Uber has clearly shown that they’re happy to be as exploitative as they’re allowed to be. (And that even when they’re specifically disallowed they’ll do everything they can to ignore it and fight the laws.)
There's definitely work to be done to modernize our employment laws with the changes to the economy. It's not a clear cut "Everybody is an employee" though.
If someone drives for Uber for 1-ride per month should Uber pay $1000/mo for that driver's health insurance? How about 1-ride per week? How about if they have the app "on" but never accept a ride? Should they be paid for the time they didn't do any driving?
Clearly the driver isn't an employee in the traditional sense of the word. But they also aren't a totally independent contractor either as their livelihood is so closely tied to the platform of a private entity. My gut says to err on the side of not imposing restrictions or mandates until we figure out the right balance.
> Minimum wage laws, unemployment, etc, these are good things that should be preserved.
Unemployment insurance, as it's implemented in the USA through effectively a tax collected by a private entity, is a scamola. A better idea would be having the employee get their own private unemployment insurance. That would also lead to lower costs of insurance for workers that are less likely to be discharged.
> Uber has clearly shown that they’re happy to be as exploitative as they’re allowed to be. (And that even when they’re specifically disallowed they’ll do everything they can to ignore it and fight the laws.)
Nobody is forcing drivers to drive for Uber. An argument may be that they were enticed with higher rates that were subsequently lowered in some markets. There's also the argument that a lot of the drivers don't under the total costs involved (double payroll tax, depreciation, etc) but by itself offering work in the "gig economy" isn't exploitation. Uber (and Lyft, and ...) should be lauded for (net) creating thousands of jobs.
We already account for these situations due to part-time jobs. NY requires a certain amount of wages be met to be eligible for unemployment benefits, for example.
All of the companies will either have to raise rates or cut the amount they are paying drivers. Uber and Lyft can't just keeping banking on their VC benefactors forever. Eventually they have to turn a profit.
The other accusation I've heard, relevant to the discussion at hand, is that they're (also) banking on shifting the costs of externalities onto the drivers and/or the social safety net.
> Eventually they have to turn a profit.
Or go out of business, which could be considered beneficial if they're banking more on the externalities than VCs.
Remember the original & current taxi model is to rent a medallion car for $3000/month as an independent contractor. Except in this model, you are $3k in debt at the start of the month and have to work an undefined amount of hours to make up that debt + have enough to live on at the end of it.
In that world, Uber is an improvement.
> The taxable wage limit is $7,000 per employee.
(Yes, that's per year)
https://www.edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/Rates_and_Withholding.h...
Does this also mean that, say, an iOS developer could be considered an employee of Apple due to their livelihood being closely tied to that platform?
Can they be fired based on workplace policies, like "no long hair on men" or "no discussion of politics on social media"?
How would that interact with state employment laws, which may or may not recognize a different mix of protected classes?
So, given current laws:
1) "no long hair on men" - yes, if presentation is reasonably considered important (which I would say it probably is). Obviously not without a few warnings.
2) "no discussion of politics on social media" - no, you can't fire for this.
Also, the IRS has rules about when someone is an employee versus contractor:
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contr...
Whilst they are open to interpretation to some degree, I would say that Uber drivers are clearly employees, as the degree of behavioral and financial control Uber has is extreme, and Uber provides benefits (insurance), and the relationship is indefinite, and Sony game publishers (aside from the obvious difference in size, which makes the argument entirely ridiculous) are contractors.
From our comfy seats and nice intellectually stimulating jobs, it really looks like Bangladesh should be standing up for its workers and telling Nike what's what. But then Nike will just move to neighboring starving Nepal, and Bangladeshis will have to return to farming and being affected by flooding and having a really, really bad time.
It's bad that things are bad, but it's good that they could be worse otherwise.
We're all part of complex systems and collectively as buyers we act as a forcing function on prices that leads to these practices you disapprove of.
Please tell me if there's a better way to run this system than "global universal basic income". Because man, world government has its downsides too.
