Biden Proposal Could Lead To Employee Status for Gig Workers (nytimes.com) 169
The Labor Department on Tuesday unveiled a proposal that would make it more likely for millions of janitors, home-care and construction workers and gig drivers to be classified as employees rather than independent contractors. From a report: Companies are required to provide certain benefits and protections to employees but not to contractors, such as paying a minimum wage, overtime, a portion of a worker's Social Security taxes and contributions to unemployment insurance. The proposed rule is essentially a test that the Labor Department will apply to determine whether workers are contractors or employees for companies. The test considers factors such as how much control workers have over how they do their jobs and how much opportunity they have to increase their earnings by doing things like offering new services. Workers who have little of either are often considered employees. The new version of the test lowers the bar for that employee classification from the current test, which the Trump's administration's Labor Department created.
The proposal is intended as a so-called interpretive rule that doesn't have the legal force of a regulation specifically authorized by Congress, and it applies only to laws that the department enforces, such as the federal minimum wage. States and other federal agencies, like the Internal Revenue Service, set their own criteria for employment status, and the rule would not directly affect what they decided about the status of gig workers. But many employers and regulators in other jurisdictions are likely to consider the department's interpretation when making decisions about worker classification, and many judges are likely to use it as a guide. As a result, the proposal is a potential blow to gig companies and other service providers that argue their workers are contractors, though it would not immediately affect the status of those workers.
The proposal is intended as a so-called interpretive rule that doesn't have the legal force of a regulation specifically authorized by Congress, and it applies only to laws that the department enforces, such as the federal minimum wage. States and other federal agencies, like the Internal Revenue Service, set their own criteria for employment status, and the rule would not directly affect what they decided about the status of gig workers. But many employers and regulators in other jurisdictions are likely to consider the department's interpretation when making decisions about worker classification, and many judges are likely to use it as a guide. As a result, the proposal is a potential blow to gig companies and other service providers that argue their workers are contractors, though it would not immediately affect the status of those workers.
Pass some laws to make these changes (Score:3, Insightful)
Why doesn't Biden and the Congress that he his party has a majority in go and pass some actual LAWS to make these changes. Instead of just paying lip service by doing some head flapping that will really only make some lawyers money. Lawyers will argue the President doesn't have power to do what he's trying to do. They'd be right. Go pass some laws, already.
Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Because laws that don't funnel money into someone's pocket do not get passed these days.
Re:Pass some laws to make these changes (Score:5, Interesting)
Passing laws in this political climate nearly impossible unless we end the filibuster. Neither party wants to do that, so instead we watch the senate kill any chance of any change in this country without a super majority.
Any form of cooperation is seen by the party not in power as being a "loss" and the only thing that matters is "Winning". America is quickly on it's way to a single party state.
Re:Pass some laws to make these changes (Score:5, Insightful)
No more laws. Cool.
Re: (Score:2)
No more laws
Hear, hear. I second that motion.
Maybe Congress could get to work on repealing some laws...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They want laws passed by state legislators instead. Not because they really believe in all that states rights stuff, but because they know their voting base does. Blame the feds for all your problems, and if that solution works then soon they blame the state for all their problems, but it's a good short term solution to getting elected.
Re: (Score:3)
Government is fundamental to civilization. Try reading a book.
Re: Pass some laws to make these changes (Score:3)
It certainly is.
A huge centralized govt is not.
Try learning from history.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I see the connection. But suspect what you mean by progressive and communist is different from a dictionary definition of the words.
Re: (Score:3)
It was not the golden age for many ethnic groups, it was quite the opposite.
Return to 1950s is disinformation (Score:3, Insightful)
It was not the golden age for many ethnic groups, it was quite the opposite.
The notion that conservatives want to return to the 1950s is political disinformation. It would be more accurate to say that conservatives want to return to some 1950s practices. Pick what worked better then, pass on what did not.
For example a smaller federal government that leaves responsibility for various issues with state and local governments, for example managing schools and curriculum with greater input from parents. While at the same time retaining the more modern prohibitions on discrimination o
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It was not the golden age for many ethnic groups, it was quite the opposite.
The notion that conservatives want to return to the 1950s is political disinformation. It would be more accurate to say that conservatives want to return to some 1950s practices. Pick what worked better then, pass on what did not.
For example, segregation, laws to prevent black voting, restricted immigration, and no Title IX, LGBTQ rights, abortion.
Picking what works better depends on what one considers "working." That's why MAGA is just a codeword for the good old days when the above allowed society to function, to "work." After all, isn't that just what the Confederacy wanted, just the right to pick what worked better, i.e., slavery.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was not the golden age for many ethnic groups, it was quite the opposite.
