Does this also mean that, say, an iOS developer could be considered an employee of Apple due to their livelihood being closely tied to that platform?
Can they be fired based on workplace policies, like "no long hair on men" or "no discussion of politics on social media"?
How would that interact with state employment laws, which may or may not recognize a different mix of protected classes?
So, given current laws:
1) "no long hair on men" - yes, if presentation is reasonably considered important (which I would say it probably is). Obviously not without a few warnings.
2) "no discussion of politics on social media" - no, you can't fire for this.
Also, the IRS has rules about when someone is an employee versus contractor:
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contr...
Whilst they are open to interpretation to some degree, I would say that Uber drivers are clearly employees, as the degree of behavioral and financial control Uber has is extreme, and Uber provides benefits (insurance), and the relationship is indefinite, and Sony game publishers (aside from the obvious difference in size, which makes the argument entirely ridiculous) are contractors.
It's no different than any other company. Most places have benefit levels tied to work levels. Working full time you get full benefits, for part time your benefits are lower and below a threshold, there are almost no benefits.
The biggest problem with this approach is that it's often used to delay action until it's well beyond the point where it becomes necessary. It's very similar to the 'Well, we just don't know, and we need to do research' approach that tobacco companies used, very successfully, for decades in the arguments about whether their products cause cancer.
In the case of Uber, one state implementing these stricter measures is actually a good way to collect the needed data to make these decisions on a wider scale across the country. NY will take this approach and we'll see the results. Other states can look at those results and try to figure out a better way.
In every state I'm aware of, unemployment insurance is managed by the State. It is a form of social welfare, and the government will intervene to e.g. extend unemployment benefits during periods of high unemployment. Applicants for benefits also cannot be denied on a case-by-case basis, and certain groups of people almost certainly receive more in benefits than they pay in. Private insurance would not achieve the same objectives.
Hence why it's important for employers to document the reasons for terminating someone, as it will result in more people being denied for unemployment insurance (if it was their fault) and employer saves money on their premiums.
Something tells me you’re not very familiar with the history of Uber’s business practices.
It’s pretty easy to “create jobs” when you can move into jurisdictions and skirt the local laws.
In some cases, for example Pensacola Florida (where ride sharing was criminal), Uber solicited drivers from other counties where ride sharing was legal, with bonuses, to provide services in Pensacola during spring break. One of those drivers was arrested almost immediately.
In counties throughout Florida where ride sharing was illegal (civilly and criminally) Uber drivers racked up millions in fines that have never been paid. Why? Because Uber paid for their own lobbiest (who is a lawyer) to represent the drivers in court and then literally did nothing on their case and just let them linger. This is all beneficial to Uber and damaging to drivers.
Not to mention other issues such as Uber training driver in these jurisdictions on how to avoid detection by police.
One day someone might put together a study of the total numbers of drivers who now have criminal records for nothing more that becoming an Uber driver...when you get a criminal record for doing what you were hired to do, that should fit the very definition of exploitation.
It’s similsr to the auto dealers preventing Tesla from selling directly.
Consider if a new “start up” pharmacy started selling drugs without prescriptions...then claiming the existing pharmacies aren’t innocent and have a vested interest in the status quo. It’s easy to “disrupt” when you ignore the law.
You also gloss over this idea...no taxi driver is breaking the law and gets arrest purely for doing what they were hired to do. Uber hired drivers and fed them rides in jurisdictions where the activity was illegal. It’s those drivers with criminal records who have paid the price not Uber, that’s Uber’s current vested interest shifting legal liability for their illegal business activities to their drivers.
Licenses, safety standards of vehicles, insurance, rules and regulations of the road. Yes, these things do make the barrier to entry more difficult, but they also serve the public good.
Any time you see a car just stopped in the middle of the road with it’s hazards on odds are it’s a Uber driver. I can’t tell you how often I encounter dangerously hazardous Uber pick ups and drop offs that violate the law, because these drivers have no training.
And just as quickly as Uber was happy to violate and break laws to gain their market share and become the industry incumbent, they too are now spending millions on lobbying efforts to reinstate all the same regulatory frameworks (licenses, insurance, vehicle standards) to close the door behind them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-tier_system_(alcohol_dis...
You are basically justifying someone like al Capone who found a huge market for alcohol distribution during prohibition. The law may have been wrong, but you don’t celebrate the criminal, criminal activity and bodies left in the wake.
