Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you comparing luxury travel to basic human rights?
there are no basic human rights. there's only what we can agree upon or fight for.
[deleted]
Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back
131–140 of 162 posts
Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back
#132I like to use comparison with labor standards in other economies. https://www.wsj.com/articles/france-uber-ruling-puts-gig-wor... is similar to this, since it involves employment status. There are various restrictions imposed on ride-sharing companies across the globe. Not necessarily labor, but related to medallions / licensure to drive taxis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_ridesharing_compan...
> Not necessarily labor You can say that again. The result of the medallion systems was that often taxi drivers had to pay to work , by renting a medallion from wealthy owners. Even in countries where the owner of the medallion couldn't rent it, they were sold at very high prices when the owner retired, making it into a middle-class privilege.
I appreciate your concerns and I think you're doing the right thing!
May I ask which countries you're referring to?
In USA, I know immigrants who are awarded medallions via lottery and who take a loan and pay off their medallion - like an investment. It potentially helps them break into the middle class.
The medallion ended up becoming an entity that was stable that the freelance economy would peg to something. Not saying it was perfect, but it prevented the system from being flooded with drivers.
NYC medallions used to be $1m in 2013. They're less the $200k these days. There's consequences to people who were just starting out, who saved for medallions, who now have their investment paid for over decades lost.
Working and earning something isn't privilege to me, that's gumption. Whenever I see that word online very rarely does it take into account hard work. 20 or 30 years driving 70+ hours a week? And they're an immigrant just trying to live the American dream?
Let them have happiness in life. And we should be celebrating their work and effort. They are absolute heroes for sticking to something so persistently.
Let's talk about fairness for new drivers. Doesn't necessarily have to be at the expense of others!
Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always thought the largest camp was neither of those, but: "independent contractors are a real thing, but Uber drivers are not that" Uber's rules do not stack up too well against these guidelines unless you have some creative interpretation: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
Sure, I think the “Uber drivers should be W2’s” an extension of “1099’s should receive the same benefits as W2’s” camp. If you don’t agree with that framing, then I would argue that the 2 camps are: “Uber drivers are not independent contractors and should receive W2’s” Vs “Even if Uber drivers Are not independent contractors, they should be treated like employees AND employees should be functionally indistinguishable…
I think there is a very good purpose for 1099s exactly as they exist today, particularly those who work many small jobs for lots of different companies. Someone like a freelance journalist might work 8 hours per month for 20 different publications. In this instance, it makes total sense to treat the transaction like a contractual B2B relationship between a sole proprietor and a larger business. It doesn't make any sense for that person to get 20 sets of benefits packages, or figure out how to split their benefits 20 ways.
All of the reasons we made the concept of 1099s in the first place are still valid. We just have a few high profile companies who are abusing their purpose.
Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Travel time between gigs No gig in the world covers that. > Expenses On average, after vehicle expenses, Uber drivers make as low as $15/hour[1], and as high as $20/hour. And this is also assuming that one concedes the argument that gigs ought to reimburse expenses, which isn't true for most contract work. https://www.ridester.com/how-much-do-uber-drivers-make
There is plenty of contracting work that both pays for travel and reimburses expenses, including all white-collar contracting and most blue-collar pay-for-hire. You're right that very little "gig" work does but that's the entire point; they push all these anicillary expenses onto someone else, either the individual or public/state systems.
I consulted for over a decade, and my clients always reimbursed for travel and lodging. And they picked up the bill, when we went out for dinner.
Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, I think the “Uber drivers should be W2’s” an extension of “1099’s should receive the same benefits as W2’s” camp. If you don’t agree with that framing, then I would argue that the 2 camps are: “Uber drivers are not independent contractors and should receive W2’s” Vs “Even if Uber drivers Are not independent contractors, they should be treated like employees AND employees should be functionally indistinguishable…
I think there is a very good purpose for 1099s exactly as they exist today, particularly those who work many small jobs for lots of different companies. Someone like a freelance journalist might work 8 hours per month for 20 different publications. In this instance, it makes total sense to treat the transaction like a contractual B2B relationship between a sole proprietor and a larger business. It doesn't make any se…
We agree. I just think that everyone should receive the same benefits (1099, W2, in between) from their employers: none — and employers should strictly be in the business of paying workers their market worth, and society should ensure that everyone enjoys a minimum standard of living via a safety net.
Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is plenty of contracting work that both pays for travel and reimburses expenses, including all white-collar contracting and most blue-collar pay-for-hire. You're right that very little "gig" work does but that's the entire point; they push all these anicillary expenses onto someone else, either the individual or public/state systems.
I consulted for over a decade, and my clients always reimbursed for travel and lodging. And they picked up the bill, when we went out for dinner.
I’m sure that’s true, but they are not obligated to. That is what we are talking about here.
Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back
#137Earlier 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?
Many unions used to administer and provide healthcare to members, before the Great Depression and WWII; but union-sourced healthcare is now heavily disadvantaged from a tax perspective. I say 'healthcare' because there were many non-insurance arrangements. In some ways, having a union provide healthcare makes more sense than having the employer do it. In industries with many small firms, and fewer large unions (like…
Huh. Back around 2000, I had ~affordable health insurance through SBWA, while consulting. As I recall, it cost ~$400 per month.
Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not necessarily labor You can say that again. The result of the medallion systems was that often taxi drivers had to pay to work , by renting a medallion from wealthy owners. Even in countries where the owner of the medallion couldn't rent it, they were sold at very high prices when the owner retired, making it into a middle-class privilege.
I appreciate your concerns and I think you're doing the right thing! May I ask which countries you're referring to? In USA, I know immigrants who are awarded medallions via lottery and who take a loan and pay off their medallion - like an investment. It potentially helps them break into the middle class. The medallion ended up becoming an entity that was stable that the freelance economy would peg to something . Not…
> NYC medallions used to be $1m in 2013.
Exactly. Which is why most of them are owned by companies (almost 1/3 by a single one: Marblegate Asset Management), not by plucky immigrants pulling themselves by their bootstraps. Those are the ones renting the medallions and not saving anything close to $1M even in 20 years. The average income of a NYC taxi driver in '93 (so long before Uber and such changed the market) was $19k/year!
Sure, in some markets the city occasionally issued some medallions for lower prices, but how is a lottery earning something through gumption? It's literally blind luck!
> 20 or 30 years driving 70+ hours a week? And they're an immigrant just trying to live the American dream?
How can we be criticizing Uber for exploiting their workers, while promoting working 70+ hours a week? How is that not exploitative?
Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consulted for over a decade, and my clients always reimbursed for travel and lodging. And they picked up the bill, when we went out for dinner.
I’m sure that’s true, but they are not obligated to . That is what we are talking about here.
Sure, it's anecdotal. But what's so special about me, who was just another old hippie? Also, from what colleagues said and seemed to imply, it was the norm.
Re: Uber wants to redefine employment, labor groups are fighting back
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>Are you asserting that all those people are incapable of determining what is best for them? If you give somebody a choice between working a little bit and not having a job at all, most people will take the little bit of work they're offered. The "people continue to take these jobs" argument is only valid if there's an abundance of other jobs available, which there is not. Whether or not a job is underpaid is not det…
> If you give somebody a choice between working a little bit and not having a job at all, most people will take the little bit of work they're offered. The "people continue to take these jobs" argument is only valid if there's an abundance of other jobs available, which there is not.
Prior to the coronavirus, unemployment in the US was at historic lows. That is likely to return rather swiftly once there is no longer a pandemic suppressing economic activity, especially given the amount of stimulus being applied.
So there apparently are other jobs available in general, since most everybody has one (and only a very small percentage of those are working for Uber).
> Whether or not a job is underpaid is not determined by whether or not somebody is willing to do it for that amount of money. If people aren't being paid a living wage, they're being underpaid, and their wages will have to be subsidized by social assistance programs if their basic needs are going to be met.
They also have to be subsidized if they're unemployed, right?
That appears to be the major flaw in your argument. If there are other jobs available then they have other options and are choosing this for a reason (e.g. flexibility), but if there aren't then the alternative, if this work disappears because it can't justify higher compensation, is unemployment. Which is both worse for the worker and requires even more subsidy from the taxpayer. So either way it's better that more flexible but lower paying work be available.