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

181–190 of 357 posts

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

#181

Post by legulere »

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.

Also in Germany you are not insured publicly when you are self-employed.

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

#182

Post by blub »

manigandham wrote: post #57

People seem to forget that "professional driver" is an actual job available for close to a century now if you really wanted a full-time position. Uber already works with FTE drivers at higher tiers like Lux and Black. All of the drivers I've asked over 1000's of rides have said they prefer the freedom and flexibility to work on their own time. Yes they want more money, but not at the cost of the flexibility. They alr…

Being an employee doesn't imply fixed hours.

It does imply having labour protections. And in the US it also implies having healthcare.

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

#183

Post by barry-cotter »

toastal wrote: post #165
vadym909 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No- They just favor business owners and the above average earners more and are highly distrustful of those not working or not making enough money. Extreme capitalists!

Sounds pretty evil to me. This is where you get the idea of 'corporations are people' to give more rights and them some to businesses to defend against your average person.

The legal basis of Citizens United was that individuals don’t lose rights by coming together as an organisation. So the NYT has free speech rights because its owners have free speech rights. And if a propaganda film like Fahrenheit 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine can be sold by a film studio a group of people can come together, whether as a for profit or not for profit corporation to produce their very own propaganda films, of whatever political valence, or tv ads or books, etc.

The US has by far the strongest free speech protections of any nation. It’s not really that surprising that the Supreme Court ruled that forming a corporation doesn’t annual free speech rights.

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

#184

Post by tfehring »

timoth3y wrote: post #140
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. 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 we…

This is a great comment - I'll just make one minor but important correction. Reserve requirements are fairly uniform across states (see [0] for a list of differences), so they likely wouldn't be a major driver of health insurers' decisions about where to incorporate.

The reality would be worse than you describe - rather than being driven by reserve requirements, the race to the bottom would be based on differences in the level of coverage that insurers are required to provide. Healthy people would buy coverage from states with lax requirements to reduce their premiums, while less healthy people would buy coverage from states with more stringent requirements to ensure their treatment would be covered. Premiums in states with stringent coverage requirements would increase, pushing more and more healthy people to cheaper alternatives, and eventually making coverage in those states unaffordable for the people who need it.

[0] (PDF) https://www.naic.org/prod_serv/SPD-OPS-19.pdf

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

#185

Post by anticensor »

astrange wrote: post #137
ajross wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Conservation of status quo is a presidential republic's normal modus operandi. Do you want change back and forth like in Turkey?

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

#186

Post by tfehring »

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.

I agree. And that's exactly the status quo for insurance in the US: every policy is subject to the regulatory requirements of the state in which it's sold. "Allowing" policies to be sold across state lines - which, as others have pointed out, is equivalent to preventing states from regulating policies sold within their borders - would reverse this.

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

#187

Post by flatfilefan »

legulere wrote: post #181
blub wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also in Germany you are not insured publicly when you are self-employed.

You have a choice between public and private insurance. And you can very well be publicly insured should you desire so (for a cost). It’s just that if you don’t have an employer you pay full medical insurance premium (not half). But should you get bankrupt you will get the public medical insurance benefits for free again.

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

#188

Post by hellllllllooo »

manigandham wrote: post #57

People seem to forget that "professional driver" is an actual job available for close to a century now if you really wanted a full-time position. Uber already works with FTE drivers at higher tiers like Lux and Black. All of the drivers I've asked over 1000's of rides have said they prefer the freedom and flexibility to work on their own time. Yes they want more money, but not at the cost of the flexibility. They alr…

Why does "freedom and flexibility to work on their own time" have anything to do with whether they are employees of the company or not? Both can easily be true together.

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

#189

Post by carlob »

bm1362 wrote: post #58
brianwawok wrote: post #50

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.

But the way I read this is that the helpers would have to be employed by John. So I don't understand where is the contractor loophole.

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

#190

Post by geezerjay »

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 important benefits of having a job as opposed to gigging can be summarized as "the employer should not have complete power over the employee".

That's also a big fat red herring.

The clients of a service are not employers of the contractor, and just because a contractor decides to invest some of his time to provide a service through ads posted on a job board that connects clients and service providers it does not mean that the job board suddenly becomes an employer.

Post reply on HN