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

261–270 of 357 posts

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

#261

Post by kevin_b_er »

Kaotique wrote: post #255

Uber represents the new kind of company where all the risk is pushed to the employee, while all the profits are pulled to the company. Making all your employees supposedly outside contractors facilitates a race to the bottom between these contractors. Same with food delivery companies. The drivers have to provide and maintain the vehicle, organize their own health care, pension and insurance. Some companies even disa…

This was the designed purpose of these companies. They're more efficient at providing wealth for the top end by taking it from the "employees".

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

#262

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

wpietri wrote: post #156
roenxi wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't live in America, but having strong opinions is fun so I'll wade in anyway :D The things you are talking about are regulatory standards. I've not seen anyone really suggesting that regulatory standards are a problem in the Americas (on the contrary, everything I've read suggests if you have in insurance the whole process can be pretty comfortable). gp's post is, in my eyes, clearly going towards the point that…

> 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…

> I have picked insurance as an individual and as an employer, and that is 100% wrong.

Wha..? So, are you in favor of your employer picking out your car insurance or your home owners insurance? Sure, health insurance is complicated, but have you read your car insurance policy? I don't see the two as being FUNDAMENTALLY more or less complicated. Further, I will probably blame any irreducible complications you may quote as vestiges of a product that is primarily sold to... corporate specialists. I think these things would change if we got our employers out of the loop.

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

#264

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

ihm wrote: post #158
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.

> In a year, every other advertisement on TV would be for health insurance, like it is with car insurance now. It's strange to see someone say this like it's a good thing. Almost no one wants to "shop for the health insurance they need". They want to show up when they need care and receive it, and not have to think about it.

> It's strange to see someone say this like it's a good thing.

I'm saying that, because the situation would imply a price war for health insurance, which -- crazy me! -- I think would be good for everyone.

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

#265

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

objektif wrote: post #92
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.

It is quiet shocking to see #1 getting posted over and over again. How is that supposed to solve the pricing problem? How do you like pricing of say Comcast, Apple or any other company with pricing power? They offer services accross all states. I think it is way past time that we stop offering cute free market solutions to our disasterous healthcare industry. Medicare for All or gtfo.

Listen: If you know of a better way to encapsulate the idea of really creating a competitive market for health insurance, I'm all ears. That's just been the easiest way I've ever seen of expressing: "Hey, let's have a REAL market for the stuff, like EVERY OTHER KIND OF INSURANCE!"

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

#266

Post by AlexandrB »

Kaotique wrote: post #255

Uber represents the new kind of company where all the risk is pushed to the employee, while all the profits are pulled to the company. Making all your employees supposedly outside contractors facilitates a race to the bottom between these contractors. Same with food delivery companies. The drivers have to provide and maintain the vehicle, organize their own health care, pension and insurance. Some companies even disa…

> but have such disrespect for the wellbeing of their workers or how they affect communities in the world.

That's the innovation and the reason for the multi-billion dollar VC valuations while Uber was private. The app/platform is nearly a commodity at this point. Most taxi companies in my area have apps with similar features.

Edit: Notice that Lyft is basically the same story and Airbnb's main value-add is stripping regulations from the short term rental industry (formerly dominated by regulated hotels and BnBs). When someone pitches an "Uber but for X" they're often implicitly saying that they want to strip job security and labor protections from the people doing X and consumer protections from the people using X.

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

#267

Post by johannes1234321 »

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.

Self-employed you can be in a public health insurance. Depending on income you might switch to private though.

More relevant: self-employed don't pay into social security. Thus unemployment money and retirement have to be paid differently.

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

#268

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

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…

Give me a better way to express this idea, then: How do we create a REAL market for health insurance, so we can buy it like EVERY OTHER KIND OF INSURANCE?

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

#269

Post by sokoloff »

make3 wrote: post #173
sokoloff wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

I don’t have any doubt they could do such things, just as they’ve done for driver and vehicle licensing. When I or a family member needs medical care, I don’t look forward to a DMV-like experience.

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

#270

Post by gwright »

gwright wrote: post #160
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…

> 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. On what basis do you think this is the proper role for government?

Disheartening that my comment has drawn some negative reactions.

A public policy of forced "sharing" of wealth has an absolutely abysmal track record. Any supporters of that idea willing to explain why they think it will work this time? Anybody want to take my question seriously and answer what philosophy of government they are using to claim that redistribution of wealth is the proper role for government?

Post reply on HN