'I'm a Software Engineer at Uber and I'm Voting Against Prop 22' (techcrunch.com) 194
Kurt Nelson, a software engineer at Uber, writes an op-ed at TechCrunch: I've been a software engineer at Uber for two years, and I've also been a ride-hail driver. I regularly drove for Lyft in college, and while my day job involves writing code for the Uber Android app, I still make deliveries for app-based companies on my bike to understand the state of the gig economy. These experiences have made me realize a crucial factor in the gig economy: Uber works because it's cheap and it's quick. The instant gratification when we book a ride and a car shows up only minutes later gives us a sense of control. It's the most convenient thing in the world to go to your friend's house, the grocery store or the airport at the click of a button. But it's become clear to me that this is only possible because countless drivers are spending their personal time sitting in their cars, waiting to pick up a ride, completely unpaid. Workers are subsidizing the product with their free labor.
I've decided to speak out against my employer because I know what it's like to work with no benefits. Before joining Uber, I worked a range of low-wage jobs from customer service at Disneyland to delivering pizza with no benefits. Uber is one of several large companies bankrolling California's Proposition 22. They've now contributed $47.5 million dollars to the campaign. At work, management tells us that passing Prop 22 is for the best because it is critical for the company's bottom line. Yet, a corporation's bottom line will not and should not influence my vote. Uber claims Prop 22 would be good for drivers, but that depends on Uber the company treating drivers better. [...]
As a software engineer, I have a very different experience working for Uber than drivers do. Being classified as an employee affords me benefits including healthcare, a retirement plan, stock vesting and the ability to take paid vacation and sick leave. Uber drivers are not afforded these benefits, since Uber misclassifies them as independent contractors. Since January 1 of this year, the law has been clear: Gig drivers should be classified as employees. Yet Uber refuses to obey the law and is now seeking to get Prop 22 passed so they can write a new set of rules for themselves. There's a misconception that all Uber drivers are part-time. Maybe they drive as a fun hobby in retirement or pick up a few hours after class in college, as I did. These drivers exist, but the drivers who are essential to Uber's business are full-time workers.
I've decided to speak out against my employer because I know what it's like to work with no benefits. Before joining Uber, I worked a range of low-wage jobs from customer service at Disneyland to delivering pizza with no benefits. Uber is one of several large companies bankrolling California's Proposition 22. They've now contributed $47.5 million dollars to the campaign. At work, management tells us that passing Prop 22 is for the best because it is critical for the company's bottom line. Yet, a corporation's bottom line will not and should not influence my vote. Uber claims Prop 22 would be good for drivers, but that depends on Uber the company treating drivers better. [...]
As a software engineer, I have a very different experience working for Uber than drivers do. Being classified as an employee affords me benefits including healthcare, a retirement plan, stock vesting and the ability to take paid vacation and sick leave. Uber drivers are not afforded these benefits, since Uber misclassifies them as independent contractors. Since January 1 of this year, the law has been clear: Gig drivers should be classified as employees. Yet Uber refuses to obey the law and is now seeking to get Prop 22 passed so they can write a new set of rules for themselves. There's a misconception that all Uber drivers are part-time. Maybe they drive as a fun hobby in retirement or pick up a few hours after class in college, as I did. These drivers exist, but the drivers who are essential to Uber's business are full-time workers.
The problem with your logic is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You can have affordability, quality, and high wages. Pick two.
Luckily Real Life isn't so discrete.
If you lower Affordability by say 20% then you can increase quality and High wages by 10% each. Or you can dial it in many different ways.
Yes there is a trade-off going on. However often with these trade-offs it may be just reorganizing your business to run things a bit leaner or efficient too.
Dump that Self Driving Car project, Tinker with Surge Pricing, negotiate good rates with benefit companies. Be more
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to include Owner Profit in this equation. And a balance between all factors.
Re:The problem with your logic is (Score:4, Informative)
When was Uber ever profitable? And if its current business model becomes even more loss-making, it's free to change its business model. It doesn't have to "pay for an unlimited number of drivers to sit around": it could pay for a limited number of them, or it could move to a true matchmaker for freelancers model.
Re:The problem with your logic is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Very well, I pick affordability and quality. "High Wages" is not, and never was, a reasonable thing to request. Instead, I will settle for "reasonable wages."
