side is not innocent either. It’s called “regulatory capture”. The entrenched interests - the taxi companies - have a vested interest in the status quo.
It’s similsr to the auto dealers preventing Tesla from selling directly.
It’s similsr to the auto dealers preventing Tesla from selling directly.
The taxi companies were operating under a certain regulatory framework...it’s easy to “disrupt” the industry is you break the law while others are complying with the regulatory frame work.
Consider if a new “start up” pharmacy started selling drugs without prescriptions...then claiming the existing pharmacies aren’t innocent and have a vested interest in the status quo. It’s easy to “disrupt” when you ignore the law.
You also gloss over this idea...no taxi driver is breaking the law and gets arrest purely for doing what they were hired to do. Uber hired drivers and fed them rides in jurisdictions where the activity was illegal. It’s those drivers with criminal records who have paid the price not Uber, that’s Uber’s current vested interest shifting legal liability for their illegal business activities to their drivers.
Consider if a new “start up” pharmacy started selling drugs without prescriptions...then claiming the existing pharmacies aren’t innocent and have a vested interest in the status quo. It’s easy to “disrupt” when you ignore the law.
You also gloss over this idea...no taxi driver is breaking the law and gets arrest purely for doing what they were hired to do. Uber hired drivers and fed them rides in jurisdictions where the activity was illegal. It’s those drivers with criminal records who have paid the price not Uber, that’s Uber’s current vested interest shifting legal liability for their illegal business activities to their drivers.
A regulatory framework that they lobbied to keep so they could provide inferior service and keep their investments in medallions high. Those laws only served taxi companies.
Both sides have their share of guilt, taxi licenses cost over 1M in some jurisdictions as the previous post said it's easy to "disrupt" a market when you have $0 cost to start. If i started selling liquor in my garage i'm sure i could do it at a much lower price than the local bar all while earning more money, I don't it will last too long however.
The alcohol distribution racket also suffers from regulatory capture....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-tier_system_(alcohol_dis...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-tier_system_(alcohol_dis...
It does...but it’s doesnt justify a “tech start up” being able to raise billions because they found a market in illegally manufacturing and selling alcohol.
You are basically justifying someone like al Capone who found a huge market for alcohol distribution during prohibition. The law may have been wrong, but you don’t celebrate the criminal, criminal activity and bodies left in the wake.
You are basically justifying someone like al Capone who found a huge market for alcohol distribution during prohibition. The law may have been wrong, but you don’t celebrate the criminal, criminal activity and bodies left in the wake.
No it doesn’t only serve them...it also serves consumers and the general public.
Licenses, safety standards of vehicles, insurance, rules and regulations of the road. Yes, these things do make the barrier to entry more difficult, but they also serve the public good.
Any time you see a car just stopped in the middle of the road with it’s hazards on odds are it’s a Uber driver. I can’t tell you how often I encounter dangerously hazardous Uber pick ups and drop offs that violate the law, because these drivers have no training.
And just as quickly as Uber was happy to violate and break laws to gain their market share and become the industry incumbent, they too are now spending millions on lobbying efforts to reinstate all the same regulatory frameworks (licenses, insurance, vehicle standards) to close the door behind them.
Licenses, safety standards of vehicles, insurance, rules and regulations of the road. Yes, these things do make the barrier to entry more difficult, but they also serve the public good.
Any time you see a car just stopped in the middle of the road with it’s hazards on odds are it’s a Uber driver. I can’t tell you how often I encounter dangerously hazardous Uber pick ups and drop offs that violate the law, because these drivers have no training.
And just as quickly as Uber was happy to violate and break laws to gain their market share and become the industry incumbent, they too are now spending millions on lobbying efforts to reinstate all the same regulatory frameworks (licenses, insurance, vehicle standards) to close the door behind them.
This is a lot like the story of slave-like labor conditions for Nike in Indonesia or Bangladesh and such.
From our comfy seats and nice intellectually stimulating jobs, it really looks like Bangladesh should be standing up for its workers and telling Nike what's what. But then Nike will just move to neighboring starving Nepal, and Bangladeshis will have to return to farming and being affected by flooding and having a really, really bad time.
It's bad that things are bad, but it's good that they could be worse otherwise.
From our comfy seats and nice intellectually stimulating jobs, it really looks like Bangladesh should be standing up for its workers and telling Nike what's what. But then Nike will just move to neighboring starving Nepal, and Bangladeshis will have to return to farming and being affected by flooding and having a really, really bad time.
It's bad that things are bad, but it's good that they could be worse otherwise.
Obviously the alternatives have to be worse in order for exploitive business models to thrive. If there were better options, people wouldn't allow themselves to be exploited. This still doesn't justify running a business on exploitation and it definitely doesn't turn the practice into some sort of charitable good.
> If there were better options,
Please tell me if there's a better way to run this system than "global universal basic income". Because man, world government has its downsides too.
Please tell me if there's a better way to run this system than "global universal basic income". Because man, world government has its downsides too.
Unless someone buys 100% fair-trade products, they are basically complicit in the exploitation. People most likely to purchase exploitative goods are those that are earning the least. Making these goods more expensive will just plunge people into poverty. This is why more people in 4-season climates freeze to death in the winter when the price of oil goes up.
We're all part of complex systems and collectively as buyers we act as a forcing function on prices that leads to these practices you disapprove of.
We're all part of complex systems and collectively as buyers we act as a forcing function on prices that leads to these practices you disapprove of.
No. The people running these companies are adults, who are fully capable of being responsible for their own actions. They know right from wrong. The fault of exploiting workers is 100000% on them, and them alone.
> If someone drives for Uber for 1-ride per month should Uber pay $1000/mo for that driver's health insurance? How about 1-ride per week? How about if they have the app "on" but never accept a ride? Should they be paid for the time they didn't do any driving?
We already account for these situations due to part-time jobs. NY requires a certain amount of wages be met to be eligible for unemployment benefits, for example.
We already account for these situations due to part-time jobs. NY requires a certain amount of wages be met to be eligible for unemployment benefits, for example.
Don’t they also fund unemployment benefits with payroll taxes? In that case, Uber drivers will have to pay at least one side of those, if not both like they do with SS and Medicare deductions.
And watch Uber cut the pay of drivers to pay for unemployment benefits. A company has to pay into a state unemployment fund for drivers.
That's not a foregone conclusion, since wages aren't as closely linked to that payment as one might imagine. For example, in California:
> The taxable wage limit is $7,000 per employee.
(Yes, that's per year)
https://www.edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/Rates_and_Withholding.h...
> The taxable wage limit is $7,000 per employee.
(Yes, that's per year)
https://www.edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/Rates_and_Withholding.h...
And watch the drivers switch to Lyft or one of the many smaller local competitors...
Why do you suppose that Lyft wouldn't do the same thing? It's not like the equally unprofitable Lyft could just take the hit. If the drivers go to one of the local competitors that no one has heard of, what are the chances that people from out of town or even native New Yorkers will have heard of them? The drivers have to go where the users are.
All of the companies will either have to raise rates or cut the amount they are paying drivers. Uber and Lyft can't just keeping banking on their VC benefactors forever. Eventually they have to turn a profit.
All of the companies will either have to raise rates or cut the amount they are paying drivers. Uber and Lyft can't just keeping banking on their VC benefactors forever. Eventually they have to turn a profit.
> Uber and Lyft can't just keeping banking on their VC benefactors forever.
The other accusation I've heard, relevant to the discussion at hand, is that they're (also) banking on shifting the costs of externalities onto the drivers and/or the social safety net.
> Eventually they have to turn a profit.
Or go out of business, which could be considered beneficial if they're banking more on the externalities than VCs.
The other accusation I've heard, relevant to the discussion at hand, is that they're (also) banking on shifting the costs of externalities onto the drivers and/or the social safety net.
> Eventually they have to turn a profit.
Or go out of business, which could be considered beneficial if they're banking more on the externalities than VCs.
The law would equally apply to them.
Remember the original & current taxi model is to rent a medallion car for $3000/month as an independent contractor. Except in this model, you are $3k in debt at the start of the month and have to work an undefined amount of hours to make up that debt + have enough to live on at the end of it.
In that world, Uber is an improvement.
Remember the original & current taxi model is to rent a medallion car for $3000/month as an independent contractor. Except in this model, you are $3k in debt at the start of the month and have to work an undefined amount of hours to make up that debt + have enough to live on at the end of it.
In that world, Uber is an improvement.
“If someone drives for Uber for 1-ride per month should Uber pay $1000/mo for that driver's health insurance? How about 1-ride per week?”
Yes! A thousand times yes! Just because Uber is letting everyone i the door doesn’t mean they should get to dictate new terms of what employment means. Imagine your employeer removing your healthcare and defending the decision with the argument “well we’ve now set it up so anyone can just walk in the door and start working and we’ll pay them per hour worked. I know that’s not what you are doing but we have to treat everyone the same so we’re also cutting your pay”.
Yes! A thousand times yes! Just because Uber is letting everyone i the door doesn’t mean they should get to dictate new terms of what employment means. Imagine your employeer removing your healthcare and defending the decision with the argument “well we’ve now set it up so anyone can just walk in the door and start working and we’ll pay them per hour worked. I know that’s not what you are doing but we have to treat everyone the same so we’re also cutting your pay”.
