Lawmakers Look to Spruce Up Gig Work Rather Than Replace It (bloomberg.com) 85
An anonymous reader shares a report: Last week in Washington, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House passed a sweeping labor law overhaul that would make it much easier for gig workers to prove they're actually employees with full-fledged union rights, rather than contractors as their bosses claim. Two days later in Democratic-ruled Connecticut, state lawmakers met by video conference to consider a less adversarial approach: Creating a special industrywide version of bargaining for gig workers, without making them employees. "It is clear that these platform apps are here to stay," state Senator Julie Kushner, a former United Auto Workers regional director who now co-chairs the Connecticut legislature's Labor and Public Employees Committee, said in an interview. "What's really important is that we look at, how do we adjust so that we are getting the benefit of the platform, and the approach to work, but also making sure that we are not ignoring workers' rights in the equation?"
The legislative proposal in Connecticut, spearheaded by a worker guild funded by Uber and Lyft, is a stab at the sort of compromise that some gig executives and union leaders have been seeking: boosting gig workers' rights, without granting them the full suite of protections that employees get under U.S. law. It reflects the eagerness of some lawmakers to find common ground between tech and labor and avoid the sort of pitched battle that's been raging in California and reverberating in boardrooms, union halls and government offices around the world. This week, Uber announced that it would reclassify its 70,000 U.K. drivers as "workers" eligible for minimum wage and paid vacation, among other benefits, after losing a national Supreme Court case. Harmony hasn't materialized so far in Connecticut: The companies don't support the current proposal. In testimony submitted last week, Uber said the bill as written "raises many concerns and creates a new, incredibly complicated process without the necessary due diligence and input from all stakeholders." Lyft, the second-largest ride-hailing company in the U.S, said the bill could harm "the flexibility and control that drivers currently enjoy."
The legislative proposal in Connecticut, spearheaded by a worker guild funded by Uber and Lyft, is a stab at the sort of compromise that some gig executives and union leaders have been seeking: boosting gig workers' rights, without granting them the full suite of protections that employees get under U.S. law. It reflects the eagerness of some lawmakers to find common ground between tech and labor and avoid the sort of pitched battle that's been raging in California and reverberating in boardrooms, union halls and government offices around the world. This week, Uber announced that it would reclassify its 70,000 U.K. drivers as "workers" eligible for minimum wage and paid vacation, among other benefits, after losing a national Supreme Court case. Harmony hasn't materialized so far in Connecticut: The companies don't support the current proposal. In testimony submitted last week, Uber said the bill as written "raises many concerns and creates a new, incredibly complicated process without the necessary due diligence and input from all stakeholders." Lyft, the second-largest ride-hailing company in the U.S, said the bill could harm "the flexibility and control that drivers currently enjoy."
Can anyone explain in more detail how UK works? (Score:5, Interesting)
The description of the settlement in the UK is that basically Uber drivers are employees, and are on the clock when the open the app, and off the clock when they log out of it, and while on the clock, are guaranteed a minimum wage.
Sounds simple... until you think about the details. Are drivers in the UK now COMPELLED to accept all rides while logged in? Or do drivers have a minimum number of rides they must accept while on the clock? If not, how does this whole arrangement even work?
I have yet to see the detailed explanation of exactly HOW this settlement in the UK makes sense.
Re:Can anyone explain in more detail how UK works? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Can anyone explain in more detail how UK works (Score:2)
Do you have a ref for that? All the articles I read said it is base don login and logout of the app.
wait time should be on the clock + return time (Score:3)
wait time should be on the clock + return time (say you have an long run and you end it out side of your core area)
In the past Instacart want people to be on shift and sit an store. Now that should be paid full min wage even if there are no orders for that time.
Re:Can anyone explain in more detail how UK works? (Score:4, Insightful)
More interesting to me - are the employers now allowed to REQUIRE their drivers to work at any particular time? So, you log in, you're working for the next eight hours?
And what happens if you don't log in as required by your employer? Can he fire you?
For that matter can your employer now send you a message to the effect of "business is slow, we don't need you today, so log off and go home"?
Re: (Score:2)
Much like most jobs. If the company finds out that you are not pulling your weight, you can get fired. I expect they may now require those who reject a job, to explain why, being that they are on the clock getting paid.
Re: Can anyone explain in more detail how UK works (Score:2)
If that's the case then it's a huge deviation from how being an Uber driver works. Today you are not compelled at all to accept a given ride. Seems like a large step backwards for some drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice FP and it elicited some interesting and informative information. And reasonably moderated, too. Just saying.
