91–100 of 102 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These people did not choose to be born poor.
They chose to accept Uber's deal. Don't strawman
When you see a poor person struggling, remember that your public arguments contributed to their plight. If that even resonates with you.
Ride-sharing, like a fry cook, was never meant to be a life’s career ambition. Jeez people. Folks are complaining that a fry cook can’t afford to buy a house and an Uber driver doesn’t get a 401(k). Wake up and smell the coffee. Let these positions continue to function as gap-filling opportunities for the young and those who need massive flexibility or want side-hustles. We drive up employment cost massively and wond…
My question is: what do people think a "fair" hourly earnings level should be for a ridesharing driver? Given that it is a job which requires no educational or professional qualifications or experience, (only a driver's license and a clean background check), has an acceptance rate of basically 100%, and has flexibility to work any # of hours whenever you want (which surely has some $ utility) -- the $18-20 earnings p…
Unsurprising, but luckily only applicable to the US however undoubtedly will be referred to on other trials in other economies. We've always had the 'gig' economic problem. It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of…
Unsurprising, but luckily only applicable to the US however undoubtedly will be referred to on other trials in other economies. We've always had the 'gig' economic problem. It's maybe me but I don't get it. Treating employment as subcontracting tilts benefits massively to the employer and reduces unionisation. It's anti worker. It's retrograde. It's going to increase dependencies on state benefits due to the lack of…
But that's the fundamental issue, it's not actually employment. Why does everyone seem to ignore that the job of "professional driver" already exists so anyone who does want full-time employment can already do it? Every single driver I've ever asked (in 1000s of rides taken over 7 years) has always said they prefer the freedom of being able to work when and where they want. Students, retirees, stay at home parents, a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the primary issue is that Uber provides incentives in the contract for "employee-like" behaviour. Imagine an extreme case where minimum wage is $8/hour and I'm offering a contracting job that comes out to $0/hour before incentives. If people work 8 hours a day on the schedule I want and do everything else that employees have to do, I give them $4/hour. Now most of my workers will be just as good as employees,…
The situation is an interesting case of economic realities quietly trumping political ideology. Uber thinks they are offering a reasonable deal. The people doing the work obviously think that it is the best deal they have available. The government is going to need to stamp down pretty heavily to stop that, because the actors in this situation have no particular incentive to change anything.
> The drivers work when they want to and are free to nap, run personal errands, or smoke cigarettes in between rides, Baylson said. Interesting. If that makes you not an employee then half the flexible working time companies don't have employees :)
> The case is Razak v. Uber Technologies Inc, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:16-cv-00573. I would just like to commend Reuters for giving an explicit, concrete citation of the case in question. We should really hold journalists to the minimal standard of actually pointing us the the primary source. It's not hard; they know what it is they are referring to. All they need to do is t…
Not surprising, and probably the right decision. But... If you’re fighting for the ability to not pay your front-line people minimum wage , I have to wonder if you’ve got a viable business. These are the people who interact directly with your paying customers and the ones who actually provide the service your customers value. Keeping costs down is great, but you cannot squeeze the life-blood out of your business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't that screw drivers both ways? Not an employee IR purposes but not a contractor for tax purposes? We have two different definitions?
I was thinking the exact same thing. In the eyes of the State you are ONE or the OTHER. Can't have only the good halves of the bad halves. If the State hasn't figured out what 'Uber drivers' are, then this discussion will lead only to more confusion and pain.