In every state I'm aware of, unemployment insurance is managed by the State. It is a form of social welfare, and the government will intervene to e.g. extend unemployment benefits during periods of high unemployment. Applicants for benefits also cannot be denied on a case-by-case basis, and certain groups of people almost certainly receive more in benefits than they pay in. Private insurance would not achieve the same objectives.
Hence why it's important for employers to document the reasons for terminating someone, as it will result in more people being denied for unemployment insurance (if it was their fault) and employer saves money on their premiums.
It's no different than any other company. Most places have benefit levels tied to work levels. Working full time you get full benefits, for part time your benefits are lower and below a threshold, there are almost no benefits.
It's this weird middle-area that I think is causing the most friction.
As a thought experiment, I wonder what would happen if these platforms allowed drivers to set their own rates on a per trip or per session basis. As an independent contractor, you have complete control over how much you charge in order to make up for the burden of no benefits and heavy taxes.
I would rather not wait until more workers lose their lives.
Something tells me you’re not very familiar with the history of Uber’s business practices.
It’s pretty easy to “create jobs” when you can move into jurisdictions and skirt the local laws.
In some cases, for example Pensacola Florida (where ride sharing was criminal), Uber solicited drivers from other counties where ride sharing was legal, with bonuses, to provide services in Pensacola during spring break. One of those drivers was arrested almost immediately.
In counties throughout Florida where ride sharing was illegal (civilly and criminally) Uber drivers racked up millions in fines that have never been paid. Why? Because Uber paid for their own lobbiest (who is a lawyer) to represent the drivers in court and then literally did nothing on their case and just let them linger. This is all beneficial to Uber and damaging to drivers.
Not to mention other issues such as Uber training driver in these jurisdictions on how to avoid detection by police.
One day someone might put together a study of the total numbers of drivers who now have criminal records for nothing more that becoming an Uber driver...when you get a criminal record for doing what you were hired to do, that should fit the very definition of exploitation.
It’s similsr to the auto dealers preventing Tesla from selling directly.
Consider if a new “start up” pharmacy started selling drugs without prescriptions...then claiming the existing pharmacies aren’t innocent and have a vested interest in the status quo. It’s easy to “disrupt” when you ignore the law.
You also gloss over this idea...no taxi driver is breaking the law and gets arrest purely for doing what they were hired to do. Uber hired drivers and fed them rides in jurisdictions where the activity was illegal. It’s those drivers with criminal records who have paid the price not Uber, that’s Uber’s current vested interest shifting legal liability for their illegal business activities to their drivers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-tier_system_(alcohol_dis...
You are basically justifying someone like al Capone who found a huge market for alcohol distribution during prohibition. The law may have been wrong, but you don’t celebrate the criminal, criminal activity and bodies left in the wake.
Licenses, safety standards of vehicles, insurance, rules and regulations of the road. Yes, these things do make the barrier to entry more difficult, but they also serve the public good.
Any time you see a car just stopped in the middle of the road with it’s hazards on odds are it’s a Uber driver. I can’t tell you how often I encounter dangerously hazardous Uber pick ups and drop offs that violate the law, because these drivers have no training.
And just as quickly as Uber was happy to violate and break laws to gain their market share and become the industry incumbent, they too are now spending millions on lobbying efforts to reinstate all the same regulatory frameworks (licenses, insurance, vehicle standards) to close the door behind them.
The biggest problem with this approach is that it's often used to delay action until it's well beyond the point where it becomes necessary. It's very similar to the 'Well, we just don't know, and we need to do research' approach that tobacco companies used, very successfully, for decades in the arguments about whether their products cause cancer.
In the case of Uber, one state implementing these stricter measures is actually a good way to collect the needed data to make these decisions on a wider scale across the country. NY will take this approach and we'll see the results. Other states can look at those results and try to figure out a better way.
Yes! A thousand times yes! Just because Uber is letting everyone i the door doesn’t mean they should get to dictate new terms of what employment means. Imagine your employeer removing your healthcare and defending the decision with the argument “well we’ve now set it up so anyone can just walk in the door and start working and we’ll pay them per hour worked. I know that’s not what you are doing but we have to treat everyone the same so we’re also cutting your pay”.
