US Labor Secretary Says Most Gig Workers Should Be Classified as Employees, Prompting Shares of Uber, Lyft, Doordash and Grubhub To Crash (reuters.com) 213
President Joe Biden's top labor official said Thursday that most gig workers in the United States should be classified as "employees" deserving of related benefits, in what could be a policy shift that is likely to raise costs for companies that depend on contractors such as Uber and Lyft and impact millions of workers. From a report: Shares of Uber fell as much as 8 percent while Lyft dived as much as 12 percent. Doordash fell nearly 9 percent and Grubhub was down 3.3 percent. Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, a son of Irish immigrants and a former union member, has been expected to boost President Biden's efforts to expand workers' protections and deliver a win for the country's organized labor movement.
"We are looking at it but in a lot of cases gig workers should be classified as employees... in some cases they are treated respectfully and in some cases they are not and I think it has to be consistent across the board," Walsh told Reuters in an interview, expressing his view on the topic for the first time. "These companies are making profits and revenue and I'm not (going to) begrudge anyone for that because that's what we are about in America... but we also want to make sure that success trickles down to the worker," he said.
"We are looking at it but in a lot of cases gig workers should be classified as employees... in some cases they are treated respectfully and in some cases they are not and I think it has to be consistent across the board," Walsh told Reuters in an interview, expressing his view on the topic for the first time. "These companies are making profits and revenue and I'm not (going to) begrudge anyone for that because that's what we are about in America... but we also want to make sure that success trickles down to the worker," he said.
Six of those, four of that. (Score:2)
Employee vs consultant vs Gig worker.
Re: (Score:2)
Which model is better? 100 full-time employee or 1000 gig workers? Depends on if you are one of the 100.
Re:Six of those, four of that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you believe that any job, even one that ultimately costs the worker more money than they are paid is a good job.
How about a nice gig job using your foot to push tree litter into a running chipper. You can probably manage to tamp 4 loads an hour and I'll pay you a generous $1 per load (no, REALLY, I'm not illegally paying half of minimum wage, this isn't technically an hourly job, it's a series of one-off gigs! Yeah, that's the ticket!)
Since this is gig work and you aren't an employee, I hereby exempt myself from all OSHA regulations.
BTW, sorry to hear about your right foot, sucks to be you I guess. Good thing we didn't have to pay worker's comp! Hey, you can still use your left foot, right?
Re:Six of those, four of that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you get to make this decision and not the worker?
Maybe he has artificial right foot made of solid steel and this is his dream job.
Re: (Score:2)
You think anyone is going to hire someone whose foot might break the chipper? Those things are expensive! Chippers that is, not feet.
Re: (Score:2)
New prosthetic foot will probably cost more than he will make in a year. There's the truth behind your "dream job".
Also might damage the chipper, so he's disqualified unless he wants to use his other foot.
Re: (Score:2)
He has Obamacare, feet are free!
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you get to make this decision and not the worker?
Because it is not good for society to have those workers be abused and left in a position where they can no longer work. Additionally, the worker is not on equal footing with the person offering the job and is at an extreme disadvantage during negotiations.
The only real question is where to draw the line. Perhaps a different perspective can answer that question.
Re: (Score:3)
If current categories aren't sufficient to provide the protections they should be afforded, then create a new category.
This should be the big take-a-way. People keep fighting over gig-workers fitting in a square hole or a round hole. In reality, we just need Congress to make an octagonal hole if we start seeing a lot of octagon pegs. I always have seen this as Congress dragging their feet once again and then turning around and blaming the President for their slowness.
"Gig work" hides a multitude of sins (Score:2)
What's with the vacuous Subjects on the FP branches?
But back to the hiding of sins under various labels such as "consultant" or "gig worker". At least that was what I used to say about the "consultant" label (but only after my years as a "consultant"), but now I think most of the same sins are hidden under the "gig worker" label.
