Uber CEO Calls For 'Benefits Funds' for Gig Workers (cnet.com) 72
Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi on Monday said its drivers should get the "best of both worlds" -- benefits and work flexibility. In an op-ed published in The New York Times, Khosrowshahi proposed that lawmakers require gig economy companies to create benefits funds, which would "give workers cash that they can use for the benefits they want, like health insurance or paid time off." From a report: "Our current employment system is outdated and unfair. It forces every worker to choose between being an employee with more benefits but less flexibility, or an independent contractor with more flexibility but almost no safety net," wrote Khosrowshahi. "It's time to move beyond this false choice." The op-ed comes as Uber and rival ride-hailing company Lyft face a possible injunction in California that would force them to reclassify their drivers as employees. Currently, drivers are classified as independent contractors, which means they pay for their own expenses, such as gas, car maintenance and insurance. Drivers also don't have benefits like health care and sick leave.
You could just pay them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To normalize the playing field obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the concept of benefits was created by companies to make themselves stand out, and have something to work with unions on? Levelling the playing field seems ... anti-productive.
Also, isnt a pool of things an employee can dip into usually called socialism?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the concept of benefits was created by companies to make themselves stand out, and have something to work with unions on? Levelling the playing field seems ... anti-productive.
We've (mostly) moved past the concept that most jobs should provide the barest minimum to a worker. This isn't about productivity. There's lot of things that can be done to increase productivity, but some of those things are highly unethical. This is about providing a good income that someone can use to live a comfortable life vs barely eking by. We want people out of poverty or skirting the line. If you're compassionate, well, you just want other people to be able to have a comfortable existence. If you're
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree with everything you say, my point was more of a case of "hasnt the existing system failed then?"
Uber wants a pool between employers that employees can dip into for health insurance, paid time off and so forth - now they need someone to manage that pool. That is starting to look very close to what a lot of other countries have, only the pool is funded from taxes (enforcement of decent employment law requiring things like minimum paid time off, national holidays, minimum wage etc), the poo
Re: (Score:1)
The current system of employer-based health care started in WWII (I believe) when wages were frozen. Companies started offering the relatively new product, Blue Shield health insurance, as a perk that skirted the wage controls.
All those in these comments who say that Uber just wants to lower their spending are forgetting that universal health care would increase their taxes, possibly increasing their spending.
The current situation suits employers just fine. They would rather spend $X on health i
Re: (Score:2)
So, the CEO of Uber is asking for Congress for a law to make the CEO of Uber pay their people better? Why doesn't this guy just pay them better? Why does he need a law to do it?
Probably so he can come back and argue that, if Congress is making them do it, they should pitch in and help pay for it. Or maybe he wants a nation-wide pool that all "gig" companies pay into that the workers can then draw from. If Uber does it on their own, they are on the hook for the whole cost.
But yeah, if he wants his drivers to have benefits then he needs to just call them employees and be done with it. They can even keep their flexibility: just tell them "you can drive when you want, but you must
and they must pay employees for time in going back (Score:2)
and they must pay employees for time in going back to there core area (after long runs), Airport waiting time, pumping gas, cleaning there cars, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
I've contracted a long time, and I adjust my bill rates to cover my time off, my medical insurance, retirement, etc.
I don't need or want to be thrown into a pool as that doing that would like negate the VERY positive things I can currently do.
Please don't break the contracting paradigm and laws the HAVE been working well for a significant number of US citizens for decades LONG before there was the "gig" economy.
One size doe
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because you are a legitimate contractor, with contracting/pricing power who negotiates with clients. Gig workers are really not independent contractors, they are cheap employees.
Re: (Score:2)
But the trouble is...lawmakers often will lump all together and ruin it for everyone.
I believe recent CA legislation did exactly this...and now indie film and music folks, contractors...are now having problems and it is wreaking havoc on their former way of making a living.
I believe an instance would be a free lance photogra
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I am incorporated...S-Corp.
But these laws being put forth, at least the ones in CA are almost making it against the law for compantes to do business with independent contractors.
Being corp-to-corp helps a lot....but they are making laws m
Re: (Score:2)
Usually by the law being vague enough that you don't know if you will end up being treated as an employer if you buy their photos. And so, companies stop taking the risk of those lawsuits - as some berk will evcentually decide that getting paid for phots was not enough and they want holiday payu or sick benefit as well.
