U.S. Labor Secretary throws support behind classifying gig workers as employees(reuters.com)
reuters.com
U.S. Labor Secretary throws support behind classifying gig workers as employees
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-labor-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-labor-secretary-says-most-gig-workers-should-be-classified-as-employees-idUSKBN2CG1ZS
529 comments
No one's saying you can't freelance. But there are some pretty clear rules about what you should be able to do in order to really be a freelancer: choose which jobs you take, set your own hours, decide how you want to do the job, how you dress, etc.
What's not OK is when the company wants all the advantages of having contractors but still wants to dictate all these things.
What's not OK is when the company wants all the advantages of having contractors but still wants to dictate all these things.
I think you might be more in agreement with the original comment than how I interpreted your comment.
Personally, I think OP is calling out that most of the issues with current Uber (and similar companies) is the asymmetry of information. Only Uber knows where all the riders are, what they are paying, and where they are going. They also are the only ones that know where all the drivers are and how much they are expecting to be paid. This information asymmetry allows them to expose just enough information to both rider and driver to facilitate the outcome Uber wants. In my mind, when Uber (or anyone else) starts controlling the flow of information they cease to be simply a platform/market place.
The majority of issues (in my mind) resolve themselves when this data asymmetry is removed. Driver's have more freedom of choice if they can see all available fares rather than just a yes/no prompt on an individual basis, for example.
I also think there is far more gray area to these types of employment relationships that is generally acceptable when it comes to things like how you do the job, how you dress, etc. For example, if you are an independent delivery driver but enter into a contract with FedEx it is acceptable for FedEx to stipulate that you wear a FedEx uniform while delivering FedEx parcels. If you don't find that stipulation acceptable, you can decline the contract. Likewise, if FedEx discovers you aren't following contractual obligations they can terminate the relationship.
Personally, I think OP is calling out that most of the issues with current Uber (and similar companies) is the asymmetry of information. Only Uber knows where all the riders are, what they are paying, and where they are going. They also are the only ones that know where all the drivers are and how much they are expecting to be paid. This information asymmetry allows them to expose just enough information to both rider and driver to facilitate the outcome Uber wants. In my mind, when Uber (or anyone else) starts controlling the flow of information they cease to be simply a platform/market place.
The majority of issues (in my mind) resolve themselves when this data asymmetry is removed. Driver's have more freedom of choice if they can see all available fares rather than just a yes/no prompt on an individual basis, for example.
I also think there is far more gray area to these types of employment relationships that is generally acceptable when it comes to things like how you do the job, how you dress, etc. For example, if you are an independent delivery driver but enter into a contract with FedEx it is acceptable for FedEx to stipulate that you wear a FedEx uniform while delivering FedEx parcels. If you don't find that stipulation acceptable, you can decline the contract. Likewise, if FedEx discovers you aren't following contractual obligations they can terminate the relationship.
I think it's less clear than one would expect.
What does set your own hours look like? If I hire someone to mow my lawn, and want it to happen while I'm at the store, am I setting that person's hours?
What does decide how you want to do the job look like? If I specifically want them to use an electric mower for noise reasons, am I deciding how they do the job for them?
Ultimately I feel like we are trying to shoehorn a fundamentally new model into preexisting paradigms, and as a result we waste time haggling over who is what. It feels like instead we should just say this is a new thing, and create a new set of laws to regulate it in the way that we think is best.
What does set your own hours look like? If I hire someone to mow my lawn, and want it to happen while I'm at the store, am I setting that person's hours?
What does decide how you want to do the job look like? If I specifically want them to use an electric mower for noise reasons, am I deciding how they do the job for them?
Ultimately I feel like we are trying to shoehorn a fundamentally new model into preexisting paradigms, and as a result we waste time haggling over who is what. It feels like instead we should just say this is a new thing, and create a new set of laws to regulate it in the way that we think is best.
There are a bunch of criteria for employee vs gig, but the law isn't written prescriptively - so the person's work for you satisfies some of one and some of the other, then someone will have to decide how much control the contractor has over the working conditions (the greater the control, the more likely the classification of "contractor").
Generally, contractors should have expertise, use their own equipment, decide how the job should be done, and have a risk of losing money.
If you insist they use your lawnmower, that's a very quick employee classification (from what I've experienced). My gardener refuses to use any soil/mulch/whatever we own - likely for this reason. I've worked with real estate folks, and when they do a flip, they're very careful not to buy raw materials for the contractors lest some of them sue to be classified as an employee and collect benefits. They'll even use SW to set up an order with Home Depot, which emails the contractor's a simple way to place that order at HD and pick up, and then they'll ask the contractor to add the raw materials cost to the invoice. But they will not buy the materials for them.
Also, if I screw up my current job, I'll merely get fired. My employer cannot demand I repay wages (generally). If your situation with your contractor is comparable, he will be classified as an employee. They must take on risk of losing money if they negotiate poorly or screw up a job.
> It feels like instead we should just say this is a new thing, and create a new set of laws to regulate it in the way that we think is best.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this.
Generally, contractors should have expertise, use their own equipment, decide how the job should be done, and have a risk of losing money.
If you insist they use your lawnmower, that's a very quick employee classification (from what I've experienced). My gardener refuses to use any soil/mulch/whatever we own - likely for this reason. I've worked with real estate folks, and when they do a flip, they're very careful not to buy raw materials for the contractors lest some of them sue to be classified as an employee and collect benefits. They'll even use SW to set up an order with Home Depot, which emails the contractor's a simple way to place that order at HD and pick up, and then they'll ask the contractor to add the raw materials cost to the invoice. But they will not buy the materials for them.
Also, if I screw up my current job, I'll merely get fired. My employer cannot demand I repay wages (generally). If your situation with your contractor is comparable, he will be classified as an employee. They must take on risk of losing money if they negotiate poorly or screw up a job.
> It feels like instead we should just say this is a new thing, and create a new set of laws to regulate it in the way that we think is best.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this.
One thing that grinds my gears is that Uber has standards of what types of cars they will allow their drivers to use. Uber even provides financing services for drivers to use to buy or rent a car. So drivers not only don't have the final say in what tools they use but also have to PAY FOR their tools. It's really the worst of both worlds in terms of employee vs contractor: all of the costs but without the freedom.
> I think it's less clear than one would expect.
In WA State (https://esd.wa.gov/employer-taxes/independent-contractors), there is a three part test. If you force someone to mow your lawn with specific equipment, and at a certain time, they would be en employee; they are not free from control.
In WA State (https://esd.wa.gov/employer-taxes/independent-contractors), there is a three part test. If you force someone to mow your lawn with specific equipment, and at a certain time, they would be en employee; they are not free from control.
Hm is there a difference between hiring a person and telling them to mow my lawn at 2pm vs choosing a person who is only available at 2pm?
Neither of these really compare to the part where "If you don't accept all jobs assigned to you, we will no longer assign jobs to you and remove you from the platform entirely, also we are nearly the entire platform - you will find <1% of the jobs you previously could anywhere else"
You are not forcing them. Say you post a gig to craiglist, I need someone to mow my lawn, with this law mower, at this time. Those are the details of the gig offer, take it or leave it, and complete it in any way that meets the requirements of the gig
Except Craigslist doesn't take the pay from the gigs and then give a wage to those performing the gigs. Actually, Uber/Lyft/etc would be way less controversial if they operated similarly to Craigslist.
When I order an Uber I can never get a ride from a 1980 Ford truck or a snowmobile because those vehicles don't meet Uber's standards and I'm actually scheduling a gig with a representative of Uber who adheres to Uber's standards and acts in line with Uber's policies and takes pay from Uber that is disconnected from what I pay them. There is virtually nothing "independent" about the driver except they independently chose to work for Uber. Yet the driver still bears the costs of equipment maintenance and liability, which happens to be the exact costs that business newbies overlook the most. It's exploitative.
When I order an Uber I can never get a ride from a 1980 Ford truck or a snowmobile because those vehicles don't meet Uber's standards and I'm actually scheduling a gig with a representative of Uber who adheres to Uber's standards and acts in line with Uber's policies and takes pay from Uber that is disconnected from what I pay them. There is virtually nothing "independent" about the driver except they independently chose to work for Uber. Yet the driver still bears the costs of equipment maintenance and liability, which happens to be the exact costs that business newbies overlook the most. It's exploitative.
You are not forcing them if it's mentioned in the gig description before the offer is taken: I need someone to mow my lawn, with this lawn mower, at this time. Those are the details of the gig offer, take it or leave it, and complete it in anyway that meets the requirements of the gig. No different then I need someone to walk my dog, with this leash collar, at this time, and use this biodegradable bag. Or should the dog walker bring his own leash...
Except where mandated by state law, gig workers do not receive the gig description until after it is accepted. There is no transparency about details such as price or duration when they must make the decision to take it or leave it. Failure to accept a gig will result in penalization that significantly reduces your ability to receive more offers in the future.
> want it to happen while I'm at the store, am I setting that person's hours?
> If I specifically want them to use an electric mower for noise reasons
The fundamental difference is you, as a customer, can want these things, but the person doing the mower is self-employed and they can negotiate and figure out whether or not they can come to a mutual agreement with you. They could also just simply not come to an agreement with you and the worst that would happen is they don't get your money, and move on with their work and life.
It's different than if there was Uber Mowing Co. that managed them and forced them to forgo their lunch and mow your lawn while you were at the store or be fired.
> If I specifically want them to use an electric mower for noise reasons
The fundamental difference is you, as a customer, can want these things, but the person doing the mower is self-employed and they can negotiate and figure out whether or not they can come to a mutual agreement with you. They could also just simply not come to an agreement with you and the worst that would happen is they don't get your money, and move on with their work and life.
It's different than if there was Uber Mowing Co. that managed them and forced them to forgo their lunch and mow your lawn while you were at the store or be fired.
[deleted]
Uber mowing co does not manage them or fire them. They are a marketplace where a large amount of customers who trust Uber to negotiate prices on their behalf the cost of a ride from A to B and have that trip made available to willing drivers.
Uber doesn't inform drivers what they will be paid for a trip. Except where mandated by state law, they don't even inform them of the trip duration or destination until after it is accepted. It is hardly a marketplace when one side of the exchange knows next to nothing about what they will selling until after it is sold. Uber may not "fire" them, but failure to accept gigs will significantly impair your ability to be offered more in the future.
> They are a marketplace [...] negotiate prices on their behalf t
These two things are in fundamental conflict, which is part of the issue.
These two things are in fundamental conflict, which is part of the issue.
"They are a marketplace.. Uber to negotiate prices on their behalf"
Are you even hearing how ridiculous this sounds.
Are you even hearing how ridiculous this sounds.
It's typical lawyerese. Outright propaganda, weasel words and contorted definitions are all uber has left too fight this battle, which is assuredly one of attrition.
Uber has numerous requirements for THEIR drivers. They must maintain certain standards for the car, they must accept this many trips etc. You or I are obviously Uber's customers, and we pay Uber for a ride from A to B. We are not in any way John's or Jill's customers, they work for Uber to take us from A to B. Even if they can be classified as contractors, they are contracting for Uber, not for Uber's customers - that much is undeniable.
Yes in both cases, and you'll get landscapers/gardeners who won't take the job because of it. The services around here let you pick a day, but you have no say in exactly what time or what equipment they're using. This gets you a cheaper price, and lets them work through that week's client list effectively.
The important thing is them passing on not doing your job won't affect their next one, unlike what happens if an uber driver declines too many rides.
The important thing is them passing on not doing your job won't affect their next one, unlike what happens if an uber driver declines too many rides.
I agree that we are dealing with a new paradigm and should treat it that way.
But I don’t think your examples are relevant. The customer should be able to request as much as they want on the gig worker, as long as there is no middle man employer forcing the worker to agree to subpar conditions.
But I don’t think your examples are relevant. The customer should be able to request as much as they want on the gig worker, as long as there is no middle man employer forcing the worker to agree to subpar conditions.
> I agree that we are dealing with a new paradigm and should treat it that way.
I don't think it's that clear - it's more like people are still arguing about a) is it really a new paradigm and b) if so, is it on net enough benefit to be worth doing.
I don't think it's that clear - it's more like people are still arguing about a) is it really a new paradigm and b) if so, is it on net enough benefit to be worth doing.
None of the your examples are relevant to how Uber and Lyft treats their employees.
It is not just that. The biggest test for contractor vs employees is IRS classification. If a person earns majority of their income from one entity, then they are classified as employee. There is no official percentage cutoff like 51% or even 95%, IRS supposed to look at the whole situation.
Majority of tech contractors are actually employees of contracting company, so that is one way to get around it. At one point, I was freelancing, and I had only one client. My/their accountant had me open an LLC for this reason.
Now there are a lot of gig workers who are on all of the platforms and probably earn equal amount of money from each platform. But there are plenty who are only on one platform, so they will need to be classified as employees.
Majority of tech contractors are actually employees of contracting company, so that is one way to get around it. At one point, I was freelancing, and I had only one client. My/their accountant had me open an LLC for this reason.
Now there are a lot of gig workers who are on all of the platforms and probably earn equal amount of money from each platform. But there are plenty who are only on one platform, so they will need to be classified as employees.
I certainly agree with that, and I’m not sure how it contradicts what I posted?
The rules around that are pretty clear already. And in the case of Uber, you not only can drive when you want, you can drive for multiple providers at the same time.
I think uber has rules about declining rides that may not be as profitable despite being in close vicinity.
Most gigs jobs are exploitative.
You're not setting your own rates. You can't choose which rides you take. You can't follow your own rules.
Remember when Uber was giving back to back rides to drivers that had Lyft driver app installed so they couldn't effectively drive for both? That doesn't sound like freelance work to me.
Much of the pay structure is based on hitting a certain number of rides per week. So to get "decent" pay rate you need to work a certain number of hours.
Sometimes the company even owns your car and leases it to you contingent on doing a certain number of rides.
And you have no input on which rides you get once you go online.
It's nothing like traditional freelance work. It's more like high tech pizza delivery driver. And those workers are all considered employees.
You're not setting your own rates. You can't choose which rides you take. You can't follow your own rules.
Remember when Uber was giving back to back rides to drivers that had Lyft driver app installed so they couldn't effectively drive for both? That doesn't sound like freelance work to me.
Much of the pay structure is based on hitting a certain number of rides per week. So to get "decent" pay rate you need to work a certain number of hours.
Sometimes the company even owns your car and leases it to you contingent on doing a certain number of rides.
And you have no input on which rides you get once you go online.
It's nothing like traditional freelance work. It's more like high tech pizza delivery driver. And those workers are all considered employees.
Uber driver here.
> You're not setting your own rates. You can't choose which rides you take. You can't follow your own rules.
As of a few years ago you can choose which rides you take without penalty. This is effectively how you negotiate rates as well. Only drive during busy times and accept high rate rides.
> Remember when Uber was giving back to back rides to drivers that had Lyft driver app installed so they couldn't effectively drive for both? That doesn't sound like freelance work to me.
The back-to-back ride thing has nothing to do with having the Lyft app installed or not. It's a great feature that allows you to have your next ride lined up while on the current ride. It dramatically increases profit and efficiency (which also means less dead-miles -> less gas wasted -> less emissions). You can decline these "back-to-back" rides just like any other ride request.
> Much of the pay structure is based on hitting a certain number of rides per week. So to get "decent" pay rate you need to work a certain number of hours.
If you drive when it's busy the incentives don't matter. My take home-profit (even after depreciation of vehicle) is $15-30/hr for about 20 hours per week.
> Sometimes the company even owns your car and leases it to you contingent on doing a certain number of rides.
I don't know any Uber drivers in my city who lease their cars from Uber. Never heard of this happening.
> And you have no input on which rides you get once you go online. You get all the ride requests near you. You can decline at will with no penalty.
> You're not setting your own rates. You can't choose which rides you take. You can't follow your own rules.
As of a few years ago you can choose which rides you take without penalty. This is effectively how you negotiate rates as well. Only drive during busy times and accept high rate rides.
> Remember when Uber was giving back to back rides to drivers that had Lyft driver app installed so they couldn't effectively drive for both? That doesn't sound like freelance work to me.
The back-to-back ride thing has nothing to do with having the Lyft app installed or not. It's a great feature that allows you to have your next ride lined up while on the current ride. It dramatically increases profit and efficiency (which also means less dead-miles -> less gas wasted -> less emissions). You can decline these "back-to-back" rides just like any other ride request.
> Much of the pay structure is based on hitting a certain number of rides per week. So to get "decent" pay rate you need to work a certain number of hours.
If you drive when it's busy the incentives don't matter. My take home-profit (even after depreciation of vehicle) is $15-30/hr for about 20 hours per week.
> Sometimes the company even owns your car and leases it to you contingent on doing a certain number of rides.
I don't know any Uber drivers in my city who lease their cars from Uber. Never heard of this happening.
> And you have no input on which rides you get once you go online. You get all the ride requests near you. You can decline at will with no penalty.
> As of a few years ago you can choose which rides you take without penalty. This is effectively how you negotiate rates as well. Only drive during busy times and accept high rate rides. <
Apparently, that was harming Uber’s business and they are considering removing that feature from the driver app.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-may-stop-l...
Apparently, that was harming Uber’s business and they are considering removing that feature from the driver app.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-may-stop-l...
> As of a few years ago you can choose which rides you take without penalty.
That wasn't there before and I have no reason to believe it now without evidence. Turning down rides always had negative effects such as less rides being assigned to you.
> The back-to-back ride thing has nothing to do with having the Lyft app installed or not
You should look this up in older news articles. AFAIK that's just not true. Maybe it's changed, but at one point Uber was changing their app behavior when you had Lyft driver app installed.
> If you drive when it's busy the incentives don't matter.
So you're implicitly agreeing with me that the incentives are perverse and encourage you to drive during peak times?
> I don't know any Uber drivers in my city who lease their cars from Uber. Never heard of this happening.
Then I encourage you to read about this. There's a large fraction of people who don't believe anything unless it's happened to them or their friends personally. And I think this is a shame given how available information is with today's internet. This definitely 1000% happens. I've seen it with my own eyes.
That wasn't there before and I have no reason to believe it now without evidence. Turning down rides always had negative effects such as less rides being assigned to you.
> The back-to-back ride thing has nothing to do with having the Lyft app installed or not
You should look this up in older news articles. AFAIK that's just not true. Maybe it's changed, but at one point Uber was changing their app behavior when you had Lyft driver app installed.
> If you drive when it's busy the incentives don't matter.
So you're implicitly agreeing with me that the incentives are perverse and encourage you to drive during peak times?
> I don't know any Uber drivers in my city who lease their cars from Uber. Never heard of this happening.
Then I encourage you to read about this. There's a large fraction of people who don't believe anything unless it's happened to them or their friends personally. And I think this is a shame given how available information is with today's internet. This definitely 1000% happens. I've seen it with my own eyes.
Coming out of high school, one of my first jobs (during my college years) was selling knives as a gig. Since we weren't employees, they couldn't necessarily say "come in on these hours", but there were meetings scheduled at the beginning of the day (where we'd get the next list of customers to call and/or sell knives to), among other stuff.
-------
There are also lots of Barbers who have to basically come in at certain hours to keep the barbershop open. Barbers however, are largely "gig" work by technicality. You're technically an independent contractor.
Etc. etc.
These sorts of positions are only "gig" because the companies are exploiting those workers. You really can't choose your hours in sales and/or barbershops. You gotta come in when the customers come in. You gotta close up shop and/or open up in the morning, (kinda like open / close employees / managers).
But they're "gig" because the companies want to avoid paying social security taxes, among other taxes associated with proper employment.
----------
Freelancing probably is a "proper gig". That's not the segment of the economy that people are talking about. There are true gig workers. And then there's the huge number of "non-employee / gig-work" where its just a collection of companies avoiding social security taxes.
-------
There are also lots of Barbers who have to basically come in at certain hours to keep the barbershop open. Barbers however, are largely "gig" work by technicality. You're technically an independent contractor.
Etc. etc.
These sorts of positions are only "gig" because the companies are exploiting those workers. You really can't choose your hours in sales and/or barbershops. You gotta come in when the customers come in. You gotta close up shop and/or open up in the morning, (kinda like open / close employees / managers).
But they're "gig" because the companies want to avoid paying social security taxes, among other taxes associated with proper employment.
----------
Freelancing probably is a "proper gig". That's not the segment of the economy that people are talking about. There are true gig workers. And then there's the huge number of "non-employee / gig-work" where its just a collection of companies avoiding social security taxes.
Wanted to chime in with my $0.02 regarding barbershops. My family owned a salon growing up. I’m sure you’re right and abuses exist. But in my experience, the shop is a landlord. The independent contractor rents a chair. They can come/go at will. Having a schedule is useful so not everyone is there the same time fighting over walk in traffic. People regularly no show and that’s ok too.
That may be how your families shop was run, but your experience is not representative of the industry at wide which uses various schemes to staff their shops from straight hourly, tipped, rented, etc.
Source: I like to get to know my barber's and every shop was run different.
Source: I like to get to know my barber's and every shop was run different.
You say barber and I say salon so I wonder if that’s part of the difference. I tend to go higher end places where women are the main customers. I know my stylists too and it’s almost always either been rent a chair and a few W2. Also my experience was a collection of talking to every stylist that ever worked in our salon and that’s a lot because churn is high. But I’d not be surprised if what you’re saying is also true. I have no idea how the chains are ran for example (Supercuts, etc)
That's a good point. One suspects tho that governments are more interested in getting the "proper freelancers" to be treated as employees, since they usually have higher earnings and therefore offer higher revenue possibilities. The UK is going through a similar reform process right now and lots of people are being classed as employees and therefore taking massive pay cuts. End the end, you end up with temporary workers who're taxed as employees but have almost none of the benefits of permanent employees (in the UK at least).
In the USA: the government gets its cut no matter what.
Employees are taxed 6.2% by the government, and 6.2% to the Employer.
Gig workers are taxed 12.4% by the government ("self employed" tax). So in US-law, the government gets its money either way.
That's why a "gig-worker in name only" is such an advantage to companies in the USA. It allows companies to cut out 6.2% of its taxes and shove it to the gig-worker instead.
Employees are taxed 6.2% by the government, and 6.2% to the Employer.
Gig workers are taxed 12.4% by the government ("self employed" tax). So in US-law, the government gets its money either way.
That's why a "gig-worker in name only" is such an advantage to companies in the USA. It allows companies to cut out 6.2% of its taxes and shove it to the gig-worker instead.
I wouldn't mind changing this.
The total cost of an employee isn't different to the employer in either case. For any X which is the cost of an employee .124X goes to govt. When .062 is sent to govt directly from the employer the govt is effectively hiding .5 of tax liability from the employee.
Gig worker sees the whole .124, which is probably why govt wants more classed as employee.
TANSTAAFL
Gig worker sees the whole .124, which is probably why govt wants more classed as employee.
TANSTAAFL
"the govt is effectively hiding .5 of tax liability from the employee " <--- this. this is the important part.
that extra 6.2% isn't a tax on the employer at all! it is a tax on employment, and it really is part of the employee's taxation (in fact that 2 * 6.2% is a "socialized" part of the employee wage, that fraction of wage goes to the Social Security Administration to be put in a fund used then to pay out retirement pensions). Hiding this fact is the best part of tax: a tax you do not feel is the best kind of tax from the point of view of the tax collector... of course it is the worst kind of tax from the point of view of the taxed entity.
"Gig worker sees the whole .124, which is probably why govt wants more classed as employee." <-- that's right! however one could argue that everyone should see the whole .124 so that they know better how they are taxed (I'm not saying this level is too high, on the contrary I think it's too low, but what irks me is that it is done under the covers...).
that extra 6.2% isn't a tax on the employer at all! it is a tax on employment, and it really is part of the employee's taxation (in fact that 2 * 6.2% is a "socialized" part of the employee wage, that fraction of wage goes to the Social Security Administration to be put in a fund used then to pay out retirement pensions). Hiding this fact is the best part of tax: a tax you do not feel is the best kind of tax from the point of view of the tax collector... of course it is the worst kind of tax from the point of view of the taxed entity.
"Gig worker sees the whole .124, which is probably why govt wants more classed as employee." <-- that's right! however one could argue that everyone should see the whole .124 so that they know better how they are taxed (I'm not saying this level is too high, on the contrary I think it's too low, but what irks me is that it is done under the covers...).
>TANSTAAFL
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch
> There are true gig workers. And then there's the huge number of "non-employee / gig-work" where its just a collection of companies avoiding social security taxes.
That doesn't make a lot of sense when the employee still has to pay the tax. Nobody is avoiding it. The claim that employers pay half is just a feel-good claim with no economic basis.
There is no real difference between paying $10.62 to a contractor who has to pay $0.62 more in social security tax and paying $10 to an employee and $0.62 to the social security administration. And the employee would (all else equal) choose a job paying $10 as an employee over a job paying <$10.62 as a contractor, so the companies hiring contractors have to pay that much more or offer some other countervailing benefit to be competitive.
That doesn't make a lot of sense when the employee still has to pay the tax. Nobody is avoiding it. The claim that employers pay half is just a feel-good claim with no economic basis.
There is no real difference between paying $10.62 to a contractor who has to pay $0.62 more in social security tax and paying $10 to an employee and $0.62 to the social security administration. And the employee would (all else equal) choose a job paying $10 as an employee over a job paying <$10.62 as a contractor, so the companies hiring contractors have to pay that much more or offer some other countervailing benefit to be competitive.
> There is no real difference between paying $10.62 to a contractor who has to pay $0.62 more in social security tax and paying $10 to an employee and $0.62 to the social security administration. And the employee would (all else equal) choose a job paying $10 as an employee over a job paying <$10.62 as a contractor, so the contractors have to pay more or offer some other countervailing benefit to be competitive.
Except the ads posted in your local bulletin board / signposts are "Want a job for $10/hr?!??"
So what happens in practice, is that the gig-worker is paid $10 (costing the company $10), vs the employee who'd be paid $10 (costing the company $10.62 + other bits, like health care and various insurances)
Except the ads posted in your local bulletin board / signposts are "Want a job for $10/hr?!??"
So what happens in practice, is that the gig-worker is paid $10 (costing the company $10), vs the employee who'd be paid $10 (costing the company $10.62 + other bits, like health care and various insurances)
Which lasts until you send them the documents showing the real numbers and they figure it out.
Give people some credit. The education system isn't perfect but people can do basic arithmetic. Or if they can't then maybe solve that instead of this.
Give people some credit. The education system isn't perfect but people can do basic arithmetic. Or if they can't then maybe solve that instead of this.
> Or if they can't then maybe solve that instead of this.
Why not both? If a problem is identified with our culture, its not exactly a strong argument to say "Well, here's another problem I'm more concerned about".
All I'll say is: lets solve both problems simultaneously. There's many problems in the world, and we should work on solving as many of them as possible.
I've got friends (who were with me in that knife salesman gig work) who didn't understand the difference at all, no matter how many times I explained it to them. People's brains just don't work the way you say. Sure, I understood the difference and how to do my own taxes, but not everyone has that capability unfortunately.
Why not both? If a problem is identified with our culture, its not exactly a strong argument to say "Well, here's another problem I'm more concerned about".
All I'll say is: lets solve both problems simultaneously. There's many problems in the world, and we should work on solving as many of them as possible.
I've got friends (who were with me in that knife salesman gig work) who didn't understand the difference at all, no matter how many times I explained it to them. People's brains just don't work the way you say. Sure, I understood the difference and how to do my own taxes, but not everyone has that capability unfortunately.
> Why not both?
Because they're alternatives to each other. You don't need both.
If people don't understand how to compare their alternatives, they're going to get screwed left and right, not just in the difference between employee and contractor. So we have to fix that more general problem if it exists.
And solving that problem means not only that you don't need to prohibit people from being classified as contractors but that doing so is a net harm. Because prohibiting it for the benefit of the person doing the math wrong (solvable the other way) is a harm to the person who benefits from the arrangement, e.g. because they want the more flexible hours that come from being a contractor instead of an employee.
Because they're alternatives to each other. You don't need both.
If people don't understand how to compare their alternatives, they're going to get screwed left and right, not just in the difference between employee and contractor. So we have to fix that more general problem if it exists.
And solving that problem means not only that you don't need to prohibit people from being classified as contractors but that doing so is a net harm. Because prohibiting it for the benefit of the person doing the math wrong (solvable the other way) is a harm to the person who benefits from the arrangement, e.g. because they want the more flexible hours that come from being a contractor instead of an employee.
> Because they're alternatives to each other. You don't need both.
Sure we do.
Our education system sucks (as proof by my friends who were unable to grasp this basic arithmetic). AND we have a Gig vs Employee issue that also needs to be clarified through the law.
Lets fix both. I don't see any problem working towards the problem you suggested, nor the problem I suggested. I'm sure our failure in education is also causing issues in other aspects of our society unrelated to this particular issue.
Sure we do.
Our education system sucks (as proof by my friends who were unable to grasp this basic arithmetic). AND we have a Gig vs Employee issue that also needs to be clarified through the law.
Lets fix both. I don't see any problem working towards the problem you suggested, nor the problem I suggested. I'm sure our failure in education is also causing issues in other aspects of our society unrelated to this particular issue.
> Our education system sucks (as proof by my friends who were unable to grasp this basic arithmetic). AND we have a Gig vs Employee issue that also needs to be clarified through the law.
Fixing the education system solves both of them, because then people aren't fooled into becoming a contractor when it doesn't benefit them. Then you don't need the government to force them into being an employee including in cases where they're better off as a contractor -- you only need to do the first one.
Fixing the education system solves both of them, because then people aren't fooled into becoming a contractor when it doesn't benefit them. Then you don't need the government to force them into being an employee including in cases where they're better off as a contractor -- you only need to do the first one.
I agree we need to do both.
Also, if you tried to explain it multiple times to them, maybe it isn't the education's systems fault? Like you said above, their brains are unable to grasp it. No amount of education reform is going to fix that.
Also, if you tried to explain it multiple times to them, maybe it isn't the education's systems fault? Like you said above, their brains are unable to grasp it. No amount of education reform is going to fix that.
> The claim that employers pay half is just a feel-good claim with no economic basis.
Can you expand on this? Is it that employers don’t really contribute an equal amount to the employee withholding? Or is it an acknowledgment that absent this withholding, one would expect the money to show up in the regular paycheck?
Can you expand on this? Is it that employers don’t really contribute an equal amount to the employee withholding? Or is it an acknowledgment that absent this withholding, one would expect the money to show up in the regular paycheck?
If two jobs are equivalent, workers are going to pick whichever one pays better. That means if Walmart is offering $10 to employees and Target tries to offer $10 to contractors (who have to pay more of the taxes), workers will take jobs at Walmart because they get a bigger paycheck. Target will have to pay more if they want to get people to work there as contractors by an amount equivalent to the difference in taxes.
Which means saying that the company pays this amount and the worker pays that amount doesn't really mean anything. In the case where the worker nominally pays less of the tax, the company doesn't have to pay as much to the worker to make the job equally attractive. It doesn't really change who pays.
Of course this is theoretical and real systems have friction and stupidity in them, so people who are lazy or bad at math may end up taking a worse deal because it was framed in a particular way. But that's an information problem -- it has information solutions.
Instead of spending all this time campaigning to classify people as employees, just send out pamphlets to all the Uber drivers with a cost breakdown of what the equivalent employee wage would be compared to what Uber is paying them. Maybe some of them will quit and then Uber will have to pay the others more. Maybe the people doing the job aren't as dumb as they're made out to be and have their reasons. Either way, you solve the information problem with information, not prohibition.
Which means saying that the company pays this amount and the worker pays that amount doesn't really mean anything. In the case where the worker nominally pays less of the tax, the company doesn't have to pay as much to the worker to make the job equally attractive. It doesn't really change who pays.
Of course this is theoretical and real systems have friction and stupidity in them, so people who are lazy or bad at math may end up taking a worse deal because it was framed in a particular way. But that's an information problem -- it has information solutions.
Instead of spending all this time campaigning to classify people as employees, just send out pamphlets to all the Uber drivers with a cost breakdown of what the equivalent employee wage would be compared to what Uber is paying them. Maybe some of them will quit and then Uber will have to pay the others more. Maybe the people doing the job aren't as dumb as they're made out to be and have their reasons. Either way, you solve the information problem with information, not prohibition.