America's economy is based on FRAUD (Score:4, Interesting)
There is fraud everywhere.
Bribery is illegal yet lawmakers spend most of their time soliciting "campaign contributions"
Pollution kills thousands, but we reclassify problems and let them fester and kill instead of admitting to hazardous pollution releases.
Don't even get me started on the shenanigans happening in the stock market.
And then you get to the biggest fraud of all. The fastest growing job in America isn't considered a job for legal and tax purposes. Disgusting.
The bill up for consideration in the US House is a step in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2)
The fastest growing job in America isn't considered a job for legal and tax purposes.
Reading this, I would be led to believe that "job" is a legal class in the US. It is not. There are employees, and there are contractors. Your classification depends on how much discretion you have when choosing to take on work, among other factors.
Read the IRS's summary [irs.gov], and tell me if being an Uber driver sounds more like a contractor or an employee. When you are an Uber driver:
Re:So I guess.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So I guess.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ideally, yes. That's how the best decisions get made. And we decided that unlimited power differentials were unacceptable - you cannot threaten to fire a sectary for not sleeping with you anymore and that's a Good Thing (TM).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's a whole lot of crap for me saying "contracts negotiated between parties with less power differentials are better and sexual harrassment is bad." I have no problem with contractors per se, but uber drivers aren't those. They don't negotiate rates or make six-figures.
But yeah, I have no problem with highly paid professionals contracting. I do have a problem with commodity taxi drivers being forced into shrinkwrap agreements for contracting.Because a highly paid/skilled professional has other op
Re: (Score:2)
Who is forcing them?
There are other jobs out there if you don't see this offering as beneficial to you.
It is true.
Not only do you get to legally write off a TON of stuff yo
Rubbing Hands (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Rubbing Hands (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, all things are open in contract negotiations.
An adult should be capable of figuring out if the proposed deal is good for them or not.
No one if holding a gun and forcing you to accept the terms of any contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Well...yes.
I"m against that, or at least I'm against removing that freedom of choice.
No health care for the 1099 workers! (Score:5, Interesting)
While for the most part I am not big on the idea of the Single Payer for health care, The 1099 workers (Gig workers, Consultants and Contractors) have a problem with health care, being that they may be working for multiple different customers it gets really complex on which company should pay for the health care and which shouldn't, as well which health plan should be offered.
Having a single Payer (not necessarily government owned) where companies can pay into each 1099 workers a standard percentage from their own account and from the negotiated rate of the 1099 worker, into a single entity. Would probably create a lot of extra benefits.
1. It may make the company consider hiring more W2 workers, as they are just not trying to dodge paying benefits.
2. Simplify the companies HR management, as the current set of laws are very difficult to implement.
3. More reliable 1099 employees, work until they die, or too sick to work. Isn't a good plan, you and get a lot of turnover, because a good 1099 employee will just get up and leave, because they need to take care of a health problem, often from lack of preventive maintenance.
Re:No health care for the 1099 workers! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't understand why a single-payer system is a bad thing to anyone. It's a floor and countries with it still have private insurance and doctors for people who can and are willing to pay more.
Since you oppose it and seem not like an idiot (small sample size of this post), what's wrong with it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Single payer just raises the floor so that middle income people don't have to budget. They could easily afford health insurance, but that would cut into their vacations and impulsive purchases (phones, cars, toys, etc). T
Re:No health care for the 1099 workers! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm totally lost by your response. The problem with single-payer is that middle income people can go on vacations? That's not even a problem. All I saw was a list of things that people get if there's single payer and no downside listed. Since the only negative you listed is that middle income people get to have vacations and phones, I assume you mean the negative is that more people will have those things and that's bad because they bring people joy. Like, literally reading your post says to me you don't like single-payer because it would make people happy.
The other issue is you misunderstand "floor" to mean "safety net". That's not what it means. It means "minimum care everyone can get".
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Since the only negative you listed is that middle income people get to have vacations and phones, I assume you mean the negative is that more people will have those things and that's bad because they bring people joy. Like, literally reading your post says to me you don't like single-payer because it would make people happy.
I would love for everyone to be happy and bring joy to the world. Start with health insurance and then what? We should bring more joy by giving everyone single payer housing. Single payer food. Single payer cars and single payer vacations. Sounds wonderful right? Bring joy and happiness to everyone.
But, how do you pay for all that?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is the "floor". We already have a floor for food (nobody who isn't insane starves in this country, quite the opposite) and housing (pretty much the only true homeless are mentally ill or choose to be homeless), and clothing (even the homeless generally wear clothes).