It's essentially a job destroying policy in a time when we see increasing automation and therefore very counterproductive.
In a country with govt healthcare & unemployment insurance, people being casual piece workers with a large corporation shouldn't be controversial beyond minimum wage. Because maybe the only difference is some tax paperwork.
AFAIK, other large minimum wage corps (like restaurants) force their workers to be part time to avoid having to pay these mandated benefits. Wouldn't that apply with these 1hr/month uber drivers?
With more and more regulation, you are essentially creating another large and bloated system. It also will impact the type of people that will be able to drive for Uber. If these regulations become the norm, there will be a fraction of the amount of people driving that will have to go through more of a formal/traditional hiring process. Anything else will cost the company too much money.
"Imagine your employeer removing your healthcare and defending the decision"
Uber shouldn't be considered an 'employer'. I am a software contractor and sometimes complete projects that only take a week and I never talk to the client again. This client shouldn't be paying for my health insurance.
It's not really Uber's fault that drivers decide to use them as their sole source of income. You really need to weigh the costs of driving, how much you earn, and if you can afford insurance. I figured this was common sense.
> there's so many people that went ahead and are doing it full time as their primary source of income.
Did you ever think that they do this because it’s their best opportunity and they’re acting rationally? That taking away the opportunity to drive for Uber would be bad for them? It’s a way to make money that didn’t used to exist and people want to kill it because it’s vaguely incompatible with their political ideas.
Do you use Uber presently(or other such services)?
Would you use it if prices went up 50% or more?
If the two can't compare on equal footing then sure, why not skip the Uber instead.
Suppose I'm a spare time Uber driver. On the weekends I sit at home, comfortable on my own couch watching TV. Outside of "surge" times I only answer calls that seem REALLY CONVENIENT to take, like people traveling from my own block. When somebody within a few blocks of me wants a ride, I pause the TV, jog out to the car and take the fare, then work for a bit, eventually ending with a fare that takes me close to home again.
That business model is great for customers because the car they need is ALREADY NEARBY so they get a much quicker response. It's great for drivers because they can spend more time at home and have the flexibility to stop whenever or as often as they want, which makes it more compatible with family responsibilities - say, taking the afternoon off to look after a sick kid.
If the firm has to cover unemployment insurance, they cannot afford to let people just work whenever they feel like it and work from any location they want. If the firm has to pay a minimum wage while you've got the app running, they're not going to let you run the app while sitting on the couch all afternoon only taking the few jobs that happen to suit your fancy. You have to work X hours per day to cover the insurance premiums and every hour working has to have a certain number of fares per hour to cover the minimum wage guarantee. That turns it back into a micromanaged standard wage-slave job rather than a flexible opportunity to make a little side money on your own schedule.
I fail to see the problem. If you cannot give that to your employees, then you do not deserve to be in business, full stop.
Keep in mind that Uber solved a HUGE REAL PROBLEM that cabs didn't - Uber cheaply serves neighborhoods where it was previously near-impossible to get a cab. Increasing "minimum standards" tends to make it illegal to serve low-income communities. Just as high "minimum standards" on housing price low-income people out of the housing market, high "minimum standards" on transit jobs price low-income people out of the transit market. The market alternative here is illegal "gypsy cabs" which also didn't provide unemployment insurance or a minimum wage income.
That is a flat out lie. There is absolutely nothing preventing Uber from adhering to those standards while providing the same level of service they currently do.
The problem with that supposition is that it is just that. Rather, it's an outlier and just Uber's marketing of "gig economy", not a serious contributor to the kind of volume that has driven their growth and supported their actual business model.
Especially in the densest, highest-demand areas, it's a stretch to believe there's an army of couch-surfers with garages (or other reserved parking spots) just waiting for the surge pricing to increase enough to go out and pick people up.
> That turns it back into a micromanaged standard wage-slave job
I have seen this complaint already, with respect to Uber's policies and practices.
