a lot of the responses on this post feel like AstroTurf. Color me skeptical
Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
361–370 of 401 posts
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, in your example it is often quite possible to negotiate or haggle on price when you are dealing with an independent agent. Employees who don’t have that agency in the business are unable to budge on price. I can’t completely tell whether you are agreeing with me or not, but I think that example reinforces that Uber drivers are exploited employees with the benefit of a flexible schedule.
I 100% am not agreeing with your position. I was coming at it from the point of view of the customer. Negotiating a sale price is not exclusive to independent agents. Some stores and indeed some chains will allow their employees(supervisor/manager) to accept a lower price. That is not exclusive to or indicative of an independent contractor. Someone who drives for Uber has the agency to turn down work that Uber puts i…
No doubt, Uber has responded to regulatory pressure by making minor concessions in a (now successful) attempt to circumvent State law.
> Related, if a software contracting firm says: 'hey, there's a gig that pays $x an hour, no negotiations - do you want it?'
That's not what is happening here. The driver and the rider are not forming a carriage contract. Uber is forming a contract with the rider, and employing drivers to fulfill those contracts. Even with the concessions Uber has offered, they are still using their platform power to control activity via incentives, and whatever games they play with the algorithm once the heat is off. At the end of the day, as long as the labor pool remains unorganized, Uber still retains pricing power.
None of these drivers own the customer relationship (again, they are not forming a contract with the riders). That means that (without violating the TOS) these drivers are not holding any equity in the business. In your proposed scenario, if you accept the software contract and do good work, there is a likelihood of more work at higher rates, and increased business through word of mouth. With no opportunity to build wealth, I can't imagine how rideshare drivers would be considered independent.
It's fine to look at the problem from a customer-centric viewpoint, and I realize that doing so has been a fairly orthodox economic strategy for the past 50 years, but that doesn't make it correct or good. None of the ride share companies seem to be able to turn a profit, even with a questionable model built on exploiting labor laws, yet they had $200M to pass Prop22. That kind of strategy only makes sense if your goal is to gain a monopoly position, and it is right to oppose these companies in doing so. Devaluing labor maybe optimal for some individuals, but it's bad for labor as a whole, which is exactly why we pass law that raise the floor.
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, that point that you're ignoring in pointing that out is that if they don't depend on these jobs then they're entirely unemployed. Those jobs don't disappear just because you mandate a living wage.
No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted. It's even more of a pity because we should be investing capital in meaningful things, like biotech or space exploration or environmental progress or what-have-you, instead of on stupid things like robots and restaurant apps.
> No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted.
Ok, now we're getting to the root of the problem. This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics. What you're missing here is this:
- Jobs are a function of demand.
- Demand is driven by consumers.
- Consumers need capital to drive demand
- The poor spend proportionately to their income much more than the wealthy.
That's the circle you need to be thinking about when you're asking yourself what the impact will be on jobs. The more you drive down living standards of the poor and middle class, the fewer jobs you will have, not the other way around.
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you even read the wording of the prop? What you are describing is completely wrong. It's incredible how short sighted people get when they want to go all out and lash at the "evil" gig economy companies. Like really, the wording is publicly available for you to read. Engaged time is time from accepting the gig, to the time the gig ends. Waiting is included. That's it.
However, what isn't covered (and this is especially pertinent for ride sharing) is the time between ending a job and taking the next job. While I wouldn't expect anything like full-time pay, Uber/Lyft et. al. still get a benefit of having drivers on call (lower wait times for their customers). I personally would have liked to see some compensation (within reason) for time spent on call but not on a ride. Not sure how…
They essentially do this at times with their bonuses, for example to setup a new geo area or to ensure rides in a certain area.
However if you incentive being on call no matter what, you get drivers driving to the mountains to get their guaranteed pay.