What if the minimum wage for employees in the jurisdiction is $10?
Couldn't agree more. If it were up to me, we'd get rid of the minimum wage, let employers pay whatever they want, and then provide UBI to make sure people have their basic needs fulfilled.
We came up with this agreement as a society that people should be able to survive and have their basic needs met, and then we forced businesses to actually make it happen through minimum wage (and to a lesser degree insurance, pre-Obamacare). If we came up with it as a society, our society (as represented by our elected government) should be the one actually charged with making that agreement a reality.
We came up with this agreement as a society that people should be able to survive and have their basic needs met, and then we forced businesses to actually make it happen through minimum wage (and to a lesser degree insurance, pre-Obamacare). If we came up with it as a society, our society (as represented by our elected government) should be the one actually charged with making that agreement a reality.
The problem with this is that corps basically have full knowledge of the market, what they can afford, how much they can pay overall, but employees know none of that. That's were the minimum wage comes in to provide a floor. I know that in your scenario that UBI covers that, but if UBI is equivalent to 40hrs of $15 an hour a LOT of people aren't going to do anything other than play vidya games all day as the rest of us support their addiction.
Let them play video games! By exiting the labour market, they force employers to pay more for the people actually willing to work. This is the main idea behind UBI: instead of forcing people to work undesirable jobs just to feed themselves and then forcing employers to pay a minimum wage for those jobs, we feed people directly and let the market decide how much to pay for those shitty jobs.
The purpose of an economy is to allocate resources and ensure maximum employment doing useful things.
If UBI helps people do useful things like caregiving or job training, then it has achieved something.
If UBI just causes less (useful) work to get done, then it is a net harm to society.
Maybe it's good if it shifts investment towards automation that eventually improves productivity. For example, if paying Uber drivers becomes less attractive, maybe researching self-driving or investing in mass transit becomes more attractive; maybe that's good.
But things still need to get done, and money by itself doesn't do anything. In the extreme case you end up like Kuwait, where citizens get (in that case oil) UBI, and guest workers outside the UBI system do all the actual work.
The US could do that, and it might reduce inequality among US citizens, but new outgroups would become painfully apparent.
If UBI helps people do useful things like caregiving or job training, then it has achieved something.
If UBI just causes less (useful) work to get done, then it is a net harm to society.
Maybe it's good if it shifts investment towards automation that eventually improves productivity. For example, if paying Uber drivers becomes less attractive, maybe researching self-driving or investing in mass transit becomes more attractive; maybe that's good.
But things still need to get done, and money by itself doesn't do anything. In the extreme case you end up like Kuwait, where citizens get (in that case oil) UBI, and guest workers outside the UBI system do all the actual work.
The US could do that, and it might reduce inequality among US citizens, but new outgroups would become painfully apparent.
> By exiting the labour market, they force employers to pay more for the people actually willing to work
I suspect this instead leads to companies determining "nobody is willing to work at the prices we're happy to pay. Therefore there is a labour shortage; we need more immigrants, and we're happy enough to sponser them for a time"
Note they don't raise prices, they instead increase the applicant pool.
I suspect this instead leads to companies determining "nobody is willing to work at the prices we're happy to pay. Therefore there is a labour shortage; we need more immigrants, and we're happy enough to sponser them for a time"
Note they don't raise prices, they instead increase the applicant pool.
I, for one, have gone through extended periods of willful unemployment with the good graces of some very caring friends. I didn't not want to work, but I did want a job that valued and compensated me fairly. Most companies do not do either. We can argue about cause and effect, but I suspect a lot of the problem is the failure of government to intervene in the disconnection of productivity and wages. We probably won't be cutting million dollar checks to parents and children as restitution for this theft, but we should right this wrong systematically by giving the workers the vast majority of the profits their labor creates.
Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime, that's why I shit on company time. If I got paid fairly and had a seat at the table for discussions about profit sharing then I would plan my shits to not impede my work. Until then, big capital can keep blowing their hot air, workers don't care what these suits think and are realizing the suits don't even care about the health of safety of the workers themselves, let alone their ability to afford a family or house.
Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime, that's why I shit on company time. If I got paid fairly and had a seat at the table for discussions about profit sharing then I would plan my shits to not impede my work. Until then, big capital can keep blowing their hot air, workers don't care what these suits think and are realizing the suits don't even care about the health of safety of the workers themselves, let alone their ability to afford a family or house.
This idea that we need to provide our social contract / safety net exclusively via employers is so strange to me, compared to simply owning that if we want these to be rights of our citizens then the government should be providing them as tax-paid services.
This is the big problem that no policymaker wants to address, because there is a huge amount of money being made off of the status quo. And decades of bad-faith "big government" rhetoric plus "starve the beast" policy have soured the public on it.
This is the big problem that no policymaker wants to address, because there is a huge amount of money being made off of the status quo. And decades of bad-faith "big government" rhetoric plus "starve the beast" policy have soured the public on it.
> This is the big problem that no policymaker wants to address, because there is a huge amount of money being made off of the status quo.
The people trying to pass things like Medicare for all would disagree with the “no policymaker” part. Not a majority but they exist and are generally vocal about mentioning this exact point.
The people trying to pass things like Medicare for all would disagree with the “no policymaker” part. Not a majority but they exist and are generally vocal about mentioning this exact point.
I think they had a chance until they started calling it Medicare for all, it’s horrible branding since “good doctors” are known for not accepting Medicare
Democrats have had terrible branding for longer than I've been alive. It's harder to maintain a good brand when your competition is shameless and lies through their teeth about fabricated realities more than they tell the truth.
I agree.
Just wanted to note that there are systems which are not tax-paid and still avoid the problems that you have in the US.
E.g. in Switzerland health insurance is private, but the variables that can be used to determine the price are regulated. The employers cannot directly provide health insurance as a benefit (some provide a cash supplement, but that's effectively a higher salary). This way big companies don't get preferential treatment. You can be a freelancer and have the exact same health insurance as people in big tech.
Just wanted to note that there are systems which are not tax-paid and still avoid the problems that you have in the US.
E.g. in Switzerland health insurance is private, but the variables that can be used to determine the price are regulated. The employers cannot directly provide health insurance as a benefit (some provide a cash supplement, but that's effectively a higher salary). This way big companies don't get preferential treatment. You can be a freelancer and have the exact same health insurance as people in big tech.
That makes sense to me: I specifically think that employer provided health insurance is problematic because it means the wealthy and powerful in the US have no idea how painful it is for the “average joe” to deal with insurance. If all the executives in the US had to buy their own coverage via our system, I think there would suddenly be a new huge and well-backed lobby for reform.
How about a different perspective.
Freelancers doing gig work are a drain on society if they fall back on to social safety nets when not employed. It's not in society's interest to have these people paying taxes only when they feel like it, especially if it ends up cannibalising slightly less efficient industry which reliably keeps people employed and paying taxes.
Not entirely serious - I do have sympathy for the position that gig work puts otherwise idle labour to good use - but I do think Uber and many similar companies are extracting efficiencies that hadn't been locked out with laws only because the tech to extract them hadn't been invented yet, a kind of regulatory arbitrage on a functional status quo.
Freelancers doing gig work are a drain on society if they fall back on to social safety nets when not employed. It's not in society's interest to have these people paying taxes only when they feel like it, especially if it ends up cannibalising slightly less efficient industry which reliably keeps people employed and paying taxes.
Not entirely serious - I do have sympathy for the position that gig work puts otherwise idle labour to good use - but I do think Uber and many similar companies are extracting efficiencies that hadn't been locked out with laws only because the tech to extract them hadn't been invented yet, a kind of regulatory arbitrage on a functional status quo.
In response to your first paragraph, I quote Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand: “Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.”
In response to your second paragraph, regulatory arbitrage is efficiency seeking. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "vote with your feet". It's not like people move to a new job out of a state or out of country with the expectations that the laws remain same. In a similar fashion, Uber isn't obligated to base it's behavior on laws or regulations that don't exist. The same could be said of Paypal, Youtube, AirBnB and more recently with cryptocurrencies and NFTs. The way you phrase your sentences seems to suggest you classify pursuing economic freedom as a preemptive regulatory evasion.
In response to your second paragraph, regulatory arbitrage is efficiency seeking. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "vote with your feet". It's not like people move to a new job out of a state or out of country with the expectations that the laws remain same. In a similar fashion, Uber isn't obligated to base it's behavior on laws or regulations that don't exist. The same could be said of Paypal, Youtube, AirBnB and more recently with cryptocurrencies and NFTs. The way you phrase your sentences seems to suggest you classify pursuing economic freedom as a preemptive regulatory evasion.
> In response to your first paragraph, I quote Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand: “Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.”
This is completely irrelevant. I'm talking about policy-making. I'm talking about the motivations behind making the rules, not how you work within the rules.
> regulatory arbitrage is efficiency seeking
That's right. I think that's what I said.
> economic freedom as a preemptive regulatory evasion
No, but policy-makers are free to take that approach, because they create the rules. If the rules don't cover new behaviour, the motivation - the original political will - behind previous rules often, and in fact usually, creates political will to introduce new rules. That's ok, it's the system working. It's why we have governments on an ongoing basis, and don't just stop once we have one set of laws.
This is completely irrelevant. I'm talking about policy-making. I'm talking about the motivations behind making the rules, not how you work within the rules.
> regulatory arbitrage is efficiency seeking
That's right. I think that's what I said.
> economic freedom as a preemptive regulatory evasion
No, but policy-makers are free to take that approach, because they create the rules. If the rules don't cover new behaviour, the motivation - the original political will - behind previous rules often, and in fact usually, creates political will to introduce new rules. That's ok, it's the system working. It's why we have governments on an ongoing basis, and don't just stop once we have one set of laws.
> For example, require freelance employers to include expense tracking and calculate workers earnings after expenses.
Should that be up to the freelancer? Ever Uber driver I’ve ever known knows their costs down to the cent. That’s what freelancing is all about.
What would be more valuable is required financial literacy courses as a condition of high school graduation. And restricting predatory student loans. But the Big University lobby would stomp that effort out quickly. Education has had higher inflation than even health costs — due almost entirely to the funny money from essentially unlimited student loan availability.
Should that be up to the freelancer? Ever Uber driver I’ve ever known knows their costs down to the cent. That’s what freelancing is all about.
What would be more valuable is required financial literacy courses as a condition of high school graduation. And restricting predatory student loans. But the Big University lobby would stomp that effort out quickly. Education has had higher inflation than even health costs — due almost entirely to the funny money from essentially unlimited student loan availability.
This is a fair point. I honestly don’t know the exact details that would make the best solution, but it seems like we should be seeking to regulate this kind of “platform work” to specifically target the problems that it has, rather than sweeping it all under the broad brush of “freelance vs employee.”
Thing is most of the regulatory infrastructure you describe already exists in employment law. The broad societal proposals you describe would necessitate a radical reappraisal of contract law and a lot of other things. To use the popular 'ship of state' metaphor, it would be sort of like dramatically reconfiguring an aircraft carrier while it's at sea.
I guess that is what is happening here...fixing any problems using the existing model instead of trying to figure out new ways of fixing the problems to fix the new model of employment in some industries.
We elect lawmakers, not lawkeepers. It is their job to update the laws to keep pace with society, not restrict society so existing laws remain useful. In the 'ship of state' metaphor, we're never going to be closer to a drydock and we need a hospital ship not an aircraft carrier.
I heartily agree, but the 2 and 4 year timeframes and existing imbalances in the current electoral system (gerrymandering, wildly varying senatorial electorates etc), make that terribly difficult to achieve in practice.
That sounds like a very good argument for more reform, not less. The fact is those problems have always existed and aren't going away any time soon, so while waiting for better conditions before we tackle major societal problems might seem sensible in theory, in practice it just means letting the wounds fester indefinitely.
Sure, but how are you going to achieve that? I'd like an entirely different constitutional order (a federalized wikiocracy, in a nutshell) but that would require either a wholesale redrafting or recission of the Constitution.
Look at the current situation where there is a 50-50 tie in the Senate, but existing rules create a 60 vote threshold for most legislation. There are a whole lot of issues that I'd like to see reform on, but right now the votes are not there for either party to do so.
Look at the current situation where there is a 50-50 tie in the Senate, but existing rules create a 60 vote threshold for most legislation. There are a whole lot of issues that I'd like to see reform on, but right now the votes are not there for either party to do so.
The constitution only requires a simple majority of the senate to pass a bill, and there is a tiebreaking vote. The 60 vote threshold is only because of a self-imposed extra-constitutional rule, one which can be abolished with a simple majority vote via the "nuclear option" [0]
Effective lawmaking is not some impossible feat under our current system, it was commonplace until very recently. All that has changed is that we've grown complacent and now continue to vote for those who refuse to do their jobs.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
Effective lawmaking is not some impossible feat under our current system, it was commonplace until very recently. All that has changed is that we've grown complacent and now continue to vote for those who refuse to do their jobs.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
In general this is a result of the mindset which says "I know better than you how your earnings should be allocated" combined with the idea that employers are much easier to regulate top down (through regulations, fines, licensure, etc.) than individual employees are. Taxation/governmental revenue boards or organizations struggle as is to keep individuals honest, and adding the burdens and complexities of business income/expense reporting to individuals is just begging for more (unintentional) disconnect between what they expect to receive vs what an individual expects to pay. Not sure either direction (employee vs contractor) is a good solution here. More likely a simplification of the system is needed.
Freelancing or being a contractor cannot be compared to being a gig worker. All discussion based on "I prefer being a contractor instead of employed" and then extrapolating that to gig workers is meaningless. For instance, a gig worker can't set their own rates, choose clients, no upwards mobility, often in an exploitable position etc.
Ok, but the legislation in CA that was aimed at uber already negatively impacts me and my work as a freelancer consultant in a variety of ways and ironically uber is now exempt.
In my small shop of guys, we ended up having to all independently form our own corporations just so that we can share work amongst eachother to better serve the various clients we each bring in without having to do stupid things like write 3 separate contracts with the client. We don't meet the new ABC test because we all perform a similar scope, so whereas before, it was trivial to just write a 1099 for eachother at the end of the year, now we have to have all the corporate infrastructure which is a huge PITA.
It's not unlike the gun laws in CA... People that don't like guns and know nothing about them write meaningless and often incredibly arbitrary legislation that doesn't address the problem they are really meaning to address but makes things a pain for everyone else.
So, I don't really buy the argument that these types of complaints should just be dismissed. The reality is it's really hard to target "gig" work very specifically without roping in a BUNCH of other contractors that aren't really of interest but will have to comply with the law anyway.
In my small shop of guys, we ended up having to all independently form our own corporations just so that we can share work amongst eachother to better serve the various clients we each bring in without having to do stupid things like write 3 separate contracts with the client. We don't meet the new ABC test because we all perform a similar scope, so whereas before, it was trivial to just write a 1099 for eachother at the end of the year, now we have to have all the corporate infrastructure which is a huge PITA.
It's not unlike the gun laws in CA... People that don't like guns and know nothing about them write meaningless and often incredibly arbitrary legislation that doesn't address the problem they are really meaning to address but makes things a pain for everyone else.
So, I don't really buy the argument that these types of complaints should just be dismissed. The reality is it's really hard to target "gig" work very specifically without roping in a BUNCH of other contractors that aren't really of interest but will have to comply with the law anyway.
I think there's a factor that people are missing when they try to define these gig workers: marketability -- who directly benefits from the reputation from customers if a worker does a good job?
If the worker does a good job does that impact their marketability -- enable repeat customers and advertising for them specifically (such as via word of mouth) or does it reflect more on the company they are "contracted" to?
In the case of Uber and Lift and Instacart, the platform practically prohibits customers from preferring certain providers that have provided good service in the past, so all of the reputation goes to the platform provider. Things would be a lot fuzzier if these platforms provided matching services and would depend on how competitive these markets effectively are. The market for transportation from point A to point B with pickup in the next 10 minutes is inherently limited by providers that can be at point A in the next 10 minutes, so this market may not be competitive for all sources and destinations.
In general, contractors should not be interacting with their hiring company's customers on the company's behalf. Only employees should represent the company, since the benefits of those interactions reflect on the company and not on the worker performing the interaction.
If the worker does a good job does that impact their marketability -- enable repeat customers and advertising for them specifically (such as via word of mouth) or does it reflect more on the company they are "contracted" to?
In the case of Uber and Lift and Instacart, the platform practically prohibits customers from preferring certain providers that have provided good service in the past, so all of the reputation goes to the platform provider. Things would be a lot fuzzier if these platforms provided matching services and would depend on how competitive these markets effectively are. The market for transportation from point A to point B with pickup in the next 10 minutes is inherently limited by providers that can be at point A in the next 10 minutes, so this market may not be competitive for all sources and destinations.
In general, contractors should not be interacting with their hiring company's customers on the company's behalf. Only employees should represent the company, since the benefits of those interactions reflect on the company and not on the worker performing the interaction.
As someone who doesn't have any skin in this game, I too think the about the same things. That we are going towards fixing any problems by forcing companies to make gig-workers employees instead of fixing the systemic problems in the gig-economy in other ways. To me having the freedom to freelance while making decent money seems to be a tremendous benefit giving people lots of flexibility.
[deleted]
It makes sense if you realize that the current US Labor Secretary is a product of union politics (he was as union leader, and most of the political goal of classifying gig workers as employees is to make it easier for the AFL/CIO and Teamsters to unionize them.
The previous secretary of labor (the late Justice Scalia’s son) was an anti-worker ideologue who did everything possible to undermine/block the department’s mission, including helping firms to not provide health benefits, steal workers’ overtime pay, discriminate against women and minorities, avoid occupational safety rules, unlawfully block union organizing, etc.
It is a good thing for the leader of a government department to have ideological goals broadly aligned with the mission of the institution.
It is a good thing for the leader of a government department to have ideological goals broadly aligned with the mission of the institution.
This is also true, it but does not change the original thesis.
> US Labor Secretary is a product of union politics
The man heading state labor policy is a "product" of the labor movement. Is that supposed to be a scandal?
> easier for the AFL/CIO and Teamsters to unionize them
Good.
The man heading state labor policy is a "product" of the labor movement. Is that supposed to be a scandal?
> easier for the AFL/CIO and Teamsters to unionize them
Good.
It's not an unmitigated good - unions are just as capable of becoming "another boss" as any other human institution. Simply supporting "unions" without asking "what kinds of unions" is opting people into being harmed coming and going.
Unions are good inasmuch they allow labor to bargain with capital by underwriting demands for better pay and conditions with the threat of work stoppage.
If unions aren't doing that because they are compromised or sclerotic or whatever, then they aren't much use. Who would argue.
If unions aren't doing that because they are compromised or sclerotic or whatever, then they aren't much use. Who would argue.
Sure that may be true, but to what end? To allow workers to ask for better rights rather than being at the whim of a microeconomy created by a company like Uber or others with their own control over "surges" and "down times"?
(new account, long time reader, victim of poorly self-managed passwords)
(new account, long time reader, victim of poorly self-managed passwords)
Good.
It blows my mind that these platforms refuse to let workers set their own rates, choose their clients, choose how the work gets done, where the work gets done and how the work gets done. Those are the defining characteristics of what makes a worker a contractor or not.
Instead, platforms like Uber dictate rates, dictate how, where and when the work gets done, and penalize workers if they don't take the clients Uber wants them to take. Uber even dictates what cars they can and can't use.
Instead, platforms like Uber dictate rates, dictate how, where and when the work gets done, and penalize workers if they don't take the clients Uber wants them to take. Uber even dictates what cars they can and can't use.
Workers actually could set their own rates higher but Uber puts a floor on how little a ride can cost. Uber tested this feature and found that everyone who set a rate higher than Uber's floor amount didn't get a ride...
Uber does not let you choose your clients because they discovered discrimination occurred based on who the client was and where they were being picked up from. You are free to cancel but repeatedly cancelling means Uber will remove you from the network (you aren't putting in anything good to the system...so maybe the system isn't for you)
The work gets done when someone requests it, you don't get to negotiate that as a driver. You are able to look at customers who want future work done (scheduled rides) and book those at your convenience. If you are working in an on-demand contract role, the work has to be done...on-demand.
The ride has to be done in the same way as every ride as that is the expectation of the product. Uber doesn't tell you how to drive, doesn't tell you to set your car up in a certain way, but it does tell you some basic ground rules for doing the work.
Dictating what car you can and can't use is like regulating the equipment on the platform. You can't use 2-door cars, cars past a certain age, and a few completely reasonable restrictions (https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/uber-vehicle-requirements-...)
Uber does not let you choose your clients because they discovered discrimination occurred based on who the client was and where they were being picked up from. You are free to cancel but repeatedly cancelling means Uber will remove you from the network (you aren't putting in anything good to the system...so maybe the system isn't for you)
The work gets done when someone requests it, you don't get to negotiate that as a driver. You are able to look at customers who want future work done (scheduled rides) and book those at your convenience. If you are working in an on-demand contract role, the work has to be done...on-demand.
The ride has to be done in the same way as every ride as that is the expectation of the product. Uber doesn't tell you how to drive, doesn't tell you to set your car up in a certain way, but it does tell you some basic ground rules for doing the work.
Dictating what car you can and can't use is like regulating the equipment on the platform. You can't use 2-door cars, cars past a certain age, and a few completely reasonable restrictions (https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/uber-vehicle-requirements-...)
To me it sounds like a service like Uber requires so much control over their product that they just can’t use gig workers/independent contractors.
These are all completely reasonable things to require from a company/customer point of view. It’s completely unreasonable to demand these things of independent contractors.
These are all completely reasonable things to require from a company/customer point of view. It’s completely unreasonable to demand these things of independent contractors.
Really? It doesn't sound like maybe the definition of "independent contractor" should be overhauled?
Large scale marketplaces like this are quite unique and probably deserve a look at how we employ/give work to folks in them.
Large scale marketplaces like this are quite unique and probably deserve a look at how we employ/give work to folks in them.
No one said it's an easy business. Your arguments are basically "if they don't get control over that, then it's hurting the business".
If you need to either be at the edge of the law and discriminate or be the edge of the law and misclassify employees as contractors, to make your business work, then maybe your business model is flawed.
If you need to either be at the edge of the law and discriminate or be the edge of the law and misclassify employees as contractors, to make your business work, then maybe your business model is flawed.
If by flawed you mean designed to maximize exploitation by staying on the outer edge of the law, in bad faith, then yes it’s flawed.
That discrimination is the onus of the independent contractor drivers. Without full transparency about a potential ride's pickup, drop off, and how much they will be paid for it, there is effectively no way to argue that Uber drivers are independent contractors.
> Uber does not let you choose your clients because they discovered discrimination occurred based on who the client was and where they were being picked up from.
It was pretty well known that getting a cab from certain (non-white) neighborhoods and just hailing one as a PoC was very hard pre-Uber.
You could always lodge a complain at the centralized taxi authority where some bureaucrats would input it in "the system". But in the end it achieved nothing. Uber kicking out racist drivers probably did more than decades of complains.
It was pretty well known that getting a cab from certain (non-white) neighborhoods and just hailing one as a PoC was very hard pre-Uber.
You could always lodge a complain at the centralized taxi authority where some bureaucrats would input it in "the system". But in the end it achieved nothing. Uber kicking out racist drivers probably did more than decades of complains.
You did a good job describing constraints Uber has in order to deliver a product to customers. From your description there might be good reasons for those constraints such as anti discrimination or price stability. But even for "good reasons" it doesn't absolve Uber of liability for treating employees as contractors.
This comment seems to contain a non-sequitur; you argue in favor of one thing, then make a tangentially related assertion (that Uber drivers are employees) with no argument in its favor.
Seems like the non-sequitur would be on the part of the grand-parent since it was in defense of Uber that these limitations were placed.
In your reply I see a theme common in most defences of Uber, it boils down to "without X, the business would not work"
Uber has no inherent right to exist and do business. If the existing laws preclude your prefered business model, you need to get the law changed BEFORE you go into business.
Uber has no inherent right to exist and do business. If the existing laws preclude your prefered business model, you need to get the law changed BEFORE you go into business.
> Uber does not let you choose your clients because they discovered discrimination occurred based on who the client was and where they were being picked up from.
This assumes that the only solution for Uber is to stop drivers from selecting who they pick up and where they pick up from.
Another would be for Uber to allow drivers to make the choice, but subsidize rides from discriminated areas using money from desirable areas.
This assumes that the only solution for Uber is to stop drivers from selecting who they pick up and where they pick up from.
Another would be for Uber to allow drivers to make the choice, but subsidize rides from discriminated areas using money from desirable areas.
Sound a lot like Uber needs workers who act like employees (who Uber can dictate the work to) but wants to pay them like contractors.
Uber is the client, not the person the driver picks up. The drivers are contractors, and they contract to Uber (or Lyft, etc) to do some job, in this case driving some person to a destination.
Each requested ride is a new job. The contractor can choose to not take that job, for any number of reasons.
The fact that the job has a set rate is not abnormal at all. The fact that the client will “punish” you for not being available is also not abnormal at all.
Additionally, the contractors are able to work whenever they want, wherever they want, and for whichever companies they want.
The only real oddity here is that the contract work is dependent on the ride sharing companies. There should be an additional classification for dependent contractors. These drivers are definitely not employees, under any definition.
Each requested ride is a new job. The contractor can choose to not take that job, for any number of reasons.
The fact that the job has a set rate is not abnormal at all. The fact that the client will “punish” you for not being available is also not abnormal at all.
Additionally, the contractors are able to work whenever they want, wherever they want, and for whichever companies they want.
The only real oddity here is that the contract work is dependent on the ride sharing companies. There should be an additional classification for dependent contractors. These drivers are definitely not employees, under any definition.
Sounds like a definining characteristic of monopsony, which you could argue makes the difference between contractor and employee somewhat irrelevant.
Yes, I also agree with this sentiment.
Yeah the Ubers and Lyfts of the world would have a stronger argument about their drivers being contractors if this was the case, but it's not.
A lot of those don't apply to the likes of uber and doordash though. An uber driver can't choose where the work gets done because the where is part of the gig itself. The how as well, as that's basically part of the task. Seems to be we're fundamentally trying to force an old classification to a new set of jobs.
> An uber driver can't choose where the work gets done because the where is part of the gig itself.
An Uber driver can certainly decide how and where their work gets done by using the car of their choice, except they aren't allowed to. Uber decides what vehicles they can use.
> Seems to be we're fundamentally trying to force an old classification to a new set of jobs.
There's nothing new about delivery driving and taxis. What's new is that companies are pretending that an app means that they shouldn't have to play by the same rules as every other employer.
An Uber driver can certainly decide how and where their work gets done by using the car of their choice, except they aren't allowed to. Uber decides what vehicles they can use.
> Seems to be we're fundamentally trying to force an old classification to a new set of jobs.
There's nothing new about delivery driving and taxis. What's new is that companies are pretending that an app means that they shouldn't have to play by the same rules as every other employer.
Weren't delivery and taxis mostly (or at least a major portion) contractors before this as well? And can't uber drivers use the car they want as long as it meets some criteria?
>And can't uber drivers use the car they want as long as it meets some criteria?
This. The cars have a bare minimum requirement to ensure a good passenger experience and for safety (no older than X year of manufacturing, etc.), but beyond that, you are welcome to use whatever car you want. Uber has no issues with letting you use any car of your choice, as long as it meets the minimum requirements (which seem to be pretty reasonable).
I've seen regular Uber drivers (not Uber Black or any other more premium services) pull up in anything ranging from a few years old Priuses to pretty much brand new Teslas and Audi Q-series SUVs.
This. The cars have a bare minimum requirement to ensure a good passenger experience and for safety (no older than X year of manufacturing, etc.), but beyond that, you are welcome to use whatever car you want. Uber has no issues with letting you use any car of your choice, as long as it meets the minimum requirements (which seem to be pretty reasonable).
I've seen regular Uber drivers (not Uber Black or any other more premium services) pull up in anything ranging from a few years old Priuses to pretty much brand new Teslas and Audi Q-series SUVs.
A traditional independent contractor would choose which jobs they take. Many musicians, for instance, might turn down a gig because they don't want to drive to the location, or might ask negotiate for more money because of it. A guy mowing my lawn might ask for more money if my lawn is particularly difficult, or deny the job if we can't come to an agreement. Rideshare apps deny their so called "contractors" this freedom that most contractors have. They could certainly give their drivers the ability to negotiate terms, as every other contractor gets to do, but they don't. It is the denial of this freedom that makes them employees.
This is trivially beatable by Uber by just allowing these to be configurable and setting the defaults on the client to exclude those people.
After all, the defaults have to be set to something, they might as well be set to the current values. You can even have a first launch "Choose defaults" setting.
Then people can go up and down the scale of what they want but no one practically will. And Uber can promise premium service only for things that meet some minimum standard.
Then none of you would get no questions asked refunds and I would. And everyone would be happy.
After all, the defaults have to be set to something, they might as well be set to the current values. You can even have a first launch "Choose defaults" setting.
Then people can go up and down the scale of what they want but no one practically will. And Uber can promise premium service only for things that meet some minimum standard.
Then none of you would get no questions asked refunds and I would. And everyone would be happy.
Being an independent contractor does not mean being independent of rules
WWE wrestlers are independent contractors yet are instructed to perform certain moves and even deliberately lose matches
WWE wrestlers are independent contractors yet are instructed to perform certain moves and even deliberately lose matches
> Being an independent contractor does not mean being independent of rules
Surely it at least means being independent from some of the rules that you have to follow if you have a full time job, or why do it? If it doesn't at least mean setting your own price, then what in the world is the point?
Imagine you are freelancing on a software project but you can't ever make any good money because, strangely, the price you're allowed to charge is set by Stackoverflow and not you. Seems kind of presumptuous of them to decide that for me, no?
I don't understand why so many people in tech will bend over backwards to not notice the most obvious, basic nature of the economic arrangement between these firms and the people who do all the work. Just look at this stuff straight on. It's obvious what it is. Imagine yourself as a worker instead of a boss for once.
There is an Upton Sinclair quotation that fits.
Surely it at least means being independent from some of the rules that you have to follow if you have a full time job, or why do it? If it doesn't at least mean setting your own price, then what in the world is the point?
Imagine you are freelancing on a software project but you can't ever make any good money because, strangely, the price you're allowed to charge is set by Stackoverflow and not you. Seems kind of presumptuous of them to decide that for me, no?
I don't understand why so many people in tech will bend over backwards to not notice the most obvious, basic nature of the economic arrangement between these firms and the people who do all the work. Just look at this stuff straight on. It's obvious what it is. Imagine yourself as a worker instead of a boss for once.
There is an Upton Sinclair quotation that fits.
This is not a great example because WWE wrestlers should also be employees and not independent contractors.
There's the John Oliver's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8UQ4O7UiDs
And also a journal article in response to the video
https://bit.ly/3vqHHar
Which concludes,
"But in the end, the totality of the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of wrestlers being more accurately classified as employees."
There's the John Oliver's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8UQ4O7UiDs
And also a journal article in response to the video
https://bit.ly/3vqHHar
Which concludes,
"But in the end, the totality of the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of wrestlers being more accurately classified as employees."
What driving job as a contractor lets you choose your clients and set the rate? Not even truck drivers and not even most private pilots can do that.
This is a blatantly false characterization. Uber workers can decide when and how to work.
> The defining aspect of these gig worker jobs is that independent contractors _can_ decide when and how to work.
So the workers can negotiate when, how and for how much they'll work for their clients? I've got an '01 sedan collecting dust, can I decide that's how I'm going to pick up my clients via Uber?
When I worked as a contractor, it didn't matter that I used some shitty laptop or OS to get my work done, because I had the freedom to decide how and where I completed my work. Workers using Uber are denied that freedom.
So the workers can negotiate when, how and for how much they'll work for their clients? I've got an '01 sedan collecting dust, can I decide that's how I'm going to pick up my clients via Uber?
When I worked as a contractor, it didn't matter that I used some shitty laptop or OS to get my work done, because I had the freedom to decide how and where I completed my work. Workers using Uber are denied that freedom.
> it didn't matter that I used some shitty laptop or OS to get my work done
This isn't a reasonable comparison. Your shitty laptop or OS was likely not part of the product. If I want a website I don't care what your laptop looks like. If I am being driven somewhere I certainly care about what condition the car is in.
