Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/12/uber-prop-22-law-drivers-ab5-gig-workers
390 comments
It's anecdotal but I always chat with my Uber drivers and nearly 100% of them are driving full time. I assume it's a "most rides are driven by a full-timer, most drivers are part timers" situation.
I don't really see why we need a third category, it should just be that some drivers are full time and some are not. I don't believe that Uber could sufficiently fulfill even half the rides with only the true part timers short of driver incentives also going way up (which would benefit people like your husband).
I don't really see why we need a third category, it should just be that some drivers are full time and some are not. I don't believe that Uber could sufficiently fulfill even half the rides with only the true part timers short of driver incentives also going way up (which would benefit people like your husband).
Where are you taking Ubers? I'm surprised by this since even low level entry jobs, like hostessing(sp?), working at the grocery store, delivering pizza, all pay better than Uber.
In Houston almost everyone I talked to were - retired, raising kids, had another jobs, going to school, or had some health issues that prevented full time employment.
The vast majority of the economy is made up of jobs where a company tells you when to show up, when to go home, and tries to schedule you for 38 hrs. Why can't we have just one job for people who have life circumstances that require flexibility.
In Houston almost everyone I talked to were - retired, raising kids, had another jobs, going to school, or had some health issues that prevented full time employment.
The vast majority of the economy is made up of jobs where a company tells you when to show up, when to go home, and tries to schedule you for 38 hrs. Why can't we have just one job for people who have life circumstances that require flexibility.
I have the most experience in the greater Boston area, but a spattering all over the US (but maybe to/from airports is a biased sample too).
Note that I've also had a lot of responses that they are "retired" but also say they drive >30 hours per week, which I'd personally consider "switched careers" or "unretired" but it's somewhat a matter of perspective.
Note that I've also had a lot of responses that they are "retired" but also say they drive >30 hours per week, which I'd personally consider "switched careers" or "unretired" but it's somewhat a matter of perspective.
In Oakland there are a lot of Uber drivers who seem like they don’t speak English well enough to get a job like a grocery store checkout clerk. From my time working in retail I have also known many people who couldn’t get enough hours at their primary job, but its scheduling constraints meant it was hard for them to find a second job that fit in with it. Uber or similar gig work seems ideal for these situations.
My experience with Uber drivers here in CZ is that they are guys who like to drive.
According to a survey of SF drivers[0]
71% of drivers work 30 or more hours, and 50% work 40 or more.
More troubling, 53% relied on gig work for all of their income. Another 10% said gig work accounted for at least 75% of their income.
[0] https://transform.ucsc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/OnDema...
71% of drivers work 30 or more hours, and 50% work 40 or more.
More troubling, 53% relied on gig work for all of their income. Another 10% said gig work accounted for at least 75% of their income.
[0] https://transform.ucsc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/OnDema...
Not only are the authors of that survey biased, but they are outright admitting to manipulating the data to suit their ends. From the slides:
Key goal: Representative sample of on-demand _work_ being done in the city, not of all on-demand _workers_. (emphasis not mine)
The team making the study has selected parameters to examine basically exactly to produce a number where the majority of rideshare is full-time. So is it clear that most rideshare workers are full time? Definitely not. And the fact that the team has weighted their sampling in such a way makes me even more skeptical about the veracity of that fact when taken across the whole population of drivers.
Key goal: Representative sample of on-demand _work_ being done in the city, not of all on-demand _workers_. (emphasis not mine)
The team making the study has selected parameters to examine basically exactly to produce a number where the majority of rideshare is full-time. So is it clear that most rideshare workers are full time? Definitely not. And the fact that the team has weighted their sampling in such a way makes me even more skeptical about the veracity of that fact when taken across the whole population of drivers.
Just because you don’t like the findings, doesn’t mean that it’s biased.
As far as the distinction between work and workers, it’s who is doing the work. If most people with an driver app are idle, they’ve removed themselves from the candidate pool. They’re irrelevant. It’s no different than talking about active users versus total accounts made. In other words, if you want to know how policies affect people, you look at who is affected.
As far as the distinction between work and workers, it’s who is doing the work. If most people with an driver app are idle, they’ve removed themselves from the candidate pool. They’re irrelevant. It’s no different than talking about active users versus total accounts made. In other words, if you want to know how policies affect people, you look at who is affected.
Beyond what was mentioned above, some further criticism of the survey acknowledged by the lead researcher himself [1]:
1) low sample size (219 responses)
2) usage of $10 gift cards as incentives. as an online survey, this opened up opportunities for gaming
3) targeting appears to have been geared towards members of Gig Workers Rising, a union-backed group
I think Uber's study of all of its drivers [2] in California provides a more measured picture:
74% of drivers work < 25h/week, but only account for 42% of trips
So, no, the majority of rideshare drivers aren't full-time, but rideshare companies do rely heavily on drivers who are online >25hours/week.
[1] https://workercenters.com/special-report-ca-labor-groups-fla...
[2] https://medium.com/uber-under-the-hood/which-drivers-do-the-...
1) low sample size (219 responses)
2) usage of $10 gift cards as incentives. as an online survey, this opened up opportunities for gaming
3) targeting appears to have been geared towards members of Gig Workers Rising, a union-backed group
I think Uber's study of all of its drivers [2] in California provides a more measured picture:
74% of drivers work < 25h/week, but only account for 42% of trips
So, no, the majority of rideshare drivers aren't full-time, but rideshare companies do rely heavily on drivers who are online >25hours/week.
[1] https://workercenters.com/special-report-ca-labor-groups-fla...
[2] https://medium.com/uber-under-the-hood/which-drivers-do-the-...
The problem with Uber they kinda spoiled drivers. It was a low-skilled job but for many years even my friends were making around 6 grands a month with a help of tax optimizations and hefty bonuses.
And none of them were ready to switch to any other low skilled job and get like $20 per hour ~ $3200 a month before taxes.
Location dependent? I was in NY a couple of years ago, and used Uber a lot. Every single driver was part time. Not long after I visited Las Vegas, and about 3/4 of the drivers were full time or near-full time.
Then again this is a while ago so maybe things have shifted with time.
Then again this is a while ago so maybe things have shifted with time.
People treating it as a full time job are suffering because it wasn’t meant to be a full time job. And they are clogging the system because there are often not enough rides for all the drivers. The biggest complaint I hear from drivers is about downtime. They want to be making money while in the car not waiting at the gas station for a rider.
It may seem heartless but I’m not sure whom to blame for the problems that come from treating rideshare as a full time job except the drivers who chose to do that themselves. Despite the gross advertising budget it seems like the gig economy companies were in the right.
Really, the issue is further up. It’s a universal loss of low skill labor. These people should have more real employment opportunities in society. If it was easier to get a basic job with benefits it would be way easier to accept whatever arrangement Uber was offering without legislating them. And Uber would inherently have to treat them more fairly as well.
It may seem heartless but I’m not sure whom to blame for the problems that come from treating rideshare as a full time job except the drivers who chose to do that themselves. Despite the gross advertising budget it seems like the gig economy companies were in the right.
Really, the issue is further up. It’s a universal loss of low skill labor. These people should have more real employment opportunities in society. If it was easier to get a basic job with benefits it would be way easier to accept whatever arrangement Uber was offering without legislating them. And Uber would inherently have to treat them more fairly as well.
You can literally blame the companies who aren't giving them benefits...
I have the complete opposite anecdotal experience.
Your 2nd paragraph is exactly what prop22 added. Now full-time drivers enjoy some benefits.
Your 2nd paragraph is exactly what prop22 added. Now full-time drivers enjoy some benefits.
Full time drivers already enjoyed benefits under California law. While Prop 22 talked about giving benefits, that’s not what the law does in practice at all. In fact, it actually removes protections. The key to this surprising revelation is that Uber et al wrote proposition so that only when you’re actively driving do the minutes count towards the amount you need to gain the benefit. In other words, to get the 25 hours of engaged time, you need to be available for 40+ hours. That’s a full time job.
To make this a concrete example, consider a DoorDash driver. They get an order to drive to a restaurant. Clock starts, they get 15 minutes. The order isn’t ready, so they’re waiting for another 15 minutes, but the clock is stopped. Then they drive to your house, which takes another 15. A 45 minute task, but only 30 minutes counts. “But they’re not working when they’re waiting!” DoorDash cries. But they’re not free to leave, because then they’d lose the entire payout and get blackballed. It’s just a process inefficiency. If the driver worked for the restaurant, they’d still get paid while waiting.
The original law that Prop 22 replaced, addressed this down time, and because of this, Prop 22 was written.
While there maybe reasonable arguments to be made about how gig work is different from full time and traditional contractor work, the most damning part of Prop 22 for me was the 7/8s majority needed to amend the new law. That’s just bullshit.
To make this a concrete example, consider a DoorDash driver. They get an order to drive to a restaurant. Clock starts, they get 15 minutes. The order isn’t ready, so they’re waiting for another 15 minutes, but the clock is stopped. Then they drive to your house, which takes another 15. A 45 minute task, but only 30 minutes counts. “But they’re not working when they’re waiting!” DoorDash cries. But they’re not free to leave, because then they’d lose the entire payout and get blackballed. It’s just a process inefficiency. If the driver worked for the restaurant, they’d still get paid while waiting.
The original law that Prop 22 replaced, addressed this down time, and because of this, Prop 22 was written.
While there maybe reasonable arguments to be made about how gig work is different from full time and traditional contractor work, the most damning part of Prop 22 for me was the 7/8s majority needed to amend the new law. That’s just bullshit.
Did you even read the wording of the prop?
What you are describing is completely wrong. It's incredible how short sighted people get when they want to go all out and lash at the "evil" gig economy companies. Like really, the wording is publicly available for you to read.
Engaged time is time from accepting the gig, to the time the gig ends. Waiting is included. That's it.
What you are describing is completely wrong. It's incredible how short sighted people get when they want to go all out and lash at the "evil" gig economy companies. Like really, the wording is publicly available for you to read.
Engaged time is time from accepting the gig, to the time the gig ends. Waiting is included. That's it.
However, what isn't covered (and this is especially pertinent for ride sharing) is the time between ending a job and taking the next job.
While I wouldn't expect anything like full-time pay, Uber/Lyft et. al. still get a benefit of having drivers on call (lower wait times for their customers). I personally would have liked to see some compensation (within reason) for time spent on call but not on a ride. Not sure how easy it would be to make both a fair and reasonably un-cheatable system, but its something that should have been considered.
While I wouldn't expect anything like full-time pay, Uber/Lyft et. al. still get a benefit of having drivers on call (lower wait times for their customers). I personally would have liked to see some compensation (within reason) for time spent on call but not on a ride. Not sure how easy it would be to make both a fair and reasonably un-cheatable system, but its something that should have been considered.
They essentially do this at times with their bonuses, for example to setup a new geo area or to ensure rides in a certain area.
However if you incentive being on call no matter what, you get drivers driving to the mountains to get their guaranteed pay.
However if you incentive being on call no matter what, you get drivers driving to the mountains to get their guaranteed pay.
This is correct. Although it's also true that drivers may have to spend quite a bit of time waiting for a job to become available, which doesn't count as engaged time.
> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not.
Does the app give him the contact info for each of his passengers after every ride so that he can own the business relationship with them? If not then he's an employee, not an independent contractor. The number of hours worked per month is a complete red herring.
Does the app give him the contact info for each of his passengers after every ride so that he can own the business relationship with them? If not then he's an employee, not an independent contractor. The number of hours worked per month is a complete red herring.
If a furniture company gives you a contract to build them some chairs, do they give you the contact info for each person who buys a chair from them? Why would that make the chair manufacturer an employee of the retailer?
Moreover, how is this not available to the driver? They're in the car with the passenger already. The driver and passenger could exchange contact info if they wanted to, how is Uber going to stop them? This doesn't happen not because Uber is preventing it but because the passenger is. The next time they need a ride they don't want to have to call five drivers to find one who is in the area and available, they want to open the app and have it find one for them.
Moreover, how is this not available to the driver? They're in the car with the passenger already. The driver and passenger could exchange contact info if they wanted to, how is Uber going to stop them? This doesn't happen not because Uber is preventing it but because the passenger is. The next time they need a ride they don't want to have to call five drivers to find one who is in the area and available, they want to open the app and have it find one for them.
The "furniture company" analogy is specious.
Uber doesn't claim to be a transportation company.
It claims to be a marketplace, putting transportation consumers in touch with providers. Except it "owns" the customer relationship and dictates many aspects of the provider activity and equipment.
Uber doesn't claim to be a transportation company.
It claims to be a marketplace, putting transportation consumers in touch with providers. Except it "owns" the customer relationship and dictates many aspects of the provider activity and equipment.
>If a furniture company gives you a contract to build them some chairs, do they give you the contact info for each person who buys a chair from them
No, you put your brand on the chairs and if the customer likes them they can buy from you again.
And I imagine Uber does forbid selling other services during rides. If not, I feel like Uber rides would be full of people pushing multi-level marketing.
No, you put your brand on the chairs and if the customer likes them they can buy from you again.
And I imagine Uber does forbid selling other services during rides. If not, I feel like Uber rides would be full of people pushing multi-level marketing.
More than half of my Ubers in Las Vegas were pushing other services, handing out business cards for me to cut Uber out of the loop for the next ride, offering to take us to strip clubs for free, or something else.
If Uber wants to crack down on this, it's openly happening in Vegas.
If Uber wants to crack down on this, it's openly happening in Vegas.
Why are you even participating in conversation when you have not researched this at all? Uber doesn't forbid selling other services. Your point stands on flimsy sticks that are purely from your imagination.
Uber has signed deals allowing their drivers to sell other products during trips, I still bet its banned and poorly enforced at least.
https://www.uber.com/newsroom/uber-cargo-teaming-raise-prote...
https://www.uber.com/newsroom/uber-cargo-teaming-raise-prote...
> I still bet
Full stop, this is when you cross the line into baseless speculation.
Unless you have solid objective facts, it's disingenuous to continue propping up an argument with meritless speculation.
Full stop, this is when you cross the line into baseless speculation.
Unless you have solid objective facts, it's disingenuous to continue propping up an argument with meritless speculation.
Objective fact, someone was willing to pay Uber for the right to sell to their customers. Uber seems to have some amount of control.
> No, you put your brand on the chairs and if the customer likes them they can buy from you again.
In what way is this different than putting your phone number inside your car where the passenger can take it down if they want it?
> And I imagine Uber does forbid selling other services during rides. If not, I feel like Uber rides would be full of people pushing multi-level marketing.
I can't actually find the Uber driver agreement on the internet, but pyramid schemes are illegal, and drivers who peddle scummy garbage to passengers are liable to get bad reviews, so there is no reason to expect that a lack of this would have to be because Uber prohibits it.
In what way is this different than putting your phone number inside your car where the passenger can take it down if they want it?
> And I imagine Uber does forbid selling other services during rides. If not, I feel like Uber rides would be full of people pushing multi-level marketing.
I can't actually find the Uber driver agreement on the internet, but pyramid schemes are illegal, and drivers who peddle scummy garbage to passengers are liable to get bad reviews, so there is no reason to expect that a lack of this would have to be because Uber prohibits it.
>but pyramid schemes are illegal, and drivers who peddle scummy garbage to passengers are liable to get bad reviews, so there is no reason to expect that a lack of this would have to be because Uber prohibits it.
Multi-level marketing is still common, and often the payoff might be worth your rating getting tanked.
If nothing else, it seems like stories of this happening would be common. Even just "if you listen to my fifteen minute thing on timeshares, I'll pay for your ride."
Multi-level marketing is still common, and often the payoff might be worth your rating getting tanked.
If nothing else, it seems like stories of this happening would be common. Even just "if you listen to my fifteen minute thing on timeshares, I'll pay for your ride."
You might be able to put your brand on it, but there is nothing forbidding a company from contracting with another company to make a product and put their own house brand on it.
Happens all the time, see the equate brand at Walmart or the Kroger brand at Kroger
Sure those are larger scale but there is nothing stopping Acme Furniture from contacting with Joe Woodworker to make them some chairs branded Acme Furniture where the customer has no idea who Joe Woodworker is nor is Joe Woodworker an employee of Acme Furniture
This is not uncommon in the Services industry as well, hell Software development is full of Subcontracting where Company A will contract development to Company B who will hire Freelancer C to do the work, Company A may never know who Freelance C is, and to the extend they do they may not know the contractual relationship between Company B and freelance C (i.e are they an employee or a contractor)
This happens in alot of industries and has since the dawn of employment, Uber just has a different scale
Happens all the time, see the equate brand at Walmart or the Kroger brand at Kroger
Sure those are larger scale but there is nothing stopping Acme Furniture from contacting with Joe Woodworker to make them some chairs branded Acme Furniture where the customer has no idea who Joe Woodworker is nor is Joe Woodworker an employee of Acme Furniture
This is not uncommon in the Services industry as well, hell Software development is full of Subcontracting where Company A will contract development to Company B who will hire Freelancer C to do the work, Company A may never know who Freelance C is, and to the extend they do they may not know the contractual relationship between Company B and freelance C (i.e are they an employee or a contractor)
This happens in alot of industries and has since the dawn of employment, Uber just has a different scale
> you put your brand on the chairs and if the customer likes them they can buy from you again
When I go to a new city, I make note of great Uber drivers. I then hire them directly. Often, they become a porter of sorts. I pay them to drive but also e.g. for taking out laundry and recommending places of interest.
When I go to a new city, I make note of great Uber drivers. I then hire them directly. Often, they become a porter of sorts. I pay them to drive but also e.g. for taking out laundry and recommending places of interest.
> I then hire them directly.
Which can get them kicked off the app, and leave them with tens of thousands of dollars in car loans that they have no way of repaying. That's what makes them employees and not independent contractors, the fact that they aren't allowed to do this.
Which can get them kicked off the app, and leave them with tens of thousands of dollars in car loans that they have no way of repaying. That's what makes them employees and not independent contractors, the fact that they aren't allowed to do this.
> Which can get them kicked off the app
Can you cite a single example of this?
Can you cite a single example of this?
> and leave them with tens of thousands of dollars in car loans that they have no way of repaying
This assumes every single driver on the platform is a debtor of subprime auto loans.
This assumes every single driver on the platform is a debtor of subprime auto loans.
The furniture company takes on all the risk when they buy inventory. Uber drivers provide a service
So they took the risk building an infrastructure. What's the difference?
Should this binary classification, devised prior to this whole model of work was invented, still exist?
It's like not updating your horse carriage road laws to accommodate automobiles; because everything is either a pedestrian or a horse carriage. If there's no horse, a car isn't a vehicle; it's a pedestrian.
Makes no sense.
If you think Uber drives deserve more than 120% of min wage, then you can argue that, but I don't see why you have to argue employee vs IC.
P.S. Most Uber drivers, when independently polled, are for Prop 22. It's the unions that were pushing this, so they can collect union dues and grow their revenues.
It's like not updating your horse carriage road laws to accommodate automobiles; because everything is either a pedestrian or a horse carriage. If there's no horse, a car isn't a vehicle; it's a pedestrian.
Makes no sense.
If you think Uber drives deserve more than 120% of min wage, then you can argue that, but I don't see why you have to argue employee vs IC.
P.S. Most Uber drivers, when independently polled, are for Prop 22. It's the unions that were pushing this, so they can collect union dues and grow their revenues.
Your automobile analogy is actually extremely apt because when the car was invented and "jay drivers" (the original term) began killing hundreds of thousands of people, public consensus began to form around strictly limiting the speed of cars.
