It’s sad that the idea of people being able to get by and live a comfortable life without the benefits from a full time job is so far outside the Overton window that it’s not even mentioned in these conversations.
That seems like such an obviously better outcome for everyone - what if we got rid of healthcare benefits and other types of favorable tax treatment that are tied to full time employment so that everyone is in the same boat? Then all contractors, including Uber and Lyft drivers could keep the freedom and flexibility of being contractors (which anecdotally, I have talked to a lot of drivers who really like this aspect of it), but also not struggle as much to get by?
(Universal healthcare is one path towards this world but not necessarily the only one, I think even the current healthcare system we have would work a lot better if premiums weren’t paid pre-tax by employers and people had actual choice and paid for their care with real money).
Health care as a discussion point in the contractor vs. employee topic is relevant for only one country on the planet.
The important benefits of having a job as opposed to gigging can be summarized as "the employer should not have complete power over the employee". For Uber drivers this is exactly the case, that's why this type of work is socially poisonous.
1. Deregulate the health insurance market so you can sell across state lines.
2. Employers start giving their employees the money they pay on their behalf.
3. People shop for the health insurance they want/need.
In a year, every other advertisement on TV would be for health insurance, like it is with car insurance now.
It's not just healthcare - if you want to give people the most freedom to engage in new business arrangements, we should have a UBI as a baseline. Then even if your part-time taxi gig doesn't work out or comes in less than minimum wage, you can afford to survive.
I don't think those are outside the overton window.
The healthcare point is and has been a major point of debate in US politics for years. Just because a article that tangentially related to it doesn't happen to mention it doesn't mean it can't be discussed.
It's not really outside the Overton window. Universal healthcare has strong majority support right now.
Employers and shareholders benefit significantly by reducing options for workers and by making it difficult for workers to change jobs; the source of the resistance is there, in the plain language of power, not in some imaginary spectrum of what's considered to be acceptable.
Uber drivers are fighting the wrong fight in this case. They should focus on fighting for a minimum wage that accounts for expenses. Uber's edge is not their technology, their edge is the ability to burn billion dollars a quarter subsidizing rides. Uber is masking customer demand and this sort of behavior is anticompetitive and should not be allowed in an industry as critical as transportation.
Case in point, when Uber/Lyft was forced to pay their drivers a minimum wage that accounted for expenses, Uber and Lyft stopped accepting new drivers in New York City. They were force to act according to true supply and demand.
What do you mean "true" supply and demand? What was happening before was true supply and demand. They offered a rate, people were capable of consenting to the terms while accounting for expenses, and they did. Then an intermediary stepped between the consenting transactors and told them that they could no longer accept those terms, and now those transactions can no longer transpire, regardless of whether or not both parties would like to engage. How is that true supply and demand?
I don't think the "right" fight is city-by-city patchwork legislation to require that rideshare drivers be paid a living wage. This does not fix the issue for all workers across the country (and probably doesn't need to be said that 1099s are not entitled to a minimum wage), neither does it fix the problem when the next industry crops up hiring workers considered independent contractors performing work under conditions much more similar to employees.
It's not clear to me how much the core Uber/Lyft business model needs to be subsidized to be sustainable. At this point, an Uber isn't any cheaper than a taxi is most cases. With surge pricing, it's often far more expensive.
> Uber drivers are fighting the wrong fight in this case. They should focus on fighting for a minimum wage that accounts for expenses.
Since they are not employees, they don't get a wage, so minimum wage laws don't apply.
> Case in point, when Uber/Lyft was forced to pay their drivers a minimum wage that accounted for expenses, Uber and Lyft stopped accepting new drivers in New York City. They were force to act according to true supply and demand.
This was the result of the city of New York deciding, on behalf of the taxi lobby, that there were too many Ubers on the street, so they fixed the supply to make the average pay add up to 17$/hour (which is not a minimum wage either).
Real supply of drivers was higher than that, people that wanted to drive at lower price were effectively prohibited from entering the market.
I don’t think you understand supply and demand. Forcing Uber to pay a non-market price for a service is pretty much the opposite of “true supply and demand”.
What if instead our society reeled globalization back in a little, and we lived in smaller, closer, local communities? I live in a rural-ish area, and any time I get on the interstate, especially during the workweek, I can't help but wonder how much those people's lives would be improved if everything was in walking or bicycling distance, how much more time they would have to give to their families or their interests or even their daily needs. Maybe it's not possible for most people due to unfortunate situations society has created. But didn't we do this to ourselves?
