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

The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 155 posts

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#81

Post by aceperry »

bkmartin wrote: post #71
aceperry wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely! Glad to see that most commenters here see that this gig economy is really bsed on exploitation.

Is it really based on exploitation? Take for instance one of my best friends who lives in the D.C. area. He was just raving to me about how he made of $300 in one night driving for Uber. Now, of course he has to pay for his own gas and wear and tear on his car, but he did not feel exploited. Not saying that every "gig economy" company pays well, but I don't think you can say it is all based on exploitation. I think t…

"Squeezing the people doing the work was probably not the idea from the outset"

Looking at some of the companies that are popping up, it's looking more like the case where the "contractors" are getting squeezed more and more. So yeah, in answer to your question, a lot of the gig economy is looking like exploitation.

On another note, Uber started off as a fantastic opportunity for "gig work." But a lot of Uber's latest changes are definitely exploitation.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#82

Post by jtbigwoo »

habosa wrote: post #53

I totally agree with the comments saying that Uber and others are trying to get employee-level control over people with contractor-level benefits. The guys who drive Uber for 20,30, even 50 hours a week are definitely employees and should be treated as such. However I'd like to throw in my own personal anecdote. I am a full time software engineer but I am signed up as a Postmates bike deliveryperson on the side. I do…

I delivered papers once a week as a kid. I got paid 3 cents per copy by the company. I worked approximately 2 hours per week. I was officially an employee. It didn't break the company to classify me as an employee. It wouldn't break Postmates to have you classified as an employee either.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#83

Post by mc32 »

techsupporter wrote: post #4

The rules, such as they are, seem fairly straightforward. If, in the case of outfits like Handy and Uber and Instacart, the "employer" is laying down rules, requiring certain performance, setting the price, and enforcing metrics, they are an employer and the person doing the work is an employee who should be treated as such. If, in the case of outfits like Redbeacon, the site is collecting leads and distributing them…

One of the things I find ironic is how many people in tech, as we as those who leach off tech like the tech press, both hailed this new "sharing" economy as it was framed. Disrupting the old antiquated regulations was good, reducing friction was good, democratization of resources was good. Now suddenly its a surprise that the value of these companies was misplaced. That they arguably bring harm. That in the end they don't care so much about the the resource they are facilitating --all they cared about was making the customer happy. And the customer selfishly will not think that this might have an impact with the potential to bite them back.

Basically let me get mine while the getting is good.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#84

Post by Animats »

Here's the IRS's basic test for "employee"[1]:

* Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?

* Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)

* Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

Uber drivers are employees under all three tests. Uber tells them where to go and when to go. Uber controls the pricing and payments. Uber has an ongoing relationship with their drivers and it's a key aspect of the business.

Mechanical Turk could argue independent contractor. Anyone can take a Mechanical Turk task when they want, and Amazon doesn't control how they do it. Amazon doesn't set the prices; it's more of a bid system. Whether the relationship is ongoing is a question.

If the US had enforcement of labor law that was anywhere near as strong as traffic or drug laws, Uber would be out of business by now.

[1] http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ...

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#85

Post by vinceguidry »

bkmartin wrote: post #79
vinceguidry wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now, of course he has to pay for his own gas and wear and tear on his car, but he did not feel exploited. Contract law is funny. In a perfect world, anybody should be able to make a contract with anybody else to perform a legal act for them. But the world isn't perfect. You have to take into account that the contract you just made might well be replicated hundreds, thousands, or millions of times, in countless diff…

But does that really apply in the case of Uber? Honest question. You are agreeing to perform a task, in this case, driving an individual from point A to point B for a set $ amount. You can see that dollar amount and decide to take it or not, correct? So, if you get injured in a car accident you are covered by your or the other driver's insurance. If this is a side job, not your full time work then you could have heal…

> So, if you get injured in a car accident you are covered by your or the other driver's insurance.

Not necessarily. Most car insurance companies won't cover you if you're using your vehicle commercially unless you get a commercial policy. You could be put into the position of having nobody to foot the bill in the case of an accident. The market will eventually adjust to these new kinds of insurance customers, but if the insurance companies start catering to Uber drivers, that could cause problems for them seeing as how ride-sharing is illegal in many if not most places.

So the insurance companies could be exposed to legal risk for facilitating illegal businesses, just as banks would be exposing themselves to criminal liabilities if they start catering to the marijuana industry. So they have to be careful. All increasing the risk of you getting into an accident and having no one but yourself to pay the hospital bills and getting sued by the other party or your customer for failing to carry proper insurance. The ride-sharing companies offer to shoulder the risk themselves by carrying policies, but it's unclear as to whether this is really enough.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#86

Post by nvader »

logicallee wrote: post #59
techsupporter wrote: post #4

The rules, such as they are, seem fairly straightforward. If, in the case of outfits like Handy and Uber and Instacart, the "employer" is laying down rules, requiring certain performance, setting the price, and enforcing metrics, they are an employer and the person doing the work is an employee who should be treated as such. If, in the case of outfits like Redbeacon, the site is collecting leads and distributing them…

you say it seems straightforward, but your first standard for the case of a de facto employer matches what you explicitly list under a true contractor: First you state: >If, in the case of outfits like Handy and Uber and Instacart, the "employer" is laying down rules , requiring certain performance, setting the price, and enforcing metrics, they are an employer and the person doing the work is an employee who should…

Another way of parsing the sentence in question.