The auto industry successfully lobbied local legislatures and shifted public opinion through a massive marketing campaign in order to create the crime of "jaywalking". This is how our city streets went from shared spaces to the exclusive territory of drivers (much to the benefit of the auto industry).
Same thing is happening here. Perhaps a new class of labor does need to be created, but in a just world that would be happening on the terms of the workers, not the corporations.
The auto industry successfully lobbied local legislatures and shifted public opinion through a massive marketing campaign in order to create the crime of "jaywalking". This is how our city streets went from shared spaces to the exclusive territory of drivers (much to the benefit of the auto industry).
Same thing is happening here. Perhaps a new class of labor does need to be created, but in a just world that would be happening on the terms of the workers, not the corporations.
I have heard this story multiple times. But if it's true, then why are roads pretty much the same, as concerns walking vs driving, wherever you go in the world?
If things would have naturally been different if only it weren't for some lobbyists, how come things aren't that way at least somewhere?
If things would have naturally been different if only it weren't for some lobbyists, how come things aren't that way at least somewhere?
Well roads do vary in their physical form and the social norms that govern their use in different parts of the world based on a lot of factors.
But I would say roads in developed areas are pretty much the same everywhere because cars are only made one way. The social consensus I mentioned was moving towards requiring a governor on cars that would shut their engines off if they exceeded 25 mph. If that had succeeded and endured, roads would look very different. But the economic effects that cars produce in accelerating the free flow of commodities, labor, and capital necessitated a rupture with the established order so that automobiles could continue to develop to be bigger, faster, and more powerful.
The similarities in road form and norms around the world represent an equilibrium between the current level of car technology and the amount of injury and death resulting from their use that society can metabolize.
But I would say roads in developed areas are pretty much the same everywhere because cars are only made one way. The social consensus I mentioned was moving towards requiring a governor on cars that would shut their engines off if they exceeded 25 mph. If that had succeeded and endured, roads would look very different. But the economic effects that cars produce in accelerating the free flow of commodities, labor, and capital necessitated a rupture with the established order so that automobiles could continue to develop to be bigger, faster, and more powerful.
The similarities in road form and norms around the world represent an equilibrium between the current level of car technology and the amount of injury and death resulting from their use that society can metabolize.
I too wish roads could somehow be shared spaces again.
But let's not fall into these simplistic black and white anti-establishment narratives. The automobile massively expanded personal liberty and employment options. Some of these effects were very pro-worker, like reducing the power of the dominant employers of localities, by letting workers more easily pull up stakes and find a new home in a different locality, or simply commute to a more distant employer.
No conversation about the impact of the car is complete without mentioning the benefits it provided to society.
But let's not fall into these simplistic black and white anti-establishment narratives. The automobile massively expanded personal liberty and employment options. Some of these effects were very pro-worker, like reducing the power of the dominant employers of localities, by letting workers more easily pull up stakes and find a new home in a different locality, or simply commute to a more distant employer.
No conversation about the impact of the car is complete without mentioning the benefits it provided to society.
Labor market fluidity isn't pro-worker, it's an essential component of the commodification of labor. It simply means the shape of a person's life is more fully suborned to the demands of the market. It means competing on a national and often international market for wages. A workforce full of transplants is much less likely to organize and resist the agenda of capital than one with deep community roots and support structures.
In any case, I wasn't attempting to present a complete analysis of the societal effects of the automobile. I was only pointing out that this is another case of corporations explicitly dictating the terms of our society and using a massive outlay of cash to facilitate that and market it to us.
In any case, I wasn't attempting to present a complete analysis of the societal effects of the automobile. I was only pointing out that this is another case of corporations explicitly dictating the terms of our society and using a massive outlay of cash to facilitate that and market it to us.
You're once again framing a nuanced phenomenon in terms of a simplistic oppressor/oppressed narrative. The fluidity of labor does not imply the commodification of labor. It implies a wider market for it, which has benefits like increasing the liquidity accessible to those with labor to sell. This marketization of labor was partially responsible for wages increasing over 20 fold, in inflation adjusted terms, since 1820.
Increasing the market for a product/service provides greater than zero sum gains for society. For instance, creating a global market for fine art doesn't make fine art less valuable. It leads to more capital being deployed to the art market, because more people are able to acquire art that they personally appreciate.
Romantacizing the pre-market past, and taking for granted the accumulated gains brought about by non centrally planned, private-sector driven processes, is a mistake.
>>In any case, I wasn't attempting to present a complete analysis of the societal effects of the automobile.
You were definitely implying that the overall impact was negative, and that's what I was responding to.
Increasing the market for a product/service provides greater than zero sum gains for society. For instance, creating a global market for fine art doesn't make fine art less valuable. It leads to more capital being deployed to the art market, because more people are able to acquire art that they personally appreciate.
Romantacizing the pre-market past, and taking for granted the accumulated gains brought about by non centrally planned, private-sector driven processes, is a mistake.
>>In any case, I wasn't attempting to present a complete analysis of the societal effects of the automobile.
You were definitely implying that the overall impact was negative, and that's what I was responding to.
> This marketization of labor was partially responsible for wages increasing over 20 fold, in inflation adjusted terms, since 1820.
What's your evidence for this claim?
What's your evidence for this claim?
Market reforms, including expansions of contracting rights for employers and employees, have as a rule been followed by increases in per capita GDP and wages. The positive impact of a reduction in restrictions on the labor market, in favor of contract rights, has been widely observed and studied by economists.
Course in the US wages have been stagnant for 40 years now.
Wage growth has slowed, but hasn't ceased altogether. Statistics showing wages not growing or diverging from productivity are due to a misapplication of the inflation index:
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/sources-of-real-wage-stag...
Anyway, the US has embarked on a massive social democracy course since 1965, so a slowdown in the rate of development is what you would expect.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/sources-of-real-wage-stag...
Anyway, the US has embarked on a massive social democracy course since 1965, so a slowdown in the rate of development is what you would expect.
I was implying that it doesn't really matter what the nature of the impact is if common people aren't the ones controlling the levers of power. I'm not romanticizing anything. I'm simply trying to draw attention to the nature of the power dynamics at play.
And I didn't say the fluidity of labor implied the commodification of labor. It's the complete opposite. The motive force of the capitalist system is the growth of capital. The commodification of labor is absolutely essential to that process.
If you want to talk about oversimplification let's talk about summing up the effects of globalization as "wages increasing 20 fold […] since 1820".
And I didn't say the fluidity of labor implied the commodification of labor. It's the complete opposite. The motive force of the capitalist system is the growth of capital. The commodification of labor is absolutely essential to that process.
If you want to talk about oversimplification let's talk about summing up the effects of globalization as "wages increasing 20 fold […] since 1820".
> P.S. Most Uber drivers, when independently polled, are for Prop 22. It's the unions that were pushing this, so they can collect union dues and grow their revenues.
I wonder if this would remain true if you weighted by the number of drives given, there certainly seems to be a distinction between part time and full time drivers. The former could be more numerous while Uber depends on the latter to provide the bulk of their supply.
I wonder if this would remain true if you weighted by the number of drives given, there certainly seems to be a distinction between part time and full time drivers. The former could be more numerous while Uber depends on the latter to provide the bulk of their supply.
Prop 22 allows for treating drivers differently based on how many hours per week they drive. Previously a gig economy company needed to decide how to classify their entire workforce (a single driver treated as an employee meant all need to be). It seems reasonable to be able to treat full time drivers like full time drivers and part time drivers like part time drivers. That's why CA voted for prop 22.
>Most Uber drivers, when independently polled, are for Prop 22. It's the unions that were pushing this, so they can collect union dues and grow their revenues.
The $200 million being discussed feels relevant to this claim. Didn't some companies even spread their take to their "employees" through their job apps and other direct communication? I bet even the "blame the union" came from information those companies paid for.
The $200 million being discussed feels relevant to this claim. Didn't some companies even spread their take to their "employees" through their job apps and other direct communication? I bet even the "blame the union" came from information those companies paid for.
I was once hired as a contractor to help a web shop build websites for companies like Toyota. I didn't receive the contact information for Toyota so I could continue my business relationship with them independently.
You were an employee of some org that had a contract with Toyota. Or a contractor for an org who had a contract with Toyota.
Whoever pays you is the entity you have a relation with.
Whoever pays you is the entity you have a relation with.
We should let the market evolve on its own as long as no one is forcing someone else to do the job. How the hell is a lawmaker in charge of the definition of a job? Uber just wanted to define it for themselves. Someone else that hates that model can try and do something different, or run marketing ads against people becoming drivers if it's that dangerous.
Don't you think Uber giving out peoples contact information like that would be a gross violation of riders privacy? If the driver wants they can ask the rider for their contact info (although I would find that kinda creepy).
That's their point. It would be creepy because the rider is not actually contracting with the driver.
The driver is an employee of Uber, so it would be creepy for them to have your info. If they were someone you hired, that's not weird.
The driver is an employee of Uber, so it would be creepy for them to have your info. If they were someone you hired, that's not weird.
Your relationship cannot be determined by this example.
You could be an employee or contractor for uber. In either case driving someone is a service you provide to Uber customers.
You could be an employee or contractor for uber. In either case driving someone is a service you provide to Uber customers.
> In either case driving someone is a service you provide to Uber customers.
No. Look at https://arcade.city. Their drivers are independent business operators, because they own the relationship with the riders. Uber drivers not only don't own the relationship with riders, but they're forbidden from owning it, which is what makes them employees. It's literally against the terms of service for Uber drivers to act as independent business owners, despite the expensive PR campaigns they run for regulators and the general public.
The CEO of Uber was literally fired for getting caught on camera berating an employee who was complaining that Travis had lowered the amount of money he was earning after the employee had taken out a huge car loan. If this driver wasn't an employee, he would have been allowed to set his own prices, so that conversation never could have even happened.
No. Look at https://arcade.city. Their drivers are independent business operators, because they own the relationship with the riders. Uber drivers not only don't own the relationship with riders, but they're forbidden from owning it, which is what makes them employees. It's literally against the terms of service for Uber drivers to act as independent business owners, despite the expensive PR campaigns they run for regulators and the general public.
The CEO of Uber was literally fired for getting caught on camera berating an employee who was complaining that Travis had lowered the amount of money he was earning after the employee had taken out a huge car loan. If this driver wasn't an employee, he would have been allowed to set his own prices, so that conversation never could have even happened.
That could be a part of the contract between driver and uber. You cannot sell to our (uber) clients while offering a service for us.
The driver can set his/her own prices. When they decide which rideshare to use many use price to determine who they want to work for. If they decide Uber they get a scaling scale / surge pricing.
The driver doesn't set the customer price. They can only control the price Uber pays them.. some have asked for more and some have walked over it.
The driver can set his/her own prices. When they decide which rideshare to use many use price to determine who they want to work for. If they decide Uber they get a scaling scale / surge pricing.
The driver doesn't set the customer price. They can only control the price Uber pays them.. some have asked for more and some have walked over it.
> who was complaining that Travis had lowered the amount of money he was earning after the employee had taken out a huge car loan.
Buying a new car was not Uber's decision and he doesn't have to drive for Uber, he can drive for other companies with that same car and even during the same hours.
He can set his own price, and Uber can say no, that's too high, find someone else to sell your service to.
Buying a new car was not Uber's decision and he doesn't have to drive for Uber, he can drive for other companies with that same car and even during the same hours.
He can set his own price, and Uber can say no, that's too high, find someone else to sell your service to.
Before Uber came along driving a cab was mostly a full time thing. My father was a cab driver for 30 years before Uber came onto the scene, and now he does Uber full time. A lot of Uber drivers I talk to are full time drivers.
Before Uber came along, flexible jobs that you could engage with at any point in time didn't really exist either.
The "glass half full" way to think of it is that Uber bought work flexibility; and as it turns out the labor market values this flexibility with slightly lower wages.
If you think we should out-regulate that, should we ban part time jobs too? How about we ban unpaid time off?
Any barriers to work (i.e. regulation) just accelerates AI taking over all the jobs. Anything that drives up the cost of labour, just means more automation like self-serve kiosks or robo security guards today; and who knows what tomorrow.
If you want to solve societal inequality and provide a safety net, which is something I 100% back, do that through taxation + a universal basic income.
The "glass half full" way to think of it is that Uber bought work flexibility; and as it turns out the labor market values this flexibility with slightly lower wages.
If you think we should out-regulate that, should we ban part time jobs too? How about we ban unpaid time off?
Any barriers to work (i.e. regulation) just accelerates AI taking over all the jobs. Anything that drives up the cost of labour, just means more automation like self-serve kiosks or robo security guards today; and who knows what tomorrow.
If you want to solve societal inequality and provide a safety net, which is something I 100% back, do that through taxation + a universal basic income.
Piece work has existed for at least 500 years[1] and those were definitely "flexible jobs that you could engage with at any point in time." Unsurprisingly, piece-work employment also suffered from many labor issues[2]. Uber is just piece work for giving rides, and so should be governed by laws that protect piece-workers[3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Guild_system
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Abuse
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Minimum_wage
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Guild_system
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Abuse
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Minimum_wage
> flexible jobs that you could engage with at any point in time didn't really exist either
Sure they did, we called them “cottage industries”. You’ve always been able to buy from a farmer’s market or small general stores (who source a lot of their merchandise from random craftsmen). Craigslist pre-dates Uber, and classified ads pre-dates Craigslist. There are stores around the world specializing in hand-made and home-made items. Independent contractors have existed since the beginning of civilization, and any city in the world will have a generic handyman service for work around the house.
My wife just sold four candles, Uber wasn’t involved with that. My grandmother knits dishclothes and sells them to a local shop for distribution whenever she decides to go into town, Uber didn’t invent that.
Sure they did, we called them “cottage industries”. You’ve always been able to buy from a farmer’s market or small general stores (who source a lot of their merchandise from random craftsmen). Craigslist pre-dates Uber, and classified ads pre-dates Craigslist. There are stores around the world specializing in hand-made and home-made items. Independent contractors have existed since the beginning of civilization, and any city in the world will have a generic handyman service for work around the house.
My wife just sold four candles, Uber wasn’t involved with that. My grandmother knits dishclothes and sells them to a local shop for distribution whenever she decides to go into town, Uber didn’t invent that.
Do you have insight into your father's perspective between the two? I've heard that cab driving, particularly in major metropolitan areas, was a racket in it's own sense (in terms of medallions being a form of indentured servitude) but I'd be curious if Uber has alleviated some of this or just caused people to leap from the frying pan into the fire.
I drove a cab for a summer after college, just before uber blew up.
The lease for the cab was high enough ($600+/wk) that I had to drive ~30 hours to break even, and the rest was profit, usually another 20 hours over the weekend.
Unless you were sharing a lease with another driver, it would've been impossible to work it as part time.
So I would see a benefit to uber over that arrangement except for uber if your car breaks you're out of luck. With a cab, i'd take it to the shop and get another one. Granted they were all pretty beat up crown vics.
The real winners were the owners of the cab company. Like you said, they held the medallions and thus most of the leverage.
The lease for the cab was high enough ($600+/wk) that I had to drive ~30 hours to break even, and the rest was profit, usually another 20 hours over the weekend.
Unless you were sharing a lease with another driver, it would've been impossible to work it as part time.
So I would see a benefit to uber over that arrangement except for uber if your car breaks you're out of luck. With a cab, i'd take it to the shop and get another one. Granted they were all pretty beat up crown vics.
The real winners were the owners of the cab company. Like you said, they held the medallions and thus most of the leverage.
It wasn’t really profit - it was the money to pay your own wage. Now, if you took say $10 an hour out, it might be fair to say the rest is profit.
Profit is revenue minus expenses. Employees don't do this calculation, as the employer normally pays for all work expenses. Their paycheck is pure profit -- no expenses to account for. As such, people don't really think of paychecks in these terms, so it sounds strange.
It makes sense in the comment above, as the cab driver actually has work expenses that they pay for out of pocket and are not reimbursed for.
It makes sense in the comment above, as the cab driver actually has work expenses that they pay for out of pocket and are not reimbursed for.
It starts as a gross value and after taxes, ei/old age is taken out it becomes a much smaller net value.
> So I would see a benefit to uber over that arrangement except for uber if your car breaks you're out of luck. With a cab, i'd take it to the shop and get another one
Uber drivers can rent their car by the week.
Uber drivers can rent their car by the week.
Did he collect unemployment, which he does not pay into, during Covid? What is the max payout for his insurance as we’ll need to cover the rest since he is not covered by workers compensation? I could go on, but the point isn’t to protect him, the point is to protect us from picking up the bill for things he and Uber are not paying into.
I think you’re misreading our situation. We run phone and computer repair shops as our primary business. Uber is his part-time side gig.
We do pay into unemployment, as we are both salaried workers of our own business.
He did not take unemployment during Covid. Our stores were considered essential, so they stayed open.
That is pretty much the point of part-time driving. You have a full-time job or business that pays the bills and you just want some extra cash.
The extra cash from Uber enabled him to pay off his car quickly and continues to provide extra money for our family. It is not a full-time income, nor do we ever expect it to be.
This is our situation, and I understand that others are different. However, you specifically asked about him, so I replied with our details.
We do pay into unemployment, as we are both salaried workers of our own business.
He did not take unemployment during Covid. Our stores were considered essential, so they stayed open.
That is pretty much the point of part-time driving. You have a full-time job or business that pays the bills and you just want some extra cash.
The extra cash from Uber enabled him to pay off his car quickly and continues to provide extra money for our family. It is not a full-time income, nor do we ever expect it to be.
This is our situation, and I understand that others are different. However, you specifically asked about him, so I replied with our details.
I don't understand how part time employment requires him to be classified as a contractor, not an employee.
I'd say part of being a contractor is setting your own hours. If you determine when or where you do a thing for a company, it feels like contracting to me.
Being a contractor means setting your own contracts. Choosing hours is part of that, but you can offer flexible hours to part-time employees to the extent your business permits, nothing saying you can't.
Isn't every time you confirm a ride a contract?
Yes, but not the way you are constructing it. The driver doesn't get to set the price, and there are downsides to declining the fare. Additionally there is no relationship established between the driver and the rider. The carriage contract is between Uber/Lyft and the rider. The platform is then hiring the driver to fulfill their end of the contract. The driver and rider have no ability to form future contracts, unless they break the terms of service and exchange information during the ride. The business models could be tweaked to accommodate proper contractor relationships, but then Uber wouldn't be able to achieve their goal, which is monopoly control over public transit.
I don't get to walk in to a shop and set the price I pay for goods. They have items with an implicit offer for sale. I can either take or reject the contract.
It's a 3 way relationship between driver, passenger with Uber facilitating that relationship. Uber owns the passengers and they offer drivers the ability to fulfill the potential-passengers.
Maybe this would be clearer if Uber offered an API for the driver side so they wouldn't be forced to use the app and thus muddy the relationship.
It's a 3 way relationship between driver, passenger with Uber facilitating that relationship. Uber owns the passengers and they offer drivers the ability to fulfill the potential-passengers.
Maybe this would be clearer if Uber offered an API for the driver side so they wouldn't be forced to use the app and thus muddy the relationship.
Interestingly, in your example it is often quite possible to negotiate or haggle on price when you are dealing with an independent agent. Employees who don’t have that agency in the business are unable to budge on price.
I can’t completely tell whether you are agreeing with me or not, but I think that example reinforces that Uber drivers are exploited employees with the benefit of a flexible schedule.
