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

91–100 of 155 posts

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#91

Post by logicallee »

amputect wrote: post #63
logicallee wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you missed the presence of the word "doesn't" in the sentence about Redbeacon. "Readbeacon 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."

I didn't miss it! The sentence is actually ambiguous :) I read ONLY as a change in sense!! The sentence reads "Redbeacon doesn't require a, only b, c, and d."

I actually read this as:

Redbeacon DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT the CONTRACTOR who I hire to paint a room SHOW UP in Redbeacon attire; ONLY (THAT THEY) DO WORK through Redbeacon[1], CHARGE what Redbeacon dictates[2], and FOLLOW Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.[3]

It's clear that this isn't what you meant. But not so clear that I didn't misread it. Rules against disintermediation, arbitration of disputes, terms and conditions, are all things that make contractors seem more like employees...

[1] i.e. not disintermediate by connecting directly off-site and cutting out redbeacon

[2] i.e. what is advertised on Redbeacon's site

[3] i.e. terms and conditions

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#92

Post by logicallee »

nvader wrote: post #86
logicallee wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

yes, this is what confused me. I made this clear in my second reply. Note that the first clause "only do work through Redbeacon" makes sense because it sounds like you're prohibiting disintermediation - i.e. swapping phone numbers through their site and then cutting Redbeacon out of the transaction.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#93

Post by rayiner »

murbard2 wrote: post #77
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're correct in your distinction, but you are giving the impression that this is a bad thing. If some companies like Uber and Instacart can nullify a nefarious law using loopholes, this is a Good Thing. In general, there are strong reason to believe that regulation which restrict the freedom of contract are harmful, and the result of special interests trying to secure a competitive advantage through legislative mea…

There's actually two different kinds of laws at play, of which those restricting freedom of contract is only one. The other kind has to do with when a company can be held liable for the conduct of its employees. Companies generally cannot be held liable for the conduct of their contractors, because they don't control that conduct, while they can be held liable for the conduct of their employees.

It's uncontroversial, even among most libertarians, that people should be held liable for the hazards created by their profit-making activities. If your business is shuttling people around in 3,000 pound metal death machines, you should be on the hook when one inevitably hits someone. Not just out of concerns of fairness, but because the contrary rule eliminates any incentive on the part of the business to minimize hazards incident to their profit-generating activity.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#94

Post by supercanuck »

will_brown wrote: post #22
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…

>The rules, such as they are, seem fairly straightforward. The laws are anything but straightforward. For starters there are 50 States with each one having different laws. Take Florida where I have personally represented employers and employees/Independent contractors in these types of matters. The FL case law establishes, what in my opinion is the very worst kind of law, a factors test. So essentially there are a nu…

Are there any Florida "Factors" that are directly contradictory of the IRS's 3 Common Law categories?

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#96

Post by keithpeter »

leereeves wrote: post #40

Along with the legal gymnastics regarding independent contractors, this struck me as notable: "If Solominsky had built his own handyman business, he would not be so impacted by the decisions of another company. But all he has of his supposedly independent business—his pages and pages of glowing reviews, his nearly unanimous five-star ratings—is tied up on the TaskRabbit platform." Something to keep in mind as/before…

Wish I had taken a photo: Birmingham UK, chap with a private hire car (you can't hail these, you have to pre book) with an Uber car door sticker and a car door sticker for a well known local radio car company.

He isn't tied to one platform at all, and good luck to him (nice large Merk as well).

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#98

Post by jschwartzi »

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…

Well, has he sat down and done the math on what he nets in the long run? If he feels that it's worth it in the long run, he's not being exploited, but if he sits down and does the math and he determines that driving for Uber costs him money, then yes he's being exploited.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#99

Post by murbard2 »

rayiner wrote: post #93
murbard2 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct in your distinction, but you are giving the impression that this is a bad thing. If some companies like Uber and Instacart can nullify a nefarious law using loopholes, this is a Good Thing. In general, there are strong reason to believe that regulation which restrict the freedom of contract are harmful, and the result of special interests trying to secure a competitive advantage through legislative mea…

There's actually two different kinds of laws at play, of which those restricting freedom of contract is only one. The other kind has to do with when a company can be held liable for the conduct of its employees. Companies generally cannot be held liable for the conduct of their contractors, because they don't control that conduct, while they can be held liable for the conduct of their employees. It's uncontroversial,…

Actually no, as Ronald Coase showed, it doesn't matter who the liability falls on initially

- If it falls on the driver, the driver will demand higher wages / fares to compensate for the cost of insuring himself.

- If it falls on the company, the company will demand higher fares to compensate for the cost of insurance

- If it falls on the passenger, the passenger could demand lower fares. However, the company would soon realize that by accepting to take on the liability, they could command a much higher fare. Not only would it relieve the customer of the burden of the liability, but by better aligning incentives, it would also send a credible signal that the cars are safe and the drivers are cautious.

What if the liability is on the drivers and they are uninsured and likely insolvent in case of an accident? This is the same scenario as shifting part of the liability on the customer, it likely wouldn't be very appealing.

You can make an argument that consumers are irrational and are unlikely to really look into whether or not the cars / drivers are insured, but that's a different argument than externalization, and it is by no means obvious. A single accident where the victim isn't properly compensated could be disastrous for a company.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#100

Post by walshemj »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #3

The title should be: "Startups with business models based on sidestepping worker protections and labor regulations are being sued to death". As they should be.

And of course the allegedly "untended" effect like it is in the UK is it hits well paid real contractors in the professions - not of course lawyers no no my hon friends and my Nobel Lords look after their brothers and sisters in the legal profession.
Post reply on HN