Your policy would not have the impact of getting Uber to pay the $1000/mo in unemployment insurance for everyone that wants to drive for them. Instead it would have the impact of eliminating the offer of jobs to anyone not driving enough to justify the unemployment insurance.
It's essentially a job destroying policy in a time when we see increasing automation and therefore very counterproductive.
It's essentially a job destroying policy in a time when we see increasing automation and therefore very counterproductive.
I flat out do not buy this argument. Business is always going to complain about any kind of worker's rights, claiming they'll "kill jobs". Given the record low unemployment rate, I do not believe them.
No, it's Basic Business 101. It's called managing cash flow and a balance sheet, and this sort of arrangement would drain them of all their cash without any benefit to the company. A company with no cash employs 0 people and then nobody wins.
I don't buy this argument. Of course a company doesn't want to spend money on their employees, and so they will do whatever they can to avoid it. That doesn't mean they should be able to get away with it. This kind of argument, that regulations "kill jobs" is not supported by reality, and is just them threatening to take their ball and go home if they don't get their way, like the spoiled child on the playground.
It's literally financially untenable to have more costs for employees than the revenue they bring in. This is basic math and no amount of "I don't buy this" is going to change that reality.
And the part I don't buy is that this is the case. I don't buy that Uber can't afford to treat their employees like people, and if they actually can't, then they need to go out of business so companies that can are able to grow.
The problem with America is to save on budget, the govt pushes responsibilities that should be its own responsibility onto corporations themselves, create a huge host of problems beyond this uber controversy.
In a country with govt healthcare & unemployment insurance, people being casual piece workers with a large corporation shouldn't be controversial beyond minimum wage. Because maybe the only difference is some tax paperwork.
AFAIK, other large minimum wage corps (like restaurants) force their workers to be part time to avoid having to pay these mandated benefits. Wouldn't that apply with these 1hr/month uber drivers?
In a country with govt healthcare & unemployment insurance, people being casual piece workers with a large corporation shouldn't be controversial beyond minimum wage. Because maybe the only difference is some tax paperwork.
AFAIK, other large minimum wage corps (like restaurants) force their workers to be part time to avoid having to pay these mandated benefits. Wouldn't that apply with these 1hr/month uber drivers?
Cabs became bloated and inefficient in most large cities in the US because of the unions/medallion system. Uber was supposed to be the answer to that, because anyone could drive a cab and make some extra money on the side.
With more and more regulation, you are essentially creating another large and bloated system. It also will impact the type of people that will be able to drive for Uber. If these regulations become the norm, there will be a fraction of the amount of people driving that will have to go through more of a formal/traditional hiring process. Anything else will cost the company too much money.
"Imagine your employeer removing your healthcare and defending the decision"
Uber shouldn't be considered an 'employer'. I am a software contractor and sometimes complete projects that only take a week and I never talk to the client again. This client shouldn't be paying for my health insurance.
It's not really Uber's fault that drivers decide to use them as their sole source of income. You really need to weigh the costs of driving, how much you earn, and if you can afford insurance. I figured this was common sense.
With more and more regulation, you are essentially creating another large and bloated system. It also will impact the type of people that will be able to drive for Uber. If these regulations become the norm, there will be a fraction of the amount of people driving that will have to go through more of a formal/traditional hiring process. Anything else will cost the company too much money.
"Imagine your employeer removing your healthcare and defending the decision"
Uber shouldn't be considered an 'employer'. I am a software contractor and sometimes complete projects that only take a week and I never talk to the client again. This client shouldn't be paying for my health insurance.
It's not really Uber's fault that drivers decide to use them as their sole source of income. You really need to weigh the costs of driving, how much you earn, and if you can afford insurance. I figured this was common sense.
I agree that privatizing unemployment insurance would lower costs for reliable, low risk employees by shifting the burden to higher risk people, but is that a good thing? The kind of people that can’t hold down a job are exactly the people that need unemployment benefits the most. Not everyone can’t hold down a job just lazy, many have mental or physical disabilities that make holding a job more challenging, and those are exactly the kind of people that can’t afford extra insurance in the first place.
Exactly - why do some people consider it a win when folks that are already low risk (and likely high income and most able to afford it) get to pay less?
>> But they also aren't a totally independent contractor either as their livelihood is so closely tied to the platform of a private entity.
It's this weird middle-area that I think is causing the most friction.
As a thought experiment, I wonder what would happen if these platforms allowed drivers to set their own rates on a per trip or per session basis. As an independent contractor, you have complete control over how much you charge in order to make up for the burden of no benefits and heavy taxes.
It's this weird middle-area that I think is causing the most friction.
As a thought experiment, I wonder what would happen if these platforms allowed drivers to set their own rates on a per trip or per session basis. As an independent contractor, you have complete control over how much you charge in order to make up for the burden of no benefits and heavy taxes.
> My gut says to err on the side of not imposing restrictions or mandates until we figure out the right balance.
I would rather not wait until more workers lose their lives.
I would rather not wait until more workers lose their lives.
Yes they are; the idea of the gig economy is great, like, doing the odd job in your own time and earn some money, but there's so many people that went ahead and are doing it full time as their primary source of income. The employees then compete with each other, driving the price down. And Uber's laughing all the way to the bank because they don't need to care about it, they'll make money either way. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Uber was lowering the prices to get more consumers to use ubers more often.
The whole "gig economy" concept is just marketing. I don't think you can find a single platform where most of the services are provided by people with some free time on the side.
This is the industry that decided that "ride sharing" consists of getting in somebody else's car and telling them where you want to go...
This is the industry that decided that "ride sharing" consists of getting in somebody else's car and telling them where you want to go...
See also: eBay, AirBnb, etsy, bitcoin mining, stock trading sites, online Poker... Whenever you offer a platform that lets people monetize something (either their free time or the stuff in their attic), 100% guaranteed it will eventually be overrun by people and businesses doing these activities professionally and full time, unless you take genuine and effective steps to prevent it.
Uber has been raising prices lately.
> there's so many people that went ahead and are doing it full time as their primary source of income.
Did you ever think that they do this because it’s their best opportunity and they’re acting rationally? That taking away the opportunity to drive for Uber would be bad for them? It’s a way to make money that didn’t used to exist and people want to kill it because it’s vaguely incompatible with their political ideas.
> there's so many people that went ahead and are doing it full time as their primary source of income.
Did you ever think that they do this because it’s their best opportunity and they’re acting rationally? That taking away the opportunity to drive for Uber would be bad for them? It’s a way to make money that didn’t used to exist and people want to kill it because it’s vaguely incompatible with their political ideas.
I hate being the guy that suggests a book as part of a debate, but have you read The Grapes of Wrath? Among other things, it shows in wrenching emotional details what can happen without minimum wages when people are desperate.
Also, do you think humans (in an economy or not) always act rationally?
Also, do you think humans (in an economy or not) always act rationally?
Also, do you think humans (in an economy or not) always act rationally?
Depends on how strictly you define "rationally". If you mean "spend a month collecting data, download, install, and learn R, and run sophisticated statistical analysis on the data before making any decision", then no, clearly not. IOW, humans are not the fictional "rational agents" mentioned in economics textbooks and papers. We're not Homo Optimizicus.
But if you mean "give some thought to the options based on known information, weigh the different options, outcomes and consequences, and then make the best decision", then I would say that people are generally rational.
It would probably be most accurate to say that humans "are semi-rational agents that employs lots of heuristics, including satisficing[1], to make decisions that are not necessarily the best possible, but usually aren't the worst possible either". Or to put it another way, we employ "bounded rationality"[2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality
Depends on how strictly you define "rationally". If you mean "spend a month collecting data, download, install, and learn R, and run sophisticated statistical analysis on the data before making any decision", then no, clearly not. IOW, humans are not the fictional "rational agents" mentioned in economics textbooks and papers. We're not Homo Optimizicus.
But if you mean "give some thought to the options based on known information, weigh the different options, outcomes and consequences, and then make the best decision", then I would say that people are generally rational.
It would probably be most accurate to say that humans "are semi-rational agents that employs lots of heuristics, including satisficing[1], to make decisions that are not necessarily the best possible, but usually aren't the worst possible either". Or to put it another way, we employ "bounded rationality"[2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality
Among other things, it shows in wrenching emotional details what can happen without minimum wages when people are desperate.
I'm jobless, hungry and desperate. Minimum wage is $15.00 /hour. Given my skills and abilities, no one can justify hiring me at $15.00 / hour. I have two options:
1. Work for $8.00 / hour, which sucks balls, but at least lets me eat.
2. Not work at all for $0.00 / hour, and starve to death.
I don't think it's hard to guess which option many people would pick. A high minimum wage just hurts the people at the lowest rung of the economic ladder, by knocking them completely off the ladder.
I'm jobless, hungry and desperate. Minimum wage is $15.00 /hour. Given my skills and abilities, no one can justify hiring me at $15.00 / hour. I have two options:
1. Work for $8.00 / hour, which sucks balls, but at least lets me eat.
2. Not work at all for $0.00 / hour, and starve to death.
I don't think it's hard to guess which option many people would pick. A high minimum wage just hurts the people at the lowest rung of the economic ladder, by knocking them completely off the ladder.