This isn't a reasonable comparison. Your shitty laptop or OS was likely not part of the product. If I want a website I don't care what your laptop looks like. If I am being driven somewhere I certainly care about what condition the car is in.
> This isn't a reasonable comparison. Your shitty laptop or OS was likely not part of the product
If a client hires me to build a web app, I get to decide how, when and where it is built. That means I get to choose if I use, say, Django or Rails on the backend, and maybe React on the front end. These are certainly part of the product.
If a client hires me to build a web app, I get to decide how, when and where it is built. That means I get to choose if I use, say, Django or Rails on the backend, and maybe React on the front end. These are certainly part of the product.
> If a client hires me to build a web app, I get to decide how, when and where it is built.
No thats not really true, for all cases of contracting.
I, as the client, could absolutely tell you to use rails, and if you don't use rails, I can "fire" you the contractor.
Sure, some clients might not care. But some would care, and they can tell you want to do, and control what you use, and not work with you if you don't do what you say.
No thats not really true, for all cases of contracting.
I, as the client, could absolutely tell you to use rails, and if you don't use rails, I can "fire" you the contractor.
Sure, some clients might not care. But some would care, and they can tell you want to do, and control what you use, and not work with you if you don't do what you say.
That is not necessarily the case. The client may well have restrictions on what technologies you use, especially if they are to run and maintain it after you have built it. This probably is considered part of the product.
The contractor and client would negotiate those terms.
But you and the client negotiate and come to an agreement or decide not to do business. If you fail to come to an agreement with many clients this may affect your reputation, but no central authority will ban you from talking to future clients.
If I started "Daniel's Ruby Shop", collected money from clients, and paid it to you if you made Ruby websites that met standards I set, and required you to Skype me at specific times or forever be banned from "contracts" you're not an independent contractor, you're my employee.
If I started "Daniel's Ruby Shop", collected money from clients, and paid it to you if you made Ruby websites that met standards I set, and required you to Skype me at specific times or forever be banned from "contracts" you're not an independent contractor, you're my employee.
> If I am being driven somewhere I certainly care about what condition the car is in.
Right, so sounds like Uber sensibly wants their representatives on the street to project their desired corporate image.
Thus, employees.
Right, so sounds like Uber sensibly wants their representatives on the street to project their desired corporate image.
Thus, employees.
This is one thing that confuses me about the drive to classify Uber drivers as workers. Admittedly anecdotal, but when chatting with drivers, it seems like a fair number drive part time to make some extra money. I don't think they really want to be classified as employees of Uber.
That said, I'm not really sure what the solution is. If drivers that drive more than X hours per week have to be employees, I wouldn't be surprised to see Uber attempt to limit hours for each driver.
That said, I'm not really sure what the solution is. If drivers that drive more than X hours per week have to be employees, I wouldn't be surprised to see Uber attempt to limit hours for each driver.
> Admittedly anecdotal, but when chatting with drivers, it seems like a fair number drive part time to make some extra money
There are millions of part-time employees in the US who choose their own hours.
There are millions of part-time employees in the US who choose their own hours.
I think you are conflating two thing: drivers being classified as employees, and being able to pick and choose (with some rules) their hours. Yes, in most cases employers decide to set the work hours, but that is not necessarily a condition of being an employee.
The fight here is not about whether Uber should be setting the hours that their drivers/employees work it is about: 1. Who pays the relevant employment taxes 2. Do the drivers qualify for state/federally mandated benefits like time off, unemployment, workers comp, etc.. (note: all of those things cost money, plus time to administer) 3. Do they come under rules about treating all employees the same (e.g.: do drivers that work full time get the same 401k program as Uber programmers)
All of this is really about Uber and the like trying to shift costs and burdens away from themselves. In many cases trying to eliminate them from their business model. We as a society have put protections in place against this because we saw how horrible things got, and this is an attempt to end-run those protections. I am open to figuring out how we should re-jigger how we run this, but not like this at the expense of workers.
The fight here is not about whether Uber should be setting the hours that their drivers/employees work it is about: 1. Who pays the relevant employment taxes 2. Do the drivers qualify for state/federally mandated benefits like time off, unemployment, workers comp, etc.. (note: all of those things cost money, plus time to administer) 3. Do they come under rules about treating all employees the same (e.g.: do drivers that work full time get the same 401k program as Uber programmers)
All of this is really about Uber and the like trying to shift costs and burdens away from themselves. In many cases trying to eliminate them from their business model. We as a society have put protections in place against this because we saw how horrible things got, and this is an attempt to end-run those protections. I am open to figuring out how we should re-jigger how we run this, but not like this at the expense of workers.
Thank you, this was helpful - I didn't realize (but now that I read it it makes sense) that drivers could still be employees with part time (few hours a week) work. I wonder how much of those costs are fixed vs variable (based on how much a driver works) - one advantage of Uber is that they can surge capacity by having workers that only work a few hours a week.
It seems backward that the government, instead of fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers, wants to force independent workers to become employees so that the government doesn't have to fix anything. It is abdication of responsibility for social outcomes.
Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so. In these cases, the only people that benefit are the politicians that can go on ignoring the real problems.
Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so. In these cases, the only people that benefit are the politicians that can go on ignoring the real problems.
Under the law as it is written, the labor secretary is basically correct. It's not the labor secretary's job to rewrite the law. What congress should have done several years ago is to address the emergence of the gig economy with a new designation that is distinct from both independent contractors and employees.
Lots of issues in modern US business arise from laziness / stupidity / corruption / uselessness of Congress.
I believe that there should be reform and that we should be working towards a better legal environment for informal workers and companies that want to use them at scale facilitated by technology. You can believe that and still recognize that the law as written would not support a definition of these workers as independent contractors (because they are not and it really is not a gray area due to the way that they are managed/directed).
It's also an issue for the US that we can go many years under an enforcement regime that assumes that we basically have this new category of worker that we are, for reasons of convenience, defining as independent contractors, but that the law clearly states do not meet the definition of independent contractors. Then we get a new administration that decides it will enforce the law as it's written instead of tacitly recognizing the fake pseudo reform of non enforcement that we had from earlier administrations. That isn't good government.
Lots of issues in modern US business arise from laziness / stupidity / corruption / uselessness of Congress.
I believe that there should be reform and that we should be working towards a better legal environment for informal workers and companies that want to use them at scale facilitated by technology. You can believe that and still recognize that the law as written would not support a definition of these workers as independent contractors (because they are not and it really is not a gray area due to the way that they are managed/directed).
It's also an issue for the US that we can go many years under an enforcement regime that assumes that we basically have this new category of worker that we are, for reasons of convenience, defining as independent contractors, but that the law clearly states do not meet the definition of independent contractors. Then we get a new administration that decides it will enforce the law as it's written instead of tacitly recognizing the fake pseudo reform of non enforcement that we had from earlier administrations. That isn't good government.
>Lots of issues in modern US business arise from laziness / stupidity / corruption / uselessness of Congress.
And by extension lots of issues in Congress arise from laziness / stupidity / corruption / uselesssness of the electorate that put them there. Invest heavily in education and revisit in a few generations.
And by extension lots of issues in Congress arise from laziness / stupidity / corruption / uselesssness of the electorate that put them there. Invest heavily in education and revisit in a few generations.
What kind of education?
The kind that doesn't result in an intellectual race to the bottom as we're witnessing today, where people eat tide pods, purposefully hasten pandemic spread, and bottles of Windex have to have legal disclaimers like "do not spray directly into eyes".
Easier said than done I suspect.
> Invest heavily in education and revisit in a few generations
It is a persistent myth that the US does not invest in education. Not only is the dollars per student spent in the US competitive, it exceeds the majority of European nations spending per student by a large margin.
"In 2015, the United States spent approximately $12,800 per student on elementary and secondary education. That is over 35% more than the OECD country average of $9,500. At the post-secondary level, the United States spent approximately $30,000 per student, which was 93% higher than the average of OECD countries ($16,100)."
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country...
It is a persistent myth that the US does not invest in education. Not only is the dollars per student spent in the US competitive, it exceeds the majority of European nations spending per student by a large margin.
"In 2015, the United States spent approximately $12,800 per student on elementary and secondary education. That is over 35% more than the OECD country average of $9,500. At the post-secondary level, the United States spent approximately $30,000 per student, which was 93% higher than the average of OECD countries ($16,100)."
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country...
The question is what part of those dollars really buy quality and what part just ends in pockets of well-connected interest groups.
I see this question only rarely asked. Too many people seem to think that shoveling extra money on X will get you better results almost automatically. No, it won't, corruption and special interests can capture that extra value unless the investor is careful.
Now it is true that underfinancing will get you worse results, but the opposite just does not hold.
I see this question only rarely asked. Too many people seem to think that shoveling extra money on X will get you better results almost automatically. No, it won't, corruption and special interests can capture that extra value unless the investor is careful.
Now it is true that underfinancing will get you worse results, but the opposite just does not hold.
Invest, not spend. You'll see plenty of school districts which receive tons of money but at the classroom level teachers are barely paid and kids have no supplies.
Money is going somewhere but most of it isn't into the actual education.
Money is going somewhere but most of it isn't into the actual education.
I think the bigger problem is the lack of citizen representation. Individual legislators are servicing an absolutely huge number of constituents, which means that their elections cover absolutely massive amounts of people, necessitating massive amounts of money for campaigns. Which means that the influence comes from donors, as they are the ones who enable reelection.
It also means that outside money can lead to successful primaries of otherwise popular legislators, if the legislator doesn't toe the line required. There used to be many Republicans that not only publicly agreed that climate change is a real, human-caused, phenomenon and that also proposed action to solve the problem. After a few legislators got primaried out of their seats, this position is no longer allowed at all in public statements by Republicans, because most legislators are too scared to risk being primaried.
Increasing the House of Representatives by ten fold or more might help.
Getting rid of many of the procedures that prevent votes from happening would probably help too.
And of course, overturning Citizens United...
It also means that outside money can lead to successful primaries of otherwise popular legislators, if the legislator doesn't toe the line required. There used to be many Republicans that not only publicly agreed that climate change is a real, human-caused, phenomenon and that also proposed action to solve the problem. After a few legislators got primaried out of their seats, this position is no longer allowed at all in public statements by Republicans, because most legislators are too scared to risk being primaried.
Increasing the House of Representatives by ten fold or more might help.
Getting rid of many of the procedures that prevent votes from happening would probably help too.
And of course, overturning Citizens United...
The House of Reps has been frozen since 1929 with the Reapportionment Act, we were originally suppose to add new electors/reps with every census and sometimes sooner if population change is fast enough. It is also the reason why some small states have slightly more power in the House of Reps, the lack of new Reps has made their fair share of Reps drop below the minimum number of Reps. With more Reps overall, their share rises and surpasses the minimum number, fixing that particular problem.
"Increasing the House of Representatives by ten fold or more might help."
While you would end up with much more representatives - and in theory more representation - each individual rep would become much less influential. I think expanding the house to be thousands of members large would also make deliberations much more difficult and shallow as a result. I have no idea how parliamentary procedure would work with thousands of interested parties. But I do acknowledge that it is do-able.
That being said, I am in favor of increasing the size of the house, but only by about 100 seats or so. I'd also want term limits in order to facilitate more turnover for district seats. But that's a separate debate.
While you would end up with much more representatives - and in theory more representation - each individual rep would become much less influential. I think expanding the house to be thousands of members large would also make deliberations much more difficult and shallow as a result. I have no idea how parliamentary procedure would work with thousands of interested parties. But I do acknowledge that it is do-able.
That being said, I am in favor of increasing the size of the house, but only by about 100 seats or so. I'd also want term limits in order to facilitate more turnover for district seats. But that's a separate debate.
It's not the labor secretary's job to rewrite the law
This.
Sometimes I feel like the entire nation needs to go back and revisit our civics books. The job of the Labor Secretary is to make certain that federal labor laws are followed. If you want changes to federal labor law, it does you no good to demand them of the Labor Secretary. Call your congressperson and your senator. Even better, vote for more qualified congresspeople and senators.
This is a republic. Which means that ultimately, the labor laws are far more our fault than the fault of the Labor Secretary.
This.
Sometimes I feel like the entire nation needs to go back and revisit our civics books. The job of the Labor Secretary is to make certain that federal labor laws are followed. If you want changes to federal labor law, it does you no good to demand them of the Labor Secretary. Call your congressperson and your senator. Even better, vote for more qualified congresspeople and senators.
This is a republic. Which means that ultimately, the labor laws are far more our fault than the fault of the Labor Secretary.
>Which means that ultimately, the labor laws are far more our fault than the fault of the Labor Secretary.
It also doesn't really matter what the Federal law is or Labor Secretary does/says, worker agreements are governed by State law, and their are 50 States with similar, but not identical legal standards defining employees vs independent contractors. In some cases you may be defined as an employee at the State level but Independent Contractor for purposes of the Federal level (say the IRS Code/Federal Taxes). Even within a single State one agency say unemployment office was classify you as employee and another such as workers comp classifies you as independent contractor.
It also doesn't really matter what the Federal law is or Labor Secretary does/says, worker agreements are governed by State law, and their are 50 States with similar, but not identical legal standards defining employees vs independent contractors. In some cases you may be defined as an employee at the State level but Independent Contractor for purposes of the Federal level (say the IRS Code/Federal Taxes). Even within a single State one agency say unemployment office was classify you as employee and another such as workers comp classifies you as independent contractor.
> Even better, vote for more qualified congresspeople and senators
The problem with this comment (and others like it) is the presupposition that the problem is that people are not voting "correctly", because if only they did, all the problems would be solved.
But that glosses over a very large number of problems, some of which are deeply systematic, at which point questions like "whose job is it really to fix these issues anyways" may in fact deserve answers that are more out-of-the-box than "the republican democratic system works as intended, so the problem must be elsewhere".
The problem with this comment (and others like it) is the presupposition that the problem is that people are not voting "correctly", because if only they did, all the problems would be solved.
But that glosses over a very large number of problems, some of which are deeply systematic, at which point questions like "whose job is it really to fix these issues anyways" may in fact deserve answers that are more out-of-the-box than "the republican democratic system works as intended, so the problem must be elsewhere".
>But that glosses over a very large number of problems, some of which are deeply systematic, at which point questions like "whose job is it really to fix these issues anyways" may in fact deserve answers that are more out-of-the-box than "the republican democratic system works as intended, so the problem must be elsewhere".
This glosses over the fact that enough of the population disagrees with your assessment of the problem and proposed solutions that there is no consensus and that is why your problems are not being solved in the way that you want. In fact, that is almost always the case.
People feel that the thresholds of consensus required in republican processes get in the way of their plans only when they fail to persuade others. Then they start looking for more authoritarian solutions, such as having party-bureaucrats make laws by fiat.
This glosses over the fact that enough of the population disagrees with your assessment of the problem and proposed solutions that there is no consensus and that is why your problems are not being solved in the way that you want. In fact, that is almost always the case.
People feel that the thresholds of consensus required in republican processes get in the way of their plans only when they fail to persuade others. Then they start looking for more authoritarian solutions, such as having party-bureaucrats make laws by fiat.
> enough of the population disagrees with your assessment of the problem and proposed solutions that there is no consensus and that is why your problems are not being solved in the way that you want.
Yes, this is part of it, but it goes even deeper than that. For example, California government passed AB-5, and then later popular ballot passed prop 22, which essentially goes contrary to AB-5. Does that suggest that leadership is out of touch with the electorate? Maybe. The fact that numerous pages of exceptions had to be carved out in AB-5 in the first place (and it's still criticized even after that) also indicates that the legislation wasn't very well thought out to begin with.
If you think in terms of a software engineering organization, it would seem crazy to take bug reports and just blindly do whatever the tickets with largest number of CAPS LOCK words says. But governments often do exactly that: they take some top-of-mind idea and just go with it, without paying heed to any sort of expert research, leaving implementation details to be determined by others "lesser" offices of government, and without care for the repercussions of rolling out such policies. It's the equivalent of pushing the "release" button in your enterprise software, cross your fingers and hope for the best, without any observability infrastructure and without a rollback plan if everything breaks.
> People feel that the thresholds of consensus required in republican processes get in the way of their plans only when they fail to persuade others. Then they start looking for more authoritarian solutions
This is also true, and it's definitely a touchy subject. On one hand, global consensus seems "fairest", but is it really the fairest if the vast majority of people are not affected by a decision (or they are affected to different degrees depending on various factors)? What of their expertise in the subject matter? Many problems do have solutions that align with common sense, but many others require solutions that are counterintuitive, but that can only be proven to be more effective with hard research. It's a difficult line to thread, and I feel that the status quo favors popularity more than science when it comes to decision making.
Yes, this is part of it, but it goes even deeper than that. For example, California government passed AB-5, and then later popular ballot passed prop 22, which essentially goes contrary to AB-5. Does that suggest that leadership is out of touch with the electorate? Maybe. The fact that numerous pages of exceptions had to be carved out in AB-5 in the first place (and it's still criticized even after that) also indicates that the legislation wasn't very well thought out to begin with.
If you think in terms of a software engineering organization, it would seem crazy to take bug reports and just blindly do whatever the tickets with largest number of CAPS LOCK words says. But governments often do exactly that: they take some top-of-mind idea and just go with it, without paying heed to any sort of expert research, leaving implementation details to be determined by others "lesser" offices of government, and without care for the repercussions of rolling out such policies. It's the equivalent of pushing the "release" button in your enterprise software, cross your fingers and hope for the best, without any observability infrastructure and without a rollback plan if everything breaks.
> People feel that the thresholds of consensus required in republican processes get in the way of their plans only when they fail to persuade others. Then they start looking for more authoritarian solutions
This is also true, and it's definitely a touchy subject. On one hand, global consensus seems "fairest", but is it really the fairest if the vast majority of people are not affected by a decision (or they are affected to different degrees depending on various factors)? What of their expertise in the subject matter? Many problems do have solutions that align with common sense, but many others require solutions that are counterintuitive, but that can only be proven to be more effective with hard research. It's a difficult line to thread, and I feel that the status quo favors popularity more than science when it comes to decision making.
> For example, California government passed AB-5, and then later popular ballot passed prop 22, which essentially goes contrary to AB-5. Does that suggest that leadership is out of touch with the electorate?
The idea of representative government is you outsource decision making to people, not that you hire people to always do what the majority wants. That is the justification for a ballot initiative override. Not necessarily saying that ballot overrides of legislative actions are good structure -- there are pros and cons. But in the case of AB-5, that was clearly an out-of-touch legislative body taking some very extreme measures that were more radical than the state population wanted. That is a common thing when you have one-party states like CA, so in the current CA landscape ballot initiatives are a good safety check on what is a one party legislature controlled by party insiders.
> If you think in terms of a software engineering organization, it would seem crazy to take bug reports and just blindly do whatever the tickets with largest number of CAPS LOCK words says. But governments often do exactly that
In my experience in the corporate world, working from everything from non-profits to start ups to DJIA member companies, I find corporate decision making to be equally random and opaque. They are just random in different ways. In the corporate world, if you can find an executive sponsor and frame something the right way, you can convince them to follow a road of sheer madness. In government, if you can convince a politician that something is trendy or a cheap way of getting votes, they will commit huge blunders. If you can convince them that something is a moral imperative, they will commit unspeakable atrocities.
> This is also true, and it's definitely a touchy subject. On one hand, global consensus seems "fairest", but is it really the fairest if the vast majority of people are not affected by a decision (or they are affected to different degrees depending on various factors)?
Indeed a tough subject. The way I think about is this. If you are in the business world and you are leading a team of 5 engineers, who are trying to make a decision. Let's say 3 strongly believe in A. 2 Strongly believe in B and are strongly opposed to A. Do you say "majority rules"? Unlikely. You will try to find consensus. Consensus could be something like 60%A and 40%B. This consensus gathering process is why businesses often do crazy things, but they don't know a better way as pissing off 40% of your team is something you need to avoid. The 2 people can quit -- they can transfer to another team. So ultimately you do need to gather consensus rather than search for 50% +1 in making decisions within a team.
But a society is like that team. It requires more than 50% +1, otherwise you will find groups seceeding. One way of addressing this is to put in various roadblocks to require more than 50%. Say you need 2/3. Then people have to negotiate. If you want to do something 1/3 hates, then you can do it if you give them something in return. You bargain and you reach a consensus where everyone gets some of what they want, even if they don't like it. But then you might reach a situation where the society is split and simply can't come to a consensus because there are moral issues at stake that they are not willing to compromise on. Then your option is federalism. You break the society up into two groups and let each one make rules for themselves. Within each federalist group you have the super majority requirement again, but because they have shared values, they can reach that super majority.
All of this stuff was debated long ago in 18th-19th C France and England, and many very smart people looked at all these issues, which is why we have this weird federalist form of government in the US where you have both a senate and a house and it's really hard to get anything passed into law unless you have both a geographic and population supermajority on your side. But as the nation splits into two camps that view each other as basically evil, unreedemable, hopelessly foolish people, you are finding more and more gridlock and more and more appeals to Federalism. California wants to run their own climate policy? Fine, let them. Oklahoma wants fracking and free gasoline to everyone? Fine, let them. If you don't, the days of the republic are numbered.
The idea of representative government is you outsource decision making to people, not that you hire people to always do what the majority wants. That is the justification for a ballot initiative override. Not necessarily saying that ballot overrides of legislative actions are good structure -- there are pros and cons. But in the case of AB-5, that was clearly an out-of-touch legislative body taking some very extreme measures that were more radical than the state population wanted. That is a common thing when you have one-party states like CA, so in the current CA landscape ballot initiatives are a good safety check on what is a one party legislature controlled by party insiders.
> If you think in terms of a software engineering organization, it would seem crazy to take bug reports and just blindly do whatever the tickets with largest number of CAPS LOCK words says. But governments often do exactly that
In my experience in the corporate world, working from everything from non-profits to start ups to DJIA member companies, I find corporate decision making to be equally random and opaque. They are just random in different ways. In the corporate world, if you can find an executive sponsor and frame something the right way, you can convince them to follow a road of sheer madness. In government, if you can convince a politician that something is trendy or a cheap way of getting votes, they will commit huge blunders. If you can convince them that something is a moral imperative, they will commit unspeakable atrocities.
> This is also true, and it's definitely a touchy subject. On one hand, global consensus seems "fairest", but is it really the fairest if the vast majority of people are not affected by a decision (or they are affected to different degrees depending on various factors)?
Indeed a tough subject. The way I think about is this. If you are in the business world and you are leading a team of 5 engineers, who are trying to make a decision. Let's say 3 strongly believe in A. 2 Strongly believe in B and are strongly opposed to A. Do you say "majority rules"? Unlikely. You will try to find consensus. Consensus could be something like 60%A and 40%B. This consensus gathering process is why businesses often do crazy things, but they don't know a better way as pissing off 40% of your team is something you need to avoid. The 2 people can quit -- they can transfer to another team. So ultimately you do need to gather consensus rather than search for 50% +1 in making decisions within a team.
But a society is like that team. It requires more than 50% +1, otherwise you will find groups seceeding. One way of addressing this is to put in various roadblocks to require more than 50%. Say you need 2/3. Then people have to negotiate. If you want to do something 1/3 hates, then you can do it if you give them something in return. You bargain and you reach a consensus where everyone gets some of what they want, even if they don't like it. But then you might reach a situation where the society is split and simply can't come to a consensus because there are moral issues at stake that they are not willing to compromise on. Then your option is federalism. You break the society up into two groups and let each one make rules for themselves. Within each federalist group you have the super majority requirement again, but because they have shared values, they can reach that super majority.
All of this stuff was debated long ago in 18th-19th C France and England, and many very smart people looked at all these issues, which is why we have this weird federalist form of government in the US where you have both a senate and a house and it's really hard to get anything passed into law unless you have both a geographic and population supermajority on your side. But as the nation splits into two camps that view each other as basically evil, unreedemable, hopelessly foolish people, you are finding more and more gridlock and more and more appeals to Federalism. California wants to run their own climate policy? Fine, let them. Oklahoma wants fracking and free gasoline to everyone? Fine, let them. If you don't, the days of the republic are numbered.
> I find corporate decision making to be equally random and opaque
That's fair, but it's still madness :)
> ultimately you do need to gather consensus
I think consensus is just one form of conflict resolution. Compromise is another, for example. When we have a scenario of 5 people, 3 pro-X and 2 pro-Y, one could argue that are actually three choices: X, Y and the status quo, where an impasse between X and Y is functionally equivalent to everyone being pro-status-quo. Rephrasing in terms of status quo vs something else might help in understanding where X and Y overlap and where they differ and might lead to more productive open-ended discussions than a discussion that is solely adversarial between X and Y.
I don't believe it's necessarily possible to reach consensus in all cases. For example, the issue of abortion doesn't seem like one where either side is willing to let go. But I do believe that it's possible to reach a compromise in many cases (for example, pro-life proponents might be willing to concede that a anencephalic fetus posing life threatening risk to the mother is an acceptable case, while still believing that normal unplanned pregnancies should be taken responsibility for).
There's also always a possibility of a fourth choice Z, for example a policy from a different country (e.g. Portugal's handling of drug abuse being seen as a medical problem, rather than limiting the discussion to one solely about the spectrum of criminal severity). And there's yet other ways to handle conflicts, such as the iron fist approach that China uses (which some might argue was effective at handling covid, for example, questionable as it may be in other areas such as freedom of speech).
My take away is mostly that even if things are as they are because of something that was settled by scholars centuries ago, it still behooves us to revisit different ideas, ideologies and approaches to tackle today's problems, rather than ignoring or not understanding the weaknesses of the status quo processes.
That's fair, but it's still madness :)
> ultimately you do need to gather consensus
I think consensus is just one form of conflict resolution. Compromise is another, for example. When we have a scenario of 5 people, 3 pro-X and 2 pro-Y, one could argue that are actually three choices: X, Y and the status quo, where an impasse between X and Y is functionally equivalent to everyone being pro-status-quo. Rephrasing in terms of status quo vs something else might help in understanding where X and Y overlap and where they differ and might lead to more productive open-ended discussions than a discussion that is solely adversarial between X and Y.
I don't believe it's necessarily possible to reach consensus in all cases. For example, the issue of abortion doesn't seem like one where either side is willing to let go. But I do believe that it's possible to reach a compromise in many cases (for example, pro-life proponents might be willing to concede that a anencephalic fetus posing life threatening risk to the mother is an acceptable case, while still believing that normal unplanned pregnancies should be taken responsibility for).
There's also always a possibility of a fourth choice Z, for example a policy from a different country (e.g. Portugal's handling of drug abuse being seen as a medical problem, rather than limiting the discussion to one solely about the spectrum of criminal severity). And there's yet other ways to handle conflicts, such as the iron fist approach that China uses (which some might argue was effective at handling covid, for example, questionable as it may be in other areas such as freedom of speech).
My take away is mostly that even if things are as they are because of something that was settled by scholars centuries ago, it still behooves us to revisit different ideas, ideologies and approaches to tackle today's problems, rather than ignoring or not understanding the weaknesses of the status quo processes.
I'm not OP but compromise is only a choice if both sides see that as being better than the status quo. You are right that Status Quo is the third choice but it seems both sides of lots of issues prefer that than compromise because for a lot of these moral issues "compromise" is a step in a worse direction. I'd guess largely because of "slippery slope" type of fears.
For issues that can't be compromised, federalism is the solution. However this falls apart for issues where there are real (or perceived) externalities. If you are anti-abortion because of your moral framework, its unlikely you see allowing another community to do it as acceptable. The same as if you are worried about climate change, you don't want fracking in places you don't live.
For issues that can't be compromised, federalism is the solution. However this falls apart for issues where there are real (or perceived) externalities. If you are anti-abortion because of your moral framework, its unlikely you see allowing another community to do it as acceptable. The same as if you are worried about climate change, you don't want fracking in places you don't live.
Excellent points
Well, yes and no. If you mean the labor sec shouldn't arbitrarily decide not to enforce certain laws based on ideology, I agree completely.
But if you think the labor sec should merely concern themself with robotically enforcing the most literal meaning of the labor code, I think that's dubious as well. They should be thinking more big picture than that, like about whether the laws, when enforced, achieve their ostensible purpose. In this case, I would think it means saying, "well, if we want to do right by workers, I recommend we refactor the labor system like so...". That is, pass that on to Congress and the administration.
That, I think, should be a higher priority than fighting ever harder to be technically correct on an increasingly arcane distinction.
But if you think the labor sec should merely concern themself with robotically enforcing the most literal meaning of the labor code, I think that's dubious as well. They should be thinking more big picture than that, like about whether the laws, when enforced, achieve their ostensible purpose. In this case, I would think it means saying, "well, if we want to do right by workers, I recommend we refactor the labor system like so...". That is, pass that on to Congress and the administration.
That, I think, should be a higher priority than fighting ever harder to be technically correct on an increasingly arcane distinction.
"well, if we want to do right by workers, I recommend we refactor the labor system like so...". That is, pass that on to Congress
At which point congress is free to ignore the secretary. Ultimate authority always lies with congress. We can change that, assuming we want to change the Constitution. But today, congress is in charge of making laws. It is not in the remit of the Secretary to short circuit the Constitutional order. The best the secretary can do is, effectively, to send an email to congresspeople and senators. Which email would be a whole lot more effective coming from the voters instead of the secretary.
At which point congress is free to ignore the secretary. Ultimate authority always lies with congress. We can change that, assuming we want to change the Constitution. But today, congress is in charge of making laws. It is not in the remit of the Secretary to short circuit the Constitutional order. The best the secretary can do is, effectively, to send an email to congresspeople and senators. Which email would be a whole lot more effective coming from the voters instead of the secretary.
The Labor Secretary is empowered by laws passed by Congress to interpret the law in order to implement it. Congress passes laws delegating certain authority to Executive Branch departments.
If the Labor Secretary is not acting in accord with Federal Statutes passed by Congress and legal precedents established by the Federal Courts, the Secretary can be sued and injunctive relief sought. Of course the Secretary can be sued even if they are following the law.
If the Labor Secretary is not acting in accord with Federal Statutes passed by Congress and legal precedents established by the Federal Courts, the Secretary can be sued and injunctive relief sought. Of course the Secretary can be sued even if they are following the law.
You're putting a lot of weight on the word basically in your first sentence - the reality is that gig workers have characteristics that clearly fall under the classification of employees and others that clearly fall under the classification of contractors.
The problem with your argument is that because the law is ambiguous with regard to this situation, the labor secretary is effectively making law by choosing a particular interpretation of the law.
Though to be clear, I agree with you 100% that this is because Congress is just perpetually failing America through corruption, selfishness, etc., and that failure puts the labor secretary in an unenviable position of having to enforce laws that don't really work for the situation.
The problem with your argument is that because the law is ambiguous with regard to this situation, the labor secretary is effectively making law by choosing a particular interpretation of the law.
Though to be clear, I agree with you 100% that this is because Congress is just perpetually failing America through corruption, selfishness, etc., and that failure puts the labor secretary in an unenviable position of having to enforce laws that don't really work for the situation.
> The problem with your argument is that because the law is ambiguous with regard to this situation, the labor secretary is effectively making law by choosing a particular interpretation of the law.
As a member of the Executive branch, that seems to be his job, yes.
As a member of the Executive branch, that seems to be his job, yes.
[IANAL]
My understanding is that if a worker has any characteristic of an employee, they are an employee. Any of several criteria are sufficient and only one of them is necessary.
In the bigger picture, Congress passes laws and delegates authority to a branch of government to establish rules and regulations using a process complying with other statutes that dictate how rules and regulations become binding.
Essentially, in the US at all levels -- Federal, State, and Local -- there are two types of legal requirements. Statutes and rules/regulations. The statute is the what. Rules and regulations are the implementation details...ok, there's actually a third parallel part which is legal precedent established by the courts.
Anyway, Congress delegates authority to executive agencies so that it can focus on other things and not have to micro-mange each tiny detail of everything under the sun.
My understanding is that if a worker has any characteristic of an employee, they are an employee. Any of several criteria are sufficient and only one of them is necessary.
In the bigger picture, Congress passes laws and delegates authority to a branch of government to establish rules and regulations using a process complying with other statutes that dictate how rules and regulations become binding.