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only are the authors of that survey biased, but they are outright admitting to manipulating the data to suit their ends. From the slides: Key goal: Representative sample of on-demand _work_ being done in the city, not of all on-demand _workers_. (emphasis not mine) The team making the study has selected parameters to examine basically exactly to produce a number where the majority of rideshare is full-time. So is…
Just because you don’t like the findings, doesn’t mean that it’s biased. As far as the distinction between work and workers, it’s who is doing the work. If most people with an driver app are idle, they’ve removed themselves from the candidate pool. They’re irrelevant. It’s no different than talking about active users versus total accounts made. In other words, if you want to know how policies affect people, you look…
Beyond what was mentioned above, some further criticism of the survey acknowledged by the lead researcher himself [1]:
1) low sample size (219 responses)
2) usage of $10 gift cards as incentives. as an online survey, this opened up opportunities for gaming
3) targeting appears to have been geared towards members of Gig Workers Rising, a union-backed group
I think Uber's study of all of its drivers [2] in California provides a more measured picture:
74% of drivers work So, no, the majority of rideshare drivers aren't full-time, but rideshare companies do rely heavily on drivers who are online >25hours/week.
[1] https://workercenters.com/special-report-ca-labor-groups-fla...
[2] https://medium.com/uber-under-the-hood/which-drivers-do-the-...
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#366Abuse/Exploitation will lead to disintegration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_move...
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a furniture company gives you a contract to build them some chairs, do they give you the contact info for each person who buys a chair from them? Why would that make the chair manufacturer an employee of the retailer? Moreover, how is this not available to the driver? They're in the car with the passenger already. The driver and passenger could exchange contact info if they wanted to, how is Uber going to stop the…
>If a furniture company gives you a contract to build them some chairs, do they give you the contact info for each person who buys a chair from them No, you put your brand on the chairs and if the customer likes them they can buy from you again. And I imagine Uber does forbid selling other services during rides. If not, I feel like Uber rides would be full of people pushing multi-level marketing.
You might be able to put your brand on it, but there is nothing forbidding a company from contracting with another company to make a product and put their own house brand on it.
Happens all the time, see the equate brand at Walmart or the Kroger brand at Kroger
Sure those are larger scale but there is nothing stopping Acme Furniture from contacting with Joe Woodworker to make them some chairs branded Acme Furniture where the customer has no idea who Joe Woodworker is nor is Joe Woodworker an employee of Acme Furniture
This is not uncommon in the Services industry as well, hell Software development is full of Subcontracting where Company A will contract development to Company B who will hire Freelancer C to do the work, Company A may never know who Freelance C is, and to the extend they do they may not know the contractual relationship between Company B and freelance C (i.e are they an employee or a contractor)
This happens in alot of industries and has since the dawn of employment, Uber just has a different scale
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted. It's even more of a pity because we should be investing capital in meaningful things, like biotech or space exploration or environmental progress or what-have-you, instead of on stupid things like robots and restaurant apps.
> No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted. Ok, now we're getting to the root of the problem. This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics. What you're missing here is this: - Jobs are a function of demand. - Demand is driven by consumers. - Consumers…
> This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics
Your superior "understanding" of economics is at odds with academic consensus and with reality.
> Consumers need capital to drive demand
Replacing five McDonalds cashiers with two cashiers, an app, and a touchscreen ordering kiosk doesn't "drive demand".
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a disabled person who has also benefitted immensely from Uber, I hear this a lot, and it is really frustrating. No one will help me, especially progressive leaning people. You don't get political or social brownie points for helping disabled people the way you would for other minority groups who are struggling. We are constantly ignored and forgotten. I was in a situation where I needed money for healthcare that w…
Why "especially progressives"? Surely people who advocate for your healthcare to be free, and for universal worker protections are doing more to help you than others? Gig work is a poor replacement for a proper "safety net". Imagine how fucked you would be if you were not able to do that gig work. Universal healthcare would have you covered.
You don't believe I'm sick so you won't provide me healthcare. Progressives even managed to convince my own family I was crazy.
What you did to me is evil.
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
For people with 'untreatable' or 'psychogenic' chronic illnesses, universal healthcare would just mean a different institution denies your claim for treatment. Progressives, especially in 2020, don't look kindly on people who lack faith in medical institutions. A lot of people with chronic illness have found themselves in this category after being failed by these institutions.
The 'anti-progressive' viewpoint is about people using their varied abilities in the free market to make it themselves. It assumes that everyone is at least a little abled in something and that something is enough to pay the bills. It's pure ideology. The reality is that if you are injured and suddenly can't do you're job then you likely have 0 bread-winning ability until you learn a new skill or set yourself up in a…
Yea, starting your own business is the only option for a lot of disabled people.