Live data from Hacker News

Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says

nytimes.com

131–140 of 357 posts

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

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice to know that people are still clinging to a document that can literally mean whatever we want it to when convenient while Americans continue to shuffle and get raped by the corporate class.

The US constitution is, like all other written law, mostly meaningless, given enough time. If you don’t like it, changed it: they’re called amendments.

We don't need one in this case. The Commerce Clause in Article I gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate trade.

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

#132
Taxi drivers have usually been considered independent contractors - what is different with Uber? I’m assuming it’s because Uber exercises more control over their income thru price adjustments (which taxi drivers aren’t subject to).

I think Uber drivers should be organizing for that kind of protection eg some accountability when Uber wants to drop rev share or fares.

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

#133
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.

Insurance only gets cheaper the larger the company gets, because the risk pool can absorb more risk. Competition doesn't improve it.

A giant problem with getting healthcare through insurance companies is that it's not actually insurance. Insurance should only be used to pay out in catastrophic cases; it's always cheaper to pay for something predictable yourself than to make an insurance claim.

Of course, most people can't afford any healthcare at all. There's no way to insure that.

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

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are Republicans basically evil?

They're just doing their jobs.

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

#135
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people do not follow this, but https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe... > You have a household employee if you hired someone to do household work and that worker is your employee. The worker is your employee if you can control not only what work is done, but how it is done. If the worker is your employee, it does not matter whether the work is full time or part time or that you hired the w…

From that link: > You made an agreement with John Peters to care for your lawn. John runs a lawn care business and offers his services to the general public. He provides his own tools and supplies, and he hires and pays any helpers he needs. Neither John nor his helpers are your household employees. In this comparison, a driver partner offers their services to multiple marketplaces, provides his own supplies, etc.

I don't think most people understand this principle. The deal you strike means nothing, There are laws that dictate who is an employee

"Household work is work done in or around your home by the following people.

Babysitters Caretakers Cleaning people Domestic workers Drivers Health aides Housekeepers Maids Nannies Private nurses Yard workers"

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

#136

Important: > The memo released on Tuesday, which was dated April 16, has no long-term value as a precedent and can be reversed by a future general counsel. Its immediate consequence is to render moot three formal accusations, filed in different parts of the country, that Uber had violated federal labor law. The memo instructs the board’s regional offices to dismiss the charges if the people who made them do not withd…

I’m guessing (hoping, really) that Peter Robb is out at the NLRB in two years and someone far less right-wing replaces him. The biggest issue is that the NLRB hasn’t been pro-worker in a long time.

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

#137
post #93
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s crazy talk. Of course I want things to be better, but I’m not going to shove my politics into my neighbor’s face. Like most people, I believe strongly but privately. Not an activist.

I'm not saying you need to corner them at the next PTO meeting and hand them a revolutionary screed. But when subjects like these come up, the proper response is "The republicrat party supports these policies and has for decades, where the demicans have blocked every measure that's ever made it to the floor" AND NOT "LOL our political system is paralyzed so there's nothing we can do, amirite?" Partisan issues[1] are…

The American system is basically set up to be paralyzed. FPTP voting leads to two parties, voting for both an executive president and two legislative leaders leads to no single popular outcome, and the Senate exists to stop anyone from doing anything.

Having Mitch be majority leader makes it worse, but you can't solve it by getting rid of him. He's not blocking things because he feels like it; it's his job.

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

#138
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…

The way it works with drivers in full control of when and how they work makes employment completely inappropriate.

Employer-subsidized health care is not free.

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

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are Republicans basically evil?

Depends on your definition. They are dominated by big money people in extractive industries, whose entire purpose in life revolves around reducing overhead.

Most conservatives are, well just conservative people who have a point of view. They don't call the shots though.

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

#140
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.

> 1. Deregulate the health insurance market so you can sell across state lines.

I've always found this suggestion a bit disingenuous.

First, there is no federal law that bans insurance from being sold across state lines. What they really mean (but can't say because it is not politically appealing) is "Don't allow states to regulate insurance sold in their state."

State boards regulate insurance. They seem to do it well. No insurance companies failed during the 2009 financial crisis and the ones that came close (looking at you AIG) did so because of their activities and investments that fell outside of the state regulations.

Not allowing states to regulate insurance would reduce costs, but not for the reason you think. The cost of getting a product approved in a given market is predictable and a very small part of the cost of doing business.

By taking this right away from the individual states, we could see a race to the bottom where all insurance companies would incorporate in whatever state offered the lowest reserve requirements and loosest oversight. This would decrease the cost of policies and increase the profitability of the insurance companies.

It would be great until there was a hard year and the insurance companies would have the be bailed out by the taxpayers.

State regulation of insurance companies is a great thing. The states keep each other in line and they keep the industry solvent.

Edit: BTW, auto insurance is also regulated on the state-level.

Post reply on HN