I'm a business owner. There are hordes of hungry people clamoring for their 3rd, 4th and 5th jobs because Walmart will only pay out $3/hr and McDonald's won't hire above $2/hr.
1. I can hire these guys at ~$8/hr federal minimum wage.
2. I can hire these guys at $2/hr and make shareholders very happy.
I don't think it's hard to guess which option many people would pick. No minimum wage just hurts the people at the lowest rung of the economic ladder, by accelerating the race to the bottom.
1. I can hire these guys at ~$8/hr federal minimum wage.
2. I can hire these guys at $2/hr and make shareholders very happy.
I don't think it's hard to guess which option many people would pick. No minimum wage just hurts the people at the lowest rung of the economic ladder, by accelerating the race to the bottom.
Your premises are fictional. In reality, a business can't always afford to hire someone at the minimum wage. And you can't hire an infinite number of people who are a net economic drain on your company, or you're out of business. Talk about a "race to the bottom".
Your "argument" is just a caricatured strawman that has no basis in reality. If your position were an accurate reflection of reality, no company would ever pay above minimum wage. And yet that happens all the time. So maybe, just maybe, the reality is that companies pay based (in part) on the economic output the workers they are hiring...
Your "argument" is just a caricatured strawman that has no basis in reality. If your position were an accurate reflection of reality, no company would ever pay above minimum wage. And yet that happens all the time. So maybe, just maybe, the reality is that companies pay based (in part) on the economic output the workers they are hiring...
However, governments these days provide a safety net to guard against poverty (because, based on Gilded Age history, the alternative is worse). Employees who are paid substandard wages often simultaneously qualify for the government safety net as well.
Probably in part for this reason and others, it was Franklin Roosevelts's opinion that businesses that cannot survive unless they paid substandard wages, should not be allowed to exist. (https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/f-d-r-makes-...).
Probably in part for this reason and others, it was Franklin Roosevelts's opinion that businesses that cannot survive unless they paid substandard wages, should not be allowed to exist. (https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/f-d-r-makes-...).
Probably in part for this reason and others, it was Franklin Roosevelts's opinion that businesses that cannot survive unless they paid substandard wages
But the question isn't necessarily "survival of the business". It's whether or not the business can afford to bring more people into the fold, based on an arbitrary fixed-point in terms of how much they can pay.
Maybe I'm running a company that's humming along, profitable but only marginally so, paying 100 workers some rates ranging from exactly minimum wage, up to $WHATEVER. Now I'd like to hire 5 more workers to do some fairly low value manual labor, but if I hire them at minimum wage, it pushes the company into the red. Where does that leave us? I can:
1. Hire the workers at less than "minimum wage". This creates the most jobs, but has the downside of paying people less than what some people feel that they "should* earn.
2. Hire fewer workers, but at minimum wage. That's fine for the 2.5 workers I do hire, but how does it benefit the 2.5 that I don't hire?
3. Do nothing. This benefits none of the 5 workers I might have hired.
4. Buy a machine that does the kind of work those workers would have done, don't hire anybody new, and then lay off 10 workers once the machine is up and running.
5. Reduce costs somewhere else in the business, to allow for hiring the 5 workers at minimum wage. This might or might not be viable, depending on lots of other details.
6. Hire the 5 workers at minimum wage, and raise prices, passing the increased cost on to my customers. This might work, but again, there are a lot of variables in play here. And this negatively impacts my customers.
Obviously there's a lot of nuance to all this, but my point is that it's a bit Pollyanna'ish to think that jacking up the minimum wage results in a better outcome for everybody.
But the question isn't necessarily "survival of the business". It's whether or not the business can afford to bring more people into the fold, based on an arbitrary fixed-point in terms of how much they can pay.
Maybe I'm running a company that's humming along, profitable but only marginally so, paying 100 workers some rates ranging from exactly minimum wage, up to $WHATEVER. Now I'd like to hire 5 more workers to do some fairly low value manual labor, but if I hire them at minimum wage, it pushes the company into the red. Where does that leave us? I can:
1. Hire the workers at less than "minimum wage". This creates the most jobs, but has the downside of paying people less than what some people feel that they "should* earn.
2. Hire fewer workers, but at minimum wage. That's fine for the 2.5 workers I do hire, but how does it benefit the 2.5 that I don't hire?
3. Do nothing. This benefits none of the 5 workers I might have hired.
4. Buy a machine that does the kind of work those workers would have done, don't hire anybody new, and then lay off 10 workers once the machine is up and running.
5. Reduce costs somewhere else in the business, to allow for hiring the 5 workers at minimum wage. This might or might not be viable, depending on lots of other details.
6. Hire the 5 workers at minimum wage, and raise prices, passing the increased cost on to my customers. This might work, but again, there are a lot of variables in play here. And this negatively impacts my customers.
Obviously there's a lot of nuance to all this, but my point is that it's a bit Pollyanna'ish to think that jacking up the minimum wage results in a better outcome for everybody.
From a business point of view I'm sure they would prefer no minimum wage at all. But there are obviously more factors to consider besides business.
Obviously there is such a thing as too high of a minimum wage, that will severely dampen employment for lots of businesses. Jacking up the minimum wage in itself to an arbitrary value that is too high is pretty poor policy.
But in the current state, too often, those on full time minimum wage jobs are still below poverty level, and thus qualify for many government benefits. In effect, my tax money contributes to your low-wage employee. From a personal perspective, I don't really like your option 1. I'd actually ideally want that person who is only worth sub-minimum wage to linger in the safety net for a while and learn skills that will make them more valuable than below-minimum wage level. Such would be a far better value for my tax dollars than subsidizing low-skill employment.
Some economists feel that up to a certain point, minimum wage actually increases employment (in non-competitive labor markets, eg monopsonies) and increases aggregate demand enough to compensate for the cost effect (because low-income workers have a higher marginal propensity to consume, which would offset the cost effect). Of course, minimum wage is not the only anti-poverty tool out there and some economists feel it is too blunt. And the "correct" minimum wage probably varies hugely by location. As you say -- there are a lot of nuances. I'm just saying, there is more to this than just the employer perspective.
Obviously there is such a thing as too high of a minimum wage, that will severely dampen employment for lots of businesses. Jacking up the minimum wage in itself to an arbitrary value that is too high is pretty poor policy.
But in the current state, too often, those on full time minimum wage jobs are still below poverty level, and thus qualify for many government benefits. In effect, my tax money contributes to your low-wage employee. From a personal perspective, I don't really like your option 1. I'd actually ideally want that person who is only worth sub-minimum wage to linger in the safety net for a while and learn skills that will make them more valuable than below-minimum wage level. Such would be a far better value for my tax dollars than subsidizing low-skill employment.
Some economists feel that up to a certain point, minimum wage actually increases employment (in non-competitive labor markets, eg monopsonies) and increases aggregate demand enough to compensate for the cost effect (because low-income workers have a higher marginal propensity to consume, which would offset the cost effect). Of course, minimum wage is not the only anti-poverty tool out there and some economists feel it is too blunt. And the "correct" minimum wage probably varies hugely by location. As you say -- there are a lot of nuances. I'm just saying, there is more to this than just the employer perspective.
> In reality, a business can't always afford to hire someone at the minimum wage.
The needs of business do not supercede the needs of human beings. If a business cannot operate without virtual slave labor, the business should not exist.
> Your "argument" is just a caricatured strawman that has no basis in reality.
As is yours. Businesses regularly have costs which they cannot turn a profit on, but the work must be done, so it gets done.
The needs of business do not supercede the needs of human beings. If a business cannot operate without virtual slave labor, the business should not exist.
> Your "argument" is just a caricatured strawman that has no basis in reality.
As is yours. Businesses regularly have costs which they cannot turn a profit on, but the work must be done, so it gets done.
The needs of business do not supercede the needs of human beings. If a business cannot operate without virtual slave labor, the business should not exist.
Poverty is the natural state of humanity. Trade / business allow us to rise above that. The people you are referring to as "natural slave labor" are better off working for less than the sum you find optimal, than not working at all. And unless someone has a gun to their head, they always retain the option to do the latter.
As is yours.
I don't find it to be so, but feel free to convince me.
Businesses regularly have costs which they cannot turn a profit on, but the work must be done, so it gets done.
Sure, but there's a limit to that. A business can't run in the red indefinitely. And again, we already know from actual, demonstrated, empirical evidence in the Real World that business are forced, by economic reality, to pay more, often FAR more, than "minimum wage" to workers. But again, when we are talking primarily about the workers on the bottom rung of the ladder, the question is, do you want to lock them out of participating in the economy altogether?
Poverty is the natural state of humanity. Trade / business allow us to rise above that. The people you are referring to as "natural slave labor" are better off working for less than the sum you find optimal, than not working at all. And unless someone has a gun to their head, they always retain the option to do the latter.
As is yours.
I don't find it to be so, but feel free to convince me.
Businesses regularly have costs which they cannot turn a profit on, but the work must be done, so it gets done.
