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
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.