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

The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#11

Post by modeless »

Regular cab drivers are usually classified as independent contractors too. I didn't see a bunch of people lobbying for them to be employees before Uber came on the scene. I also don't see the people who are mad at Uber caring about regular cab drivers (e.g. this article doesn't mention that issue at all and neither do the comments here). This makes me cynically think that the source of all this recent noise about the issue is hardball political tactics from Uber's powerful and connected opponents.

More generally I see a broad media campaign smearing Silicon Valley; spinning a narrative of tech companies as an out-of-touch new elite bent on oppressing the poor and middle class (e.g. the Google bus kerfuffle). That narrative seems popular even in tech circles these days. Perhaps it's an inevitable consequence of success.

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#13

Post by [deleted] »

deegles wrote: post #8

I don't see anyone besides Uber winning in the Uber economy. It's right in the name. Forcing Uber and other ride-sharing companies to classify their resources as employees will only give them further incentive to automate. Once that happens (5 years, 10 max) it will be a moot point how a driver would be classified. Very few people wake up in the morning and say "Gee, I'm so excited to drive for Uber today! I don't ne…

[deleted]

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#14

Post by natrius »

littletimmy wrote: post #3

Is this a joke? We do not need a new category of worker just because a few corporations decide that they do not want to provide their workers with benefits. The benefits that come with the employee designation are the bare minimum . A company that cannot afford to provide those to employees should not exist.

Imagine that we could eliminate Uber and connect drivers directly to riders with the same experience as Uber's app. Nothing has changed about the nature of the driver's work, but there's no entity to be an employer in the first place.

Employee benefits for this kind of work just won't exist. Technology is making it easier for people to provide services for a wide pool of individuals without needing a company to employ them. The companies make an easy target for this sort of complaint today, but they are middlemen that will be eliminated by decentralized systems.

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#15

Post by littletimmy »

natrius wrote: post #14
littletimmy wrote: post #3

Is this a joke? We do not need a new category of worker just because a few corporations decide that they do not want to provide their workers with benefits. The benefits that come with the employee designation are the bare minimum . A company that cannot afford to provide those to employees should not exist.

Imagine that we could eliminate Uber and connect drivers directly to riders with the same experience as Uber's app. Nothing has changed about the nature of the driver's work, but there's no entity to be an employer in the first place. Employee benefits for this kind of work just won't exist. Technology is making it easier for people to provide services for a wide pool of individuals without needing a company to emplo…

I've been thinking along those same lines. Is Uber the corporation in any way essential to Uber the service?

I have a feeling this can be done via a worker's coop. But someone will need to take the initiative to start.

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#16

Post by [deleted] »

natrius wrote: post #14
littletimmy wrote: post #3

Is this a joke? We do not need a new category of worker just because a few corporations decide that they do not want to provide their workers with benefits. The benefits that come with the employee designation are the bare minimum . A company that cannot afford to provide those to employees should not exist.

Imagine that we could eliminate Uber and connect drivers directly to riders with the same experience as Uber's app. Nothing has changed about the nature of the driver's work, but there's no entity to be an employer in the first place. Employee benefits for this kind of work just won't exist. Technology is making it easier for people to provide services for a wide pool of individuals without needing a company to emplo…

[deleted]

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#17

Post by omonra »

deegles wrote: post #8

I don't see anyone besides Uber winning in the Uber economy. It's right in the name. Forcing Uber and other ride-sharing companies to classify their resources as employees will only give them further incentive to automate. Once that happens (5 years, 10 max) it will be a moot point how a driver would be classified. Very few people wake up in the morning and say "Gee, I'm so excited to drive for Uber today! I don't ne…

What % of jobs do you think people would do even if they didn't need the money?

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#18

Post by lsc »

the problem is that the "independent contractor" category, as most of us know it, doesn't really exist. Nearly all "independent contractor" jobs, in the eyes of the IRS, are actually employee jobs, if you get audited.

Now, employers still want to treat employees like independent contractors, right? So what does this mean?

As a computer nerd, this means that if I work as an independent contractor for a company with a legal department, I have to go through a body shop, a company that takes 30-50% off the top, and then wants to hire me as a W2, of course, but without benefits. Which is a pain in the ass, because that means the benefits I buy for myself need to come out of post-tax money.

(Now, if you find an especially shady body shop, they will often let you go "corp-to-corp" - usually they tell you that they will be telling the client that you are a W2, as that provides better protection to the client. But you can find some honest body shops that will let you go corp to corp, especially if you can demonstrate insurance and revenue for your company that isn't you.)

Of course, labor laws are there to protect the low end, and driving is one of the most dangerous jobs that you can get in a modern economy, so I certainly agree that uber drivers need some sort of "workers comp" like disability insurance, just because their job is so dangerous.

I'm just pointing out that telling companies that they can't hire contractors directly doesn't always end up working out better for the employees.

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#19

Post by bkor »

modeless wrote: post #11

Regular cab drivers are usually classified as independent contractors too. I didn't see a bunch of people lobbying for them to be employees before Uber came on the scene. I also don't see the people who are mad at Uber caring about regular cab drivers (e.g. this article doesn't mention that issue at all and neither do the comments here). This makes me cynically think that the source of all this recent noise about the…

> This makes me cynically think that the source of all this recent noise about the issue is hardball political tactics

Above attitude is pretty poor. There are many reasons why Uber(Pop) is not acceptable from a European perspective. In various countries in Europe the attitude is more about employees and social security. E.g. if I read the article I just arguments for customers and companies. But who is going to pay taxes? Who is protecting the employees?

With UberPop Uber actively tries to either break laws or skirt them. E.g. they're contractors, but they won't work with the government to ensure that the employees/contractors pay their taxes. Social security requires taxes to be paid. Ensuring that this happens requires cooperation and cross checks.

Airbnb is similar. Assume it is not their responsibility.

Such attitudes totally conflict. I work in an international company, following local laws is standard business practice. It's not a "OMG difficult". If it is too difficult, do it anyway.

In most articles I see Uber described as a "ride-sharing" company, while it is a taxi company. IMO there's a heavy pro Uber bias including the usual assumptions that the taxi situation is the same all over the world.

Re: The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

#20

Post by bkor »

deegles wrote: post #8

I don't see anyone besides Uber winning in the Uber economy. It's right in the name. Forcing Uber and other ride-sharing companies to classify their resources as employees will only give them further incentive to automate. Once that happens (5 years, 10 max) it will be a moot point how a driver would be classified. Very few people wake up in the morning and say "Gee, I'm so excited to drive for Uber today! I don't ne…

It really is not ride-sharing. Blablacar you share the ride and part of the costs. Uber and similar are taxi companies.
Post reply on HN