I can’t completely tell whether you are agreeing with me or not, but I think that example reinforces that Uber drivers are exploited employees with the benefit of a flexible schedule.
I 100% am not agreeing with your position.
I was coming at it from the point of view of the customer.
Negotiating a sale price is not exclusive to independent agents. Some stores and indeed some chains will allow their employees(supervisor/manager) to accept a lower price. That is not exclusive to or indicative of an independent contractor.
Someone who drives for Uber has the agency to turn down work that Uber puts in front of them with 0 reason needed to be given (either to customer or Uber).
Related, if a software contracting firm says: 'hey, there's a gig that pays $x an hour, no negotiations - do you want it?'
I don't suddenly become an employee of the firm I'm contracting for just because I didn't get a chance to negotiate the price. I had agency to accept or decline the contract.
If I'm going for a job as an employee and negotiate my salary, they don't suddenly mark me down as a contractor.
I was coming at it from the point of view of the customer.
Negotiating a sale price is not exclusive to independent agents. Some stores and indeed some chains will allow their employees(supervisor/manager) to accept a lower price. That is not exclusive to or indicative of an independent contractor.
Someone who drives for Uber has the agency to turn down work that Uber puts in front of them with 0 reason needed to be given (either to customer or Uber).
Related, if a software contracting firm says: 'hey, there's a gig that pays $x an hour, no negotiations - do you want it?'
I don't suddenly become an employee of the firm I'm contracting for just because I didn't get a chance to negotiate the price. I had agency to accept or decline the contract.
If I'm going for a job as an employee and negotiate my salary, they don't suddenly mark me down as a contractor.
No doubt, Uber has responded to regulatory pressure by making minor concessions in a (now successful) attempt to circumvent State law.
> Related, if a software contracting firm says: 'hey, there's a gig that pays $x an hour, no negotiations - do you want it?'
That's not what is happening here. The driver and the rider are not forming a carriage contract. Uber is forming a contract with the rider, and employing drivers to fulfill those contracts. Even with the concessions Uber has offered, they are still using their platform power to control activity via incentives, and whatever games they play with the algorithm once the heat is off. At the end of the day, as long as the labor pool remains unorganized, Uber still retains pricing power.
None of these drivers own the customer relationship (again, they are not forming a contract with the riders). That means that (without violating the TOS) these drivers are not holding any equity in the business. In your proposed scenario, if you accept the software contract and do good work, there is a likelihood of more work at higher rates, and increased business through word of mouth. With no opportunity to build wealth, I can't imagine how rideshare drivers would be considered independent.
It's fine to look at the problem from a customer-centric viewpoint, and I realize that doing so has been a fairly orthodox economic strategy for the past 50 years, but that doesn't make it correct or good. None of the ride share companies seem to be able to turn a profit, even with a questionable model built on exploiting labor laws, yet they had $200M to pass Prop22. That kind of strategy only makes sense if your goal is to gain a monopoly position, and it is right to oppose these companies in doing so. Devaluing labor maybe optimal for some individuals, but it's bad for labor as a whole, which is exactly why we pass law that raise the floor.
> Related, if a software contracting firm says: 'hey, there's a gig that pays $x an hour, no negotiations - do you want it?'
That's not what is happening here. The driver and the rider are not forming a carriage contract. Uber is forming a contract with the rider, and employing drivers to fulfill those contracts. Even with the concessions Uber has offered, they are still using their platform power to control activity via incentives, and whatever games they play with the algorithm once the heat is off. At the end of the day, as long as the labor pool remains unorganized, Uber still retains pricing power.
None of these drivers own the customer relationship (again, they are not forming a contract with the riders). That means that (without violating the TOS) these drivers are not holding any equity in the business. In your proposed scenario, if you accept the software contract and do good work, there is a likelihood of more work at higher rates, and increased business through word of mouth. With no opportunity to build wealth, I can't imagine how rideshare drivers would be considered independent.
It's fine to look at the problem from a customer-centric viewpoint, and I realize that doing so has been a fairly orthodox economic strategy for the past 50 years, but that doesn't make it correct or good. None of the ride share companies seem to be able to turn a profit, even with a questionable model built on exploiting labor laws, yet they had $200M to pass Prop22. That kind of strategy only makes sense if your goal is to gain a monopoly position, and it is right to oppose these companies in doing so. Devaluing labor maybe optimal for some individuals, but it's bad for labor as a whole, which is exactly why we pass law that raise the floor.
Actually the driver does set the price. They get to set whatever multiplier they desire and can effectively set the price to whatever they believe is fair.
Couple things:
1. Yes, in California only, effective in July of this year. I.E. regulation having an intended effect, increasing worker power.
2. The contract is still between the rideshare company the rider, not between the driver and the rider. An actual IC relationship would give the rider and driver the ability to opt-in to a provider-customer relationship and easily create future contracts with each other. Uber's model (monopoly power) necessitates their involvement, which is basically the source of conflict here. Their model is incompatible with giving the drivers actual independence.
1. Yes, in California only, effective in July of this year. I.E. regulation having an intended effect, increasing worker power.
2. The contract is still between the rideshare company the rider, not between the driver and the rider. An actual IC relationship would give the rider and driver the ability to opt-in to a provider-customer relationship and easily create future contracts with each other. Uber's model (monopoly power) necessitates their involvement, which is basically the source of conflict here. Their model is incompatible with giving the drivers actual independence.
Could you address the insurance and workers compensation issue? Does your husbands auto insurance have a maximum payout? Otherwise we as a society will end up picking up the unpaid medical bills over that amount.
There are many others, but these two are the most egregious.
There are many others, but these two are the most egregious.
Bro, I'm picking up the bill for your kids (or if you're childless then someone's kids) to go to school. So maybe stop with this nonsensical view of society where you have to cover all your costs.
Obviously some of us net positive into the government. That's how society works.
Obviously some of us net positive into the government. That's how society works.
Because other people specifically do have to pay into workers compensation because we collectively decided everyone should.
Her husband and Uber are gaming the system to avoid that responsibility.
Her husband and Uber are gaming the system to avoid that responsibility.
And it should be mentioned again that Uber drivers out of work are currently receiving benefits that Uber avoided paying into.
The fact that Congress provided some relief to self-employed people during a once in a century disaster is absolutely not a good reason to reclassify people as employees.
Businesses got billions in forgivable loans to simply not fire the people they'd hired, it seems reasonable that self-employed people get some help.
Businesses got billions in forgivable loans to simply not fire the people they'd hired, it seems reasonable that self-employed people get some help.
> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. I understand that some people want it to be full-time, but I wish they would stop trying to make Uber something it’s not.
And this is the case… why? I could just as easily say “I understand that some people want Uber to be part-time, but I wish they would stop trying to make it something it’s not.”
And this is the case… why? I could just as easily say “I understand that some people want Uber to be part-time, but I wish they would stop trying to make it something it’s not.”
Well there are tons of companies for people who want full time employment (it's basically the default). It's good for people to have another option.
I want the option for my 12 year old to work in a coal mine. It's good for people to have another option.
Lots of labor laws exist that prevent people from working jobs they could work without those laws. This individuals will likely be against those laws. It doesn't mean those laws are bad for society.
Lots of labor laws exist that prevent people from working jobs they could work without those laws. This individuals will likely be against those laws. It doesn't mean those laws are bad for society.
I don't follow. Are you arguing that the very concept of part-time labor is or could be exploitative?
If not, then the problem with Uber isn't the part-time-ness, and forcing the job to be full time is a very awkward way to try to fix the exploitation.
If not, then the problem with Uber isn't the part-time-ness, and forcing the job to be full time is a very awkward way to try to fix the exploitation.
I am saying having more options is not inherently good and the will of the individual working should not be the ultimate deciding factor in labor law. What is best for an individual Uber driver is not necessarily what is best for society as a whole or even the population of all Uber drivers.
Just like we need to protect the 12 year old who voluntary enters a coal mine, we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car.
Just like we need to protect the 12 year old who voluntary enters a coal mine, we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car.
> we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car.
By "protect" you seem to suggest "outlaw the thing they want to do".
Can you imagine how outraged you'd feel, to be treated the way you're suggesting treating others?
How would you like for the state to say:
"Hey, /u/slg, for your own protection, you're not allowed to eat sugar anymore. It is now illegal to buy and sell sugar. You'll be fined if you try to purchase sugar, and if you're found with sugar in your house, you'll be taken to jail. These threats are, of course, for your protection, as the harmful effects of sugar are well-established."
By "protect" you seem to suggest "outlaw the thing they want to do".
Can you imagine how outraged you'd feel, to be treated the way you're suggesting treating others?
How would you like for the state to say:
"Hey, /u/slg, for your own protection, you're not allowed to eat sugar anymore. It is now illegal to buy and sell sugar. You'll be fined if you try to purchase sugar, and if you're found with sugar in your house, you'll be taken to jail. These threats are, of course, for your protection, as the harmful effects of sugar are well-established."
You can make that exact same argument against labor laws, consumer protection laws, building codes, etc. "How would you like for the state to tell you that you can't buy a house with lead paint?"
Yes, I can imagine being outraged in that situation. However I would also understand this is how life in a society works. Sometimes my personal needs come second to the needs of the society.
I don't personally agree with the US's war on drugs for example. There is probably an argument that on total sugar is more damaging to American society than marijuana. If society decided to ban sugar, I wouldn't be thrilled, but I would understand it.
I don't personally agree with the US's war on drugs for example. There is probably an argument that on total sugar is more damaging to American society than marijuana. If society decided to ban sugar, I wouldn't be thrilled, but I would understand it.
We might need to, but my default position is that we do not want the government to interfere with someone's pursuit of happiness in the general case.
I wouldn't be nearly as outraged at Prop 22 if it simply repealed AB5. However it goes much beyond that. It is a proactive law that prevents new and better laws from being created. It creates a new protection for these companies.
This isn't a win for small government.
This isn't a win for small government.
Because part-time has been the main description of the job since the company started.
I think the question if the law make sense or not is somehow distracting us from a bigger problem.
The big problem I see is that it is perfectly clear that the decision factor was money put into political campaign done not by politicians, which are sort of accountable for what they do (they might not just get elected), but by people who simply had enough money.
Democracy sort of worked because elected representatives were supposed to make law based on justice and ethics and common interest. Right now law is made because someone was able to pull out enough money to buy particular regulation.
There is some democratic ceremony around all this, but this is just a ceremony. The ancient Rome citizens also thought that they have democracy in the times of triumvirate, but this was also a show.
The big problem I see is that it is perfectly clear that the decision factor was money put into political campaign done not by politicians, which are sort of accountable for what they do (they might not just get elected), but by people who simply had enough money.
Democracy sort of worked because elected representatives were supposed to make law based on justice and ethics and common interest. Right now law is made because someone was able to pull out enough money to buy particular regulation.
There is some democratic ceremony around all this, but this is just a ceremony. The ancient Rome citizens also thought that they have democracy in the times of triumvirate, but this was also a show.
Money can't buy you everything in politics. MA had ballot question #2, where the proponents raised an estimated $10M and the opponents raised an estimated $3500. (opponents were out-raised 3000:1)
The ballot initiative failed around 55%-45%, despite a massive difference in fundraising (and presumably associated spending).
The ballot initiative failed around 55%-45%, despite a massive difference in fundraising (and presumably associated spending).
It is completely false that this Passed purely because they spent alot of money
Your belief on that is based on reporting bias, reporters never talk about when an initiative's that went counter to the HUGE amounts of money poured in (for or against), for example the Right to repair in MA which has huge money from all the major auto manufacturers, and an ad campaign claiming that if you voted for right to repair rapists would get your garage codes...
It is click bait to talk about how "company X bought regulation" but it is rarely true, even in CA there were a few ballot measures this year that failed even with massive amounts of money being spent on supporting them.
Money in politics if often used as a scapegoat to explain away why some issue failed, or some issue succeed with out having to accept the fact that majority disagreed with you, as it often hard to admit that the majority rejects your world view
Your belief on that is based on reporting bias, reporters never talk about when an initiative's that went counter to the HUGE amounts of money poured in (for or against), for example the Right to repair in MA which has huge money from all the major auto manufacturers, and an ad campaign claiming that if you voted for right to repair rapists would get your garage codes...
It is click bait to talk about how "company X bought regulation" but it is rarely true, even in CA there were a few ballot measures this year that failed even with massive amounts of money being spent on supporting them.
Money in politics if often used as a scapegoat to explain away why some issue failed, or some issue succeed with out having to accept the fact that majority disagreed with you, as it often hard to admit that the majority rejects your world view
> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not.
According to you. It's clearly a full time job for most drivers. The fact that you think it shouldn't be doesn't change that.
What do you expect full time taxi drivers to do exactly? Go back to working for local taxi companies and get zero customers?
According to you. It's clearly a full time job for most drivers. The fact that you think it shouldn't be doesn't change that.
What do you expect full time taxi drivers to do exactly? Go back to working for local taxi companies and get zero customers?
Anecdotally, I feel like at least 1/3 of my Uber/Lyft rides are from someone that I'd categorize as a part-timer. (I almost always chat with my driver and ask about their experience driving.) From that (and the much larger number of hours a full-time driver would drive), I conclude that there are probably more part-time drivers than full-time drivers.
If there are some months that he only makes a few hundred dollars, it's possible that you're actually losing money on depreciation (even if you're net positive on current costs like gas and maintenance). This is something that I see very few drivers talk about but influences your earnings significantly.
Depreciation is a real cost. If at the time you sell your car your car, you get $X, but driving for Uber caused you to have more miles and thus sell for $X-$Y, then Y is real cost. Even if you don't sell your car and instead drive your it into the ground, the extra miles you're driving for Uber cause your car to fail faster.
I get the sense that many part time drivers think they're making money when instead they're losing it (or maybe making less than minimum wage after expenses).
Depreciation is a real cost. If at the time you sell your car your car, you get $X, but driving for Uber caused you to have more miles and thus sell for $X-$Y, then Y is real cost. Even if you don't sell your car and instead drive your it into the ground, the extra miles you're driving for Uber cause your car to fail faster.
I get the sense that many part time drivers think they're making money when instead they're losing it (or maybe making less than minimum wage after expenses).
I hear this thrown around a lot, but to the best I can discern, it is simply unfounded. Uber and Lyft seem to pay between $1-$2 a mile. There are sites where you can put in the model and year of your car and get real life depreciation figures. Unless you're ubering around in a McLaren, you're just not depreciating at a higher rate than what Uber pays.
Prius, probably the most common ride sharing car, has a total cost, including fuel, depreciation, and maintenance, of about $0.39 cents per mile.
Prius, probably the most common ride sharing car, has a total cost, including fuel, depreciation, and maintenance, of about $0.39 cents per mile.
Shhhh... You're devaluing lyft and Uber stock with your arithmetic! /s of course you're right but this lack of accounting for vehicle depreciation (not to mention a very high liability risk for every minute on the road) is rooted deeply in American's sunk cost fallacy with motor vehicle ownership. It's almost a genetic instinct at this point and for every person who does the math and realizes it doesn't work out there's another who won't care
I find it incredibly hard to believe depreciation would be that significant of a factor if someone driving part time is pulling in hundreds or occasionally a thousand a month. They’d have to be reducing a new car down to a total loss every couple of years, just through ubering. Doesn’t make sense.
Good thing they added that clause about how it needs a 7/8ths majority to repeal, ensuring this special law will be with us forever
That sounds constitutionally suspicious. Think it will stand up in court?
Just to be clear: I'm assuming you're employed with traditional benefits, so your husband is on your insurance et. al.? Is "you have to have a spouse with a traditional job" really what you imagine "the way Uber was originally envisioned?"
That seems to be sorta missing the point. People don't want "Uber to BE a full-time job", they just want it to be possible for it to replace one.
> I still think we need a third class of employment, but that’s not what was on the table here.
Really what this is proof of is that employer benefits are a fundamentally broken idea. Employers will always, ALWAYS find ways to cheat their way around providing them when they can. Regulation will always be catching up.
Back in 2009, I thought the hippies were crazy to be staking so much on their failed quest for a public option in the ACA. Now? Sign me up as a M4A proponent. The system's just broken.
That seems to be sorta missing the point. People don't want "Uber to BE a full-time job", they just want it to be possible for it to replace one.
> I still think we need a third class of employment, but that’s not what was on the table here.
Really what this is proof of is that employer benefits are a fundamentally broken idea. Employers will always, ALWAYS find ways to cheat their way around providing them when they can. Regulation will always be catching up.
Back in 2009, I thought the hippies were crazy to be staking so much on their failed quest for a public option in the ACA. Now? Sign me up as a M4A proponent. The system's just broken.
> He drives the way Uber was originally envisioned.
Especially in terms of congestion and efficiency, the "piggyback" model solves many problems and is complementary to clean air campaigns that governments spend millions on.
Especially in terms of congestion and efficiency, the "piggyback" model solves many problems and is complementary to clean air campaigns that governments spend millions on.
If you want to understand Trump‘s original appeal to working class America, consider what it would take to convince high-income San Franciscans that drivers were not duped into supporting 22. That they were competently looking out for their interests better than a detached observer can.
Just declaring "oh this is a transitory job" doesn't make it so.
Yes, according to Boomer legend, fast food joints used to be exclusively staffed by high school students for whom $8.25 is more than enough for an adequate weed supply.
But that's just not true anymore, is it? And yet, its used as argument to deny full protection (for Uber) or not raise minimum wage (my fast food example).
At the very least, it should be uncontroversial to include these assumptions in legislation: require full benefits, but only for drivers driving > 15h per week. If your assumptions hold, Uber shouldn't need to oppose this, considering they have few drivers it would apply to.
Yes, according to Boomer legend, fast food joints used to be exclusively staffed by high school students for whom $8.25 is more than enough for an adequate weed supply.
But that's just not true anymore, is it? And yet, its used as argument to deny full protection (for Uber) or not raise minimum wage (my fast food example).
At the very least, it should be uncontroversial to include these assumptions in legislation: require full benefits, but only for drivers driving > 15h per week. If your assumptions hold, Uber shouldn't need to oppose this, considering they have few drivers it would apply to.
So why people who don't want protections should be limited to 15 hours?
It's the same distinction between part time and full time work, a lot of things kick in when you work more than 35-40 hours for a company. It's not about limiting people's time it's about making sure companies don't take advantage of people. You can make a similar argument about all labor regulations, eg why limit people to 40 hours if they're willing to work more for the same pay if their employer doesn't want to pay overtime?
> You can make a similar argument about all labor regulations, eg why limit people to 40 hours if they're willing to work more for the same pay if their employer doesn't want to pay overtime?
Which is why all such regulations are ridiculous. You "help" someone by requiring higher pay for overtime, the employer responds by prohibiting overtime. The worker still wants more than 40 hours, so they take a second job, still don't get any overtime, but now they have the expense of a second commute and get paid less because the second job has to duplicate all of the employment benefits the first job was already providing instead of paying that money as wages.
Which is why all such regulations are ridiculous. You "help" someone by requiring higher pay for overtime, the employer responds by prohibiting overtime. The worker still wants more than 40 hours, so they take a second job, still don't get any overtime, but now they have the expense of a second commute and get paid less because the second job has to duplicate all of the employment benefits the first job was already providing instead of paying that money as wages.
There's no voluntary out for overtime because companies usually demanded that employees worked those longer hours and employees then and now had very little protection against retaliation if they didn't want to.