I think if you set uyp as a real self-employed business and sell your photos that way, then its all good. But I assume the freelance photographers don't want that hassle just to sell a few ph
Re:You could just pay them... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why pay people more when you can just get the government to do it?
This is corporate welfare rebranded. Uber's business isn't viable, it can't afford what it costs for a key asset (drivers) to live so it relies on the government topping it up.
Re:You could just pay them... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the CEO of Uber is asking for a law that makes *everybody* (not just him) pay their workers less. It works out great for the company. You get to keep some of the money you'd otherwise pay out, collect interest on it or, more likely, play some shady accounting games with it, then when you actually have to pay some of it out you can require that it be used to keep your contractors/employees healthy, which is *also* to your benefit.
The employee gets some benefit as well. Spreading the risk of a major catastrophe like getting seriously ill or living too long in your retirement among many people is useful. The more the better. Many companies actually pool their resources and have industry programs. You could think even bigger too. Maybe everybody pools their resources and implements something on a national scale.
Re:You could just pay them... (Score:4, Informative)
That way they don't put themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
If Uber does this, and Lyft doesn't then Lyft can offer their services cheaper than Uber, or if they keep the same prices, then Lyft will get more profit margin, which they can use to expand other areas faster.
Making it law, that means all their competitors will need to play by the same rules, uber being the larger company can deal with it while their smaller competitors may not be able to do so.
A long time back, I worked for a company selling Color Printers that offered Free Black Ink for Life. We tried selling these printers to the Financial Market. They didn't want the printers, not because of the printer, or that they liked paying for Black Ink. But because non of their competitors printed in Color, and if they started printing in color, so will their competitors, so they will need to print more color. Thus the Free Black Ink will be loss to paying a lot more for Color Ink.
The sales man mentioned you can just set up your printer to only print in black in white. But they were worried it would be too much a temptation for the staff to find a way to print in color.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was my take too, but there are at least a couple of reasons I can think of:
1. If they do it, but Lyft, whoever doesn't they will be at a disadvantage. Most people will say "these people deserve more money!" but then will still use the cheaper app.
2. They are publicly traded, they have to do what is best for the shareholders. If you suddenly start paying your people a lot more, without any noticeable advantage it would hurt your stock prices (mostly because of point #1).
3. Something like he suggested
Re: (Score:2)
1. If they do it, but Lyft, whoever doesn't they will be at a disadvantage. Most people will say "these people deserve more money!" but then will still use the cheaper app.
labor is a market too. Almost everyone I see driving for Uber or Lyft currently drives for both. They just take whichever rides look most profitable from either. If driving for Uber means a much better deal for them they would or should just close the lyft app. Eventually Lyft won't have many drivers and waits for riders will increase to the point the public just chooses Uber. I don't see a competitive disadvantage here. I see more potential for the market leader Uber to force lyft to follow in order to r
Re: (Score:1)
Eh, I think the problem is that if Uber is forced to pay benefits they may be paying *full* benefits to someone that works 5-10 hours a week for Uber which results in a monetary loss for Uber. If I'm a gig worker looking for full-time employment I may be contracting for multiple different gig companies simultaneously - say, Uber, Lyft, Doordash, etc., so from that perspective it makes sense for each company to have a pool of money set aside for benefits for each gig worker. Each full-time gig worker would
Obeying Law == Morality (Score:2)
There are a lot of calls for Uber to pay benefits. If there's a legal requirement for benefits at a certain low level, and Uber meets it, it's not their choice not to pay more. It's their duty to obey the law and maximize shareholder value.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have a duty to maximize shareholder value. That's a myth that people made up to try to excuse companies that do awful things. Just because a company is public doesn't mean that it has to put profit above all else. Besides, with the amount of money that Uber is pissing away on outrageous compensation for its executives, they're clearly not interested in maximizing shareholder value.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I shifted into talking points mode without delineating it. I was saying what they'll say as they provide their employees $20 a month towards an optional $500 a month plan and say they're helping. It's of course bullshit.
It's helpful to point out it's a myth that was popularized in 1978 to point out how recent it is and how well companies got along until then.
Pay them more (Score:2)
Tying insurance to employment is stupid for a variety of reasons though. The only reason it exists is that the government effectively froze wages during the war so employers started using it as a way to increase compensation. Just make a universal system for basi
Re: (Score:3)
Bulk discounts. You get better deals on insurance particularly if you add a lot of people to a pool than a few.
Re: (Score:1)
Bulk discounts. You get better deals on insurance particularly if you add a lot of people to a pool than a few.