Over time as we move to a less (not post) scarcity model the efficiencies of scale make sense in some domains. Health care is one of them. It's already "guaranteed" for the most part as you pointed out. Worst case you can walk
Re: (Score:2)
The other issue is you misunderstand "floor" to mean "safety net". That's not what it means. It means "minimum care everyone can get".
Is there a minimum house everyone can get? Is there minimum food everyone can get? Since you're distinguishing between "safety net" and "minimum everyone can get", should EVERYONE get a minimum amount of food and a minimum amount of housing for free? i.e. Even though I'm middle class, I can get minimal shelter and food from the government, free? Is that what you mean? Is food and shelter less important than health care?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Food, shelter, healthcare all sound life-sustaining. Now, I imagine you would decline your government-minimum shelter as you could buy superior housing on the open market if you're middle income. Probably you would want to purchase food most of the time as well. Hell, you may want to pay for your annual checkup or pref
Re: (Score:2)
The other issue is you misunderstand "floor" to mean "safety net". That's not what it means. It means "minimum care everyone can get".
Is there a minimum house everyone can get? Is there minimum food everyone can get? Since you're distinguishing between "safety net" and "minimum everyone can get", should EVERYONE get a minimum amount of food and a minimum amount of housing for free? i.e. Even though I'm middle class, I can get minimal shelter and food from the government, free? <SNIP>
Yes. That was simple. Next question.
Alright, I'll expand a bit. Yes, everyone should get the basic necessities of life, regardless of their ability or even willingness to work. If someone decides to be lazy as fuck and sit around playing video games all day while eating free government food, wearing free government clothes, living in a tiny, yet free government-paid-for apartment, more power to them. Myself, I'll still hold down a job and own my own house and car and various luxuries because that's what I l
Re: (Score:1)
If society has a problem, then it is the government's responsibility to make sure it gets fixed.
What the fuck are you talking about? Your utopian diatribe about every man helping their fellow man, all managed by a benevolent government has been tried many times. To clue you into reality, it doesn't work. Please, go back and look at history.
Re: No health care for the 1099 workers! (Score:2)
It's working right now in practically all of Europe. I'm not talking about communism. I'm talking about socialism, the idea that society owes itself a duty to provide everyone with the necessities of life. It's not about utopianism. It's about recognizing that we owe ourselves this duty, and government is the body to perform it.
Re: (Score:1)
Single payer just raises the floor so that middle income people don't have to budget. They could easily afford health insurance, but that would cut into their vacations and impulsive purchases (phones, cars, toys, etc). The bottom is already taken care of. The top can afford the premium of whatever they want. Single payer is just the middle wanting the rich to pay for their stuff.
You must be one of the rich people, or had rich parents.
I've known lots of people on the bottom end of the middle class that have to make really bad life decisions because of health insurance. They take jobs that are extremely stressful at places that treat employees poorly because they need the health care that comes with the job. They make unwanted, highly stressful moves to places where the quality of living sucks because they need the health care that comes from a job there. They often have to move a
Re: (Score:1)
I do not want the federal/state government in charge of my health care...period.
These are the same institutions that bring you day long waits at the DMV at state levels...and god forbid any federal program you as an individual have to ever deal with.
No thank you.
I'm quite happy with my insurance coverage, my cost
Re: (Score:2)
Same. I have access to the best healthcare in the world. The problem in the US isn't quality, it's availability. However, you and I comprise a small number of the people in the country and have a combined vote of 2.
I've accepted that single payer is coming, my health care options will get a little worse, most people's will get a little better - I guess I'll probably still be fine so I'm not shitting myself over the prospect, in fact thinking outside my own personal interests it's probably for the best.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll probably have the same health care options if you want to pay a bit extra, and if you get cancer suddenly the government will cover the million-dollar bill. So you'll pay less for your concierge doctor outside the system until then, since they won't be on the hook for outrageous rare events.
Re: (Score:2)
And how is that changed if there is also a single-payer system. Your welcome to continue using your private insurance (and they'll probably figure out some way to partially bill the government so you'll get subsidized.) No one is saying "and make insurance companies illegal". They're saying "make what the insurance companies have to compete against more compelling by not m
Re: (Score:2)
Why is the world do I want to pay twice to have the coverage I currently have.
What benefit is
Sorry, reply to a tangent (Score:2)
Is this true? Do you live in some shithole where the DMV takes forever, or is this just something you say? And what federal programs have you found it hard to navigate??