Also, do you think humans (in an economy or not) always act rationally?
Depends on how strictly you define "rationally". If you mean "spend a month collecting data, download, install, and learn R, and run sophisticated statistical analysis on the data before making any decision", then no, clearly not. IOW, humans are not the fictional "rational agents" mentioned in economics textbooks and papers. We're not Homo Optimizicus.
But if you mean "give some thought to the options based on known information, weigh the different options, outcomes and consequences, and then make the best decision", then I would say that people are generally rational.
It would probably be most accurate to say that humans "are semi-rational agents that employs lots of heuristics, including satisficing[1], to make decisions that are not necessarily the best possible, but usually aren't the worst possible either". Or to put it another way, we employ "bounded rationality"[2].
I'm jobless, hungry and desperate. Minimum wage is $15.00 /hour. Given my skills and abilities, no one can justify hiring me at $15.00 / hour. I have two options:
1. Work for $8.00 / hour, which sucks balls, but at least lets me eat.
2. Not work at all for $0.00 / hour, and starve to death.
I don't think it's hard to guess which option many people would pick. A high minimum wage just hurts the people at the lowest rung of the economic ladder, by knocking them completely off the ladder.
1. I can hire these guys at ~$8/hr federal minimum wage.
2. I can hire these guys at $2/hr and make shareholders very happy.
I don't think it's hard to guess which option many people would pick. No minimum wage just hurts the people at the lowest rung of the economic ladder, by accelerating the race to the bottom.
Your "argument" is just a caricatured strawman that has no basis in reality. If your position were an accurate reflection of reality, no company would ever pay above minimum wage. And yet that happens all the time. So maybe, just maybe, the reality is that companies pay based (in part) on the economic output the workers they are hiring...
Probably in part for this reason and others, it was Franklin Roosevelts's opinion that businesses that cannot survive unless they paid substandard wages, should not be allowed to exist. (https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/f-d-r-makes-...).
But the question isn't necessarily "survival of the business". It's whether or not the business can afford to bring more people into the fold, based on an arbitrary fixed-point in terms of how much they can pay.
Maybe I'm running a company that's humming along, profitable but only marginally so, paying 100 workers some rates ranging from exactly minimum wage, up to $WHATEVER. Now I'd like to hire 5 more workers to do some fairly low value manual labor, but if I hire them at minimum wage, it pushes the company into the red. Where does that leave us? I can:
1. Hire the workers at less than "minimum wage". This creates the most jobs, but has the downside of paying people less than what some people feel that they "should* earn.
2. Hire fewer workers, but at minimum wage. That's fine for the 2.5 workers I do hire, but how does it benefit the 2.5 that I don't hire?
3. Do nothing. This benefits none of the 5 workers I might have hired.
4. Buy a machine that does the kind of work those workers would have done, don't hire anybody new, and then lay off 10 workers once the machine is up and running.
5. Reduce costs somewhere else in the business, to allow for hiring the 5 workers at minimum wage. This might or might not be viable, depending on lots of other details.
6. Hire the 5 workers at minimum wage, and raise prices, passing the increased cost on to my customers. This might work, but again, there are a lot of variables in play here. And this negatively impacts my customers.
Obviously there's a lot of nuance to all this, but my point is that it's a bit Pollyanna'ish to think that jacking up the minimum wage results in a better outcome for everybody.
Obviously there is such a thing as too high of a minimum wage, that will severely dampen employment for lots of businesses. Jacking up the minimum wage in itself to an arbitrary value that is too high is pretty poor policy.
But in the current state, too often, those on full time minimum wage jobs are still below poverty level, and thus qualify for many government benefits. In effect, my tax money contributes to your low-wage employee. From a personal perspective, I don't really like your option 1. I'd actually ideally want that person who is only worth sub-minimum wage to linger in the safety net for a while and learn skills that will make them more valuable than below-minimum wage level. Such would be a far better value for my tax dollars than subsidizing low-skill employment.
