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

'So immoral': gig economy workers forced to pay fee to receive their wages

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: 'So immoral': gig economy workers forced to pay fee to receive their wages

#41

Post by duxup »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #11

> We’re deeply concerned that companies will try to get around the law and continue to exploit vulnerable workers by pretending they are self-employed when they should enjoy the full protection of the law. This is really the crux of the issue: why do we pretend that gig workers don't deserve the same benefits and protections that proper employees do? Even referring to it as a "gig" makes it sound more like a hobby th…

Hell the whole gig thing is putting risk / cost of demand changes onto the worker.

Re: 'So immoral': gig economy workers forced to pay fee to receive their wages

#42

Post by timewizard »

like_any_other wrote: post #2

Tangential, but I think we're long overdue to fund employee benefits through taxes instead, which employers pay instead of being on the hook for e.g. paid medical/maternity/etc. On average employers would pay as much as now (unless they're abusing loopholes, e.g. gig work), there would be fewer loopholes, and small employers would be 'insured' against potentially ruinous hires - I know a handyman that won't hire an a…

You should know that the Treasury is mostly funded by taxpayers. If we break down total receipts into the Treasury 85% come from individual tax returns, 7% come from business tax returns, and 7% from excise taxes.

Re: 'So immoral': gig economy workers forced to pay fee to receive their wages

#43

Post by scarface_74 »

stuaxo wrote: post #34
scarface_74 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the difference between a “gig worker” and an independent contractor? Jason Snell, the former editor of Macworld went independent after getting laid off from MacWorld. He purposefully put together streams of income consisting of podcasting, writing articles for different magazines - including MacWorld, writing for his own blog and writing technical books. He said out of those, because of the initial laws passe…

It's in your answer: the difference is low wages vs well paid. Once you get paid the amounts that people are in the "gig economy" it becomes exploitative, people don't have enough to live or to get out of their situation easily.

I would be okay with laws that distinguish between when a worker is expected to make less than $X per hour or per job.

Re: 'So immoral': gig economy workers forced to pay fee to receive their wages

#44

Post by wvenable »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #11

> We’re deeply concerned that companies will try to get around the law and continue to exploit vulnerable workers by pretending they are self-employed when they should enjoy the full protection of the law. This is really the crux of the issue: why do we pretend that gig workers don't deserve the same benefits and protections that proper employees do? Even referring to it as a "gig" makes it sound more like a hobby th…

We gave less rights to part-time workers so companies just started making as many part-time as possible. If you create a loop-hole it will be exploited.

Re: 'So immoral': gig economy workers forced to pay fee to receive their wages

#45

Post by ge96 »

I got lucky, I wrecked my car (not while doing a gig) but my insurance company was like "were you doing a gig job?". Had to prove I wasn't. I don't get in many wrecks, had 1 in my life so far that was this bad (totaled car).

edit: I'm aware you're supposed to get some kind of special business insurance but at the time I was not aware of that. Thankfully this insurance company who I had been with for almost 10 years honored my claim.

I am glad I'm able to drive on the side. Turn it on and go nice to have extra cash. I am aware of the instant pay (fee) but I also like that vs. waiting for ACH to clear day(s) later.

Re: 'So immoral': gig economy workers forced to pay fee to receive their wages

#47

Post by JumpCrisscross »

whimsicalism wrote: post #32
casenmgreen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And in many cases, e.g. healthcare, it’s unclear why we’re still bundling something into employment that properly should be separate. This, one million times over. I read an account describing how things came to be as they are. Apparently, it all started during WW2. The Government controlled wages, and so some wages were too high and some too low, and for those set too low, it became difficult to get staff. To make…

yeah basically the only reason we have the current system is due to tax preferencing and any attempt at reform (like Obama’s cadillac tax) is opposed by broad interests

> only reason we have the current system is due to tax referencing

What is tax referencing?

Re: 'So immoral': gig economy workers forced to pay fee to receive their wages

#48

Post by null0pointer »

ge96 wrote: post #45

I got lucky, I wrecked my car (not while doing a gig) but my insurance company was like "were you doing a gig job?". Had to prove I wasn't. I don't get in many wrecks, had 1 in my life so far that was this bad (totaled car). edit: I'm aware you're supposed to get some kind of special business insurance but at the time I was not aware of that. Thankfully this insurance company who I had been with for almost 10 years h…

> Had to prove I wasn't.

How did you prove it? What is their standard of evidence? My intuition says it would be difficult to prove a negative.

Post reply on HN