Sure, but there's a limit to that. A business can't run in the red indefinitely. And again, we already know from actual, demonstrated, empirical evidence in the Real World that business are forced, by economic reality, to pay more, often FAR more, than "minimum wage" to workers. But again, when we are talking primarily about the workers on the bottom rung of the ladder, the question is, do you want to lock them out of participating in the economy altogether?
"Your premises are fictional."
And yours isn't?
Seriously, everything you're complaining about their argument, can be applied double to yours.
And yours isn't?
Seriously, everything you're complaining about their argument, can be applied double to yours.
And yours isn't?
No.
Seriously, everything you're complaining about their argument, can be applied double to yours.
I don't find that to be supported, but please give do expand on that.
No.
Seriously, everything you're complaining about their argument, can be applied double to yours.
I don't find that to be supported, but please give do expand on that.
That is entirely false.
Why would Uber treating these people as employees "take away their opportunity"? What would a full-time Uber driver lose by this?
What I’m suggesting is that if someone is driving for Uber they should be getting paid at or above minimum wage, and that they should have standard employment protections such as unemployment. This is not the same as wanting to kill Uber.
It actually is the same as killing Uber. Paying a guaranteed above-minimum-wage plus benefits would kill Uber's business model and either drive the company out of business or force it to act just like the cab companies. Either way, many customers and Uber drivers would be worse off.
Suppose I'm a spare time Uber driver. On the weekends I sit at home, comfortable on my own couch watching TV. Outside of "surge" times I only answer calls that seem REALLY CONVENIENT to take, like people traveling from my own block. When somebody within a few blocks of me wants a ride, I pause the TV, jog out to the car and take the fare, then work for a bit, eventually ending with a fare that takes me close to home again.
That business model is great for customers because the car they need is ALREADY NEARBY so they get a much quicker response. It's great for drivers because they can spend more time at home and have the flexibility to stop whenever or as often as they want, which makes it more compatible with family responsibilities - say, taking the afternoon off to look after a sick kid.
If the firm has to cover unemployment insurance, they cannot afford to let people just work whenever they feel like it and work from any location they want. If the firm has to pay a minimum wage while you've got the app running, they're not going to let you run the app while sitting on the couch all afternoon only taking the few jobs that happen to suit your fancy. You have to work X hours per day to cover the insurance premiums and every hour working has to have a certain number of fares per hour to cover the minimum wage guarantee. That turns it back into a micromanaged standard wage-slave job rather than a flexible opportunity to make a little side money on your own schedule.
Suppose I'm a spare time Uber driver. On the weekends I sit at home, comfortable on my own couch watching TV. Outside of "surge" times I only answer calls that seem REALLY CONVENIENT to take, like people traveling from my own block. When somebody within a few blocks of me wants a ride, I pause the TV, jog out to the car and take the fare, then work for a bit, eventually ending with a fare that takes me close to home again.
That business model is great for customers because the car they need is ALREADY NEARBY so they get a much quicker response. It's great for drivers because they can spend more time at home and have the flexibility to stop whenever or as often as they want, which makes it more compatible with family responsibilities - say, taking the afternoon off to look after a sick kid.
If the firm has to cover unemployment insurance, they cannot afford to let people just work whenever they feel like it and work from any location they want. If the firm has to pay a minimum wage while you've got the app running, they're not going to let you run the app while sitting on the couch all afternoon only taking the few jobs that happen to suit your fancy. You have to work X hours per day to cover the insurance premiums and every hour working has to have a certain number of fares per hour to cover the minimum wage guarantee. That turns it back into a micromanaged standard wage-slave job rather than a flexible opportunity to make a little side money on your own schedule.
>Suppose I'm a spare time Uber driver.
The problem with that supposition is that it is just that. Rather, it's an outlier and just Uber's marketing of "gig economy", not a serious contributor to the kind of volume that has driven their growth and supported their actual business model.
Especially in the densest, highest-demand areas, it's a stretch to believe there's an army of couch-surfers with garages (or other reserved parking spots) just waiting for the surge pricing to increase enough to go out and pick people up.
> That turns it back into a micromanaged standard wage-slave job
I have seen this complaint already, with respect to Uber's policies and practices.
The problem with that supposition is that it is just that. Rather, it's an outlier and just Uber's marketing of "gig economy", not a serious contributor to the kind of volume that has driven their growth and supported their actual business model.
Especially in the densest, highest-demand areas, it's a stretch to believe there's an army of couch-surfers with garages (or other reserved parking spots) just waiting for the surge pricing to increase enough to go out and pick people up.
> That turns it back into a micromanaged standard wage-slave job
I have seen this complaint already, with respect to Uber's policies and practices.
Okay, but it isn't exactly difficult to separate people into tiers: side-gig, part-time, and full-time depending on how many hours they work and what portion of their income comes from these services.
Thing is, the law isn't so discriminating for the side-gig part.
"It actually is the same as killing Uber. Paying a guaranteed above-minimum-wage plus benefits would kill Uber's business model and either drive the company out of business or force it to act just like the cab companies. Either way, many customers and Uber drivers would be worse off."
I fail to see the problem. If you cannot give that to your employees, then you do not deserve to be in business, full stop.
I fail to see the problem. If you cannot give that to your employees, then you do not deserve to be in business, full stop.
Also note that killing off unsustainable businesses (by whatever definition of unsustainable, which, to a degree, we impose on the business via laws for minimum standards), it's possible for sustainable businesses to grow and prosper. The alternative is not a collapse in jobs and profit, but a different way of providing these because the void will be filled by something or someone.
That's the "...and then a miracle occurs" theory of economics.
Keep in mind that Uber solved a HUGE REAL PROBLEM that cabs didn't - Uber cheaply serves neighborhoods where it was previously near-impossible to get a cab. Increasing "minimum standards" tends to make it illegal to serve low-income communities. Just as high "minimum standards" on housing price low-income people out of the housing market, high "minimum standards" on transit jobs price low-income people out of the transit market. The market alternative here is illegal "gypsy cabs" which also didn't provide unemployment insurance or a minimum wage income.
Keep in mind that Uber solved a HUGE REAL PROBLEM that cabs didn't - Uber cheaply serves neighborhoods where it was previously near-impossible to get a cab. Increasing "minimum standards" tends to make it illegal to serve low-income communities. Just as high "minimum standards" on housing price low-income people out of the housing market, high "minimum standards" on transit jobs price low-income people out of the transit market. The market alternative here is illegal "gypsy cabs" which also didn't provide unemployment insurance or a minimum wage income.
"Increasing "minimum standards" tends to make it illegal to serve low-income communities."
That is a flat out lie. There is absolutely nothing preventing Uber from adhering to those standards while providing the same level of service they currently do.
That is a flat out lie. There is absolutely nothing preventing Uber from adhering to those standards while providing the same level of service they currently do.
It will significantly raise prices for customers.
Do you use Uber presently(or other such services)?
Would you use it if prices went up 50% or more?
Do you use Uber presently(or other such services)?
Would you use it if prices went up 50% or more?
Shouldn't I have to factor in all externalities into my choice of transportation, and use the one that's the best choice overall? Why should I pay for the full price of my car but get a discount from Uber for offloading costs onto other people? (Note that I'm not saying Uber is actually doing this, that's just what the ruling implies.)
If the two can't compare on equal footing then sure, why not skip the Uber instead.
If the two can't compare on equal footing then sure, why not skip the Uber instead.
It's not an externality. An externality is "[a] cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit" (source: Wikipedia). The Uber drivers are choosing to incur that cost by their contractual agreement with Uber.
Literally nobody is talking about taking away anyone's ability to drive for Uber. If Uber decides to cut them out of spite for regulations, that's entirely on Uber, and no one else.
The number of contract workers is actually down since 2005. The BLS just released updated numbers recently. The "gig" economy is a made up story.
I'm guessing this [1] is the report you're referring to.
The problem is that "contingent workers are persons who do not expect their jobs to last or who report that their jobs are temporary" and I don't think factors in anyone with a full or part-time job that also does side work.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/conemp.nr0.htm
The problem is that "contingent workers are persons who do not expect their jobs to last or who report that their jobs are temporary" and I don't think factors in anyone with a full or part-time job that also does side work.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/conemp.nr0.htm
The report was actually awaited on with great fanfare. When it didn't confirm preconceived notions it seems to have been buried. I only heard the actual results from an obscure show on Harvard Business Radio.
To me this exemplifies everything that is wrong with the media today.
To me this exemplifies everything that is wrong with the media today.
Are gig economy people included in that figure? It seems like a category on its own, contract workers (the way I see it) still get to work full-time instead of 'whatever the market demands'.
Uber drivers are contract workers (except in NY I guess). Yes they are included. A month ago we didn't have post Uber data. Now we do.
Source please?
> the US federal government will release data showing how many workers rely on non-traditional work arrangements
That article just says "we'll find out soon"...
That article just says "we'll find out soon"...
I assumed you wanted analysis connecting the report to Uber. The actual data is publicly available on the BLS website.
I'm all for greater contract worker protections. People seem to think this is some value judgement on that issue. there are valid arguments that some aspects aren't accounted for in this report. But the perception I had was that the gig economy was becoming a sizeable portion of the workforce. Were it true we'd expect it to spill over in BLS numbers regardless of their deficiencies.