So, like, say a risk pool the size of 331,208,717 (as of Aug 9 2020 as estimated by worldometer). That's gotta be one hell of a better deal.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah. You get a few poor people in there and they spoil it for everyone else. I mean, not financially, it's still a sweet deal that way, but *morally.* Just ew.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. You get a few poor people in there and they spoil it for everyone else. I mean, not financially, it's still a sweet deal that way, but *morally.* Just ew.
There's gotta be a moral middle ground. We can keep the poor in, but leave out the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
"We know we can't avoid the inevitable. But rather than actually paying people with real benefits like a real company, we want someone else to pay for those benefits. Give us free money!"
On the other hand, have they ever made a profit?
The answer to this grabage is so simple (Score:4, Insightful)
TAX Benefits like regular compensation! Every dollar an employer contributes toward benefits should be taxed as regular income for the employee. DO NOT provide any tax breaks for employers offering benefits that is force them to continuing paying their contributions with after tax money - in other words double tax it. OUTLAW required participation in an an employer sponsored medical plan as a condition for employment, so employees can always choose to just take the cash.
Once there is no advantage in employee coverage, we will see a robust individual marketplace come back. That will give employees much more freedom of movement, and not discriminate against contractors and less formal employer/employee relationships.
individual marketplace with per-ex and medicaid (Score:1)
individual marketplace with per-ex and medicaid caps?
No we need at the very least an basic plan that covers all with no cost (pay for by taxes)
Re: (Score:3)
I already pay well into the 33% tax level for state and federal.
It goes higher if I were to try to add in all the sales taxes...
I pay enough...I don't want to pay 50% of more for national coverage.
Hell, right now at these tax levels...most of the Federal monew goes to Medicare/Medicade and Social Security as it is.....I doubt you could add on free medical for ALL even if you did raise taxes to 60% on everyone in th
Re: (Score:3)
I hear generalities of all the "bad" executives being the Bain of our existence in the US on most all levels.
Can you give me more specific examples of who needs to go?
Re: (Score:3)
I hear generalities of all the "bad" executives being the Bain of our existence in the US on most all levels.
Can you give me more specific examples of who needs to go?
Private insurance companies (whose duty is to shareholders, not sick people) suck up a full one third of all your health care spending. That is a huge amount right off the top, before any care even happens.
Your health care system exists primarily for profit It's the reason the US spends double per capita on health care compared to most western democracies, and does not have any particularly better outcomes than they do. It's also why health care costs are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the U
Re: (Score:2)
First, It's not going to take 17% more of your income. That's insane. I don't know why you think that? 60%? Are you nuts? Here's what I know. It's cheaper for the government to supply healthcare than the private sector. Based on how much cheaper it is and how many people are currently covered in the US, total costs will go down. Since I'm not uber-rich*, my total costs will also go down. I'm happy about that. I'm going to be saving money.
As for the DMV, what state are you in? Because while I've hea
Re: (Score:2)
Even before covid, we were running deficits...
Now..tack on having health care for EVERYONE in the US (even non-citizens, as that you know they will add that in there)....and just where do you think all that money will come from?
I mean, if you just immediately confiscated ALL money the top 1% has....you'd not fund the current government expenditures for more than a year or so....hell e
Re: (Score:2)
Except the federal budget is $4.5 trillion, and SS, Medicare and Medicaid make up less than $2 trillion (2.25 trillion is half). And Social Security has nothing do do with healthcare.
Re: (Score:1)
A previous (prior to AFCA) employer littered required I enroll in their shitty over priced health plan. I was still in my early 20s at the time. So I could get quite good individual market coverage cheaper than my portion of the employee health plan cost. Why? So they could fob the expense of the fat slobs and chain smokers on their plan off on me.
Talk about wanted to eat your cake an someone else's. Of course the individual mandate does nothing but double down on this retarded thinking. 20 somethings SHO
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At the risk of replying to a troll. You'll note I did not suggest anywhere that everyone should not have health coverage. I even suggested subsidized coverage for young people who can't afford it. My objections to what we have today are
1) It ties employees to employers for no good reason. You don't have to change your auto-mechanic or your cable provider when you change jobs, you should not have to change medical insurers and potentially healthcare networks and providers either. There should be no relati
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to my own post. I would also point out that I am lot closer to the latter group than the former now. So what I am saying is *I* should be paying more so that Jane has a better opportunity to get a head start.