The notion that conservatives want to return to the 1950s is political disinformation. It would be more accurate to say that conservatives want to return to some 1950s practices. Pick what worked better then, pass on what did not.
For example, segregation, laws to prevent black voting, ...
That would count under "pass on what did not."
... restricted immigration, ...
Like various liberal European nations, Canada, etc ...
... Title IX, LGBTQ rights ...
Actually the two of those seem to be in conflict as radical trans activists are destroying Title IX by allowing individuals with male physiology play against female physiology.
Picking what works better depends on what one considers "working." That's why MAGA is just a codeword ..
No its not. That is left wing disinformation.
isn't that just what the Confederacy wanted
Actually what the Confederacy wanted was what the Democratic party wanted. The Republican party was created to end slavery.
Re:Pass some laws to make these changes (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case especially....this is a GOOD thing.
They are likely as not gonna really fuck it up for ALL contractors, those of us that for decades have made very healthy lives doing 1099 work, especially in the tech sector.
They already made it more difficult in the late 80's for independent contractors, litigation there scared off companies from hiring 1099.
To do it today, you'd better have yourself incorporated and do corp-to-corp.
Sure, you say this is only going after the "gig" workers, but don't kid yourself, they're going after the "regular" contractors too, and it's sad to take away what really really works VERY well for many of us out here.
Re: (Score:2)
If you only have one customer for your contracting business then you really aren't a contractor. If you have three or four customers then you have a good case that you really are a contractor.
A former employer of mine got caught in that, the Contractor had one and only one customer. The government was neither fooled nor amused. A couple years later the Contractor "quit" and restated his business, this time taking care to have other customers. Then the government was happy.
Re: (Score:2)
If you only have one customer for your contracting business then you really aren't a contractor.
Yes, shutdown entrepreneurs, shut down the bootstrapping approach to business. Only large well financed organization can be in business. Business is not for the little guy.
Re: (Score:2)
If during an entire year you can only come up with one customer, how viable is your business?
Re: (Score:3)
If during an entire year you can only come up with one customer, how viable is your business?
Quite. A friends first and only customer for this first few years was a large local healthcare provide. He provided IT services. Hardware support through software development for small internal projects. After a few years he took on additional clients. But for the first few years there was one.
They had their own office. The negotiated contracts with scope of work and performed much of that work offsite and not under client supervision. At some point the client would have to sign off on acceptance of thei
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you say this is only going after the "gig" workers, but don't kid yourself, they're going after the "regular" contractors too, and it's sad to take away what really really works VERY well for many of us out here.
Even opponents of this initiative accept that there are differences between gig workers and traditional contractors. For example, income levels are quite different. And it's really that income and benefits disparity that is the core of the issue, more so than the definition of a contractor. Walmart has been criticized for underpaying workers and forcing local governments to subsidize those workers using tax money. This is the same problem for gig workers. They are underpaid and therefore need local gov
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats care about labor unions because that is where they get their money from. The could care less about you and your financial situation.
Look at the disparity between how they treat teacher's unions and parents. Don't conflate the union with individual teachers, the latter aren't running the union anymore. The union is run by a political leadership class that works to protect and empower the union itself, the actual teachers and the students are a secondary consideration.
The Democrats cooperate all the time (Score:2)
Go read Newt Gingrich's wikipedia page and the part about the "Contract With America". He pioneered the political tactic of blocking everything. To the point where there's a rather well known comic making fun o [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They can't (Score:5, Informative)
Mitch McConnell flat out said he will obstruct everything Biden wants to accomplish.
“One hundred percent of my focus is on stopping this new administration,”
https://www.vox.com/2021/5/12/... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That is unfortunate, after the previous Congress was so helpful and cooperative with the administration.
Re: They can't (Score:2)
But that is good. Evil SHOULD be opposed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Which is a super convenient excuse that Obama also leaned on heavily.
Shall we count how many times the Democratic Congress vowed to block Trump?
No...because that would be stupid.
This complaint basically doesn't understand how Checks and Balances is SUPPOSED TO WORK.
The fact is that if the president really wanted to get something DONE (D or R) with a contentious Congress, that just means the bidding price for legislation goes higher - the president has to offer something ACTUALLY MEANINGFUL to the other part
Re:Pass some laws to make these changes (Score:4, Informative)
Not the party of loyalty oaths (Score:2)
"DINO" doesn't really mean much when Democrats are such a big tent and accept almost anyone. Basically people who don't belong in the Democratic Party need to decide that for themselves [msn.com]. Because the DNC leadership almost never pushes someone out, they will apply pressure to a member to encourage donors to also contribute to broader nonprofits like ActBlue. But political beliefs almost don't enter into the picture.