Some economists feel that up to a certain point, minimum wage actually increases employment (in non-competitive labor markets, eg monopsonies) and increases aggregate demand enough to compensate for the cost effect (because low-income workers have a higher marginal propensity to consume, which would offset the cost effect). Of course, minimum wage is not the only anti-poverty tool out there and some economists feel it is too blunt. And the "correct" minimum wage probably varies hugely by location. As you say -- there are a lot of nuances. I'm just saying, there is more to this than just the employer perspective.
The needs of business do not supercede the needs of human beings. If a business cannot operate without virtual slave labor, the business should not exist.
> Your "argument" is just a caricatured strawman that has no basis in reality.
As is yours. Businesses regularly have costs which they cannot turn a profit on, but the work must be done, so it gets done.
Poverty is the natural state of humanity. Trade / business allow us to rise above that. The people you are referring to as "natural slave labor" are better off working for less than the sum you find optimal, than not working at all. And unless someone has a gun to their head, they always retain the option to do the latter.
As is yours.
I don't find it to be so, but feel free to convince me.
Businesses regularly have costs which they cannot turn a profit on, but the work must be done, so it gets done.
Sure, but there's a limit to that. A business can't run in the red indefinitely. And again, we already know from actual, demonstrated, empirical evidence in the Real World that business are forced, by economic reality, to pay more, often FAR more, than "minimum wage" to workers. But again, when we are talking primarily about the workers on the bottom rung of the ladder, the question is, do you want to lock them out of participating in the economy altogether?
And yours isn't?
Seriously, everything you're complaining about their argument, can be applied double to yours.
No.
Seriously, everything you're complaining about their argument, can be applied double to yours.
I don't find that to be supported, but please give do expand on that.
This is the industry that decided that "ride sharing" consists of getting in somebody else's car and telling them where you want to go...
For the many people who do work these jobs, this ruling strengthens their protection.
I correct misinformation when I see it. The world is awash in false information.
That article just says "we'll find out soon"...
I'm all for greater contract worker protections. People seem to think this is some value judgement on that issue. there are valid arguments that some aspects aren't accounted for in this report. But the perception I had was that the gig economy was becoming a sizeable portion of the workforce. Were it true we'd expect it to spill over in BLS numbers regardless of their deficiencies.
Last month we had no data so that's excusable. But now that we do it should be talked about.
The problem is that "contingent workers are persons who do not expect their jobs to last or who report that their jobs are temporary" and I don't think factors in anyone with a full or part-time job that also does side work.
To me this exemplifies everything that is wrong with the media today.
So, you might be right, but without better evidence and a more complex analysis from you, I can't really buy your conclusion.
So far most of the analysis I see - where it mentions this at all - speaks of only absolute numbers which is almost useless. For all the press the gig economy has gotten I'd expect more.
Well, they are clumsy patches on top of an inhumane system of exploitation, and we could probably do a lot better, but preserving them is better than retrograde progress.
Consumer rights too. I've seen some really horrendous people on /r/Lyft arguing that they are well within their rights as independent contractors to refuse service to disabled people and if Lyft kicks them off the platform for it, they can sue Lyft for violating their rights as contractors.
And you can replace "refuse service to disabled people" with any other form of mistreating customers, and you'll see people on /r/Lyft arguing for it and claiming that Lyft can't kick them off the platform for it.
The gig economy needs to go.
Also, last I knew, Uber wasn't driving around forcing people to work for their service.
The only thing exploitative here is the state and Taxi Lobby imposing conditions on the agreements you or I make with an employer.
In the end it will mean fewer jobs for prospective Uber drivers and higher costs for people taking advantage of the service.
I chose to work as CEO of Amazon, but Amazon had other ideas.
The fact that you cannot choose to be the author of _War and Peace_ does not diminish the freedom you have in choosing to author non sequiturs on the internet.
I take Uber a lot and not once has a driver had anything bad to say about the “gig economy”. Most are thankful to make a couple extra bucks during their free time.
Their ability to make that money is under constant attack by those who supposedly “know better” than they do about how they should be earning a living.