I'm the first one to agree that freedom is valuable and that having control over the conditions of your work is an important freedom, but... As soon as they tell you "It isn't about
Re: (Score:3)
no one knows the future
It's hardly that black and white. Investors make educated decisions. Of course they are wrong sometimes, and they engage in varying degrees of risk from ultra-safe established corporations to fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants startups.
basically walking at random
I give you 1000 shared of either AMZN or UBER. You pick. Amazon essentially has no competition and is constantly expanding into and conquering new markets. UBER is troubled by labor laws and has no real key technology that would give it an advantage over its competitors like Lift.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be missing my point. The official claim of the stock market is that all of those factors have been taken into account in the instantaneous prices of the shares, so if the share prices happen to be equal, then they are truly equal values.
Alternatively, you could be agreeing with me, but arguing that fundamental analysis still matters. In that case I disagree because I believe that the technical analysts have won out. Or in implementation terms, the share prices are determined by tiny samples, whe
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps I worded it too strongly, but I've read a number of books on these topics and almost all of them make it quite clear that fundamental analysis is almost a historical anomaly now. The purpose of the stock market has changed completely. It used to be about ownership and equity and fundamental values, but now it's just a fancy casino, sometimes even a lottery, and most traders have essentially no idea what is going on inside their own analytic tools. In particular, I'd recommend most of the books from
Re:"Gig work" hides a multitude of sins (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that investors aren't betting on the quality of the company's ideas, the quality of it's products, or even consumer demand for their products. They are betting on nothing more or less than how the stock price will move tomorrow. The smart investor will buy big into a total crap company that produces a product that they sincerely believe will be banned for causing cancer, crippling back injuries, and athlete's foot within a year if he believes other investors will buy and hold just a little longer than he will. They'll even buy if they are convinced the CEO will be indicted on fraud charges within 4-6 months (they'll sell and take a short position in 4 months minus a day). Based on market cap it's a great company. Far better than that company that may cure cancer in 5 years.
That probably explains why Uber is at $54 and people bought in in March of last year even with a pandemic coming on.
In other words, stock price represents nothing more than the perceived likelihood that a stock will go up tomorrow. It has nothing to do with the worth of the company or even it's perceived mid to long term viability as a company.
Just look at the Gamestop flap early this year. Do you really think it's because Gamestop was bursting with the potential to become a retail juggernaut?
Re: Six of those, four of that. (Score:4, Informative)
My ex falls into that category. She's a professional translator in a less popular language. There are no full time jobs available, very typical for translators. Translating for any business was often a one time thing. Because she's based in California, she can no longer work due to AB5. Now Biden wants to go national with a similar plan. It's going to put a whole lot of people out of work because translating can easily be outsourced to another country.
The backers of AB5 insist the law hasn't disrupted job availability. All the lost jobs are because of the pandemic. Except translators work almost exclusively remotely. The pandemic did not have disrupt their ability to work, it was all AB5. But the AB5 backers keep insisting it was the pandemic.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Most "gig" workers are working full time, or more. Independence... from what, having medical coverage or other benefits? Having guaranteed hours, instead of being told "no hours for you this week"?
And I'm sure that's a great recommendation for renting an apt.
I don't know why you people keep at it. You *know* that IQ 45's not paying you,,,,
Re: (Score:3)
The real flaw is in the fact that there are two classes of workers in the first place. In an ideal world:
Re: (Score:2)
All workers already "get" social security and medicare, unless they aren't filing self-employment taxes like they should be. I'm assuming gig workers in the US are 1099, not W2; I've not done gig work so I don't know.
The solution for health care is that we need to legislatively break the tie of health insurance to employment; you should always buy health insurance as an individual, not as part of a "company plan". So even if you left one company, you could keep your previous insurance and not reset the de
Re: (Score:2)
All workers already "get" social security and medicare, unless they aren't filing self-employment taxes like they should be. I'm assuming gig workers in the US are 1099, not W2; I've not done gig work so I don't know.
I think you're missing the point. They "get" it, but it all comes out of their income, whereas W-2 workers pay only half. So unless the company is paying significantly more for those contractors than they would pay for employees doing the same job, the workers are getting less for their effort. And in practice, such underpayment is almost always the norm outside of technical fields (and to some extent, even then).