Also, "quality" is quite loaded. All cities provide some form of public transportation which is affordable and for which the employees involved are all paid reasonable wages. But you have to show up at the bus stop on time, and share the bus with other passengers. That's fine, this can still be considered high quality. If you want private vehicle
Re: (Score:2)
You think Uber can be profitable, and charge users the same rate
They aren't even profitable at the current rate if I remember correctly. At least their food delivery business is already losing money on every order according to a recent article here: https://slashdot.org/story/20/... [slashdot.org]
It's going to be interesting to see if any of these ride sharing companies can survive longterm. Maybe they're just trying to stay afloat until they can replace drivers with self-driving cars or until the competition has to fold and they can jack up prices.
Re:The problem with your logic is (Score:5, Insightful)
There were plenty of local taxi companies before Uber showed up on the scene, and their response times weren't wildly dissimilar to Uber's. Yet they managed to pay licensing, employees, and taxes that Uber has so far managed to dodge, and in the process Uber drove some of them out of business.
Good job, Uber. You seized a strong position in a duopoly by having illegal and unethical business practices. Now it's time to either go legit or go to jail.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This. I applaud the person from the article for having a backbone. Giving a shit about other people is a mark of character.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope for his sake he posted that article anonymously. To publicly go against what your LARGE corporation employer wants is a VERY good way to be in the unemployment line, at the very least..
Re: (Score:3)
You seized a strong position in a duopoly by having illegal and unethical business practices.
If their practices were illegal, why must the law be changed?
Re: The problem with your logic is (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. History has shown time and time again that any time you punish a corporation financially they always pass the cost onto the consumer. Read your damn phone bill if you donâ(TM)t believe me. And if it costs more to call Uber then it does to just get a damn cab, then the entire Uber economy is just going to disappear. it will just vanish. they will have legislated it bankrupt. Should it not be up to the individual if he wants to be an independent contractor or not? Why donâ(TM)t they go after all the fucking temp agencies that donâ(TM)t pay their employees benefits? An overwhelming majority of production is done by contractor aka temps.
Perhaps a better solution is to stop tying fucking health insurance to the goddamn employment. Losing my job does not force me to have to go find a new job so I can have car insurance. It doesnâ(TM)t require me to find a new job to have fire insurance or homeowners insurance. Why the fuck do I have to go find new doctors every time I change insurance companies because I got a different job.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. History has shown time and time again that any time you punish a corporation financially they always pass the cost onto the consumer. Read your damn phone bill if you donâ(TM)t believe me.
First, refusing to exempt Uber and Lyft from a generally applicable law isn't really punishment. But assuming your premise, can you explain how phone bills prove your point? In a competitive market, a bad actor being "punished" with fines or increased requirements would have their ability to pass-on the associated costs limited by the unburdened competition.
Obviously, we live in an imperfect world where corporations are seldom meaningfully punished, but please connect the dots with your example.
Re: The problem with your logic is (Score:2)
Universal services charges was meant to make the phone companies have to pay to supplement rural areas to have phone access. It was never meant for the every day person to actually have to pay that fee. This was originally accessed on long distance charges for interstate calling. Since everything has migrated to unlimited calling it is now accessed on retail cost of providing phone service. Its the phone company that gets accessed.
Federal Subscriber Line Charge is a made up bullshit charge to pay for the i
Re: (Score:3)
History has shown time and time again that any time you punish a corporation financially they always pass the cost onto the consumer.
WTF?!!? Where do you THINK they're going to get the money? Print it, like the government? Of COURSE they're going to charge their customers for it -- Every Single Time -- because where ELSE are they going to get it from?
If they're deemed "Too Big To Fail", then I guess they could also get some money from "The Government", which means even NOT their customers are now helping out.
The only thing "Too Big To Fail" should be the government itself -- every other company, I'm sorry, "person", should be al
Re: (Score:3)
You think Uber can be profitable, and charge users the same rate, when it has to pay for an unlimited number of drivers to sit around and wait for fares. One of two things would happen. 1. It fires so many drivers that the wait time / fair is manageable, at the cost of quality to its end users, or 2. It passes the additional cost to keep quality high to the end users. You can have affordability, quality, and high wages. Pick two.
Imagine how much more profitable they could be if they could get slaves to drive their passengers. It would be even better if the slaves could sell drugs to their passengers, and provide oral favors too.
If your business can only be profitable by exploiting workers or operating illegally then your business model is a failure.
Re: The problem with your logic is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if you leave the Uber and Lyft apps open when you go to bed hoping for a $100 4AM airport fare, who has to pay you minimum wage while you snooze, Uber or Lyft?
