Respectfully, I will disagree on principle. Whether a person is or is not an employee is determined by law exclusively. Assuming the law is already in effect and no court has issued an injunction against it, and assuming Uber and Postmate are noncompliant, I would think any workers who suffer harm due to said noncompliance can petition the court for immediate relief.
~Max
…you obviously aren’t paying enough taxes then because it clearly isn’t working.
Or perhaps these “unemployment services” are able to help a great many people, but they can’t help **every **single person. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific and tell us exactly what unemployment services you are funding and what the success rates are for these services?
Because these “unemployment services” haven’t succeeded in getting them jobs? Because having any sort of income is better than having **no **income?
Moving costs money. How do you earn enough money to move if you are barely surviving and having to rely on the gig economy?
Yes you have a problem. A great big huge fucking problem. What is is it, do you think we are talking about in this thread? Of course minimum wage would help fix things. So would paid sick leave.
The likes of Uber and Lyft have basically hedged their futures on a gamble: that they will be able to leverage their huge customer base (gained by offering services below the actual cost) eventually into a profitable service. I don’t think that that gamble will ever actually pay off. I think those “jobs” are going to disappear regardless: not because of the “costs of such services”: but because the business model they have adopted is fundamentally unprofitable.
If you want to debate it helps to understand what it is we are talking about. So far in the last couple of days we’ve discovered you don’t understand what “single-payer” means or what “universal healthcare” is. You didn’t understand the difference between health insurance and healthcare, and now, here I am, in a thread all about the gig economy, patiently explaining to you what the gig economy actually is.
Respectfully: you have just agreed with me.
Uber & Postmate’s request for a preliminary injunction was denied on Feb 10. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.768703/gov.uscourts.cacd.768703.52.0_1.pdf
~Max
I tried to respect your wishes, but the debate is spreading…well…like a virus
It is really pretty simple. You have UltraVires and Johanna. We have no connection to each other and neither has a responsibility to provide anything for the other.
But one day you decide that you like my janitorial skills. You think I will keep your building pretty clean.
Why, simply because of that, have you taken on a caretaker role for me? It’s insulting really. I’m still an individual the same as you. You owe me the negotiated rate for my janitorial services and nothing more. After that we each go home and do our own thing.
My personal needs are not your concern. In both directions. You wouldn’t say that I am doing well (say my wife has a good job and I’m doing this to get out of the house) so you should cut my pay, would you?
And morality? Why would you be anymore morally obliged to provide for my partial poverty than any other citizen? If anything, you are doing more than anyone else in the world because you are providing at least part of what I need moneywise.
Where did this idea start that once you employ someone, whether on the books or as contract work, that the worker somehow becomes your charge or your ward? That’s nonsense.
And I’m not even saying it is socialism or any other such thing. Let’s have a social safety net, but this idea of a mandatory living wage puts the burden on one single individual to alleviate a person’s poverty instead of placing it on society as a whole. What did that person do to conscript himself?
And you pay them for being there when you are sick. Do they or anyone else pay you when you are out sick?
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! That’s hilarious, dude! Did you write that yourself or is it from some absurdist TV show and which one?
Aye; he totally did.
It does actually have to do with what you said- a taxi driver can’t negotiate or give you a quote, whether he owns his own cab or leases one or is employed by a company. He’s got to charge by the meter or by zone, whatever the government uses to set prices. I’ve never seen a hail-on-the-street cab driver market himself and can’t imagine how they could. How exactly are they different from an Uber/Lyft driver? And if they aren’t different , who is the owner-operator an employee of? Or is the ability to set prices and negotiate not as important as you originally seemed to think?
When you posted this
You didn’t restrict it to California and perhaps a couple of other states with similar laws , so I assumed you were speaking more broadly. Yes, if California law defines them as employees they are employees and Uber, Lyft etc should comply with the law. But there are 40 something other states in the US that use the Federal Department of Labor’s six factor test - and there is an opinion letter where the DOL decided that service providers working for a virtual marketplace company were independent contractors.