Redbeacon requires none of the following things of its contractors: 1) that they show up in Redbeacon attire. 2) work solely through Redbeacon. 3) charge what Redbeacon dictates. 4) follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.

>If, in the case of outfits like Redbeacon, the site is collecting leads and distributing them while letting the two parties work out the arrangement for themselves, the site is a referrer and the contractor is a contractor. Redbeacon doesn't require that the contractor who I hire to paint a room show up in Redbeacon attire, ONLY do work through Redbeacon, charge what Redbeacon dictates, and follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.

What probably confused your reading is that the word "only", coming at the end of clause, seems like it changed the sense of the rest of the sentence, whereas I believe the author meant it to apply to the phrase "do work in Redbeacon clothing".

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#87

Post by cplease »

vinceguidry wrote: post #75
bkmartin wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really based on exploitation? Take for instance one of my best friends who lives in the D.C. area. He was just raving to me about how he made of $300 in one night driving for Uber. Now, of course he has to pay for his own gas and wear and tear on his car, but he did not feel exploited. Not saying that every "gig economy" company pays well, but I don't think you can say it is all based on exploitation. I think t…

> Now, of course he has to pay for his own gas and wear and tear on his car, but he did not feel exploited. Contract law is funny. In a perfect world, anybody should be able to make a contract with anybody else to perform a legal act for them. But the world isn't perfect. You have to take into account that the contract you just made might well be replicated hundreds, thousands, or millions of times, in countless diff…

> Sex is legal. Forming a contract involving sex is not.

Well, unless it's a marriage contract, but that's another beast altogether.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#88

Post by testrun »

tptacek wrote: post #49
will_brown wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even upon rereading OP it is not clear it was referring to Federal Law, there is even mention of both State and Federal Departments of labor, so I think use of the word rule was an all encompassing term for classification law. Still it only adds to the problems with this area of the law, after all it is not only possible, but common, for an individual to be classified as an employee/independent contractor on the fede…

This is likely due to the IRS being prohibited from issuing rules and regulations, and as a result in the words of the IRS, "Previously issued guidance may not reflect current case law, statutory changes, or changes in workplace situations." However, you are correct that this factor, under FL case law, though weighted more heavily is not determinative by any means. I've read this 3 times and I don't really understand…

I think the confusion here is who is doing the classifying for what purpose. In the case of the IRS, they have rules to classify a person as an employee for tax purposes, and the state will have rules to classify an employee for benefits and awards purposes. They can, and sometimes will, be totally different in different states.

In this case, it is all about benefits and awards. That is why they are talking about California law.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#89

Post by vinceguidry »

cplease wrote: post #87
vinceguidry wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now, of course he has to pay for his own gas and wear and tear on his car, but he did not feel exploited. Contract law is funny. In a perfect world, anybody should be able to make a contract with anybody else to perform a legal act for them. But the world isn't perfect. You have to take into account that the contract you just made might well be replicated hundreds, thousands, or millions of times, in countless diff…

> Sex is legal. Forming a contract involving sex is not. Well, unless it's a marriage contract, but that's another beast altogether.

I actually looked that up while I was writing my reply. Civil marriage law in England and Wales still has a consummation requirement, but AFAIK nowhere in the US was it ever required.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#90

Post by will_brown »

gwy wrote: post #78
will_brown wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The IRS contractor rules are the most important employee classification rules with any bearing on this discussion, and they are both clear and very well-understood by employers. You can not say IRS rules are more important than State case law for purposes of classification or this discussion. Such a statement shows the law is anything but clear. Federal/State classifications are an independent determination and requ…

Just to add some actual cases, there was the $6.5 million settlement by Lowe’s Home Centers as well as a FedEx Ground case, where the idea of "1099ing an LLC" did not protect them. "Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Kansas Supreme Court both held that FedEx Ground had misclassified employees as independent contractors who were operating as business entities or subcontracted additional…

And the article goes on to add:

"Some state laws expressly carve out from their definitions of “employee” status a business entity where the hiring party does not exercise direction or control over the performance of the services and meets other requirements. Thus, companies that wish to minimize independent contractor misclassification liability wisely do not rely solely on the fact that the independent contractor is a business entity."

This is consistent with what I have detailed throughout the thread, i.e. it is a factor in some States with an emphasis in Florida where it is included in the statutory definition of Independent Contractor. I can not imagine any lawyer who would advise their Client to enter an Independent Contractor Agreement with an individual, even if it is not determinative of the classification, it is good business practice and there is nothing to be gained by entering the contract with an individual over a company.

Post reply on HN