The solution for health care is that we need to legislatively break the tie of health insurance to employment; you should always buy health insurance as an individual, not as part of a "company plan". So even if you left one company, you could keep your previous insurance and not reset the deductibles, etc.
Ostensibly, that would work. In practice, any such plan would likely result in the companie
Re: (Score:2)
In practice, any such plan would likely result in the companies paying the same amount of money to their employees, leaving the employees making less money at the end of the day
Some workers, yes. But the ones most affected - low income workers - would no longer have to pay anything for health insurance, and they would see the smallest increase in taxes, if any. They would still come out ahead, maybe way ahead. And some workers would see an increase in pay, because it's a competitive job market and if employer A isn't willing to roll that cost into salary, employer B or C will be, and A will find it difficult to attract and retain good employees.
Not in my experience [Re: Six of those, four o...] (Score:2)
...But it really doesnâ(TM)t appropriate to label gig workers as employees when the majority of them work part time and sporadically.
Most of the gig workers I personally know are working full time (or more than full time) and trying to make a living at it.
Maybe there are indeeds others who are working part time for giggles, but not the ones I know.
Re: Six of those, four of that. (Score:3)
It is an illusion of freedom and independence with none of the protections afforded to the worker. My amazon packages arent being delivered from Joes Freedom Delivery LLC, at least thats not what is presented to me as a customer. I am seeing Joe in an Amazon uniform, driving an Amazon truck, following Amazon rules, running Amazon software. How much freedom does Joe really have? How is that anything but treating a "gig worker" as an employee? His only choice in the matter is how many hours he wants to work a
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to call their bluff would be to let the worker decide. If they're actually just doing it for occasional money and value being "flexible and independent," then when signing up they should be free to work as a gig worker and choose something like the status quo. But any company that offers this should also be required to allow the worker to freely choose to work as a full-time employee. I'd expect nearly all current gig workers would choose the full-time option. It would be interesting to see wha
Re: (Score:3)
I'd expect nearly all current gig workers would choose the full-time option.
Less take home pay. Much less. So much less that the job wouldn't be worth it... or more aptly put, the real cost of doing business would be become apparent to drivers.
Some things that would be factored OUT of their net:
- Healthcare
- Insurance (because people will now be suing Uber for accidents caused by their employed drivers)
- Unemployment insurance
The only reason Uber exists is because they found a loophole in labor laws. If those are plugged they become a taxi company with an app. They might do okay i
uber will need to pay for wait time and other thin (Score:2)
uber will need to pay for wait time and other things like
Driving back to your core area after an long run.
Driver Paper work time
Driver Car cleaning time
etc
Re: (Score:2)
uber will need to pay
Right... but to be clear, Uber won't pay for anything. Drivers will pay through lower wages for employees.
Re:uber will need to pay for wait time and other t (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what minimum wage laws are for (any why the minimum wage should be a livable wage), and if it leads to Uber's collapse, so be it. Society shouldn't be subsidizing exploitative companies with unsustainably-cheap labor.
Re: (Score:3)
uber will need to pay
Right... but to be clear, Uber won't pay for anything. Drivers will pay through lower wages for employees.
Sounds like slavery with extra steps.
Sure - lower wages. Just like a normal taxi company.
But the thing is - Uber uses "Independent contractors" because they can make more money. They don't pay them more that makes up for what they no longer have to do, they pay them maybe 75 percent of what the IC needs to have money like an employee does.
Where my wife worked, the owner decided to make all of the installers and workers independent contractors. It was most definitely and specifically worked out for
Re: (Score:3)
These companies are parasites whose entire business is built on exploiting people who are desperate for work.
More Slashdot virtue signaling tech-bro grandstanding. Have you ever asked a gig worker their opinion? Or are you just a white knight?