Re: (Score:2)
But society worked just fine before Uber. People managed to get to work, or to the grocery store, or even visit friends. They didn't even need taxis for this. Uber isn't even competing against taxis here for the most part, it's competing against walking, biking, taking mass transit, etc. The whole flaw with Uber is that in the early days it deliberately marketed itself as "ride sharing", which was a blatant lie used to fool lawmakers. We should not reward the practice of going out and setting up a busi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Working uber is nothing like working a 9-5 job, nothing like working a 40 hour work week, nothing at all like the traditional idea of
Re: (Score:2)
The labor law as written should apply to them, but it seems to me that many need to be rewritten
The labor law needs a rewrite.
The law covers W2 employees and 1099 contractors.
"Gig workers" don't fit neatly into either of those categories.
We should have a third category for flexible part-time workers, with some limited and reasonable protections beyond contracting but short of full employment.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good idea. How to set up the classifications for worker categories could be as full of pitfalls as the existing classifications, though.
Re:The problem with your logic is (Score:5, Insightful)
But you don't have to work a 9-5 job to be classified as an employee. Uber could classify its workers as employees and still allow them to set their own schedules if they wanted to. Which in many places means that if you work enough hours then you are due certain benefits, but nothing stops Uber from saying that the employees can't work more than 19 hours a week in order to deny them benefits (and I was indeed in that situation in some of my early summer jobs).
The hard part is figuring out the hours. With farm workers who are paid by the amount they pick or gather, they still have a minimum wage as the lower cap. So if they work 8 hours they get paid at least 8 hours of minimum wage but possibly get paid more if they picked enough. Uber could do that also, But if someone wants to be on the clock 15 minutes at a time, then it's up to Uber to figure out how to do that and how to do the accoutning. The probably would have to deal somehow with the sitting around and driving in circles part, where the worker is monitoring 8 different apps for 8 different companies. When are they on the clock and when are they just eating lunch?
Re: (Score:2)
This wouldn't be the first time a person had held 2+ jobs concurrently. Schedules can be worked out by either or all parties.
Re:The problem with your logic is (Score:5, Insightful)
And miners shouldn't be forced to have safety equipment, and the mines proper ventilation. They know the risks of going into that mine, let them choose not to work there.
People working with hazardous materials don't need protective gear either, they know the risks!
Same with anyone working with machinery, who needs safety regulations and such. People know the risks. Loosing a finger or hand just shows your dedication!
and on and on... its pretty clear you have no understanding of how bad things got and will get again if you remove employee protections. Employers know there is almost always someone desperate enough for a paycheck to work in whatever deplorable conditions they offer.
This doesn't make it right, and we can and HAVE done better. In this particular case, I think they need to strike a better balance, but by no means is the current status quo OK.
Also it doesn't force the company to schedule you, just that they can no longer classify someone essential to their business operations as a contractor. If someone works full time for them, or part time, the appropriate laws and protections need to apply. I've worked several jobs where you had to get 40hrs/week in, if you did 4 10s or 5 8s or almost any other combination it was ok, as long as you were getting your work done on time.
FFS you act like no company can have part time employees or offer flexible hours.
Re: (Score:2)
miners shouldn't be forced to have safety equipment
Poor analogy.
An individual miner doesn't have the information to judge the risk of a collapse or the dangers of inhaling coal dust. The consequences are severe, irreversible, and long term.
An Uber driver is fully capable of deciding for herself if the pay is sufficient.
Re: (Score:3)
And how is an Uber driver able to determine that?
They are paid by the trip. One day, they may have trips constantly and get paid all the time. The next day, they may get no fares at all. The
Re: (Score:3)
Uber is very much an like an MLM scheme, except it’s a computer which sells gullible idiots on the idea that they can profit, not a bunch of people, that way the middlemen don
Re:The problem with your logic is (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and another thing. Being classified as an employee requires you to comply with a company's schedule, it also requires you to work X number of hours. Many drivers do it exceedingly part time, or as a secondary form of income. They can't tell their primary job that Uber mandates their schedule and it conflicts with some working hours they have dedicated. People voluntarily agree to the conditions Uber has set out. They are free to reject those conditions if they so choose. Always err on the side of free'er decisions not based on restrictions and regulations.