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why a single-payer system is a bad thing to anyone. It's a floor and countries with it still have private insurance and doctors for people who can and are willing to pay more.
Once you add private insurance and doctors for people who pay, then it's not single-payer anymore. I think what you mean is "public healthcare" or something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Private insurance and doctors are present in every single payer system. The provide services not covered by the single payer system (e.g. cosmetic surgery) or with priority (a shorter wait time) or simply a luxury version (e.g. a private room in a hospital, housecalls). The important thing is that sufficient services are covered by the government
Re: (Score:2)
The key issue with Single Payer, is that the single Payer (Government, Commercial Entity etc... ) would be a major influence on the Fee Schedule (How much every procedure costs)
Medicaid pays about 1/3 what the commercial insurances would pay for a particular service, Medicare is about 2/3. Health Care institution normally will take Medicare and Medicaid patients at a loss, and make up the money from commercial insurance higher payments, because they can bargain with them and use one and other to get a bet
Re: (Score:3)
Better idea; rather than do single payer healthcare or try to figure out which employer should pay. Just get rid of employer sponsored health insurance!
I still say we should tax benefits just like regular income. Treat the employer portions for both employee and employers tax treatment like regular w2 wages.
Make it illegal to require any employee participate in an employer sponsored insurance program, require they provide employees the options of taking any employer contribution as cash salary.
If we simple
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as an independent, 1099 contractor, it is up to YOU to figure out your bill rate(s) and budget to pay your own health care.
It
Re: (Score:2)
All fine and good, then you may get something like Cancer.
In that case you will burn your HSA in no time, plus you may be long to recover so you cannot work hard enough (often to need to keep your hours shorter) to help pay the extra expenses.
Granted I would be good with a HSA and Insurance Hybrid, with more money going to the HSA for most conditions and you fall back to Insurance for only the really expensive stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you somehow missed the point that I have insurance along with the HSA...which is exactly there for catastrophic medical needs....and more.
I have had excellent medical insurance coverage for my time as a contractor.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm a 1099 worker. I've been in and out of that for 30 years. I've also had health insurance for those 30 years. Today if you want it just go to your state market place and sign up like anyone else. Not hard, even an Uber driver could do it.
What why? (Score:3)
"It is clear that these platform apps are here to stay,"
I don't understand the why here. It seems pretty easy if our elected legislators decided to ban them could be gone over night. Not that i want to see that happen or think it should in anyway. I think adults ought to enjoy freedom to enter into whatever contracts they want to make personally.
That said the idea of labor laws are hear to stay. Rather than trying to come up with a one-size-fits all 'gig worker policy' I think we should look at the individual apps. Some fit the piece work model fine and ought to be treated that way. Others like the ride hailing apps clearly have the 'employee' imposed upon to a degree even when they haven't got a fair and don't fit the piece work model. The two groups should be treated differently.
Re:What why? (Score:4, Insightful)
"It is clear that these platform apps are here to stay,"
I don't understand the why here. It seems pretty easy if our elected legislators decided to ban them could be gone over night. /p>
Because lobbyists write big checks to politicians, that's why.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand the why here. It seems pretty easy if our elected legislators decided to ban them could be gone over night.
Because of our elected legislators decided to ban them overnight, then those legislators would soon become unelected (voted out). Uber has demonstrated they have power to influence elections.
Re:What why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think adults ought to enjoy freedom to enter into whatever contracts they want to make personally.
the first problem is power balance. If you think an individual can successfully negotiate with any company of any size, you are sadly mistaken. What comes to most jobs and most talent, you need them more than they need you. Second problem is can a person entering a contract which makes that person a slave? We sort of have that today with credit contracts and non-competes but any contract that prevent you from exercising the same freedoms as any other citizen has should be illegal. A related problem is that most people don't have the legal knowledge to be able to understand most contracts nor do they have the financial resources to hire their own lawyer to review contracts and negotiate a better one
personally I think all employment should be a cash only relationship between employer and employee. If you want provide for tax-advantaged "benefits" then pay the employee via a special account. This account would have the property of any withdrawals are taxed unless they go to recognized benefit companies such as insurance, retirement etc.
Just enforce the existing laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber and Lyft are illegal in most jurisdictions. Enforce the taxi regulations on them.
There are potentially a ton of legal issues around food delivery apps ranging from health concerns to fraudulently posturing to imply a business relationship with restaurants that don't even provide takeout.