Last month we had no data so that's excusable. But now that we do it should be talked about.
I'm all for greater contract worker protections. People seem to think this is some value judgement on that issue. there are valid arguments that some aspects aren't accounted for in this report. But the perception I had was that the gig economy was becoming a sizeable portion of the workforce. Were it true we'd expect it to spill over in BLS numbers regardless of their deficiencies.
Last month we had no data so that's excusable. But now that we do it should be talked about.
The BLS data you seem to be referencing[0] categorizes the various forms of contract workers based on their primary job (i.e., where they work the most hours). It is possible for a few part-time gig workers who have other jobs to replace a full-time traditional worker without increasing the number of contract workers reported in that data. Additionally, many independent taxi/limo drivers work for their own businesses, but employ a variety of 'gig' jobs (Uber, Door Dash, etc.) to get clients. It is not clear to me whether the BLS data identifies these as contract workers.
So, you might be right, but without better evidence and a more complex analysis from you, I can't really buy your conclusion.
[0] - https://www.bls.gov/news.release/conemp.nr0.htm
So, you might be right, but without better evidence and a more complex analysis from you, I can't really buy your conclusion.
[0] - https://www.bls.gov/news.release/conemp.nr0.htm
The fact your asking better analysis from me shows the failure of our news infrastructure. I myself was very surprised by this information. Data that contradicts our preconceived notions should be talked about loudly.
So far most of the analysis I see - where it mentions this at all - speaks of only absolute numbers which is almost useless. For all the press the gig economy has gotten I'd expect more.
So far most of the analysis I see - where it mentions this at all - speaks of only absolute numbers which is almost useless. For all the press the gig economy has gotten I'd expect more.
Your observation about the number of workers this effects seems out of place.
For the many people who do work these jobs, this ruling strengthens their protection.
For the many people who do work these jobs, this ruling strengthens their protection.
The "gig economy" perpetuates a false narrative that traditional jobs are being replaced with contractors. The numbers simply don't bear that out. It's tangential to whether or not contract worker protections should be enhanced.
I correct misinformation when I see it. The world is awash in false information.
I correct misinformation when I see it. The world is awash in false information.
> Minimum wage laws, unemployment, etc, these are good things that should be preserved.
Well, they are clumsy patches on top of an inhumane system of exploitation, and we could probably do a lot better, but preserving them is better than retrograde progress.
Well, they are clumsy patches on top of an inhumane system of exploitation, and we could probably do a lot better, but preserving them is better than retrograde progress.
It should be noted that minimum wage laws are not good, from their original implementation to today. The original law was put in place to keep unskilled persons (read minorities of color) from taking white's jobs. The hard working unskilled people were learning the skills to take the white people's jobs at a lower rate, so they passed a bill that made it impossible to effectively climb up the wage ladder. Today it is used to keep people subservient to the government when the wage gets higher than an economy can bear, look at Puerto Rico and how unemployment was so high, the only jobs available were government jobs. Any economist who can look themselves in the mirror will tell you this.
> We’re at risk of the “gig economy” undoing over a century of hard fought gains in workers rights
Consumer rights too. I've seen some really horrendous people on /r/Lyft arguing that they are well within their rights as independent contractors to refuse service to disabled people and if Lyft kicks them off the platform for it, they can sue Lyft for violating their rights as contractors.
And you can replace "refuse service to disabled people" with any other form of mistreating customers, and you'll see people on /r/Lyft arguing for it and claiming that Lyft can't kick them off the platform for it.
The gig economy needs to go.
Consumer rights too. I've seen some really horrendous people on /r/Lyft arguing that they are well within their rights as independent contractors to refuse service to disabled people and if Lyft kicks them off the platform for it, they can sue Lyft for violating their rights as contractors.
And you can replace "refuse service to disabled people" with any other form of mistreating customers, and you'll see people on /r/Lyft arguing for it and claiming that Lyft can't kick them off the platform for it.
The gig economy needs to go.
People choose to work where they work, right? Why should you or someone else get to define the conditions they think are mutually acceptable?
Also, last I knew, Uber wasn't driving around forcing people to work for their service.
The only thing exploitative here is the state and Taxi Lobby imposing conditions on the agreements you or I make with an employer.
In the end it will mean fewer jobs for prospective Uber drivers and higher costs for people taking advantage of the service.
Also, last I knew, Uber wasn't driving around forcing people to work for their service.
The only thing exploitative here is the state and Taxi Lobby imposing conditions on the agreements you or I make with an employer.
In the end it will mean fewer jobs for prospective Uber drivers and higher costs for people taking advantage of the service.
>In the end it will mean ... higher costs for people taking advantage of the service.
As an occasional user of such services, I am OK with paying an increased rate if it means that the drivers are able to get unemployment.
As an occasional user of such services, I am OK with paying an increased rate if it means that the drivers are able to get unemployment.
Good for you. Though, there will still be fewer customers and fewer drivers.
A minute after you made this post, you posted this comment in response to someone else:
>But these days anyone who qualifies to drive for Uber could easily find another job making the same wage or more wages.
Some people might stop riding because of the increase, which leads to some drivers going elsewhere for other jobs that you say should be easy to find. I'm not quite sure where you're going with this.
>But these days anyone who qualifies to drive for Uber could easily find another job making the same wage or more wages.
Some people might stop riding because of the increase, which leads to some drivers going elsewhere for other jobs that you say should be easy to find. I'm not quite sure where you're going with this.
>People choose to work where they work, right?
I chose to work as CEO of Amazon, but Amazon had other ideas.
I chose to work as CEO of Amazon, but Amazon had other ideas.
A choice does not need to be completely unrestrained by logic or reality to be a free choice.
The fact that you cannot choose to be the author of _War and Peace_ does not diminish the freedom you have in choosing to author non sequiturs on the internet.
The fact that you cannot choose to be the author of _War and Peace_ does not diminish the freedom you have in choosing to author non sequiturs on the internet.
"People choose to work where they work, right?"
People who have the ability to choose get to choose where they work. Many people do not have this freedom of choice. Otherwise people wouldn't continue to work for places that steal tips or sexually harass employees.
"Also, last I knew, Uber wasn't driving around forcing people to work for their service."
This is not, and never has been an excuse or defense. It has literally no bearing on anything.
People who have the ability to choose get to choose where they work. Many people do not have this freedom of choice. Otherwise people wouldn't continue to work for places that steal tips or sexually harass employees.
"Also, last I knew, Uber wasn't driving around forcing people to work for their service."
This is not, and never has been an excuse or defense. It has literally no bearing on anything.
>People choose to work where they work, right? Why should you or someone else get to define the conditions they think are mutually acceptable?
The agreement between an employer and an employee is not "mutual" because of the massive power differential. Your premise is flawed.
The agreement between an employer and an employee is not "mutual" because of the massive power differential. Your premise is flawed.
It depends on personal circumstances and the local economy.
But these days anyone who qualifies to drive for Uber could easily find another job making the same wage or more wages.
But these days anyone who qualifies to drive for Uber could easily find another job making the same wage or more wages.
You are 100% correct, it’s just not a popular opinion around here.
I take Uber a lot and not once has a driver had anything bad to say about the “gig economy”. Most are thankful to make a couple extra bucks during their free time.
Their ability to make that money is under constant attack by those who supposedly “know better” than they do about how they should be earning a living.
I take Uber a lot and not once has a driver had anything bad to say about the “gig economy”. Most are thankful to make a couple extra bucks during their free time.
Their ability to make that money is under constant attack by those who supposedly “know better” than they do about how they should be earning a living.
>I take Uber a lot and not once has a driver had anything bad to say about the “gig economy”. Most are thankful to make a couple extra bucks during their free time.
Playing devil's advocate here, doesn't the need to provide quality customer service come into play? I'm not arguing that you can't provide good customer service while also communicating a negative opinion about the company you're driving for, but I've got to imagine that at least a portion of drivers feel like it might be uncouth to discuss something like that and opt to not complain.
Playing devil's advocate here, doesn't the need to provide quality customer service come into play? I'm not arguing that you can't provide good customer service while also communicating a negative opinion about the company you're driving for, but I've got to imagine that at least a portion of drivers feel like it might be uncouth to discuss something like that and opt to not complain.
They complain about all kinds of stuff, but generally like Uber (unless they complain about the app itself being buggy). I’ve honestly had some pretty unprofessional rides, but never heard them bash the opportunity to drive.
Fair.
> I've got to imagine that at least a portion of drivers feel like it might be uncouth to discuss something like that and opt to not complain.
That doesn't stop other service workers in similar "gig economy" relationships from complaining (including drivers for other ride-hailing apps complaining about the app I've used to hail them).
That doesn't stop other service workers in similar "gig economy" relationships from complaining (including drivers for other ride-hailing apps complaining about the app I've used to hail them).
No one is suggesting that Uber should go away. Uber should simply pay at or above minimum wage, and offer unemployment protection and such.
Literally nobody is attacking their ability to drive and make money with Uber. If Uber cuts them off out of spite for regulations, that's entirely on Uber, and Uber alone.
It's basically impossible to have nice things because people will always try to any little thing into a career and then complain when it isn't viable.