Being classified as an employee doesn't require any of the above. The law doesn't dictate to employers how to schedule their employees time. It can be as structured or unstructured as they want it to be to meet their staffing needs.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the reasoning here is this: Uber can require drivers to each form an LLC and then contract the LLC instead. Then the drivers are no longer independent contractors and no longer subject to classification under AB5. This slightly changes Uber's relationship with the drivers since legally the company can only give direction to the LLC and not specifically to the driver but it preserves the economic status quo from Uber's perspective while requiring the drivers to pony up some additional startu
Re: (Score:2)
... but LLCs require state filings, state fees, a quarterly tax schedule, a state agent. It’s far beyond the level of stuff people handle in TurboTax every March. Yeah sure, it’s possible, but keeping an LLC in legal compliance is not an insignificant amount of work every 3 months. Since I’m on a rant, another bummer is that accountants like to charge full rate for filing LLC taxes, it’s not $50 a year, it’s $250 a quarter, whether you made money or not. I’ve lived it, i
Re: (Score:2)
requiring the drivers to pony up some additional startup cash for LLC registrations and insurance.
The is no requirement, and no particular reason, for an LLC to carry insurance.
The cost of forming an LLC is low. $70 in California. Uber could easily streamline the process for each new driver.
Re: (Score:3)
No, being classified as an employe does not require you to comply with a company's schedule or work a certain number of hours. All of that is up to the employer, not the state. You lawmakers in whatever country you are in have not declared that you must work 8 hours a day in order to be an employee; they have possibly however said that if you work less than 20 hours a week then you are not entitled to benefits. But the conditions of employment are always up to the employer.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and another thing. Being classified as an employee requires you to comply with a company's schedule, it also requires you to work X number of hours. Many drivers do it exceedingly part time, or as a secondary form of income. They can't tell their primary job that Uber mandates their schedule and it conflicts with some working hours they have dedicated.
Lots of people are juggling three or even four traditional scheduled part-time jobs. It's doable, BTW, this is a huge part of the reality of working in today's world for far too many people.
In the traditional economy, there are jobs where people are paid for being on-site, as well as for their production during the shift. Why? To be available to respond to changing situations, where a failure to immediately deal with a defect could mean the plant shuts down. When it costs millions of dollars a day to run
I'm a Software Engineer at Amazon (Score:4, Insightful)
"...And I'm voting for all kinds of people and things that will drive Amazon out of the city I work in. Why? Because I'm young, idealistic, no family to support, and I have a very narrow perspective on history, philosophy, morality...you-name-it."
Nothing to see here, just another young person with more principles than responsibilities.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not even principles. Just feewings.
"What is 2020? Alex."
Re:I'm a Software Engineer at Amazon (Score:4, Interesting)
As I have gotten older and gained more responsibilities, I have found that we need more support services needed. When I was young, no family or personal responsibility, I could eat Ramon for a week because I couldn't afford more. However with a Wife and Kids, I need to make sure they have what they need as well. So I can't sacrifice a few weeks of unhealthy food to save a few bucks, I can't just move to a smaller apartment, as I need to invest into my Home. I need to be sure my car will work 24/7 just in case...
Knowing I have Health Insurance, so if a Family Member or myself gets sick, we can still pay the other bills. Knowing I have Life Insurance and Disability so if something happens to me, my family will have some support to go on. Knowing that my paycheck will be there...
I have also grown less concerned about the poor business who has to pay the expense. Probably due to my MBA and Computer Science Degree, but I now see many ways a business can support its employees better, while trimming a lot of crap that goes on, that is just wasteful. The Employee tends to be a net positive towards the companies income. Hence why we often judge a business of its size by how many employees it has. The real problem that takes a business out, is not getting customers. Either from improper marketing, selling crappy products or services, or getting into a Price War with a competitor so over time, your product becomes crappy, your marketing becomes weak, and customers don't like you anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
I bet Ramon was starting to get past his prime after you had been eating him for a week.
Re: (Score:3)
I could eat Ramon for a week ...
Ramon? Maybe you meant Raoul?
Eating Raoul [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
My family would definitely take exception to me eating Maria for a week, so I'm glad you got together with Ramon while you were still single.
Re: (Score:2)
If by "we need more support services" you mean "my family and I need more support services than I did by myself" then I agree with you.
If you mean "our society needs more cheap/free support services for families" then I disagree. The world is overpopulated and that's getting worse by the minute. The last thing we need to do is subsidize population growth. People who cannot afford to raise children simply should not produce children. Abstaining from producing new people is the most humane way of getting
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, how can I get Amazon out of my city too? It would certainly help out the economy once the lockdown is over and people want to go work in retail stores again.
Re: (Score:2)
false premise (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yet, a corporation's bottom line will not and should not influence my vote. "
I'm not telling you which way to vote (I couldn't personally care much less), but this premise is crazy.
If you work for a corporation, then hell yes you better pay attention to that corporation's bottom line.
Now, whether your managers are lying to you, or whether your job would be impacted by whichever way you vote, that's up to you as an informed voter to decide.
