News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Homejoy Failed and the Future of the On-Demand Economy by onion2k on Saturday August 01, 2015 @03:49AM (#9986297)
It really makes very little sense to forbid a person from driving a passenger for money

No one is suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to drive for money, nor that Uber shouldn't be allowed to run their service, but simply that if Uber drivers are doing the work of employees they should get the benefits of being employees.

The only real difference that would make is that Uber would be a little more expensive to use. It'd still be cheaper that a taxi. I think that's quite reasonable if it means Uber drivers have a happier, more stable life.

Re:Why Homejoy Failed and the Future of the On-Demand Economy by icebraining on Saturday August 01, 2015 @04:53AM (#9986411)
Yeah. And maybe we should make taxi drivers employees too, since currently they are (for the most part) actually contractors with no benefits.
Re:Why Homejoy Failed and the Future of the On-Demand Economy by dylanjermiah on Saturday August 01, 2015 @03:53AM (#9986309)
A survey of the drivers found that 70%+ didn't want to be employees. But no, you should decide for them right?
Re:Why Homejoy Failed and the Future of the On-Demand Economy by danieltillett on Saturday August 01, 2015 @05:56AM (#9986510)
Any reason for why 70% said they didn't want to be employees?
Re:Why Homejoy Failed and the Future of the On-Demand Economy by dylanjermiah on Saturday August 01, 2015 @07:37AM (#9986684)
Re:Why Homejoy Failed and the Future of the On-Demand Economy by pbreit on Saturday August 01, 2015 @01:52PM (#9987933)
Oh, the employee thing. First, I think the contractor classification is totally appropriate for Uber drivers. But if you really want to classify them as employees, I wouldn't be surprised if Uber makes even more money paying min wage and keeping the surge.