171–180 of 330 posts
When I talk to people doing these jobs they are glad to have them, and don’t have a problem with the terms. They like the flexibility and many are doing them as a stepping stone to the next thing.
If an Uber ride becomes more expensive, how does that benefit an elderly person living on social security who can’t walk well and has to get across town?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ACA, particularly so in Medicaid Expansion states, is perfectly described as a “heavily government-subsidized user-pay system”.
And the exchange plans are, nonetheless, dramatically worse at a given price point than employer plans. The primary reasons appear to be the giant tax subsidy for employer plans and the fact that insurers aggressively discriminate against people who don’t have employer plans.
I don't understand the implications of the second item in the test: "doing work that isn’t central to the company’s business." How does this apply to business-to-business contracting arrangements, especially in the world of software engineering? Businesses hire contract labor from vendors all the time--are those laborers to be considered employees of both the vendor and hiring company now?
Consumers, make no mistake, This will drive up costs of using uber just like everything else in CA And it will reduce the # of uber driver demand / work pool
>Consumers, make no mistake, This will drive up costs of using uber just like everything else in CA. Excellent. Consumers should be paying more for these things so that drivers have benefits and good pay. Solidarity with your fellow American worker. I personally leave huge tips and 5/5 stars no matter what unless I almost physically die or am assaulted. I know they aren't making great money and some probably live in…
I think the drivers would like it if you used it more, not less, because then they would make more money.
From TFA: Uber would likely have to reclassify tens of thousands of drivers in California as employees — something Uber drivers have been fighting for in court, unsuccessfully, for years. "Fighting for in court" links to https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535367/uber-drivers-strike-20... - which includes these choice paragraphs: It’s worth reemphasizing this: Uber doesn’t want to pay drivers to take 15-minute rest breaks…
(There's a requirement that short breaks be treated as compensated time for the purposes of determining when overtime pay starts, but that's not what your quote is getting at.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. Moreover, while there might be an immediate benefit to consumers, as the article notes it might as well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders.
> Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor? > well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. I don't buy it. The math that claims that these designations cost taxpayers is naive. As though applying additio…
I would hypothesize that the gig economy gradually grows into a large economic underclass. And the larger it grows, the worse it is for each individual member. Maybe we should avoid that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole point of a voluntary exchange of labor or goods is that it has to benefit both parties for it to take place. Companies, including Walmart, don't set wages arbitrarily. Despite their size, they can't control the market for labor. They don't pay what they do because they are generous. There are frictions with hiring and onboarding people. They want their employees to be happy. And even if they were a signific…
There is a long history of people deliberately selling themselves into slavery. Just because there is consent involved doesn’t mean it should be legal; there are many types of desperate / coercive situations under which people will make choices that compromise their own bodily autonomy or sacrifice their values. > [Walmart] wants their employees to be happy There is little evidence for this that I have seen. Rather,…
"Selling yourself into slavery" is a contradiction in terms. Willingly exchanging labor for compensation is not slavery. It's just an attempt to frame things in an inflammatory way.
Suppose that someone kidnaps you and forces you to work without compensation for the rest of your life. Suppose that you willingly agree to sign onto $250K in student loans that can't be discharged in bankruptcy and which you will never in your whole life be able to pay all back. Is agreeing to work for someone your whole life if they put you through college more like the first one or more like the second one? Clearly the second, I think, but then we see people calling it "selling yourself into slavery" on one hand and the government explicitly subsidizing it on the other.
Agreeing to either of those sets of terms is, of course, problematic. But the problem isn't caused by someone being willing to offer those terms, it's caused by people being desperate enough to accept them. And you can't solve that by limiting their alternatives to whatever even worse option that caused them to choose the objectionable one to begin with. You have to add better alternatives, not remove existing ones.
> In addition Walmart spends considerable effort and money lobbying governments to undermine basic worker rights and protections.
You say "undermine basic worker rights and protections" while they say creating jobs for unskilled workers who would otherwise have to rely fully on government assistance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole point of a voluntary exchange of labor or goods is that it has to benefit both parties for it to take place. Companies, including Walmart, don't set wages arbitrarily. Despite their size, they can't control the market for labor. They don't pay what they do because they are generous. There are frictions with hiring and onboarding people. They want their employees to be happy. And even if they were a signific…
There is a long history of people deliberately selling themselves into slavery. Just because there is consent involved doesn’t mean it should be legal; there are many types of desperate / coercive situations under which people will make choices that compromise their own bodily autonomy or sacrifice their values. > [Walmart] wants their employees to be happy There is little evidence for this that I have seen. Rather,…
Then think about how bad their alternatives must be
I will say this about Walmart, despite what you say about conditions and low pay, they are still above the board compared to smaller employers. They follow all the labor laws, pay taxes and afford their employees all the rights required by law. The alternatives such as small employers often don't pay taxes and pay their employees under the table, stripping them of legitimacy and rights. So again it depends on what you're comparing them to
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole idea of "unemployment insurance" for an Uber driver is not compatible with their business model. This isn't a factory where workers come in at 9 and leave at 5 and you either have a job or you don't. Uber drivers set their own hours. What would unemployment insurance for an Uber or Lyft driver look like? If you get less than X rides per hour you get unemployment insurance? Regardless, let me make this simpl…
Why should I as a taxpayer (mind you I am not American, argument still holds though) subsidise ubers business practices? Because that is exactly what you are arguing for. The article clearly states, that uber is extwrnalising costs, which results in significant losses for the state. Somebody will have to pick up the tap, and your argument seems to be that regular taxpayers should do it.
This neatly solves the Uber problem too, as full-time/part-time/contractor becomes a near-meaningless distinction. All of them just end up earning money for work done, with the only difference being whether you choose your hours or are given regular working hours, and if you're paid by the hour or by the week.