People seem to forget that "professional driver" is an actual job available for close to a century now if you really wanted a full-time position. Uber already works with FTE drivers at higher tiers like Lux and Black.
All of the drivers I've asked over 1000's of rides have said they prefer the freedom and flexibility to work on their own time. Yes they want more money, but not at the cost of the flexibility. They already have day jobs, or are students, retirees, business owners, etc, and are making extra income with an opportunity that wouldn't otherwise exist.
Perhaps the tiny handful of people who are suing to become employees should just go out and become employees instead of trying to change the rules for everyone else.
All of the drivers I've asked
over 1000's of rides
I have had the same experience (with far fewer rides) but I'm sceptical about how reliable it is given the driver is incentivised to give me an enjoyable ride. Same as a waiter who hates his job will make more in tips by putting on a smile.
Yeah, I keep seeing these articles get posted and it makes no sense. Most drivers seem to want to have the freedom and flexibility to choose when they work. That absolutely makes them contractors.
The only argument to be made here potentially is that some of the gamified rewards incentives to keep driving might be questionable and make the relationship more employer/employee-like.
It kind of reminds me a lot of the discussion of fast food jobs and raising the minimum wage. On the one hand, yeah, it sucks if you're trying to support a family of four on 7.25/hour. But at the same time, its great as a summer job for a teenager who wants some extra spending money. Same with Uber, its great for college students wanting to make extra money at night but don't want to be stuck in a strict schedule or for someone who wants to make some money on the side for a vacation fund, but probably sucks as a full-time job.
I'm not advocating that we tell the full-timers "tough luck" by any means, I just think it is important to keep in mind when these topics come up that unlike some industries, the workforce isn't necessarily uniformly filled with employees seeking a "job" job with full benefits and the works, and in fact the business model of the company may rely on this. Doesn't make the suffering of the employees who are trying to make a go at it any less valid, but it does give a fuller view of the situation.
Why does "freedom and flexibility to work on their own time" have anything to do with whether they are employees of the company or not? Both can easily be true together.
Uber represents the new kind of company where all the risk is pushed to the employee, while all the profits are pulled to the company. Making all your employees supposedly outside contractors facilitates a race to the bottom between these contractors.
Same with food delivery companies. The drivers have to provide and maintain the vehicle, organize their own health care, pension and insurance. Some companies even disallow them to work for different companies, which is a direct violation of the contractor dynamic.
Recently a Dutch judge ruled that these food delivery contractors were not actual free agents but bound to their one supplier of rides. The judged ruling was that this is not correct as they lacked the freedom to work for other companies.
I find it very disappointing that companies like Uber and Airbnb managed to create these amazing platforms but have such disrespect for the wellbeing of their workers or how they affect communities in the world.
> but have such disrespect for the wellbeing of their workers or how they affect communities in the world.
That's the innovation and the reason for the multi-billion dollar VC valuations while Uber was private. The app/platform is nearly a commodity at this point. Most taxi companies in my area have apps with similar features.
Edit: Notice that Lyft is basically the same story and Airbnb's main value-add is stripping regulations from the short term rental industry (formerly dominated by regulated hotels and BnBs). When someone pitches an "Uber but for X" they're often implicitly saying that they want to strip job security and labor protections from the people doing X and consumer protections from the people using X.
It's not entirely new though. The majority of Taxi drivers are already essentially independent contractors. It's not as though Uber is competing with an established industry of full employees.
> Uber represents the new kind of company where all the risk is pushed to the employee, while all the profits are pulled to the company.
What profits are you referring to? My issue with this line of thinking is that it basically makes it sound like these companies are sitting on some huge volume of excess cashflow that they could freely give to their contractors if they simply chose to do so.
AFAICT, they actually charge similar rates to taxis (which also usually use contractors here) while not making as much money, and providing a vastly better end user experience.
I don't see a lot of room for better worker pay here.
It's the same with industries like film in the US, only difference is the hourly rate gets to be pretty high after a few years of work and presumed advancement.
Relying on corporations to help the lower middle class, is an outdated idea. Corporations are expressly designed to create value at the lowest possible cost, which necessarily means minimizing labor expenses. Relying on corporations to achieve universal healthcare and a living wage, is expressly going against what they were designed for.
There is a far better way to help the lower middle class: through the government. Raise taxes on the rich, raise the capital gains tax rate, and use the revenue to subsidize college tuition, to provide universal healthcare, and to supplement the earned income tax credit.
Let corporations do what they do best: provide services at the lowest possible cost. And start demanding that our government do what it's supposed to do: ensure that the wealth generated by corporations is adequately shared by all.
