Hacker News Reader

Comment by pnathan | Hacker News Reader

It would be prudent for the policy-inclined among us to work with the state houses to develop a third category besides contractor or employee. As Homejoy's founder correctly pointed out, a gig worker coordinated by a central company falls in the cracks.

It's incredibly important to get law to properly regulate this space in a sane way that levels the playing field and guarantees worker protections.

View on HN

In the construction trades, the unions fill this role.

Can you talk more about how that works out? In my interactions with the trades, there were no trade unions in the area, so most people were either 100% contractor or employee, no union intermediary.

Basically, the tradesman works for the union local. You get your benefits, pension/401k, etc through the union. There's some sort of skill/seniority list so if you need a master plumber + two journeyman who can do skill X, the union provides trained people.

As it's become easier to break unions, you'll find that these arrangements are usually only required for government projects and specific localities. When people tell stories about guys with no necks deploying rubber rats, that's usually in NYC or a similar place.

The upside to this model is you get generally well trained people with good benefits. The downside is that you get some additional baggage, which can be absurd in some situations.

Aha. OK. Yeah, there are famous downsides to trade unions, but I think we can give them the ole college try again, and not repeat earlier issues.

I'm super ok with unionizing gig workers. I really hate the exploitation that's going on.

The unionization efforts in Seattle are demonstrative.

They are very clearly gearing up to push forward policies that benefit full-time drivers at the expense of part-time drivers. Proposed rules exclude new drivers from voting and exclude drivers from voting if they haven't completed enough trips in any three month period in the last 12 months. Rules like these will only advantage the full-time drivers at the expense of part-time drivers.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/af6c5f_9b35175f4fe741cabc9a17ad0161...

Given that the exploitation is going to primarily be exploiting full-time people... I think on balance, I'm OK with this.

It's also the case that the proposed rules will limit any underhanded vote packing by certain companies.

Honestly, I think unionizing would be a fantastic solution in this space. It saves the government from stepping in and allows gig services to exist without feeling as if they are exploiting workers. If gig workers unionize too, they can stop the brutal competition that exists in this space where underpaying your supply can help you crush your competition.

Why a third category? Just classify them as employees.

They aren't employees. They provide their own materials, they set their own schedule.

Providing your own materials isn't really a unique thing. There's a lot of blue-collar jobs that require you to bring your own tools to the job. When I applied for a construction job back as a teenager it was a requirement that you bring your own tool belt, hammer, hard-hat etc. My girl-friend's ex bought $100,000 worth of CNC equipment for his first job. My grandfather owned his own bulldozer and while he was an employee of the company he rented the dozer to his employer. I know mechanics that own and bring their own tools into the shop.

Even today, I provide my own laptop, desktop, and work environment (I work remote). If you are particular and a specialist in the tools that you use then it makes sense to bring them with onto the job.

Interesting. My understanding of this is from the Microsoft contractor case, where a key part of the finding was that since MS was providing the tools, the contractors were employees. I may misunderstand the details though!

( http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/13/business/fi-64817 )

Yes, according to the current definitions (maybe, or maybe not, see below). However, the point is that instead of making up a new category, which means you are mucking with definitions, you can just as easily change the definitions to clarify that these are, in fact, employees.

I bring my own laptop and my employer has a "work anywhere anytime" policy (as long as you get your job done). Does that mean I am no longer an employee??

No. There's absolutely no need for it. Just because a handful of companies can't properly classify their employees doesn't mean they need to be catered to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com