Don't companies not pay taxes for gig workers to get unemployment? Is there going to be any change to that?
No. Gig workers are "self employed", who traditionally do not pay unemployment insurance such that traditional employers do (as a sole proprietor; if you incorporate and pay yourself as an employee, you would then be eligible for unemployment insurance; I imagine this is very rare as a gig worker, and unsure if any platforms support such a configuration). This legislation doesn't change that, but it likely pulls some…
Legitimate businesses and their customers subsidizing VCs and their managers, highly paid employees, and customers.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply, but this is hardly proof. It's all anecdotal. I was hoping you might provide some articles or citations backing up your point.
I'm sure entering "grocery worker union" or similar terms into your favorite search engine will turn up ample evidence of the fact that unions for grocery workers do indeed exist.
Funny, but that's not the question I asked. I'm not trying to start a fight here, I simply asked for evidence that the unions are "strong" as you said.
Will they raise their pay as well? I know I'll get downvoted for exposing my point of view, but I'm one of the many people who do not tip the delivery man, so I really hope that they obtain better wages from their employers.
Society might be better if tipping were not baked into the system, but there it is: wage scales, labor and tax codes have completed normalization of tipping, at least in the US.
Your principled act of rebellion will produce not reform of commercial culture, but only distress for those who serve you -- and for yourself.
It always amazes me how the discussion can go so quickly go from "The mighty market solves all problems!" to, "The market is an incredibly fragile flower, and the slightest worker protections will result in mass unemployment and starvation!" Before Instacart, people went to the grocery store just fine. If Instacart has to pay workers a living wage, some people at the margins might return to shopping themselves, but I…
> It always amazes me how the discussion can go so quickly go from "The mighty market solves all problems!" to, "The market is an incredibly fragile flower, and the slightest worker protections will result in mass unemployment and starvation!" The market will continue to function just fine. It is just that the outcome of manipulating it is usually not what the manipulators intended. Suppose I thought that Instacart w…
I'm all for providing health care (not insurance) via taxes. I think the burden of (mandatory) sick time should fall on the company, because otherwise you create an enormous parallel bureaucracy and require a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem that requires a lot more nuance. As to other benefits, it depends, but a lot of those are probably best left in the hands of the company in that they're another form of compensation. E.g., places like Google and Twitter provide staff meals, but I think it makes little sense to have a federal Department of Lunch. Better to leave it to employees and companies to jointly work out locally optimum solutions.
Unfortunately for these workers, with the unprecedented spike in unemployment [1] I suspect Instacart will be able to find a lot of desperate people willing to cross the picket line. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ICSA
The Instacart workers should encourage any scabs to instead join the strike so they can work together to demand better wages and conditions.
To join the strike they’d have to be working first no? So perhaps the best thing is for them to start scanning.
Thank god I don't live in a society where people get fired for unionising. I don't understand how such a thing happens in any democratic society. Do workers really not like the idea of collective bargaining, or are there more business owners than workers in your state/country?
> Do people really not like the idea of collective bargaining Since the gutting of private-sector unions, the average American’s exposure to collective bargaining is public employee union strikes.
Your implication being that the average American who is negatively affected by a public employee union strike takes the side of the government and blames workers for inconveniencing them?
I would rather pay a higher delivery fee and (1) have enough workers to deliver my goods (2) Have them (and me) protected adequately. The whole way delivery works is broken right now.
Me too, but neither you nor I represent the market. If there was a sufficient market for all of this to work out, it probably would have existed before Instacart. Instacart provides no innovation, other than dumping investor money on the market, and externalizing a lot of cost and risk onto gig workers, thereby making the price of delivery somewhat worthwhile ... for now. The moment the workers are paid reasonably an…
> Since when do the unit metrics on this business add up?
Never. Without VC money or gig workers who do not understand the costs of depreciation this model does not work for something as low margin as groceries.
At 10% margin, which is insane for groceries, you’d need a $100+ order to breaking even the cost of delivery. Forget actually making a profit. And real margins are closer to 2-3%.
I hope you realize this is the same argument used in support of child labor.
And in countries where children need income to eat, we've seen that banning child labor pushes children into the sex trade, because they don't stop needing to eat when you make it illegal for them to work. Hardly a good example of why the argument is wrong.
Doesn't the sex trade count as labor?
Also, it's generally parents who provide food for their kids.
And if they can't, governments ought to do so.
So "sex trade" ought never to be an option.
Edit: A boy in my wife's family died in ~1900, working as a breaker boy in eastern Pennsylvania.[0] Or at least, there's a note to that effect in her family Bible.
Actually it is. The labor market on its own cannot ensure a dignified existence—if the supply is to big people will stoop. Banning jobs doesn't help much yes, but that doesn't mean the market on its own is good. The action that does help is shrinking the supply. UBI so less need to work, or need to work as much.
Nobody can ensure dignity for someone else. You either conduct yourself with dignity or you don't.
That's pretty hard core. I do rather think that, after decades doing Landmark. But there is this thing called compassion.