Re:Pass some laws to make these changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Why doesn't Biden and the Congress that he his party has a majority in go and pass some actual LAWS to make these changes
Don't be stupid. The current administration does not control the Senate.
His VP is the literally the tie breaker (Score:2)
> Congress that he his party has a majority in go
His own VP is literally the deciding vote.
His party controls the senate.
All they need to do is avoid being so extreme that even some dems can't swallow the stuff they're trying to pull.
Re:His VP is the literally the tie breaker (Score:5, Informative)
If something gets the floor. Read up on the filibuster issue.
Re:His VP is the literally the tie breaker (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans get to unilaterally decide if a bill requires 51 votes to pass, or if it requires 60 votes. They call it the filibuster. The Democrats don't have 60 votes, they are not in control.
Of course, you also recognize that 60 D seats don't guarantee 60 D votes. They do tend to be more independent in how they vote, whereas the Rs vote in lockstep, as a single bloc. I ascribe that divergence more to the authoritarian tendencies of the Republicans, than the extremism of Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
It hasn't always been that way. Back when Clinton was impeached, several Republicans voted (effectively) Not Guilty. Not one Democrat voted Guilty.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
60 D seats don't guarantee 60 D votes
No, but actually it only takes 50+1 votes, because of the Constitution. At any time, the Senate can hold a 50+1 vote to change the rules so that filibuster doesn't apply to a vote.
There are currently only about 46-48 votes for reforming the filibuster. If the D's had ~ 55 votes, they could reduce the requirement to 50+1 in however many situations they want to, including even just getting rid of the filibuster outright.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you ever, say, read the papers? Or do you get your news from social media?
Are you THAT IGNORANT as to not know that the Senate is almost balanced, and all the GOP needs to stop the Democrats from passing laws - and with the wackoes in the GOP now, they would vote against a chicken in every pot, if the Dems proposed it? That Manchin and Synema regularly vote against Dem bills, killing them?
Now, if the Dems had 60 or more, then you might have a reason to ask. Right now, asking this means you're ignorant or
Re:Pass some laws to make these changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Democratic Representatives and Senators represent their constituents. They do not represent the Democratic party. They do not represent President Biden. Each is an individual and each represents a completely different set of constituents with varying interests (okay, not quite true -- both Senators from a state both represent the same constituents -- even when one is a Republican and the other is a Democrat).
Just as not every Democratic voter will vote like every other one, not every Democratic Congressperson will vote just like every other one and just as not every Republican Congressperson will vote just like every other one. Remember John McCain? Would you prefer that he had "followed along with the party" on every vote he cast?
Representatives and Senators answer to their voters every two and six years respectively.
The shakers and movers can't fire a Democratic Congressperson from their smoke filled rooms. Yes, they can disavow them, they can primary them, they can deny them committee seats, they can send them "sternly worded letters", they can withhold campaign funding, they can even expel them from the party. However all of those actions in a closely divided chamber would be cutting off their nose to spite their faces.
That Congressperson still sits on the floor and casts votes as they see fit - and if the party's actions were taken against them because they were "too moderate", it's likely that the Republicans will hold that seat after the next election.
Sure, many Democrats don't think Manchin is a "real Democrat" and the party should "do something about that". However, there is no possibility that if Manchin is primaried or retires that he would be replaced by anything but a Republican. West Virginia voted for Trump in the last election by a wider margin than any other state except Wyoming (and the difference in margin of victory between WV and WY was small). Manchin is the only Democrat in West Virginia holding a statewide seat. Had the Democrats primaried Manchin in his last election, Republicans would now control the Senate and Biden would have gotten far, far less done (including putting Jackson on the Supreme Court).
More often than most probably think the Democrat leadership, esp. in the Senate, shelves bills because they know they just don't have quite enough votes because, even if Manchin and Sinema would vote for it, there are one or two other Democratic Senators who would not because their constituents have some special interests in that issue and would take it out on the Senator in the next election. There is little visibility of this in most such cases - and that's by design.
Re: (Score:2)
just as not every Republican Congressperson will vote just like every other one. Remember John McCain?
There's a reason you have to point to a dead Republican to support your case.
Re: (Score:2)
You, apparently, missed the entire point.
I picked McCain because he is likely the most well known example from the Republican party in recent times - just as Manchin likely will be the best well known example on the other side of the aisle for twenty years even if he dies (assuming another Democrat doesn't out do him). Most people don't follow politics yet many know of both McCain and Manchin as moderates in their respective parties who don't follow the party like lapdogs.