But to suggest that your company's well-being "should be" irrelevant to your vote is just dumb.
Re:false premise (Score:4)
why? i think the inference here is that he feels he can go get a job anywhere. so why would his current corporations interests influence his vote?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But why should I put more loyalty to my employer than to my family, friends, country, beliefs, etc? My employer once did ask me to send mail to certain representatives of a state to encourage a certain deal that would help a customer buy our products. It felt... unclean. I think I did want the deal to pass but not through lobbying like some sleazy swamp dweller.
I think if there wwas some law I was in favor of but it might hurt my employer (such as a law that encourages fair and healthy competition), the
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously the employer's bottom line is important to the employee as an individual, but the OP is exactly right to draw a distinction between whether the proposed law is likely to have a positive or negative impact on him or her personally and whether the law is right. We need more people like the OP whose votes are driven by ethics, taking into account everyone affected, rather than mere material self-interest or personal preference.
With that said, in my opinion the OP is on the wrong side when it comes to
Re: (Score:3)
"Drivers have complete freedom of choice when it comes to deciding whether or not to contract with Uber or similar companies"
No, they have a de facto lack of choice because abusers like Uber crowd out legitimate players which obey the law.
A race to the bottom always ends up in the toilet. Why don't you want to race to the top?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the employer's bottom line is threatened by labor laws which require fair treatment of workers, then the employee's vote stands to change the marketplace toward better treatment of workers. The employee may not benefit from this immediately, but unless and until the employee becomes an employer this still advances the empl
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not telling you which way to vote (I couldn't personally care much less), but this premise is crazy.
If you work for a corporation, then hell yes you better pay attention to that corporation's bottom line.
I will care about the corporation's bottom line just as much as they pay attention to my bottom line.
At the moment, that is "not at all". Their opinion is that software developers are fungible, and my opinion is corporations are fungible.
Re: (Score:3)
"Yet, a corporation's bottom line will not and should not influence my vote. "
I'm not telling you which way to vote (I couldn't personally care much less), but this premise is crazy. If you work for a corporation, then hell yes you better pay attention to that corporation's bottom line.
Now, whether your managers are lying to you, or whether your job would be impacted by whichever way you vote, that's up to you as an informed voter to decide.
But to suggest that your company's well-being "should be" irrelevant to your vote is just dumb.
I've voted against an employer's interests before. That doesn't mean I didn't care about the company - it just meant that I cared about that particular issue more than I cared about my paycheck. There are some things that are more important than money. And no, I didn't think I worked for an evil employer (I do think Uber is, as an organization, evil). I'd have to drug myself to get any sleep if I worked for Uber.
I'd vote against it (Score:2)
As a engineer, I want the same rights to work as an independent contractor as Prop 22 is seeking for ride share and delivery drivers. Add in engineers and other workers and I'd be all for it.
Young and Dumb (Score:5, Interesting)
So this guy wants to vote so that drivers who were sitting in cars, waiting to be paid, will instead be sitting at home, knowing they will not be paid.. genius plan!
What about one of the Uber drivers I took who used the time waiting for a ride to work on screenplays (yes this was in California, and was a real thing). He's not getting paid by Uber technically but it's not like his time is wasted. If he's paid by Uber a minimum wage he would have to stop working on scripts since it would be on company time. All kinds of things Uber/Lyft drivers could no longer do, since they were on company time...
We are all connected now, idle time does not have to be wasted time.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine at minimum the net effect would be that Uber puts in limitations on the number of drivers that can "clock in" at given times so that they effectively only have enough people on the clock to meet actual demand.
Meaning, they'd be fools to allow an unlimited number of people to be on the clock at 3:00 AM on Tuesday night.
And unfortunately for riders, what that would likely translate to is "dead spots" in the schedule when a ride can't be had.
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb is believing you're not already paying for the externalities created by Uber's "they're contractors!" model.
If he's paid by Uber a minimum wage he would have to stop working on scripts since it would be on company time.
Nope. That would depend on the employment contract between Uber and him. While it's common in fields like software development for a company to try and claim everything you do while employed by them, that isn't common at, say, a Taxi company.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you think he'd need to stop working on screenplays?
