Re:Refusal to recognize the rise of independent contractors ...
by RangerScience on Saturday October 08, 2016 @09:12PM
(#12669431)
...Which I think would be fine - employment liquidity seems good just like monetary liquidity - except that we do a shit job of providing benefits (like health insurance, and maternity/paternity leave) via the government.
Making them employees of Uber isn't an answer. Making a Union isn't an answer (I don't think; again, too much overhead, and the point isn't negotiating power anyway). Government probably isn't an answer (regardless of "should", look at effeciveness). Maybe needs a rethink from first principles?
Re:Refusal to recognize the rise of independent contractors ...
by Spivak on Saturday October 08, 2016 @11:25PM
(#12669746)
> employment liquidity seems good just like monetary liquidity
Right, but such liquidity is formed either on the basis that individuals don't have to work to survive, or on the basis that employees are so scare and desirable that mobility becomes a non-issue.
I don't disagree that we could address some of these problems by starting over from first principles, but that kind of change takes lifetimes to implement -- we still have to do something about the current people.
Society reached consensus a long time ago about what an employee is and isn't. Companies have been nipping at the edges of this for years to push more risks on "independent" contractors, which in reality means pushing business risk to society at large.