My Wife's best friend's husband is trying to make a go of Uber. He likes the flexibility and independence. What he doesn't like is that after everything is added up, he simply does not make any money. He's lost money in fact. Wore out a car, of course no benefits, and doing the math for him, it's pretty apparent that the system bears a striking resemblance to the old pyramid schemes, that get a lot of people to think they are going to make money. The missing part is that at least in the pyramid schemes ther
Re: (Score:2)
They are loose definitions however:
Employee: Someone who is expected to be working for that company.
Consultant/Contractor: Someone where the company is their customer.
Gig: Someone offering a temporary single job service.
If Uber was like it was when it was started, as a way for commuters to share rides say from the Suburbs to the City, and help pay for the costs of commuting. Then that would be a Gig Job. The person had other sources of income, and was just doing a job every once in a while to get some sp
Re: (Score:2)
They are loose definitions however:
Employee: Someone who is expected to be working for that company.
Consultant/Contractor: Someone where the company is their customer.
Gig: Someone offering a temporary single job service.
Except that "gig" isn't a thing. It doesn't have a entry in law. It's a category that Uber and the like made up so that they didn't have to follow the laws related to the other two categories.
We wouldn't be having this discussion and all the court cases if "gig" was a real, legal category. We might be discussing if these companies are meeting the letter of the law, but that's not what's happening. What's happening is that the courts are going, "WTF, that's not a real thing!"
Prove you mean it (Score:2)
"These companies are making profits and revenue and I'm not (going to) begrudge anyone for that because that's what we are about in America... but we also want to make sure that success trickles down to the worker,"
Mere lip service.
If you were serious about that, then CEOs wouldn't be making 300 times more than their workers, along with insane stock option deals, bonuses, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Are you one of those people that can't do math? Here's a simple example: Walmart CEO makes about $26M/year. According to some people, that is about 1500 times the average worker. OMG! Just think of all that money that should be going to the workers. OK, let's cut the CEO salary to $0, and give all of the savings to the other 4 MILLION Walmart employees. Now they each get an extra $6.50. A YEAR. But just think of how much prices would go down if we weren't paying the CEO that much. OK. Walmar
Re: (Score:2)
then CEOs wouldn't be making 300 times more than their workers
The average CEO earns $120k, which is about three times the median salary.
The 0.01% of CEOs who head Fortune-500 companies earn more than that, but claiming that their salaries are representative of the rest is silly.
Re: (Score:2)
You actually believe that... just wow.
Re: (Score:2)
If you and I both go into a casino and walk up to the roulette table, you bet $5 and I bet $50,000 dollars -- which one of us is *the better gambler*? Especially if I'm guaranteed to walk away with $5 million dollars no matter if I win or lose.
Your definition of CEO impact is based on the idea that just because the CEO is able to gamble with a lot more money they are somehow a better gambler.
We might also be asking ourselves *why* a CEO gets to gamble with so much money, in other words, why does the compan
Two Will Crash Anyway... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to see here, move along... (Score:5, Insightful)
This clearly shows that the investors in these companies know the workers are being abused, and bought the stock with that knowledge and that expectation. These same investors, upon learning that the workers might have to be treated like human beings start selling off the stocks. Nothing despicable going on here folks.
Re: (Score:3)
That is NOT what he sai (Score:5, Insightful)
He said a lot of gig workers, that seems to have been changed to most. A lot does not mean most unless you are a journalist or finicky investor.
Re: (Score:2)
He said a lot of gig workers, that seems to have been changed to most. A lot does not mean most unless you are a journalist or finicky investor.
Well "lot" is more ambiguous than "most".
I suspect it comes down to how much they're working. If someone drives Uber a couple times a week for a bit of extra cash, they're probably a contractor, not an employee. But if driving Uber is their primary source of income... well then they're probably an employee.
Of course with people jumping between services, students, semi-retired folks, etc, etc, the devil's in the details and you hope the lawyers can come up with sensible and workable regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
But if driving Uber is their primary source of income... well then they're probably an employee.
"Primary source of income" has nothing to do with whether or not you are an employee or contractor.
Re: (Score:2)
But if driving Uber is their primary source of income... well then they're probably an employee.