A lot of the 'employee choice' arguments depend on an illusion of free association when the employer has almost all the power to set work conditions and can let the employee go at will with no compensation.
A lot of the 'employee choice' arguments depend on an illusion of free association when the employer has almost all the power to set work conditions and can let the employee go at will with no compensation.
> A lot of the 'employee choice' arguments depend on an illusion of free association when the employer has almost all the power to set work conditions and can let the employee go at will with no compensation.
The "illusion" existed at a time when there were company towns and a Big Three automaker cartel and you really couldn't just go work for somebody else. It's a pretty outdated argument when if you don't like working for Walmart you can realistically just go across the street and take a job at Target.
The "illusion" existed at a time when there were company towns and a Big Three automaker cartel and you really couldn't just go work for somebody else. It's a pretty outdated argument when if you don't like working for Walmart you can realistically just go across the street and take a job at Target.
There are maybe some jobs that are that fungible (even then I'd love to see numbers on time between jobs on any industry) but for better jobs that aren't paying minimum wage the threat of losing your job is real and the gap before getting a similarly paying job is real and threatening to a lot of people.
Even in low paying 'fungible' jobs the threat of losing your job and the gap between one minimum wage job and the next stops all sorts of laws from being properly enforced because employees can't afford to lose their job in retaliation while waiting for a payout. Take basic wage theft one of the largest loses of money for people in the US every year totaling possibly billions of dollars. Companies are paying below minimum wage, refusing to pay over time, requiring off clock time, etc and employees feel like they can't come forward because they can't afford any interruption in their wages because of a number of things but chief among them is if you're living paycheck to paycheck even missing one week's wages can put you in a debt spiral.
When companies are about to pull this off I find it hard to believe that things like overtime protections and hourly limits are 'limits on choice' more than they're protections against abuse.
https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-fro... - just minimum wage violations
https://www.gq.com/story/wage-theft
Even in low paying 'fungible' jobs the threat of losing your job and the gap between one minimum wage job and the next stops all sorts of laws from being properly enforced because employees can't afford to lose their job in retaliation while waiting for a payout. Take basic wage theft one of the largest loses of money for people in the US every year totaling possibly billions of dollars. Companies are paying below minimum wage, refusing to pay over time, requiring off clock time, etc and employees feel like they can't come forward because they can't afford any interruption in their wages because of a number of things but chief among them is if you're living paycheck to paycheck even missing one week's wages can put you in a debt spiral.
When companies are about to pull this off I find it hard to believe that things like overtime protections and hourly limits are 'limits on choice' more than they're protections against abuse.
https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-fro... - just minimum wage violations
https://www.gq.com/story/wage-theft
> but for better jobs that aren't paying minimum wage the threat of losing your job is real and the gap before getting a similarly paying job is real and threatening to a lot of people.
But for better jobs that aren't paying minimum wage, the rules don't really change anything. Most of the better jobs pay salary instead of hourly anyway, and even for the ones that don't, if you're making non-trivially more than minimum wage then you can negotiate around the restriction anyway.
Averaging $25/hour because you worked 80 hours at $25/hour is the same result as having a base pay of $20 and working 40 hours of overtime at $30. So if you were getting paid $25/hour and want more hours, you can offer to work for $20/hour, get the extra hours and still average $25, i.e. in practice you can waive the overtime premium because doing so doesn't put you under the minimum wage.
> Companies are paying below minimum wage, refusing to pay over time, requiring off clock time, etc and employees feel like they can't come forward because they can't afford any interruption in their wages because of a number of things but chief among them is if you're living paycheck to paycheck even missing one week's wages can put you in a debt spiral.
These are really just unlawful methods of avoiding the negative effects of the prohibition on choice.
There exist employers who don't do those things, so why don't those people quit and work there instead? Because their existing job has some countervailing benefit. Maybe it's less of a commute, or has more flexible hours, or the alternative job is higher stress or more dangerous. It's not legal to have you work 50 hours and pay you for 40, but when the alternative is that you lose the job because it can't actually command that hourly wage, prohibiting that choice (or the equivalent one where you get paid for all your hours but at a lower hourly wage) isn't actually helping. Because then you get stuck with the alternative where you work for 40 hours and get paid for 40 hours but spend 12 extra hours a week commuting, which might be legal but does nothing for you than to cost you an extra two hours a week and $150/month in fuel.
But for better jobs that aren't paying minimum wage, the rules don't really change anything. Most of the better jobs pay salary instead of hourly anyway, and even for the ones that don't, if you're making non-trivially more than minimum wage then you can negotiate around the restriction anyway.
Averaging $25/hour because you worked 80 hours at $25/hour is the same result as having a base pay of $20 and working 40 hours of overtime at $30. So if you were getting paid $25/hour and want more hours, you can offer to work for $20/hour, get the extra hours and still average $25, i.e. in practice you can waive the overtime premium because doing so doesn't put you under the minimum wage.
> Companies are paying below minimum wage, refusing to pay over time, requiring off clock time, etc and employees feel like they can't come forward because they can't afford any interruption in their wages because of a number of things but chief among them is if you're living paycheck to paycheck even missing one week's wages can put you in a debt spiral.
These are really just unlawful methods of avoiding the negative effects of the prohibition on choice.
There exist employers who don't do those things, so why don't those people quit and work there instead? Because their existing job has some countervailing benefit. Maybe it's less of a commute, or has more flexible hours, or the alternative job is higher stress or more dangerous. It's not legal to have you work 50 hours and pay you for 40, but when the alternative is that you lose the job because it can't actually command that hourly wage, prohibiting that choice (or the equivalent one where you get paid for all your hours but at a lower hourly wage) isn't actually helping. Because then you get stuck with the alternative where you work for 40 hours and get paid for 40 hours but spend 12 extra hours a week commuting, which might be legal but does nothing for you than to cost you an extra two hours a week and $150/month in fuel.
> companies usually demanded that employees worked those longer hours
When the 41st hour costs as much as the 39th, yes. When it cost more, one hires more people. Or a temp agency.
When the 41st hour costs as much as the 39th, yes. When it cost more, one hires more people. Or a temp agency.
> Which is why all such regulations are ridiculous.
Most of those regulations were written in blood, toil, and tears - they deserve more respect than that. You are correct - regulations often limit an individual's ability to maximize their own gains in order to lift the overall floor. If you want to maximize your income, start a private car service and build your own clientele like an actual independent operator.
Alternatively, we could offer public healthcare, social housing, and food guarantees, decoupling work from survival. Then the regulations would be ridiculous.
Most of those regulations were written in blood, toil, and tears - they deserve more respect than that. You are correct - regulations often limit an individual's ability to maximize their own gains in order to lift the overall floor. If you want to maximize your income, start a private car service and build your own clientele like an actual independent operator.
Alternatively, we could offer public healthcare, social housing, and food guarantees, decoupling work from survival. Then the regulations would be ridiculous.
> You are correct - regulations often limit an individual's ability to maximize their own gains in order to lift the overall floor.
The problem is they regularly fail to lift the overall floor. Prohibiting your existing best available source of employment will, as a rule, leave you with an alternative which is even less good. Something with more pay but a longer commute that eats that pay and then some. Something more dangerous, or less convenient, or less stable, or more stressful. And then you get paid a little more in exchange for losing something that was worth more to you than the money.
> Alternatively, we could offer public healthcare, social housing, and food guarantees, decoupling work from survival.
Or a UBI. Which is what we should do.
The problem is they regularly fail to lift the overall floor. Prohibiting your existing best available source of employment will, as a rule, leave you with an alternative which is even less good. Something with more pay but a longer commute that eats that pay and then some. Something more dangerous, or less convenient, or less stable, or more stressful. And then you get paid a little more in exchange for losing something that was worth more to you than the money.
> Alternatively, we could offer public healthcare, social housing, and food guarantees, decoupling work from survival.
Or a UBI. Which is what we should do.
This is an eternal fight between people who think they know better and usurp power to decide about someone else's life and people who want to be in charge of their own destiny.
This comment is wrong on so many levels.
Most importantly, you don't want others get the protection they deserve because it works fine for your husband.
Most importantly, you don't want others get the protection they deserve because it works fine for your husband.
Your husband is very fortunate; I’ve never met someone who drives for Uber and is not doing it full-time. Wishing it wasn’t that way doesn’t make it so.
There is a STRONG selection bias at play here.
Just to illustrate the point with fake numbers..
If 90% of drivers are doing the gig thing, maybe they’ll be driving Uber an hour a day on average. Then if 10% of drivers are doing 12 hours a day, most rides will be from the small minority of full time drivers.
It’s exactly the same as the experience most people have that flights tend to be overflowing with people, when the airlines claim many flights are totally empty.
Just to illustrate the point with fake numbers..
If 90% of drivers are doing the gig thing, maybe they’ll be driving Uber an hour a day on average. Then if 10% of drivers are doing 12 hours a day, most rides will be from the small minority of full time drivers.
It’s exactly the same as the experience most people have that flights tend to be overflowing with people, when the airlines claim many flights are totally empty.
I’m in Santa Barbara and I’ve had a number of drivers who are not full-time.
Students, retired people, and my favorite was a guy who would take 1-2 trips on the way home from his job to put into a travel savings so he and his family upgrade their vacations.
Students, retired people, and my favorite was a guy who would take 1-2 trips on the way home from his job to put into a travel savings so he and his family upgrade their vacations.
Here in Portugal the vast majority of the drivers seem to be doing it full time (having 3 phones at the same time to use several apps and all that). Many (most?) of them are Brasilian immigrants. Uber is dirt-cheap too here, and gas is expensive, so I don't understand how they even manage to turn a reasonable profit. Taxis are significantly more expensive (easily twice as much in my experience).
Every market is different though, I can definitely believe that the situation could be very different in California.
Every market is different though, I can definitely believe that the situation could be very different in California.
She and her husband have 5 computer repair shops (according to her bio here), so either all of them are doing bad or this is just a small fraction of their income. This is an extremely outlier that you should count for little or nothing in the definition of a policy.
Just to throw more anecdata in, I've never met a fulltime Uber driver. Most of my drivers are retired people who got bored and wanted some extra cash, like to chat, and wanted to get out of the house. Others have some disability that prevents them from working fulltime. Many are doing it for extra cash, especially around the holidays. Many only selectively drive when there are events that they know will make the rates spike.
I'm sure there are tons of fulltime Uber drivers, especially if you live in a city where cab drivers have made the switch. I live in the suburbs, and I've never met a fulltimer.
I'm sure there are tons of fulltime Uber drivers, especially if you live in a city where cab drivers have made the switch. I live in the suburbs, and I've never met a fulltimer.
> people who got bored
One of the Uber drivers I had when visiting New York rolled up in a expensive German SUV (Mercedes IIRC) and was very well dressed.
Chatted and found out he was a lawyer by day, but drove Uber in the evenings when he was bored.
He didn't _need_ the $10-12 bucks we paid for the trip to the restaurant, but he did appreciate the chat.
One of the Uber drivers I had when visiting New York rolled up in a expensive German SUV (Mercedes IIRC) and was very well dressed.
Chatted and found out he was a lawyer by day, but drove Uber in the evenings when he was bored.
He didn't _need_ the $10-12 bucks we paid for the trip to the restaurant, but he did appreciate the chat.
How would the AB5 law without 22 hurt him? What's wrong with part-time employment?
Why is someone's beer money more important than someone else's full time subsistence?
Why is someone's beer money more important than someone else's full time subsistence?
I've done lots of things that deprive full time subsistences. For example, I used to repair people's phones and gadgets as a beer money gig; which deprive full-time repair shop employees.
Should it be illegal for me to offer that service?
Should it be illegal for me to offer that service?
That's not what anyone is arguing for. The whole argument is that a company who treats people like employees (full control over interactions with and access to customers) should have to provide the benefits and pay the costs of an employer.
Companies who treat people like employees generally:
* do not allow them unlimited flexibility into when and where they work
* do not allow them to take days off, without notice, for any reason, for as long as they want
* do not allow them to choose which jobs to do and not do (see: trip destination filters)
but most importantly:
* do not allow them to work for a competitor at the same time.
If Uber is too driver-unfriendly, drivers can switch to Lyft. Or maybe Amazon Flex. There's a very, very real choice that you do not get with a traditional employer-employee relationship.
Uber is in between an employee, and an IC. I believe the appropriate treatment is also somewhere in between.
* do not allow them unlimited flexibility into when and where they work
* do not allow them to take days off, without notice, for any reason, for as long as they want
* do not allow them to choose which jobs to do and not do (see: trip destination filters)
but most importantly:
* do not allow them to work for a competitor at the same time.
If Uber is too driver-unfriendly, drivers can switch to Lyft. Or maybe Amazon Flex. There's a very, very real choice that you do not get with a traditional employer-employee relationship.
Uber is in between an employee, and an IC. I believe the appropriate treatment is also somewhere in between.
Yeah, it almost seems like a compromise would be an hourly line. If you work more than 30 hours, you become an employee but you lose freedom in the hours you choose since you're now in an employee relationship and below 30 hours, you're just a contractor. Some kind of part time tinkerer.
29 hours a week for Uber, 29 hours a week for Lyft, and 29 hours a week for the next ride-sharing company.
Have to be careful not to accidentally burn your hours by being logged into both apps at once.
I'm not sure that's actually better for drivers; it just makes for more paperwork and regulations to track.
Have to be careful not to accidentally burn your hours by being logged into both apps at once.
I'm not sure that's actually better for drivers; it just makes for more paperwork and regulations to track.
This is what prop22 essentiallu tried to accomplish.
AB5 without parttime employment would almost certainly force Uber to start scheduling shifts or putting arbitrary limits on the # of simultaneous drivers in the app (the law isn't written to explicitly require that, but it's a blatant side effect of requiring Uber et al to still pay minimum wage when the supply of drivers outstrips passenger demand)
Got injured awhile back. Disability decided to play hardball.
Gig jobs are all that kept family off the street while I recovered.
Starting and stopping anytime as my body could tolerate. Or renting out rooms on Airbnb. Sometimes it took me 4 hours to change sheets and tidy up, but it made the difference.
Not saying their good companies. But gigs was crazy valuable to me.
Gig jobs are all that kept family off the street while I recovered.
Starting and stopping anytime as my body could tolerate. Or renting out rooms on Airbnb. Sometimes it took me 4 hours to change sheets and tidy up, but it made the difference.
Not saying their good companies. But gigs was crazy valuable to me.
I drove for Lyft for a while while taking a break from software. Then I got t-boned by a red-light runner.
Fortunately no one was injured. I was on my way to pick up a passenger, but it was only me in the vehicle.
When I went to make my insurance claim to fix several thousand dollars worth of damage to my car, I discovered that despite having done a lot of research when trying to buy the right insurance with a rideshare rider and which was compatible with Lyft's own insurance, I wasn't covered. I had to eat the bill.
Fortunately, I was a software engineer moonlighting and I had savings to take care of it, rather than a typical Lyft driver living with far less cushion.
This sort of thing doesn't happen when you're an employee. The essence of the gig economy is doing away with hard-won labor protections and increasing profitability by offloading risk onto workers, creating the statistical certainty that a fraction of your workforce will experience circumstances far more tragic than mine.
Fortunately no one was injured. I was on my way to pick up a passenger, but it was only me in the vehicle.
When I went to make my insurance claim to fix several thousand dollars worth of damage to my car, I discovered that despite having done a lot of research when trying to buy the right insurance with a rideshare rider and which was compatible with Lyft's own insurance, I wasn't covered. I had to eat the bill.
Fortunately, I was a software engineer moonlighting and I had savings to take care of it, rather than a typical Lyft driver living with far less cushion.
This sort of thing doesn't happen when you're an employee. The essence of the gig economy is doing away with hard-won labor protections and increasing profitability by offloading risk onto workers, creating the statistical certainty that a fraction of your workforce will experience circumstances far more tragic than mine.
I think this is the key statement to all of this. No one thinks about the risk. Running a business, which in a sense you are doing by being a contractor, is all about managing risk. When I ran a food business, that was 90% of my tasks, and I had to make sure that things continued to run no matter what happened. When you start realizing how exposed you are to bad things happening, it starts to wear on you. What happens if an employee gets hurt, or the food is prepped wrong (and someone dies)? How much money is it going to cost and will it bankrupt you? Companies like Uber and Lyft don't explain that to people. They don't explain the risk they are taking on by earning a few extra dollars. Will most people be ok, sure? Bad things happen even to people who take all the precautions, and it is an expensive and extremely painful lesson to learn.
This is a terrible argument. If every single small thing that could happen to you was explained to you before you made any decision, I can guarantee you would never make any new decisions.
No, a small thing is blowing a tire, or fixing an engine. Being sued for pain and suffering because an accident occurred that wasn't your fault, that's not small. Things like that literally ruin your life.
You can make the argument, "Well, they should know better, and if not it doesn't matter." I find that weak. The legal system is amazingly complex around business and fault during accidents. It's so complex, that there are attorneys that spend their entire career focusing on things like this. When dealing with insurance there is no, "Well it's ok, I'm insured." It's, "I'm insured if I can prove I didn't break any of the insurance contract rules," and the people on the other side, they're all better at this than you are. Most people who drive for Uber, etc. have no idea this is how it really is. The driving companies have pushed all this off to individuals, because they know the consequences of them getting involved, and this is why there needs to be laws surrounding things like this.
You can make the argument, "Well, they should know better, and if not it doesn't matter." I find that weak. The legal system is amazingly complex around business and fault during accidents. It's so complex, that there are attorneys that spend their entire career focusing on things like this. When dealing with insurance there is no, "Well it's ok, I'm insured." It's, "I'm insured if I can prove I didn't break any of the insurance contract rules," and the people on the other side, they're all better at this than you are. Most people who drive for Uber, etc. have no idea this is how it really is. The driving companies have pushed all this off to individuals, because they know the consequences of them getting involved, and this is why there needs to be laws surrounding things like this.
This really seems to be a common trend on these Uber discussions. Americans bringing up cracks in the terribly terribly faulty infrastructure/systems (such as the legal system or the healthcare system) and try to find a way to blame it on Uber/gigwork. It's quite incredible really.
The American social contract delegated the role of filling those 'cracks' to the employment relationship. It might not be ideal, but it's not obvious to me why its any less legitimate than other arrangements.
Gig work is new, and doesn't fit cleanly into the existing framework. Uber et al.'s patch for reconciling gig-work appears to many to be essentially a wholesale rejection of the spirit of the agreement, thus opening up new existential risks for those of small means.
While those arguments may land short of the complete truth, they do appear to hold some merit; Maybe it's simply ignorance, but I'm not aware of Uber advocating for a comprehensive review of how California provides life-support benefits to residents in a way that ensures their service providers are not unduly at risk relative to the general population. Instead, proposition 22 appears to be as close to 'I've transacted profitably; fuck your life, it's not my problem.' as they could hope to achieve.
Gig work is new, and doesn't fit cleanly into the existing framework. Uber et al.'s patch for reconciling gig-work appears to many to be essentially a wholesale rejection of the spirit of the agreement, thus opening up new existential risks for those of small means.
While those arguments may land short of the complete truth, they do appear to hold some merit; Maybe it's simply ignorance, but I'm not aware of Uber advocating for a comprehensive review of how California provides life-support benefits to residents in a way that ensures their service providers are not unduly at risk relative to the general population. Instead, proposition 22 appears to be as close to 'I've transacted profitably; fuck your life, it's not my problem.' as they could hope to achieve.
