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

111–120 of 357 posts

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

#111

Post by hermitdev »

wahern wrote: post #84
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't health insurance companies sell across state lines right now? Every state has unique requirements and Congress has never superseded them with a national health law.

1) Every state also has unique requirements for car insurance. 2) Federal law has in fact controlled many aspects of health insurance plans, particularly employer-sponsored health plans, for decades. The elephant in the room is ERISA, passed 1974, but of course there's also Obamacare.

Federal law has set a minimum for car insurance, I think, might be per state (I think you have to have a minimum of liability). Many states have requirements that exceed the Federal min. They don't contradict it, but require extra, which so far has been held to be fine.

I don't know the full history about why you cant buy health insurance across state lines, but I think it's a blend of different state's regulations and not wanting to be beholden to interstate commerce clause regulations (ironically, the provision that was used to justify the ACA mandatory insured or penalty as a tax ruling.)

I never have nor will understood how the interstate commerce clause was used to justify the ACA "tax". The mandate is effectively compelling intrastate commerce (I know of know interstate medical insurance available) under the guise of regulation interstate commerce. This seems to fly against the letter and intent of the constitution in regards to interstate commerce.

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

#112

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#113

Post by hermitdev »

xyzzyz wrote: post #53
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't health insurance companies sell across state lines right now? Every state has unique requirements and Congress has never superseded them with a national health law.

If the Congress supersede every state law with national law, what’s the point of having states?

Congress is actually very limitted in the areas it can supercede stare or local law. The courts and congress, on the other hand, have often decided to ignore those points of the constitution.

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

#114

Post by solidasparagus »

sushisushisushi wrote: post #28
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…

It's not really outside the Overton window. Universal healthcare has strong majority support right now. Employers and shareholders benefit significantly by reducing options for workers and by making it difficult for workers to change jobs; the source of the resistance is there, in the plain language of power, not in some imaginary spectrum of what's considered to be acceptable.

Universal healthcare has decent (but not 'strong majority') support in the abstract [1]. In terms of concrete proposals (i.e. once you've answered the questions of what universal healthcare is and how you pay for it), there is not a single plan that is even somewhat popular.

[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-have-no-safe-...

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

#115

Post by js2 »

gwright wrote: post #82
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?

A bit of googling leads to: > Insurance firms in each state are protected from interstate competition by the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945) Basically this is Congress using its interstate commerce power, in this case to prohibit certain types of commerce.

No, it's the opposite of that. The act is congress abdicating its power under the commerce clause wrt insurance so that each state can regulate insurance as it sees fit.

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

#116

Post by newshorts »

whack wrote: post #64

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…

agreed. Ordoliberalism is really the only fungible path to ensuring most people in a society get a fair shake.

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

#117

Post by prostoalex »

iamthirsty wrote: post #86
fooey wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already legal in several states, but no insurance companies took them up on it. Trump additionally signed an executive order to setup a national way to do it, but it died off as a policy proposal because the insurance companies aren't interested http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/out-of-state-health-insu...

Of course they aren’t interested—the default model is working for them right now. Take away the default model, and open pure competition, and the insurance companies will have to compete on that level, and things will relatively quickly get better.

The providers still hold the key to pricing. When your choice of hospitals or specialists is limited, you’re going to go with whatever insurance company they accept, or pay some exorbitant price.

The problem is that most people don't pre-shop for insurance that way, and only find out that their local provider is out of network when it's urgent that they get help.

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

#118

Post by francisofascii »

baddox wrote: post #18
sdegutis wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if instead our society reeled globalization back in a little, and we lived in smaller, closer, local communities? I live in a rural-ish area, and any time I get on the interstate, especially during the workweek, I can't help but wonder how much those people's lives would be improved if everything was in walking or bicycling distance, how much more time they would have to give to their families or their interests…

I don't quite understand the connection to globalization or more rural communities. Urban cities, of course, generally offer the best walkability simply because of population density. In my experience in the United States, suburban communities and small towns are most literally unwalkable due to the design of the road network. In rural areas generally it's not feasible to walk simply because your place of work, groce…

Before globalization, rural communities had walkable towns, maybe just a few blocks, but enough stores to fulfill daily needs without the use of a car. Now all those communities have is big box stores several miles away.

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

#119

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hermitdev wrote: post #113
xyzzyz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the Congress supersede every state law with national law, what’s the point of having states?

Congress is actually very limitted in the areas it can supercede stare or local law. The courts and congress, on the other hand, have often decided to ignore those points of the constitution.

> courts and congress, on the other hand, have often decided to ignore those points of the constitution

Saying the Interstate Commerce cases ignore the Constitution is reductive. Many IC-buttresssd laws involve carrots, e.g. highway funds. In other cases, single-state violators are perfectly legal. They just don’t make economy sense in a connection national economy.

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

#120

Post by uber-employee »

derekp7 wrote: post #79

I wonder if a simple change to Uber's app would fix all this -- let drivers set their own rates, and customers could pick from a number of drivers nearby based on how close they are, and what rate they charge. And/or let customers put out a bid for the rate they want to pay, then any driver can accept that bid and get the fare. That way drivers could be more legally considered contractors (they set their own rates),…

FYI, Sidecar did this in 2013 - you could set your own price, both as a rider and driver. Then, when you request a ride, it would be more like market-making, with you getting matched with the driver whose price is closest to your requested price, but under it. I personally tried using this many times - it was a poor experience for riders. I can imagine it wasn't very pleasant for drivers either.

The theoretical ideal price for a ridesharing trip changes in realtime and depends on many different factors like how many drivers are nearby, how many other riders are nearby, each driver's willingness to drive to your destination, etc. Letting riders and drivers set their own prices would make the market significantly less efficient, and would make both the experience for both sides of the marketplace quite miserable, especially during events like demand spikes. There is literally a several hundred-strong organization at Uber (Marketplace) whose single focus is to make a maximally efficient marketplace. It's honestly kind of dismissive to suggest something like this, and to call it "a simple change".

Disclaimer: the above is not meant to be a representation of how Uber pricing works, just my own theoretical musing

Post reply on HN