"Primary source of income" has nothing to do with whether or not you are an employee or contractor.
Again, there's the intuitive definition and the legal definition.
Perhaps the intuitive definition is the answer to the question: "What do you do for a living?" If the answer is "I'm a driver", or "I'm a software contractor", then you're probably a contractor.
If you answer: "I work for X" then you're probably an employee.
It's not the legal answer, but if your work term doesn't match the term of the project then you should probably be called an employee.
How will this work in practice? (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in California, the government tried to push it after voters said no. In 2020 we overwhelmingly shut down this brain dead idea, again (60-40). Now the Federal government wants to repeat the same?
Did they really talk to actual so called "gig workers"?
I have friends who do Uber and Lyft *at the same time*, having both apps open, and respond to the first call.
Some do alternate between Uber Eats and other services depending on time of day.
How will this work out if they are suddenly an employee of a single company?
Please do not shove your terrible ideas down people's throats.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in California, the government tried to push it after voters said no. In 2020 we overwhelmingly shut down this brain dead idea, again (60-40).
Only because of a $200 Million propaganda campaign financed by Uber and others.
I see that the Uber Proaganda Machine has worked well on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Why make assumptions before asking whether people held these ideas before that campaign?
Go and please talk to your fiends and family who do Uber in California. And ask their opinion. Also ask how much they actually make. Try to collect 4-5 reliable data points.
And then try to understand why people overwhelmingly opposed the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
$200 million was spent by companies to shut down proposition 22.
https://www.mercurynews.com/20... [mercurynews.com]
A fortune was spent insuring it didn't happen.
Should have given gig workers more power (Score:2)
An honest gig platform would not only give gig workers an absolute (within legal limits) right of refusal, but would have tell buyers that there is no "standard rate," you pay WHATEVER the market will bear. If that means the gig workers won't pick up your $10 starbucks order for less than $9, that's your problem and not the platform or workers' problem.
Such a platform would have a very easy time proving they're not employees because it would be matching buyers and sellers and actually encouraging the buyers
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they do. The company either requires them to take some jobs they would otherwise turn down, or does not display all the relevant information for the job (eg. distance, tip, etc) so that the workers will take jobs they would otherwise turn down.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not forced to work for Uber are they? Unless society had no other job for them.. who's fault is that? Uber's? Why is Uber made to pay for society's failing?
Oh Crap Where Is It? (Score:2)
STOP APOLOGIZING FOR CORPORATIONS! (Score:5, Insightful)
For every person complaining that this will negatively affect these companies. Or the one's saying people should have the right to be treated like shit.
STOP!
Stop asking to be shit on. Stop apologizing for the same entities that are destroying your health and happiness in exchange for more profits. NOT for you, but only for them.
Companies should be paying every person that is employed a living wage. That means an income above poverty line. Otherwise, the support those people need, comes from my taxes. Increasing the cost to every American, rather than the people directly benefiting from those people's labor.
Less than 1% of the people that read slashdot are in the top 1% of earners in the US. And, less than 10% of the remaining will ever become part of that fabled 1%.
Every bit of legislation that decreases a billionaires wealth, is probably good for the rest of us.
Stop being a Gerry. Stop bending over and begging the rich to fuck you harder in the ass.
Re: (Score:3)
Uber, we're a "ride sharing" company that is a taxi service but don't need to follow any laws that actual taxi services do. Pesky things like licenses and safety inspections.
Re: (Score:2)
For every person complaining that this will negatively affect these companies. Or the one's saying people should have the right to be treated like shit.
STOP!
Stop asking to be shit on. Stop apologizing for the same entities that are destroying your health and happiness
If they're destroying your health and happiness you likely want to seek help. They're not affecting anybody negatively.
It's funny, I used to use a livery service for rides to the airport. They charged me $35, which was cheaper than a cab and included a driver who handled the luggage and all that. They were forced out of business years ago by the taxi cartel and Gaylord (who own Opryland). You can probably find the stories online.
