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

171–180 of 357 posts

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

#171

Post by DuskStar »

vadym909 wrote: post #135
bm1362 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

> The worker is your employee if you can control not only what work is done, but how it is done.

It's not just that they're doing household work, but also that they're doing it in a manner you direct. An Uber driver isn't getting me from point A to B in a manner Uber directs, or at least not always - otherwise I wouldn't see nearly as many drivers using Google Maps/Waze instead of Uber's navigation.

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

#172

Post by iguy »

roenxi wrote: post #164
wpietri wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems like common sense to me that an individual will be better at choosing a healthcare provider than their employer. I have picked insurance as an individual and as an employer, and that is 100% wrong. Any kind of insurance is difficult to shop for, because it's for something you'll only really need if you're unlucky; that means it's hard to tell whether the choice you make is a good one. Health insurance is w…

> Health insurance is worse, because it's an extremely complicated product. Get sick, go to hospital, insurer covers. There is a shortlist of things the insurer won't cover. You pay the insurer each month. Insurance isn't complicated. It is a complicated by bad regulation that mean insurers aren't trying to sell to individuals. > A company, on the other hand, gets to amortize the cost of figuring out the right option…

> Get sick, go to hospital, insurer covers. There is a shortlist of things the insurer won't cover. You pay the insurer each month. > Insurance isn't complicated.

But for things they do cover, what price do they pay? That seems to be the crux here.

Something like travel insurance is simpler, because when they buy you a hotel room / a new suitcase, most of the other buyers are not insurance, and so there's a market price they can refer to. But healthcare isn't like that, and it seems the the prices of many procedures vary wildly, like 100x between different hospitals. Nobody can afford a 100x increase in premiums.

From what I understand about better-functioning health insurance systems, there's usually also a pricelist written up by the government. That seems like the crucial foundation for a useful health insurance market. Much as I wish there was a nice market mechanism for this, I have yet to see one.

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

#173

Post by make3 »

sokoloff wrote: post #159
make3 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

single payer health insurance would be much cheaper if you just have the equivalent of what you pay now to the government. Single insurer=massive negotiation power. The US has the most expensive health care per person in the world

Many people do not trust that the government would achieve as good an outcome as their current private insurance. Probably a greater number fear that healthcare would become more inconvenient for them. (I’m 100% sure of the latter and maybe 50/50 on the former.)

The government can literally force healthcare providers to accept prices if it's the only payer. It can even write laws forcing them to accept those prices. It would take some time to adjust, but eventually you would ask win. Right now you both have the most expensive in total, expensive in median and the most unfair.

http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-...

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

#174

Post by shalmanese »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #103
donarb wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with insurance across state lines is that insurance companies would create a policy in a state with lax regulation and rules and sell that policy everywhere else. It's the same sort of crap that allows credit card companies to set up in South Dakota because that state has lax laws over usury rates.

Regulations should apply where the product is sold, or used, not where it’s manufactured.

That's exactly what's meant by insurance not being able to be sold across state lines.

The issue isn't whether Kaiser can sell a Californian a Californian health plan and a Texan a Texan health plan, Kaiser can already do that. The issue is whether Kaiser is allowed to sell a Californian a Texan health plan.

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

#175

Post by romwell »

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.

>It's actually quantifiable if you look at the workforce reduction after minimum wage hikes in locales.

People definitely are willing to work below minimum wage; that's exactly why we need minimum wage!

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

#177

Post by magicalhippo »

learc83 wrote: post #148
kgc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not that simple. No one can agree if a given minimum wage increase results in a workforce reduction, and if it does by how much. There is no consensus here, which probably means at the minimum wage increases we've seen, the effect is negligible.

> No one can agree if a given minimum wage increase results in a workforce reduction, and if it does by how much.

It's certainly not a nice analytic function, but clearly the higher the minimum wage, the fewer jobs make economic sense.

If I could pay someone a couple of bucks a day to open and close my garage door, I could afford that. But the minimum wage is far beyond that, so I got an electric door opener instead.

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

#178

Post by blub »

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…

Nice big fat red herring.

Health care as a discussion point in the contractor vs. employee topic is relevant for only one country on the planet.

The important benefits of having a job as opposed to gigging can be summarized as "the employer should not have complete power over the employee". For Uber drivers this is exactly the case, that's why this type of work is socially poisonous.

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

#179

Post by blub »

gridlockd wrote: post #37
inkaudio wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you charge far less than the actual cost of service you're going to get demand that does not reflect the actual market, hence not true "true" supply and demand. If I was selling dollar bills for 50 cents I would sell a lot of dollars bills. We've seen this before it's called Groupon. A key difference between Uber and Groupon is there are more drivers to con then there are businesses. Uber is losing billions doll…

Even then, having the city of New York set the price according to "utilization" isn't supply and demand either. It's price fixing.

One man's price fixing is another's correction of socially harmful behavior.

The free market will almost always devolve into worker exploitation unless there are rules.

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

#180

Post by burlesona »

blub wrote: post #178
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…

Nice big fat red herring. Health care as a discussion point in the contractor vs. employee topic is relevant for only one country on the planet. The important benefits of having a job as opposed to gigging can be summarized as "the employer should not have complete power over the employee". For Uber drivers this is exactly the case, that's why this type of work is socially poisonous.

The definition of a contractor is in fact the opposite. Employees have to obey the hours and other conditions set by the employer. However, a business is not allowed to set such terms for a contractor - in general the rule is you can tell a contractor what you want done and what you’ll pay but you can’t tell them how or when to do it.

I think what the OP was getting at is perhaps US centric, but basically Uber would be a lot better gig if you could be an Uber driver and have good health coverage (because it was a social service). At that point the argument would only be about fair wages, which is an easier case to make.

Post reply on HN