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

111–120 of 155 posts

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#111

Post by ryanobjc »

mr_luc wrote: post #35
shawnee_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. What all of these supposed "gig" economy jobs have in common is the parent company's tendency to shift all the risk to non-employees / ICs while reaping most of the economic value of the reward -- taking a heftier cut than it should from the business transaction. The value derived from being an IC that's truly independent is being able to charge more for the "temporary" nature of the work and the risk of end-c…

Right, that's all context around this situation. Obviously companies want whatever they can get. But it's actually less grim than it seems: 1. there are laws, 2. the price pressures exist for the coordinating companies as well, as long as there continues to be competition, and 3. 'real' autonomy has a lot of benefits for people who are into that. So first, there are already laws for this. (Which may or may not be suf…

I do think things are as the grandparent noted. These companies are shifting risk around and attempting to reap reward.

I have a feeling that your 'there are laws' is more a general rallying cry rather than the particular nuances around these laws.

So, ie: for work like programming, usually one CAN BE mandated to work in a specific office, on specific hours. It happens all the time. The consequence is usually the exercise of the 'at will employee' and being terminated. Subordination is a valid reason for termination and it does happen.

As for misclassification of workers, the issue isnt there are holes in the law, the issue is likely that these companies are actually just violating the law.

Finally, the competition Uber vs Lyft thing hasn't actually worked to reduce the Uber cut in a percentage-basis. Competition isnt a magical bullet. It often ratchets up the abuse and pushes marginal contractors to the edge. This is the very nature of competition, working harder for less.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#112

Post by pyrocat »

johnrob wrote: post #62
rlucas wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the very, very few proven formulas for rapidly generating concentrated wealth is: centralize (privatize) the profits, distribute (socialize) the risks and costs. Once you start looking for this meta-pattern, you'll see it a lot. A chemical company concentrates the profits from synthesizing a useful compound, but diffuses the risks and costs of pollution and disease into the commons. A social network distribute…

In the context of this article, a big portion of the risks and costs are supported by national health care (Obamacare). If these gig workers had to acquire health care via the old means (i.e. benefits from a corporation, or hoping an insurance co will accept you), they would not have the luxury to work as contractors.

I disagree. Gig workers still need to pay for their own health care, before and after Obamacare.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#113

Post by tzs »

frostmatthew wrote: post #107
bkmartin wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the downvote signifies that someone REALLY disagrees with me? Care to elaborate the downvote? I must say that if you aren't willing to enter into a dialog on an honestly written and non flaming post I'm disappointed in your integrity and maturity, whoever you are. @frostmathew - isn't downvoting supposed to be used to drop conversations that are trolling in nature? Not simply because you disagree with someone? Is…

> isn't downvoting supposed to be used to drop conversations that are trolling in nature I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness. - Paul Graham[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

1. That quote is a tad over 7 years old. Does PG still feel that way?

2. Smart people occasionally say dumb things. This may be a case in point.

The way HN makes articles very hard to read when they have only a handful of net negative down votes, whereas a handful of net up votes just moves the article up on the page, indicates that they are not functionally the opposite of each other. A down vote de facto means that you believe that people should not see the comment.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#114

Post by GauntletWizard »

CPLX wrote: post #43
tptacek wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rules the parent commenter is referring to are federal, and extraordinarily well-known, because several generations of businesses have tried to come up with ways to skirt them to avoid taxes. As far as I understand the rules, the "most heavily weighted factor" you cite is in fact not an IRS employee classification factor at all. A contractor can still be classified as an employee even though they bill through an…

You are correct. Most of the obfuscation comes from the fact that people don't like to follow the rules. It's actually not that hard to sum up the difference between a contractor and an employee. If the suspected employer regulates the time, place, and manner of the work being performed, chances are they're not contractors. Yes, there's more nuance than that. But most of the supposed controversy usually involves peop…

Huh; This is the best argument I've heard for Uber drivers being Contractors rather than Employees. In fact, it's a pretty good argument for all of 'gig culture' being contractors, since you can accept and reject jobs. I'd previously been strongly on the other side.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#115

Post by MBCook »

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…

If I spend an hour or two a week driving for Uber it seems pretty fair to consider me a contractor.