Tolerating rule-breaking is a cultural value in some of these blue enclaves. Not long ago, a coworker and I were talking about the Clinton-Lewinski thing. I got my liberal coworker to admit that he committed perjury, a felony. His response? Who cares, he's the President. Dude then literally goes on to whine about all sorts of injustices, even though it is exactly people like him who enable them. He also loved these apps and SV culture.
This is how you get a two-tier society where the 99% get sodomized without lube for great profit by the wealthy. The people who will stick a spike up your ass for misclassifying an employee as a contractor at a mom and pop shop won't hesitate to say "well it's complicated" about some VC-backed company that does that at scale. It's complicated because the results would be very bad for a lot of well-connected people if the laws were upheld and the whole edifice imploded.
Also, FYI, this is what happened with MERS in 2008. It was terribly complicated because lots of people from low level bank employees, to lawyers, to CEOs should have gone to prison for offenses ranging from securities fraud, to misrepresenting liens and titles in state civil courts. Had the law been upheld, it would have been an accidental jubilee year for tens of millions of mortgage holders.
Re: (Score:3)
Drunk driving is not as big of a deal (Score:2)
As allowing VC-backed mega corps to crap all over the law while their shareholders run interference for them. Political solutions were perfectly doable such as expanding the number of medallions and also allowing people who get a CDL to run a taxi business.
FFS, have some imagination other than "oh noes, no Uber, drunks!1!"
Re: (Score:2)
Political solutions were perfectly doable such as expanding the number of medallions and also allowing people who get a CDL to run a taxi business.
Those didn't get done. In theory I support taxis, in practice I could never get one. I can get an Uber or Lyft though, and that's why I prefer them.
Gig workers can't really bargain (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a reason our great granddads and moms fought (and died) for the 40 hour work week, minimum wage and an end to company towns. And here we are, not even a 100 years latter giving it all up. And for what?
Re: (Score:1)
and yet we see greater wealth concentration even than in the gilded age. Its almost like the whole narrative of the workers rights movement is just a bedtime story to keep play the part of good little cog works.
None of it is supported by reality. Not by measured changes in wealth disparity and not by peoples individual choices. Before the pandemic we had employment at historic lows - and yet people were flocking to jobs at Uber and lyft and gig opportunities that flaunted those worker protection laws at th
It's more complicated than that (Score:3)
Organization works when workers can be organized. It worked for factories because you had a lot of the same people doing the same job in the same place.
It doesn't work for the "gig" economy because they're spread out too much to form a the kind of power struct
I think you're convincing the left wing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
By "take advantage of" you must mean "provide jobs for", because otherwise those same people wouldn't be doing it, no? Your outdated way of thinking is the same as the one that says selling anything to anyone is "exploitative" because one side got more value out of the transaction than the other.
If you don't want to do it, don't fucking do it. Gig work is optional.
And before you spew about "heartless libertarians" I think we should have enough basic safety nets than even without Gig work you have very basic
No, I mean take advantage of (Score:2)
Here when I say "take advantage" I mean in the colloquial sense, as in to abuse another person by giving them bare minimum survival (or less) wages in order to exercise power over them.
Money is Power. When we let the folks at the top have unlimited money we've also let them have unlimited power. Over You too. You will do as the
Re: (Score:1)
The Gig Economy Is Coming (Score:4, Insightful)
I've said this a few times, but once you bring back and legitimize piece work they'll come for your job next. You'll be paid by the server fixed or the line of code written, and they'll use algorithms to monitor your code so you don't pad it like they did in the 80s.
You can't give these people an inch. We have centuries of them taking a mile to look back on. You're next.
Look to Spruce Up Gig Work?? (Score:2)
It's not an app! (Score:3)
How fucking dumb is state Senator Julie Kushner. But wait she's a Democrat which means she's a fucking neo-liberal who does not give two shits about people.
No ass-hole it is not your fucking job to "get the benefit of the platform". Your job is not to protect corporations. It's you fucking job to protect workers. Because if you don't, yes worker rights will be trampled on and the race to the bottom will continue and poverty will continue to grow.
Is the issue unions or minimum compensation? (Score:2)
This is interesting. I'd always heard this framed as guaranteeing workers certain compensation and benefits (minimum wage, vacation time, employer-sponsored health insurance), not collective bargaining. I wasn't aware there was anything stopping gig workers from trying to organize in a union.
What would be the issue there? My vague understanding is unions have special legal status: employers are required to negotiate in good faith with a recognized union, employees may not be fired for attempting to organize
Re: (Score:2)
Have you noticed... (Score:2)
Have you ever noticed that when someone produces something good, there's always someone else who wants to add their stupid tweaks because they can't keep their hands off. Idiots.