Essentially, in the US at all levels -- Federal, State, and Local -- there are two types of legal requirements. Statutes and rules/regulations. The statute is the what. Rules and regulations are the implementation details...ok, there's actually a third parallel part which is legal precedent established by the courts.
Anyway, Congress delegates authority to executive agencies so that it can focus on other things and not have to micro-mange each tiny detail of everything under the sun.
I am also not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the system is not clear in the way that you are describing it.
As to "Anyway, Congress delegates authority to executive agencies so that it can focus on other things and not have to micro-mange each tiny detail of everything under the sun." - each tiny detail? This is a case of classifying millions of workers. We're not talking about a tiny detail, we're talking about something that is immensely important both to all the people affected by it as well as all the companies that have to operate under these labor laws. This isn't Congress delegating away the details, it's them failing for an extended period of time to address an absolute enormous and critical issue in the labor market.
As to "Anyway, Congress delegates authority to executive agencies so that it can focus on other things and not have to micro-mange each tiny detail of everything under the sun." - each tiny detail? This is a case of classifying millions of workers. We're not talking about a tiny detail, we're talking about something that is immensely important both to all the people affected by it as well as all the companies that have to operate under these labor laws. This isn't Congress delegating away the details, it's them failing for an extended period of time to address an absolute enormous and critical issue in the labor market.
So are you saying the Labor Secretary should classify them as independent contractors?
In terms of scale the Department of Labor classifies all workers. Should Congress classify each worker individually?
Were previous Labor Secretaries out of line for classifying the workers as contractors?
In terms of scale the Department of Labor classifies all workers. Should Congress classify each worker individually?
Were previous Labor Secretaries out of line for classifying the workers as contractors?
If you accept that the law is ambiguous and that the current Secretary of Labor is effectively making law by choosing an interpretation, you must also accept that the existing regulatory structure also derives from a choice made by a previous Secretary of Labor who effectively made law by so doing so.
Your argument does not provide any basis for preferring one interpretation over another.
Your argument does not provide any basis for preferring one interpretation over another.
That's because it's not an argument about which interpretation is preferable. The parent comment said it is not the secretary's job to rewrite the law (which implies that the secretary is not making law), and my argument is that that the secretary is indeed writing law.
In terms of preference, mine is not for one labor secretary's policy over another (I mean, I have a preference there, but it's beside the point here). My argument is that the labor secretary is making law here, and that is a bad thing because it is the job of Congress to make laws, which they are utterly failing to do.
In terms of preference, mine is not for one labor secretary's policy over another (I mean, I have a preference there, but it's beside the point here). My argument is that the labor secretary is making law here, and that is a bad thing because it is the job of Congress to make laws, which they are utterly failing to do.
It is the Secretary's job to (have their department) write regulations. Regulations are the implementation of the specification laid out in law. When the law is ambiguous, regulators have to choose an interpretation.
Congressional paralysis is definitely a problem, but until we have a major change in either Senate rules or political paradigm, we not see any improvement on that front.
Congressional paralysis is definitely a problem, but until we have a major change in either Senate rules or political paradigm, we not see any improvement on that front.
In the UK apparently there are 3 types. The Economist wrote on the Uber case in UK:
“Employees” gain access to the full gamut of employment-law protections; “workers” get some protections but can be dismissed at will; the self-employed are taxed more lightly but receive few legal rights.
The Surpreme court ruled that Uber drivers are workers and not self-employed.
“Employees” gain access to the full gamut of employment-law protections; “workers” get some protections but can be dismissed at will; the self-employed are taxed more lightly but receive few legal rights.
The Surpreme court ruled that Uber drivers are workers and not self-employed.
In most states in the U.S. all employees can be terminated at will. It is generally called "right to work" (yes... it is a questionable name). So essentially that first category does not exist in the U.S. (outside of a union where it gets tricky). So the Labor Secretary's decision amounts to the same decision.
And self-employed here generally are not taxed less, rather about the same (details vary), but have to do the taxation themselves.
I should note that you still can be fired illegally, for example surrounding harassment or protected status (gender, race, etc...).
And self-employed here generally are not taxed less, rather about the same (details vary), but have to do the taxation themselves.
I should note that you still can be fired illegally, for example surrounding harassment or protected status (gender, race, etc...).
I disagree. There are jobs that are reasonable under the construct of "independent contractor". The issue is that the classification has been grossly abused to the point where the majority of people who employers attempt to classify that way really shouldn't be eligible.
I have real independent contractors in my family, they might work 2 hours each for 50 different customers in a year. They do their job exactly how they want to. It's not like it makes sense for any one of their customers to provide benefits of any kind. This is the kind of stuff this classification was meant for.
I have real independent contractors in my family, they might work 2 hours each for 50 different customers in a year. They do their job exactly how they want to. It's not like it makes sense for any one of their customers to provide benefits of any kind. This is the kind of stuff this classification was meant for.
Isn't the solution here to turn contractor vs employee issue into a question of choice and benefit for the employee vs the employer? If retirement, time off and health benefits are also equally available to contractors then people can make the choice for the type of work they want without being disadvantaged.
What does "time off" mean for someone who is unambiguously a contractor (such as a one-person plumber, handyman, maid, babysitter, landscaper, CPA, lawyer, etc)?
They already have as much time off as they choose to have. It's all (obviously) unpaid as "who would pay them?"
They already have as much time off as they choose to have. It's all (obviously) unpaid as "who would pay them?"
Yea time off is a bit iffy here. Some of the gig companies currently (due to covid) provides some level of "paid" sick days. But yea as a contractor it's probably less relevant than retirement and healthcare.
Time off is one of the greatest scams in the modern economy. Unless you work a position where the time increment of your work is less than the amount of time you take off, ultimately you end up being pushed to do the same amount of work in less time. You might as well have skipped your vacation or planned your PTO during a less busy time.
Really all PTO is for most salary exempt positions anymore is ability to delay work without getting fired. Now if you work in a position where you churn out things on a daily basis or less and someone will fill in for you while you're gone, PTO is actually PTO.
Really all PTO is for most salary exempt positions anymore is ability to delay work without getting fired. Now if you work in a position where you churn out things on a daily basis or less and someone will fill in for you while you're gone, PTO is actually PTO.
An agreement to be able to delay work without getting fired doesn't seem entirely like a scam.
It is when you call it vacation or paid time off. Call it "work delay credits" or something of that nature.
There's an implication from PTO of a different era where you weren't required to makeup work you missed while on PTO. Much of that has disappeared. That's fine for most salary exempt positions assuming you aren't fed a constant queue of work to keep you pushing 50+ hour weeks regularly and it's OK to do 20 hour work weeks and some 50 hour work weeks.
Maybe I'm just old and people don't care that they do more for less TC than they did in years past.
There's an implication from PTO of a different era where you weren't required to makeup work you missed while on PTO. Much of that has disappeared. That's fine for most salary exempt positions assuming you aren't fed a constant queue of work to keep you pushing 50+ hour weeks regularly and it's OK to do 20 hour work weeks and some 50 hour work weeks.
Maybe I'm just old and people don't care that they do more for less TC than they did in years past.
If it's a scenario where it even remotely makes sense to do something like that, they probably should be employees.
There's a lot of jobs where work simply is not with a regular customer -- i.e. tradesmen, independent consultants, musicians, etc.
If a person mows lawns for 25 different customers in a given week, who gives them their vacation/retirement/health benefits?
There's a lot of jobs where work simply is not with a regular customer -- i.e. tradesmen, independent consultants, musicians, etc.
If a person mows lawns for 25 different customers in a given week, who gives them their vacation/retirement/health benefits?
If you make it a choice, it effectively becomes no choice because employers will never agree to classify a worker as an employee because it would increase their costs and they have the ability to seek out another worker who would agree to the independent contractor status against their own interest because they need the job to keep a rood over their head and food on the table. It would give employers the ability to make it a race to the bottom for employees, like what would happen if minimum wage laws were removed.
> against their own interest
And how exactly would you reach this conclusion? How would you know what's better for someone, better than they do? At least in CA, the decision was clear that it wasn't against people's interest.
And how exactly would you reach this conclusion? How would you know what's better for someone, better than they do? At least in CA, the decision was clear that it wasn't against people's interest.
In CA, the voters were duped by a massive marketing campaign underwritten by employers with interests in the outcome, with perhaps a small amount of "gosh I don't want Uber to cost more" personal interest.
Sometimes employer's interest coincides with the public, but I guess even voting isn't enough to convince some people of that.
> At least in CA, the decision was clear that it wasn't against people's interest.
This must be why Uber incessantly spammed their workers with Prop 22 propaganda via push notifications[1] on their phones and tablets.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/15/21517316/uber-spamming-u...
This must be why Uber incessantly spammed their workers with Prop 22 propaganda via push notifications[1] on their phones and tablets.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/15/21517316/uber-spamming-u...
There is all kinds of marketing for every prop on the ballot. I just want people to have more options on the table. I don't assume people are helpless making these decisions on their own, which is patronizing IMHO. I'd rather give people more choices, then take them away.
Uber workers didn't make this decision, the people of California did. I can't think of anything more patronizing than a company like Uber telling their workers that everyone else gets to decide the terms of their labor relations, or telling millions of Californians how to vote, or spamming their workers with propaganda. Surely Uber workers can make their own decisions without Big Brother/Uber spamming their phones to tell them what's best for them.
Prop 22 actually removes options from the table, making it almost impossible to modify, repeal or replace the proposition. Surely if you and Uber cared about giving people options, then you'd recognize that labor law needs to adapt with the needs of workers, instead of being cemented in time in a manner that benefits some employers over everyone else.
Prop 22 actually removes options from the table, making it almost impossible to modify, repeal or replace the proposition. Surely if you and Uber cared about giving people options, then you'd recognize that labor law needs to adapt with the needs of workers, instead of being cemented in time in a manner that benefits some employers over everyone else.
If you are defined as an employee (under the current standard) it has do to with a number of factors, so if you are giving up all those factors to the employer but not receiving the employee benefits it by definition is against everyone's interest.
Basically imagine you have Job A all things being equal you can have the Job A and all the benefits of being an employee or you can have Job A and none of the benefits of being an employee. How is it possible it is in anyone's interest to take Job A and not receive the benefits they are legally entitled to?
Basically imagine you have Job A all things being equal you can have the Job A and all the benefits of being an employee or you can have Job A and none of the benefits of being an employee. How is it possible it is in anyone's interest to take Job A and not receive the benefits they are legally entitled to?
Why would employers pay or reward two exact positions differently? Obviously if you don't get benefits, you are more on the outside of the company, and get to leave whenever you want without a problem. Full time employees can't just walk away like temp positions or gig workers, at least not without hurting reputation. The responsibilities of full-timers with all the benefits are way more than their temp counter-parts. At the end of the day it's just another type of exchange... a simple one where there is less commitment, and a complicated one with more commitments and responsibilities. Why force companies to only have one of those options, pretending people are so dumb they don't see what the exchange is? Most people understand, if they want benefits, you need to go through long process of hiring, and you become part of the company in a formal sense, and to many that is not appealing.
According to an Uber survey in October, 20%, of uber drivers are unsatisfied working for the company [1]. If you want to work for Uber, and you can work any time you'd like, why would you be dissatisfied with working there? The reason people work for Uber is that it's available as an opportunity, with a fairly low bar of entry, in a way that a lot of other employment opportunities are not.
The "gig economy" is a legal hack by corporations to pay workers less than minimum wage [2]. We can talk a lot about problems with government (there are a lot of issue there), but the fact that the government has issues does not act as a free pass to allow private institutions to pay workers less.
[1] https://mashable.com/article/uber-driver-survey-pandemic/
[2] https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-uber-driver-w...
The "gig economy" is a legal hack by corporations to pay workers less than minimum wage [2]. We can talk a lot about problems with government (there are a lot of issue there), but the fact that the government has issues does not act as a free pass to allow private institutions to pay workers less.
[1] https://mashable.com/article/uber-driver-survey-pandemic/
[2] https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-uber-driver-w...
So if the other 80% are satisfied working there because they get to pick their hours, it is best to change that because the 20% would be more satisfied with a full-time job and benefits?
I don't even get your initial point. Have you never worked a job you didn't like? Many jobs suck, but people have to earn money. They will hopefully, eventually move on to more satisfying jobs.
I don't even get your initial point. Have you never worked a job you didn't like? Many jobs suck, but people have to earn money. They will hopefully, eventually move on to more satisfying jobs.
When Uber gives drivers the ability to set their prices, I'll believe they're independent contractors. As it stands, Uber doesn't even let their drivers know what the value of a given ride is going to be until they've already started it.
I apologize for not being more clear about my point, I stated it implicitly for brevity. The job satisfaction quote was a rebuttal of what the parent said, which was
> Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees
I’ll be more clear, I have two points, point 1 is that “workers do not choose gig economy jobs because they offer flexibility, they choose them because they have low barriers to entry”. This means that employee classification is irrelevant to workers, they do not explicitly want to be contractors. The 20% job dissatisfaction statistic is sufficient to prove my point because if there were alternatives, those 1/5 of workers would not be working for Uber.
Point 2 is “the gig economy benefits employers more than traditional employment and disadvantages workers more than traditional employment” I support this claim with the statement that Uber drivers have been paid less than minimum wage.
> Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees
I’ll be more clear, I have two points, point 1 is that “workers do not choose gig economy jobs because they offer flexibility, they choose them because they have low barriers to entry”. This means that employee classification is irrelevant to workers, they do not explicitly want to be contractors. The 20% job dissatisfaction statistic is sufficient to prove my point because if there were alternatives, those 1/5 of workers would not be working for Uber.
Point 2 is “the gig economy benefits employers more than traditional employment and disadvantages workers more than traditional employment” I support this claim with the statement that Uber drivers have been paid less than minimum wage.
> According to an Uber survey in October, 20%, of uber drivers are unsatisfied working for the company [1]. If you want to work for Uber, and you can work any time you'd like, why would you be dissatisfied with working there?
20% is good for job dissatisfaction. Why would you be dissatisfied working there? Because you'd rather be doing something else. That's why they pay you.
20% is good for job dissatisfaction. Why would you be dissatisfied working there? Because you'd rather be doing something else. That's why they pay you.
It's not a legal hack. If the government is not doing its job, these companies provide ways for people to make ends meet instead of going out to the streets to beg.
It makes sense if you realize that everyone wants everyone else to have a minimum quality of life, but everyone is also trying to pay/sacrifice the least to achieve it.
We want employers to provide benefits, as opposed to the government because that means higher taxes. Then you put a million exclusions and tax deductions and other loopholes, so no one knows what they're really getting, but we can say we did something and that benefits do exist to serve as arguments against broadly, easily accessible benefits to serve as a floor on quality of life.
We want employers to provide benefits, as opposed to the government because that means higher taxes. Then you put a million exclusions and tax deductions and other loopholes, so no one knows what they're really getting, but we can say we did something and that benefits do exist to serve as arguments against broadly, easily accessible benefits to serve as a floor on quality of life.
And that really is a priority discussion.
Universal healthcare, say Medicare for All style, does not have to mean higher taxes. And it would make a big difference to gig workers and the ones working for the likes of Walmart.
A very high percentage of Walmart employees need government assistance due to their income not actually being enough to pay the laborer what their labor costs them to deliver.
At a minimum, labor needs to exist reasonably and show up for work. Healthcare is a part of that, right along with the basics.
All of us are subsidizing labor for a few of us to put profit, or more peak profit in the bank.
The priority discussion boils down to what makes the most sense for the nation.
Do we cut back on the military industrial complex?
Maybe we decide subsidizing labor makes sense. That would also mean not shaming and blaming people who seek and obtain help from the government. Doing that is baked in right now, in that no matter what those people do, a large percentage of them will need help.
Or, we simply change nothing and yes, taxes are higher, but the national spend is lower overall. Many of us will benefit.
We could prioritize it so employers are more on the hook in various ways. Some of them will not be viable. Even if they all are, we may not have enough jobs. Government could be an employer to make sure everyone has a work opportunity that pays enough to exist and show up for work.
There are many options. Not all mean higher taxes, but all that discussion means a national priority talk also has to happen.
If we do nothing, our priority is not having people make it, exist reasonably and show up for work.
Predictably, lots of people are not making it, may do crime, are homeless, may not have health care, maybe will show up for work, if they can get it.
If our priority becomes about people existing reasonably and showing up for work, we will see that, but will have higher taxes, or back off some other things we currently make a priority.
Universal healthcare, say Medicare for All style, does not have to mean higher taxes. And it would make a big difference to gig workers and the ones working for the likes of Walmart.
A very high percentage of Walmart employees need government assistance due to their income not actually being enough to pay the laborer what their labor costs them to deliver.
At a minimum, labor needs to exist reasonably and show up for work. Healthcare is a part of that, right along with the basics.
All of us are subsidizing labor for a few of us to put profit, or more peak profit in the bank.
The priority discussion boils down to what makes the most sense for the nation.
Do we cut back on the military industrial complex?
Maybe we decide subsidizing labor makes sense. That would also mean not shaming and blaming people who seek and obtain help from the government. Doing that is baked in right now, in that no matter what those people do, a large percentage of them will need help.
Or, we simply change nothing and yes, taxes are higher, but the national spend is lower overall. Many of us will benefit.
We could prioritize it so employers are more on the hook in various ways. Some of them will not be viable. Even if they all are, we may not have enough jobs. Government could be an employer to make sure everyone has a work opportunity that pays enough to exist and show up for work.
There are many options. Not all mean higher taxes, but all that discussion means a national priority talk also has to happen.
If we do nothing, our priority is not having people make it, exist reasonably and show up for work.
Predictably, lots of people are not making it, may do crime, are homeless, may not have health care, maybe will show up for work, if they can get it.
If our priority becomes about people existing reasonably and showing up for work, we will see that, but will have higher taxes, or back off some other things we currently make a priority.
> Universal healthcare, say Medicare for All style, does not have to mean higher taxes.
How would that be? It seems like it certainly would to me. Maybe by less than employees plus employers currently pay in aggregate healthcare costs, but I can't imagine a way where the government pays for Medicare-for-all and taxes don't go up.
Do you have a specific idea in mind that I'm missing?
How would that be? It seems like it certainly would to me. Maybe by less than employees plus employers currently pay in aggregate healthcare costs, but I can't imagine a way where the government pays for Medicare-for-all and taxes don't go up.
Do you have a specific idea in mind that I'm missing?
Well, if you and or your employer are not paying premiums, and the overall spend is less (this is a well supported CBO finding), most of us will be better off.
Totally agreed. Saying that most of us will be better off even though our taxes will go up is significantly more accurate.
What is a premium but a private tax?
One is an optional payment to a private company to purchase a specific service.
The other is a compulsory payment to a government entity as a result of earning income.
The other is a compulsory payment to a government entity as a result of earning income.
Lol, optional?
The rest of the developed world would very strongly disagree.
The penalty for not making that payment can be death, is likely financial ruin.
For many people, that optional payment is enough to buy a home.
Ask around about "optional"
Then we can set that aside and recognize net, liquid income will go up for most everyone.
The rest of the developed world would very strongly disagree.
The penalty for not making that payment can be death, is likely financial ruin.
For many people, that optional payment is enough to buy a home.
Ask around about "optional"
Then we can set that aside and recognize net, liquid income will go up for most everyone.
[deleted]
I suspect that was a misstatement - I haven't seen a proposal that avoids higher taxes without a large debt being written against something else (i.e. redirecting funding from the military). It is, however, accurate to say that personal out-of-pocket expenses wouldn't increase for most individuals. The cost per patient for government funded healthcare is expected to significantly undercut private costs per patient due to some efficiencies of scale and removal of some pretty big market friction points - so less money would end up being extracted from the economy to pay for an equivalent level of care.
In short - you can buy a banana for a dime or give the government a nickle and get a "free" banana.
In short - you can buy a banana for a dime or give the government a nickle and get a "free" banana.
Medicare just forces providers to take less money than insurance companies, it's efficient in some sense, but it's not operational efficiency.
I'm super glad my mom has Medicare! But she isn't benefitting from it being efficient, she's benefitting from it setting the rate it pays and requiring providers to accept it.
I'm super glad my mom has Medicare! But she isn't benefitting from it being efficient, she's benefitting from it setting the rate it pays and requiring providers to accept it.
To clarify a bit these market insights don't just come from comparisons to medicare but by comparing patient care costs to similarly developed nations and trying to account for factors like the obesity epidemic - the US just pays a lot more for a patient to get treatment than similar countries.
You would be able to cut out an entire for profit insurance industry, I would also think people would be more inclined to go to see a doctor before a minor issue turns into a major one than they are now.
> Do you have a specific idea in mind that I'm missing?
All in the US more or less pays roughly 2x or more what some other countries pay for equivalent healthcare, so there is nominally room to extend coverage while keeping costs flat in theory. In practice, it's complicated. Also 'roughly' and 'more or less' have some wiggle room for systemic differences, but it's about right.
All in the US more or less pays roughly 2x or more what some other countries pay for equivalent healthcare, so there is nominally room to extend coverage while keeping costs flat in theory. In practice, it's complicated. Also 'roughly' and 'more or less' have some wiggle room for systemic differences, but it's about right.
>Do we cut back on the military industrial complex?
The US spends $676 billion on defense, almost the exact same amount on Medicare, $1 trillion on Social Security, and $409 billion on Medicaid. Social welfare spending is a much, much larger portion of the US budget than military spending. Here are the numbers straight from the Congressional Budget Office https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-04/56324-CBO-2019-budg...
The US spends $676 billion on defense, almost the exact same amount on Medicare, $1 trillion on Social Security, and $409 billion on Medicaid. Social welfare spending is a much, much larger portion of the US budget than military spending. Here are the numbers straight from the Congressional Budget Office https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-04/56324-CBO-2019-budg...
Yes, and so?
Did that Trillion not come from people contributing? You know it did.
And still, we can and should totally question our current spend.
Did that Trillion not come from people contributing? You know it did.
And still, we can and should totally question our current spend.
To answer the second sentence, no, I don't know that. Boomers are taking out 5 times as many benefits as they paid in, it is absolutely not paid for (many Boomers believe otherwise!)
Let's say for a moment that is true. ( and we can ignore under payment of benefits, like the social security tax cap being at a hundred some thousand dollars.)
How does that impact the discussion? Do we think we need another problem by not actually paying those benefits?
Secondly, back to the first question, so?
What's our priority?
Right now that priority is not healthy people, able to show up for work, existing reasonably.
Does that make the best sense? I don't think so.
How does that impact the discussion? Do we think we need another problem by not actually paying those benefits?
Secondly, back to the first question, so?
What's our priority?
Right now that priority is not healthy people, able to show up for work, existing reasonably.
Does that make the best sense? I don't think so.
I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. I am personally pro-a larger welfare state- I wanted to specifically engage with one wrong thing you said, that the US somehow spends more on the military than social welfare. In fact, this is a common misconception- the United States spends several multiples more on social welfare than its military. In fact, the US spends about as much just on healthcare for the elderly as it does its entire military budget. This is simply a statement of fact, not meant to be an anti-social welfare political statement from me
I didn't actually say that. What I did say is we should have a priority discussion ahead of us, and that maybe we should cut back on the military industrial complex, as one aspect of that discussion.
The other thing I did was walkthrough a little bit about what those priorities might look like. There's several ways to solve this problem.
And we do have a problem when roughly half the labor force makes roughly 30k a year.
The other thing I did was walkthrough a little bit about what those priorities might look like. There's several ways to solve this problem.
And we do have a problem when roughly half the labor force makes roughly 30k a year.
Are there any numbers on how much of the non-defense discretionary spending of 661 billion is actually related to the military spending? It lists "veteran's benefits" under that for example. Same for "Other", which lists "military retirement" and again "some veteran's benefits" for example. That sounds like defense spending to me.
A "minimum quality of life" has nothing to do with your worker qualification. People can, and should, have the freedom to choose how they work.
The obvious solutions include new hybrid classifications or mandating certain benefits based on tenure. Why is this not considered? Why take away choice from those who specifically decided not to get a full-time driving job (which have always existed)?
The obvious solutions include new hybrid classifications or mandating certain benefits based on tenure. Why is this not considered? Why take away choice from those who specifically decided not to get a full-time driving job (which have always existed)?
I choose the work minimally, maybe 2 hours a month for doordash. Can I collect my benefits still?
Almost all discussion on this topic suggests a minimum amount of work to qualify.
There are always basic limits. For example you don't get all of your healthcare coverage or benefits on the first day of your job, and certain things like vacation time are accrued as you work. It's not a complex problem to solve.
I see things like this that seem to me to imply that in order to deserve benefits, someone needs to work.
I think a more productive line of debate would be:
1. Do we, as a society, believe we should only care for those who can be productive?
2. Do we, as a society, value things other than productivity?
3. Do we, as a society, believe it is the place of a governing body to ensure a standard quality of life (whatever that standard may be)?
Putting barriers around who deserves what doesn't really serve to do much other than exclude people who don't know how to work the system, or those who are unable to work the system.
I think a more productive line of debate would be:
1. Do we, as a society, believe we should only care for those who can be productive?
2. Do we, as a society, value things other than productivity?
3. Do we, as a society, believe it is the place of a governing body to ensure a standard quality of life (whatever that standard may be)?
Putting barriers around who deserves what doesn't really serve to do much other than exclude people who don't know how to work the system, or those who are unable to work the system.
I disagree. The better framing is around choice.
In some countries these decisions are made for you and funded through taxes and fees. Other nations require you to plan your own way. The USA leans toward the individual over the state.
Certain things like healthcare should be revamped to remove the ties to employers but it's important to keep the prevailing culture in mind. People overwhelmingly still want the ability to choose here - what they lack are the options to choose from.
In some countries these decisions are made for you and funded through taxes and fees. Other nations require you to plan your own way. The USA leans toward the individual over the state.
Certain things like healthcare should be revamped to remove the ties to employers but it's important to keep the prevailing culture in mind. People overwhelmingly still want the ability to choose here - what they lack are the options to choose from.
I strongly disagree that people want to be able to choose healthcare - Americans value the ability to choose their healthcare merely because it's being dolled out by corporations (on all sides - not just the insurers) that are trying to squeeze as much profit as possible out. When you're denied choice in American healthcare you get bottom of the barrel service so asking someone to surrender that choice generates a kneejerk response.
As an example my grandfather lost his leg to a blood clot due to being sent to an overwhelmed hospital that left him sitting undiagnosed for hours on end - it is easy to read that scenario as being forced into a lack of care, but choices wouldn't help things here. If he had a choice he would have advocated for going to his family doctor first which would have made the situation worse - in all honestly hospital overcrowding and underfunding is the only thing that led to him losing his leg.
Healthcare is a sector of the market that most people here (even me - and I work in a company that deals specifically in the US healthcare market) don't have enough knowledge to make intelligent choices in because the knowledge needed to comprehend all the random crap that can go wrong with your body is intensely deep.
I also don't think it's far to say the US favors individuals over the state - the US cares very little about individual health. And that's not precisely what you meant when you said it favors individuals over the state but I think it's important to highlight that the situation in the USA is quite detrimental to a lot of individuals.
As an example my grandfather lost his leg to a blood clot due to being sent to an overwhelmed hospital that left him sitting undiagnosed for hours on end - it is easy to read that scenario as being forced into a lack of care, but choices wouldn't help things here. If he had a choice he would have advocated for going to his family doctor first which would have made the situation worse - in all honestly hospital overcrowding and underfunding is the only thing that led to him losing his leg.
Healthcare is a sector of the market that most people here (even me - and I work in a company that deals specifically in the US healthcare market) don't have enough knowledge to make intelligent choices in because the knowledge needed to comprehend all the random crap that can go wrong with your body is intensely deep.
I also don't think it's far to say the US favors individuals over the state - the US cares very little about individual health. And that's not precisely what you meant when you said it favors individuals over the state but I think it's important to highlight that the situation in the USA is quite detrimental to a lot of individuals.
> "I strongly disagree that people want to be able to choose healthcare "
I absolutely want to choose my healthcare.
I absolutely want to choose my healthcare.
Love the downvotes from people that not only don't want to choose their doctor, but want to impose that restriction on others. Seems a bit authoritarian.
Just to clarify - I'm up in Canada now and we're free to choose our Doctors - there's a bit of an undersupply so there is some restriction in switching doctors once you've got one, but you're free to continue seeing the same doctor through job and other life changes.
The choice being discussed here is specifically around health plan particulars like stronger vs. weaker drug covers - surprising you by not covering any oncological drugs - or having a different balance between deductible and cost.
I'm still trying to grip why people care about choice though since most of those become non-issues with national insurance - most of those choices are about how you're going to balance paying for care with limited resources, while in nationalized systems the question of cost is mostly or fully removed - it's just the auxiliary costs that still can bite you (i.e. parking costs at a hospital, costs for a private room for recovery, etc...)
The choice being discussed here is specifically around health plan particulars like stronger vs. weaker drug covers - surprising you by not covering any oncological drugs - or having a different balance between deductible and cost.
I'm still trying to grip why people care about choice though since most of those become non-issues with national insurance - most of those choices are about how you're going to balance paying for care with limited resources, while in nationalized systems the question of cost is mostly or fully removed - it's just the auxiliary costs that still can bite you (i.e. parking costs at a hospital, costs for a private room for recovery, etc...)
If you mean people don't want to choose their insurance plan, you should say that, not people don't want to choose the healthcare, because you just said that you do!
People have preferences for different doctors. Choosing different doctors is part of choosing your healthcare. Personally, I order my own tests and come to doctors with recommendations and ideas to discuss. Not all of them are open to this collaborative approach.
In terms of choosing insurance... It's a little silly to talk about what people want. What many people want is to go to whatever doctor or hospital whenever they want and have someone else pay for it. They often foolishly choose to limit out of pocket costs at point of service, while paying for coverage they don't need. Different people have different concerns. My preference is for my insurance to be for when I need it, and "first dollar coverage" is insuring me for an expense I can already afford, making it a bad deal.
People have preferences for different doctors. Choosing different doctors is part of choosing your healthcare. Personally, I order my own tests and come to doctors with recommendations and ideas to discuss. Not all of them are open to this collaborative approach.
In terms of choosing insurance... It's a little silly to talk about what people want. What many people want is to go to whatever doctor or hospital whenever they want and have someone else pay for it. They often foolishly choose to limit out of pocket costs at point of service, while paying for coverage they don't need. Different people have different concerns. My preference is for my insurance to be for when I need it, and "first dollar coverage" is insuring me for an expense I can already afford, making it a bad deal.
I literally explained that healthcare should be separated from corporations and that people are missing options to choose from in the first place. Hospital overcrowding is an entirely different issue. Did you reply just to argue?
And yes, I do want to choose my healthcare. I want to select the plan that best fits my needs. If you want a larger simpler plan that covers everything then you can choose that.
Me having choice does not take away from you, it only provides more for both of us.
And yes, I do want to choose my healthcare. I want to select the plan that best fits my needs. If you want a larger simpler plan that covers everything then you can choose that.
Me having choice does not take away from you, it only provides more for both of us.
As someone from a country with Universal Healthcare, I don't understand what "yes, I do want to choose my healthcare. I want to select the plan that best fits my life and needs. If you want a larger simpler plan that covers everything then you can choose that." means.
And I especially don't understand how it doesn't lead to exactly the problematic outcome we are talking about which is that poor people can't afford access to quality healthcare.
You don't "choose" what level of fire department protection you need. How is healthcare different? I suppose you can always hire your own private firefighter/doctor...
So long as you give people the choice, and it's based on PERSONAL financial contributions rather than government-organized taxes, those with less means will have less access to a finite set of healthcare resources and result in systemic inequalities.
I suppose I can imagine that there is some "ultra deluxe" version of healthcare where instead of crutches you get a wheelchair, and instead of a shared recovery room you get your own, and I do support those with the means to pay extra for something like that. But the baseline HEALTHCARE access part needs to remain the same...
And I especially don't understand how it doesn't lead to exactly the problematic outcome we are talking about which is that poor people can't afford access to quality healthcare.
You don't "choose" what level of fire department protection you need. How is healthcare different? I suppose you can always hire your own private firefighter/doctor...
So long as you give people the choice, and it's based on PERSONAL financial contributions rather than government-organized taxes, those with less means will have less access to a finite set of healthcare resources and result in systemic inequalities.