From our comfy seats and nice intellectually stimulating jobs, it really looks like Bangladesh should be standing up for its workers and telling Nike what's what. But then Nike will just move to neighboring starving Nepal, and Bangladeshis will have to return to farming and being affected by flooding and having a really, really bad time.
It's bad that things are bad, but it's good that they could be worse otherwise.
Please tell me if there's a better way to run this system than "global universal basic income". Because man, world government has its downsides too.
We're all part of complex systems and collectively as buyers we act as a forcing function on prices that leads to these practices you disapprove of.
We already account for these situations due to part-time jobs. NY requires a certain amount of wages be met to be eligible for unemployment benefits, for example.
> The taxable wage limit is $7,000 per employee.
(Yes, that's per year)
https://www.edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/Rates_and_Withholding.h...
All of the companies will either have to raise rates or cut the amount they are paying drivers. Uber and Lyft can't just keeping banking on their VC benefactors forever. Eventually they have to turn a profit.
The other accusation I've heard, relevant to the discussion at hand, is that they're (also) banking on shifting the costs of externalities onto the drivers and/or the social safety net.
> Eventually they have to turn a profit.
Or go out of business, which could be considered beneficial if they're banking more on the externalities than VCs.
Remember the original & current taxi model is to rent a medallion car for $3000/month as an independent contractor. Except in this model, you are $3k in debt at the start of the month and have to work an undefined amount of hours to make up that debt + have enough to live on at the end of it.
In that world, Uber is an improvement.
Yes! A thousand times yes! Just because Uber is letting everyone i the door doesn’t mean they should get to dictate new terms of what employment means. Imagine your employeer removing your healthcare and defending the decision with the argument “well we’ve now set it up so anyone can just walk in the door and start working and we’ll pay them per hour worked. I know that’s not what you are doing but we have to treat everyone the same so we’re also cutting your pay”.
It's essentially a job destroying policy in a time when we see increasing automation and therefore very counterproductive.
In a country with govt healthcare & unemployment insurance, people being casual piece workers with a large corporation shouldn't be controversial beyond minimum wage. Because maybe the only difference is some tax paperwork.
AFAIK, other large minimum wage corps (like restaurants) force their workers to be part time to avoid having to pay these mandated benefits. Wouldn't that apply with these 1hr/month uber drivers?
With more and more regulation, you are essentially creating another large and bloated system. It also will impact the type of people that will be able to drive for Uber. If these regulations become the norm, there will be a fraction of the amount of people driving that will have to go through more of a formal/traditional hiring process. Anything else will cost the company too much money.
"Imagine your employeer removing your healthcare and defending the decision"
Uber shouldn't be considered an 'employer'. I am a software contractor and sometimes complete projects that only take a week and I never talk to the client again. This client shouldn't be paying for my health insurance.
It's not really Uber's fault that drivers decide to use them as their sole source of income. You really need to weigh the costs of driving, how much you earn, and if you can afford insurance. I figured this was common sense.
It's this weird middle-area that I think is causing the most friction.
As a thought experiment, I wonder what would happen if these platforms allowed drivers to set their own rates on a per trip or per session basis. As an independent contractor, you have complete control over how much you charge in order to make up for the burden of no benefits and heavy taxes.
There's definitely work to be done to modernize our employment laws with the changes to the economy. It's not a clear cut "Everybody is an employee" though.
If someone drives for Uber for 1-ride per month should Uber pay $1000/mo for that driver's health insurance? How about 1-ride per week? How about if they have the app "on" but never accept a ride? Should they be paid for the time they didn't do any driving?
Clearly the driver isn't an employee in the traditional sense of the word. But they also aren't a totally independent contractor either as their livelihood is so closely tied to the platform of a private entity. My gut says to err on the side of not imposing restrictions or mandates until we figure out the right balance.
> Minimum wage laws, unemployment, etc, these are good things that should be preserved.
Unemployment insurance, as it's implemented in the USA through effectively a tax collected by a private entity, is a scamola. A better idea would be having the employee get their own private unemployment insurance. That would also lead to lower costs of insurance for workers that are less likely to be discharged.
> Uber has clearly shown that they’re happy to be as exploitative as they’re allowed to be. (And that even when they’re specifically disallowed they’ll do everything they can to ignore it and fight the laws.)
Nobody is forcing drivers to drive for Uber. An argument may be that they were enticed with higher rates that were subsequently lowered in some markets. There's also the argument that a lot of the drivers don't under the total costs involved (double payroll tax, depreciation, etc) but by itself offering work in the "gig economy" isn't exploitation. Uber (and Lyft, and ...) should be lauded for (net) creating thousands of jobs.