DoorDash just sent me a letter:
-They are instituting no contact methods for food delivery
-They are communicating with participating restaurants on safety
-They are establishing a means for workers to receive 2 weeks of sick leave if needed, due to quarantine or family illness
I was impressed. I hope it translates to action.
Isn’t the potential situation with coronavirus slightly different to normal sick leave? With shutdowns like they’ve had in China and Italy, it’s not employees staying home because they’re sick, it’s practically everyone staying home in order to prevent the spread of the disease. They’re not actually sick.
And it’s the government - federal, state or local - ordering them to stay home and not work. It’s not their choice.
So it would make sense for there to be some one-time only actions taken to help those employees, and it’s the government’s responsibility to take those actions. Italy, for example, has suspended mortgage payments (and some reports also say utility bills), which then leads to rent payments being suspended (the govt will end up bailing the banks out for the lost payments, like the UK did for other reasons a few years ago). The workers still aren’t earning, but at least they’re also not getting into debt and risking losing their homes, so when the crisis is over they can get back on their feet again.
TBH, that makes more sense than trying to get all employers including small companies to provide extra sick pay for people who aren’t actually sick. That would require changing far more laws and requiring admin from small companies who might find it difficult to do extra admin when their workers are on lockdown.
As to why those non-working people should get paid, or rather, not have to pay for a short period of time - if too many gig workers end up in huge debt, bankrupt or homeless, then they won’t have money to spend to stimulate the economy.
Well, yes that could happen but it’s a little beyond the scope of this thread. If entire cities or states have to shut down, I doubt even a serious right winger would seriously oppose direct government assistance.
But I actually think the situation we’re already in calls for government assistance. This is one of those times you just don’t rely on people acting the right way. Anyone who is considered a “self isolation” candidate by the health authorities should get some half decent government check to cover two week’s expenses, end of story.
And btw OP, Uber is losing shtloads of money every year. They are not getting rich off of shorting their workers. Just saying.
Maybe I’m not, I haven’t ever looked at how effective the unemployment fund is. But if it’s not working, we should fix that.
I believe… unemployment benefits are capped at about $275/wk for up to a max of 20 weeks. You have to check in with their office every now and again and prove you are trying to get a job.
I could see a point of failure if you have a family or medical condition. In theory there are other supposed to be other services designed to help with that stuff.
We are supposed to have housing programs for such situations. Unfortunately, they are underfunded.
I was talking about traditional jobs with employers, not independent contractor work. You can’t offer paid sick leave to a contractor, or at least I can’t think of a way to make that work.
“Hi, I’m standing at the corner of Main and 5th, and I’m wasted. Can you take me home?”
“Sorry, I’m sick right now and can’t drive you.”
“Then why did you take the offer? Dammit, it already charged me!”
“That’s my sick pay, thank you much.”
I don’t think there’s anything I can do to avoid this happening in the future. It’s too late for me to re-learn the entire English language, and I am just finding out now that I have all the wrong definitions.
~Max
Nothing a Banquet Bear vs Max S. duel to make me flee a thread. Forget I was here.
…because this isn’t the **only **thing that distinguishes a taxi driver from uber or lyft. The ability to set prices and negotiate was directly relevant and specific to point I had just made. I use independent contractors often as a self employed person. They don’t market themselves to me, they don’t set their rate, they don’t negotiate with me. But they aren’t part of the gig economy. They are highly specialised at what they do and they get paid well above market rate. Just because they are independent contractors who didn’t negotiate with me nor marketed themselves to me (I sought them out) doesn’t mean they are the equivalent to an Uber or a Lyft driver.
I don’t live in America and I’m not subject to the whims of the Federal Department of Labor. Its a big world out there and we don’t need to examine this in the context of America. It should be plainly obvious the likes of Uber have based their business model on exploiting loopholes in the law. Throughout their history they have ignored local laws and ordinance. And they still can’t regularly turn a profit.
…why do you say stuff like this, when it becomes apparent you don’t actually really know what you are talking about? You weren’t talking about “the unemployment fund” you talked about “unemployment services.” What services were you talking about? Are you only talking about unemployment benefits? Besides giving people the ability to live while not working, how specifically do unemployment benefits “help people get jobs?”
