1) Universal Healthcare, regardless of employment status
2) Keep the drivers contractors, allowing them to work multiple jobs if they like.
3) Tax the income over 5mil a year more aggressively.
In the end:
1) Everyone gets healthcare. All the drivers have flexible working hours, and work as hard as they like. They gain healthcare,but they don't get better pay.
3) Companies like Uber can keep operating well. Only their rich executives get more tax.
4) Decouple healthcare from the job, lowering the barrier for people to abandon bad jobs and move to the next one. It has a healthy benefit for the economy as a whole, allowing the employees to vote with their feet on whether the business is good.
In the situation, both side asks for all the cake and eat it too. The setup above is IMHO a better compromise.
Opinions are my owns.
But in countries where that's a solved problem then the problem becomes Uber/Lyft have no duty of care for sickness or holidays, they're doging other labor laws.
So in the UK, the gig economy argument is focused on that instead, no sickness/holiday pay means drivers are working when they shouldn't, or ending up broke if a long-term illness hits.
There's even been contractors being fined for being sick because they're unable to do deliveries. Which fundamentally goes against the social contract companies are supposed to have in the EU, making them very parasitic.
Then again, most American companies are coming off as extremely parasitic in the EU, doging taxes, etc.
There's even been contractors being fined for being sick because they're unable to do deliveries. Which fundamentally goes against the social contract companies are supposed to have in the EU, making them very parasitic.
This is the major pain point. Uber and Lyft see their employees as contracters and thus do not pay their fair dues in maintaining the healthcare and social system (while still getting the majority of the benefits from it).
It might be more beneficial from a finanicial perspective for uber's shareholders, but it ruins the social prospect of the community as a whole in the longterm.
These are all insurance problems that eventually end up with the government being the most efficient end point, where the tax for them should collected for any kind of personal income, no matter if it is capital gains, W2 or independent contractor work.
I found the social contract, but could not find anyone who actually signed it: https://steemit.com/anarchism/@ritherz/the-social-contract
That sounds totally fair to me, be free little anarchist! Wallow in your shit without sewers or water. Sounds delightfully rustic, but not for me.
But this isn't a problem that Uber can fix. I too wold love to decouple healthcare from employment, and it doesn't have to be single payer: Something where people buy their own insurance from healthcare.gov would be fine for me. (Obviously employers would have to increase salary to account for the healthcare costs they are no longer paying.)
But right now we need to solve this within the constraints of what is available. Decoupling healthcare isn't something that's going to happen any time soon, although California could just go and do it, same as Massachusetts, they don't have to wait for the Federal government.
- But don't agree on universal healthcare and taxing more aggressively over x. Aren't people already being taxed about 50%, if not more. Instead of higher taxes to withstand astronomical costs of healthcare, won't it be better to work towards that problem by reducing healthcare costs and let people decide how to spend their money. Often seems the conversation is who pays the high costs of healthcare - govt, employer, insurance etc. but not about why is it that high and how can that be lowered. For e.g. I'd rather tax sale of processed sugar foods more to support healthcare for the impact they have on the healthcare system than taxing everyone who makes more money than x
For many Uber drivers, the flexibility is the selling point. You could work 60 hours, or you could work 3. You can work only during the weekends or during the summer and still maintain your regular job.
Like many things in life, this problem is more nuanced. I'm curious where it will go.
Finally, if an ideology can be quoted in a single pithy quote, maybe it isn't sophisticated enough to stand up to scrutiny.
If a healthcare system is based on you having to get benefits through your job, maybe we need a better health care system.
In this case, that long term may be self driving cars or the value of the ecosystem and install base.
But most American companies operate in ways that are extremely anti-employee and concentrate wealth at the top, if successful. Many of them could not operate in other first world nations. Could you image some employers you've had planning for team members to have an $11 hour minimum wage, up to 6 weeks of paid sick leave or up to 70% for more time, 24 days of vacation to start, 6 weeks off before giving birth and up to 8 weeks after (paid) for maternal and paternal leave, and more strictly followed regulations on worker protected classes/benefits/hours.
EX: https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/employee-rights.html
My employer could because they offer benefits close to much of the EU benefits package from the start, with relatively good medical/etc and minimal premiums. Could yours? Could McDonalds? Could Uber?
Are you sure? California seems to be speaking for these people. I would like to see a middle ground where drivers can explicitly mark Uber as their job and get benefits.
Either way, as an Englishman this just strikes me as a negative side-effect of the terrible US system without single payer healthcare.
Taxis are often 2-3x more expensive than ridesharing because that's what the cost is to pay someone to drive you around, and maintain a private vehicle.
The solution should involve reducing the need of private vehicles. But that's a much bigger conversation.
Actual taxi drivers are paid shit too. Often have to pay something like $3000/month to rent the license & car from the actual license owner as independent contractors, at the end of the month you end up with Uber-esque pay anyway.
Talk to a taxi driver and ask them how it actually works, it might surprise you.
If uber and lyft disappears, some of the drivers may go drive black cars sure, but I think most will be driving taxis or looking for work else where.
But I used black cars before Uber, and after. Uber made it more convenient, but at a big cost to the drivers. While breaking the law.
Both sides seems to want their cake and eat it too. Drivers want benefits and better pay, but also the flexibility to pick their own hours and have uber / lyft be in business long term. Uber and Lyft want to keep drivers as "contractors" but not have people complain.
If the tradeoff are between:
1) flexible schedule and being able to work for multiple gig companies at the same time vs benefits and stability.
2) Making more money vs leaving uber / lyft in a position where they can be a sustainable business (I assume most drivers don't want them to go out of business).
Then where is the balance point? And is there another setup that satisfies both parties?