No it's not that incredible. Workers have rights. That's been true for over 100 years. The fact that Uber is trying to skirt it, and they've been getting away with it is incredible.
The only failing of Uber(maybe the legal system) is that there's either no legal requirement to check the driver has the correct insurance before allowing them on the platform and that doesn't exist because there's no law that requires it of Uber(w.r.t OPs comment)
That's a a failing of your local/state/federal legislators not the company.
That's a a failing of your local/state/federal legislators not the company.
> I discovered that despite having done a lot of research when trying to buy the right insurance with a rideshare rider and which was compatible with Lyft's own insurance, I wasn't covered. I had to eat the bill.
So the problem was the insurance company, not the gig economy itself.
So the problem was the insurance company, not the gig economy itself.
This is not how insurance works. The at-fault driver's insurance pays for damages. You're either leaving something out of this story or it is fabricated from whole cloth.
Motor vehicle driving with passengers is an extremely high liability occupation compared to most other jobs.
However, This type of liability situation does happen when to sole proprietors running a business.
Making drivers employees isn’t the only solution. There are any number of profession that are required to have appropriate insurances
Making drivers employees isn’t the only solution. There are any number of profession that are required to have appropriate insurances
If the law had been more narrowly tailored to making ride shares responsible for work accidents I think you'd see a lot more support for the law.
I thought Prop 22 would require TNC's to cover drivers while on the way to pick up a passenger.
The issue is not the gig economy but businesses that force rules and behaviours (when to work, which client, you cannot refuse jobs, etc.) without labour protection.
Either you are a platform that connects you to a potential client (like a powerful yellow page), or you are an employer.
Either you are a platform that connects you to a potential client (like a powerful yellow page), or you are an employer.
And where does the line go?
Can you please elaborate, because, in the case of Uber/Lyft, it's simple, if you force when drivers go, they can't refuse clients, etc. Then you are not "just" a platform to connect driver and people looking for a ride. If you are imposing rules, other than local regulations, to the drivers, you are an employer, and you should follow labour law.
If you use Stripe API for examples, if you follow the law, and their T&C of services, they can't force you to sell to some clients, etc.
If you use Stripe API for examples, if you follow the law, and their T&C of services, they can't force you to sell to some clients, etc.
So if you do only one of those things are you still an employer or now a platform?
I'm still confused, because you are not giving any example or explanation for "one of those things".
As soon as you tell somebody how to make their money, outside of government regulations, you are in fact an employer.
Which is different from a contractual work where you can define requirements. In the case of Uber/Lyft (and other Gig economy for that matter) you do not sign a contract with each transaction you do with them.
Therefore, your contract with them, it's to pick up and drive users of the platform under terms set by the platform. This is obviously an employer - employee relationship.
As soon as you tell somebody how to make their money, outside of government regulations, you are in fact an employer.
Which is different from a contractual work where you can define requirements. In the case of Uber/Lyft (and other Gig economy for that matter) you do not sign a contract with each transaction you do with them.
Therefore, your contract with them, it's to pick up and drive users of the platform under terms set by the platform. This is obviously an employer - employee relationship.
It’s an insane society that would force someone to work through their recovery to an injury in the first place.
Why? I broke my leg. Why can't I work with my hands?
you really don't see how weak this counterpoint is? e.g. if you break your hands what exactly are you going to do with your legs?
> if you break your hands what exactly are you going to do with your legs?
Buy a two person bike and be the pedal power for a bike courier?
Buy a two person bike and be the pedal power for a bike courier?
Wear a board on your front and back, with a message about worker protections, universal healthcare and walk around town spreading that message and hope it has an effect.
is this supposed to be facetious? because my point is exactly that there is nothing to do other than that and that to pretend that you can "elbow grease" and "work ethic" your way out of debilitating injury is just asinine.
Indeed, my post was in agreement with you.
Gig companies shouldn't take the place of a functioning welfare in a rich society, I'm glad it helped you individually but it's symptom of a much larger issue that when patched that way just hides it away into the future...
In a welfare society I would still have to convince someone I couldn’t work. Get approval, etc.
Healthcare industry is currently a mess. I have excellent coverage. Even still I couldn’t get anyone to take me seriously.
Only when organ failure started up in earnest did doctors realize I wasn’t making it up.
Healthcare industry is currently a mess. I have excellent coverage. Even still I couldn’t get anyone to take me seriously.
Only when organ failure started up in earnest did doctors realize I wasn’t making it up.
I did doordash Grubhub Ubereats etc for about a year while I had no income. It was a lot of hours, barely paid the bills(Single income, with child household), did madness on my vehicle. It was good because it was all I had but I wouldn't want to go back to that.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"thank God for these benevolent companies that lobby against universal healthcare and labor unions, so they can then be there for us when we don't have healthcare or union protection"
Put another way:
"Thank God purdue pharma is now manufacturing the cure[1] for the opioid epidemic that purdue pharma started"
1. https://apnews.com/article/6751b84767e8a1ebbaea6cb628ac2a11
Put another way:
"Thank God purdue pharma is now manufacturing the cure[1] for the opioid epidemic that purdue pharma started"
1. https://apnews.com/article/6751b84767e8a1ebbaea6cb628ac2a11
As a disabled person who has also benefitted immensely from Uber, I hear this a lot, and it is really frustrating.
No one will help me, especially progressive leaning people. You don't get political or social brownie points for helping disabled people the way you would for other minority groups who are struggling. We are constantly ignored and forgotten.
I was in a situation where I needed money for healthcare that will never be covered by insurance, especially government sponsored universal insurance (EDIT: it will be covered eventually, maybe in 10 years). Gig jobs played a key role in my ability to purchase that healthcare and survive.
Regular employers will never hire me. Unions will never let me join them, because I can't meet their requirements and make life harder for their able bodied employees. Gig work is the only option.
Healthy people aren't nearly as caring as they'd like to believe, especially progressives.
No one will help me, especially progressive leaning people. You don't get political or social brownie points for helping disabled people the way you would for other minority groups who are struggling. We are constantly ignored and forgotten.
I was in a situation where I needed money for healthcare that will never be covered by insurance, especially government sponsored universal insurance (EDIT: it will be covered eventually, maybe in 10 years). Gig jobs played a key role in my ability to purchase that healthcare and survive.
Regular employers will never hire me. Unions will never let me join them, because I can't meet their requirements and make life harder for their able bodied employees. Gig work is the only option.
Healthy people aren't nearly as caring as they'd like to believe, especially progressives.
>I was in a situation where I needed money for healthcare
By your account, the problem is a for-profit healthcare system. Gig work might have helped you purchase a highly inflated healthcare plan, but it doesn't address the underlying issue: that people shouldn't be forced into that situation in the first place.
You mentioned you are disabled, did you not qualify for disability insurance/SSI?
By your account, the problem is a for-profit healthcare system. Gig work might have helped you purchase a highly inflated healthcare plan, but it doesn't address the underlying issue: that people shouldn't be forced into that situation in the first place.
You mentioned you are disabled, did you not qualify for disability insurance/SSI?
I did not purchase a health care plan with the money. I purchased effective treatments. To be frank, the healthcare system is worse than useless for many when it comes to debilitating chronic illness.
I do qualify for disability, but I can't afford the legal fees to convince a judge. My illness is very controversial and would require paying a very expensive doctor to support my case. It's cheaper for me to just pay for healthcare out of pocket. Fortunately my condition is reversible.
I do qualify for disability, but I can't afford the legal fees to convince a judge. My illness is very controversial and would require paying a very expensive doctor to support my case. It's cheaper for me to just pay for healthcare out of pocket. Fortunately my condition is reversible.
>I did not purchase a health care plan with the money. I purchased effective treatments.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19850269
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19850269
This post is outdated. I now use emeramide.
Edit: emeramide is currently in phase 2 clinical trials for FDA approval.
Edit: emeramide is currently in phase 2 clinical trials for FDA approval.
Why "especially progressives"? Surely people who advocate for your healthcare to be free, and for universal worker protections are doing more to help you than others? Gig work is a poor replacement for a proper "safety net". Imagine how fucked you would be if you were not able to do that gig work. Universal healthcare would have you covered.
For people with 'untreatable' or 'psychogenic' chronic illnesses, universal healthcare would just mean a different institution denies your claim for treatment.
Progressives, especially in 2020, don't look kindly on people who lack faith in medical institutions. A lot of people with chronic illness have found themselves in this category after being failed by these institutions.
Progressives, especially in 2020, don't look kindly on people who lack faith in medical institutions. A lot of people with chronic illness have found themselves in this category after being failed by these institutions.
The 'anti-progressive' viewpoint is about people using their varied abilities in the free market to make it themselves. It assumes that everyone is at least a little abled in something and that something is enough to pay the bills. It's pure ideology. The reality is that if you are injured and suddenly can't do you're job then you likely have 0 bread-winning ability until you learn a new skill or set yourself up in a new career if that is even possible.
I don't see the relevance of this comment. If you can't get approval from the authorities for your disability, then you end up in the same place. One path just involves more paperwork, paternalism, and shame.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there are more ideologies out there than just 'progressive' and 'anti-progressive'.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there are more ideologies out there than just 'progressive' and 'anti-progressive'.
Yea, starting your own business is the only option for a lot of disabled people.
You don't believe I'm sick so you won't provide me healthcare. Progressives even managed to convince my own family I was crazy.
What you did to me is evil.
What you did to me is evil.
I'm confused by the "needed money for healthcare that would never be covered by universal insurance", are you sure such costs wouldn't be covered by NHS or similar had you lived in another country?
No, the treatments I need are experimental, and there is a tremendous amount of hostility from healthcare workers directed at people with my illness. It is very controversial.
Europeans are just as fucked as Americans when they have this illness.
Europeans are just as fucked as Americans when they have this illness.
Simple migraines fall into this category.
Umm I can’t see, walk straight, or think normally 4-5 days a weeks. Disability, your faking it. Doctor, it can’t possibly be that bad, your lying.
Umm I can’t see, walk straight, or think normally 4-5 days a weeks. Disability, your faking it. Doctor, it can’t possibly be that bad, your lying.
The NHS has very long waiting list.
I imagine it was also good for your mental state of well-being. You didn't have to sign up for a handout or even get a "goodwill" job like a greeter or something at a big box store.
Uber and Airbnb didn't have to take a loss to employ you. You got paid because you provided value to people willing to pay for it, just like the rest of us.
That's not to say we don't need social safety nets, or that it'd work for any disability (obviously). But there is something to be said when it becomes outlawed "for your own good."
Uber and Airbnb didn't have to take a loss to employ you. You got paid because you provided value to people willing to pay for it, just like the rest of us.
That's not to say we don't need social safety nets, or that it'd work for any disability (obviously). But there is something to be said when it becomes outlawed "for your own good."
> Uber and Airbnb didn't have to take a loss to employ you.
Oh really? Has Uber turned a profit yet?
Oh really? Has Uber turned a profit yet?
Putting aside that clearly my point was that no special treatment was given to him as a result of his disability:
Just because the business as a whole is not turning a profit does not mean the business loses money with each and every action it takes.
Just because the business as a whole is not turning a profit does not mean the business loses money with each and every action it takes.
Yes. Their ridehailing unit makes profit every quarter.
Very true.
Social safety nets only work for people who are believed to be oppressed. So what happens is the oppressed groups just end up being the people no one believes are actually suffering.
Social safety nets only work for people who are believed to be oppressed. So what happens is the oppressed groups just end up being the people no one believes are actually suffering.
Truth.
Asked to work from home as a couldn’t handle commute. Ultra left managers did nothing but guilt trip me the entire time. Bunch of hypocrites.
>No one will help me, especially progressive leaning people. You don't get political or social brownie points for helping disabled people the way you would for other minority groups who are struggling. We are constantly ignored and forgotten.
I have no idea what this is about but there was very strong activist push to get the ADA in 1990 and similarly the ACA in 2011 but I guess that doesn't count
> I was in a situation where I needed money for healthcare that will never be covered by insurance, especially government sponsored universal insurance
No clue what this means or how you could possibly even know that.
>You healthy people aren't nearly as caring as you'd like to believe.
Bold of you to assume that I'm healthy and don't have a vested interest in universal healthcare getting passed
I have no idea what this is about but there was very strong activist push to get the ADA in 1990 and similarly the ACA in 2011 but I guess that doesn't count
> I was in a situation where I needed money for healthcare that will never be covered by insurance, especially government sponsored universal insurance
No clue what this means or how you could possibly even know that.
>You healthy people aren't nearly as caring as you'd like to believe.
Bold of you to assume that I'm healthy and don't have a vested interest in universal healthcare getting passed
The ADA is a disaster for many disabled people. It has created a tremendous amount of hostility and misunderstanding.
"No clue what this means or how you could possibly even know that."
I know this because I have the illness and have been to 40 doctors who all denied me healthcare based on this fact.
"Bold of you to assume that I'm healthy and don't have a vested interest in universal healthcare getting passed"
I edited my post to remove the "you" part so as to not make that assumption. Apologies.
"No clue what this means or how you could possibly even know that."
I know this because I have the illness and have been to 40 doctors who all denied me healthcare based on this fact.
"Bold of you to assume that I'm healthy and don't have a vested interest in universal healthcare getting passed"
I edited my post to remove the "you" part so as to not make that assumption. Apologies.
uber, lyft, and airbnb are not the reason our healthcare system is a mess. There is a lot of bad you can lay at their feet, but this isn't one of them
labor rights and healthcare rights are inextricably linked because if there were universal healthcare, labor unions would have more leverage and vice versa (if labor unions were stronger, universal healthcare would be more likely to pass)
https://www.laborforsinglepayer.org/
https://www.laborforsinglepayer.org/
Conceptually, it's pretty clear:
For the single person that needs (or wants) its Uber income, the law is good because they get their income as before. However, it's only good because the whole system is bad (e.g. that labor has no power in the US). So the question whether the law is "good" is rather the question: What's the alternative? For as long as there's no alternative for Uber etc., the law is good. If there were alternatives (e.g. jobs that have benefits), it would be the worst. To sum it up: Poor people in America have no choice. The system is bad. You have to take what you get (e.g. a Uber Job) and be happy for it.
As an aside: all these anecdotes about people using Uber as a sidejob and enjoying it are missing the point: Uber might be a good sidejob for you/your friends but that's only because either they don't get a fulltime job or their fulltime job doesnt pay enough. They don't do it because they want to, they do it because they need to.
As an aside: all these anecdotes about people using Uber as a sidejob and enjoying it are missing the point: Uber might be a good sidejob for you/your friends but that's only because either they don't get a fulltime job or their fulltime job doesnt pay enough. They don't do it because they want to, they do it because they need to.
> all these anecdotes about people using Uber as a sidejob and enjoying it are missing the point
I can agree with your former point but not sure about this.
Who are you to say they need to or not?
Some here have provided examples of driving a few times a month to supplement their vacation savings or pay for discretionary spending like lattes or whatever.
Hardly something necessary.
I can agree with your former point but not sure about this.
Who are you to say they need to or not?
Some here have provided examples of driving a few times a month to supplement their vacation savings or pay for discretionary spending like lattes or whatever.
Hardly something necessary.
Is somebody poor in America if they have access to and use of a vehicle fit for Uber? (regardless whether is financed or not)?
I think unskilled would be a more apt term.
I think unskilled would be a more apt term.
Hear, hear. As a European living in the US, this is exactly what I think causes the debate. Thanks for writing it up so clearly.
> The company, along with Lyft and DoorDash, spent more than $200m to deny drivers the wages and benefits we’re entitled to
I wonder, why does the author think they're entitled to wages and benefits beyond what they agreed to?
I'd understand the sentiment a little more if Uber was wildly profitable, but it isn't. If Uber isn't treating the drivers right, they don't have to drive for Uber. Or they can go and try to change the laws and regulations to be more fair. But no one is entitled to anything.
I wonder, why does the author think they're entitled to wages and benefits beyond what they agreed to?
I'd understand the sentiment a little more if Uber was wildly profitable, but it isn't. If Uber isn't treating the drivers right, they don't have to drive for Uber. Or they can go and try to change the laws and regulations to be more fair. But no one is entitled to anything.
>But no one is entitled to anything.
This statement is derived from a particular understanding of the individual, society, and the state, and is by no means universally taken as true among all political philosophers. In fact, even many economists aren't sold on this idea. As it turns out, if I subscribe to a philosophy in which people are entitled to various things, as a matter of distributive justice, then you can be sure I'll vote for it.
This statement is derived from a particular understanding of the individual, society, and the state, and is by no means universally taken as true among all political philosophers. In fact, even many economists aren't sold on this idea. As it turns out, if I subscribe to a philosophy in which people are entitled to various things, as a matter of distributive justice, then you can be sure I'll vote for it.
You're right.
Perhaps my gripe was with that particular statement, it just seemed like unhelpful attitude.
If you start from "I subscribe to a philosophy" and from there reach the conclusion "hence people are entitled to xyz", that's quite different than starting from "I'm entitled to xyz".
Perhaps my gripe was with that particular statement, it just seemed like unhelpful attitude.
If you start from "I subscribe to a philosophy" and from there reach the conclusion "hence people are entitled to xyz", that's quite different than starting from "I'm entitled to xyz".
> Or they can go and try to change the laws and regulations to be more fair.
Wasn’t that the whole point of AB5? To change the law so Uber/Lyft drivers are paid what they deserve?
Wasn’t that the whole point of AB5? To change the law so Uber/Lyft drivers are paid what they deserve?
No. The point of AB5 was to make freelancing illegal and capture independent contractors and reduce their choices for employment to be union or non-union employees.
The author, in addition to being generously funded by the AFL-CIO, astutely granted an exception to professions that had the means to sue the state (doctors, lawyers, realty agents) and crushed over 400 other professions from freelance coder to hair stylist to forensic nurse to actors and stagehands receiving a stipend to perform in community theater.
AB5 is strongly anti-woman, more specifically, anti-mother, as many mothers choose to be yoga or pilates instructors or work a nail salon to gain extra revenue while having the flexibility time wise to shuttle their children to school and extracurriculars.
Not the least of which, people like us, if we live in California, we can’t be hired on a freelance basis to code or be cybersecurity tiger teams for tech companies because we would have a hand in the finished product. And thanks to a last minute amendment, changing “worker” to “person” (and Citizens United), we can’t even legally do it if incorporated. The FTB will come a knockin’ for the fines legislated by AB5, you can count on that.
AB5 is so convoluted, attorneys have only the one choice in advising clients: don’t hire freelancers from California. Because the law is so convoluted it will be necessarily refined in the court system. And lawyers need to defend their malpractice insurance, so they can only advise their clients to play it safe.
One final point. The core of AB5 is about 300 words. And thousands of words about who is exempt. What does that say about any law written in such a fashion. IMO, it means the law is specifically designed to choose winners and losers.
The author, in addition to being generously funded by the AFL-CIO, astutely granted an exception to professions that had the means to sue the state (doctors, lawyers, realty agents) and crushed over 400 other professions from freelance coder to hair stylist to forensic nurse to actors and stagehands receiving a stipend to perform in community theater.
AB5 is strongly anti-woman, more specifically, anti-mother, as many mothers choose to be yoga or pilates instructors or work a nail salon to gain extra revenue while having the flexibility time wise to shuttle their children to school and extracurriculars.
Not the least of which, people like us, if we live in California, we can’t be hired on a freelance basis to code or be cybersecurity tiger teams for tech companies because we would have a hand in the finished product. And thanks to a last minute amendment, changing “worker” to “person” (and Citizens United), we can’t even legally do it if incorporated. The FTB will come a knockin’ for the fines legislated by AB5, you can count on that.
