Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back

#61

Post by standardUser » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #54

ogre_codes wrote: post #38

There are 2 big problems with on-demand/ gig employment. #1 Our current system of coupling healthcare and other life essential benefits with employment is broken. It makes it difficult for people to work small jobs or switch jobs. In order for gig jobs to be viable, people need to be able to get survive a broken foot without going bankrupt. #2 Gig-style businesses tend to vastly underpay employees. The early claims t…

> Gig-style businesses tend to vastly underpay employees. Low-productivity services tend to vastly underpay employees. This is to be expected. The question is whether one can have "gig"-like work that's more worthwhile than driving around for services that can't even make a decent profit and are just spending money they get from their VC funders.

Not "underpaid" as in "not a living wage", but underpaid because once the cost of equipment is factored in, people can end up being paid less than minimum wage. It's a wage floor loophole that should be closed. Though to be fair, rideshare isn't the only guilty industry.

Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back

#62

Post by xhkkffbf » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #20

tathougies wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvoted because this is true of any job. You cannot have a five day 9-5 work week if your salary income doesn't cover your rent, food, and healthcare and you have no other income. Gig work is no more or less special than that.

Full time employment comes with benefits and protections gig work does not ( the entire point of this article ).

Protections? Tell that to all of the "full-time" workers that were laid off within days of the economic crash. If the money isn't coming into the business, it won't be going out of the business in paychecks. Period. You can wave your hands about magical "protections" but accounting is the real master.

Gig work lets the businesses and the workers adapt weekly, daily or even hourly. Full-time work is onerous to startup and so businesses wait until they're desperate before hiring anyone. You would do the same. None of us have extra cash to toss around.

Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back

#63

Post by SaxonRobber » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 10:18 PM UTC

bgorman wrote: post #47

xrendan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, a significant portion of the first problem is solved by simply having single payer healthcare like most developed countries (except the States) has.

Or we could simply remove the tax break for employer based healthcare and let the market readjust.

I think this readjustment would tend towards extracting more money from fewer people who can pay and letting the rest go without care.

Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back

#64

Post by mcguire » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #43

ogre_codes wrote: post #38

There are 2 big problems with on-demand/ gig employment. #1 Our current system of coupling healthcare and other life essential benefits with employment is broken. It makes it difficult for people to work small jobs or switch jobs. In order for gig jobs to be viable, people need to be able to get survive a broken foot without going bankrupt. #2 Gig-style businesses tend to vastly underpay employees. The early claims t…

> Our current system of coupling healthcare and other life essential benefits with employment is broken. Is it not possible to purchase your own healthcare independently of an employer? And opt-out of employer healthcare? Or are only employers allowed to insure you? If it's a matter of scale could a buyer's union buy it bulk like an employer but not linked to your employment?

I (single male, no dependents, early 50s, a "previously existing condition") am paying approx. $750/month for an ACA "Silver" plan (https://obamacarefacts.com/silver-plan/) from Blue Cross/Blue Shield (the only provider in my area).

Yes, it is possible to purchase your own healthcare independently. Prior to the ACA, however, things like preexisting conditions were not covered, which is how I know a Symbicort asthma inhaler costs about $700/ea.

Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back

#65

Post by clairity » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

ogre_codes wrote: post #38

There are 2 big problems with on-demand/ gig employment. #1 Our current system of coupling healthcare and other life essential benefits with employment is broken. It makes it difficult for people to work small jobs or switch jobs. In order for gig jobs to be viable, people need to be able to get survive a broken foot without going bankrupt. #2 Gig-style businesses tend to vastly underpay employees. The early claims t…

> "Gig-style businesses tend to vastly underpay employees."

to your point, this is a function of information asymmetries in the labor market. based on a rough calculation from a couple years ago, a gig driver needs to make about $18/hour (including downtime between rides) to break even against a minimum wage job. between that and additional tax and benefits burden, it's no wonder most people forgo deeper consideration and focus on the gross income of gig work.

it's obvious that workers need to be given direct and upfront information about this. another remedy is to make it as easy to comply with labor, tax and other regulations as a w-2 job (where the employer does nearly all the work). you could also let workers set their prices, but riders hate having prices fluctuate a lot so maybe the platform needs to take on some of that risk.

lot's of things could be changed to make it a more even playing field between worker and platform.

Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back

#66

Post by gwright » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

ogre_codes wrote: post #38

There are 2 big problems with on-demand/ gig employment. #1 Our current system of coupling healthcare and other life essential benefits with employment is broken. It makes it difficult for people to work small jobs or switch jobs. In order for gig jobs to be viable, people need to be able to get survive a broken foot without going bankrupt. #2 Gig-style businesses tend to vastly underpay employees. The early claims t…

I'm not going to tackle #1 other than to say I do agree that health insurance shouldn't be provided by your employer.

But for #2, you seem to be asserting that there is some method by which it is possible to determine that a particular salary/wage is "fair" and that "fair" wage must be mandated for all people.

You've asserted that gig businesses are underpaying and yet lots of people continue to take those jobs. Are you asserting that all those people are incapable of determining what is best for them? Are you asserting that what works for a college student on the side or a retired person or someone who needs extreme flexibility in their hours is unimportant and that the only the particular compensation package that you declare to be "fair" is valid for everyone?

Not everyone puts the same value on different job criteria. Some people want flexibility, some people want safety, some people want benefits (see #1), some people want to work outside, some people just want to keep busy, etc. Declaring that there is a "fair" wage for any particular job presumes not only that jobs are identical but that people are identical also.

Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back

#67

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #64

chrisseaton wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our current system of coupling healthcare and other life essential benefits with employment is broken. Is it not possible to purchase your own healthcare independently of an employer? And opt-out of employer healthcare? Or are only employers allowed to insure you? If it's a matter of scale could a buyer's union buy it bulk like an employer but not linked to your employment?

I (single male, no dependents, early 50s, a "previously existing condition") am paying approx. $750/month for an ACA "Silver" plan ( https://obamacarefacts.com/silver-plan/ ) from Blue Cross/Blue Shield (the only provider in my area). Yes, it is possible to purchase your own healthcare independently. Prior to the ACA, however, things like preexisting conditions were not covered, which is how I know a Symbicort asthma…

[deleted]

Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back

#68

Post by bhupy » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

beefalo wrote: post #55

chrisseaton wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our current system of coupling healthcare and other life essential benefits with employment is broken. Is it not possible to purchase your own healthcare independently of an employer? And opt-out of employer healthcare? Or are only employers allowed to insure you? If it's a matter of scale could a buyer's union buy it bulk like an employer but not linked to your employment?

It is possible but prohibitively expensive. A "good" price for health insurance for an individual still has ~$1000 monthly premiums. This isn't far off what employers pay. A good plan can easily be $15k - $20k per year in premiums paid by an employer.

The ICHRA[1], which came into effect on January 2020 is an interesting step in the direction of decoupling health insurance from employment.

There's even a YC company that offers ICHRA functionality for employers[2].

[1] https://ichra.com/

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22527102

Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back

#69

Post by kube-system » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

xhkkffbf wrote: post #62

toomuchtodo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Full time employment comes with benefits and protections gig work does not ( the entire point of this article ).

Protections? Tell that to all of the "full-time" workers that were laid off within days of the economic crash. If the money isn't coming into the business, it won't be going out of the business in paychecks. Period. You can wave your hands about magical "protections" but accounting is the real master. Gig work lets the businesses and the workers adapt weekly, daily or even hourly. Full-time work is onerous to startup…

> Protections? Tell that to all of the "full-time" workers that were laid off within days of the economic crash.

Full time employees get benefits like unemployment, health insurance, COBRA, FICA contributions etc.

And tons of other legal protections that contractors do not normally get.

Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back

#70

Post by bhupy » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 10:23 PM UTC

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #51

chrisseaton wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our current system of coupling healthcare and other life essential benefits with employment is broken. Is it not possible to purchase your own healthcare independently of an employer? And opt-out of employer healthcare? Or are only employers allowed to insure you? If it's a matter of scale could a buyer's union buy it bulk like an employer but not linked to your employment?

Buying healthcare as an individual is very expensive, since you're not buying in bulk. Some larger unions do have healthcare for members, but it's more of a bargaining chip to keep workers paying dues.

> Buying healthcare as an individual is very expensive, since you're not buying in bulk

This is a common refrain, but it's actually not true. Individual plans operate as a giant "group" with other individuals, and the size of that group is often larger than most employer groups.

There are a host of reasons why healthcare is expensive in the US, and the "bulk purchasing" is not really one of them.

Source: I work in health insurance.