Plenty of jobs involve downtime where employees get paid to do nothing. How people fill their time during those moments is most often left to their discretion. Haven't you heard about graveyard shift employees engaging in all sorts of shenanigans because there's no work to do? What about the military's and film industry's widespread use of the hurry up and wait [wikipedia.org] approach to doing work? Or how about security guards watching the "big game", which is app
The Proper Naming of Things (Score:2, Insightful)
Uber drivers aren't slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
These people waiting around in their cars, do that have anything else to do? Seriously, Uber isn't hiding the ball concerning how much the pay is. These people know what they signed up for. Most people I know would spend that time watching a TV or playing a video game anyway, which is most likely what these drivers are doing while sitting in their cars. Most people don't have a way to turn the time they are pissing away into cash anyway.
You're just voting to put more autocratic government between consenting adults.
Uber drivers are better than slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
"These people waiting around in their cars, do that have anything else to do?"
Those people do have better things to do, but they are desperate for money because necessities are a privilege of the employed.
The gig economy is better for the employer than keeping slaves because of you have slaves, you have to house and feed them. If you have so-called "gig workers" you don't have to pay them enough to survive on, and if they die you're not out any investment. It would create a WORLD of effective slaves if extrapolated linearly. Even in the real world it is still harmful to real wages, and drives players in good faith out of business, decreasing the jobs available which do not involve paying slavery wages.
Who is forcing these people? (Score:2)
Who is forcing these people? Who is being put out of work because these people are setting for less? Simply put we the customers would have to drive ourselves and pick up our own fast food. If it's not worth it then don't sign up for the job. I haven't signed up. In the future I could but it probably won't be to make a living. More likely it will be to pick up a couple bucks and not be bored while looking for a real job. It puts wear and tear on a vehicle but it might be worth it to a person not to be bored
Re: (Score:2)
What is the right question? (Score:2)
Let's set the clock back to pre-covid-19. The Gig.economy already existed, but at the same time the employment rate, even measures like U6 were quite low. So it is at least notionally possible most of these workers could have found other employment with more normal labor protections, even if said employment was making coffee or frying hamburgers. It is also true that many people continue to work on Uber/taksrabbit/arise etc for fairly long periods, so it is not ALL just I need something to do this week whil
but when taskrabbit pushes uniforms lots of rules (Score:2)
but when taskrabbit pushes uniforms lots of rules, etc that makes them an w2 worker.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would someone want to make less than minimum wage, when they could get at least that elsewhere doing unskilled work? Clearly there is something labor suppliers (workers) find valuable here
It is wrong to assume people are always rational actors.
I would loved something like taskrabbit 25 years ago. That would been great, hang out with your buddies, phone chirps "Cool I am going cut this dudes lawn, see you all in few hours."
And that does not require you to be classified as an independent contractor. You can be an employee while still working "on call".
Also, you're ignoring a lot of externalities Uber creates. For example, virtually none of their drivers are actually insured. Sure, they have the typical car insurance most drivers have, but that insurance does not allow them to use their car in a commercial venture like driving for Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not ignoring anything. I am simply asking questions. I don't think companies should just be able to ignore labors in the direct sense or by engineering elaborate schemes and chicaneries.
I do think the evidence suggest Uber has drivers who are happy with the arrangement overall and choose to work as Uber drivers even though they do have other opportunities for employment where they would enjoy stronger labor protections. If those people are happy, I don't see what the problem is because ultimately the
Prop 22? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I just discovered this site:
https://ballotpedia.org/Califo... [ballotpedia.org]
Less Moralization More Prediction (Score:2)
I don't know if prop 22 is a good idea or not. It's complicated and I'd have to go consult some experts and make some estimates about what is likely to happen if it passes/fails since it's not clear (eg there will be less riders, it will favor pro drivers over those trying to make ends meet in an old car, less flexibility etc)
But it strikes me that your response is so focused on the aspects of this issue that are relevant to displaying how much of a caring concerned person you are and so little on what est
Forbidden to work (Score:2)
If someone wants to work an irregular schedule around their college classes, he wants the government to forbid it. They need benefits!!!! Even though they are on their parents' insurance and they never go to the doctor anyway.
Retired and just want to earn a few bucks giving car rides and talking to people? No! You need benefits!! Even though you already have Medicare. No work for you unless you give up being retired and commit to work 30-40 hours every week.
Why is it virtuous to force people out of arr
Re: (Score:2)
If someone wants to work an irregular schedule around their college classes, he wants the government to forbid it
This does not require that person to be an independent contractor. They can be an employee without set hours.
Retired and just want to earn a few bucks giving car rides and talking to people?
See above.
No! You need benefits!!
It's almost like the system of tying benefits to employment is a bad idea.
Why is it virtuous to force people out of arrangements they like and into arrangements they don't want?
Because we are not all islands. Their choices can have significant effect on everyone around them.