I suppose I can imagine that there is some "ultra deluxe" version of healthcare where instead of crutches you get a wheelchair, and instead of a shared recovery room you get your own, and I do support those with the means to pay extra for something like that. But the baseline HEALTHCARE access part needs to remain the same...
That's not how it works. America is a mix of several different systems. Everyone has access to care, and there are several public healthcare offerings; some specifically for seniors/low-income/single-parents/children/etc. The ACA already gives everyone an insurance option.
The issue is that better coverage requires private insurance, mostly offered through corporations. Smaller companies can't compete, some people can't leave a bad job because of losing their plan, and others are limited to public options because they don't work. This is the overwhelming problem with USA healthcare. There aren't actually many choices because of this complex and outdated connection between jobs and benefits.
The issue is that better coverage requires private insurance, mostly offered through corporations. Smaller companies can't compete, some people can't leave a bad job because of losing their plan, and others are limited to public options because they don't work. This is the overwhelming problem with USA healthcare. There aren't actually many choices because of this complex and outdated connection between jobs and benefits.
I think we didn't understand each other.
I know that today America has choice. But it leads to the highest healthcare costs in the Western World (to allow for middlemen healthcare companies to be some of the largest privatecompanies in the country), with the worst quality for the poorest people.
So the question is, how do you solve the problem of universal access while giving people the "choice".
> The issue is that better coverage requires private insurance, mostly offered through corporations
Not in the rest of the western world. We just simply don't have these companies. They don't need to exist. They are a form of corporate socialism transferring wealth from taxpayers to mediate something that can be handled directly.
Health insurance companies is a moral failure. I'm going to double down on my metaphor. Fire engines don't check your insurance to decide if they should put your fire out. That used to be how things worked 100 years ago.
I know that today America has choice. But it leads to the highest healthcare costs in the Western World (to allow for middlemen healthcare companies to be some of the largest privatecompanies in the country), with the worst quality for the poorest people.
So the question is, how do you solve the problem of universal access while giving people the "choice".
> The issue is that better coverage requires private insurance, mostly offered through corporations
Not in the rest of the western world. We just simply don't have these companies. They don't need to exist. They are a form of corporate socialism transferring wealth from taxpayers to mediate something that can be handled directly.
Health insurance companies is a moral failure. I'm going to double down on my metaphor. Fire engines don't check your insurance to decide if they should put your fire out. That used to be how things worked 100 years ago.
No, like I just said, America already has access and healthcare insurance options for everyone. Nobody is denied.
The choice for better healthcare is limited and locked behind employment. That's the problem, instead of letting everyone have access to all plans, and the solutions are too complicated to discuss here. However insurance is not a moral failure, it's a financial and risk management concept. Just because your government manages somethings for you with your taxes doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The choice for better healthcare is limited and locked behind employment. That's the problem, instead of letting everyone have access to all plans, and the solutions are too complicated to discuss here. However insurance is not a moral failure, it's a financial and risk management concept. Just because your government manages somethings for you with your taxes doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
[deleted]
FWIW under current Medicare as it exists, you can choose between different private Medicare Advantage providers, or buy a private "supplement" that fills in where Medicare lacks. The same big insurance companies provide these plans, but have to actually conform to Medicare guidelines of not screwing people.
To me the "prevailing culture" is more about the vibrancy of walking into a vendor and directly paying for services that you would like, rather than needing to appeal to some bureaucracy (whether "public" or "private") to convince it to agree that you "need" something. The medical system is currently so far from this, that I don't think it has much bearing on the practical reforms being discussed. Although I would love to see reforms in this direction as well - eg published price lists uniform for any payer, and a prohibition on arbitrary post-facto billing.
To me the "prevailing culture" is more about the vibrancy of walking into a vendor and directly paying for services that you would like, rather than needing to appeal to some bureaucracy (whether "public" or "private") to convince it to agree that you "need" something. The medical system is currently so far from this, that I don't think it has much bearing on the practical reforms being discussed. Although I would love to see reforms in this direction as well - eg published price lists uniform for any payer, and a prohibition on arbitrary post-facto billing.
> The same big insurance companies provide these plans, but have to actually conform to Medicare guidelines of not screwing people
It's more like the providers have to conform to the Medicare pricing, instead of screwing the payers. This is why we need single pricer. Simply put into Medicare pricing agreements that the provider cannot charge anyone more than they charge Medicare or Medicaid. Not only does it avoid the price gouging of the uninsured and privately insured, it also ends the whole concept of out of network. Very few providers can survive without Medicare funds.
It's more like the providers have to conform to the Medicare pricing, instead of screwing the payers. This is why we need single pricer. Simply put into Medicare pricing agreements that the provider cannot charge anyone more than they charge Medicare or Medicaid. Not only does it avoid the price gouging of the uninsured and privately insured, it also ends the whole concept of out of network. Very few providers can survive without Medicare funds.
Well it's both, although the aspect you point out is more important. That would solve a good deal of the most egregious problems. It still wouldn't fix the unexpected $5k hospital bill, but would prevent it from being a $15k fuck-you bill. And with a transparent cost structure, plans would actually be comparable financially, rather than having to guess at their "negotiated" rates or worrying whether they support your current doctors etc.
Politically I wonder what's holding this back, as it seems like it would be more palatable than Medicare for all. Silent hospital lobby? Big insurers that don't actually want to make their market more efficient as they're effectively cost-plus entities?
Politically I wonder what's holding this back, as it seems like it would be more palatable than Medicare for all. Silent hospital lobby? Big insurers that don't actually want to make their market more efficient as they're effectively cost-plus entities?
A negative production value society member needs to be carefully balanced against a positive production value society member.
Not balancing this means society will go into decline one way or the other.
Offering basic levels to society members is health if the society can afford it and allows the society to grow quickie because risk is removed.
Not balancing this means society will go into decline one way or the other.
Offering basic levels to society members is health if the society can afford it and allows the society to grow quickie because risk is removed.
> A negative production value society member needs to be carefully balanced against a positive production value society member.
This is overly simplistic. Someone providing child or elder care is providing social value in a way which should not be measured against economic measures of production. Life is not an economic zero-sum game.
This is overly simplistic. Someone providing child or elder care is providing social value in a way which should not be measured against economic measures of production. Life is not an economic zero-sum game.
[deleted]
Yes, you should. Everyone should get a home, medical benefits, education, all of it. Period. If you work on top of that, great. If not, OK.
In your opinion, what “benefits” should someone have when working 2h a month?
The same as everyone else.
You might "work" 2h a month, because you spend the rest of it caring for family members, or maybe you're trying to get that first draft/beta version out the door.
Or you might just not want to work.
We need to stop assigning so much worth to work. We know automation is coming, and we know that not everyone is going to be able to find work in the future.
You might "work" 2h a month, because you spend the rest of it caring for family members, or maybe you're trying to get that first draft/beta version out the door.
Or you might just not want to work.
We need to stop assigning so much worth to work. We know automation is coming, and we know that not everyone is going to be able to find work in the future.
Not the parent poster, but I'll repeat the question: what benefits do you have in mind?
I mean it as a serious question, as it's not clear to me what the difference between benefits and salary is (not being from US).
I understand that the health insurance is one of them (and, to be clear, I do believe you should have that whether you work 0 or 100 hours a month).
But what are others? Pension contribution is just a part of your salary that you are required by law to put aside. Guaranteed minimum time off comes to mind, but that obviously makes less sense if you are already not working too much. What else?
I mean it as a serious question, as it's not clear to me what the difference between benefits and salary is (not being from US).
I understand that the health insurance is one of them (and, to be clear, I do believe you should have that whether you work 0 or 100 hours a month).
But what are others? Pension contribution is just a part of your salary that you are required by law to put aside. Guaranteed minimum time off comes to mind, but that obviously makes less sense if you are already not working too much. What else?
> Why take away choice from those who specifically decided not to get a full-time driving job (which have always existed)?
There are millions of employees in the US who work part-time and choose their own schedules.
There are millions of employees in the US who work part-time and choose their own schedules.
Part-time schedules are still preset schedules.
They do not allow you the same flexibility to work for the next 30 minutes, take a few hours off, then work another hour this evening without doing anything more than just starting or stopping the app whenever you feel like.
How would you replicate that with part-time hours?
They do not allow you the same flexibility to work for the next 30 minutes, take a few hours off, then work another hour this evening without doing anything more than just starting or stopping the app whenever you feel like.
How would you replicate that with part-time hours?
> We want employers to provide benefits, as opposed to the government because that means higher taxes
This is a silly argument. You pay for your healthcare no matter what, it's just a question of who administers it.
> Then you put a million exclusions and tax deductions and other loopholes, so no one knows what they're really getting
This is precisely the current state of employer-sponsored healthcare, and also the wildly complicated medicare/medicaid system.
Universal coverage combined with higher taxes (ideally on people who already have lots of money and therefore place very little value on marginal income) is arguably better and easier to reason about than a mandate for employer-provided coverage and its associated opaque and complicated effects on labor markets, including higher fixed costs of hiring people and decreased ability for people to move between regions, industries, and even jobs within the same industry/career.
This is a silly argument. You pay for your healthcare no matter what, it's just a question of who administers it.
> Then you put a million exclusions and tax deductions and other loopholes, so no one knows what they're really getting
This is precisely the current state of employer-sponsored healthcare, and also the wildly complicated medicare/medicaid system.
Universal coverage combined with higher taxes (ideally on people who already have lots of money and therefore place very little value on marginal income) is arguably better and easier to reason about than a mandate for employer-provided coverage and its associated opaque and complicated effects on labor markets, including higher fixed costs of hiring people and decreased ability for people to move between regions, industries, and even jobs within the same industry/career.
> This is precisely the current state of employer-sponsored healthcare, and also the wildly complicated medicare/medicaid system.
I'm happy to talk about manufacturer drug rebates which is an amazingly crazy portion of the healthcare market that would be illegal in almost any other market due to the perverse market incentives it creates. But yea, the short version is that the private healthcare market is incredibly inefficient.
I'm happy to talk about manufacturer drug rebates which is an amazingly crazy portion of the healthcare market that would be illegal in almost any other market due to the perverse market incentives it creates. But yea, the short version is that the private healthcare market is incredibly inefficient.
> This is a silly argument. You pay for your healthcare no matter what, it's just a question of who administers it.
But who administers it has a lot to do with how much you pay for it. For example, a high deductible plan will save you a lot of money as long as you aren't in the 99th percentile of healthcare needs, and (unless the deductible is really high) still not bankrupt you if it turns out you are.
Any kind of government plan that doesn't give you that choice because it's paid from taxes rather than premiums is plausibly going to cost you more money. And that's true even on average, because high deductible plans make people more price sensitive, which exerts downward pressure on costs. (The fact that US healthcare regulations disfavor high deductible plans is one of the reasons costs remain high.)
The US system is also uniquely screwed because the rest of the world piggybacks on US medical R&D while in practice regulating prices even for products under patent. The result is that the US market is paying a disproportionate share of the R&D cost. Cost comparisons to single payer systems that pretend that single payer systems are inherently less expensive are ignoring the lower contribution of those systems to worldwide medical R&D. Moreover, the recipient companies are disproportionately in the US and have lobbyists and large numbers of voter-employees, so implementing a single payer system here would be unlikely to remove those costs. Then you're left with the resulting increase in price insensitivity and the US system becomes even more unaffordable.
It's actually a hard problem. The solution probably has to involve the other countries paying more of the R&D.
But who administers it has a lot to do with how much you pay for it. For example, a high deductible plan will save you a lot of money as long as you aren't in the 99th percentile of healthcare needs, and (unless the deductible is really high) still not bankrupt you if it turns out you are.
Any kind of government plan that doesn't give you that choice because it's paid from taxes rather than premiums is plausibly going to cost you more money. And that's true even on average, because high deductible plans make people more price sensitive, which exerts downward pressure on costs. (The fact that US healthcare regulations disfavor high deductible plans is one of the reasons costs remain high.)
The US system is also uniquely screwed because the rest of the world piggybacks on US medical R&D while in practice regulating prices even for products under patent. The result is that the US market is paying a disproportionate share of the R&D cost. Cost comparisons to single payer systems that pretend that single payer systems are inherently less expensive are ignoring the lower contribution of those systems to worldwide medical R&D. Moreover, the recipient companies are disproportionately in the US and have lobbyists and large numbers of voter-employees, so implementing a single payer system here would be unlikely to remove those costs. Then you're left with the resulting increase in price insensitivity and the US system becomes even more unaffordable.
It's actually a hard problem. The solution probably has to involve the other countries paying more of the R&D.
We want employers to provide benefits
"We" don't necessarily think benefits should be provided by the whims of private businesses.
as opposed to the government because that means higher taxes.
The assumption here being that benefits from the government are paid with higher taxes, and benefits from employers being paid from the kindness of the CEO's heart and not from wages that would have otherwise been paid you.
"We" don't necessarily think benefits should be provided by the whims of private businesses.
as opposed to the government because that means higher taxes.
The assumption here being that benefits from the government are paid with higher taxes, and benefits from employers being paid from the kindness of the CEO's heart and not from wages that would have otherwise been paid you.
>We want
>"We" don't
I want the money that my employer pays into health insurance to be paid to me into an HSA like tax sheltering of healthcare funds, and then I want no health insurance middleman. Poof---there goes all the corrupt incentives and ridiculous administrative overhead.
>"We" don't
I want the money that my employer pays into health insurance to be paid to me into an HSA like tax sheltering of healthcare funds, and then I want no health insurance middleman. Poof---there goes all the corrupt incentives and ridiculous administrative overhead.
> I want no health insurance middleman
That is literally impossible. Even if insurance companies are made illegal tomorrow, that role of market maker between providers (doctors and hospitals, drug companies) and customers (patients, employers) will always exist. This is because such a role is needed.
Patients do not have the capacity nor the knowledge to find the best doctor, the best hospital, or the best drug maker for them.
That is literally impossible. Even if insurance companies are made illegal tomorrow, that role of market maker between providers (doctors and hospitals, drug companies) and customers (patients, employers) will always exist. This is because such a role is needed.
Patients do not have the capacity nor the knowledge to find the best doctor, the best hospital, or the best drug maker for them.
...do not have the capacity nor the knowledge...
Health insurance was invented in the late 1930s as a political ploy to forestall government health programs. Did patients all get stupid at that time, or was it the case that they were all going to the wrong doctors and hospitals before then?
Please give human beings a little credit. We make decisions every day, some of which are a lot more substantial than which state-licensed physician to hire.
ps. you don't know what "market maker" means...
Health insurance was invented in the late 1930s as a political ploy to forestall government health programs. Did patients all get stupid at that time, or was it the case that they were all going to the wrong doctors and hospitals before then?
Please give human beings a little credit. We make decisions every day, some of which are a lot more substantial than which state-licensed physician to hire.
ps. you don't know what "market maker" means...
> That is literally impossible.
Okay, but I didn't mean literally outlaw insurance middlemen.
I mean fix the incentive structure such that I have the option to forego insurance middlemen.
> Patients do not have the capacity nor the knowledge
I completely disagree, and what business of yours or anyone's is it to say I'm `lacking in capacity and knowledge` to such a degree I shouldn't be allowed to make my own healthcare decisions!?
Worse still, right now the US government puts a cap on the percentage of profit an insurance company can take from premiums which coupled with the current near monopolistic healthcare insurance system incentivizes paying as much as possible for treatment to justify higher premiums.
Okay, but I didn't mean literally outlaw insurance middlemen.
I mean fix the incentive structure such that I have the option to forego insurance middlemen.
> Patients do not have the capacity nor the knowledge
I completely disagree, and what business of yours or anyone's is it to say I'm `lacking in capacity and knowledge` to such a degree I shouldn't be allowed to make my own healthcare decisions!?
Worse still, right now the US government puts a cap on the percentage of profit an insurance company can take from premiums which coupled with the current near monopolistic healthcare insurance system incentivizes paying as much as possible for treatment to justify higher premiums.
"It makes sense if you realize that everyone wants everyone else to have a good quality of life, but everyone is also trying to pay/sacrifice the least to achieve it."
And what defines a good quality of life depends on who you ask.
And what defines a good quality of life depends on who you ask.
What about people that can not handle a normal job?
I have a chronic condition and for a year the only reason family didn’t end up on street is because of gig jobs. Most days 12-16 hours a day in bed essentially blind in horrific pain. But sometimes totally fine. Disability straight up laughed at me.
I have a chronic condition and for a year the only reason family didn’t end up on street is because of gig jobs. Most days 12-16 hours a day in bed essentially blind in horrific pain. But sometimes totally fine. Disability straight up laughed at me.
This. so much policy is designed around the idea that people should work a 9-5 at a corporation, without any consideration for the fact that this simply doesn’t support a lot of people’s needs. We need more flexibility not less.
Ironically this completely flies in the face of any motion or ‘diversity and inclusion’.
Ironically this completely flies in the face of any motion or ‘diversity and inclusion’.
What you described is called "sick leave" in Europe and you are entitled to sick pay by law.
In Europe, any time he wanted to get this sick leave, he would need to go to a doctor every single time. That means multiple visits at a doctor every week. After a few weeks or months of being only available randomly, he would get fired from most jobs anyway (which happens regularly in Europe too, there is just a few more hoops to jump through).
While I agree with the thrust of your statement, he'd probably only need to go once a week at most.
On average I was going to three doctors a week. Mostly trying to find out what the heck was going on with me. Each outing would eat up all of my energy for a couple of days. I have nothing left for work family or generally life.
At a certain point I had to stop going to the doctor so I would be able to get enough hours in keep keep the house.
At a certain point I had to stop going to the doctor so I would be able to get enough hours in keep keep the house.
Apologies - I meant in order to stay on sick leave in Europe, not for diagnosis purposes.
[deleted]
Are you claiming that gig/piece work isn't a "job" for an "employee"?
If you are an employee, the employer has the right to dictate your schedule and put significant more restrictions on how and when you work, which they do because it's more economically efficient for them to do so (think: time and transition costs). When your a contractor, not so much.
There are certain things that aren't in question about this. Enough income to afford decent housing and food, healthcare, etc. It's not so mysterious.
Still, there is an extreme range within those parameters.
What is 'decent housing' for instance? An apartment in the affordable part of town, shared with 3 room-mates? Your own condo? Your own house in the suburbs? A home in a gated community?
Is 'decent food' the minimum amount of recommended nutrition as defined by the USDA? Or eating out 3 nights a week? Or enjoying prime rib whenever you feel like it?
Is "decent healthcare" a checkup every year? Or a Cadillac insurance plan?
Any combination of these could be called an acceptable standard of living depending on who you ask. It's totally subjective, but the difference between them is tens of thousands of dollars a year.
What is 'decent housing' for instance? An apartment in the affordable part of town, shared with 3 room-mates? Your own condo? Your own house in the suburbs? A home in a gated community?
Is 'decent food' the minimum amount of recommended nutrition as defined by the USDA? Or eating out 3 nights a week? Or enjoying prime rib whenever you feel like it?
Is "decent healthcare" a checkup every year? Or a Cadillac insurance plan?
Any combination of these could be called an acceptable standard of living depending on who you ask. It's totally subjective, but the difference between them is tens of thousands of dollars a year.
Yeah, any of those would be acceptable. What would be unacceptable is when somebody has none of them.
"Enough income to afford decent housing and food, healthcare, etc."
And how do you define those? I've heard people on here complain that $200k isn't enough for a good life with a family. Yet I make less than half that and pay all the bills for my family. Clearly standard of living and cost of living can have a huge fluctuations on location and what one thinks they are entitled to under a decent life.
For example, a studio apartment in a bad school district might be decent for a single person with no kids. Yet that likely would not meet the definition of decent for a family of 4. Unless, that was a step up from wherever you were living before (maybe on the street). Some people might say they have to eat out or have steaks to have decent food. But others might just want a discount grocery story with freash fruits and veggies with off-brand staples to meet their criteria of decent.
It all depends on people's expectations and needs.
And how do you define those? I've heard people on here complain that $200k isn't enough for a good life with a family. Yet I make less than half that and pay all the bills for my family. Clearly standard of living and cost of living can have a huge fluctuations on location and what one thinks they are entitled to under a decent life.
For example, a studio apartment in a bad school district might be decent for a single person with no kids. Yet that likely would not meet the definition of decent for a family of 4. Unless, that was a step up from wherever you were living before (maybe on the street). Some people might say they have to eat out or have steaks to have decent food. But others might just want a discount grocery story with freash fruits and veggies with off-brand staples to meet their criteria of decent.
It all depends on people's expectations and needs.
I know multiple people who have never worked a day in their lives. They get food stamps, free health care and live in a $300/month apartment subsidized by the state (aka free).
They basically make money buying and selling items occasionally, when they see a deal. That's enough for them to buy all the "luxuries" they want ($5k car, $2k laptop) every couple years.
I think there's a big difference between peoples desires/definition of acceptable and what they put in to obtain them.
They basically make money buying and selling items occasionally, when they see a deal. That's enough for them to buy all the "luxuries" they want ($5k car, $2k laptop) every couple years.
I think there's a big difference between peoples desires/definition of acceptable and what they put in to obtain them.
Buying and selling items is in fact considered work!
Decent housing where? If I want to live in a high cost area but can't afford it then should the government make up the difference?
Yes or no. Take your pick. It's not such a hard question that there's no answer. You can make a policy on this stuff. We solve harder problems all the time.
Again though, define "decent". It will vary depending on who you ask.
There is enough space to move around in the dwelling. It is not falling apart. It is not infested with rats. There is clean running water. Come on. Stop pretending this is a hard question.
It is bad faith or sheer ignorance to think this isn't a hard question. Consider that even people spending their own money on their own housing often can't define their own parameters, which is why touring houses is a thing. Now scale this out to the population of a country and creating a single bar of "decent housing" is incredibly hard.
And then that's just talking about the structure. What about the location - if a person's entire support system is in one location but the available free housing is 75 miles away and they don't have a car, that isn't decent. This comes up all the time re the affordability of the Bay Area where locals get priced out, someone says "just move to stockton" and the resident feels it's not fair (or "decent") to have to leave where they were born and raised.
You could link location to workplace I suppose but then that would create massive downward pressure on wages since people would be willing to sacrifice pay in order to live where they prefer. This sounds like a net negative.
This question is only hard if you haven't thought about it for more than like 2 seconds.
And then that's just talking about the structure. What about the location - if a person's entire support system is in one location but the available free housing is 75 miles away and they don't have a car, that isn't decent. This comes up all the time re the affordability of the Bay Area where locals get priced out, someone says "just move to stockton" and the resident feels it's not fair (or "decent") to have to leave where they were born and raised.
You could link location to workplace I suppose but then that would create massive downward pressure on wages since people would be willing to sacrifice pay in order to live where they prefer. This sounds like a net negative.
This question is only hard if you haven't thought about it for more than like 2 seconds.
> even people spending their own money on their own housing often can't define their own parameters
I can't believe I'm spelling this out. A person picking out their ideal home has trouble figuring out exactly what they want. Ok. We all don't ever know exactly what we want. It's the human condition. But I don't want to live in grinding poverty. I don't need to look within to figure that one out.
I don't want my home to be dilapidated, overcrowded, full of pests and toxins, or to not exist.
If you're still pretending to have a hard time with the definition of "decent," consult a dictionary.
This line of argument is absurd word chopping. "Oh my, I could never in good conscience try to lock down a subtle word like 'decent' into a singular meaning, guess drivers will have to stay earning a sub-living wage forever. Sorry! Definitions are hard!"
No.
I can't believe I'm spelling this out. A person picking out their ideal home has trouble figuring out exactly what they want. Ok. We all don't ever know exactly what we want. It's the human condition. But I don't want to live in grinding poverty. I don't need to look within to figure that one out.
I don't want my home to be dilapidated, overcrowded, full of pests and toxins, or to not exist.
If you're still pretending to have a hard time with the definition of "decent," consult a dictionary.
This line of argument is absurd word chopping. "Oh my, I could never in good conscience try to lock down a subtle word like 'decent' into a singular meaning, guess drivers will have to stay earning a sub-living wage forever. Sorry! Definitions are hard!"
No.
I didn't say (and nobody in this thread except for your straw man said) that the definition is too hard to create and therefore we should just throw our hands up and walk away. Literally nobody is saying that.
What I am arguing against is your baseless assertion that defining "decent housing" is easy, and that everyone who thinks it's hard is simply being obstructionist/anti-poor/whatever.
The closest thing we might have today to an across-the-board definition of "decent housing" might be HUD's FHA standards which -- to your shock and amazement, I assume -- is much more complex than "must be decent"
What I am arguing against is your baseless assertion that defining "decent housing" is easy, and that everyone who thinks it's hard is simply being obstructionist/anti-poor/whatever.
The closest thing we might have today to an across-the-board definition of "decent housing" might be HUD's FHA standards which -- to your shock and amazement, I assume -- is much more complex than "must be decent"
This is a discussion about whether gig economy workers ought to be classed as employees by the government. The reason that is a salient question is because a lot of these workers can't make ends meet under the current structure.
The current structure treats them as serfs and says what really matters is the efficiency of the overall system, or its ability to generate a profit for its shareholders, or whatever. In short, the problem is these guys work too much in exchange for too little. Whatever theories anybody might have about the market, the role of the state in the market, etc, those are the basic facts on the ground: over-exploited workers seeking dignity where they currently lack it. The idea that they are "contractors," in the way that you or I might be contractors sometimes (I assume you are a tech worker), as experts in a technical field, is a sick joke. They don't have any power to get what they need, in that market, as individuals (they aren't even allowed to set their own prices!). If they could bargain collectively, they might. That's the context here.
When somebody enters the discussion and says, "Well, yeah, but what IS dignity, anyway, when you really think about it, man???" you'll have to forgive me if I don't believe they're doing it out of a devotion to clarifying terms but because they just want to take Uber's side in the fight. Yes, it's obscurantism.
The current structure treats them as serfs and says what really matters is the efficiency of the overall system, or its ability to generate a profit for its shareholders, or whatever. In short, the problem is these guys work too much in exchange for too little. Whatever theories anybody might have about the market, the role of the state in the market, etc, those are the basic facts on the ground: over-exploited workers seeking dignity where they currently lack it. The idea that they are "contractors," in the way that you or I might be contractors sometimes (I assume you are a tech worker), as experts in a technical field, is a sick joke. They don't have any power to get what they need, in that market, as individuals (they aren't even allowed to set their own prices!). If they could bargain collectively, they might. That's the context here.
When somebody enters the discussion and says, "Well, yeah, but what IS dignity, anyway, when you really think about it, man???" you'll have to forgive me if I don't believe they're doing it out of a devotion to clarifying terms but because they just want to take Uber's side in the fight. Yes, it's obscurantism.
This is a weird phenomenon that I see across discussion platforms - it's like reverse sealioning, where legitimate good-faith questions are taken as evidence of supporting the other position.
In deeply complex and high-stakes systems, the details matter a lot; I haven't thought about it too deeply but my intuition says that they're the only thing that matters. Unintended consequences (like my salary depression example above) need to be carefully considered. There is inherent inequality built into a naive system like you suggest: an apartment in SF is worth multiples of an apartment in OK, are we alright with that? (don't answer, just an example). The details and their impact are important.
In deeply complex and high-stakes systems, the details matter a lot; I haven't thought about it too deeply but my intuition says that they're the only thing that matters. Unintended consequences (like my salary depression example above) need to be carefully considered. There is inherent inequality built into a naive system like you suggest: an apartment in SF is worth multiples of an apartment in OK, are we alright with that? (don't answer, just an example). The details and their impact are important.
For starters, there's what many developed nations have agreed the minimum is, including: 2 or more weeks of paid time off, statutory holidays, parental leave and benefits, and –most importantly– socialised healthcare.
Some –certainly not all– have taken it a step further and offer pharmacare, daycare, a livable minimum wage, and free higher education.
Still, worldwide, there's an uneven or inequitable provision of other basics, such as disability benefits, guaranteed housing, food, and internet access. All of which I would argue is even more necessary for a good quality of life for all.
Some –certainly not all– have taken it a step further and offer pharmacare, daycare, a livable minimum wage, and free higher education.
Still, worldwide, there's an uneven or inequitable provision of other basics, such as disability benefits, guaranteed housing, food, and internet access. All of which I would argue is even more necessary for a good quality of life for all.
I’d say you have the first statement wrong - some will give but only not if they’re forced, some won’t give anything in any circumstance, and some would give a lot of not blocked by the other two.
I don’t want to be chained to my employer for benefits, for retirement, for healthcare. It’s stupid to put a sociopathic entity with no accountability to you in charge of your basic needs.
I don’t want to be chained to my employer for benefits, for retirement, for healthcare. It’s stupid to put a sociopathic entity with no accountability to you in charge of your basic needs.
Similarly, many of us don't want to be chained to a comparably sociopathic and unaccountable government entity. We'd instead prefer to independently manage our own unique needs using our own individual economic agency.
Sorry you think government is sociopathic and unaccountable, it honestly seems like a rough life if that’s what you’ve experienced.
How can anyone look at the atrocities committed by every major government over the centuries of its existence and not see that large governments are orders of magnitude more sociopathic than the worst corporations? Its just a general feature of large and powerful organizations; shared by governments and corporations alike. Governments simply hold the power to commit larger atrocities.
Just look at how the city of Flint, MI poisoned their own citizens water while suppressing knowledge of their actions. [0] While in the grand scheme of government atrocities this actually appears relatively minor, this issue happened in very recent times.
One could fill pages listing government atrocities before even getting to basic incompetence and mismanagement. While inefficiencies happen in all bureaucratic organizations, governments hold singular power over their citizens in a way that no corporation could ever dream of.
This is not an argument against government. There are some services that only the government can provide. E.g., a strong military. Nor is this an argument against government playing some role in promoting general welfare.
I just personally would like the option to not be further dependent upon our government and would rather use my own economic agency to provide for my own unique needs. Many other people feel similarly and therefore reject this further intrusion of government in dictating our labor relations with employers.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis
Just look at how the city of Flint, MI poisoned their own citizens water while suppressing knowledge of their actions. [0] While in the grand scheme of government atrocities this actually appears relatively minor, this issue happened in very recent times.
One could fill pages listing government atrocities before even getting to basic incompetence and mismanagement. While inefficiencies happen in all bureaucratic organizations, governments hold singular power over their citizens in a way that no corporation could ever dream of.
This is not an argument against government. There are some services that only the government can provide. E.g., a strong military. Nor is this an argument against government playing some role in promoting general welfare.
I just personally would like the option to not be further dependent upon our government and would rather use my own economic agency to provide for my own unique needs. Many other people feel similarly and therefore reject this further intrusion of government in dictating our labor relations with employers.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis
Bad government is everywhere, but many governments use power broadly responsibly. Private entities are less accountable than elected officials, and they get more scrutiny from the press. That power you talk about is real, but frankly we tried having 0 labor standards in the 19th and start of the 10th century. The vaunted powerful middle class of the 50s and 60s also took place after the largest government programs in our history (the war, the interstate highway system, etc) and also along with very strong labor protections and high taxes that have been all erased since the 80s. Faith in the US government in particular took a nosedive during and after the Vietnam war.
I guess I don’t understand why this is the line in the sand, and why we must depend on private profit-motive entities to provide for basic welfare and an economic safety net when we can see it working in developed countries around the world.
I guess I don’t understand why this is the line in the sand, and why we must depend on private profit-motive entities to provide for basic welfare and an economic safety net when we can see it working in developed countries around the world.
I don't want government or employers to provide benefits. I want people to keep their money and decide what is best for themselves. I don't believe the government or my employer has my best interest at heart, nor are they equipped to cater to my unique family needs..
Sadly, you do not live in a vacuum. The system needs to serve everyone and make sense.
Everyone choosing what is exactly right for them implies those choices are all possible and the complexity, risk and cost profile also makes sense.
Those things are not true, and the outcome is rapidly escalating cost and risk exposure.
This has been addressed in many ways, and one of the easier ways is to have government fund those bennies to provide a respectable floor. People who need more can choose to do that and the market for such things would make much more sense and be lower cost and risk for everyone.
An example seen worldwide is supplemental plans that operate in addition to primary plans, which are actually illegal in many parts of the world due to the inherent conflict between profit motive and health care.
