> it is soul-crushingly manipulative
In what way?
I’m a CA resident, and I support the contractor status (mainly due to general support of a flexible labor market). I’m willing to change my stance if there is a good reason to do so.
In what way?
I’m a CA resident, and I support the contractor status (mainly due to general support of a flexible labor market). I’m willing to change my stance if there is a good reason to do so.
By and large, this only benefits the employer. Why would you support anti-human markets?
There are lots of reasons, and people that do not want to be considered an employee, with all the limits that come with that, mainly people who are using the apps as "side hustle" not full time employment
Fraud, or lying would be things I consider "fucking people over". Presenting a work for hire situation where adults agree to the terms is not "fucking people over"
>I’ve never gotten into an Uber or Lyft that wasn’t clearly a full time hustle.
My guess that is very regional.
People have this thing called “agency”. If you have an issue with Uber not providing benefits like health insurance, blame it on the ass backwards American health care system where your health insurance is tied to your job.
Jason Snell, a former editor in chief for Macworld who went independent a few years ago but still writes for Macworld and a few other places independently and he is a podcaster and a blogger said that the laws they were initially trying to past in California were going to make it harder for him to stay independent.
I assure you that he isn’t a big business conservative by any stretch of the imagination.
You heard the same from truck drivers that said they would move from California so they could stay independent.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/ab5-independent-ca...
Have you participated in this part of the labor market? Or have you talked extensively with folks who have?
Before voting on prop 22, I made an effort to talk to “gig workers”. A few observations:
1. Guaranteeing a minimum pay rate when working with prop 22 was something that they welcomed. Apparently some of the apps made offers that were basically noob traps — probably not out of malice by the company, rather incompetence.
2. They almost universally did not want to have scheduled hours and/or be a full-time employee. There were a number of reasons for this, but the desired state was the same — flexible schedule.
3. Some of the folks who would likely be full-time candidates were not well-educated or skilled, but they knew how to work hard. They felt like they were rewarded fairly for their labor, often times at better net pay than they could get elsewhere.
4. Uber/Lyft seemed to be the most liked. Folks who didn’t want much human interaction and/or had an older car preferred uber eats / door dash. Instacart seemed ok, but it didn’t seem to have as many fans as the others.
I talked to about 20-25 people. Everyone seemed to like the current system. When asked specifically about full time work, the only support I heard for that was from a couple of people who said something like “it would be nice, as long as the schedule was flexible” — which is not how full time would likely work.
I think that many of these gig apps hit product-market fit both with workers as well as customers, and that’s why they are successful in this two-sided market.
EDIT: Fwiw, I also heard a lot of kvetching about AB5 from both employers and employees. That legislation may have won some political points from certain voter bases, but I don’t think I have ever heard anyone praise it (although I’m sure they exist).
There's no need to actually click that link; it's what it looks like - Doordash teaming up with Marvel to create a comic book that shows "Dashers" as super-heroes. Seems pretty condescending to me.
But on a day-to-day level, these companies will use every dark pattern available to them to encourage drivers to make deliveries that are uneconomical to that driver.
A ride share or delivery company could offer flexible hours with part-time workers too, so flexibility is not why the delivery companies created Proposition 22. As I understand it, Proposition 22 was necessary in order to:
* Allow drivers to use their own car rather than forcing Uber to manage all the cars in their fleet.
* Avoid paying drivers when they are parked waiting for an order, which allows drivers to have multiple apps open looking for orders.
Those are only offered during rush hour and aren’t consistently offered.
Most companies are scared of the legal liability of hiring willing contractors.
Actual contractors practically dont exist as a result. Most contractors you see in tech are actually empoyees of a 2nd firm, which takes 50% of the paycheck to shield the tech company from liability.
My company is extremely picky about who they will engage with for actual contrating. They must have a demonstrated contracting work history, and get no more than 1/3 of their annual income from the contract. This is all to prevent worker misclassification lawsuit.
What do you think the difference really is between being a contractor and being an at will employee?