I wonder if a simple change to Uber's app would fix all this -- let drivers set their own rates, and customers could pick from a number of drivers nearby based on how close they are, and what rate they charge. And/or let customers put out a bid for the rate they want to pay, then any driver can accept that bid and get the fare.
That way drivers could be more legally considered contractors (they set their own rates), and none would feel underpaid (after all they get paid the rates they set).
Here in Australia, most drivers seem to be using several other apps (Didi, Ola, etc) at the same time as Uber. So in that sense, they are a contractor in my eyes.
I am forced to treat the people who cut my lawn and clean my house as employees, according to tax law, for funding unemployment insurance among other things.
But Uber's labor force, without which literally the company wouldn't exist, are not eligible for the same benefits. The logical next step is that the company has no liability for anything that happens to you in one of their cars.
You treat your lawn care person and maid as employees? I guess if they are full time. My lawn care is completely contractor based- they provide tools, they set schedule, they don’t have a uniform set by me. They are exactly contractors. Same with my maid.
If I for some reason had an estate that required employee Lawncare this would be different and I would hire someone.
There’s a definition from the IRS in the US for employee and contractor that’s not exactly black and white but has many tests for who is an employee vs contractor.
> I am forced to treat the people who cut my lawn and clean my house as employees, according to tax law, for funding unemployment insurance among other things.
It's the other way around: The people who cut your lawn force you to treat them as employees. What stops you from hiring a "proper" contractor?
> But Uber's labor force, without which literally the company wouldn't exist, are not eligible for the same benefits.
Yes, because they are contractors. They set their own hours and choose whether to show up or not. They don't have any of the duties that an employee has. Therefore, they don't have any of the rights either.
> The logical next step is that the company has no liability for anything that happens to you in one of their cars.
It's not their car. Uber is a middleman. That's what people don't understand. Their "added value" is to bring together service providers and service users. They don't provide insurance or anything.
Having been an Uber /Lyft driver I can't even fathom what it would mean for a driver to be an employee with expenses paid. Is the driver driving a gas guzzling F250 entitled to a higher reimbursement for cost of driving than me driving a Honda insight?
> The memo released on Tuesday, which was dated April 16, has no long-term value as a precedent and can be reversed by a future general counsel. Its immediate consequence is to render moot three formal accusations, filed in different parts of the country, that Uber had violated federal labor law. The memo instructs the board’s regional offices to dismiss the charges if the people who made them do not withdraw them first.
Taxi drivers have usually been considered independent contractors - what is different with Uber? I’m assuming it’s because Uber exercises more control over their income thru price adjustments (which taxi drivers aren’t subject to).
I think Uber drivers should be organizing for that kind of protection eg some accountability when Uber wants to drop rev share or fares.
The thing that always bugs me with these arguments is that people don't seem to bring up the idea of creating a new legal class for these types of workers. Arguing whether those workers fit contractors or employees isn't great to read about because frankly, they fit in neither.
From Uber/Lyft drivers, to Door Dash delivery workers, to any other sort of up and coming on demand work which I'm sure keep coming and evolving, I believe creating a new legal class would be well worth the effort rather than arguing about where they fit in the current system.
This type of solution isn't easy. With all the arguments about if the drivers are contractors or employees, creating a new class of workers will easily be just as difficult; instead of legal fees for the law interpretation, it'd be legal fees for law creation.
I do think it’s probably correct that Uber drivers aren’t employees, setting their own schedule is a huge differentiator in the labor market. But I think that we might need a new classification (and labor protections) for people who are classified as contractors but fulfill such a large percentage of a company’s actual work on a permanent basis. The season temp and the Uber driver that’s mission critical to Uber’s daily functioning are just different from a labor perspective, and should be given different protections and leverage.
^^This is an incredibly important argument. Many Companies would love a middle road, as well as employees. The funniest part is that most "good" companies already operate on a performance basis. It should be considered
I'm not american, so I could be missing some nuance, but in general uber, lyft and other gig-businesses have created a new type of labour. A court or a board is going to approach this by analogy. Is this more similar to "contractors," day labourers, piecemeal arrangements, full time employees..
These gigs don't really fall into a pre-existing categories, or shouldn't. The dynamic is totally different. The issues are different and the whole thing merits its own fraework at this point.
It's not difficult to define "gigs" by their features (just like the features used to test the "contractor" definition).
W2 tax rate is the WORST in the country because regulations make it costly for both, employee and employer. At least as a contractor you can write things off fairly.