AB5 is so convoluted, attorneys have only the one choice in advising clients: don’t hire freelancers from California. Because the law is so convoluted it will be necessarily refined in the court system. And lawyers need to defend their malpractice insurance, so they can only advise their clients to play it safe.
One final point. The core of AB5 is about 300 words. And thousands of words about who is exempt. What does that say about any law written in such a fashion. IMO, it means the law is specifically designed to choose winners and losers.
> The author, in addition to being generously funded by the AFL-CIO, astutely granted an exception to professions that had the means to sue the state (doctors, lawyers, realty agents)
The lawmakers who wrote and voted for AB5 all had strong union connections.
I support private-sector unions. But don’t forget: unions are high-margin and effective get-out-the-vote operations.
The exempted professions have one thing in common: they aren’t union. The covered professions are either already unionised or a target market for conglomerate unions like the AFL-CIO.
The lawmakers who wrote and voted for AB5 all had strong union connections.
I support private-sector unions. But don’t forget: unions are high-margin and effective get-out-the-vote operations.
The exempted professions have one thing in common: they aren’t union. The covered professions are either already unionised or a target market for conglomerate unions like the AFL-CIO.
Though I've never been in a Union, I have historically supported my friends who are. But once they came after my job, well, now I am pro-right to work.
That's the point. People deserve to be paid what they agree to be paid.
The value of money relative to a product or service is subjective. If Bob agrees to mow a lawn for $10, Joe doesn't have the right to object and demand that Bob be paid $20. That's immoral and not how markets should work.
The value of money relative to a product or service is subjective. If Bob agrees to mow a lawn for $10, Joe doesn't have the right to object and demand that Bob be paid $20. That's immoral and not how markets should work.
So minimum wage shouldn’t be a thing? The problem with this thinking is that some people are desperate and don’t think about the choices they make. And without minimum wage, for example, companies would do a race to the bottom and people worse off would have to accept it.
And Joe absolutely does have the right to object to it. If I see someone paying someone a $1 to mow a lawn, I can say they deserve more.
And Joe absolutely does have the right to object to it. If I see someone paying someone a $1 to mow a lawn, I can say they deserve more.
I'm all for minimum wage, but also this is a problem:
> some people are desperate and don’t think about the choices they make
Some people can't choose because they're in a desperate situation. And some people are in a desperate situation because they made many wrong choices. It's not easy to distinguish between the two. And it's certainly non-binary, but rather a spectrum. I think there can be a large difference between the two extremes of the spectrum.
> some people are desperate and don’t think about the choices they make
Some people can't choose because they're in a desperate situation. And some people are in a desperate situation because they made many wrong choices. It's not easy to distinguish between the two. And it's certainly non-binary, but rather a spectrum. I think there can be a large difference between the two extremes of the spectrum.
In a true market the pay for a worker with no special skills will trend towards 0. Uber drivers cannot decide what to charge, Uber does. How much an Uber driver makes is entirely up to Uber, and Uber is losing money on every ride so in the long run they have to either increase the price or pay the driver less. My (large) employer pays for my health insurance in the US which has to be added to what we charge. Uber has to pay nothing for any benefits and can cut the wages to just barely enough to not die. From an economic standpoint Uber should go out of business but it does not since it is getting almost free labor and just raises money to make a profit. I see no way this is a market that makes any sense.
It would make sense if Uber limited the hours employees could work. Make all of these stories about happy part time workers 100% the case. Or if some drivers work full time then pay for their benefits, let Uber lose more money per ride because that doesn't seem to matter.
> Uber has to pay nothing for any benefits and can cut the wages to just barely enough to not die.
Subversively slipping in the term 'wages' is not arguing in good faith.
Subversively slipping in the term 'wages' is not arguing in good faith.
> paid what they deserve
how does one know what they actually deserve? Is there a number tattooed on their left arm, or something like that?
how does one know what they actually deserve? Is there a number tattooed on their left arm, or something like that?
>I wonder, why does the author think they're entitled to wages and benefits beyond what they agreed to?
For the same reason a minimum wage exists.
>But no one is entitled to anything.
Workers are entitled to a minimum wage should they seek/accept a job.
For the same reason a minimum wage exists.
>But no one is entitled to anything.
Workers are entitled to a minimum wage should they seek/accept a job.
All regulation and 'labor protection' does is accelerate the investment and transition into an AI anyway.
ZoomerCretin(1)
i think all they mean by entitled is entitled by the law. if uber is burning 4 billion a year and cant turn a profit, its ok for them to take on slaves?
Saying a voting block was "tricked" or "bought" ignores millions of CA residents who read the law and formed their own conclusions.
There's a very progressive and pro-business case to be made for decoupling benefits from the employer-employee or contract-gig relationship and making those benefits universal instead.
Progressives get the social safety net they want and businesses gets the fewer regulations they want.
There's a very progressive and pro-business case to be made for decoupling benefits from the employer-employee or contract-gig relationship and making those benefits universal instead.
Progressives get the social safety net they want and businesses gets the fewer regulations they want.
> Saying a voting block was "tricked" or "bought" ignores millions of CA residents who read the law and formed their own conclusions.
This isn't a fair characterization of how people cast their ballots. They see the ad and it has some non-zero effect. If running ads was ineffective in swaying public opinion, there wouldn't have been a $200m persuasion campaign.
This isn't a fair characterization of how people cast their ballots. They see the ad and it has some non-zero effect. If running ads was ineffective in swaying public opinion, there wouldn't have been a $200m persuasion campaign.
And this isn't a fair characterization of how ads work. They don't magically change people's minds and stop people from forming their own conclusions. It doesn't mean the vote was "tricked" or "bought. Try spending $200MM on a nonsense bill and see how much support you can actually buy.
Like any endeavor, ads & marketing can be dishonest. If you actually thought any part of Uber's campaign was dishonest, I encourage you to say what you mean rather than cast vague aspersions.
Like any endeavor, ads & marketing can be dishonest. If you actually thought any part of Uber's campaign was dishonest, I encourage you to say what you mean rather than cast vague aspersions.
> Try spending $200MM on a nonsense bill and see how much support you can actually buy.
Or $1B on a 3 month primary campaign: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bloomberg-spe...
Or $1B on a 3 month primary campaign: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bloomberg-spe...
I'm a CA voter who didn't see any ads about this prop and didn't even know it was on the ballot until I opened it up, despite making a living in tech. I'm guessing I wasn't the only one who made a decision after only reading the pros and cons provided with the ballot itself.
Heavy advertising for Prop 22 was done on Facebook, and 7 in 10 US Adults use Facebook: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/16/facts-about...
You may have missed this if you don't use it.
You may have missed this if you don't use it.
That's what happened then, I don't use FB.
Sure if we could snap fingers and get to the UBI full social safety net overnight maybe it'd be fine, but right now what happens is businesses fight and lobby to reduce both taxes that would fund that net and against regulations to prevent abuses of workers who have to work or die.
Alternative spin, same facts: "voters undo unpopular overreach by state government".
For real. My exposure to California news is basically just what I see on HN and anything that hits national headlines.
I had no idea Californians would vote for something like this. Kind of makes you wonder how large the disconnect is between what we see in the media and what people actually think.
I had no idea Californians would vote for something like this. Kind of makes you wonder how large the disconnect is between what we see in the media and what people actually think.
Right. Another great example, which confounds the liberal-conservative aspect some people will see in Prop 22, is soft drug legalization.
How many states have legalized personal marijuana usage due to action initiated in their legislatures? How many have done so due to ballot initiatives?
How many states have legalized personal marijuana usage due to action initiated in their legislatures? How many have done so due to ballot initiatives?
I suspect it is a pocketbook issue. Californians don’t want to pay more for transport and food delivery. Political ideals often give way to cheaper goods.
Maybe. Maybe Californians just aren't actually buying the "oppressed rideshare driver" narrative as much as we've been led to believe.
58% of them voted for this proposition, based on results a few days after the election.
Ironically, the next article at the bottom of the page is "America has chosen Joe Biden to be the 46th president of the United States. The American people have disavowed four years of a thuggish presidency."
Perhaps this article should start with "California has chose the gig economy. The Californian people have disavowed the fascist overreach of AB-5"
Perhaps this article should start with "California has chose the gig economy. The Californian people have disavowed the fascist overreach of AB-5"
yohannparis(3)
Anecdotally when I talk to Uber drivers about how they feel about laws like this, they are staunchly against it, in fact I haven't found one that is for it (sample size of maybe 20 or so). Does anyone have any data on whether these drivers actually want AB5 in effect? All I see from the pro side are cherry-picked examples.
As an Uber driver, I can tell you, the majority of drivers are against AB5, but that doesn't fit into the mainstream media or Democrat's agenda, so you'll rarely hear that fact.
The driver's that are for AB5 tend to be newer one's who have yet to figure out their market and how to be profitable.
The driver's that are for AB5 tend to be newer one's who have yet to figure out their market and how to be profitable.
Weren't Uber drivers bombarded with Pro-Prop 22 messaging every time they opened the app or picked up a passenger? It would make sense that they would support it if >95% of the messaging they got about Prop 22 was from their employer who stood to gain hundreds of millions from its passage.
They were also threatened that Uber would shut down and California entirely if it failed.
If you had an upcoming vote on abolishing penal slavery, and prisoners were threatened with being gunned down if it passed, they might well oppose it.
If you had an upcoming vote on abolishing penal slavery, and prisoners were threatened with being gunned down if it passed, they might well oppose it.
What's with the weird punctuation in the altered title? Makes it hard to read. The article title is "Uber bought itself a law. Here's why that's dangerous for struggling drivers like me", and if you want to fit it into 80 characters, just drop the "like me".
One element of Prop 22 which seems extreme to me are the voting requirements to one-day overturn the law:
"A change to the law would require a seven-eighths majority in the California legislature."
I realize that we don't want laws on the books that are continually changed, but that's an extremely steep climb, should the majority of the legislature feel that this law is problematic. They need virtual total agreement.
"A change to the law would require a seven-eighths majority in the California legislature."
I realize that we don't want laws on the books that are continually changed, but that's an extremely steep climb, should the majority of the legislature feel that this law is problematic. They need virtual total agreement.
AFAIK proposals (e.g infamous prop 13) cannot be overturned by legislature at all, even with 100%. So 7/8th is actually easier than default.
Correct.
"The California State Legislature may not amend or repeal an approved measure without submitting the change to voters. However, a ballot measure may include a clause waiving this protection either entirely or conditionally."
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_proces...
"The California State Legislature may not amend or repeal an approved measure without submitting the change to voters. However, a ballot measure may include a clause waiving this protection either entirely or conditionally."
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_proces...
It's kind of obvious why ballot initiatives prevent the legislature from modifying them. Often they are to overrule the legislature. So if you let the legislature instantly rewrite them then they're useless.
Also, the level of civics knowledge among Californians is near rock bottom and this thing has revealed that. 7/8ths in the legislature cannot 'overturn' this law. That's not how it works.
Also, the level of civics knowledge among Californians is near rock bottom and this thing has revealed that. 7/8ths in the legislature cannot 'overturn' this law. That's not how it works.
The whole point of prop 22 was to let the people override the legislature. AB5 passed with like 70% of the vote in the state assembly. If prop 22 only required a 2/3 majority to modify, then the state legislature could immediately repeal it. It s still only takes a simple majority to update it via another ballot initiative
[deleted]
[deleted]
They didn't buy a law; they ran a campaign (along with other companies). Over 9 million Californians voted "yes" on the proposition. This article glosses over the blame the voters deserve.
What a nonsense and biased article. Biden just raised and spent $1 billion on the 2020 campaign, but you won't see The Guardian claiming Biden "bought the election".
Yet if ridesharing companies spend money to advertise their position that, if the new ride-sharing rules were upheld, they would be forced to leave California, depriving thousands of people of work, that's somehow "buying a law"?
It was a referendum. People voted. The facts were on the side of Uber and Lyft, and they were able to persuade the public to see that.
The law was being pushed knowing full well that it would have killed Uber and Lyft. It was strongly supported by the unions who see Uber and Lyft as an existential threat. The unions can't compete with them, so they tried using the politicians they've bought to effectively outlaw them. Fortunately, it didn't work.
Uber and Lyft provide a service millions of people voluntarily use, with drivers who voluntarily chose to work. That's how our society should work. Government shouldn't be interfering with voluntary transactions.
Yet if ridesharing companies spend money to advertise their position that, if the new ride-sharing rules were upheld, they would be forced to leave California, depriving thousands of people of work, that's somehow "buying a law"?
It was a referendum. People voted. The facts were on the side of Uber and Lyft, and they were able to persuade the public to see that.
The law was being pushed knowing full well that it would have killed Uber and Lyft. It was strongly supported by the unions who see Uber and Lyft as an existential threat. The unions can't compete with them, so they tried using the politicians they've bought to effectively outlaw them. Fortunately, it didn't work.
Uber and Lyft provide a service millions of people voluntarily use, with drivers who voluntarily chose to work. That's how our society should work. Government shouldn't be interfering with voluntary transactions.
It was not a close vote. Prop 22 won by 17%, which is very far out of the margin the most successful political ad campaign could plausibly hope to skew the vote by. It won because middle class Californians didn't want to spend more money on Ubers, not because Uber and Lyft successfully bought the election.
Well, people got used to the taxi rides being dirt cheap. It will be very hard to convince them otherwise: number of people who ride Uber is in any case much higher than number of people who drive for Uber, so in any democratic society measures supporting them, will fail.
It's sad that no one wanted a compromise solution. First the state government insisted everyone be 100% employees, then the only option on the ballot was keep that or 0%. So now we're at 0.
Disclaimer: I’m a former Uber employee
Dara (Uber CEO) did advocate for a third category in a New York Times op-ed in August. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/uber-ceo-dara-kho...
Dara (Uber CEO) did advocate for a third category in a New York Times op-ed in August. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/uber-ceo-dara-kho...
This doesn't address the bigger problem that is AB5, which never should have been passed in the first place. How many more carve outs do we need before AB5 is basically gutted? How many more millions of dollars need to be spent to overturn this tyrannical law? Seems like that money could be put to better use. We don't need government controlling our freedom to work when and how we desire.
They didn't have to buy anything, obviously people want cheaper rides. We all remember how it was before uber.
That we have now set the precedent that companies can buy a proposition to regulate themselves makes me feel sick.
[deleted]
If these companies are as bad to work for as this author describes, why on earth would she continue to work for them? The author’s rebuttal might be that she has no choice because these are her only options. If that were true, then I’d be much more grateful and wouldn’t advocate for laws that might destroy them. These companies didn’t exist a decade ago and the continued existence of gig work is not a foregone conclusion.
Also, it seems like the far more reliability successful path to improve ones lot in life would be to work to personally improve your skill set instead of focusing on legal changes in the hands of millions of people you don’t know and don’t control.
Also, it seems like the far more reliability successful path to improve ones lot in life would be to work to personally improve your skill set instead of focusing on legal changes in the hands of millions of people you don’t know and don’t control.
My cynical take: the alternative is to write freelance articles that are sufficiently tribalistic to fit in with modern digital media. Luckily for the author, freelance writing was carved an exemption from AB5 after AB5 originally crushed freelance writing opportunities.
This. It's just beautiful really.
I think the fake 'progressive voter guide' mailers may have contributed to the passage:
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Fake-progressive-mai... https://www.reddit.com/r/Sacramento/comments/j8a8hx/i_just_g...
I was really shocked when I got one in the mail in Los Angeles.
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Fake-progressive-mai... https://www.reddit.com/r/Sacramento/comments/j8a8hx/i_just_g...
I was really shocked when I got one in the mail in Los Angeles.
Would it have cost more than 200 million to treat all of the California Uber employees as full time employees (ergo, to do what Uber didn't want to do so badly they got a ballot initiative).
I voted no on this because Uber can deal with it. I bet the costs to them from following through would have been less than 200 million...
I voted no on this because Uber can deal with it. I bet the costs to them from following through would have been less than 200 million...
The number I saw thrown around online was that it'd cost $500m/year, so if you consider their campaigning to be an investment it'll definitely pay off and reduce their unprofitability.
TBH I think it's a moot point. How many human drivers will there be in 5 years? Or 10?
TBH I think it's a moot point. How many human drivers will there be in 5 years? Or 10?
> Would it have cost more than 200 million to treat all of the California Uber employees as full time employees
They wouldn't have had to treat them all as full-time employees, only as employees.
They wouldn't have had to treat them all as full-time employees, only as employees.
Hahaha, good correction. All that does is reduce my already low amounts of sympathy for Uber
[deleted]
What a typical American law and counter response.
As an European is fascinating and mind numbing how much you guys are squezeeing the ones in need through crazy lobbying and sophisticated mechanisms. You keep inventing new ways of paying people less than the legal hourly rate just because you got them by the .....
Then you have a principled, transparent, democratic approach in your congress trying to fix social injustice.
This article was on the first page of HN today with this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25083315
The same step by step, slow moving ratched applied not to systematic genocide but to corporate benefits and squeezing whomever you can for one extra penny. Well done you. Surely you have already forgotten how you ended up with Prop 22 in the first place.
As an European is fascinating and mind numbing how much you guys are squezeeing the ones in need through crazy lobbying and sophisticated mechanisms. You keep inventing new ways of paying people less than the legal hourly rate just because you got them by the .....
Then you have a principled, transparent, democratic approach in your congress trying to fix social injustice.
This article was on the first page of HN today with this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25083315
The same step by step, slow moving ratched applied not to systematic genocide but to corporate benefits and squeezing whomever you can for one extra penny. Well done you. Surely you have already forgotten how you ended up with Prop 22 in the first place.
When software companies switch to on-demand flex labor at below minimum wage everyone on this site who supports Prop 22 will be singing a different tune.
A very irrational comment.
Software engineering isn't something everybody in the country can do at the drop of a hat.
If somebody wants to be a full time driver-employee, there are taxi firms/limousine companies/bus driving companies/courier companies.
They don't want that though.
They want the freedom that comes with picking your own hours using a low effort/common & widespread skill(driving a non-commercial vehicle).
Also, the site fiverr and similar sites already exists(as well as entire outsourcing industries) if somebody does want to have their software developed by transient programmers.
Software engineering isn't something everybody in the country can do at the drop of a hat.
If somebody wants to be a full time driver-employee, there are taxi firms/limousine companies/bus driving companies/courier companies.
They don't want that though.
They want the freedom that comes with picking your own hours using a low effort/common & widespread skill(driving a non-commercial vehicle).
Also, the site fiverr and similar sites already exists(as well as entire outsourcing industries) if somebody does want to have their software developed by transient programmers.
Prop 22 sets the base pay at 120% minimum wage
They only count hours that a customers is in the car when calculating that, so it comes out to about $5/hr minimum wage which is below federal minimum wage.
That's not true at all. From the text of prop 22, the minimum wage covers the entire period "from when an app-based driver accepts a rideshare request or delivery request to when the app-based driver completes that
rideshare request or delivery request."
So it's true that if you're sitting outside an airport at 3am when no one is there you won't be getting paid. But as soon as a plane lands and you accept a passenger, you'll get paid for the time you spend driving to pick them up AND the time after you pick them up.