Playing devil's advocate here, doesn't the need to provide quality customer service come into play? I'm not arguing that you can't provide good customer service while also communicating a negative opinion about the company you're driving for, but I've got to imagine that at least a portion of drivers feel like it might be uncouth to discuss something like that and opt to not complain.
That doesn't stop other service workers in similar "gig economy" relationships from complaining (including drivers for other ride-hailing apps complaining about the app I've used to hail them).
As an occasional user of such services, I am OK with paying an increased rate if it means that the drivers are able to get unemployment.
>But these days anyone who qualifies to drive for Uber could easily find another job making the same wage or more wages.
Some people might stop riding because of the increase, which leads to some drivers going elsewhere for other jobs that you say should be easy to find. I'm not quite sure where you're going with this.
The agreement between an employer and an employee is not "mutual" because of the massive power differential. Your premise is flawed.
But these days anyone who qualifies to drive for Uber could easily find another job making the same wage or more wages.
People who have the ability to choose get to choose where they work. Many people do not have this freedom of choice. Otherwise people wouldn't continue to work for places that steal tips or sexually harass employees.
"Also, last I knew, Uber wasn't driving around forcing people to work for their service."
This is not, and never has been an excuse or defense. It has literally no bearing on anything.
Made an app so that kids can deliver lemonade on weekends to neighbors for a few bucks? Someone will try to make a career out of delivering lemonade full time and sue you because it doesn't pay a living wage with benefits.
If by “nice things” you mean “maximally exploitative capitalist businesses”, sure.
If I wanted to help clean up local communities, I could make an app that allows you to post trash bounties on your neighborhood, to be collected by people that accept the bounty and go clean it up.
Soon: "CleanCommunities is an evil company! They maximally exploit professional trash bounty hunters with below minimum wage and no benefits, no protective equipment, etc!!!"
Like, geez, I wasn't trying to exploit people, I just saw a litter problem in my community and tried to fix it... I didn't even intend for people to turn this into a full time job, more like a "volunteer service with benefits" type deal...
We're not talking about a lemonade stand..
It is far past the tipping-point where Uber has a social obligation to those workers.
But the idea that Uber is done kind of community service that doesn't center business around reducing wages in an existing area, and that the low wages are instead an example of people exploiting themselves in a way Uber in no way intended and intended to profit from is farcical.
I don’t think people doing the Uber bashing here understand what it’s like to be poor and that service like Uber are actually a good thing.
People are only idiots if they take something that is only obviously meant for non-sustainable income, try to turn it into their livelihood, and then act surprised/outraged when it isn't sustainable. I kind of got this vibe from ride sharing - I never thought it would be sustainable as a full-time job, I thought it was more for just some fun side income.
It would be like if someone leased a lemonade factory from a 3rd party in order to use my app.
They were, but spun it off. https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/30/uber-sells-its-xchange-lea...
Can you blame people for trying to make a career out of it when that's how Uber and Lyft marketed themselves when they first started to grow?
If Uber/Lyft really marketed it as a viable career option, then yeah, they definitely hold some responsibility there. The vibe I got was that ride sharing was something you could do on the side for fun, or maybe to/from a long commute or something for some bonus (but not sustainable) side income.
Not in this case. In New York, taxi drivers are licensed but not employees. Uber and Lyft drivers are all licensed by the TLC, so they're no different legally from any other black cab service.
The situation may be different in other cities, but in New York, all of the established precedent so far classifies TLC drivers as independent contractors or self-employed.
What are we preserving exactly? The memory of some ghost? That's the wrong stance, if you want to advocate for something in this area it should be with shameless and unbridled aggression for change and new systems, not defensiveness or preservation.
I must admit that I’ve been working white collar engineering jobs for nearly 15 years now, so I’m not exactly an authority on being a minimum wage worker. I thought you were still eligible for unemployment and that it was paid for by your employer?
Yes, this is correct.
I agree that it’s important to push intellectually beyond a reform-minded liberalism that seeks to “take the edges off” of Capitalism. But that doesn’t exclude using the history of labor protections or organization as a jumping off point.