At least not according to a 3 week old judgement by the Lausanne labor court, which ordered Uber to pay a driver for the legally mandated notice period after deactivating him.
[+] [-] dcosson|6 years ago|reply
That seems like such an obviously better outcome for everyone - what if we got rid of healthcare benefits and other types of favorable tax treatment that are tied to full time employment so that everyone is in the same boat? Then all contractors, including Uber and Lyft drivers could keep the freedom and flexibility of being contractors (which anecdotally, I have talked to a lot of drivers who really like this aspect of it), but also not struggle as much to get by?
(Universal healthcare is one path towards this world but not necessarily the only one, I think even the current healthcare system we have would work a lot better if premiums weren’t paid pre-tax by employers and people had actual choice and paid for their care with real money).
[+] [-] blub|6 years ago|reply
Health care as a discussion point in the contractor vs. employee topic is relevant for only one country on the planet.
The important benefits of having a job as opposed to gigging can be summarized as "the employer should not have complete power over the employee". For Uber drivers this is exactly the case, that's why this type of work is socially poisonous.
[+] [-] TheRealDunkirk|6 years ago|reply
In a year, every other advertisement on TV would be for health insurance, like it is with car insurance now.
[+] [-] akvadrako|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbreit|6 years ago|reply
Employer-subsidized health care is not free.
[+] [-] netcan|6 years ago|reply
The healthcare point is and has been a major point of debate in US politics for years. Just because a article that tangentially related to it doesn't happen to mention it doesn't mean it can't be discussed.
[+] [-] Krasnol|6 years ago|reply
Really? What is it exactly that they like about that?
[+] [-] oceanghost|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sushisushisushi|6 years ago|reply
Employers and shareholders benefit significantly by reducing options for workers and by making it difficult for workers to change jobs; the source of the resistance is there, in the plain language of power, not in some imaginary spectrum of what's considered to be acceptable.
[+] [-] inkaudio|6 years ago|reply
Case in point, when Uber/Lyft was forced to pay their drivers a minimum wage that accounted for expenses, Uber and Lyft stopped accepting new drivers in New York City. They were force to act according to true supply and demand.
Link: https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/29/18522885/uber-lyft-not-ac...
[+] [-] ralusek|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cypherpunks01|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] standardUser|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gridlockd|6 years ago|reply
Since they are not employees, they don't get a wage, so minimum wage laws don't apply.
> Case in point, when Uber/Lyft was forced to pay their drivers a minimum wage that accounted for expenses, Uber and Lyft stopped accepting new drivers in New York City. They were force to act according to true supply and demand.
This was the result of the city of New York deciding, on behalf of the taxi lobby, that there were too many Ubers on the street, so they fixed the supply to make the average pay add up to 17$/hour (which is not a minimum wage either).
Real supply of drivers was higher than that, people that wanted to drive at lower price were effectively prohibited from entering the market.
[+] [-] kortilla|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdegutis|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manigandham|6 years ago|reply
All of the drivers I've asked over 1000's of rides have said they prefer the freedom and flexibility to work on their own time. Yes they want more money, but not at the cost of the flexibility. They already have day jobs, or are students, retirees, business owners, etc, and are making extra income with an opportunity that wouldn't otherwise exist.
Perhaps the tiny handful of people who are suing to become employees should just go out and become employees instead of trying to change the rules for everyone else.
[+] [-] michaelt|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ummonk|6 years ago|reply
The only argument to be made here potentially is that some of the gamified rewards incentives to keep driving might be questionable and make the relationship more employer/employee-like.
[+] [-] blub|6 years ago|reply
It does imply having labour protections. And in the US it also implies having healthcare.
[+] [-] el_cujo|6 years ago|reply
I'm not advocating that we tell the full-timers "tough luck" by any means, I just think it is important to keep in mind when these topics come up that unlike some industries, the workforce isn't necessarily uniformly filled with employees seeking a "job" job with full benefits and the works, and in fact the business model of the company may rely on this. Doesn't make the suffering of the employees who are trying to make a go at it any less valid, but it does give a fuller view of the situation.
[+] [-] hellllllllooo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kaotique|6 years ago|reply
Same with food delivery companies. The drivers have to provide and maintain the vehicle, organize their own health care, pension and insurance. Some companies even disallow them to work for different companies, which is a direct violation of the contractor dynamic. Recently a Dutch judge ruled that these food delivery contractors were not actual free agents but bound to their one supplier of rides. The judged ruling was that this is not correct as they lacked the freedom to work for other companies.
I find it very disappointing that companies like Uber and Airbnb managed to create these amazing platforms but have such disrespect for the wellbeing of their workers or how they affect communities in the world.
