41–50 of 781 posts
This is an example of regulation getting in the way of innovation again. It’s like they want the medallion taxi system again.
Regulation, in general, exists primarily as a response to exploitation. If drivers felt they were getting paid equitably, had fair dispute resolution, had access to benefits, etc., there wouldn't be a need for this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because benefits like healthcare are gated on the number of hours worked. Uber isn't going to (and can't possibly afford to) pay healthcare for someone who drives 2 hours a week.
Sounds like something universal health care could fix. It seems crazy that access to health care is connected to your employment status.
The truly crazy part is that core issues with the system weren’t addressed over the last 70 or so years. Not working should not mean that I’m only able to participate in health-seeking behaviour if I’m wealthy enough to maintain my own health care coverage.
Not to mention conflicts of interest, had a former classmate who’s an ER doctor tweet that he saw a patient who’s chronic condition was causing emergency healthcare needs because insurance was paying for treatment every 4 weeks when the doctor prescribed every 3.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Gig platforms take that power away. Pretty sure drivers have to "accept" a ride, isn't that agreeing to a rate?
Based on court cases these articles are reporting on and modifications platforms have been making to driver interfaces due to AB5, no.
It strikes me that these articles are always biased in the direction of the benefits of being an employee. I have several friends that actively choose to be contractors because they prefer the (legally protected) flexibility to decide their own hours, among other things. It's a personal decision, and there are upsides and downsides in both directions. Sure - some (non-insignificant) portion of Uber and Lyft drivers w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a reason why Lyft and Uber couldn't just reclassify everyone. That's a consequence of the reclassification, but that's a distinction those companies don't want to make because they'd prefer their drivers be confused. Even if you drove 2 hours a week, there's still 1 reason to prefer being an employee over a contractor: Minimum wage. Uber drivers might only make peanuts once you factor in gas, car payments,…
I highly doubt Uber or Lyft will allow an employee on their payroll to work for only 2 hours a week...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes? Who else would set them? Pedantically, the market sets the rates, but the contractor is the one with the power to say yes or no. Gig platforms take that power away (either through a reduction in rating or deplatfoming if you decline work requests). This is simply closing a loophole gig platforms were built on (misclassifying workers in violation of labor law).
> Gig platforms take that power away. Pretty sure drivers have to "accept" a ride, isn't that agreeing to a rate?
It strikes me that these articles are always biased in the direction of the benefits of being an employee. I have several friends that actively choose to be contractors because they prefer the (legally protected) flexibility to decide their own hours, among other things. It's a personal decision, and there are upsides and downsides in both directions. Sure - some (non-insignificant) portion of Uber and Lyft drivers w…
Some things, like not being able to set their own rates, meant drivers were never contractors, even if they wanted the perks of contracting (e.g, choose your own hours). Saying 'I wish to be a contractor' isn't legally sufficient: the agreement needs to permit setting rates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes? Who else would set them? Pedantically, the market sets the rates, but the contractor is the one with the power to say yes or no. Gig platforms take that power away (either through a reduction in rating or deplatfoming if you decline work requests). This is simply closing a loophole gig platforms were built on (misclassifying workers in violation of labor law).
> Gig platforms take that power away. Pretty sure drivers have to "accept" a ride, isn't that agreeing to a rate?
I think it's reasonable to argue that because the contractor had no input into the rate, and if they decline too many rides they might be removed from the service, that they do not have the power to set rates.
This is an example of regulation getting in the way of innovation again. It’s like they want the medallion taxi system again.
If by innovation you mean the abuse of people forced to work in the "gig" economy, then sure.
Drivers are voluntarily entering into the current work arrangement. Why does the government need to have an opinion on the matter?