News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why Uber Won. Parent comment

Re:Why Uber Won by rtpg on Saturday April 23, 2016 @10:57PM (#11558374)
The reason they weren't made employees is pretty simple: there'd be a bunch of payroll taxes to pay. Either the already meager driver split would need to go down even more, or they'll have to raise prices that users have to pay...

Knowing Uber, they'd probably push down employee wages and then run into minimum wage issues...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Uber Won by duaneb on Saturday April 23, 2016 @11:30PM (#11558436)
Also, they would be liable for the employee's behavior. Which is terrible, economically.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Uber Won by danieltillett on Sunday April 24, 2016 @01:14AM (#11558638)
Aren't they effectively held liable in the court of public opinion which is probably more costly than any legal liability.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Uber Won by duaneb on Monday April 25, 2016 @01:02PM (#11565606)
No, not in the least. People know Uber is an evil company and don't care.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Uber Won by danieltillett on Sunday April 24, 2016 @01:11AM (#11558632)
Aren't the payroll taxes just shifted onto the driver anyway? The wages of the drivers would go down, but their take home pay would stay the same.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Uber Won by rtpg on Sunday April 24, 2016 @01:25AM (#11558654)
I think that's true for the most part, though I bet a lot of people under-report.

But there are things like health insurance which Uber would have to provide (and in the contractor case, are instead subsidised through Obamacare provisions) that I think would end up with take home being less...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Uber Won by throwaway_exer on Sunday April 24, 2016 @02:42AM (#11558823)
> subsidised through Obamacare provisions

Obamacare mandates access to insurance (from a dwindling group of participating insurers), it is not a direct subsidy.

In fact, Obamacare has raised insurance rates for most people, as insurers cancelled most plans because they "were not compatible" with Obamacare, and re-enrolled members at higher rates than before.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Uber Won by danieltillett on Sunday April 24, 2016 @01:46AM (#11558702)
It would have to be risky as a driver to under-report as they would be one pull of Uber's data away from an audit by the IRS.

Health insurance might be more of a problem, but this is really only a US issue.

I am wondering if a franchise model (say like McDonald's) might get you to a model where you have the benefits of employees, but without all the associated issues.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Uber Won by infinite8s on Sunday April 24, 2016 @10:22AM (#11559764)
It doesn't even require a pull of Uber's data. Unless the driver is making less than $600/yr from Uber, Uber is required to file a 1099-MISC with the IRS for that driver.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Uber Won by throwaway_exer on Sunday April 24, 2016 @02:44AM (#11558826)
If payroll taxes are shifted to the driver, then their take-home pay would go down.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Uber Won by danieltillett on Sunday April 24, 2016 @03:29AM (#11558891)
By take home pay I mean after all taxes are paid, not what they get at the end of the week in their bank account.
[ Parent | on HN ]