[1] Negotiable.
It's very possible that this market only exists at the size that it does at a price that doesn't support what people in the US think of as "a wage they can live off of", and that by mandating more compensation, then there will be a whole lot of drivers for whom this just isn't an option anymore.
That said, I think drivers should be able to set their own prices, and that there should be a real market with bidding, but the UX will probably suffer.
Nope, there's lots more options than that. Cut executive pay. Tax high earners more and provide social services like healthcare and public transit, to reduce cost and demand on these services. And yes, prices would likely go up, because they're no longer being subsidized by gov't welfare.
> It's very possible that this market only exists at the size that it does at a price that doesn't support what people in the US think of as "a wage they can live off of"
Then the market is exploiting labor and is being subsidized by the welfare system (else the workers couldn't live, by definition). If we're going to subsidize unprofitable activities, we should do that as a society, not by funneling cash to Uber's owners.
Executive pay, etc was what I was referring to as "fat". But what fraction of Uber's expenses do you think executive pay makes up? This is an oft-stated refrain, but anytime anyone runs the numbers, it quickly becomes apparent that those aren't large enough to make any difference across the huge number of employees involved.
I'm totally onboard with the social reforms you mention, but these are outside the purview of Uber/Lyft and this attempt to force them to treat these people as employees.
This doesn't really work when Uber has something like 3 million drivers worldwide. Distributing the CEO's entire salary among drivers would yield them only a handful of coins worth of extra income per person per year. There's simply no way to translate exec pay into meaningful comp for drivers at this sort of scale.
I do, however, believe it's possible for the government to establish better social services (e.g. universal healthcare at similar tax rates exists just north of the border) if only the US govt adjusted its spending priorities.
I must be missing something, how is Uber,Lyft being subsidized?
And that's different from many other hypothetical services how? If we accept that the floor should be lowered it should be for everyone, and if we don't it shouldn't. It should be an even playing field, not something where some companies slip through by not employing their workers.
And what about small business owners, who effectively have zero paid leave or vacation?
It's a good question and I'm not sure. I think my answer is some weak form of "yes." My goal is to enforce a good work-life balance, I think society benefits from a healthy workforce. So they wouldn't be impermissible per se, but they should meet those same requirements. However, obviously that's really hard to enforce for a contractor type situation, and some people genuinely thrive in their jobs in a healthy way. So, I don't know what the right balance is. I believe France has some mandatory maximum work hours regulations. Those might be interesting to look into.
I know some will argue this point, but I really do think it's clear that gig workers don't fall into those two categories, regardless. The power dynamics are totally upside-down between traditional independent contractors and SBOs, and Uber/Lyft drivers.
- There should be a limit on number of hours worked (regardless of type of employment).
- Everyone should be an employee, and not a freelancer or otherwise independently employed
- Everyone should get benefits
Or all 3? Those are all to me at least independent things. You can have work hour limitations as a contractor or you can be an overworked employee.
Yes.
> - There should be a limit on number of hours worked (regardless of type of employment).
I'm not getting into the specifics, my point is everyone should get the worker protections we have developed over the decades. If that includes mandatory time off, great, but it doesn't have to. I pointed to France's model as one potential example of how it might apply to non-employees like contractors.
> - Everyone should be an employee, and not a freelancer or otherwise independently employed
I don't care about the categorization so long as the worker protection regulations are being met.
I never thought I would see the French system pointed to as a potential example. If you’re talking about the 35h week keep in mind that it is a really contentious topic there!
Also, why should a bureaucrat tell me what the appropriate work-life balance is, as an independent contractor? I'll decide that balance for myself, based on my life situation, thanks.
Because otherwise it tends to be a race to the bottom.
“Employment protections” are not important at all for workers’ prosperity. Just imagine if they were absent. The most marginal workers would be better off.
Set your own price higher then