You wanting to keep your money and make choices is very different from wanting other people to keep their money, which is an overreach frankly.
Further, in the current scenario, you really can't be sure medical people have your best interests in mind because the priority is making money not making sure we have healthy people.
When medical people are free to actually make healthy people a priority, the discussion about best interests becomes a much easier one.
Everyone choosing what is exactly right for them implies those choices are all possible and the complexity, risk and cost profile also makes sense.
Those things are not true, and the outcome is rapidly escalating cost and risk exposure.
This has been addressed in many ways, and one of the easier ways is to have government fund those bennies to provide a respectable floor. People who need more can choose to do that and the market for such things would make much more sense and be lower cost and risk for everyone.
An example seen worldwide is supplemental plans that operate in addition to primary plans, which are actually illegal in many parts of the world due to the inherent conflict between profit motive and health care.
You wanting to keep your money and make choices is very different from wanting other people to keep their money, which is an overreach frankly.
Further, in the current scenario, you really can't be sure medical people have your best interests in mind because the priority is making money not making sure we have healthy people.
When medical people are free to actually make healthy people a priority, the discussion about best interests becomes a much easier one.
I don’t want to argue with you or change your mind. I just don’t want to live in the same country with you.
Again, sadly, unless you find new land to settle, ideally with some very committed peers to help against risk, you will be living with people, many who will express the same sentiments, pretty much anywhere you go in this world.
Rough state of affairs, I would imagine.
Rough state of affairs, I would imagine.
I don't need to find new land to not be in the same country as you.
Backwards as it may be it's far easier to change a regulatory interpretation or judicial test than to make a fundamental change to government services, like healthcare.
>Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so
Then companies that want to attract gig workers can give them the freedoms that are set by statute, regulatory bodies, and precedent. Like setting their own rates and picking which contracts to fulfill.
>Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so
Then companies that want to attract gig workers can give them the freedoms that are set by statute, regulatory bodies, and precedent. Like setting their own rates and picking which contracts to fulfill.
One solution to that is to allow employees to opt out of being employees.
The government policy would prevent companies from misclassifying employees as independent contractors, and any individuals who did not want to be employees could opt out of that classification, but that's up to the individual, not the company.
The government policy would prevent companies from misclassifying employees as independent contractors, and any individuals who did not want to be employees could opt out of that classification, but that's up to the individual, not the company.
How long before Uber starts assigning mandatory job hours (as inconveniently as necessary to suit their needs) for drivers who have not opted out of employee status? I'd guess a maximum of two sprints.
Many employees will be assigned inconvenient hours regardless. That is a key difference between employees and gig workers.
When there are more people who prefer convenient hours than shifts available, some will only have the option to take inconvenient ones. As hourly employees, Uber can't use dynamic pay to manage supply and demand imbalances.
I dealt this as a teenager working at McDonald's. Most of us didn't want closing shift, and occasionally at 25 cent/hour incentive would be added. But more often than not, the demand for any hours was sufficient. Labor supply simply exceeded demand.
Still think Uber and likes should be regulated away until we have true self driving cars. That may take a decade or more.
When there are more people who prefer convenient hours than shifts available, some will only have the option to take inconvenient ones. As hourly employees, Uber can't use dynamic pay to manage supply and demand imbalances.
I dealt this as a teenager working at McDonald's. Most of us didn't want closing shift, and occasionally at 25 cent/hour incentive would be added. But more often than not, the demand for any hours was sufficient. Labor supply simply exceeded demand.
Still think Uber and likes should be regulated away until we have true self driving cars. That may take a decade or more.
They can. It'll work where the labor supply exceeds demand and won't work where it doesn't. It also won't be as effective as ride sharing becomes more of a commodity.
> It seems backward that the government, instead of fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers, wants to force independent workers to become employees so that the government doesn't have to fix anything. It is abdication of responsibility for social outcomes.
Quite the contrary: the government acts to prevent a ruthless race to the bottom as someone who skips e.g. on health insurance or on worker protection laws (e.g. daily work time maximums) can outcompete someone who sticks to the rules.
Especially with health insurance, the government has to pay the tab of those who skip it and then can't pay for the hospital.
> Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so.
The only reason I see why people want to voluntarily go gig worker is schedule flexibility - they don't want a regular full time or part time schedule because of children, elder care or whatever. And for what it's worth employment regulations should be made more flexible in that regard, but it must be prevented that employers go and abuse it to exploit their workers (e.g. by arbitrarily cutting their hours).
Quite the contrary: the government acts to prevent a ruthless race to the bottom as someone who skips e.g. on health insurance or on worker protection laws (e.g. daily work time maximums) can outcompete someone who sticks to the rules.
Especially with health insurance, the government has to pay the tab of those who skip it and then can't pay for the hospital.
> Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so.
The only reason I see why people want to voluntarily go gig worker is schedule flexibility - they don't want a regular full time or part time schedule because of children, elder care or whatever. And for what it's worth employment regulations should be made more flexible in that regard, but it must be prevented that employers go and abuse it to exploit their workers (e.g. by arbitrarily cutting their hours).
It seems to go without saying Employee protection laws are for the benefit and protection of the Employee. The law specifically prohibits employers from improperly reclassifying employees as independent contracts by simply titling a worker agreement/contract as an Independent Contractor Agreement in lieu of an Employment Agreement.
If these drivers want to be independent contractors and not employees, great, if these laws were fully enforced from the beginning it would be the drivers that organized and owned the ride sharing business and UBER would have never been able to compete with them (UBER's own S-1 admits this risk, and acknowledges if drivers were Employees it would be an existential threat to their business). Its also no surprise this legal inevitability comes after their public offering.
Sure many gig workers may not want to be employees, but they were, they just were not being provided the benefits and protections. I don't think the politicians are the only ones who benefited clearly the UBER investors and private shareholders pre-IPO were the single largest beneficiary.
Is there any reason on the merits you disagree with the current legal standards distinguishing employee vs independent contractor? I mean the drivers desires is not part of the standard, and in fairness, I don't think you are able to collectively speak on behalf of all drivers and say that's what they wanted, clearly based on the number of lawsuits and employment claims many of them did want the employee status and benefits that come with it.
If these drivers want to be independent contractors and not employees, great, if these laws were fully enforced from the beginning it would be the drivers that organized and owned the ride sharing business and UBER would have never been able to compete with them (UBER's own S-1 admits this risk, and acknowledges if drivers were Employees it would be an existential threat to their business). Its also no surprise this legal inevitability comes after their public offering.
Sure many gig workers may not want to be employees, but they were, they just were not being provided the benefits and protections. I don't think the politicians are the only ones who benefited clearly the UBER investors and private shareholders pre-IPO were the single largest beneficiary.
Is there any reason on the merits you disagree with the current legal standards distinguishing employee vs independent contractor? I mean the drivers desires is not part of the standard, and in fairness, I don't think you are able to collectively speak on behalf of all drivers and say that's what they wanted, clearly based on the number of lawsuits and employment claims many of them did want the employee status and benefits that come with it.
What do you imagine " fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers" would be?
I'm thinking: Free health care, paid time off, a robust safety net, better protections for workplace safety, etc. Level the playing field.
If they are "independent contractors" then who exactly is paying for this time off, etc?
I'm not sure how it would work for vacations, since it's kind of your job as the contractor to earn enough to set aside your own vacation time. Parental leave should be administered as a public insurance pool that ICs pay into through self-employment taxes.
trentnix(6)
So what is the difference then?
Generally what you're describing is a full time employee... that's kinda the thing you didn't seem to like.
Generally what you're describing is a full time employee... that's kinda the thing you didn't seem to like.
I think they want the government to provide those, rather than employers. If society decides that this is the bare minimum someone should have, then society should provide it.
[deleted]
> It seems backward that the government, instead of fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers, wants to force independent workers to become employees so that the government doesn't have to fix anything. It is abdication of responsibility for social outcomes.
There is a logical fallacy here, but I'm not sure if there is a name for it. In essence, the above argument is assuming "the government" is one actor who is able to choose between various options at the same time. In practice, "the government" is a collection of actors, with many competing interests, with different mechanisms of influence available at different times.
Aside: for anyone that thinks technology is hard, I would suggest running for office -- even a 'minor' role like being a school board member. This might shed some light on the difficulties of leading in a broader context. There is a reason it is called 'public service'.
There is a logical fallacy here, but I'm not sure if there is a name for it. In essence, the above argument is assuming "the government" is one actor who is able to choose between various options at the same time. In practice, "the government" is a collection of actors, with many competing interests, with different mechanisms of influence available at different times.
Aside: for anyone that thinks technology is hard, I would suggest running for office -- even a 'minor' role like being a school board member. This might shed some light on the difficulties of leading in a broader context. There is a reason it is called 'public service'.
"Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees."
I think most know the worker routine. If they don't look a certain way, the right age, the right resume, they won't get the job.
And the fact once they are an employee, they lose any bit of autonomy they think they have by being a independant?
It's too bad that we have a huge line of people:
1. Buying a vechicle specific four door vechicle Uber approves of before even applying to use the app. That is a huge upfront expence. Uber makes it sound like we all have a late model four door sedan collecting dust in the four car garage?
People are going bankrupt at best, but usually ruining credit, buying this huge asset in order to drive at the whims of Uber. There's no guarantes whatsoever. Want a deal on a four door sedan? Look at Craigslist used vechicle sales. Look for the last year Uber allows independents to drive. Actually I have noticed guys get another newer vechicle a couple of years before their vechicle ages out of Ubers strict year requirements. Some keep the useless four door sedan to drive a few more years under Lyft, or that's what I heard.
2. The guys whom are making a livible wage are usually driving to a big city. (A guy I know drives from santa Rosa to SF 7 days a week to make it work financially, and he is barely making it. He's working 80 hrs week.)
3. No health, they pay for gas, and insurance.
4. Yes--I'm picking on Uber.
My point is before Uber Bought the proposition, many drivers wanted better working conditions, and most seemed excited Uber might have to give them a vechicle, and working conditions would be better.
Then reality/fear set in? They will probally be fired next, or never hired me in the first place?
Maybe I'll just stick with this chitty job? America has become the king of chitty jobs.
And we have a lot of desperate people who will take these lousy jobs.
I think most know the worker routine. If they don't look a certain way, the right age, the right resume, they won't get the job.
And the fact once they are an employee, they lose any bit of autonomy they think they have by being a independant?
It's too bad that we have a huge line of people:
1. Buying a vechicle specific four door vechicle Uber approves of before even applying to use the app. That is a huge upfront expence. Uber makes it sound like we all have a late model four door sedan collecting dust in the four car garage?
People are going bankrupt at best, but usually ruining credit, buying this huge asset in order to drive at the whims of Uber. There's no guarantes whatsoever. Want a deal on a four door sedan? Look at Craigslist used vechicle sales. Look for the last year Uber allows independents to drive. Actually I have noticed guys get another newer vechicle a couple of years before their vechicle ages out of Ubers strict year requirements. Some keep the useless four door sedan to drive a few more years under Lyft, or that's what I heard.
2. The guys whom are making a livible wage are usually driving to a big city. (A guy I know drives from santa Rosa to SF 7 days a week to make it work financially, and he is barely making it. He's working 80 hrs week.)
3. No health, they pay for gas, and insurance.
4. Yes--I'm picking on Uber.
My point is before Uber Bought the proposition, many drivers wanted better working conditions, and most seemed excited Uber might have to give them a vechicle, and working conditions would be better.
Then reality/fear set in? They will probally be fired next, or never hired me in the first place?
Maybe I'll just stick with this chitty job? America has become the king of chitty jobs.
And we have a lot of desperate people who will take these lousy jobs.
> 1. Buying a vechicle specific four door vechicle Uber approves of before even applying to use the app. That is a huge upfront expence. Uber makes it sound like we all have a late model four door sedan collecting dust in the four car garage?
I'm not seeing it anymore, but I recall seeing an Uber related lease program, and now I'm seeing Uber related rental car programs. In the Seattle area, it looks like I could rent a car from two different companies for about $220 per week that's intended to be used for unlicensed taxi services.
If I were going to drive for Uber, and they didn't like my current vehicle, I'd drive a rental for a few weeks at least, to make sure it met my needs before dumping a bunch of money into a car.
I'm not seeing it anymore, but I recall seeing an Uber related lease program, and now I'm seeing Uber related rental car programs. In the Seattle area, it looks like I could rent a car from two different companies for about $220 per week that's intended to be used for unlicensed taxi services.
If I were going to drive for Uber, and they didn't like my current vehicle, I'd drive a rental for a few weeks at least, to make sure it met my needs before dumping a bunch of money into a car.
What, specifically, are those disadvantages? And are they actually related to employee classification, or are merely privileges not usually granted to employees?
If I drove for Uber/Lyft for moonlight income, I would prefer to paid purely in cash instead of being forced to be paid in health insurance, pto, etc. since all of that would be provided by my primary employer.
Employers are only forced to extend healthcare etc benefits to employees, there's no law stating the employee has to accept them.
Will employers pay a higher wage if the employee chooses not to accept them?
In my experience, most benefits are use-it-or-lose it.
In my experience, most benefits are use-it-or-lose it.
My last employer did. You could only opt in/out once a year or during major life events, but it gave enough flexibility that I could have higher pay or more benefits when it suited me.
generally among low-wage jobs, if you accept employer-provided healthcare you must pay for the plan from your wages. so kinda
No law? Technically correct.
Practical barriers in terms of the maximum limit of complexity legal and HR are willing/able to take on and remain effective while dealing with? Absolutely. Everyone thinks "It shouldn't be that hard!"
In reality, it kinda is. HR abstracts away the complexities of jurisdiction specific hiring requirements from the rest of the org, and legal does much the same. If you ask for extraordinary accomodation, I'm not saying it won't work, but I can guarantee you will experience friction while HR/Legal figures it out.
On the plus side, if it works, new employment template. If it doesn't, you don't get offered the job.
I've ended up the awkward giraffe in a couple places. You being flexible, and the HR/Management recognizing your unique capability to create value helps. However, when talking Gig work, they will invariably go for the template approach. There's also the fact that Gig work really conflates the distinction between "contractor" and "employee" in the sense that contractor carries with it an assumption you are providing for your own affairs. The compensation you quote them should have parity with their total outlay for an employee to do the job, because you should be arranging the same things for yourself; thereby obviating your need for the employer to do it. The thing you get out of by the contract route is all that paperwork and process overhead. You do a one-time disbursement of funds, and donezo.
The problem is, no one ever tells you (the contractor) that, and Uber et al does not let you quote price or have input on the cost calculation. So you accept super under-bid compensation, because you don't know the difference between a market rate and a hole in the wall, or an appreciation for the total footprint of the business model.
Uber, and services like it, make their money by predating. on this ignorance. This is not to say that stuff like "licensing" gig workers to vouch for the fact they really know what they are doing is really a good idea... I'm kind of curious though what kind of effect that sort of thing would have on the worker pool. Like a short course that make sure they understand the accounting. Wonder if an experiment could be run with that sort of thing somewhere and how it would effect the market.
That being said, it kinda kills the value prop of people just needing a few bucks here and there, but I question the seductive simplicity underneath that pitch, because everytime I've run into something that's pitched that way there's a big ole ugly iceberg beneath it.
Practical barriers in terms of the maximum limit of complexity legal and HR are willing/able to take on and remain effective while dealing with? Absolutely. Everyone thinks "It shouldn't be that hard!"
In reality, it kinda is. HR abstracts away the complexities of jurisdiction specific hiring requirements from the rest of the org, and legal does much the same. If you ask for extraordinary accomodation, I'm not saying it won't work, but I can guarantee you will experience friction while HR/Legal figures it out.
On the plus side, if it works, new employment template. If it doesn't, you don't get offered the job.
I've ended up the awkward giraffe in a couple places. You being flexible, and the HR/Management recognizing your unique capability to create value helps. However, when talking Gig work, they will invariably go for the template approach. There's also the fact that Gig work really conflates the distinction between "contractor" and "employee" in the sense that contractor carries with it an assumption you are providing for your own affairs. The compensation you quote them should have parity with their total outlay for an employee to do the job, because you should be arranging the same things for yourself; thereby obviating your need for the employer to do it. The thing you get out of by the contract route is all that paperwork and process overhead. You do a one-time disbursement of funds, and donezo.
The problem is, no one ever tells you (the contractor) that, and Uber et al does not let you quote price or have input on the cost calculation. So you accept super under-bid compensation, because you don't know the difference between a market rate and a hole in the wall, or an appreciation for the total footprint of the business model.
Uber, and services like it, make their money by predating. on this ignorance. This is not to say that stuff like "licensing" gig workers to vouch for the fact they really know what they are doing is really a good idea... I'm kind of curious though what kind of effect that sort of thing would have on the worker pool. Like a short course that make sure they understand the accounting. Wonder if an experiment could be run with that sort of thing somewhere and how it would effect the market.
That being said, it kinda kills the value prop of people just needing a few bucks here and there, but I question the seductive simplicity underneath that pitch, because everytime I've run into something that's pitched that way there's a big ole ugly iceberg beneath it.
Why not go one step higher up the abstraction, which is one step better, and provide healthcare irrelevant of jobs - it doesn't matter if you have 1 or 2 or none. You still have healthcare!
You aren't paid in healthcare at an hourly job. There is an employer healthcare plan you can buy into if you want. If you have insurance through your parents, spouse, another job, you just don't opt in.
At lower paying hourly jobs typically the employer doesn't cover any of the cost. For many these are prohibitively expensive, even if you work full time. Typically for higher paid work, most salary positions, the employer covers most of the cost.
At lower paying hourly jobs typically the employer doesn't cover any of the cost. For many these are prohibitively expensive, even if you work full time. Typically for higher paid work, most salary positions, the employer covers most of the cost.
If you are a contractor, you are paid for every hour you work. If you work overtime, you are paid for it. If you work holidays, you are paid for it.
If you are a salaried employee the sad state of the system is a lot of companies tend to take advantage of you and overwork you and don't pay you overtime.
The flip side of it is contractors don't usually get paid vacation, so it's both an advantage and a disadvantage.
If you are a salaried employee the sad state of the system is a lot of companies tend to take advantage of you and overwork you and don't pay you overtime.
The flip side of it is contractors don't usually get paid vacation, so it's both an advantage and a disadvantage.
Hourly employees, which get paid by the hour and for overtime, exist. This is the most common employee classification. Hourly full-time employees exist. You can have full-time benefits and be paid by the amount of hours worked -- and this is the second-most-common method of working.
When and for how long I work is a pretty big one. Most employees don't get to just decide their hours on a whim.
When an employer dictates that a worker must work certain hours, it is evidence that they are an employee. But, the opposite is not true -- employers are not obligated to dictate the hours of their employees.
The fact that most employers do dictate hours is a function of those job expectations, not their legal employment classification.
It is pretty common for mid or senior level white-collar salaried jobs to have a decent amount of freedom in working hours within what is functionally reasonable for their role.
The fact that most employers do dictate hours is a function of those job expectations, not their legal employment classification.
It is pretty common for mid or senior level white-collar salaried jobs to have a decent amount of freedom in working hours within what is functionally reasonable for their role.
> It is pretty common for mid or senior level white-collar salaried jobs to have a decent amount of freedom in working hours within what is functionally reasonable for their role.
That is so disconnected from reality for the majority of American workers that you might have broken me. But lets start with salaried workers have a job .. Their employers don't care what time you work as long as you get that job done. How exactly would that work for Uber? quotas? avg 2-3 rides and hour or ur fired?
That is so disconnected from reality for the majority of American workers that you might have broken me. But lets start with salaried workers have a job .. Their employers don't care what time you work as long as you get that job done. How exactly would that work for Uber? quotas? avg 2-3 rides and hour or ur fired?
Of course -- the majority of Americans are not employed in mid or senior level white-collar salaried jobs. Uber drivers are definitely not in this classification.
I am saying, classification as an employee does not require Uber to change anything about their expectations of their workers' work frequency, duration, or schedule. It can remain voluntary just as it is now.
There are currently voluntary hourly jobs that exist, but people here are probably less familiar with that concept as compared to salaried jobs.
I am saying, classification as an employee does not require Uber to change anything about their expectations of their workers' work frequency, duration, or schedule. It can remain voluntary just as it is now.
There are currently voluntary hourly jobs that exist, but people here are probably less familiar with that concept as compared to salaried jobs.
What if far more drivers want to work 10:00-16:00 than are needed? In the current situation, the spot price drops and some drivers leave while more riders enter.
As employees, Uber cannot dynamically vary the pay/minute rate, especially if it falls below minimum wage combined with vehicle/gas reimbursement.
As employees, Uber cannot dynamically vary the pay/minute rate, especially if it falls below minimum wage combined with vehicle/gas reimbursement.
Employers can vary the wages of their employees. They just can't pay wages that are so low that they violate minimum wage law. I don't see an issue.
That doesn't address drivers signing on when they know they won't get any rides then just sitting in their drive way.
Uber can tell them that no work is available. This kind of work arrangement exists today, it’s called “casual employment”
Nothing is forcing Uber to fix employee hours.
Most Uber drivers I know would find that to be a huge negative. but then again thats probably just a difference between big urban centers and the rest of the country.
No one is proposing that so it doesn't matter.
But it will happen tho because if Uber drivers are all considered employees they will get minimum wage, which is fine. Only issue why exactly wouldn't I go "on duty" only when I know there isn't any rides to rank in free cash. While I play games on my phone.
For my wife, she can get more hours and higher pay as an independent contractor. Part of this is because we get insurance through my job. They also give her more autonomy than an employee would have.
Off-topic, but do you think its a problem that gig workers have no upward mobility? A worker with 10 years of experience will be paid exactly the same as a worker with 1 month.
Plenty of employees have no upward mobility either. Though with 10 years of positive ratings, I would think The Algorithm would reward them with more frequent/better gigs?
She has upward mobility. They let her choose the rate she charges the customer and then they take their cut. The more hours she wants, she can have. If she's good at her job and the customers love her, she can give herself a raise by increasing prices (it's already like $50-120/hr depending on the class). She even has the authority to hire someone to work under her.
That depends on the type of gig. There are some gigs where experience and skill command a substantial premium.
Why wouldn't her employer let her opt out of insurance?
Are you comparing full-time hourly employees to part-time contracting?
> They also give her
When you say it like that, you are describing an employee not an independent contractor.
But your layer comment, about setting her own rates, makes me think that she is working as an actual freelancer, not as a gig employee.
Are you comparing full-time hourly employees to part-time contracting?
> They also give her
When you say it like that, you are describing an employee not an independent contractor.
But your layer comment, about setting her own rates, makes me think that she is working as an actual freelancer, not as a gig employee.
> Why wouldn't her employer let her opt out of insurance?
Is this... a thing? I've never had that option in any of my jobs. Sure, I can choose not to take the employee sponsored health insurance, but then I'm just opting out of my share of the monthly premiums the company would deduct. But in general, a company pays more than that. I've never been able to opt out of company insurance and recover their share of the premiums! I assumed that wasn't legal for them to offer.
Oh, and to be explicit about the connection: that's why an independent contractor would be paid more. If an employee's wage is $x, a company generally pays something like $(2x), and so an independent contractor would expect to be paid something closer to 2x than x. (Usually because they* then have to pay certain taxes, and worry about their own benefits, etc.)
Is this... a thing? I've never had that option in any of my jobs. Sure, I can choose not to take the employee sponsored health insurance, but then I'm just opting out of my share of the monthly premiums the company would deduct. But in general, a company pays more than that. I've never been able to opt out of company insurance and recover their share of the premiums! I assumed that wasn't legal for them to offer.
Oh, and to be explicit about the connection: that's why an independent contractor would be paid more. If an employee's wage is $x, a company generally pays something like $(2x), and so an independent contractor would expect to be paid something closer to 2x than x. (Usually because they* then have to pay certain taxes, and worry about their own benefits, etc.)
Most employers aren't going to pay you more for opting out of insurance. Many employers would try to keep your hours low so they don't have to offer you insurance.
"When you say it like that, you are describing an employee not an independent contractor."
This doesn't make sense to me. She has more autonomy than an employee would. They give her that level of autonomy by not making her an employee. She does not get a W2.
"But your layer comment, about setting her own rates, makes me think that she is working as an actual freelancer, not as a gig employee."
There's a lot of overlap between those terms, except replace employee with worker. I would say she's a freelance gig worker. Freelance tends to mean that you are just independent. You can work on an individual project for a company and move on, but it's usually larger pieces of work. As a gig worker, I see it as being more of a repetitive task for various customers. You can be a freelance driver and work for both uber and Lyft, or even uber and a taxi company. The gig part is that they are always individual tasks you get paid for - each ride. This is very similar to what she is doing.
So I see gig workers as freelancers, but not all freelancers are gig workers.
"When you say it like that, you are describing an employee not an independent contractor."
This doesn't make sense to me. She has more autonomy than an employee would. They give her that level of autonomy by not making her an employee. She does not get a W2.
"But your layer comment, about setting her own rates, makes me think that she is working as an actual freelancer, not as a gig employee."
There's a lot of overlap between those terms, except replace employee with worker. I would say she's a freelance gig worker. Freelance tends to mean that you are just independent. You can work on an individual project for a company and move on, but it's usually larger pieces of work. As a gig worker, I see it as being more of a repetitive task for various customers. You can be a freelance driver and work for both uber and Lyft, or even uber and a taxi company. The gig part is that they are always individual tasks you get paid for - each ride. This is very similar to what she is doing.
So I see gig workers as freelancers, but not all freelancers are gig workers.
[deleted]
> instead of fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers,
You're mistaken. It is not independent workers that are disadvantaged, but employees who as a result of those laws are less attractive to hire.
The solution here is to remove those arbitrary restrictions, not to expand them.
You're mistaken. It is not independent workers that are disadvantaged, but employees who as a result of those laws are less attractive to hire.
The solution here is to remove those arbitrary restrictions, not to expand them.
> It seems backward that the government, instead of fixing government policy and laws that disadvantage independent workers
There are all manner of things we seem to lean on business to provide that government does not. Health insurance is the obvious one.
But we also seem to have a large part of our electorate that like it that way — that don't want government involved in our welfare.
If you want to tip the table toward government taking more responsibility and corporate America less, that is a tougher battle.
There are all manner of things we seem to lean on business to provide that government does not. Health insurance is the obvious one.
But we also seem to have a large part of our electorate that like it that way — that don't want government involved in our welfare.
If you want to tip the table toward government taking more responsibility and corporate America less, that is a tougher battle.
> wants to force independent workers to become employees
Sounds exactly like a gig industry talking point, a classic conflation of making something a right with forcing it onto people. At the moment, being categorized as an employee is not even an option for gig workers. How's that for choice?
Sounds exactly like a gig industry talking point, a classic conflation of making something a right with forcing it onto people. At the moment, being categorized as an employee is not even an option for gig workers. How's that for choice?
There's a lot of jobs as a driver where you are categorized as an employee. I work for Lyft so I'm familiar with most of the talking points and I'll reserve my opinion on which ones are bullshit or which ones are not. That being said, that _most_ drivers don't want to be employees is undeniable, and even on polls that unions conduct the outcome is something like half and half.
You can say that they can't decide for themselves because they are being oppressed, etc, etc... and while I agree with the sentiment I don't think "oppression" here is that bad as to force people to vote what gig economy companies want them to vote on an independent poll.
You can say that they can't decide for themselves because they are being oppressed, etc, etc... and while I agree with the sentiment I don't think "oppression" here is that bad as to force people to vote what gig economy companies want them to vote on an independent poll.
The one thing i find absent from most of these conversations is the perspective of the workforce in question. Probably because neither side locked in this debate actually care what they think.
You can (and actually must) work in both directions simultaneously. We can't do nothing in the hopes of sweeping changes. You have to work within the system that is in place even if you are also working to replace that system (and many are).
> Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so. In these cases, the only people that benefit are the politicians that can go on ignoring the real problems.
I agree with the ethos of your response, but not the rationale.
Many people don't understand the costs associated with being gig workers.
Many people don't understand the value of benefits given to them by employers.
This is a big reason why democracies exist - many people simply can't make decisions for themselves.
I agree with the ethos of your response, but not the rationale.
Many people don't understand the costs associated with being gig workers.
Many people don't understand the value of benefits given to them by employers.
This is a big reason why democracies exist - many people simply can't make decisions for themselves.
I always love the, "People are too stupid to make decisions for themselves" argument. People are more than adequate in making important decisions that directly touch their lives.
I always love the various countries[0] who implement direct democracies because "people are more than adequate in making important decisions that directly touch their lives."
[0] - There's only one for the record and it's Switzerland.
[0] - There's only one for the record and it's Switzerland.
You must have no understanding of the word "directly" then. Do you think the military, trade deals, etc directly touch people's lives? Of course the average person isn't going to waste time educating themselves on these topics, they are going to pick someone who represents them to. I think most people might know a little something about their own jobs.
> I think most people might know a little something about their own jobs.
So then why do articles like this exist? If people know all of the things that directly affect them, why do they make so many mistakes?
https://blog.stridehealth.com/post/1099-tax-mistakes
https://www.taxslayer.com/blog/rideshare-drivers-avoid-these...
https://www.ayroyal.com/uber-tax-form-mistakes-avoid/
https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/top-5-uber-lyft-tax-mistak...
So then why do articles like this exist? If people know all of the things that directly affect them, why do they make so many mistakes?
https://blog.stridehealth.com/post/1099-tax-mistakes
https://www.taxslayer.com/blog/rideshare-drivers-avoid-these...
https://www.ayroyal.com/uber-tax-form-mistakes-avoid/
https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/top-5-uber-lyft-tax-mistak...
> Many gig workers explicitly do not want to become employees, as there are many disadvantages to doing so.
On what basis do you say this? Have you found good unbiased survey research?
On what basis do you say this? Have you found good unbiased survey research?
No, the government gets stuck picking up the slack when employers evade the law.
Gig workers should be able to organize and effectively negotiate reasonable contracts instead of getting the shaft. My brothers union contract for musical performance crates a more free market environment than the whims of companies like Doordash.
Gig workers should be able to organize and effectively negotiate reasonable contracts instead of getting the shaft. My brothers union contract for musical performance crates a more free market environment than the whims of companies like Doordash.
In normal countries, the government provides you healthcare, no matter what your job is, or if you have a job at all.
In America, we already gave up on that fight. Instead, we made it your employer's responsibility to provide you healthcare. And now the government is yelling at Uber for not giving you healthcare.
Fascinating.
In America, we already gave up on that fight. Instead, we made it your employer's responsibility to provide you healthcare. And now the government is yelling at Uber for not giving you healthcare.
Fascinating.
There are many successful independent workers in the US, from your local plumber to Paul Graham. And they have plenty of support in government policy.
The people who are not successful are independent workers who are dependent on an employer. The government cannot fix a logical contradiction.
The people who are not successful are independent workers who are dependent on an employer. The government cannot fix a logical contradiction.
That would be fine but these self employed people aren't exactly saving money for retirement or healthcare.
Gig worker falls off a ladder and ends up a paraplegic. Guess who will be footing the bill?
Gig worker falls off a ladder and ends up a paraplegic. Guess who will be footing the bill?
Not to mention that the people forced into the "gig" economy are often ADOS, black and/or latino. It helps to cement their bottom caste statuses in this country. The white/asian people on HN cling to their classist agenda and aren't willing to talk about race because of how privileged they are and how segregated their workplaces are. They just don't know the experience and make abstract claims about what is fair based on class.
Has anyone asked the gig workers how they feel about this? Do they want to be W2 employees?
Perhaps the real problem is that the IRS makes it such a massive PITA to be a contractor. You need to withhold your own taxes, pay nearly 30% of your money to the government, etc. Nobody likes that, and unsurprisingly, a lot of contractors fail to meet the requirements.
You know who really doesn't like it? The IRS. When most of the population is on W2 employment, the IRS has a constant revenue stream of payroll taxes and automatically withheld income taxes coming into its coffers every pay cycle. But with contractors, the IRS only gets that money once a year, and often times they're missing a piece of it.