Well yeah. Things aren’t working. They need fixing. What is it, do you think this thread is all about?
What is it, do you think, this thread is all about? We are talking about the gig economy. What to do about it in the face of a pandemic. Relitigating the problem doesn’t do anything to coming up with a solution.
What are you confused about? How did you disagree with me?
Actually, it was a thing in the late 19th/early 20th Century, what with employee housing, paying employees in scrip usable only at a company store, all the stuff Henry Ford thought justified imposing on his workers…
Sort of goes back into feudal times, too, the notion that not only did a serf have obligations to his lord but a lord towards his underlings as well, but I’m pretty sure you’re not eager for feudalism again.
Because the US society as a whole is unwilling to use tax money for a social safety net that role has been imposed on businesses. If you don’t want employers to be so obligated then lobby for an actual social safety net such as many European nations have. Yes, that will cost the rich more money.
Or just leave people to starve and deal with the eventually uprising/revolution because hungry people are desperate people.
My company enacted it’s pandemic plan and gave all employees a week’s worth of PTO.
What are the differences that make a taxi driver not an employee and an Uber/Lyft driver an employee? Neither sets their own rates, both work when they want to rather than according to an employers’s schedule, both can either make a profit or lose money. It seems like you think that using a particular sort of app makes someone an employee. It’s the same position Uber/Lyft originally took regarding regulation - that somehow, they’re different because drivers are matched with passengers through an app rather than a phone call or street hail.
I didn’t bring up California, you did.
…if Uber themselves are arguing that Uber drivers are not comparable to Taxi drivers, why are you attempting to do so?
From the Barbara Berwick decision:
You can hail a cab in the street. You can walk past three or four taxis and get into the one that has a cleaner car. There is scope for a Taxi driver to market and get their own business. This is entirely out of the control of an Uber driver.
I didn’t bring up the Federal Department of Labor, you did. I used California specifically in response to a particular point, which was who is and isn’t an employee is determined by the particular laws in specific areas.
Do you consider your employees assets or liabilities?
Since you asked, I checked. Here in Florida, businesses pay an unemployment tax, but it is called the “reemployment tax”. The tax revenue flows into an unemployment fund. Workers who are out of a job due to no fault of their own who are able and available to work can submit claims to the Florida dept. of Economic Opportunity. If the claim is accepted, that department uses the fund to provide benefits including a weekly cash allowance, training sessions, resume-building, and I think even a job board. There are both physical offices and online websites to provide these services.
I wouldn’t be surprised if our state legislature has been tightening the noose around the program, but it is still supposed to exist.
Unemployment benefits, even if underfunded, are not supposed to flow to self-employed people. I’m not sure whether driving for uber immediately voids your reemployment claim, but it is definitely going to reduce the benefits. Being unable to continue working for Uber, for example by contracting some disease that puts you out of work, would not be enough to trigger unemployment benefits. Because gig workers aren’t employees…
Which makes sense. If gig workers aren’t employees, then they don’t have employers paying a reemployment tax. If we want gig workers to receive unemployment services, we need to find a way to reclassify them as employees - which may or may not be desirable. We could also work out an alternate tax scheme, for example with income taxes, but seeing as we don’t have an income tax here, I think that is unlikely.
I don’t think there is any chance of actually extending worker protections to gig workers on the timeframe of “yesterday”. What can we do in the immediate term? We can try to pressure companies into being nice and volunteering benefits. There are disaster funds, both at local and federal levels, which could be used to provide basic services in particularly hot zones. States and even local governments have the police power to suspend evictions while everyone is home in quarantine. The CDC probably has authority to provide tests and treatment free of charge, although I doubt they have the means yet.
You had said, California passed some law, Uber & Lyft refused to comply, and therefore whether a worker is an employee or not is not entirely defined by law. I responded by claiming that Uber & Lyft are still subject to the law, that despite the court challenge, whether a worker is an employee or not is exclusively defined by law. Our arguments have mutually exclusive conclusions, so how can you claim that we are in agreement?
~Max
…where did the bolded not come from? Perhaps you should read what I wrote a bit more carefully.