What if I spend 15 hours a week? Am I a contractor or a part time worker? What about 40 hours? Am I an employee yet?

Now let's make it worse. I drive 60 hours a week, but I drive for Uber, Lift, and a hypothetical third rid share company. Am I an Uber employee? 'No because you drive for three services.' But what if 90% of my 'gigs' come from Uber?

It can get really hard to draw that line.

And that's ignoring thins like companies paying 'temps' or 'contractors ' for years to work one hour less than full time.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#116

Post by gwern »

One question to ask here is why TaskRabbit and Uber and Handy are going so close to the employee/contractor problem in the first place: why, if the risk is so dire and the issue so well-known (which it is, there's been articles occasionally for years now, and most critical articles or pieces will venture the observation that their contractors are really employees) they are putting in place all those requirements and rules for their 'contractors'? Why aren't they pure intermediaries and marketplaces for the contractors & customers?

This issue reminds me a lot of Coase's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm problem/paradox - if markets are so efficient and optimal, why do large corporations exist and operate internally by non-market mechanisms? The usual answer is friction or transaction costs, but the whole point of things like Uber or TaskRabbit is that the Internet and smartphones hugely reduce these costs...

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#117

Post by pdonis »

rayiner wrote: post #103
murbard2 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Coase's theorem doesn't apply when the parties can't transact with each other to shift the burden. Customers can choose to use properly insured drivers but someone who gets hit or has her property damaged by a driver doesn't get to choose one that has the requisite commercial insurance.

> Coase's theorem doesn't apply when the parties can't transact with each other to shift the burden.

That's true, but it's irrelevant to the point murbard2 was making. He's not arguing that the person who gets hit should bear the liability; he's arguing that it doesn't necessarily have to be Uber that bears the liability, at least not as an initial condition; it could be either the individual driver or the passenger, since all of those parties can transact to shift the burden. (Notice that he didn't list "the person who gets hit" as an option.) Since you were arguing that Uber should bear the liability (instead of just arguing that the person who gets hit should not), his point is a perfectly justified response to yours.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#118

Post by bsder »

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…

Except that there a some quite good reasons why we do things like regulate cabs. You don't get take make statements like this without discussing why the same thing which happened historically that led to the current laws won't happen again.

If you don't regulate them, you wind up with a race to the bottom and have unsafe cars, untrained drivers, lack of insurance, etc.

And, gee, once Uber wasn't paying top dollar to drivers anymore, the quality crashed and all the problems appeared that everybody expected. Go figure.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#119

Post by altcognito »

savanaly wrote: post #65
al2o3cr wrote: post #42

"Lose this workforce structure—either by a wave of class-action lawsuits, intervention by regulators, or through the collective action of disgruntled workers—and you lose the gig economy." Hang on, lemme get my tiny violin to properly eulogize the loss of an opportunity for VCs to get rich on the backs of low-wage workers. Won't you please think of the billionaires?

Hard to know whether the bulk of the surplus is being captured by consumer or producers in this situation (from your tone I would assume that you prefer the consumers would capture it?) without knowing the elasticities of the forces at play-- but don't rule either one out just yet.

Fancy words that cover up the fact that efficient markets are not necessarily the best ones for human beings.

Re: The Gig Economy Is Being Sued to Death

#120

Post by savanaly »

altcognito wrote: post #119
savanaly wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to know whether the bulk of the surplus is being captured by consumer or producers in this situation (from your tone I would assume that you prefer the consumers would capture it?) without knowing the elasticities of the forces at play-- but don't rule either one out just yet.

Fancy words that cover up the fact that efficient markets are not necessarily the best ones for human beings.

I'm sorry for the fancy words. I truly don't know what other words to use to express the concepts here. It really is a fact that there is something called elasticity, and it has influence over whose welfare is increased after a price change. And I feel like that might just matter here.
Post reply on HN