Also – just putting this out there – a population of contractors would have much more power in a hypothetical "tax boycott" than a population of employees. I could imagine some social movement convincing all the contractors in the country to boycott the IRS and skip paying taxes one year. I doubt "the government" is anywhere near competent enough to conspire against this possibility, but the existential risk is there. Surely they would prefer that the peasants don't realize the power of collective tax resistance.
Perhaps the real problem is that the IRS makes it such a massive PITA to be a contractor. You need to withhold your own taxes, pay nearly 30% of your money to the government, etc. Nobody likes that, and unsurprisingly, a lot of contractors fail to meet the requirements.
You know who really doesn't like it? The IRS. When most of the population is on W2 employment, the IRS has a constant revenue stream of payroll taxes and automatically withheld income taxes coming into its coffers every pay cycle. But with contractors, the IRS only gets that money once a year, and often times they're missing a piece of it.
Also – just putting this out there – a population of contractors would have much more power in a hypothetical "tax boycott" than a population of employees. I could imagine some social movement convincing all the contractors in the country to boycott the IRS and skip paying taxes one year. I doubt "the government" is anywhere near competent enough to conspire against this possibility, but the existential risk is there. Surely they would prefer that the peasants don't realize the power of collective tax resistance.
> But with contractors, the IRS only gets that money once a year,
IIRC this isn't true. Non-W2 earners are supposed to do quarterly taxes.
> and often times they're missing a piece of it.
This is kind of a bigger problem, no? If it gets to the end of the year, and so many 1099 contractors don't have enough to pay their taxes that it is actually an issue for the IRS, it strongly implies that those contractors didn't understand how much money they were actually making after tax (and thus, didn't put enough aside). Contractors not understanding how much money they are actually making (in relation to the W2 option) is not a good thing.
IIRC this isn't true. Non-W2 earners are supposed to do quarterly taxes.
> and often times they're missing a piece of it.
This is kind of a bigger problem, no? If it gets to the end of the year, and so many 1099 contractors don't have enough to pay their taxes that it is actually an issue for the IRS, it strongly implies that those contractors didn't understand how much money they were actually making after tax (and thus, didn't put enough aside). Contractors not understanding how much money they are actually making (in relation to the W2 option) is not a good thing.
> IIRC this isn't true. Non-W2 earners are supposed to do quarterly taxes.
Maybe in theory, but I would bet, certainly not in practice for the vast majority of contractors earning an average income. You have to be the most honest, organized goody-two-shoes to actually pay those quarterly taxes.
It's also worth noting that many contractors live paycheck-to-paycheck, and even though they know they should be withholding 30% for tax, in practice they have bills to pay first. So when tax time comes (whether quarterly or yearly), they might simply not have the money.
Maybe in theory, but I would bet, certainly not in practice for the vast majority of contractors earning an average income. You have to be the most honest, organized goody-two-shoes to actually pay those quarterly taxes.
It's also worth noting that many contractors live paycheck-to-paycheck, and even though they know they should be withholding 30% for tax, in practice they have bills to pay first. So when tax time comes (whether quarterly or yearly), they might simply not have the money.
> It's also worth noting that many contractors live paycheck-to-paycheck, and even though they know they should be withholding 30% for tax, in practice they have bills to pay first.
I find it kind of dishonest to call this "living paycheck-to-paycheck" while ignoring tax with-holding. That is not "paycheck-to-paycheck" as much as "not being paid enough to live".
I find it kind of dishonest to call this "living paycheck-to-paycheck" while ignoring tax with-holding. That is not "paycheck-to-paycheck" as much as "not being paid enough to live".
Totally agree, it’s not an ideal situation for the contractor or the government. The question is more whether the government (or your employer as a proxy) should play a protectionist role and handle the withholding for you, or if that should be your responsibility as a contractor.
Speaking from personal experience, it’s much easier said than done. When your rent is due this month, taxes are due next year, and you’ve only got enough for rent... you aren’t gonna withhold 30%. It’s not because you don’t want to, but because you just don’t have the money. Call it poor financial management or whatever you want, but the reality is that lots of people get into this situation. Yet I doubt many of them would blame their clients (or Uber) for the problems. Most would say the government demands too much tax, or they can’t find enough work.
Personally I would be in favor of a $30k annual basic income and eliminating all taxes on up to $100k in earnings. It will never happen, but it would be one of the best things to happen to society in a long time.
Speaking from personal experience, it’s much easier said than done. When your rent is due this month, taxes are due next year, and you’ve only got enough for rent... you aren’t gonna withhold 30%. It’s not because you don’t want to, but because you just don’t have the money. Call it poor financial management or whatever you want, but the reality is that lots of people get into this situation. Yet I doubt many of them would blame their clients (or Uber) for the problems. Most would say the government demands too much tax, or they can’t find enough work.
Personally I would be in favor of a $30k annual basic income and eliminating all taxes on up to $100k in earnings. It will never happen, but it would be one of the best things to happen to society in a long time.
Uber drivers are not paid very well, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the money Uber is willing to pay you to drive for them isn’t enough to survive. However it would be a mistake to assume everyone who lives paycheck to paycheck is doing so because they’re being paid a sub-living wage. I’m in college and I know students who got into thousand of dollars of credit card debt so they could buy weed and designer clothes. If you give people money and say “by the way, we’re going to need some of this back eventually” (which is the tax situation with independent contractors), many people are just not capable of not spending all of it.
(again, not saying this is the case for uber drivers. Although in the case of the uber drivers, keep in mind that there are two factors that determine their wage, what uber is willing to pay and the rate of taxation. Every uber driver could get something like a 30% raise if the government didn’t find it necessary to tax on third of the income of people who, in your words, don’t even make enough money to survive. I find it strange that blame only ever seems to go to uber in this situation)
There are (potentially non-trivial) tax penalties for not paying quarterly taxes, it's not just something that people do for fun.
This is such a wonderfully naive view. Nobody is doing it for fun. They're doing it because they don't have the money nor the time to pay the IRS and an accountant every 3 months.
Nope, you have reached the limit of your knowledge. Estimated taxes must be paid at a minimum every quarter with few exceptions. You'd face large penalties for not complying over a period of time.
https://directpay.irs.gov/directpay/payment
That doesn't mean filing, it means estimating and paying.
The rest of your post was pretty good, so it's disappointing to see you double-down on its one major flaw.
https://directpay.irs.gov/directpay/payment
That doesn't mean filing, it means estimating and paying.
The rest of your post was pretty good, so it's disappointing to see you double-down on its one major flaw.
I'm not disputing that it's a requirement. I'm guessing that its compliance rate is low.
Compliance rate probably increases when the first penalty arrives for taxes being 9 months late. They are usually lax at first however.
There are penalties if you don't pay your quarterly estimates.
But with contractors, the IRS only gets that money once a year, and often times they're missing a piece of it.
I don't know the entirety of the tax law, but I believe that you're supposed to make estimated tax payments quarterly.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
I don't know the entirety of the tax law, but I believe that you're supposed to make estimated tax payments quarterly.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'd like to see a poll of how many ICs actually do that. I bet it's < 50%.
The ones that don't want to pay penalties, which is probably significantly higher.
I had never considered this angle before. This effort suddenly makes a lot more sense.
> Has anyone asked the gig workers how they feel about this? Do they want to be W2 employees?
They don't. They had a survey and that's why Prop 22 passed.
They don't. They had a survey and that's why Prop 22 passed.
Fix the fact that health insurance, retirement program, etc are all tied to traditional employment rather than forcing everyone into a square box.
Indeed - this is the real problem. We've bolted on so many things to the employee/employer relationship that should not be there. It's no surprise that contractor vs full time questions become so fraught when as a matter of policy, we've made that distinction hugely important.
I want there to be more flexibility in work arrangements. That would be awesome, but the only way to make that work is to sever Health care and retirement plans from employment.
I want there to be more flexibility in work arrangements. That would be awesome, but the only way to make that work is to sever Health care and retirement plans from employment.
We disincentivize starting business (anti-entrepreneurial), work hour flexibly (anti-family), working independently (anti-individualism) and instead heavily incentivize reporting to a boss, on their schedule, at their chosen location, and getting paid only whatever you can convince them to pay you.
Yes, this!
People need more stable access to basic needs: healthcare, education, food, water, housing, communications (some kind of basic phone & internet access). This will necessarily lead to greater labor market mobility and therefore greater market power by labor providers (i.e. employees and contractors).
People need more stable access to basic needs: healthcare, education, food, water, housing, communications (some kind of basic phone & internet access). This will necessarily lead to greater labor market mobility and therefore greater market power by labor providers (i.e. employees and contractors).
This is the weirdest thing to me. Why do I get whatever health plan my employer selected? I shouldn't have to switch jobs to change my health insurance. And sometimes there is a delay before your coverage starts at the new pace, or I want to take a couple of months off. Now I have no coverage! This is nonsense. It seems that the main argument for it is that companies have more negotiating power, but that seems like it would largely change if there was a significant market for individual/family health insurance where competition can actually exist between the people who are benefiting.
Employment should be simple, I do work and they pay me. Instead so many critical aspects of my life are tied to it as you mention.
Employment should be simple, I do work and they pay me. Instead so many critical aspects of my life are tied to it as you mention.
Absolutely, a job is a job. Or at least, that's all it should be. Yet the current law treats it something closer to an adoption of the employee by the company.
> These companies are making profits and revenue
Are they though? Uber said in its 2019 SEC filing that they may not make a profit [1], and while the company says profitability is around the corner, they have not yet turned that corner.
Not saying that Uber or any “gig economy” companies should continue to classify their workers as contractors, but if your business model does not generate a profit despite not providing benefits to your workers, one has to ask how viable that business model is.
While I understand the long game is to use self driving cars, this is not a proven technology. It’s a problem that may be solved in the next few years, but there’s no guarantee. Imagine investing in fusion energy, which has been just a few decades away for the last fifty or so years.
While sometimes the long play does work out, such as with Amazon, where you end up with a behemoth that dominates its market, you have to wait a long time to start seeing returns.
I wonder if these long term, risky investment opportunities are a sign that the exponential growth in the economy that we’ve become accustomed to is slowing down and becoming more S shaped. I can imagine this being a world where wealth does not come from growing and generating more wealth, but from political and bureaucratic maneuvering (like worker classification) to give workers less benefits and distribute the wealth higher up the class hierarchy.
[1] https://investorplace.com/2019/04/seriously-uber-never-turn-...
Are they though? Uber said in its 2019 SEC filing that they may not make a profit [1], and while the company says profitability is around the corner, they have not yet turned that corner.
Not saying that Uber or any “gig economy” companies should continue to classify their workers as contractors, but if your business model does not generate a profit despite not providing benefits to your workers, one has to ask how viable that business model is.
While I understand the long game is to use self driving cars, this is not a proven technology. It’s a problem that may be solved in the next few years, but there’s no guarantee. Imagine investing in fusion energy, which has been just a few decades away for the last fifty or so years.
While sometimes the long play does work out, such as with Amazon, where you end up with a behemoth that dominates its market, you have to wait a long time to start seeing returns.
I wonder if these long term, risky investment opportunities are a sign that the exponential growth in the economy that we’ve become accustomed to is slowing down and becoming more S shaped. I can imagine this being a world where wealth does not come from growing and generating more wealth, but from political and bureaucratic maneuvering (like worker classification) to give workers less benefits and distribute the wealth higher up the class hierarchy.
[1] https://investorplace.com/2019/04/seriously-uber-never-turn-...
> Not saying that Uber or any “gig economy” companies should continue to classify their workers as contractors, but if your business model does not generate a profit despite not providing benefits to your workers, one has to ask how viable that business model is.
Yes exactly.
> I wonder if these long term, risky investment opportunities are a sign that the exponential growth in the economy that we’ve become accustomed to is slowing down and becoming more S shaped.
We do have a demand and growth problem, but let's step back a bit.
- Gig companies growing and paying net sub minimum wage will make growth worse: we live in a consumer economy and less purchasing power for the people will sap the rest of the economy.
- carshare/taxis are inefficient in strictly material terms: cars take up too much space, one driver per person is ridiculous overhead. Bikeshare and buses and trains both immensely improve on both of those. Fundamentally Uber is the low productivity result of our terrible urban planning: a tax we now all pay.
Maybe there is some deep societal reason we cannot prop up aggregate demand, but I don't think so: let the helicopter money begin! But Uber is worse than no stimulus because it low productive and wage deflating. The only good thing is in it's subsidization phase a bunch of Saudi money was dispersed to regular people, but once that ends the legacy is further eroded labor norms.
Yes exactly.
> I wonder if these long term, risky investment opportunities are a sign that the exponential growth in the economy that we’ve become accustomed to is slowing down and becoming more S shaped.
We do have a demand and growth problem, but let's step back a bit.
- Gig companies growing and paying net sub minimum wage will make growth worse: we live in a consumer economy and less purchasing power for the people will sap the rest of the economy.
- carshare/taxis are inefficient in strictly material terms: cars take up too much space, one driver per person is ridiculous overhead. Bikeshare and buses and trains both immensely improve on both of those. Fundamentally Uber is the low productivity result of our terrible urban planning: a tax we now all pay.
Maybe there is some deep societal reason we cannot prop up aggregate demand, but I don't think so: let the helicopter money begin! But Uber is worse than no stimulus because it low productive and wage deflating. The only good thing is in it's subsidization phase a bunch of Saudi money was dispersed to regular people, but once that ends the legacy is further eroded labor norms.
The long term play isn't to use self driving vehicles anymore. Uber sold off ATG and Lyft just got rid of Level 5. They're dependent on others delivering commercial SDCs for them and anyone with the technical chops to do that isn't going to find the infrastructure of a ride-share service very difficult. As Uber and Lyft have both demonstrated, it's also straightforward to sell VC dollars for pennies to build up transport market share. The dominant theme of leading AV companies seems to be massive capitalizations, so it's hard to imagine the ride-share incumbents being highly competitive there either. It's hard to imagine a situation where their most profitable markets don't get immediately disrupted, leaving Uber and Lyft to figure out profitability with only the long tail low margin areas SDCs won't be deployed to for years afterwards.
The stock price is sure acting otherwise. I think uber's businesis cash flow positive, simialr to Amazon and Tesla, but that cap-ex and other non-recurring expenses are erroding profitability.
Let us remember that big tech companies like Microsoft, Google, Facebook generally have 49.9% of their employees contractors.
Why nearly 50%? Because that the highest amount you can have without additional liability. If they could get away with it, far more than 50% would be contractors.
The gig loophole benefits only super rich corporations. It's crazy to see so many people defending it. The sole purpose is undermining a century of worker protections.
Technology has made it easy to tweak jobs just enough so they fall under contractor status. When these laws were written nobody could imagine systems where work is reassigned in seconds. The rules about flexible schedules etc we made for a different time.
I've driven for rideshare. It's not like freelancing at all. You can't turn down rides. Can't set your prices. Can't choose your clients. Can't do your own advertising. You can only drive certain models and years of cars. There's rules about modifications you can do and how you treat customers. You have little to no control once you "sign on". It's a regular job with flexible hours
Why nearly 50%? Because that the highest amount you can have without additional liability. If they could get away with it, far more than 50% would be contractors.
The gig loophole benefits only super rich corporations. It's crazy to see so many people defending it. The sole purpose is undermining a century of worker protections.
Technology has made it easy to tweak jobs just enough so they fall under contractor status. When these laws were written nobody could imagine systems where work is reassigned in seconds. The rules about flexible schedules etc we made for a different time.
I've driven for rideshare. It's not like freelancing at all. You can't turn down rides. Can't set your prices. Can't choose your clients. Can't do your own advertising. You can only drive certain models and years of cars. There's rules about modifications you can do and how you treat customers. You have little to no control once you "sign on". It's a regular job with flexible hours
100% percent of the reason I didn't go work 'for' Microsoft was that I'd be a temp-to-possibly-hire contractor. And from the former contractors I'd talked to (one recommended by the recruiter!), it was clear contractors were treated like second-class citizens by Microsoft. From what I was told, contractors couldn't participate in networking events or even get free food employees got because Microsoft was sued for misclassifying workers.
So instead of reforming their business model they just switched to a model where they made clear contractors were contractors--by treating them like trash. Fuck that.
So instead of reforming their business model they just switched to a model where they made clear contractors were contractors--by treating them like trash. Fuck that.
this is not isolated to microsoft, or the US. Everywhere I've worked, the contractors we've had have been treated like second class citizens. The smart ones even insist on it.
Why? Because if they are allowed to enjoy the amenities of a normal staff member (free snacks, invite to company events, etc.) they run the risk of being classed as employees... which is bad news for everybody, not just the company. If you as a contractor are found to be incorrectly classified, that can mean a massive accounting headache, loss of tax benefits, possibly being required to enroll in a union, and lots more.
I've worked in Iceland and the UK, for 5 different companies, each one employing lots of contractors. All of them avoid these benefits for said reason. You can read up on IR35 if you want to know more about the UK rules (although it's been recently revamped making contracting a lot less appealing).
Why? Because if they are allowed to enjoy the amenities of a normal staff member (free snacks, invite to company events, etc.) they run the risk of being classed as employees... which is bad news for everybody, not just the company. If you as a contractor are found to be incorrectly classified, that can mean a massive accounting headache, loss of tax benefits, possibly being required to enroll in a union, and lots more.
I've worked in Iceland and the UK, for 5 different companies, each one employing lots of contractors. All of them avoid these benefits for said reason. You can read up on IR35 if you want to know more about the UK rules (although it's been recently revamped making contracting a lot less appealing).
I have also never heard of a contractor for big tech being hired full time. Ever.
> Let us remember that big tech companies like Microsoft, Google, Facebook generally have 49.9% of their employees contractors.
These are not the same type of contractors as 1099 contractors such as gig workers. Contractors at these big companies are usually employees of a staffing agency. They don't get sweet tech company benefits, but they are generally employees and have nothing to do with gig workers.
> Why nearly 50%? Because that the highest amount you can have without additional liability. If they could get away with it, far more than 50% would be contractors.
Which liability are you referring to? I've never heard of this and would love to look up what you're referring to, but you aren't being specific.
These are not the same type of contractors as 1099 contractors such as gig workers. Contractors at these big companies are usually employees of a staffing agency. They don't get sweet tech company benefits, but they are generally employees and have nothing to do with gig workers.
> Why nearly 50%? Because that the highest amount you can have without additional liability. If they could get away with it, far more than 50% would be contractors.
Which liability are you referring to? I've never heard of this and would love to look up what you're referring to, but you aren't being specific.
I heard it years ago, can't find a source either. I believe it was something related to a court case. Some legal argument that could apply if total employees was over 50% contractors.
I'm waiting for the inevitable backlash when Uber starts cutting drivers off after 39 hours in a week to avoid having them classified as full time.
I'm expecting this to increase fares, but currently there is a lot of room between Uber's fares and traditional taxi fares so even if they went up 20 or 30% they would still be a fair bit cheaper.
I'm expecting this to increase fares, but currently there is a lot of room between Uber's fares and traditional taxi fares so even if they went up 20 or 30% they would still be a fair bit cheaper.
> I'm expecting this to increase fares, but currently there is a lot of room between Uber's fares and traditional taxi fares so even if they went up 20 or 30% they would still be a fair bit cheaper.
In almost every place I've been to in the US in the last few years, Uber has not had competitive prices at all. They did back in ~2014, but their rates have been higher than yellow cabs and taxi services for a while now.
In almost every place I've been to in the US in the last few years, Uber has not had competitive prices at all. They did back in ~2014, but their rates have been higher than yellow cabs and taxi services for a while now.
FWIW, this is not my experience at all. As just one example, I was late to a wedding event in Phoenix shortly before the pandemic, was about to call an Uber ($35), and decided to take the taxi that had just pulled up to the hotel to save a minute. My total metered cost was something like $80.
The only place I've been where this is true is NYC, which have piled regulations onto Uber (specifically and professionally licensed drivers, registered vehicles, etc) to the point that it seems to have closed the cost gap with taxis (who of course are also subject to these regulations). That is to say, Uber the company operates in New York, but it doesn't operate "Uber the ridesharing service", from an economic perspective.
OTOH, I don't have a ton of data points, since even at price parity taxis offer worse service, less accountability, less traceability (eg for lost items), worse incentives, less price transparency, etc etc
The only place I've been where this is true is NYC, which have piled regulations onto Uber (specifically and professionally licensed drivers, registered vehicles, etc) to the point that it seems to have closed the cost gap with taxis (who of course are also subject to these regulations). That is to say, Uber the company operates in New York, but it doesn't operate "Uber the ridesharing service", from an economic perspective.
OTOH, I don't have a ton of data points, since even at price parity taxis offer worse service, less accountability, less traceability (eg for lost items), worse incentives, less price transparency, etc etc
I live in an area where the cab service was especially expensive, so it probably helps Uber. In the old days it was $25 to travel the 4 miles between my house and the airport. Lyft is closer to half of that last time I used it.
We used to suffer (and yes I mean suffer) with Super Shuttle to the airport and back. Rideshare was cheaper, direct, and faster. I used the savings to tip the driver an extra $10 I was so pleased about not being driven all over the county before coming home.
The cut off would likely be at 29 hours. Health benefits are mandatory at 30 hours+.
It's also going to be pretty bad when an employee-driver ends her shift 1 hour away from home and she has to drive back without the ability to make any extra money.
They can end their shift before that last ride, or drive for another company.
Not if they're employees.
It'd be interesting to look at pricing by city. I bet they implement predatory pricing, i.e. undercut in small markets to crush competition, then raise prices.
Regardless in NYC Ubers tend to be about the same or more expensive during normal hours. And significantly more expensive during peak times. How much of the surge pricing goes towards the drivers pay? I'd wager margins are excellent for Uber during surge pricing.
There will come a day when each city will operate it's own system to facilitate app based taxis (will be on some standard protocol), and Uber a central entity out of SF won't be competitive or will be taxed out. Why let an entity extract X% of each ride out of its economy? Not worth it.
Regardless in NYC Ubers tend to be about the same or more expensive during normal hours. And significantly more expensive during peak times. How much of the surge pricing goes towards the drivers pay? I'd wager margins are excellent for Uber during surge pricing.
There will come a day when each city will operate it's own system to facilitate app based taxis (will be on some standard protocol), and Uber a central entity out of SF won't be competitive or will be taxed out. Why let an entity extract X% of each ride out of its economy? Not worth it.
In NYC, your Uber driver is professionally licensed as a taxi/limousine driver and driving a vehicle that is registered as a for-hire vehicle. I'd bet this alone helps close the cost gap between rideshare and taxi, since there's nothing "rideshare" about it really - you're still paying for a professional driver with licensing costs, vehicle registration costs, extra insurances, sometimes even vehicle modifications, etc.
These debates about Uber/Lyft/etc employment status always seem to omit that there are two very distinct classes of people finding work with these services - one group is doing it part time in their personal vehicles, and the other group is doing it full-time in commercial vehicles. The interests of those two groups don't necessarily align.
These debates about Uber/Lyft/etc employment status always seem to omit that there are two very distinct classes of people finding work with these services - one group is doing it part time in their personal vehicles, and the other group is doing it full-time in commercial vehicles. The interests of those two groups don't necessarily align.
Thought for Uber. License the software they already have (maybe at a certain rate and/or percentage of revenue) to the businesses and/or governments and let them handle the employee side of things
There are a dozen or so of such platforms like this that already exist.
It might increase fares, although I'm wondering if that effect might be mitigated somewhat as drivers simply move hours worked whatever the cap is to some competing platform like Lyft.
My hope is that we'll eventually get to the point where we'll be able stand up a decentralized alternative that will allow us to cut out the Uber middleman.
My hope is that we'll eventually get to the point where we'll be able stand up a decentralized alternative that will allow us to cut out the Uber middleman.
Uber is such a better experience that I'm willing to pay a slight premium just to never sit in a taxi again.
In my experience nowadays Uber drivers are just Taxi drivers who started Ubering in their own cars. I was thinking the other day how I used to get mints and water bottles and maybe a conversation. I get that about 5-10% of the time nowadays. I started using Black more often because I've taken dates in some Ubers that were practically falling apart, I'm worried about our lives in some of them along with some crazy driving.
Also nowhere near the rudeness of cabbies but they HATE only having to drive a 5-20 blocks to take you between neighborhoods. Always hoping for that 30 mile ride.
Also nowhere near the rudeness of cabbies but they HATE only having to drive a 5-20 blocks to take you between neighborhoods. Always hoping for that 30 mile ride.
I mean the issue there is compensation. You won't pay more than $X for that super short ride, but for the driver, they just went 5 minutes out to pick you up, and now only get paid for 5 minutes of driving. That ride costs $Y but you would complain about paying that...
Just can't seem to please every customer...
Just can't seem to please every customer...
Maybe it's a good time to make a new rideshare startup that actually treats drivers like independent contractors.
This reminds me of how SF killed the electric scooter business. This is why we can't have nice things. America wants you to own a car, and drive it.
In NZ we limited the numbers that can be on the street at any one time and they're fine - just another part of the landscape now, people have even got over the "fun" of throwing them in bodies of water.
I hate driving.
Which is nuts - they were so popular and efficient. Was it the taxi companies who wanted them gone or uber? Uber I'm sure did a lot better business once you couldn't grab a scooter.
I'm glad to see most Limes and Birds gone.
More often than not, they ended up in roads, across sidewalks blocking access, thrown in parking spots, in lakes rivers and other deep-enough bodies of water, thrown off parking structures, and more.
And in my city, both Bird and Lime came in the city on flatbed trucks between 4-5AM and offloaded them en masse. Where I come from, that's abandoning trash. Had they work with the city, this rollout couold have gone loads smoother and not start by trashing the public commons...
But in reality, thats what Silly-con valley companies do - they exfiltrate good will and good things like public commons and take it for themselves, all the while screaming that they're being wronged when people take, disassemble, throw in trash their littered goods.
More often than not, they ended up in roads, across sidewalks blocking access, thrown in parking spots, in lakes rivers and other deep-enough bodies of water, thrown off parking structures, and more.
And in my city, both Bird and Lime came in the city on flatbed trucks between 4-5AM and offloaded them en masse. Where I come from, that's abandoning trash. Had they work with the city, this rollout couold have gone loads smoother and not start by trashing the public commons...
But in reality, thats what Silly-con valley companies do - they exfiltrate good will and good things like public commons and take it for themselves, all the while screaming that they're being wronged when people take, disassemble, throw in trash their littered goods.
Every time I read a comment like this, that seems to ignore the amount of space, noise, and danger cars bring to a city, I just can’t believe it was written in right faith.
Why should a private company be able to:
1. Store private goods permanently on the public commons?
2. Hinder the use of the public commons for long-term?
3. Treat the public commons as a refuse-dump?
4. Privatize the gains while socialize the losses?
The amount of space in the "public commons" allocated to free car parking dwarfs the space taken up by these scooters.
What if instead of banning a new transportation paradigm, the city had decided to work with the companies to convert 1/4 of the public parking spaces to scooter storage areas?
What if instead of banning a new transportation paradigm, the city had decided to work with the companies to convert 1/4 of the public parking spaces to scooter storage areas?
This is so obvious especially if you also bike. Cars are dangerous, polluting (breathing inside a tunnel makes that obvious) and take up ridiculous space for 1 person and don't get shared / re-used!
Had they worked with the city, they would be where Chris Sacca's free internet for SF would be: non-existent.
Most of the issues with Bird and Lime were caused by the anti-scooter groups. Seriously, your office worker is not throwing them off into bodies of water and parking structures.
Another solution would be to arrest and prosecute these anti-social types trashing things. Just go all out against them. I routinely saw Limes and Birds being knocked over en masse by these idiots. It's why we can't have nice things.
Another solution would be to arrest and prosecute these anti-social types trashing things. Just go all out against them. I routinely saw Limes and Birds being knocked over en masse by these idiots. It's why we can't have nice things.
Interesting how pre-Uber, nobody in the (medallion) taxi business was an employee either.
But going against it would have probably upset some local donators. Now that it's "evil big tech" it's fashionable to bash on it.
But going against it would have probably upset some local donators. Now that it's "evil big tech" it's fashionable to bash on it.
And we all know tech companies & their investors don’t give money to politicians
/s
/s
From the parent comment:
> But going against it would have probably upset some *local* donators
In what way is it sensible to classify big tech as a _local_ donor? Hell, the very term itself implies very wide reach.
> But going against it would have probably upset some *local* donators
In what way is it sensible to classify big tech as a _local_ donor? Hell, the very term itself implies very wide reach.
The implication seemed to be that it was somehow unreasonable to either see big tech as evil (which imo it often is) and suggested that they were somehow less politically influential or protected than local taxi businesses.
In my opinion the opposite is true. Uber (and big tech generally) is often worse than what it’s replacing, and a hell of a lot more powerful politically. They don’t just take advantage of laws or have laws that favor them, they blatantly ignore laws with little to no consequence. There was some negative attention to taxis before Uber even existed, but because the problem was on a much smaller scale not much attention was paid to it.
In my opinion the opposite is true. Uber (and big tech generally) is often worse than what it’s replacing, and a hell of a lot more powerful politically. They don’t just take advantage of laws or have laws that favor them, they blatantly ignore laws with little to no consequence. There was some negative attention to taxis before Uber even existed, but because the problem was on a much smaller scale not much attention was paid to it.
I think you're projecting a lot of loaded meaning onto the claim, in the presence of interpretations that don't require making such broad assumptions.
Parent commenter could easily have meant that corruption when it comes from local entities is something that the public doesn't have good antibodies for, because of the classic "diffuse costs, concentrated benefits" problem. By contrast, putting an issue under the umbrella of "big tech" unites a lot of people under the same vague banner, as people are mad at big <industry> for any number of reasons, especially an industry as far-reaching as tech. This incentivizes politicians to care about an issue that their pocketbooks would otherwise prefer to ignore. (Note that this analysis is neutral wrt the actual goodness of policy, but that's just a basic feature of democracy)
It's pretty simplistic to interpret comments only through the lens of "big tech good? No, big tech bad" when a narrower point is being made.
>There was some negative attention to taxis before Uber even existed, but because the problem was on a much smaller scale not much attention was paid to it.
This lines up pretty cleanly
Parent commenter could easily have meant that corruption when it comes from local entities is something that the public doesn't have good antibodies for, because of the classic "diffuse costs, concentrated benefits" problem. By contrast, putting an issue under the umbrella of "big tech" unites a lot of people under the same vague banner, as people are mad at big <industry> for any number of reasons, especially an industry as far-reaching as tech. This incentivizes politicians to care about an issue that their pocketbooks would otherwise prefer to ignore. (Note that this analysis is neutral wrt the actual goodness of policy, but that's just a basic feature of democracy)
It's pretty simplistic to interpret comments only through the lens of "big tech good? No, big tech bad" when a narrower point is being made.
>There was some negative attention to taxis before Uber even existed, but because the problem was on a much smaller scale not much attention was paid to it.
This lines up pretty cleanly
It’s not that simple, many Taxi drivers are classified as employees. https://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de231tc.pdf
Uber is very much treating drivers like employees in ways Taxi companies don’t. For example, all trips are through Uber as drivers don’t advertise their services. Dismissing people based on User feedback is another.
It’s clearly somewhat debatable where Uber falls on the line, but if you’re basing it on the Taxi industry Uber drivers are on the employee side of the spectrum.
Uber is very much treating drivers like employees in ways Taxi companies don’t. For example, all trips are through Uber as drivers don’t advertise their services. Dismissing people based on User feedback is another.
It’s clearly somewhat debatable where Uber falls on the line, but if you’re basing it on the Taxi industry Uber drivers are on the employee side of the spectrum.
Example: at least a few years ago Uber forbade drivers to make trips that returned to the original location. Not sure why, but there are certainly legitimate scenarios. For instance, drive to grandma's senior residence, pick her up, back to your apartment for a family event.
I mean there were plenty of stories about how predatory the medallion system was too, before Uber. Drivers were essentially debt serfs.
The medallion system in e.g. NYC is a state-run franchise, and until Uber the medallions were an investment unto themselves. Many of the drivers were formal employees of the medallion owners (not to say that labor abuse and political shenanigans didn’t exist, of course).
To me a medallion taxi driver is a lot more of an independent contractor than an uber driver. They both drive a car but the former has a lot more control over their day to day activities. Assuming they owned the medallion rather than working for someone else who did.
>Assuming they owned the medallion rather than working for someone else who did.