Similarly, if you accept a food delivery in the app but the food isn't ready when you get to the restaurant, you'll get 120% minimum wage while waiting for the cook to finish
So it's true that if you're sitting outside an airport at 3am when no one is there you won't be getting paid. But as soon as a plane lands and you accept a passenger, you'll get paid for the time you spend driving to pick them up AND the time after you pick them up.
Similarly, if you accept a food delivery in the app but the food isn't ready when you get to the restaurant, you'll get 120% minimum wage while waiting for the cook to finish
The Uber/Lyft Ballot Initiative Guarantees only $5.64 an Hour
https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-uber-lyft-ballot-initia...
https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-uber-lyft-ballot-initia...
A few thoughts off the dome-
That link contradicts your claim that drivers are only compensated for the time spent with passengers
That link is attempting to calculate take-home pay after taxes, health insurance, etc. Minimum wage is pretax, so even regular employees aren't making minimum wage once they've paid for their income taxes, social security, Medicare, disability insurance and health insurance. Imo its nonsensical to compare gross against net pay
That link contradicts your claim that drivers are only compensated for the time spent with passengers
That link is attempting to calculate take-home pay after taxes, health insurance, etc. Minimum wage is pretax, so even regular employees aren't making minimum wage once they've paid for their income taxes, social security, Medicare, disability insurance and health insurance. Imo its nonsensical to compare gross against net pay
[deleted]
You get what you vote for.
If the 2020 elections proved anything, it’s that money doesn’t buy elections. Bloomberg tried in the Primary, and tried again in Texas on behalf of Biden and the Democrats and their portion of the Texan Congressional election actually shrank in a State the mainstream media was selling as a swing State.
Money gets you into the game, it doesn’t get you over the finish line.
Back to Prop 22, Uber didn’t buy a law, Californian voters bought this law with their votes, and punched a hole in an even worse law that screwed over 1099s with exceptions for the legislature’s preferred constituents. Now the California State legislature faces a choice: repeal what’s left of AB5 or let the gimped version stand without hitting their prized targets. A total repeal of AB5 would have been even better, but this will do for now.
Money gets you into the game, it doesn’t get you over the finish line.
Back to Prop 22, Uber didn’t buy a law, Californian voters bought this law with their votes, and punched a hole in an even worse law that screwed over 1099s with exceptions for the legislature’s preferred constituents. Now the California State legislature faces a choice: repeal what’s left of AB5 or let the gimped version stand without hitting their prized targets. A total repeal of AB5 would have been even better, but this will do for now.
> Bloomberg tried in the Primary, and tried again in Texas on behalf of Biden and the Democrats and their portion of the Texan Congressional election actually shrank in a State the mainstream media was selling as a swing State
This is incorrect. Bloomberg spent $100 million to help Biden in Florida, not Texas. They may hope to flip Florida, but the main goal was to force Trump to defend there, and therefore unable to focus elsewhere, notably Pennsylvania, as they explained in the article below back in September. From that perspective they did very well.
"In a statement issued Sunday, Mr. Sheekey said Mr. Bloomberg’s latest commitments “will mean Democrats and the Biden campaign can invest even more heavily in other key states like Pennsylvania, which will be critical to a Biden victory.”
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-flo...
This is incorrect. Bloomberg spent $100 million to help Biden in Florida, not Texas. They may hope to flip Florida, but the main goal was to force Trump to defend there, and therefore unable to focus elsewhere, notably Pennsylvania, as they explained in the article below back in September. From that perspective they did very well.
"In a statement issued Sunday, Mr. Sheekey said Mr. Bloomberg’s latest commitments “will mean Democrats and the Biden campaign can invest even more heavily in other key states like Pennsylvania, which will be critical to a Biden victory.”
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-flo...
Nope, we’re both wrong. I’m not planning to track down which of the last two dozen podcasts I listened to that I heard my figure for Texas on, particularly since it was off, but that $100M was split between Florida, Ohio and Texas, lion’s share to Florida[1]. Note that your article is from September.
Trump carried all three States, all three will walk into 2021 as Republican trifectas during redistricting season, and all three will be sending a majority Republican delegation to the House.
Texas walks out of the 116th Congress with 22 Republicans of 36 House seats and will walk into the 117th without losing a single seat. However my original claim of a shrunken Democratic delegation was incorrect, garbage in, garbage out. My apologies.
Kudos to you, you forced me to re-evaluate both my claims and my sources, however you haven’t come back at my main point in that paragraph: money doesn’t buy elections. Beyond this $100M spent in support of Democrats in three States they did abysmally in, Bloomberg spent $1B on his own Primary run which failed almost the moment voting started. $1B bought him 49 delegates and American Samoa in the very first batch of States and Territories he was on the ballot for in the Democratic Primary.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/04/bloomberg-sees-losses-after-...
Trump carried all three States, all three will walk into 2021 as Republican trifectas during redistricting season, and all three will be sending a majority Republican delegation to the House.
Texas walks out of the 116th Congress with 22 Republicans of 36 House seats and will walk into the 117th without losing a single seat. However my original claim of a shrunken Democratic delegation was incorrect, garbage in, garbage out. My apologies.
Kudos to you, you forced me to re-evaluate both my claims and my sources, however you haven’t come back at my main point in that paragraph: money doesn’t buy elections. Beyond this $100M spent in support of Democrats in three States they did abysmally in, Bloomberg spent $1B on his own Primary run which failed almost the moment voting started. $1B bought him 49 delegates and American Samoa in the very first batch of States and Territories he was on the ballot for in the Democratic Primary.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/04/bloomberg-sees-losses-after-...
What is this, Bartertown?!
Abuse/Exploitation will lead to disintegration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_move...
"In California, one of the world’s wealthiest economies, I should be able to afford rent and pay my bills as a driver. I shouldn’t be forced to scour for public bathrooms or work 70-hour weeks to do this job. But that’s what these companies have forced upon us."
"Uber may have bought itself a law, but it has not bought itself reprieve. All labor has dignity, and driving for Uber or Lyft should be no different."
Cherri Murphy is a social justice minister and Lyft driver based in Oakland, California. She is also an organizer with Gig Workers Rising.
Oh ok, that makes sense.
"Uber may have bought itself a law, but it has not bought itself reprieve. All labor has dignity, and driving for Uber or Lyft should be no different."
Cherri Murphy is a social justice minister and Lyft driver based in Oakland, California. She is also an organizer with Gig Workers Rising.
Oh ok, that makes sense.
Sorry, can you explain? Why do you think that makes sense? If you're going to say "because this is the kind of thing a social justice minister would write", consider that:
1. You may have cause and effect wrong. The conditions this person lived through, especially as a gig worker, may have moved them to be a social justice minister; not the other way around.
2. You are not judging the article from the quality of the writing or the persuasiveness of the arguments, but instead by the background of the writer. Certainly it's important to note that this article is written from the experience of a _gig worker_, but IMO that only adds to the persuasiveness.
1. You may have cause and effect wrong. The conditions this person lived through, especially as a gig worker, may have moved them to be a social justice minister; not the other way around.
2. You are not judging the article from the quality of the writing or the persuasiveness of the arguments, but instead by the background of the writer. Certainly it's important to note that this article is written from the experience of a _gig worker_, but IMO that only adds to the persuasiveness.
Background should have 100% been included in article to frame it. This is a piece by someone who only puts forward that they are Uber drive. The explicit omission of her other current work roles wasn't by accident.
Propaganda comes from both sides of an issue.
Does the article mention how long she has been a gig worker for? Because her bio would suggest she has potentially multiple income streams and also has had full time positions which I'm sure have equivalents in the area she resides in now.
The bio at https://www.netrootsnation.org/profile/cherri-murphy/ just mentions:
> Minister Cherri Murphy is currently the Founder of Speak Life Ministries and a Doctoral student at the Graduate Theological Union/Berkeley Theology in Berkeley. Her focus is on liturgical direct actions, specifically how participants combine public worship, art and ritual protests to intimately engage and invoke social change for those who have historically been de-centered. She is also a member and a licensed Spiritual Practitioner at Heart and Soul Center of Light, in Oakland California.
Propaganda comes from both sides of an issue.
Does the article mention how long she has been a gig worker for? Because her bio would suggest she has potentially multiple income streams and also has had full time positions which I'm sure have equivalents in the area she resides in now.
The bio at https://www.netrootsnation.org/profile/cherri-murphy/ just mentions:
> Minister Cherri Murphy is currently the Founder of Speak Life Ministries and a Doctoral student at the Graduate Theological Union/Berkeley Theology in Berkeley. Her focus is on liturgical direct actions, specifically how participants combine public worship, art and ritual protests to intimately engage and invoke social change for those who have historically been de-centered. She is also a member and a licensed Spiritual Practitioner at Heart and Soul Center of Light, in Oakland California.
I'm detecting quite a lot of judgement in your comment. You've attacked the person rather than the argument.
Do you disagree that a job should mean that someone is able to afford rent and pay your bills? Because that sounds entirely reasonable to me.
Do you disagree that a job should mean that someone is able to afford rent and pay your bills? Because that sounds entirely reasonable to me.
>Do you disagree that a job should mean that someone is able to afford rent and pay your bills?
Could we focus down on this question. Ignoring what led to this question being raised, I would like to better capture what is being asked here.
Is the idea that any job should be able to provide for any rent and any bills? I think that is an entirely unreasonable interpretation, but I want to make sure we are in agreement that there are some combinations of jobs, rents, and bills that aren't reasonable to be included.
If we can agree on that point, then how should we determine what pairings of job/rent/bills should be covered and should not? For example, maybe we should say that for any job, there should exist rent within 30 minutes of the job and bills that include X amenities which is affordable working that job. (For the moment let's ignore the complexities of deciding what should be included in X, especially given that people can acquire some very large bills in numerous ways.)
If for the moment we agree to the above standards for jobs, how should part time jobs work? Should it be that any part time job whose total pay when accounting for hours worked dips below the threshold we agreed to shouldn't exist? Say there was a job where working 25 hours was enough to meet the threshold, should we say that it would be illegal for the job to offer 24 hours or less a week (there would be a number of ways to enforce this, potentially having a minimum wage monthly in combination with an hourly minimum wage, but other options exist)?
I'm not trying to disagree with the sentiment. Instead, I want to better understand the details of the sentiment beyond the trivial case (all jobs, all rents, all bills) which has trivial counters, trivial to the extent that bringing them up almost seems like a bad faith strawman.
Could we focus down on this question. Ignoring what led to this question being raised, I would like to better capture what is being asked here.
Is the idea that any job should be able to provide for any rent and any bills? I think that is an entirely unreasonable interpretation, but I want to make sure we are in agreement that there are some combinations of jobs, rents, and bills that aren't reasonable to be included.
If we can agree on that point, then how should we determine what pairings of job/rent/bills should be covered and should not? For example, maybe we should say that for any job, there should exist rent within 30 minutes of the job and bills that include X amenities which is affordable working that job. (For the moment let's ignore the complexities of deciding what should be included in X, especially given that people can acquire some very large bills in numerous ways.)
If for the moment we agree to the above standards for jobs, how should part time jobs work? Should it be that any part time job whose total pay when accounting for hours worked dips below the threshold we agreed to shouldn't exist? Say there was a job where working 25 hours was enough to meet the threshold, should we say that it would be illegal for the job to offer 24 hours or less a week (there would be a number of ways to enforce this, potentially having a minimum wage monthly in combination with an hourly minimum wage, but other options exist)?
I'm not trying to disagree with the sentiment. Instead, I want to better understand the details of the sentiment beyond the trivial case (all jobs, all rents, all bills) which has trivial counters, trivial to the extent that bringing them up almost seems like a bad faith strawman.
Reasonable.
> Is the idea that any job should be able to provide for any rent and any bills?
No. We live a society of free will and choices. It's not reasonable for me to expect that _any_ job will allow me to live _any_ kind of lifestyle. I am firmly in the middle-class. I expect my job will allow me to pay my housing costs, but I don't expect it to pay for a brand new car every year and especially not if I spend all of my discresionary income on... something else!
It is reasonable for me to expect that a full-time job should allow me to have a roof over my head, food to eat, etc. I should make a living wage. There are examples of independent organisations that calculate what a living wage is and what constitues a living wage. (https://www.livingwage.org.uk/ in the UK for example) So I'm keen not to get in to an argument about what constitues a living wage, because people smarter than me have spent much longer than me considering it.
I am also not an expert. But I do know that europeans like myself look at the world of work in the US with abject horror, even when things here are not perfect.
> Is the idea that any job should be able to provide for any rent and any bills?
No. We live a society of free will and choices. It's not reasonable for me to expect that _any_ job will allow me to live _any_ kind of lifestyle. I am firmly in the middle-class. I expect my job will allow me to pay my housing costs, but I don't expect it to pay for a brand new car every year and especially not if I spend all of my discresionary income on... something else!
It is reasonable for me to expect that a full-time job should allow me to have a roof over my head, food to eat, etc. I should make a living wage. There are examples of independent organisations that calculate what a living wage is and what constitues a living wage. (https://www.livingwage.org.uk/ in the UK for example) So I'm keen not to get in to an argument about what constitues a living wage, because people smarter than me have spent much longer than me considering it.
I am also not an expert. But I do know that europeans like myself look at the world of work in the US with abject horror, even when things here are not perfect.
>No. We live a society of free will and choices. It's not reasonable for me to expect that _any_ job will allow me to live _any_ kind of lifestyle.
I think reasonable can agree on this. The difficulty is deciding where to draw the line at, now that we have established there exists some line.
>It is reasonable for me to expect that a full-time job should allow me to have a roof over my head, food to eat, etc. I should make a living wage. There are examples of independent organisations that calculate what a living wage is and what constitues a living wage.
But these have certain assumptions built in. A living wage for a single adult with no kids is quite different than a living wage for an adult with 2 kids. So how many kids should be calculated in? Aren't we saying that if a person has greater than what ever number of kids we allow for, aren't we condemning them to being forced to live at an unlivable wage? We could define it to take into account something like number of kids, but then we have now officially begun discriminated on family status and will likely have a number of unintended consequences.
I'm not asking for an answer to this question, but instead a way to justify an answer. A method of proving instead of a specific proof.
I think reasonable can agree on this. The difficulty is deciding where to draw the line at, now that we have established there exists some line.
>It is reasonable for me to expect that a full-time job should allow me to have a roof over my head, food to eat, etc. I should make a living wage. There are examples of independent organisations that calculate what a living wage is and what constitues a living wage.
But these have certain assumptions built in. A living wage for a single adult with no kids is quite different than a living wage for an adult with 2 kids. So how many kids should be calculated in? Aren't we saying that if a person has greater than what ever number of kids we allow for, aren't we condemning them to being forced to live at an unlivable wage? We could define it to take into account something like number of kids, but then we have now officially begun discriminated on family status and will likely have a number of unintended consequences.
I'm not asking for an answer to this question, but instead a way to justify an answer. A method of proving instead of a specific proof.
I'm detecting a bit of judgement in your reply, too.
He has to attack the person because opposing the idea of people making a living wage makes you look like a callous idiot.
This says more about the label than the opposition.
The "living wage" bakes in a variety of assumptions. First of all is the assumption that people shouldn't work if they're not out to earn a full-time living from that work. This view is typical of posh Americans who went to nice universities, had snazzy internships, and are now happily working full time.
It gleefully ignores those who need to start lower, and get entry level experience. Indeed, it is actively hostile to entire classes of people working.
A retiree who wants a little extra money. A high school kid from some gang-afflicted neighborhood, one who isn't going to college, but could benefit some low-key job in a restaurant, one that would keep him out of trouble, and get him a start for when he graduates. An ex-convict who's just spent five years in prison under one of Biden's drug laws, who could use a steady job to show his next employer he's hard working and didn't steal from work. An immigrant with marginal English language skills. That one girl I knew in school whose entire family was afflicted by a serious case of lead poisoning.
Now there's sure to be some sort of whining to the effect that some of these people need to be supported directly, but suppose they are -- why would that deny them the right to work?
Of course the cynical part of the political apparatus has absolutely no use for these people, since they don't vote, they don't campaign, they compete with the labor unions, and they're not always interested in sitting around and doing nothing on the government dime. They're useless in the revolution.
Oh, and of course the other thing! is that it helps draw attention away from the other big problem: a broken housing policy that has produced sky-high rents in so many major cities. Why fix that problem when you can make a new set of problems instead? One is hard work, and the other earns you praise as compassionate.
The "living wage" bakes in a variety of assumptions. First of all is the assumption that people shouldn't work if they're not out to earn a full-time living from that work. This view is typical of posh Americans who went to nice universities, had snazzy internships, and are now happily working full time.
It gleefully ignores those who need to start lower, and get entry level experience. Indeed, it is actively hostile to entire classes of people working.
A retiree who wants a little extra money. A high school kid from some gang-afflicted neighborhood, one who isn't going to college, but could benefit some low-key job in a restaurant, one that would keep him out of trouble, and get him a start for when he graduates. An ex-convict who's just spent five years in prison under one of Biden's drug laws, who could use a steady job to show his next employer he's hard working and didn't steal from work. An immigrant with marginal English language skills. That one girl I knew in school whose entire family was afflicted by a serious case of lead poisoning.
Now there's sure to be some sort of whining to the effect that some of these people need to be supported directly, but suppose they are -- why would that deny them the right to work?
Of course the cynical part of the political apparatus has absolutely no use for these people, since they don't vote, they don't campaign, they compete with the labor unions, and they're not always interested in sitting around and doing nothing on the government dime. They're useless in the revolution.
Oh, and of course the other thing! is that it helps draw attention away from the other big problem: a broken housing policy that has produced sky-high rents in so many major cities. Why fix that problem when you can make a new set of problems instead? One is hard work, and the other earns you praise as compassionate.
The point that you're ignoring is that most people working these "entry-level" jobs in fact DO depend on them to cover their living expenses.
What you're suggesting is to set those people in a race to the bottom along with the high school kid and retiree looking for "a little extra money". The point of setting a living wage is to set a bare minimum standard for employment.
You'd also find that the same politicians pushing a for a minimum wage are the ones trying to address broken housing policies, but you'd have to do research instead of just complaining.
What you're suggesting is to set those people in a race to the bottom along with the high school kid and retiree looking for "a little extra money". The point of setting a living wage is to set a bare minimum standard for employment.
You'd also find that the same politicians pushing a for a minimum wage are the ones trying to address broken housing policies, but you'd have to do research instead of just complaining.
No, that point that you're ignoring in pointing that out is that if they don't depend on these jobs then they're entirely unemployed. Chopping off the bottom of the labor market benefits a few people, yes, it just throws others who are less valuable to your political party into the abyss.
> You'd also find that the same politicians pushing a for a minimum wage are the ones trying to address broken housing policies.
Maybe, but not in New York and not in San Francisco. It's all "restrict the supply of housing" as if the laws of supply and demand are made up — indeed, they will deny supply and demand the same way a Koch-funded lobbyist tells you we should save the planet by burning more coal.
> You'd also find that the same politicians pushing a for a minimum wage are the ones trying to address broken housing policies.
Maybe, but not in New York and not in San Francisco. It's all "restrict the supply of housing" as if the laws of supply and demand are made up — indeed, they will deny supply and demand the same way a Koch-funded lobbyist tells you we should save the planet by burning more coal.
> No, that point that you're ignoring in pointing that out is that if they don't depend on these jobs then they're entirely unemployed.
Those jobs don't disappear just because you mandate a living wage.
Those jobs don't disappear just because you mandate a living wage.
No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted.
It's even more of a pity because we should be investing capital in meaningful things, like biotech or space exploration or environmental progress or what-have-you, instead of on stupid things like robots and restaurant apps.