Made an app so that kids can deliver lemonade on weekends to neighbors for a few bucks? Someone will try to make a career out of delivering lemonade full time and sue you because it doesn't pay a living wage with benefits.
Made an app so that kids can deliver lemonade on weekends to neighbors for a few bucks? Someone will try to make a career out of delivering lemonade full time and sue you because it doesn't pay a living wage with benefits.
Well if you were offering, for instance, $40,000 loans for lemonade stands, and imposing a number of employee-like restrictions on where, when, how, and for what price they could sell the lemonade, I'd start to wonder whether you weren't actually employing those people too.
Is Uber actually giving out car loans? People are getting those on their own.
It would be like if someone leased a lemonade factory from a 3rd party in order to use my app.
It would be like if someone leased a lemonade factory from a 3rd party in order to use my app.
> Is Uber actually giving out car loans?
They were, but spun it off. https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/30/uber-sells-its-xchange-lea...
They were, but spun it off. https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/30/uber-sells-its-xchange-lea...
>It's basically impossible to have nice things because people will always try to any [sic] little thing into a career and the complain when it isn't viable.
Can you blame people for trying to make a career out of it when that's how Uber and Lyft marketed themselves when they first started to grow?
Can you blame people for trying to make a career out of it when that's how Uber and Lyft marketed themselves when they first started to grow?
> Can you blame people for trying to make a career out of it when that's how Uber and Lyft marketed themselves when they first started to grow?
If Uber/Lyft really marketed it as a viable career option, then yeah, they definitely hold some responsibility there. The vibe I got was that ride sharing was something you could do on the side for fun, or maybe to/from a long commute or something for some bonus (but not sustainable) side income.
If Uber/Lyft really marketed it as a viable career option, then yeah, they definitely hold some responsibility there. The vibe I got was that ride sharing was something you could do on the side for fun, or maybe to/from a long commute or something for some bonus (but not sustainable) side income.
No, they definitely marketed it as a lifestyle, i.e. having no boss, working whenever you want and wherever you want, etc. etc. Go watch some of their earlier (or even current) commercials.
> It's basically impossible to have nice things
If by “nice things” you mean “maximally exploitative capitalist businesses”, sure.
If by “nice things” you mean “maximally exploitative capitalist businesses”, sure.
It doesn't even have to be intentionally exploitative. People will exploit themselves.
If I wanted to help clean up local communities, I could make an app that allows you to post trash bounties on your neighborhood, to be collected by people that accept the bounty and go clean it up.
Soon: "CleanCommunities is an evil company! They maximally exploit professional trash bounty hunters with below minimum wage and no benefits, no protective equipment, etc!!!"
Like, geez, I wasn't trying to exploit people, I just saw a litter problem in my community and tried to fix it... I didn't even intend for people to turn this into a full time job, more like a "volunteer service with benefits" type deal...
If I wanted to help clean up local communities, I could make an app that allows you to post trash bounties on your neighborhood, to be collected by people that accept the bounty and go clean it up.
Soon: "CleanCommunities is an evil company! They maximally exploit professional trash bounty hunters with below minimum wage and no benefits, no protective equipment, etc!!!"
Like, geez, I wasn't trying to exploit people, I just saw a litter problem in my community and tried to fix it... I didn't even intend for people to turn this into a full time job, more like a "volunteer service with benefits" type deal...
So let met get this straight - you're telling me that people are staking their livelihoods entirely on Uber, and none of this is Uber's fault, it's just the people who are idiots?
Why are they idiots? If it’s their best opportunity then they would be idiots to not take it.
I don’t think people doing the Uber bashing here understand what it’s like to be poor and that service like Uber are actually a good thing.
I don’t think people doing the Uber bashing here understand what it’s like to be poor and that service like Uber are actually a good thing.
What if it's their only opportunity? A lot of people aren't doing this because they think it's a fantastic opportunity, they're doing it because it's one of very few ways they can make a living.
You're telling me that with a phone, a car, and the ability to speak english, that driving cars around is the only opportunity possible?
I don't know, I was requesting clarification for the line "people will exploit themselves".
No, we're bashing Uber for exploiting that relationship.
It depends. If Uber was truly marketing itself as something you should stake your livelihood on (i.e. a viable career), then it's understandable that people would do that.
People are only idiots if they take something that is only obviously meant for non-sustainable income, try to turn it into their livelihood, and then act surprised/outraged when it isn't sustainable. I kind of got this vibe from ride sharing - I never thought it would be sustainable as a full-time job, I thought it was more for just some fun side income.
People are only idiots if they take something that is only obviously meant for non-sustainable income, try to turn it into their livelihood, and then act surprised/outraged when it isn't sustainable. I kind of got this vibe from ride sharing - I never thought it would be sustainable as a full-time job, I thought it was more for just some fun side income.
Uber has tens of thousands of people who depend on it for a livelihood.
They made $2.5 billion in profits last quarter.
We're not talking about a lemonade stand..
It is far past the tipping-point where Uber has a social obligation to those workers.
We're not talking about a lemonade stand..
It is far past the tipping-point where Uber has a social obligation to those workers.
And, sure, if the capitalist class got behind high higher taxes on capital income to pay for a UBI and/or otherwise much stronger social safety net, i’d be happy to consider weakening some employer obligations: there's a good argument that many are quasi-feudal and reduce mobility within and out of the proletariat by creating greater dependence on employers, and leave the chronically unemployed it in the cold and make it harder for them to move out of that state.
But the idea that Uber is done kind of community service that doesn't center business around reducing wages in an existing area, and that the low wages are instead an example of people exploiting themselves in a way Uber in no way intended and intended to profit from is farcical.
But the idea that Uber is done kind of community service that doesn't center business around reducing wages in an existing area, and that the low wages are instead an example of people exploiting themselves in a way Uber in no way intended and intended to profit from is farcical.
whb07(1)
> This is important. We’re at risk of the “gig economy” undoing over a century of hard fought gains in workers rights.
Not in this case. In New York, taxi drivers are licensed but not employees. Uber and Lyft drivers are all licensed by the TLC, so they're no different legally from any other black cab service.
The situation may be different in other cities, but in New York, all of the established precedent so far classifies TLC drivers as independent contractors or self-employed.
Not in this case. In New York, taxi drivers are licensed but not employees. Uber and Lyft drivers are all licensed by the TLC, so they're no different legally from any other black cab service.
The situation may be different in other cities, but in New York, all of the established precedent so far classifies TLC drivers as independent contractors or self-employed.
It seems like most of those rights have been eroded to near nothing. Effective wages (and minimum wage) have gone down in many places since the 1970s. Unemployment insurance is a luxury for white collar workers, few people get that benefit anymore.
What are we preserving exactly? The memory of some ghost? That's the wrong stance, if you want to advocate for something in this area it should be with shameless and unbridled aggression for change and new systems, not defensiveness or preservation.
What are we preserving exactly? The memory of some ghost? That's the wrong stance, if you want to advocate for something in this area it should be with shameless and unbridled aggression for change and new systems, not defensiveness or preservation.
I absolutely agree. We need to be fighting for modern legislation to protect workers as well as trying to hold on to badly eroded victories of many decades past.
I must admit that I’ve been working white collar engineering jobs for nearly 15 years now, so I’m not exactly an authority on being a minimum wage worker. I thought you were still eligible for unemployment and that it was paid for by your employer?
I must admit that I’ve been working white collar engineering jobs for nearly 15 years now, so I’m not exactly an authority on being a minimum wage worker. I thought you were still eligible for unemployment and that it was paid for by your employer?
> I must admit that I’ve been working white collar engineering jobs for nearly 15 years now, so I’m not exactly an authority on being a minimum wage worker. I thought you were still eligible for unemployment and that it was paid for by your employer?
Yes, this is correct.
Yes, this is correct.
once change is achieved it needs to be preserved and defended from attack, forever.
We absolutely should be fighting for more. But we shouldn't be so hardlined on more that we lose what we have.
The two things are not opposed to each other. The Fight for 15 movement has been successful in many places by explicitly invoking the true legacy of a “minimum wage,” socialized healthcare is more popular than ever under the banner of “Medicare for All.”
I agree that it’s important to push intellectually beyond a reform-minded liberalism that seeks to “take the edges off” of Capitalism. But that doesn’t exclude using the history of labor protections or organization as a jumping off point.
I agree that it’s important to push intellectually beyond a reform-minded liberalism that seeks to “take the edges off” of Capitalism. But that doesn’t exclude using the history of labor protections or organization as a jumping off point.
Deciding to drive for Uber is a mutually beneficial transaction between consenting adults (or an adult and a company). If the driver wasn't benefiting, they'd do something else.
Well-intentioned (by some people, prob most people on HN) and not so well-intentioned (anti-competitive lobbying by taxis) efforts to make the relationship less "exploitative" are likely doing more harm than good.
What happens when the gov mandates all these extra benefits? "Drivers WILL earn more money!" The answer is some combination of: Uber becomes costlier, people take fewer rides (or growth is slower than it should be), and some people who are perfectly willing and able to drive right now are unable to do so. Or (if demand is more inelastic) a bunch of new drivers decide the new benefits make it worth entering the market, and not everyone who wants to drive can/people sit around idle, etc.
