Hacker News Reader

Comment by asdasfasdfasdf | Hacker News Reader

"personal risk"

This is kind of the state of the country really. Ridesharing is an OK gig until you get into an accident, you're fine without health insurance until you get injured, you don't really need a union until you start getting treated unfairly, you can pay for college as long as you consistently have a good salary... we're being statistically gaslit with the idea that most people can scrape by without higher wages and better general protections.

View on HN

Could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

I think you're gas lighting us by ignoring the fact that this personal risk is taken at personal choice. If someone wanted the arrangement that comes with an employee/employer relationship there are jobs that offer that. But not everyone wants that, some people prefer, for their own reasons that are really none of your business to be an independent contractor. This is about choice plain and simple.

Personal risk isn't an isolated thing. Thousands of people taking personal risk have systemic effects, and these companies aren't paying into it, even though everyone around these "risk-takers" suffer the consequences.

> Thousands of people taking personal risk have systemic effects

How do you know the personal situation of each of Uber's/Lyft's drivers? How do we measure risk for each person in an objective way? Some people might be at no risk, some higher. We can't know! What right is there in taking away options that benefit some people because it might possibly not work well for someone who voluntarily signed a contract? This is not liberal policy. This is paternalistic, state-controlled economic oppression.

> Some people might be at no risk, some higher.

All rideshare drivers are (by definition) participating in the most dangerous activity (western) humans do on a daily basis. Every non-utilized minute they spend on the road adds risk to them as well as to other members of society.

The fact that in most places in the world there's legislation that defines requirements and responsibilities for professional drivers, from qualifications, to insurance, alcohol intake, maximum working hours, minimum rest hours, etc., Implies that it totally does exist.

I think you're gas lighting us by ignoring the fact that these types of choices aren't fully unconstrained. People aren't assuming this risk because they prefer to, but rather they have limited choices available to them given their resources and background.

> but rather they have limited choices available to them given their resources and background.

So let's take one more choice away!? Not every person looking to make some money is looking for something with as much commitment as employment. Not every business needs people to work according to their schedule at a specific place. While you think you're giving full-time employment and benefits to all of these people what you're really doing is taking certain kinds of opportunities away.

Yes! If the free market results in employers offering shitty choices that take advantage of workers with limited options, the government should step in and attempt to correct the power-imbalance that puts the workers at life- and liberty-threatening disadvantages.

Extrapolating from your logic, indentured servitude would still be allowed to exist.

Banning a form of work where workers owns the means of production doesn't seem to be in the workers interest. I'd rather they regulate it in a better way, for example rewrite union laws to make it possible for gig workers to unionize.

Uber drivers do not own the means of production, as ruled by the recent California courts, because they do not own the capital of their employers, which is the IP of Uber. This is why socialists are developing and operating open-source and decentralized alternatives to Uber in many countries, so that they will indeed own the means of production.

That said, I agree that employment laws need a rewrite for these situations, but we won't get the needed reform to get the gig-worker system to work under either Biden or Trump, so not for at least 6 years.

Where did I mention the banning of a form of work?

>While you think you're giving full-time employment and benefits to all of these people what you're really doing is taking certain kinds of opportunities away.

This is some of the most phenomenal bullshit I've ever read.

There's nothing stopping Uber and Lyft from allowing people to work their own hours and also giving them benefits if they meet hourly qualifications.

You're talking about people making <$30k a year while shouldering most of the risk and using their own cars as if they're shopping around for the best FAANG salary.

> There's nothing stopping Uber and Lyft from allowing people to work their own hours and also giving them benefits if they meet hourly qualifications.

There is, if the driver drives in bad hours making their income not come up to minimum wage uber would be forced to pay the driver anyway. In order to avoid this uber would be forced to limit when and where people can drive.

Being an employee means that the company has to ensure that the employees time is well spent so that it is worth the minimum wage and benefits at least. Being a contractor means that the contractor himself is responsible for what he is doing is profitable enough for him to live on. So changing them to employees means that now uber has to ensure every driver only drives when it is profitable for uber.

So everyone who wants to handle this responsibility themselves don't want to be an employee.

Uber can simply adjust their algorithm and refuse to give shifts to drivers if there is enough drivers to cover the "bad" time period, which would be the exact equivalent of Uber drivers right now not getting rides (and not getting paid) when there is no demand.

>if the driver drives in bad hours making their income not come up to minimum wage uber would be forced to pay the driver anyway

is this a California specific law? There are lots of variable hour workers out there that may skirt by below the hour threshold for a short amount of time, but generally the employer can set reasonable adjustment periods where they'd lose their benefits for continuing to do so.

We make choices within contexts other people create.

And your solution is to take away more choices from people?

The choice to not have important types of insurance hurts the chooser and it hurts everyone else.

There are many situations where it's best if the societal bargain restricts the options available.

who gets to decide what's best?

Is that a real question? The government, of course. Hopefully an elected one, but no laws of physics force fair representation to happen.

The solution is to ensure the worker's employment status is within the legal definition as it's defined. Gig economy could usher in a new era of worker flexibility, but it could also usher in a new era of worker exploitation.

The gig economy keeps pushing risks and cost down the chain, while also showing signs that it may not be a sustainable model as a whole without venture capital to burn through or an end game of predatory monopolist behavior within the market region.

Yes, we've removed lots of choices.

Like for example, it's illegal to sell yourself into slavery or indentured servitude. That's a choice you are not legally allowed to make.

Y'jumped to a lot of conclusions, there. I suggest you try asking some genuine questions, instead.

Do you think people are really walking around thinking "I don't want health insurance because I prefer being destitute in the event of an injury"?

No, but there are people who would rather keep more of their paycheck than spend it on premiums or taxes for socialized medicine and take on that risk. Those folks are usually younger people who are more likely to work at these entry level jobs. On the flipside there are people who will risk life and limb doing something unnecessary (skiing, rock climbing, parachuting, etc.) and maybe some of them even feel safer because they know they are insured. Why should we outlaw one form of risk and not another?

People take risks. Life is all about risk and choices. I will never believe it is moral to take those choices from anyone.

Not everyone has that choice, which is why so many people depend on gig economy jobs as their livelihood.

If you do not have in-demand skills for the market, have a family to feed, and the cost of training exceeds your expenses, Uber/Lyft might be one of your only job options.

When's the last time you've worked a minimum wage contract job? At that level of employment you're not exactly shopping around for better offers.

Uber and Lyft can offer benefits to contract workers. Do you think they don't because they want to give people the right to choose?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com