It's even more of a pity because we should be investing capital in meaningful things, like biotech or space exploration or environmental progress or what-have-you, instead of on stupid things like robots and restaurant apps.
> No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted.
Ok, now we're getting to the root of the problem. This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics. What you're missing here is this:
- Jobs are a function of demand.
- Demand is driven by consumers.
- Consumers need capital to drive demand
- The poor spend proportionately to their income much more than the wealthy.
That's the circle you need to be thinking about when you're asking yourself what the impact will be on jobs. The more you drive down living standards of the poor and middle class, the fewer jobs you will have, not the other way around.
Ok, now we're getting to the root of the problem. This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics. What you're missing here is this:
- Jobs are a function of demand.
- Demand is driven by consumers.
- Consumers need capital to drive demand
- The poor spend proportionately to their income much more than the wealthy.
That's the circle you need to be thinking about when you're asking yourself what the impact will be on jobs. The more you drive down living standards of the poor and middle class, the fewer jobs you will have, not the other way around.
> This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics
Your superior "understanding" of economics is at odds with academic consensus and with reality.
> Consumers need capital to drive demand
Replacing five McDonalds cashiers with two cashiers, an app, and a touchscreen ordering kiosk doesn't "drive demand".
Your superior "understanding" of economics is at odds with academic consensus and with reality.
> Consumers need capital to drive demand
Replacing five McDonalds cashiers with two cashiers, an app, and a touchscreen ordering kiosk doesn't "drive demand".
> Your superior "understanding" of economics is at odds with academic consensus and with reality.
And yet, you have no counterargument.
And yet, you have no counterargument.
the marginal cost of supplying argument has exceeded the marginal benefit (zero)
> I'm detecting quite a lot of judgement in your comment.
Yes you have correctly detected that.
Yes you have correctly detected that.
So because of your bias against a particular... job title? That discounts her entire argument?
> The argument discounts itself.
It quite simply doesn't, and if you truly believe it does I'd genuinely love to understand why you think that.
It quite simply doesn't, and if you truly believe it does I'd genuinely love to understand why you think that.
The argument discounts itself. Her bio explains why she would make such an argument.
This sounds like some sort of novel logical error, sort of like attacking the man rather than the argument but instead the idea seems to be:
arguments that emit from sources you would expect to be making such arguments are automatically discounted.
This leads to the conclusion that only arguments from unexpected sources are to be trusted - thus criminals who argue that crime is bad and snitches should get riches are to be trusted, but cops who say that crime is bad are not to be trusted on that matter.
I mean, it's a funny kind of idea to hold.
arguments that emit from sources you would expect to be making such arguments are automatically discounted.
This leads to the conclusion that only arguments from unexpected sources are to be trusted - thus criminals who argue that crime is bad and snitches should get riches are to be trusted, but cops who say that crime is bad are not to be trusted on that matter.
I mean, it's a funny kind of idea to hold.
Maybe she has such a profound ideological bent because she has to persist in the absolutely mangled society that we've created :)
What is a "social justice minister"?
[deleted]
Maybe I'm too libertarian-leaning, but doesn't the author of the article have the option of NOT driving for Uber? If California is truly one of the wealthiest economies, the author should be able to find a different line of work.
That's a valid point. The question is why all other Uber/Lyft drivers are not changing jobs for something fancier if that is so easy.
Some plausible reasons the drivers don't change jobs are (1) that RideCos offer the drivers paying work they prefer to their other realistic options, and (2) relatedly, that RideCos are more willing than other companies to offer the drivers work. Perhaps the drivers would have more good options if employment in other professions were not so heavily regulated. But (absent significant price controls) it seems like this is the sort of profession we should expect to attract marginal, low-skilled employees whose lives may inspire some sympathy, through no particular fault of the RideCos.
Well, maybe it's because the flexibility of work is important to those people, and they don't want a full-time job.
Nearly 75% of all Uber drivers in CA drive <25 hours per week. More than 40% of all trips in CA are driven by those drivers.
Nearly 75% of all Uber drivers in CA drive <25 hours per week. More than 40% of all trips in CA are driven by those drivers.
Maybe I'm too left-leaning, but doesn't it feel wrong to deny people the possibility of seeing a doctor, calling in sick if they don't feel good or earning enough money to afford more than Ramen at the end of the month, no matter their line of work?
It's great that the HN crowd is primarily privileged from an income point of view, but I find it hard to fathom that people lose sight of the fact that not everyone is this fortunate, and those less fortunate also deserve to live a life without fear of getting sick.
It's great that the HN crowd is primarily privileged from an income point of view, but I find it hard to fathom that people lose sight of the fact that not everyone is this fortunate, and those less fortunate also deserve to live a life without fear of getting sick.
> Maybe I'm too left-leaning, but doesn't it feel wrong to deny people the possibility of seeing a doctor, calling in sick if they don't feel good or earning enough money to afford more than Ramen at the end of the month, no matter their line of work?
It does feel wrong to deny people the possibility of seeing a doctor.
It does feel wrong that some people can't afford basic necessities.
Why do you insist on drawing a line around people who have found employment and saying that they deserve these things, but if they don't have employment they deserve a second, lesser system?
If people don't have healthcare and you think they should - provide healthcare, don't try to make someone else do so.
If people don't have money and you think they should - give them money, don't require others to pay more to those people who can get a job.
Maybe tying benefits to employment and subsistence levels of cash to employment are a bad way to solve the problems you claim to care about.
It does feel wrong to deny people the possibility of seeing a doctor.
It does feel wrong that some people can't afford basic necessities.
Why do you insist on drawing a line around people who have found employment and saying that they deserve these things, but if they don't have employment they deserve a second, lesser system?
If people don't have healthcare and you think they should - provide healthcare, don't try to make someone else do so.
If people don't have money and you think they should - give them money, don't require others to pay more to those people who can get a job.
Maybe tying benefits to employment and subsistence levels of cash to employment are a bad way to solve the problems you claim to care about.
I fully agree with you. In a society where people would not have any existential fears, employed or not, Uber would not get away with what they're doing anyway. But I think the argument is orthogonal to what I meant.
In context of the system that Uber drivers are living in right now, Prop22 is a step in the wrong direction: it gives affirmation to companies that actively deprives gig workers of the rights we talk about above.
Of course it'd be better to solve this problem at a higher level, but I'm happy to argue against proponents of steps in the wrong direction (e.g. Prop22).
In context of the system that Uber drivers are living in right now, Prop22 is a step in the wrong direction: it gives affirmation to companies that actively deprives gig workers of the rights we talk about above.
Of course it'd be better to solve this problem at a higher level, but I'm happy to argue against proponents of steps in the wrong direction (e.g. Prop22).
My understanding was that both yes and no on prop 22 are net positives compared to the status quo ("yes" providing 120% minimum wage guarantees and some benefits, vs no obligations currently), and I recall reading Uber saying these will indeed incur extra costs that will get passed onto consumers.
I feel that prop 22 is often incorrectly characterized as either an attempt at maintaining the status quo or a step backwards, but it's neither.
It's easy to say "well I support everyone making more money", but that is an idealistic position that ignores the basic fact that there's a limited amount of money that needs to be distributed among a lot of people. If you were in charge, you might be of the opinion that only some stakeholders should get that money and others get nothing in order to allow at least some people to meet some arbitrary minimum threshold (the "no" in prop 22), or you could choose to distribute evenly across all existing stakeholder even if it doesn't meet the threshold for anyone (the "yes").
I don't think there's necessarily a right/wrong stance here; they're just different philosophies, and it makes sense to then vote on which people prefer. The people voted, and I imagine they did so with understanding of the propositions.
I think it's dangerous to insinuate that people can easily be manipulated to vote one way or another. If that were indeed the case, then what exactly is the merit of a democracy over a dictatorship? I'd rather believe that people do indeed take their civic responsibility seriously and vote in an informed manner.
I feel that prop 22 is often incorrectly characterized as either an attempt at maintaining the status quo or a step backwards, but it's neither.
It's easy to say "well I support everyone making more money", but that is an idealistic position that ignores the basic fact that there's a limited amount of money that needs to be distributed among a lot of people. If you were in charge, you might be of the opinion that only some stakeholders should get that money and others get nothing in order to allow at least some people to meet some arbitrary minimum threshold (the "no" in prop 22), or you could choose to distribute evenly across all existing stakeholder even if it doesn't meet the threshold for anyone (the "yes").
I don't think there's necessarily a right/wrong stance here; they're just different philosophies, and it makes sense to then vote on which people prefer. The people voted, and I imagine they did so with understanding of the propositions.
I think it's dangerous to insinuate that people can easily be manipulated to vote one way or another. If that were indeed the case, then what exactly is the merit of a democracy over a dictatorship? I'd rather believe that people do indeed take their civic responsibility seriously and vote in an informed manner.
What do you make of the fact that most Uber drivers advocate for prop 22?
https://www.reddit.com/r/uberdrivers/comments/i9awkm/my_fell...
Sure, reddit comments are anecdotes, but have you asked Uber drivers what they want? Do you think it's fair to deprive someone the right to work?
(I drive for Uber part time and I am happy being an IC. I do not want to be an employee. I drive for Uber because of the flexibility).
https://www.reddit.com/r/uberdrivers/comments/i9awkm/my_fell...
Sure, reddit comments are anecdotes, but have you asked Uber drivers what they want? Do you think it's fair to deprive someone the right to work?
(I drive for Uber part time and I am happy being an IC. I do not want to be an employee. I drive for Uber because of the flexibility).
I’m a salaried worker and I don’t want the Uber model to spread further. I like that I can’t be forced to work more than 8h a day, 40h a week. The gig economy sidesteps these laws in a way that could impact what I like in the future should my employer decide it’s fair and make business sense, and if enough people also decide that, they all lose collective bargaining power and instead of people they become resources.
> What do you make of the fact that most Uber drivers advocate for prop 22?
That Uber was using their apps to shovel huge volumes of pro-Prop 22 propaganda at their drivers.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/15/21517316/uber-spamming-u...
That Uber was using their apps to shovel huge volumes of pro-Prop 22 propaganda at their drivers.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/15/21517316/uber-spamming-u...
~75% of Uber drivers in CA drive < 25 hours per week.
If I could drive 25 hours per week and get a better-than-ramen wage plus full health benefits then sigh me up. I’m sure there are millions like me.
If I could drive 25 hours per week and get a better-than-ramen wage plus full health benefits then sigh me up. I’m sure there are millions like me.
This only seems like part of the story, though. What do we know about other work these people do? Is Uber maybe a supplemental job because the primary one doesn't pay the bills?
Also please provide sources if you make such claims :)
Also please provide sources if you make such claims :)
Many don't have the luxury of changing their line of work or company. Organizing the workers and potentially unionizing is an option for those people.
Uber is still bleeding money, unionizing would essentially put Uber out of business.
If a company can't both sustain itself and its employees financially, surely that's a failed business? If the only way you can survive is by exploiting the poor, maybe you should be rethinking your strategy.
| exploiting the poor
I think a lot of those people wouldn't have jobs otherwise, is something better than nothing?
Also it's not just the poor, I've had many friends use uber as a stop gap between jobs. One of my drivers had a masters in Finance - I don't see anything wrong with gig work as long as both sides know what they are signing up for.
I think a lot of those people wouldn't have jobs otherwise, is something better than nothing?
Also it's not just the poor, I've had many friends use uber as a stop gap between jobs. One of my drivers had a masters in Finance - I don't see anything wrong with gig work as long as both sides know what they are signing up for.
Why would they be out of a job? Surely bleeding money in Uber’s case is a self-inflicted wound, because they provide a service below cost? Raise prices, problem solved.
Oh wait there are other companies that also follow the same model and Uber would lose all customers the moment it raised prices? Looks like something in the rules doesn’t add up unless VC money doesn’t stop flowing.
Oh wait there are other companies that also follow the same model and Uber would lose all customers the moment it raised prices? Looks like something in the rules doesn’t add up unless VC money doesn’t stop flowing.
You could say that to miners complaining about their work conditions in the 19th century, too.
This is gig work. You can change whenever you want. You can move across the country. This isn't the 19th century.
Have you tried finding work when your education is not in demand? Please don’t minimize other’s lived experience.
That's a fair point, but if your education is not in demand, I don't see a reason to think that driving a car, something that 80+% of American adults are capable of doing, should provide a full household income on 40 hours per week of effort.
That initial condition (your education is not in demand) definitely represents a tough position, but it's not clear that it's ride-sharing's "fault" in any way. Instead, it seems to me like ride-sharing is providing them with a better alternative than whatever their next-best alternative is; in other words, it's helping them not harming them.
That initial condition (your education is not in demand) definitely represents a tough position, but it's not clear that it's ride-sharing's "fault" in any way. Instead, it seems to me like ride-sharing is providing them with a better alternative than whatever their next-best alternative is; in other words, it's helping them not harming them.
Sorry, are you saying that working a 40 hour week shouldn't earn a living wage if it's a non-specialised skill?
I'm saying that if there is not enough demand for that work to support a wage that will provide a living wage on 40 hours/week, that you can't legislate up enough excess demand to make the equation solve the way you might like it to.
In most (maybe all) markets, there is not enough consumer demand at the prices that would be required to support a living wage for everyone for whom flexible ride-share driving is the most lucrative work readily available. Now, iff that's true, what should the legislature do? Prevent that work from being done at all? Ration the supply (medallions or companies refusing to let drivers choose when/if to work)? The people said no, including a lot of current ride-share drivers.
In most (maybe all) markets, there is not enough consumer demand at the prices that would be required to support a living wage for everyone for whom flexible ride-share driving is the most lucrative work readily available. Now, iff that's true, what should the legislature do? Prevent that work from being done at all? Ration the supply (medallions or companies refusing to let drivers choose when/if to work)? The people said no, including a lot of current ride-share drivers.
I think you need to give the parent poster a little more credit. People have all kinds of preferences for employment that go into determining a market-clearing wage.
e.g. it is probably the case that loading garbage onto a truck doesn't require more skill/specialization than driving a car for hire
However, the overwhelmingly vast amount of people prefer to do the job that they can do while sitting down, in an air-conditioned vehicle, vs. the one they have to do surrounded by stinking detritus, outside in all weathers.
Based on my own prejudices, driving a car for hire sits in a relative sweet-spot of low skill, low physical demand, low discomfort. I agree there are undoubtedly personal safety factors that you're more exposed to than, say, flipping burgers at McDonalds.
e.g. it is probably the case that loading garbage onto a truck doesn't require more skill/specialization than driving a car for hire
However, the overwhelmingly vast amount of people prefer to do the job that they can do while sitting down, in an air-conditioned vehicle, vs. the one they have to do surrounded by stinking detritus, outside in all weathers.
Based on my own prejudices, driving a car for hire sits in a relative sweet-spot of low skill, low physical demand, low discomfort. I agree there are undoubtedly personal safety factors that you're more exposed to than, say, flipping burgers at McDonalds.
wages are a market. "should" or "shouldn't" is irrelevant
To be fair to @pixelbash, I was the one who sloppily used "should". I meant it to imply that there's a market/economy effect that dominates, but it was sloppy/possibly ambiguous. I'm going to leave my comment unedited, but I wish I'd used "would" instead of "should" there to suggest that it's an outcome of economic inputs rather than a personal value judgment.
Thanks for the clarification, this is essentially what I was querying!
A little off topic, but where does this now commonly used phrase "lived experience" that lefties love to use so much come from. Doesn't the word "experience" cover the idea? Is it to differentiate from their reading or television "experiences"? I think the redundant "lived" part is added for dramatic effect.
Why do you think Uber/Lyft will remain accessible if drivers have to be employees?
Sure. But can anyone honestly argue that driving for Uber/Lyft is the only employment option they have? I mean, what would they have done before those companies existed?
The problem with this line of thinking is that a state is not a person is not a company is not an x. (Let's put aside any tangential Citizens United rebuttal.)
Or more simply, why is California one of the wealthiest economies? Is it because a typical California resident is one of the wealthiest people (on certain scales I wouldn't be surprised if this were actually true)? Or are there several subsets of people who are very wealthy due to California's unusually successful industries with global reach (I can think of two obvious giants.)? And how large are these subsets? If we answer all of these questions, we should answer your original question or at least come close.
Edit: Changed "every California resident" to "a typical"
Or more simply, why is California one of the wealthiest economies? Is it because a typical California resident is one of the wealthiest people (on certain scales I wouldn't be surprised if this were actually true)? Or are there several subsets of people who are very wealthy due to California's unusually successful industries with global reach (I can think of two obvious giants.)? And how large are these subsets? If we answer all of these questions, we should answer your original question or at least come close.
Edit: Changed "every California resident" to "a typical"
Weather. Much of California has such awesome weather.
I don’t want want to go back for many reasons, but man I miss the mild temperatures.
I don’t want want to go back for many reasons, but man I miss the mild temperatures.
Ellipsis is accomplished with an ellipsis, not a dash. Use ... next time.
This is the worst kind of pedantic because it is both pedantic and wrong[1].
You could argue against the dramatic period after the word "law," but why would you?
We all understand her meaning and the dashes emphasize her point without bold or italic letters.
1. https://writingessentialsbyellen.com/when-to-use-the-ellipsi...
You could argue against the dramatic period after the word "law," but why would you?
We all understand her meaning and the dashes emphasize her point without bold or italic letters.
1. https://writingessentialsbyellen.com/when-to-use-the-ellipsi...
> We all understand her meaning and the dashes emphasize her point without bold or italic letters.
I didn't understand the meaning until I clicked through to the article. In fact, trying to understand the weird punctuation is the only reason I took any interest in this story. I don't think dashes can work as emphasis for that part of a sentence.
I didn't understand the meaning until I clicked through to the article. In fact, trying to understand the weird punctuation is the only reason I took any interest in this story. I don't think dashes can work as emphasis for that part of a sentence.
We don't all understand the meaning.
And yes, here, the purpose was ellipsis: the original text was "Uber bought itself a law. Here's why that's dangerous for struggling drivers like me" and the submission was eliding portions of that.
Your link and criticism are entirely inapt. The title was not using the dash for emphasis, and even if it were, it would have been inappropriate. The examples in the article you link are of a dash making a break in the chain of thought more emphatic. Dashes are not used to emphasize enclosed text itself.
And yes, here, the purpose was ellipsis: the original text was "Uber bought itself a law. Here's why that's dangerous for struggling drivers like me" and the submission was eliding portions of that.
Your link and criticism are entirely inapt. The title was not using the dash for emphasis, and even if it were, it would have been inappropriate. The examples in the article you link are of a dash making a break in the chain of thought more emphatic. Dashes are not used to emphasize enclosed text itself.
They're not trying to do an ellipsis, or a pause. I think it might be an attempt at emphasis, like italics.
He drives the way Uber was originally envisioned. He goes out some nights if there’s a surge, and in the morning on the way to work he points the app toward our stores and grabs a person (pre-pandemic) or a food delivery (today) on his way in.
It pays for gas money, car maintenance, and then some. Some months he makes a few hundred dollars. Some months over $1000. He can work when he wants, and make as much or as little money as he needs.
I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. I understand that some people want it to be full-time, but I wish they would stop trying to make Uber something it’s not. Had the law passed, people like my husband would have had to quit working for Uber. It would have unfairly punished the part-time and “free time” drivers in favor of full-time drivers.
I still think we need a third class of employment, but that’s not what was on the table here.