Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdgthree | Hacker News Reader

This is certainly the (fairly robust) legal argument. My hesitation is that I think a significant amount of drivers prefer and would benefit from the arrangement that Uber and Lyft have set up, and it's a shame that we aren't discussing how to write legislation to fit those people in.

It just feels like forcing everyone to be an employee will box out a large number of happy part-time drivers who weren't too concerned with setting their own rates.

View on HN

I agree. I think the "gig-economy" is clearly a third type of worker - not quite and employee and not quite a contractor. It makes sense to embrace that and make sure everyone benefits the most, instead of shoving this new situation into an old leagl framework that doesn't quite fit.

So we can have a worker with even less rights than a contractor? Sounds absolutely terrible.

That isn't remotely what the comment you're replying to said. I agree that thinking about the gig economy as a different type of worker opens to door to a "how might we" conversation where everyone has the opportunity to win.

> thinking about the gig economy as a different type of worker opens to door to a "how might we" conversation where everyone has the opportunity to win.

We, the readers of Hacker News, are going to fix the gig economy! Everyone, download a copy of your local laws and send a pull request to your country's highest Court.

But seriously, I think having a discussion, working out a perfect system where we'll all be better off is more than a bit hopeful.

I mean, you joke, but if we all took a more active role in forming educated opinions and voting, we'd all be better off. There isn't much of a reason to not find the time to familiarize with local laws and send a letter to representatives, vote on policy over party, have more nuanced conversation with family and friends, etc.

The part time drivers aren't the problem, it doesn't cost much to move them into being employees assuming they made above minimum wage to begin with. The problem is with all the people working uber full time and over 40 hours a week. At that point, a lot of things get more expensive like the burden of providing health insurance

Why is there a need to "write legislation"? If Uber wants to treat drivers as contractors (or employees), California's lawmakers & courts have already set out a clear path toward legally doing either. Meanwhile, I'm sure you're right that many drivers would prefer to be contractors.

So who's the resistant party? Right -- Uber. Why? Because they can't make their unit economics work either way.

"But if the drivers want this intermediate arrangement, and Uber wants it, why should Calif stand in the way?" States make a lot of contracts, especially labor contracts, illegal because they go against public policy (including externalizing too many costs on state & local govts themselves). Still, Uber would be welcome to restrict its activities to states and countries that have labor laws more to its liking. Chemical & manufacturing & agricultural firms have been doing this for years. But Uber can't turn a profit without being in dense cities in liberal states (where labor laws are usually stronger)

One more argument is often advanced, which is "there is no scenario under which Uber could use contractors." This is also untrue. For instance, instead of working directly with individual drivers, Uber could pursue a franchise-style model, where it might, say, solicit bids among companies representing groups of drivers to handle all the rides in a certain zip code. Variations of this model are already used in a lot of industries, of course. But Uber's margins are already too thin, and it would have to give up too much control. Uber prefers the current model precisely because the balance of negotiating power is permanently asymmetric.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com