[+] [-] AlexandrB|6 years ago|reply
That's the innovation and the reason for the multi-billion dollar VC valuations while Uber was private. The app/platform is nearly a commodity at this point. Most taxi companies in my area have apps with similar features.
Edit: Notice that Lyft is basically the same story and Airbnb's main value-add is stripping regulations from the short term rental industry (formerly dominated by regulated hotels and BnBs). When someone pitches an "Uber but for X" they're often implicitly saying that they want to strip job security and labor protections from the people doing X and consumer protections from the people using X.
[+] [-] simonh|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _ea1k|6 years ago|reply
What profits are you referring to? My issue with this line of thinking is that it basically makes it sound like these companies are sitting on some huge volume of excess cashflow that they could freely give to their contractors if they simply chose to do so.
AFAICT, they actually charge similar rates to taxis (which also usually use contractors here) while not making as much money, and providing a vastly better end user experience.
I don't see a lot of room for better worker pay here.
[+] [-] creaghpatr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevin_b_er|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whack|6 years ago|reply
There is a far better way to help the lower middle class: through the government. Raise taxes on the rich, raise the capital gains tax rate, and use the revenue to subsidize college tuition, to provide universal healthcare, and to supplement the earned income tax credit.
Let corporations do what they do best: provide services at the lowest possible cost. And start demanding that our government do what it's supposed to do: ensure that the wealth generated by corporations is adequately shared by all.
[+] [-] jorblumesea|6 years ago|reply
It's really the US that lags behind in almost all aspects of taking care of its citizens.
[+] [-] newshorts|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwright|6 years ago|reply
On what basis do you think this is the proper role for government?
[+] [-] derekp7|6 years ago|reply
That way drivers could be more legally considered contractors (they set their own rates), and none would feel underpaid (after all they get paid the rates they set).
[+] [-] toomanybeersies|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgustard|6 years ago|reply
But Uber's labor force, without which literally the company wouldn't exist, are not eligible for the same benefits. The logical next step is that the company has no liability for anything that happens to you in one of their cars.
[+] [-] prepend|6 years ago|reply
If I for some reason had an estate that required employee Lawncare this would be different and I would hire someone.
There’s a definition from the IRS in the US for employee and contractor that’s not exactly black and white but has many tests for who is an employee vs contractor.
[+] [-] gridlockd|6 years ago|reply
It's the other way around: The people who cut your lawn force you to treat them as employees. What stops you from hiring a "proper" contractor?
> But Uber's labor force, without which literally the company wouldn't exist, are not eligible for the same benefits.
Yes, because they are contractors. They set their own hours and choose whether to show up or not. They don't have any of the duties that an employee has. Therefore, they don't have any of the rights either.
> The logical next step is that the company has no liability for anything that happens to you in one of their cars.
It's not their car. Uber is a middleman. That's what people don't understand. Their "added value" is to bring together service providers and service users. They don't provide insurance or anything.
[+] [-] dnautics|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulddraper|6 years ago|reply
> The memo released on Tuesday, which was dated April 16, has no long-term value as a precedent and can be reversed by a future general counsel. Its immediate consequence is to render moot three formal accusations, filed in different parts of the country, that Uber had violated federal labor law. The memo instructs the board’s regional offices to dismiss the charges if the people who made them do not withdraw them first.
[+] [-] xivzgrev|6 years ago|reply
I think Uber drivers should be organizing for that kind of protection eg some accountability when Uber wants to drop rev share or fares.
[+] [-] jackschultz|6 years ago|reply
From Uber/Lyft drivers, to Door Dash delivery workers, to any other sort of up and coming on demand work which I'm sure keep coming and evolving, I believe creating a new legal class would be well worth the effort rather than arguing about where they fit in the current system.
This type of solution isn't easy. With all the arguments about if the drivers are contractors or employees, creating a new class of workers will easily be just as difficult; instead of legal fees for the law interpretation, it'd be legal fees for law creation.
[+] [-] village-idiot|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coding123|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jppope|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dalbasal|6 years ago|reply
These gigs don't really fall into a pre-existing categories, or shouldn't. The dynamic is totally different. The issues are different and the whole thing merits its own fraework at this point.
It's not difficult to define "gigs" by their features (just like the features used to test the "contractor" definition).
[+] [-] billions|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thierryzoller|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] specialist|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CaptainZapp|6 years ago|reply
At least not according to a 3 week old judgement by the Lausanne labor court, which ordered Uber to pay a driver for the legally mandated notice period after deactivating him.