[brianchu]

I'm coming to the view that gig workers are neither employees nor independent contractors. Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own hours, and contractors don't get prices unilaterally dictated to them or barred from their profession if their rating falls too low.

All this regulatory squabbling is arguing over whether a square peg fits a round hole or fits a triangular hole.

We need a third classification for gig workers that affords them some protections while preserving the economic viability of ridesharing companies. Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers.

[cycomanic]

Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. Moreover, while there might be an immediate benefit to consumers, as the article notes it might as well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders.

[bko]

> Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor.

How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor?

> well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone.

I don't buy it. The math that claims that these designations cost taxpayers is naive. As though applying additional costs to the employers would somehow just generate wealth and tax revenue from nowhere. The money would come from somewhere (consumers and gig workers), and would result in less business as an artificially higher price would scale back quantity demanded.

> The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders.

Most of these businesses are losing a lot of money. They're not fleecing anyone. It might not be viable by any means but increasing the costs arbitrarily would decrease their chances. It's important to remember that most of these gig workers work these jobs because they prefer them over any other job available to them. So removing options for them is unlikely to benefit them.

[will4274]

Parent is suggesting a new regulatory category. Even if we accept that the gig economy is detrimental overall today, in theory this new regulation would bring it up to a different point. I'm not sure how you can conclude that it's "detrimental overall" without better defining the regulation. That is, I'm not sure your comment really addresses parent's comment.

[humanrebar]

You are correct that some business models are inherently bad. Ones that require violence like slavery or fraud like Ponzi schemes especially.

But I don't care for California to make sure privately hired cars are theoretically X% cheaper. If there are protections that are needed for drivers so their net income is more obvious or something, let's do that.

[morpheuskafka]

Slavery deprives someone of a basic human freedom. A free market is the exact opposite of that.

[kartan]

> Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers.

I am all for ridesharing. But Uber and Lyft, as an example, has nothing to do with that concept. It is not like your Uber driver was coincidentally going to the exact place that you were going.

Ridesharing, as understood before the gig economy, was someone in the company realizing that there were more employees in her neighbourhood and providing a ride for them for a price (some times just sharing gas expenses).

That is a really good approach. Uber/Lyft and others hide their business model calling themselves ridesharing when they are not, calling their employees contractors, when they are not, etc.

[kelnos]

Except we never called that "ridesharing". It was just "carpooling".

As much as I hate the term ridesharing, since it doesn't actually describe what these companies and drivers do, it's not like it was a widely-used term that's been redefined over the past decade.

[chungleong]

A service like BlaBlaCar (in Europe) is what can legitimately be called ride-sharing. Uber is fleet of pirate taxis.

[ibeckermayer]

And why exactly should anybody care what you like and don’t like? If you don’t like Uber/Lyft, be my guest and call a taxi.

Nobody is using these services under the impression that the drivers just happen to be going to the same destination. So your semantic quibble is just that.

[will4274]

Uber offers ride-sharing services (Uber Pool) and Taxi services. As a frequent Pool rider, I'm not sure what else you would call it besides ride-sharing - the three of us taking the Pool don't own cars and wouldn't have otherwise gotten in touch with each other. Uber provides a car, a driver, and route coordination for a price and the three of us share the ride.

[jquery]

Edit: [mistaken reply to wrong post]

[willio58]

I thought that was called carpooling.

[your-nanny]

yeah the whole "sharing economy" is just bs marketing.

[hrktb]

> Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own hours

Doesn’t it depends on the contract ? Nothing stops a company from letting their employee set their own hours.

That’s actually close to how door to door sales contracts work in some fields, where the company doesn’t care about how long or where the salesman works, and mostly pays by the sales number.

[johnchristopher]

> We need a third classification for gig workers that affords them some protections while preserving the economic viability of ridesharing companies. Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers.

How about the ridesharing companies should provide - by law - for food and shelter (paid for with a pay cut from the gigs) until the employee/contractor can get his own food and roof ? That would offer some protections to people while keeping the economy going on ? It would also allow really poor people to get on the job wagon with some kind of peace of mind regarding the end of the month.

The companies could make a year-contract euro style so they would be certain the original investment isn't wasted and the employee/contractor has a job for a year until he becomes a regular contractor.

[kmlx]

"How about the ridesharing companies should provide - by law - for food and shelter "

so basically making gig workers even more dependent on the company?

[threatofrain]

Do you want employers to provide housing because you think employers can spend money on housing and food better than employees? Believable.

But I am wary of the efficiency of company towns. In my perspective, things like housing, food, and medicine are "power vacuum" issues, where not taking up these issues is the same as leaving power (and responsibility) on the table for someone else to grab. I also think once power is taken away it's hard to get back.

I view the issues you're talking about as social and government issues, and I'm wary about ceding more and more responsibility to businesses simply because we think government sucks.

[m0zg]

They'll do that right as soon as you are required, by law, to use their services no matter the price.

[gowld]

This is of course correct. Classifying workers into exactly two categories is logically absurd, but that's what the old law does, at least in USA.

[wiggler00m]

Well said. The legal origins of the separation between contractors and employees pre-date computers, not to mention the internet.