There's a reason Uber is popular. The taxi cartels are just awful, and the
Re: (Score:2)
They're not affecting anybody negatively.
This is ABSOLUTELY false.
Yeah, you're right. Let me rewrite it: They're only affecting taxi cartels negatively.
Are you in a taxi cartel?
Re: (Score:2)
This is NOT about apologizing for corporations! I don't expect you to get my viewpoint here, because I've run into a lot of people parroting the same thing you're saying here -- and they're generally militant socialists who are convinced their way is "the way".
But let's start with your statement:
"Companies should be paying every person that is employed a living wage. That means an income above poverty line."
The majority speaking about a "living wage" are pushing for $15/hr as their minimum expectations. Le
Every Uber driver I've had (Score:2)
We can walk and chew gum you know. We have the resources to end homelessness and hunger. Any time we want. The only question is when will you decide to do it. Because the rest of us have, and you (and more to the point the world view you picked up somewhere) are getting in the way.
Re: (Score:2)
How's the family plantation doing?
Re: (Score:2)
Before or after the mandatory commercial add-on to your car insurance, the extra wear and tear on your vehicle, the extra gasoline, the extra maintenance costs (oil, tires, etc.), and the 40-hour-per-week cap?
Bad day... (Score:2)
Good. (Score:2)
The exploitation economy has gone too far and needs to be reined in. If it causes these corporations to go bankrupt then I say, "so be it."
Re: (Score:2)
the gig is a scam (Score:5, Informative)
Grubhub lost $155Million in 2020
Uber lost $6.77 billion in 2020 (compared to a $8.5 billion loss in 2019)
Lyft lost $1.7 Billion on revenues of $2.3Billion in 2020
Doordash net loss $312 million 2020
Don't even try to use the excuse of a court ruling. They're bad business plans that extract revenue off the backs of "gig" workers. The "pay" and benefits that would normally go to a worker are scammed to the corporation. Time to pull the mask of this wage depressor.
Re: (Score:2)
They're bad business plans that extract revenue off the backs of "gig" workers.
I guess I am a little mystified as to why they continue to lose so much money.
Is it that inefficient? If they underpay workers, how do they not make money?
This guy is clueless (Score:2)
These companies are making profits
Uh, no. Not just no, but HELL NO. All of the companies listed in this summary are consistent money-losers, and will be until they finally fold. They have no path to making a profit. This 'problem' will sort itself out on its own.
Wrong statemet (Score:5, Interesting)
Correction. These companies are making revenue but are NOT making profits; these companies burn cash like it's going out of style. Only Grubhub has had a few quarters of positive EBITDA, and not enough to really warrant sustainability, and they did it by radically reorganizing their business due to COVID and laying off a lot of staff and stopping development; focusing more on operational efficiency to get to a sustainable revenue so they can ride out the pandemic. The others are also trying but having a lot less success.
The broader issue they should be addressing is that these companies have yet to prove the sharing model/gig economy is sustainable in the long-term. In most cases the best way for the companies to survive is to share less with the workers by introducing more automation, which will put gig workers who rely on this work without a source of income. Either that, or these companies eventually fail, which will also put gig workers on the streets. Either way, the Dept. of Labor needs to be prepared for a bunch of people to be out of work, because right now it doesn't look like these companies can survive even with the contractor status let alone the cost of employee status.
Clear (Score:2)
I hire independent sub-contractors for my business, maybe 10,000 hours a year among about forty people. Mostly side work for them. If I have to count them as employees I won't have time to do the work that brings in business. The answer is simple. Turn away business and stopping hiring help.
Gig economy vs. Gov contractors (Score:5, Insightful)
Government contractors:
- Use their own tools
- Set their own hours
- Set their own rate
Gig economy "contractors":
- Use their own tools
- Set their own hours
- "Gig economy" company sets their rate
Re:Gig economy vs. Gov contractors (Score:4, Funny)
Total garbage .... (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who has done/does these gig jobs for several companies myself? It seems really obvious that you're not one of their employees, and their entire business model wouldn't even exist if you were.