Re: The answer to this grabage is so simple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>so employees can always choose to just take the cash
hehe stupid americans
Re: (Score:2)
The only "robust individual marketplace" I'm aware of ever existing had literal snake-oil salesmen and hospitals that operated primarily as religious charities (that excluded people of other religions!). Are you aware of a different timeline?
unlink health insurance from jobs (USA ONLY) (Score:5, Insightful)
unlink health insurance from jobs (USA ONLY)
Re: unlink health insurance from jobs (USA ONLY) (Score:2)
real independent contractors can set there prices (Score:3)
real independent contractors can set there own prices but in this case uber sets the price.
Re: (Score:2)
real independent contractors can set there own prices but in this case uber sets the price.
They are free to charge whatever they want to Uber, but Uber will only accept their contract at a specific rate. As contractors the passenger isn't their customer, Uber is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My take on this is that they think the pro-corporate parties are going to lose big in November
They really think there's going to be a rash of third-party candidates who aren't libertarians taking seats? That seems unlikely. The most likely outcome is a bunch more Rs or Ds winning elections, and both of those parties are pro-corporate. Granted, there's a handful of non-corporate-whore Ds, but a bare handful does not make a sea change.
There's plenty of Dems who aren't all in (Score:2, Interesting)
Even the right wing (Pelosi & Schumer) are drifting away from their corporate masters. Pelosi had a serious primary challenger until COVID upended everything.
And then there's COVID. The economy will not recover without Federal intervention. But the corporatists have made it very, very clear they intend to do nothing (they've blocked the
Re: (Score:2)
It's partisan (Score:2)
Donald Trump had Federal Officers in camo gear pulling people into unmarked cars. His Attorney General Bill Bar has a paper he wrote in 1989 discussing doing just that in an effort to get citizens used to it. These are real things that have now happened and the Republican party did not call them out in the slightest. We got a bit of Susan Collins style "concern" and that's all
On top of all that we have Donald
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea why parent was modded flamebait. It should be +informative/insightful.
You're right about the flamebait mod, but you're wrong about the informative/insightful mod. The parent and pretty much every other comment in this branch of the discussion should be modded off-topic. 99% of it has nothing to do with "Uber CEO Calls For 'Benefits Funds' for Gig Workers"
Kind of hard to stay on topic (Score:2)
My point is perfectly valid and on topic. Uber is not trying to extend benefits out of the kindness of their hearts. They are doing so out of fear. They think the next administration is going to come down on them.
They're trying to get out in front of that so they can say "See, you don't need all those protections your a
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely on topic. Discussions can't be so narrow unless all you want is squawking (twitting).
However...I don't agree on your analysis about motive. It could be ongoing lawsuits. It could be simple regulatory capture bait dressed up like other similar industry funds. It could be their fund for not having to pay for Covid sick leave was such a success they decided to let society pay for all of their employees benefits. It could be all of the above.
Do you have anything substantial to connect it to the elec
Wow. (Score:2)
Kind of hard to stay on topic when the Original Post is itself a diversionary tactic.
Wow. You don't even realize that YOU made the original "diversionary" post, do you? You turned "Uber CEO Calls For 'Benefits Funds' for Gig Workers" into "Uber Tries to Get Ahead of Shift to the Left in the Coming Election". It's just another example of you pivoting damn near every topic into a political one. You do this all day every day and you don't even realize it. The funny thing is, your OP was the only one I thought had the remotest possibility of being considered on topic. But everything tha
Cori Bush just primaried a pro-corporate Dem (Score:2)
Government (Score:2)
Have government do it, not companies. Itâ(TM)s everyoneâ(TM)s fault someone doesnâ(TM)t have a full time job. Itâ(TM)s especially not the fault of the one company willing to hire someone even part time, so why should they get punished? People who arenâ(TM)t hiring someone should have to pay.
Why not argue for single payer health care? (Score:2)
His current argument just seems like a soft-focus version of what WalMart does, pay employees so little that they wind up taking food stamps. It's entirely self-serving.
Of course he wouldn't want to argue for single payer because it would inevitably involve higher taxes from him personally or some kind of employer taxation (I'm side-stepping the perhaps reasonable argument that single payer is macroeconomically less expensive because it strips out most profit-making activity).
Another out of touch CEO (Score:2)
You think they should be paid better? OK, so pay them more, otherwise you come across as a complete asshole.
Re: (Score:2)