The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker

Regular cab drivers are usually classified as independent contractors too. I didn't see a bunch of people lobbying for them to be employees before Uber came on the scene. I also don't see the people who are mad at Uber caring about regular cab drivers (e.g. this article doesn't mention that issue at all and neither do the comments here). This makes me cynically think that the source of all this recent noise about the issue is hardball political tactics from Uber's powerful and connected opponents.

More generally I see a broad media campaign smearing Silicon Valley; spinning a narrative of tech companies as an out-of-touch new elite bent on oppressing the poor and middle class (e.g. the Google bus kerfuffle). That narrative seems popular even in tech circles these days. Perhaps it's an inevitable consequence of success.

I don't see anyone besides Uber winning in the Uber economy. It's right in the name. Forcing Uber and other ride-sharing companies to classify their resources as employees will only give them further incentive to automate. Once that happens (5 years, 10 max) it will be a moot point how a driver would be classified.

Very few people wake up in the morning and say "Gee, I'm so excited to drive for Uber today! I don't need the extra money, I just love it!" The sharing economy is only possible because of income inequality. Granted, ride-sharing is letting a tiny drip of income back into the driver's wallets, but it's temporary.

Is this a joke?

We do not need a new category of worker just because a few corporations decide that they do not want to provide their workers with benefits. The benefits that come with the employee designation are the bare minimum. A company that cannot afford to provide those to employees should not exist.

The downside of "the employee designation" for the business is having to pay the employee (the overtime, the insurance, etc). The downside for the employee is ... "far less workplace flexibility". Yeah, those things are totally equal. Tell you what: if it is important for a company to tap the segment of workforce that values "workplace flexibility", it can provide that flexibility on top of the benefits. Offer them less in terms of the salary if you have to and see if anyone bites. ("But I already don't plan to pay them more than minimum wage" Tough luck)

From the article: " But it would ameliorate one of the worst problems with the 1099 economy without fundamentally quashing the business model, namely pay that works out to less than the minimum wage."

The entire purpose of labor law is to quash that "business model".

Unions. The people who brought you the weekend.

The more I learn about Uber, the less I want an Uber Economy.

the problem is that the "independent contractor" category, as most of us know it, doesn't really exist. Nearly all "independent contractor" jobs, in the eyes of the IRS, are actually employee jobs, if you get audited.

Now, employers still want to treat employees like independent contractors, right? So what does this mean?

As a computer nerd, this means that if I work as an independent contractor for a company with a legal department, I have to go through a body shop, a company that takes 30-50% off the top, and then wants to hire me as a W2, of course, but without benefits. Which is a pain in the ass, because that means the benefits I buy for myself need to come out of post-tax money.

(Now, if you find an especially shady body shop, they will often let you go "corp-to-corp" - usually they tell you that they will be telling the client that you are a W2, as that provides better protection to the client. But you can find some honest body shops that will let you go corp to corp, especially if you can demonstrate insurance and revenue for your company that isn't you.)

Of course, labor laws are there to protect the low end, and driving is one of the most dangerous jobs that you can get in a modern economy, so I certainly agree that uber drivers need some sort of "workers comp" like disability insurance, just because their job is so dangerous.

I'm just pointing out that telling companies that they can't hire contractors directly doesn't always end up working out better for the employees.

I'm of two minds about all this.

From a European perspective Uber, AirBNB and so on are a setback.

But in some (not all) cities taxi services are ridiculously expensive.

Some regulation of this industry is good, if Uber (and AirBNB for that matter) are willing to get their drivers/vehicles on the same footing as the competition and if they ensure that their contractors are not going to skip out on paying taxes and background checks then I'm fine with it.

The thing that bugs me is that the way both these entities position themselves they essentially leave others to hold the bag while they rid to riches and that's an issue. The new middle men are in that sense not better or worse than the old middle men, they're just different people.

Aren't Uber drivers basically franchise operator or franchisees?

Is that category a robot?

Another pets.com I do not understand what is so revolutionary about Uber especially in countries which as good Taxi companies. For me Uber is a hyped glorified black taxi.

$50 billion valuation for a taxi company common!