Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 357 posts

Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says

#61

Post by speedplane »

kgc wrote: post #26
romwell wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They offered a rate, people were capable of consenting to the terms while accounting for expenses See, on party here has a lot more data on said expenses, and all the incentives in the world to be misleading about them. The existing demand was not "true" under the reasonable assumption that nobody wants to work for less than minimum wage after expenses.

There are definitely people who are willing to work below minimum wage. It's actually quantifiable if you look at the workforce reduction after minimum wage hikes in locales.

> There are definitely people who are willing to work below minimum wage.

Yes, and there are also people willing to work in unsafe conditions, work in illegal industries, and trade with the country's enemies. The "free market", as implemented almost anywhere, has never been synonymous with trading with whoever you want on whatever terms.

Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says

#62

Post by neuronexmachina »

fucking_tragedy wrote: post #48
xur17 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Deregulate the health insurance market so you can sell across state lines. Why can't health insurance companies sell across state lines right now?

Companies can offer the same plans in different states, but don't. Insurance plans are regionalized because each state has their own regulations and the markets are different. The "across state lines" argument is a red herring. Even if you could use a plan from another state, it isn't like a doctor in New York is going to accept some HMO from Indiana.

Yup. This has a decent overview of the "sell across state lines" red herring: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/selling-insurance-across-s...

Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says

#63

Post by _tb1_ »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #36
dcosson wrote: post #23

It’s sad that the idea of people being able to get by and live a comfortable life without the benefits from a full time job is so far outside the Overton window that it’s not even mentioned in these conversations. That seems like such an obviously better outcome for everyone - what if we got rid of healthcare benefits and other types of favorable tax treatment that are tied to full time employment so that everyone is…

1. Deregulate the health insurance market so you can sell across state lines. 2. Employers start giving their employees the money they pay on their behalf. 3. People shop for the health insurance they want/need. In a year, every other advertisement on TV would be for health insurance, like it is with car insurance now.

Suggestion 1 has been looked at. They've found it doesn't work.

Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says

#64

Post by whack »

Relying on corporations to help the lower middle class, is an outdated idea. Corporations are expressly designed to create value at the lowest possible cost, which necessarily means minimizing labor expenses. Relying on corporations to achieve universal healthcare and a living wage, is expressly going against what they were designed for.

There is a far better way to help the lower middle class: through the government. Raise taxes on the rich, raise the capital gains tax rate, and use the revenue to subsidize college tuition, to provide universal healthcare, and to supplement the earned income tax credit.

Let corporations do what they do best: provide services at the lowest possible cost. And start demanding that our government do what it's supposed to do: ensure that the wealth generated by corporations is adequately shared by all.

Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says

#65

Post by oliwarner »

dcosson wrote: post #23

It’s sad that the idea of people being able to get by and live a comfortable life without the benefits from a full time job is so far outside the Overton window that it’s not even mentioned in these conversations. That seems like such an obviously better outcome for everyone - what if we got rid of healthcare benefits and other types of favorable tax treatment that are tied to full time employment so that everyone is…

Your outlook assumes benefits are a net-bad, because health insurance is an evil bloated mess, but I think these are two very separate issues. Yes, obviously ending the scam of US healthcare costs is a great goal, but that really has nothing to do with employment benefits other than it meaning more people are insured. That is an income, not a cause of the corruption in healthcare.

Employment "benefits" extend considerably outside medical cover. Speaking internationally, they often cover minimum wages, parental leave, minimum holiday requirements, pensions, often some form of income protection for long term sickness, and very often a swathe of worker rights that protect an employee from crappy employment practices (YMMV locally).

These are serious things you should not shrug off; things that make your society better. Making them optional "allows" contractors to undercut employees, but this is less a choice in practice and more a wholesale movement to a disposable workforce. Any industry with a low enough skill threshold is pushing existing employees into contractors. Great if you're a business, less if you're a single parent. You have no choice. You save no money. You just lose your benefits.

So by all means push for better healthcare systems but it's a unicorn in this context. I think you're actually —and inadvertently, I'm sure— pushing for modern day slavery under the guise of "free will". That's just where unfettered capitalism goes. I say we protect more people by recognising that they're not the ants their employers see them as. Them having rights protects us all.

Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says

#66

Post by thrower123 »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

One of the symptoms of our current political paralysis is the over-reliance on executive agencies to set policy instead of Congress debating and passing laws. Instead of trying to get net neutrality through law, we depend on the FCC trying to shoe-horn ISP into an old law designed for phone companies. Instead of explicitly talking about what protections people who sign up for the "gig" economy should get, we try to s…

If the legislative body could be counted on to do their job, rather than this bizarre notion they have gotten that they are the Spanish Inquisition, then perhaps we could get somewhere.

Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says

#67

Post by buzzerbetrayed »

_tb1_ wrote: post #63
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Deregulate the health insurance market so you can sell across state lines. 2. Employers start giving their employees the money they pay on their behalf. 3. People shop for the health insurance they want/need. In a year, every other advertisement on TV would be for health insurance, like it is with car insurance now.

Suggestion 1 has been looked at. They've found it doesn't work.

Who are “they”? And why should we trust them?

Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says

#68

Post by dnautics »

Having been an Uber /Lyft driver I can't even fathom what it would mean for a driver to be an employee with expenses paid. Is the driver driving a gas guzzling F250 entitled to a higher reimbursement for cost of driving than me driving a Honda insight?

Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says

#69

Post by Spooky23 »

xur17 wrote: post #40
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Deregulate the health insurance market so you can sell across state lines. 2. Employers start giving their employees the money they pay on their behalf. 3. People shop for the health insurance they want/need. In a year, every other advertisement on TV would be for health insurance, like it is with car insurance now.

> 1. Deregulate the health insurance market so you can sell across state lines. Why can't health insurance companies sell across state lines right now?

States with more people and costs usually have more coverage requirements.

You don’t want insurance to be like banking where banks domicile in “friendly” places like Delaware and South Dakota. Health insurance is awful enough.

Republicans want this so that high cost, low benefit plans can be hocked to less sophisticated people. The more right wing folks also like shared responsibility pools where the members are the insurers, and the organizers take overhead. Obamacare put most of these out of business.

Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says

#70

Post by _tb1_ »

buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #67
_tb1_ wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suggestion 1 has been looked at. They've found it doesn't work.

Who are “they”? And why should we trust them?

Well, it's a common talking point. Have you looked into it? It's an honest question, who has the onus of responsibility for research? OP or me?
Post reply on HN