For example, virtually none of Uber's drivers are properly insured. They have standard consumer auto insurance which will not cover them if they use their vehicle for commercial purposes, such as driving for Uber. Whi
Re: (Score:2)
The company I work for should do it "my way"! (Score:4, Insightful)
All I read was Blah, blah, blah, I want to force an employer to do things the way I think they should be done.
If the driver's aren't making enough money (profit sharing, benefits, 401k, etc = more money), they wouldn't be doing it. It's not like the drivers are forced to work for Uber. They can do the same thing for one of the competitors, or they can go do some other job.
You think drivers should make more, but the market disagrees. That means you are wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
All I read was Blah, blah, blah, I want to force an employer to do things the way I think they should be done.
If the driver's aren't making enough money (profit sharing, benefits, 401k, etc = more money), they wouldn't be doing it. It's not like the drivers are forced to work for Uber. They can do the same thing for one of the competitors, or they can go do some other job.
You think drivers should make more, but the market disagrees. That means you are wrong.
While I generally agree with your logic I think that the average Uber driver lacks the understanding of the costs that Uber is externalizing onto the driver. Most of these people fail to understand the risk to their vehicle, life, etc. both due to the extra miles they are driving and also the potential risk of being a taxi driver. There is not parity in information about the true cost of being an Uber driver. Uber knows the cost much better than you, myself, or the driver does. Therefore Uber is exploit
I'm a Software Engineer and I'm voting for Prop 22 (Score:2)
I drove for Uber for about 6 months during a rough time I had and worked out the problem desc
Re: (Score:2)
Voting for Prop 22 won't fix AB5. All it does is give Uber an exemption from it. The entire ill-conceived law was created to specifically target Uber and now you are going to let them buy their way out of it and leave only you screwed from it?
The other thing Prop 22 does besides buying a handful of companies an exemption from AB5, is set up a ton of regulatory barriers to entry. Anyone who wants to make an app based service will now need a few million in capital minimum just to comply with all the extra stu
Make them the software companies that they are. (Score:3)
Uber and Lyft need to be forced to be the software companies that they are. That means that they should be selling their apps as a subscription service with the local governments setting the rates in that app and enforcing the regulations of being a driver like they do with taxi services. Drivers will subscribe and pay monthly fees, then register with the local governments (licensing, insurance, and background checks). The fares collected would go directly into the drivers accounts which would allow them to be taxed as a small business.
This would take Uber/Lyft completely out of the game of managing drivers (which they are terrible at) and puts it into the more natural hands of the governments (again, not the best but at least they are publicly accountable).
Re: (Score:2)
Uber and Lyft need to be forced to be the software companies that they are.
No, they aren't. Their apps are super basic and haven't substantially changed in years (nor do they need to). They are employment agencies. See my other post [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The frontend customer facing apps are basic. The backend server side software is not. That's where the secret sauce is kept.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Do some research into how taxi services were regulated. The local governments set the rates and establish the licensing and other requirements for drivers. That is a natural role for a government. You can't just get a job to drive a large truck or even be a UPS driver without having to get a different grade of drivers license and you are mandated to carry a certain amount of insurance. The governments own the roads so it makes sense that they should be the ones who regulate
Re: (Score:2)
Prop 22 promotes unfair competition (Score:3, Interesting)
Voting for Prop 22 is above all a way to promote unfair competition and mafia-type businesses.
Because as soon as a company in a market sector has the right to use “independent contractors” for the majority of its workforce and therefore does not finance the health and unemployment system, all other companies in the sector that follow the rules cannot survive. There is no difference between this situation and the competition of a Mafia type of company that uses undeclared jobs for its workforce.
If Prop 22 pass, no transport or delivery company employing its workforce will be able to survive in the medium term. And then more and more companies in all sectors will request to be able to use “independent contractors” for all types of low-paying jobs: “independent contractors” to flip burgers, “independent contractors” to wait tables... In the end, the result will be more misery for the low-wage earners.
What appears to be today a win-win situation for the employer and the “independent contractors” will end up being a win-lose situation for the later. Or even worse for you voters: in a crisis situation like the covid, the state will subsidize the impoverished “independent contractors” with your taxes, not with the money and taxes from Uber, Lyft and the gig-economy. You'll end up being the sucker.
Everybody misses the big picture (Score:5, Interesting)
"Gig work" apps - ahem companies, are employment agencies. Even if they only offer one type of employment (pick up a person, pick up food), there are plenty of traditional employment agencies that are also very specialized.