What most of these workers should WANT is to be deemed an independent contractor, because once you become an employee, they get to dictate all the terms and conditions of your employment. Want to take a pass on a delivery popping up on your phone? Not gonna happen as an employee. Either take what they send you or you're fired!
Also, don't forget that experienced gig workers OFTEN run multiple apps on their phone at a time, taking work as it pops up from several services and juggling the requests. If you're an employee, you can bet that's not gonna fly. (Headed in the wrong direction to complete a delivery or pickup? You're probably gonna get a phone call from the company asking what you're doing and to immediately turn around. No "slack" to run that other delivery in between completing one for the competition.)
These accusations of being "mistreated" by gig businesses are, IMO, mostly entitled nonsense too. If they're really not living up to their end of the promised deals ... such as not paying you properly for work completed, or an app that keeps crashing and causing you to be unable to do their tasks in the time expected? Just stop working with them! If everyone did that, the ones with problems would go out of business real fast.
Re: (Score:3)
8% is not a crash (Score:2)
Stop using this word crash in this context. Does an airliner crash when it descends 8%? Does a hard disk head contact a platter by moving 8% closer?
The hyperbolic titular editorialization by rehash is unacceptable.
What you are not seeing here is the motive (Score:3)
Re:Give Tax breaks based on employee pay (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
So let me get this straight, you believe that every job should pay a "living wage" regardless of just little revenue is backed by that job. Yeah, your name sure fits your statement for sure. I sure love it when people who have ZERO experience in actually running a business come up with statements of fact like that. Can I give you a hint, business's are not like governments where they can just keep borrowing money to fit their desires, they have to actually make money to stay afloat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So let me get this straight, you believe that every job should pay a "living wage" regardless of just little revenue is backed by that job.
Yep. If the job doesn't make enough revenue to pay the person doing it the minimum wage, it shouldn't be a job.
... business's are not like governments where they can just keep borrowing money to fit their desires, they have to actually make money to stay afloat.
If the way they stay afloat requires labor from people that they can't afford to pay minimum wage to, they should go out of business.
Re:Give Tax breaks based on employee pay (Score:4, Insightful)
And if a business can't make money while treating their employees like human beings, is it a business that is worth owning?
My answer would be no, but then again I'm not a sociopath.
Re: (Score:2)
So because a business can't function as you deem, they should just shudder their doors and close. Yeah, that is an awesome view..sheesh. Let me give you a little glimpse into the real world: not all business's are wildly successful and swimming in profits and can spend money without recourse. Are you a sociopath, no. Are you childish about the real world...yup.
Re:Give Tax breaks based on employee pay (Score:5, Insightful)
So because a business can't function as you deem, they should just shudder their doors and close.
If they can't pay their employees a living wage, they should shut their doors. Correct.
If the service they are providing is important enough, they can rise their prices until they can pay their employees a living wage. If nobody would buy their product if they charged enough to cover their production costs, their business model is broken, and they shouldn't be in business. And the phrase "cover their production costs" includes pay their employees a living wage.
(and I'm assuming that your phrase "shudder their doors" is a typo for "shut their doors," although I suppose it might be an attempt at a 3-way pun on shut-shutter-shudder.)
Let me give you a little glimpse into the real world: not all business's are wildly successful and swimming in profits and can spend money without recourse. Are you a sociopath, no. Are you childish about the real world...yup.
Let me give you a little glimpse into the real world: if you can't charge enough money selling your product to cover your production costs, you shouldn't be in business.
Re: (Score:2)
So because a business can't function as you deem, they should just shudder their doors and close.
No...they should SHUTTER their doors, because their business model is unsustainable.
Uber, Lyft, Grubhub, and the other "gig economy" companies are currently losing money, and will likely be gone unless they change their business model.
I'm just going to ignore the rest of your selfish drivel.
Re: (Score:3)
And if a business can't make money while treating their employees like human beings, is it a business that is worth owning?
My answer would be no, but then again I'm not a sociopath.