Either way, you're hurting consumers and many existing drivers.
Well-intentioned (by some people, prob most people on HN) and not so well-intentioned (anti-competitive lobbying by taxis) efforts to make the relationship less "exploitative" are likely doing more harm than good.
What happens when the gov mandates all these extra benefits? "Drivers WILL earn more money!" The answer is some combination of: Uber becomes costlier, people take fewer rides (or growth is slower than it should be), and some people who are perfectly willing and able to drive right now are unable to do so. Or (if demand is more inelastic) a bunch of new drivers decide the new benefits make it worth entering the market, and not everyone who wants to drive can/people sit around idle, etc.
Either way, you're hurting consumers and many existing drivers.
Edit: Yeah I'm off the mark, median pay is more like 10-8. I gotta read more closely
I think the "mutually beneficial" is somewhat debatable. If you take in to account the cost of upkeep on the vehicle from increased driving some drivers barely break even or even lose money driving for uber. On median a driver makes something like 3 dollars an hour https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/01/uber-lyft...
I think the "mutually beneficial" is somewhat debatable. If you take in to account the cost of upkeep on the vehicle from increased driving some drivers barely break even or even lose money driving for uber. On median a driver makes something like 3 dollars an hour https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/01/uber-lyft...
No they don't. From your link:
> The first draft of the paper, released last month, said the median profit was $3.37 an hour, but the author released a new analysis on Monday following criticism from Uber. In the new analysis, the researcher reported the higher median profit of $8.55 an hour.
Another quote from your link:
> Alex Tabarrok, a George Mason University professor who called the paper’s findings “dubious” last week, said he still had concerns about the researcher’s reliance on questionable survey data and that he believed the average hourly profit of Uber drivers was closer to $13 an hour (similar to figures the company has cited).
> The first draft of the paper, released last month, said the median profit was $3.37 an hour, but the author released a new analysis on Monday following criticism from Uber. In the new analysis, the researcher reported the higher median profit of $8.55 an hour.
Another quote from your link:
> Alex Tabarrok, a George Mason University professor who called the paper’s findings “dubious” last week, said he still had concerns about the researcher’s reliance on questionable survey data and that he believed the average hourly profit of Uber drivers was closer to $13 an hour (similar to figures the company has cited).
My bad. I read one article and linked to another without reading it. I gotta check my sources more closely.
It has to be mutually beneficial, otherwise drivers would be doing something else. We don't have slavery in this country anymore.
One of the biggest benefits is working whenever you want. A paper by the NBER found drivers get twice the consumer (or producer in this case I guess) surplus they would from less flexible arraignments:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w23296
One of the biggest benefits is working whenever you want. A paper by the NBER found drivers get twice the consumer (or producer in this case I guess) surplus they would from less flexible arraignments:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w23296
>It has to be mutually beneficial, otherwise drivers would be doing something else. We don't have slavery in this country anymore.
I want to be clear here, and I'd appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth. I never claimed rideshare drivers were slaves. I was questioning the degree to which the arrangement was beneficial to both parties.
If everyone was perfectly rational, I would agree with you. But many of these additional costs are hidden. Uber advertises ~$8 an hour, which sounds pretty good. But they don't mention the wear and tear on the car, the increased cost of mechanics, etc. I'm not convinced most drivers are aware of that or look into it.
Clearly it is somewhat beneficial for the drivers. $4 an hour is better than $0 an hour, but I still think it's worth pointing out it's not even minimum wage in the US.
I want to be clear here, and I'd appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth. I never claimed rideshare drivers were slaves. I was questioning the degree to which the arrangement was beneficial to both parties.
If everyone was perfectly rational, I would agree with you. But many of these additional costs are hidden. Uber advertises ~$8 an hour, which sounds pretty good. But they don't mention the wear and tear on the car, the increased cost of mechanics, etc. I'm not convinced most drivers are aware of that or look into it.
Clearly it is somewhat beneficial for the drivers. $4 an hour is better than $0 an hour, but I still think it's worth pointing out it's not even minimum wage in the US.
No worries, not suggesting you think it's slavery. I think that would be a pretty extreme position to take.
I do agree people aren't always rational, and there are certainly other costs in terms of wear and tear etc. But I think people are (1) relatively more rational when it comes to money, (2) get more rational with experience (i.e. as they observe having to take their cars in more after driving a while).
Uber has > 160k active drivers, I think it's very paternalistic to suggest they aren't rational enough to realize how screwed they're getting and think gov or some other third party needs to step in. I think it should also give us pause that many of the loudest voices saying these things (especially locally) are associated with the taxi industry.
These researchers say it's $8.55. Some people argue it should be more (like $13), but -- like I said in another comment -- a job is a bundle of things including pay but also: flexibility, liking who you work with, feeling like you accomplished something, etc. Uber provides very high flexibility (literally can almost work on demand), which economists have estimated gives drivers twice the surplus over similar paying, less flexible options.
I do agree people aren't always rational, and there are certainly other costs in terms of wear and tear etc. But I think people are (1) relatively more rational when it comes to money, (2) get more rational with experience (i.e. as they observe having to take their cars in more after driving a while).
Uber has > 160k active drivers, I think it's very paternalistic to suggest they aren't rational enough to realize how screwed they're getting and think gov or some other third party needs to step in. I think it should also give us pause that many of the loudest voices saying these things (especially locally) are associated with the taxi industry.
These researchers say it's $8.55. Some people argue it should be more (like $13), but -- like I said in another comment -- a job is a bundle of things including pay but also: flexibility, liking who you work with, feeling like you accomplished something, etc. Uber provides very high flexibility (literally can almost work on demand), which economists have estimated gives drivers twice the surplus over similar paying, less flexible options.
I agree with your numbers after doing some more reading, i was definitely off the mark going in.
I would point to the high turnover rate as an indication that people do realize that maybe they aren't making what they thought they would when they started. I think people catch on, but that doesn't stop others from signing up without realizing it. However I'm not convinced the drivers are being exploited to the degree I originally claimed.
You make good points and have given me much to consider
I would point to the high turnover rate as an indication that people do realize that maybe they aren't making what they thought they would when they started. I think people catch on, but that doesn't stop others from signing up without realizing it. However I'm not convinced the drivers are being exploited to the degree I originally claimed.
You make good points and have given me much to consider
> We don't have slavery in this country anymore.
The US, post-13th Amendment, still has both de jure (specifically, penal) slavery and de facto slavery, though there are laws designed to combat the latter (including, inter alia, the ones Uber tries to hack around.)
The US, post-13th Amendment, still has both de jure (specifically, penal) slavery and de facto slavery, though there are laws designed to combat the latter (including, inter alia, the ones Uber tries to hack around.)
And is your argument that driving for Uber is de facto slavery?
I really think one of the biggest blindspots of the (generally well-intentioned, smart) crowd at HN is lack of appreciation of economics and markets, and the belief that tinkering with these markets for the better is as simple as turning a dial on a knob (or passing a law, or getting a good ruling in a court case).
Good article with related thoughts on this: http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2005/Robertsmarkets....
Good article with related thoughts on this: http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2005/Robertsmarkets....
Every gig-based employer needs to be lobbying hard for universal health care. It's not the only benefit of being a employee, but it's a big one. If we keep insisting that only employees get health care then people are going to want to be considered employees.
"Regular" employees don't have universal health care. It's just that employers get a tax deduction for employer provided group insurance. Most economists believe this is hugely inefficient and a big policy mistake. If we're lobbying hard for pie in the sky goals, it'd be better to get rid of that (or let employers deduct contributions to individual plans instead) instead of applying the same crappy policy to gig economy jobs too.
And yet Taxis weren't for 100 years? Taxi drivers were even more restricted and were still not employees.
A neighbor of mine is a taxi driver. I can call the number on their cab (or their business card) and get them, specifically. I can also hail them if I see them on the street.
That seems like a far more legitimate "independent contractor" relationship than the one Uber sets up between drivers and riders.
That seems like a far more legitimate "independent contractor" relationship than the one Uber sets up between drivers and riders.
You can do the same thing with Uber. The driver can just turn off the app and pick you up if you're nearby. Realistically it won't happen often, for the same reason that people didn't keep folders full of yellow cab business cards.
Well they probably can't because of the Taxi cartel. In most place, they need to be a licensed Taxi driver in a licensed Taxi car to be able to be hailed.
> That seems like a far more legitimate "independent contractor" relationship than the one Uber sets up between drivers and riders.
The relationship that Uber sets up between drivers and riders in NYC is exactly the same as the relationship that all FHV services in NYC set up between licensed drivers and riders. Uber operates as an FHV service, no differently from any other.
EDIT: Before downvoting, you may want to look up the facts here. In NYC, unlike some other cities, Uber and its drivers are licensed by the TLC. There is literally zero distinction between the operations of them from any other FHV service.
The relationship that Uber sets up between drivers and riders in NYC is exactly the same as the relationship that all FHV services in NYC set up between licensed drivers and riders. Uber operates as an FHV service, no differently from any other.
EDIT: Before downvoting, you may want to look up the facts here. In NYC, unlike some other cities, Uber and its drivers are licensed by the TLC. There is literally zero distinction between the operations of them from any other FHV service.