That assumption would be wrong 99.9% of the time in NYC pre-Uber/Lyft.
That assumption would be wrong 99.9% of the time in NYC pre-Uber/Lyft.
That switch (cabbies leasing cabs rather than working for cab companies) happened in 80s. Before that they were employees, and in big cities often unionized.
Everyone knows that they are workers, right? Not just random workers that do something else every day, workers on their own devices but workers for a company and they works the way that company says.
Why not start from here and work on the employment laws to allow for the flexibility or whatever works for that kind of employment?
Why pretend that an Uber driver is a businessmen that may actually expend his/her business or go through other company stages? Obviously that's not happening, therefore they should have the rights and obligations of a worker, not a business.
Why not start from here and work on the employment laws to allow for the flexibility or whatever works for that kind of employment?
Why pretend that an Uber driver is a businessmen that may actually expend his/her business or go through other company stages? Obviously that's not happening, therefore they should have the rights and obligations of a worker, not a business.
I think really what is needed is a new employment classification to deal with gig workers. It's clear that they're somewhere in the middle between an employee and contractor/freelancer.
Definitely, although the legislative slog that would present makes me believe it'll be tough to get there.
Part of the Uber/Lyft "ickiness" factor is that you have a giant company that has defined a "contracting" relationship with 100s of thousands of individuals. That is big power and capcity differential. Its not unreasonable to expect that the gig service companies be required to provide more services for their drivers than, say, local independent window washer who contracts individually with many businesses. Automatic tax payments, minimum wage for callouts and depreciation payments for self provided equipment are not unreasonble past a certain scale point.
That being said, the people I've known personally who have drove for Uber/Lyft (around 4, so a small number admitadly) really were doing it just for a bit of extra cash on the side and would not have wanted or been able to be an employee of Uber/Lyft.
Part of the Uber/Lyft "ickiness" factor is that you have a giant company that has defined a "contracting" relationship with 100s of thousands of individuals. That is big power and capcity differential. Its not unreasonable to expect that the gig service companies be required to provide more services for their drivers than, say, local independent window washer who contracts individually with many businesses. Automatic tax payments, minimum wage for callouts and depreciation payments for self provided equipment are not unreasonble past a certain scale point.
That being said, the people I've known personally who have drove for Uber/Lyft (around 4, so a small number admitadly) really were doing it just for a bit of extra cash on the side and would not have wanted or been able to be an employee of Uber/Lyft.
Why should the gig economy even be a thing? It seems really great for the companies (make huge amounts of money), pretty great for users (cheap taxis, cheap accommodation), and absolutely terrible for most others - whether that’s the drivers (I’m sure some are happy, but the fact is the pay absolutely stinks, which is how the companies want it) or people suffering from increased traffic (Uber) or the disturbance of community (Airbnb).
It’s just an incredible feat of mental acrobatics that hacker news convinces itself that the gig economy must be a good thing and must exist and it’s the government that’s behind, rather than the more obvious conclusion that _we have worker protections for a reason_ and these companies are not “disrupting” anything other than employment laws that protect the exploitation of workers, and other laws that protect wider society.
Just because some says it is “tech” doesn’t meant it’s good or we have to support it. Just feels like massive groupthink or lack of experience of the reality on the ground for most people.
It’s just an incredible feat of mental acrobatics that hacker news convinces itself that the gig economy must be a good thing and must exist and it’s the government that’s behind, rather than the more obvious conclusion that _we have worker protections for a reason_ and these companies are not “disrupting” anything other than employment laws that protect the exploitation of workers, and other laws that protect wider society.
Just because some says it is “tech” doesn’t meant it’s good or we have to support it. Just feels like massive groupthink or lack of experience of the reality on the ground for most people.
This actually exists: it's called "statutory employee". But according to current regulations, only a few specific types of workers can be classified this way.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
> Obviously that's not happening
Do we know that to be true?
Do we know that to be true?
Yes, for all the gig jobs that I'm aware of.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Last time I checked, Uber wouldn't let you simply fulfil your duties of transporting people the way you find fit, for example. It's really not a B2B relationship in any meaningful way.
For those who do, sure. They are not gig workers, they are contractors.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Last time I checked, Uber wouldn't let you simply fulfil your duties of transporting people the way you find fit, for example. It's really not a B2B relationship in any meaningful way.
For those who do, sure. They are not gig workers, they are contractors.
The issue is the exact same thing applies to your plumber. So either you owe him decades of back pay and healthcare or it is OK to hire people for a job and not keep them permanently...
My plumber can fix my pipes however he wants. He is a sole trader, I will pay him for his service.
If I sign a contract with him to go around other houses and make him fix the pipes the way I see fit, for example, using only black tape and stamp my logo on it, I receive the payments from the customers and pay him, he is my employee. People are not hiring him, they hire me and I employ him to do the job.
It's not even a marketplace, it's just me who finds the customers and the plumbers.
If I sign a contract with him to go around other houses and make him fix the pipes the way I see fit, for example, using only black tape and stamp my logo on it, I receive the payments from the customers and pay him, he is my employee. People are not hiring him, they hire me and I employ him to do the job.
It's not even a marketplace, it's just me who finds the customers and the plumbers.
So, I actually think the directions you give the plumber are MORE specific. I won't accept sewage in my drinking water. I don't care if my Uber driver takes third street or 4th avenue.
But that's not really the point here.
The point here is that there used to be a pretty well defined line between the self employed and employees. That's not the case anymore.
So we either spend decades making ever more complex unenforceable rules, and pretending taxi drivers deserve more/less from their jobs than (say) plumbers. Or we man up and stop pretending this makes sense and use a different system.
But that's not really the point here.
The point here is that there used to be a pretty well defined line between the self employed and employees. That's not the case anymore.
So we either spend decades making ever more complex unenforceable rules, and pretending taxi drivers deserve more/less from their jobs than (say) plumbers. Or we man up and stop pretending this makes sense and use a different system.
Not at all, giving that kind instructions to the plumber is like telling the Uber driver not to hit and run women and children. You don't give instructions on the core job competences, if you do, you are a teacher not a client or employer.
Elephant in the room here is tying benefits to employment.
In most discussions around this topic, Uber and Lyft are highlighted as typical examples. This article is no exception. But it includes the following quote from Labor Secretary Marty Walsh:
>“These companies are making profits and revenue and I’m not (going to) begrudge anyone for that because that's what we are about in America. But we also want to make sure that success trickles down to the worker,” he said.
If he's referring to Uber and Lyft specifically, then he's mistaken. Uber and Lyft remain breathtakingly unprofitable.
Would that fact change the way people think about this issue? I think it does... and advocates for reform think it does, too. Otherwise, why would they keep making this "mistake" when they talk about this issue?
As a side note: it's pretty poor journalism on Reuters' part to include that quote without any context or criticism, especially since they mention Uber and Lyft by name in the opening paragraph. Or, if he wasn't talking about Uber and Lyft, then Reuters' presentation makes him look like a liar, or at least embarrassingly misinformed. (He's the Labor Secretary after all -- he ought to know what he's talking about.)
>“These companies are making profits and revenue and I’m not (going to) begrudge anyone for that because that's what we are about in America. But we also want to make sure that success trickles down to the worker,” he said.
If he's referring to Uber and Lyft specifically, then he's mistaken. Uber and Lyft remain breathtakingly unprofitable.
Would that fact change the way people think about this issue? I think it does... and advocates for reform think it does, too. Otherwise, why would they keep making this "mistake" when they talk about this issue?
As a side note: it's pretty poor journalism on Reuters' part to include that quote without any context or criticism, especially since they mention Uber and Lyft by name in the opening paragraph. Or, if he wasn't talking about Uber and Lyft, then Reuters' presentation makes him look like a liar, or at least embarrassingly misinformed. (He's the Labor Secretary after all -- he ought to know what he's talking about.)
I remember when 'gig economy' first was talked about, it was about professional type digital nomad type stuff .... but when I think of it now it's just a bunch of folks delivering food and driving people around.
I think it’s because early adopters had success (same with things funded via Patreon) and then the resulting bandwagon and influx of labor competition made it a race to the bottom.
A progressive labor department and policy would at least require a proportion of benefits based on a proportion of a full time job. An even more progressive policy would be to make all non-wage benefits provided by the government, so that the contract between employee and employer could be simplified and the jobs field level with lower resistance for taking new opportunity.
yes, discontinuities (benefits cutoffs) lead to gaming. i'm heavily in favor of removing discontinuities like this, where entities are incentivized to essentially cheat others (i.e., promotes greed). for instance, every tax policy (rates, credits, deductions, etc.) should be continuous functions rather than a set of cliffs.
That shifts the costs on to me, the taxpayer, but not necessarily an Uber customer, for non-wage benefits. Why should I, the non-Ubering taxpayer have to pay benefits for an Uber driver? That isn’t “progressive,” that’s shifting a cost from the two people engaged in a contractual transaction to everyone who doesn’t necessarily have any interest in the transaction.
If an Uber driver needs health insurance, that cost would be part of the calculus of deciding to drive for Uber. If the government provided it, the taxes required would also become part of that calculus. The deadweight loss from taxation can’t be ignored. Not to mention it isn’t my job to provide non-wage benefits to support Uber or a driver. That’s between them. Literally not my problem. If the Uber driver isn’t taxed proportional to their consumption of benefits, then I the taxpayer am forced to subsidize the profit of both Uber and the driver. If the driver has to pay for his own non-wage benefits, than that would be part of their determination of accepting the offered wage or not.
If an Uber driver needs health insurance, that cost would be part of the calculus of deciding to drive for Uber. If the government provided it, the taxes required would also become part of that calculus. The deadweight loss from taxation can’t be ignored. Not to mention it isn’t my job to provide non-wage benefits to support Uber or a driver. That’s between them. Literally not my problem. If the Uber driver isn’t taxed proportional to their consumption of benefits, then I the taxpayer am forced to subsidize the profit of both Uber and the driver. If the driver has to pay for his own non-wage benefits, than that would be part of their determination of accepting the offered wage or not.
>Why should I, the non-Ubering taxpayer have to pay benefits for an Uber driver?
I think the argument is that there are certain public goods that should be included in the social contract and funded by taxes rather than via employers as part of the social contract. We can maybe disagree on what those specific public goods should be, but it doesn't absolve one from helping to pay for them if one wants to be a member of that society.
For example, public schools has been decided to be a public good paid for, in large part, by property taxes in the U.S. My sister does not get to opt out of that portion of taxes despite not having children. While it would be nice to be able to unilaterally choose each and every tax payment that we want to contribute to, I don't think that is feasible in a complex society. I would, however, like to see a simple chart on everybody's tax return that shows what portion of money they pay to each program at filing time in the hopes that it would lead to more informed decisions at the ballot box.
I think the argument is that there are certain public goods that should be included in the social contract and funded by taxes rather than via employers as part of the social contract. We can maybe disagree on what those specific public goods should be, but it doesn't absolve one from helping to pay for them if one wants to be a member of that society.
For example, public schools has been decided to be a public good paid for, in large part, by property taxes in the U.S. My sister does not get to opt out of that portion of taxes despite not having children. While it would be nice to be able to unilaterally choose each and every tax payment that we want to contribute to, I don't think that is feasible in a complex society. I would, however, like to see a simple chart on everybody's tax return that shows what portion of money they pay to each program at filing time in the hopes that it would lead to more informed decisions at the ballot box.
The problem in the current scenario is the drivers needs health insurance, but Uber isn't supplying it (nor are they paying a high enough wage to buy insurance on the open market), so tax-payers are stuck footing the bill anyways.
This is also what's happening with //part time// workers, and anyone else who isn't getting a 'full job'. As another reply mentioned, cliffs (cutoffs) incentivize gaming the cutoff.
Yup. The 30-hour (I think that's the value) cliff for insurance wasn't a brilliant idea.
I don't know the best (most efficient for society) solution, but I'm pretty sure phasing out the tax write-off for employer-provided health insurance is a good start.
I don't know the best (most efficient for society) solution, but I'm pretty sure phasing out the tax write-off for employer-provided health insurance is a good start.
Employees, by structure of tax code, pay Government taxes prior to receiving their own salary. Corporations pay Government for access to labor market in form of tax on employees. People who own their own labor, like much of the innate structure of "Rights" that exist in lieu of Government administration, like 1st, 2nd, etc.. only pay the Government after all expenses have been deducted from revenue, and the self has been paid. This inherent structural shift, between the owner and the owned, is the fundamental source of tension being pulled at by this view of labor market. The Government owns its labor pool. People own root authority over a Government "of, by, for" those people. This is the fault line of civil Society, as presently defined in Constitutional literature. The actual source of American Sovereignty of course, demonstrated by John Hancock and peers, and recursively denied to all that followed, is directly personal. In other words, Amrica, and all Sovereign labor is issued by self-Sovereign authority, or else this dream never exists. Employees opt-out of this inherent structure, and by acting thus, degrade the labor market as defined by this labor Secretary. The Government can't pay for infinite wars and debt without employees paying the Government before their own lives. Structure yields results.. administrative enslavement -to- employment came about, at great human cost fought via war, and owners were victorious on both sides of history.. structure yields results..
Though not quite the same scene as gig work, the matter of classification has long been an issue in the tech scene, at least where I am in Canada. That said, I think some clamping-down has occurred of late. Recruiters used to openly solicit 'incorporated' developers, despite the actual working conditions being almost entirely equivalent to that of an employee: hours set by the employer, requirements to be on-site, often sitting beside full time employees, etc.
I think the major issue with classifying gig workers as employees is how the company cannot practically deduct the cost of the gig worker's equipment that they bring to the job.
In the USA there is a lot of idle car stock that is leveraged to make something like doordash and uber work, and with this employment change if the workers could also deduct their vehicle costs as part of doing the job, I would foresee a lot less resistance from the industry.
I also don't think the 'employees' are going to get benefits either way, if this passed then their hours would be limited to the benefits threshold time like a lot of other low income jobs do now today, and they would be forced to work for 2 of the gig companies, who now will put strict scheduling on them making it a huge pain the ass.
In the end, nobody will be happy with the outcome and everyone would be worse off, except the government with some more tax revenue, or less because gig companies buying equipment will probably deduct more in total.
In the USA there is a lot of idle car stock that is leveraged to make something like doordash and uber work, and with this employment change if the workers could also deduct their vehicle costs as part of doing the job, I would foresee a lot less resistance from the industry.
I also don't think the 'employees' are going to get benefits either way, if this passed then their hours would be limited to the benefits threshold time like a lot of other low income jobs do now today, and they would be forced to work for 2 of the gig companies, who now will put strict scheduling on them making it a huge pain the ass.
In the end, nobody will be happy with the outcome and everyone would be worse off, except the government with some more tax revenue, or less because gig companies buying equipment will probably deduct more in total.
Here's a great podcast on this question (regarding Uber and Lyft drivers specifically), from Julia Galef:
http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/episode-255-are-ub...
She interviews three experts on the subject. Here's the description of the episode:
>How much do Uber and Lyft drivers really earn, after expenses? Are they getting a raw deal by being classified as 'independent contractors' instead of employees? I explore the debate over these questions with three guests: Louis Hyman (Cornell), Veena Dubal (UC Hastings College of the Law), and Harry Campbell (The Rideshare Guy).
http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/episode-255-are-ub...
She interviews three experts on the subject. Here's the description of the episode:
>How much do Uber and Lyft drivers really earn, after expenses? Are they getting a raw deal by being classified as 'independent contractors' instead of employees? I explore the debate over these questions with three guests: Louis Hyman (Cornell), Veena Dubal (UC Hastings College of the Law), and Harry Campbell (The Rideshare Guy).
Not surprised. Marty Walsh is a former Union boss. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Walsh_(politician)
I happen to have co-founded a company (Wrapbook) that makes it easy to work with gig-based workers as employees. The entertainment space long ago settled this fight and classifies everyone as employees, not as contractors, even when they work a single day.
This fight has nothing to do with independence and only has to do with employers trying to save some 15% of an employee's wage in taxes & keep themselves off the hook if people get injured on the job.
The savings are real - somebody making $1000 a day - classified as an employee, costs an additional estimated $150.
You can pay short term workers as employees pretty easily (we facilitate it).
This fight has nothing to do with independence and only has to do with employers trying to save some 15% of an employee's wage in taxes & keep themselves off the hook if people get injured on the job.
The savings are real - somebody making $1000 a day - classified as an employee, costs an additional estimated $150.
You can pay short term workers as employees pretty easily (we facilitate it).
Self-employed workers are offered several huge tax benefits by being self-employed:
1. Writing off business expenses (gas, vehicle wear and tear, etc)
2. The Qualified Business Income deduction of 20%
3. Larger contributions to tax-favorable retirement funds
Employment eliminates this in addition to adding several additional taxes (workers comp, unemployment, etc). These expenses are passed down to the employee in the form of reductions in wages.
So the implications of making large populations of self employed workers actually employed has great tax benefits for the government, at the expense of the worker.
1. Writing off business expenses (gas, vehicle wear and tear, etc)
2. The Qualified Business Income deduction of 20%
3. Larger contributions to tax-favorable retirement funds
Employment eliminates this in addition to adding several additional taxes (workers comp, unemployment, etc). These expenses are passed down to the employee in the form of reductions in wages.
So the implications of making large populations of self employed workers actually employed has great tax benefits for the government, at the expense of the worker.
Shhh, don't spoil the socialist utopia with reality.
Employers being expected to follow labor laws is a "socialist utopia" now?
The government doesn't want to do its job. Nothing to do with labor laws.
It's odd because most of the drivers I've talked to don't want to be "employees" but they do want all the typical employee benefits even though the corp that pays them would have no way of anticipating ROI in any given driver? Can they just say "enjoy your own scedule, but you have to work a minimum of X hours this week or lose your benefits" otherwise it's an odd thing to ask of companies.
See also CNBC article about this:
Uber, Lyft, DoorDash stocks fall sharply after U.S. Labor secretary says gig workers should be classified as employees
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/29/uber-lyft-doordash-stocks-fa...
Uber, Lyft, DoorDash stocks fall sharply after U.S. Labor secretary says gig workers should be classified as employees
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/29/uber-lyft-doordash-stocks-fa...
It's not a "shift in policy". It's what US labor law says. It just hasn't been enforced properly.
Look I really don't care what their arrangements are. Can I get someone to drive me to the airport from an app? Great, I'll pay what it charges. If the law says they have to do X and Y for those workers, I expect those costs to be passed along to me, and I'll gladly pay them.
How would working for competing apps work ? Would drivers be considered employees of both Uber and Lyft ? Do they have to log a certain amount of miles driven in order to qualify as an employee ? I'm interested in seeing how this all works out.
I've never met a HN commenter who is critical of gig work who is actually a gig worker, like myself.
Do you exist? Or is it always a bunch of privileged people blathering on about a situation they have no first-hand experience in?
Do you exist? Or is it always a bunch of privileged people blathering on about a situation they have no first-hand experience in?
The whole world is going this way. The UK just brought in IR35 to force as many people to be employees as possible. But I don't want to be an employee. I was much happier when I started contracting instead.
I think there should be an immediate opt-out of this - if you own your own LLC, S-Corp, etc, then it should be explicit under the law that any work you do using that entity is a contractor to any other entity.
Instead of ensuring that health care benefits are independent of corporate attachments, Marty Walsh continues to destroy useful distinctions in a system that congress refuses to appropriately reform. Sad.
Counter-proposal: move the BLS and OSHA* under Commerce; abolish the remainder of the United States Department of Labor.
*Are there any more remaining worthwhile agencies under Labor? I’m going from memory here.
*Are there any more remaining worthwhile agencies under Labor? I’m going from memory here.
Most gig workers should be given the opportunity to become franchise owners, not employees and lose their independence.
That could also solve the equity discrepancy, and give the workers real ownership upside.
That could also solve the equity discrepancy, and give the workers real ownership upside.
I feel like we should be trying to phase out this special "employee" classification that the gov't defined instead of expanding it.
Be aware: contractors and other workers fall into this category of "gig workers" - this will end 1099-based work as well.
This is a super weird stance to be honest...
Imagine if I sell my book on Amazon. Is Amazon the employer or my publisher?
If I rent my home out on AirBnB, is AirBnB by land lord or realtor?
If I offer to fix plumbing via craigslist, is craigslist my employer?
So, if I offer to much of my services on a platform am I to be employed by that platform?
The drivers of Uber and Lyft have opted not to be employees before. There seems to be some sort of political agenda here (maybe increase in taxes?), because no one seems to want this.
Imagine if I sell my book on Amazon. Is Amazon the employer or my publisher?
If I rent my home out on AirBnB, is AirBnB by land lord or realtor?
If I offer to fix plumbing via craigslist, is craigslist my employer?
So, if I offer to much of my services on a platform am I to be employed by that platform?
The drivers of Uber and Lyft have opted not to be employees before. There seems to be some sort of political agenda here (maybe increase in taxes?), because no one seems to want this.
Only the plumber is a contractor/employer scenario. The rest of the examples are irrelevant.
Individual plumbers are often contractors. If they work for a larger plumbing company, they'd be an employee. There are specific criteria at play here:
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contr...
> A worker is an employee when the business has the right to direct and control the work performed by the worker, even if that right is not exercised.
Uber sets the driver standards, how the work should be done, policies, pricing, etc. They clearly have some aspects of an employer/employee relationship. The line's a little blurry in spots; I can see both sides of the argument, and I'd say it's clear the law didn't anticipate this scenario.
Individual plumbers are often contractors. If they work for a larger plumbing company, they'd be an employee. There are specific criteria at play here:
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contr...
> A worker is an employee when the business has the right to direct and control the work performed by the worker, even if that right is not exercised.
Uber sets the driver standards, how the work should be done, policies, pricing, etc. They clearly have some aspects of an employer/employee relationship. The line's a little blurry in spots; I can see both sides of the argument, and I'd say it's clear the law didn't anticipate this scenario.
What is a contractor?
They are person or company leasing labor aka providing services. The other items I listed were both services and goods.
The point is that you shouldn't force a platform to employ or act as anything other than what it is (a routing system). Uber is not directly employing people, it's connecting customers to produces of a service (taxis, effectively). It's also acting as the payment processor and price setter. Everyone can know what they're getting / paying ahead of time. It's a transaction.
They are person or company leasing labor aka providing services. The other items I listed were both services and goods.
The point is that you shouldn't force a platform to employ or act as anything other than what it is (a routing system). Uber is not directly employing people, it's connecting customers to produces of a service (taxis, effectively). It's also acting as the payment processor and price setter. Everyone can know what they're getting / paying ahead of time. It's a transaction.
> They are person or company leasing labor aka providing services.
The formal definition - see the IRS link - is substantially more complex than that.
I provide services to the company that employs me. I am not a contractor.
The formal definition - see the IRS link - is substantially more complex than that.
I provide services to the company that employs me. I am not a contractor.
> Imagine if I sell my book on Amazon. Is Amazon the employer or my publisher?
In that case Amazon is your book seller. They may also be a publisher through Kindle Direct Publishing.
> If I rent my home out on AirBnB, is AirBnB by land lord or realtor?
You'd best check in the jurisdiction where your home is, but it is more likely they would be a property management company.
> If I offer to fix plumbing via craigslist, is craigslist my employer?
This is a bona fide activity performed by contractors.
> So, if I offer to much of my services on a platform am I to be employed by that platform?
There is a reason why we don't see Uber drivers advertising on Cragislist but lots of ads on Cragslist to hire drivers for Uber.
In that case Amazon is your book seller. They may also be a publisher through Kindle Direct Publishing.
> If I rent my home out on AirBnB, is AirBnB by land lord or realtor?
You'd best check in the jurisdiction where your home is, but it is more likely they would be a property management company.
> If I offer to fix plumbing via craigslist, is craigslist my employer?
This is a bona fide activity performed by contractors.
> So, if I offer to much of my services on a platform am I to be employed by that platform?
There is a reason why we don't see Uber drivers advertising on Cragislist but lots of ads on Cragslist to hire drivers for Uber.
This is about TAXES and the cost of healthcare for the government.
1. We implement OBAMA care which allows most people to receive subsidized health insurance. Supposedly to cover the uninsured. Then pension plans, employers, gig companies take advantage of this fact and push the people to the marketplace. The cost of OBAMA care skyrockets along with all other insurance plans.
2. Gig companies do not have to carry employee tax liability on their balance sheet. Each independent gig work needs to do this. Would the IRS rather collect from 1 company or hundreds of thousands of independent contractors. Additionally, independent contractors are viewed as a business and can take substantial deductions. The combination of taking advantage of tax deductions, the cost to collect from all of contractors and the fact that a good number of contractors do not make their tax payments, leads to reduced revenue.
3. Personal mandate goes away and the Gig worker drops their health insurance or the personal mandate wasn't paid int he first place. By creating this scenario OBAMA care becomes unsustainable.
I worked 19 years as a contractor and loved it. Never was provided benefits. I purchased my own health insurance until the ACA came along and it doubled the cost the plan I purchased for my family year over year until it was unaffordable. I didn't want to purchase the terrible plans available through the marketplace so I got a job.
1. We implement OBAMA care which allows most people to receive subsidized health insurance. Supposedly to cover the uninsured. Then pension plans, employers, gig companies take advantage of this fact and push the people to the marketplace. The cost of OBAMA care skyrockets along with all other insurance plans.
2. Gig companies do not have to carry employee tax liability on their balance sheet. Each independent gig work needs to do this. Would the IRS rather collect from 1 company or hundreds of thousands of independent contractors. Additionally, independent contractors are viewed as a business and can take substantial deductions. The combination of taking advantage of tax deductions, the cost to collect from all of contractors and the fact that a good number of contractors do not make their tax payments, leads to reduced revenue.
3. Personal mandate goes away and the Gig worker drops their health insurance or the personal mandate wasn't paid int he first place. By creating this scenario OBAMA care becomes unsustainable.
I worked 19 years as a contractor and loved it. Never was provided benefits. I purchased my own health insurance until the ACA came along and it doubled the cost the plan I purchased for my family year over year until it was unaffordable. I didn't want to purchase the terrible plans available through the marketplace so I got a job.
[deleted]
A lot of these problems stem from healthcare being tied to jobs, which makes zero sense.
Gig working only exists because our economy is rooted on income inequality. If people could get a regular job that paid a living wage, they wouldn't be working 14 hours a day for 3 different companies just to make ends meet.
Gig companies are the 21st century robber barons.
Gig companies are the 21st century robber barons.
Gig workers only exist because the state has tied more and more programs like 401k and health insurance into employment. The fact that you can't hire someone without also worrying about health insurance is insane. That is what needs to be fixed I don't want my employer involved at all in my personal health care.
Gig working started with Uber as an extension of cab driving. Cab drivers do not get 401k and health insurance. So it makes no sense at all that gig working would only exist because companies didn't want to pay benefits. Your pizza delivery guy wasn't getting benefits either. Neither your waiter, or bartender.
However, Uber and other companies did start right after the dot-com recession, when people needed to both save money, and make extra money. It turns out a lot of people needed to do both. Sure, there were advantages over the previous incumbents (cabs suck), but that's not why there are so many drivers.
Ask your Uber or Lyft drivers sometime how often they work. Many of them, since the early years, told me they work as many hours as they can, for as many companies as they can, just to make ends meet. Of course they're paying for their car and all that themselves, too, so it's not like they're getting ahead. And they definitely would rather not be driving for 14 hours a day.
These companies exploit people in an unequal system in order to make profits.
However, Uber and other companies did start right after the dot-com recession, when people needed to both save money, and make extra money. It turns out a lot of people needed to do both. Sure, there were advantages over the previous incumbents (cabs suck), but that's not why there are so many drivers.
Ask your Uber or Lyft drivers sometime how often they work. Many of them, since the early years, told me they work as many hours as they can, for as many companies as they can, just to make ends meet. Of course they're paying for their car and all that themselves, too, so it's not like they're getting ahead. And they definitely would rather not be driving for 14 hours a day.
These companies exploit people in an unequal system in order to make profits.
So you're proposing we go back to the 19th century?
What do you even mean? I just don't want my employer involved in government retirement programs or my health insurance. "Benefits" from employers are just nicely constructed traps to make it hard to retire or switch jobs.
I really hope what every they end up doing here doesn't screw over all the people that really want to be part time contract workers like AB5 did.
Would love to see the whole concept of 'employees' blasted away and replaced with something more flexible.
Since I'm in the employee class and not the employing class, I would like to see the opposite.
I mean, me too, but it's insane that it's a binary where you either "are a contractor" or "are an employee". if you took this framework away and replaced it with a more flexible one (ideally decoupled from healthcare..) people would invent all kinds of other mutually beneficial relations.
Cue the comments from highly-skilled white collar professionals, grieving that W-2 employment is oppressive.
What about giving them the option: they can be employees or independent contractors?
Should people be able to agree to work for less than minimum wage? Who is impacted by this, who ultimately bears the cost?
Biden wants to expand labor unions, so this isn't a surprise.
“If a business can’t pay a living wage, should it be a business?” - https://annehelen.substack.com/p/the-capitalism-is-broken-ec...
Absolutely it 100% it should be I don't even see the argument that it shouldn't. The idea that you would be blocked for working a job because it doesn't meet some government idea of enough pay is crazy.
A business that pays poverty wages is insufficiently socially useful imo. We do too much for it; it does too little for us.
> some government idea of enough pay
Misleading. There is an objective amount of pay that is or is not enough to live on in a given place. The government tries to guess at this sometimes, for the purpose of setting min wage, but that value is objective and exists independently. It's not some arbitrary bureaucratic thing.
> some government idea of enough pay
Misleading. There is an objective amount of pay that is or is not enough to live on in a given place. The government tries to guess at this sometimes, for the purpose of setting min wage, but that value is objective and exists independently. It's not some arbitrary bureaucratic thing.
Not everyone who works does it for the goal of "living on" that one job. Some people work for supplemental income. Some people (teens) work for spending money and to gain experience. Some people (retirees) work for something to do other than sit at home.
If all jobs had to pay enough to "live on" then most of the people above would be able to work at all, because the jobs simply would not exist.
If all jobs had to pay enough to "live on" then most of the people above would be able to work at all, because the jobs simply would not exist.
You are setting up a scenario where we have to choose between:
A) teens and retirees having access to low paying scut work jobs
B) eradicating wage slavery for non-teen, non-retirees by making it illegal for employers to pay poverty wages
I don't know if it's really such a simple binary opposition, but if it is, B for me.
A) teens and retirees having access to low paying scut work jobs
B) eradicating wage slavery for non-teen, non-retirees by making it illegal for employers to pay poverty wages
I don't know if it's really such a simple binary opposition, but if it is, B for me.
After doing God's work upvoting anything that's grey, whether I agree or not....
Having hit this kind of thing when the Great State of California got interested in contractors a few years back I have to say that the cynic in me tends to come out on these issues.
So many people have a personal interest in this general issue, large companies who don't use contractors, large companies who do, health insurance mavens, the state wanting to extract a few bucks in things like unemployment insurance, people in the grievance industry, politicians generally, I think you basically can't trust any heartfelt opinions on the way-things-oughta-be.
Having hit this kind of thing when the Great State of California got interested in contractors a few years back I have to say that the cynic in me tends to come out on these issues.
So many people have a personal interest in this general issue, large companies who don't use contractors, large companies who do, health insurance mavens, the state wanting to extract a few bucks in things like unemployment insurance, people in the grievance industry, politicians generally, I think you basically can't trust any heartfelt opinions on the way-things-oughta-be.
The legit concern is whether Uber or any other freelance company misleads its gig workers on their earnings, and to me the best solution to that is not to force reclassify them as employees or prohibit gig work, but to regulate transparency in compensation. For example, require freelance employers to include expense tracking and calculate workers earnings after expenses. That by itself would fix most of the problems for the percentage of gig workers who don’t realize they’re extracting depreciation from their car more so than getting paid by Uber.
The other issues of healthcare, etc., the US needs to solve at a societal level, not an employer level. I think humans have a right to health care. But I don’t think people have a right to a particular job, nor an entitlement for that employer to provide a particular mix of benefits.
This idea that we need to provide our social contract / safety net exclusively via employers is so strange to me, compared to simply owning that if we want these to be rights of our citizens then the government should be providing them as tax-paid services.