Excellent. Feel free to not hire an Uber or Lyft. Don't shop at Walmart, Target, or Amazon either. Voting with your dollars is the most direct way you can influence businesses.
Just leave me out of it because I assume driving for hire is better than not working, which is the driver's real alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a job should pay a living wage, regardless of just little revenue is backed by that job. The business will just have to make the money elsewhere.
Paying your employees not enough to live on is not something we should aspire to as a society. Our parents fought hard for a reasonable balance between working hours and pay, and we shouldn't give that up.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if we wanted to do this, there'd have to be solid definitions of what a 'living wage' is. In fact there'd need to be multiple definitions based on age and location. Younger people are overrepresented at the lower end of earnings because they tend to lack experience. On average they also have fewer commitments (e.g. children) than older workers. They are also more likely to be working part-time. Finally, they tend to increase their earnings with age. Employees become more valuable with experience, incre
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the developed world seems to have solved this problem. I don't know why its so difficult in this country. You don't need to tip restaurant staff in the EU or any english speaking country because they get paid well enough. They also don't have to worry about spending thousands of dollars a month on health insurance. But no, socialism=bad.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG, we can't get rid of our slaves?!? The price of cotton would go through the roof!
Re: (Score:2)
you are going to pay additional taxes to fund the social programs that the working poor rely on for survival.
The obvious response to this is to move jobs out of poor areas.
In poor places, such as the Mississippi Delta, Appalachia, and Puerto Rico, wages are low because people are poorly educated and productivity is low.
So you fire them, move your company to where workers are more productive, and avoid paying taxes to "fund social programs."
Do you really think that would be a good thing?
If we punish companies for hiring low-income people, the obvious result will be fewer jobs for low-income people.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious response to this is to move jobs out of poor areas.
So you fire them, move your company to where workers are more productive, and avoid paying taxes to "fund social programs."
How is moving your $4 per hour job from Glenwood, GA to San Jose, CA going to suddenly mean you are now paying a living wage? You're going to have a much easier time paying a living wage by staying in that poorer community and increasing wages much, much less.
Actually his plan is $4 trillion in spending (Score:2, Interesting)
As for the immigrants, American women aren't having enough babies, and it's not because they're poor. After they squeeze out 1 or 2 of the things they're done, and a lot of them would prefer their careers or o
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe part of the reason the population is declining has to do with a distaste with the way 'things are going', like taxes/crime/too many poor people to support now (often undocumented immigrants); I've heard "I wouldn't want to bring a kid into this world." a few times.
An unrelated chuckle from the article:
... son of Irish immigrants ...
What does that have to do with anything?
Too many old people not working (Score:2)
Now if you want to start talking about ending capitalism, then we can talk about how many babies we really need.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's slow enough, it might be fine. If the population declines too quickly, there aren't enough workers to support the retired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it would be better to say the working classes don't like government policy which aims to reduce wages by increasing the supply of labor.
Those in the working classes sympathize with immigrants, but not the federal policies which enable businesses to exploit their desperate circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You just linked to the Fox News of print. Let's examine the beginning:
House Democrats recently reintroduced the PRO Act, which, among many sweeping reforms, would make many commonplace forms of independent contractor (freelance) arrangements illegal. It’s based on a California law that was so dysfunctional even voters in the very blue state voted to change it.
The law was changed because Uber spent an inordinate amount getting it changed. They figured out it was cheaper to pay lawmakers directly than t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Try that as a defense when the employees take you to court.
Re: (Score:2)
The *only* definition of "employer" in the tax statute, which applies to *all* of the tax statute, is a *government entity*
If you think this sounds totally implausible, that's because it's absolutely incorrect.
This book walks through the tax laws as written by Congress
You don't need a book, just go look at the tax code yourself. Here's where it defines employer:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cf... [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
And if that's what these companies were offering, that would be fine.
They're not. They're requiring their "contractors" to take jobs that the "contractor" would otherwise reject. They're requiring their "contractors" to own certain vehicles. They're requiring their "contractors" to work certain hours.
That's an employee.