> Before downvoting, you may want to look up the facts here. In NYC, unlike some other cities, Uber and its drivers are licensed by the TLC.
If this ruling were limited to NYC, that'd be relevant.
If this ruling were limited to NYC, that'd be relevant.
> If this ruling were limited to NYC, that'd be relevant.
It would be relevant either way, but in this case it's a state department ruling on a case brought by a group of NYC drivers against Uber's operations in NYC.
So yes, it is actually totally fair to point out that Uber's role in this case is exactly the same as the role any other FHV company plays.
It would be relevant either way, but in this case it's a state department ruling on a case brought by a group of NYC drivers against Uber's operations in NYC.
So yes, it is actually totally fair to point out that Uber's role in this case is exactly the same as the role any other FHV company plays.
I can understand filing for benefits if you were terminated by Uber (first one was for low ratings) but one of the plaintiffs quit because of low pay. Quitting for non egregious reasons (bad work environment, harassment, etc) is usually a blocker for filing for claims.
A significant drop in wages is generally considered "constructive dismissal" for unemployment purposes.
> A significant drop in wages is generally considered "constructive dismissal" for unemployment purposes.
A significant drop in wages can be considered constructive dismissal, but it's generally difficult to prove without explicit evidence of the intention behind it. And in this case, it's pretty hard to make the argument that it constitutes constructive dismissal, since there is zero evidence that Uber acted in a way to target the driver by intentionally cutting their earnings specifically, whether or not those actions were intended to target or retaliate against the driver.
A significant drop in wages can be considered constructive dismissal, but it's generally difficult to prove without explicit evidence of the intention behind it. And in this case, it's pretty hard to make the argument that it constitutes constructive dismissal, since there is zero evidence that Uber acted in a way to target the driver by intentionally cutting their earnings specifically, whether or not those actions were intended to target or retaliate against the driver.
My understanding is that wages are a bit of a special case.
You'd have to demonstrate intent/targeting for something like "they made me shovel elephant poop instead of my usual tasks".
A significant wage drop is inherently constructive dismissal as wage/salary tends to be most people's single most important criteria for accepting the job.
You'd have to demonstrate intent/targeting for something like "they made me shovel elephant poop instead of my usual tasks".
A significant wage drop is inherently constructive dismissal as wage/salary tends to be most people's single most important criteria for accepting the job.
> A significant wage drop is inherently constructive dismissal as wage/salary tends to be most people's single most important criteria for accepting the job.
For a job in which pay directly correlates to job performance (such as tipped labor, or number of passengers driven, as in this case), you would have to demonstrate a number of things, including:
(a) the low pay represented a change (if the pay was consistently and comparably low since the beginning, nothing was constructed)
(b) the change in pay did not stem from a change in performance or the drivers' choice of hours worked
In this case, it's not clear that (a) applies, and it's almost certain that (b) does not, because there's no evidence that Uber made decisions that changed the take-home pay of the driver directly (such as reducing the driver's share, except insofar as any initial signup promotions expired, which would not constitute constructive dismissal).
For a job in which pay directly correlates to job performance (such as tipped labor, or number of passengers driven, as in this case), you would have to demonstrate a number of things, including:
(a) the low pay represented a change (if the pay was consistently and comparably low since the beginning, nothing was constructed)
(b) the change in pay did not stem from a change in performance or the drivers' choice of hours worked
In this case, it's not clear that (a) applies, and it's almost certain that (b) does not, because there's no evidence that Uber made decisions that changed the take-home pay of the driver directly (such as reducing the driver's share, except insofar as any initial signup promotions expired, which would not constitute constructive dismissal).
Uber has cut compensation a number of times. https://www.thedailybeast.com/uber-cuts-pricesand-kneecaps-d...
> A crowd of 600 drivers gathered outside the Uber office in Long Island City, Queens, to protest a 15 percent reduction in fares last month, which also means 15 percent lower wages. That pay cut is on top of Uber’s 20 percent slashing of fares in 2014. All things being equal, drivers who began less than two years ago have seen their pay tumble a whopping 35 percent.
> A crowd of 600 drivers gathered outside the Uber office in Long Island City, Queens, to protest a 15 percent reduction in fares last month, which also means 15 percent lower wages. That pay cut is on top of Uber’s 20 percent slashing of fares in 2014. All things being equal, drivers who began less than two years ago have seen their pay tumble a whopping 35 percent.
None of that constitutes constructive dismissal, because it doesn't constitute discrimination against the complainant (quite the opposite, in fact).
I think you're mixing up concepts. Discrimination is not required for constructive dismissal. A 35% wage cut is de-factor "you're fired, but we'll re-hire you at this lower rate" and is likely to make you eligible for unemployment as a result, as it's clearly a substantial modification to the employment contract between the two parties.
> A 35% wage cut is de-factor "you're fired, but we'll re-hire you at this lower rate" and is likely to make you eligible for unemployment as a result, as it's clearly a substantial modification to the employment contract between the two parties.
It's not so cut-and-dry, and in fact, there's already case law in New York holding that pay cuts of about one-third are not inherently constructive dismissal, and that it depends on the particulars of the individual's case.
With that on top of everything else, it's a really far stretch to read the one-line description from the article that the driver quit because of "low pay" and infer that constructive dismissal is applicable here.
It's not so cut-and-dry, and in fact, there's already case law in New York holding that pay cuts of about one-third are not inherently constructive dismissal, and that it depends on the particulars of the individual's case.
With that on top of everything else, it's a really far stretch to read the one-line description from the article that the driver quit because of "low pay" and infer that constructive dismissal is applicable here.
If you're still talking about "I was discriminated against and want my job back and back pay as recompense", sure.
If you want unemployment benefits, the question is "will the state labor department accept it?" There's going to be a lower threshold there.
If you want unemployment benefits, the question is "will the state labor department accept it?" There's going to be a lower threshold there.
How does this work if they drive for both Uber and Lyft?
I would presume it would work the same as if you had two other part-time jobs, such as working at both Walmart and Best Buy.
It's different though. Part-time retail workers pledge their loyalty to Walmart from 9-13 and to Best Buy from 18-22. They're not instantly choosing which boss is paying better for the next 15 mins. You actually have to get someone to cover your shift if you need a mental health break or something -- otherwise, your relationship with Bestmart is strained and you might be out of work.
For all of the phoniness behind phrases like "ride-sharing" and "gig economy", workers have never had a more horizontal relationship with their bosses -- except, perhaps, in higher pay-grade service sectors where "bosses" are referred to as "clients".
For all of the phoniness behind phrases like "ride-sharing" and "gig economy", workers have never had a more horizontal relationship with their bosses -- except, perhaps, in higher pay-grade service sectors where "bosses" are referred to as "clients".
> Part-time retail workers pledge their loyalty to Walmart from 9-13 and to Best Buy from 18-22.
It's extremely common to not have fixed shifts. You ask for hours, and you get what you get. It's really not that different from accepting individual driving jobs.
It's extremely common to not have fixed shifts. You ask for hours, and you get what you get. It's really not that different from accepting individual driving jobs.
There is also a dynamic where you are assigned shifts and if you don't make it your fired. Gets pretty dicy when you have two of them.
But neither company would pay you as a full time employee when you're jumping between jobs for both in the same hour/shift.
But if you are part-time, then you don't get employment benefits.
That's an interesting conundrum. I don't think Uber or Lyft has it in their terms that they forbid it. At the same time, they don't seem to compete enough on worker rights and pay either, so for the drivers it's not beneficial to go exclusive.
This is absolutely ridiculous and just more cronyism on behalf of the taxi companies. Uber and Lyft drivers are definitively independent contractors. There is no legitimate argument otherwise, and pretending like they are is just showing the bias of these bureaucrats.
I find it so funny when the state/government requires businesses to compensate people in some minimal way. If you think people need X dollars or Y benefits to live a comfortable life, why don't you give it to them?
/rant
/rant
They do it precisely because of people who share that idea with you. Minimum wage may increase unemployment a small amount but the positive effects are ensuring that those people who have the lowest paying jobs are able to afford to live. Similarly with unemployment and welfare. For many people losing their jobs or taking a pay cut would mean becoming homeless or being unable to feed themselves.
If you think that there are enough charitable people in the world to voluntarily sustain you through the end of your natural life, I invite you to try it out.
If you think that there are enough charitable people in the world to voluntarily sustain you through the end of your natural life, I invite you to try it out.
Apologies, I must have worded that too vaguely. I meant the state should minimally pay people the amount they believe to be a livable wage.
Just like healthcare, everyone believes no one should be left to die without healthcare, but when it comes to voting for politicians who support government funded healthcare for everyone, apparently we don't believe that. Better to try and get someone else to pay for it.
How is this not going to result in even lower take home pay for drivers? Uber does not have the margins to absorb the cost. They will certainly pass it on the drivers. They could increase pricing, but that dampens demand, which given how many drivers are out there, could be really bad for driver utilization and hourly earnings.
Score one for Big Taxi!
Uber has clearly shown that they’re happy to be as exploitative as they’re allowed to be. (And that even when they’re specifically disallowed they’ll do everything they can to ignore it and fight the laws.)