Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 162 posts

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

#81

Post by tathougies »

fzeroracer wrote: post #33
tathougies wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If healthcare is decoupled from employment, as the comment chain suggests, what benefit is tied in with full-time employment. We should be seeking to decouple benefits from employment not solidifying the arrangement. What protections does employment have? Hopefully very little.

First you solve decoupling healthcare from employment, then you can loosen things around the gig economy. Going the other way around is massively unethical considering the state of healthcare in this country and the dependence on employment for health benefits.

A gig economy doesn't need anything loosened. It's a natural part of a free society in which parties can engage in contracts.

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

#82

Post by ogre_codes »

bvandewalle wrote: post #59
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…

> #2 Gig-style businesses tend to vastly underpay employees. Yes and as said below, that's by design. Uber/Lyft for example would not survived if they priced their service to allow a fair pay for the gig worker after accounting for vehicle costs. This whole system is built on underpaying workers and making people believe that a ride could "really" be that cheap. It isn't. There is a reason why taxi rides were expensi…

> Yes and as said below, that's by design.

I realize this, which is why I suggest strongly that Uber not be allowed at the table if/ when any legislation around this matter.

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

#83

Post by aliceryhl »

DamnYuppie wrote: post #58
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.

You do realize that in fact most developed countries actually have a healthcare system much like the US. Also most of the countries with a single payer health system have 3rd party health insurance that can be purchased. A true one payor only plan is the exception not the rule.

I'm from Denmark, and the fact that certain parts of our healthcare system are not part of the single-payer system, and the fact that you can buy insurance for these things, really really does not make it a healthcare system much like the US'.

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

#84

Post by smallgovt »

aphextron wrote: post #42
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…

>If those things are fixed, then suddenly gig work is amazing, but that's a pretty big ask. There is no fixing these things. They are a feature, not a bug. The entire viability of these businesses exists within the margin created by stripping away any vestige of traditional employment stability, allowing desperate people to exchange their long term wellbeing for short term cash.

> The entire viability of these businesses exists within the margin created by stripping away any vestige of traditional employment stability

That's a stretch. Even if Uber/Lyft were forced to employ their drivers, they would most likely just raise prices and cut marketing costs. Sure, they'd be much smaller businesses, but they'd very likely still live on.

Uber pays their drivers ~$7b a year. Employing them would cost an extra ~$2.1B/yr. Self driving cars are probably coming in 10 years, so even if they didn't increase prices or make any other changes in their operating model, they'd need to raise $21B to hold them over. That's not a small amount of money, but Uber's market cap is $54B.

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

#85

Post by reaperducer »

bhupy wrote: post #75
ogre_codes wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. We have a nationally agreed minimum wage. Expecting that the average person doing a gig job would be able to earn that minimum wage plus expenses is not unreasonable. Since gig type employers, this base wage would need to be…

The national agreed minimum wage is $7.25/hour. Every Uber/Lyft driver earns well in excess of that.

Every Uber/Lyft driver earns well in excess of that.

No. For most, it's not even close. The only way to make that kind of money was to collect kickbacks from bringing tourists to strip clubs.

Plus, many states have a minimum wage much higher than $7.25/hour.

Source: Drove for Uber for eight months.

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

#86

Post by bhupy »

xrendan wrote: post #45
aphextron wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If those things are fixed, then suddenly gig work is amazing, but that's a pretty big ask. There is no fixing these things. They are a feature, not a bug. The entire viability of these businesses exists within the margin created by stripping away any vestige of traditional employment stability, allowing desperate people to exchange their long term wellbeing for short term cash.

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

Universal healthcare doesn't necessarily have to be single-payer, lots of countries have multi-payer healthcare systems, like Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Singapore.

In the Netherlands and Switzerland, all health insurance is provided by regulated private payers.

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

#87

Post by CydeWeys »

bhupy wrote: post #75
ogre_codes wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. We have a nationally agreed minimum wage. Expecting that the average person doing a gig job would be able to earn that minimum wage plus expenses is not unreasonable. Since gig type employers, this base wage would need to be…

The national agreed minimum wage is $7.25/hour. Every Uber/Lyft driver earns well in excess of that.

Source? I've heard the opposite from some drivers.

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

#88

Post by bhupy »

stevenwoo wrote: post #77
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…

on #2, someone told me how much they made and I could not understand why anyone would do it - the additional wear and tear on your vehicle and depreciation did not seem to leave a net profit after the first month incentives/bonuses that all the gig employment places were using at that time (you have to be building enough of a profit margin to buy another vehicle at some point - just keeping your head above water seem…

It usually only makes sense if your car is a sunk cost — I.e. you own it for personal use, you would have owned the car anyway (Uber or not), and you decide to monetize it on the side.

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

#89

Post by bhupy »

CydeWeys wrote: post #87
bhupy wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The national agreed minimum wage is $7.25/hour. Every Uber/Lyft driver earns well in excess of that.

Source? I've heard the opposite from some drivers.

Source: https://www.ridester.com/how-much-do-uber-drivers-make/

> Full-time UberX drivers can expect to earn nearly $590 per week after tips when working 40 hours in a week. Beyond the aforementioned factors — location, surge, and tips — weekly earnings can also be heavily impacted by the amount of trip requests you receive throughout a seven-day period.

> Uber drivers are known to make slightly less than Lyft drivers. We’ve found that a standard Lyft driver makes about $17.50 per hour, which is nearly $3 more than what Uber drivers make. Of course, your average Lyft wage (just like your average Uber wage) will vary based on location, how much you take advantage of promotions on Lyft, and how much you earn in tips.

> It’s a general rule of thumb for the rideshare industry to budget roughly 20 percent of the total ride fare amount for ride-related expenses. At that rate – hypothetically speaking, after factoring in pick-up, drop-off, and dead time – the UberX driver could estimate to make somewhere in the neighborhood of $15–$20 an hour if they were to get two similar rides each hour they drove.

[1] https://www.ridester.com/how-much-do-uber-drivers-make/

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

#90

Post by CydeWeys »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #31

There is room for something between the traditional 1099 and W2 categories.

Maybe, but does the creation of such a category actually benefit workers if it means that there end up being fewer full-time workers and large numbers of people end up losing their benefits? If this is the case, and it's likely to be, then it's rational that anyone who is an employee would fight such a change. That's why I oppose it.
Post reply on HN