If you've never worked for or had experience with employment agency, here's how they operate: You sign up. They do a basic background check. Companies hire them for piecework. They figure out which employees would be best suited. They offer that employee the gig. The employee is free to turn it down. Usually requirements are very minimal, such as "dress professionally", although sometimes it's slightly more prescriptive depending on the work (e.g. must wear steel toe boots)
Sound familiar? In any case, the employee works for the agency, and gets a W-2. If they work over a certain number of hours for a period they usually offer some kind of minimal benefits, even vacation time usually. If they only work a handful of hours they don't get benefits. Simple and fair.
Nothing changes just because it's done through an appity app instead of a phone call from an agent. All the other crap that gets brought up during these debates is just an intentional distraction from this more important fact.
There are already laws specifically covering employment agencies and how they operate. None of this other mess (AB5, prop 22) is either necessary nor helpful.
A part time jobs is not a career (Score:2)
Part time jobs are for young people, students, people needing something to do short term, etc. - they are simple, mindless, non-skilled labor. This kind of job should be low pay and no benefits. People who expect a "living wage" and the same benefits as a "real" job are generally very young and inexperienced or chronically unemployed pot smokers. The economy only works if prices are determined by supply and demand. If you start paying people $15/hr + medical benefits, you can say good bye to your $0.99
Soon-to-be-FORMER software engineer at Uber (Score:3)
*Assuming that is that you don't have a 'tragic accident' soon. This being Uber and all.
ban having people wait for work at $0/hr + (Score:2)
ban having people wait for work at $0/hr.
California does not allow employers to take tip credits.
Re: ban having people wait for work at $0/hr + (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So when an illegal uber driver get's into an crash uber get's off the hook and the 3rd party victim is on there own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please note that most contractors tell YOU (the customer) what the price is, and you can either accept or decline. The gig economy companies DICTATE the price you pay and what pay the "contractor" gets, so I don't see this as contract work at all.
I have worked as a recruiter using an agency to find the work, and I did not set the price in that situation.
I guess your position is that for any worker who uses an agency to find them work at a price the agency negotiates with the client on the worker's behalf, that alone makes the worker an employee of that agency. I am certainly glad things didn't work out that way when I used a contracting firm to find me work since I didn't want to be considered their employee.
How many say Uber drivers do you think would turn down an offer for employment and say "no thanks, I'd rather stay with the current model"?
I'm not sure what their answer would be,
Re: (Score:2)
I am certainly glad things didn't work out that way when I used a contracting firm to find me work since I didn't want to be considered their employee.
YOU contracted with THEM to find you work. Let us know what the fuck you're talking about once you figure that out.
How does that change anything? So I contracted with them to find me contracting gigs with clients. Just as Uber drivers contract with Uber to find them contracting gigs with clients.
Re: (Score:2)
Please note that most contractors tell YOU (the customer) what the price is, and you can either accept or decline.
This. When I do contract (1099) work, I negotiate a rate, but if the client and I are unable to come to an agreement, I move on. From that point, I alone decide how much effort I expend and when I expend it, but the end goal is to complete the project. The Uber driver is not really an "independent contractor" but rather and "ad-hoc employee" - it is more akin to "piece work." The only parameter he sets is when he wants to work - that's it. When I was in high school I did piece work on farms in the
Re: (Score:2)
Yup and funny, since Franklin Roosevelt's time we're still complaining about a "living wage" That's because there is no such thing. Most people don't have a wage issue, they have a spending issue. My personal living wage includes a 4 bedroom house on 5 acres just outside of town. So what is that wage? Same as someone who chooses to work a job driving people around for a living? Again, spending issue, and go further, motivation issue.
I wonder how all of those American made it from 1933 to 2020? With a
Re: (Score:2)
Because Uber violating employment laws in CA allows them to set a price below companies following the law. Which drives the law-abiding companies out of business.
If I made a business out of paying people to steal your possessions for me to resell, so that I can undercut Wal-Mart's prices, that would be bad. Right?
Same deal here. Prop 22 is Uber's attempt to change CA employment laws. But Uber knew the laws when they entered the state, just like I know the laws against theft when I started my venture.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is a good idea because I think that if Lyft, Uber, etc are forced to pay benefits to full-time employees, will just make everyone part-time
First, they have no full-time employees driving for them.
Second, you are describing current CA employment law. Prop 22 is Uber's attempt to change CA employment law so that they can keep having their drivers be contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not assuming all the risks and expenses of running your business, and some other entity is finding your work for you, you're an employee - not a contractor.
What about an Employment Agency finding work for the people who come in? Are they now employees? Some other entity is finding your work for you.