I don't need to "support" any "posi
Filibuster (Score:2)
They could do away with the filibuster but they need every democrat to agree. There are 2 "blue dogs" (Manchin and Sinema) who will block this. If you're being charitable it's because they're afraid of Republicans unbound by the filibuster and if you're not it's because they're defacto Republicans.
Either way if you want to see chan
Re: (Score:2)
Cause if the President doesn't say it, then the Congress critters and Senate sheep won't put it on their agenda.
But let's talk about the topic itself. The problem, main problem, is that "contracting" has been used to outsource, and then the "outsource company" outsources to contractors, sometimes those will outsource to additional contractors until your $250,000 "contracted job" is really someone being paid $500 on fiverr. OR, the company pays a "temp agency" (outsourcer/recruiter) and the company just cycl
How 'bout we ask people? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just a guess but I bet $5 the proposal does not include asking the worker whether they'd prefer to be an employee or contractor. That was one of the huge practical problems with California's AB5: many, many people wanted to freelance and suddenly could not because Sacramento thought they knew better.
Re:How 'bout we ask people? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have one "customer" who controls every aspect of your job, it's hard to argue against being an employee rather than a contractor. The IRS has held this view for decades.
Re:How 'bout we ask people? (Score:5, Informative)
If you have one "customer"
A lot of them don't just have one customer though, and that's one of their objections to this kind of regulation. Delivery app drivers often "multi-app" for different services at the same time, taking the better paying offers from different apps as they come in. Same for ride share drivers. Lots of drivers drive for Uber and Lyft, often at the same time. If you are an employee, then the company can say "Hey, you work for me, so while you are on the clock you can only work for me." Being an employee also kills a bunch of potential tax deductions that the Trump tax changes nixed for the non-self employed.
If you are an employee they pay to wait for an job (Score:2)
If you are an employee they pay to wait for an job but people multi-app so they can take an job as it pops up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that direction of discussion is fruitless.
They fit cleanly into neither the current definitions of contractor or employee. It doesn't really matter though: we have a group of workers who are being screwed over with practices which also give incentives for dangerous behavior. And it's now being automated to the point where the scale is large enough that it's starting to cause problems at the scale of society.
We will eventually get some laws because that's what happens when shitty behavior an mass cau
Re: (Score:2)
Delivery app drivers often "multi-app" for different services at the same time, taking the better paying offers from different apps as they come in.
Having two jobs does not make you a contractor.
Re: (Score:3)
This is specific to the labor department. It doesn't touch taxation. A change in taxes would require congress, just as it did when the Trump tax plan was put in place.
No, it would not require Congress to make changes to how the IRS classifies them, and, as the summary and article suggests, most likely the IRS and other agencies would adopt the labor department criteria for consistency sake.
people don't know that uber can cost more in car (Score:3)
people don't know that uber can cost more in car then they are makeing.
Now if uber and other driving jobs was at least forced to pay
full miles + tolls for return after long trip out of your base zone
full miles + tolls for in route to pick up
full miles + tolls for the trip
full miles + tolls for an small move / get out of the drop zone if needed (places where you can't just stand / park after an drop off)
maybe pay for all miles but say small stuff like roaming blocks for pick ups may be an bit to much but the
Re: (Score:2)
not fuck a car up but not pay the true cost the tr (Score:2)
not fuck a car up but not pay the true cost the trip.
Re:How 'bout we ask people? (Score:4, Insightful)
A contractor can always theoretically tell any company he wants to contract for how much he or she wants to make, but if the client isn't willing to pay that, then they either have to face up not getting the job or else accept whatever rate that client happened to say they were going to pay. The fact that the contractor appears to have so little control over how much they can make doing their job is only a consequence of how much demand there actually is for what the contractor is doing relative to its supply. This does not and should not automatically make someone who may otherwise be considered as a contractor be classified as an employee under any circumstances.
We did (Score:5, Informative)
Some things need to be done on the federal level. [duckduckgo.com] That's why we have an interstate commerce clause. And yes, it applies here given that a) these workers regularly cross state lines and b) worker classification touches on IRS rules.
The "state's rights" push has nothing to do with States rights. We learned that when Lindsey Graham proposed a federal law criminalizing abortion. It's about power. They can control us on a per state basis but it's harder to do that to America as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
In California and they overwhelmingly wanted to be classified as employees.
I think the PP meant on an individual basis. Not collectively. Two little check boxes on the job offer:
[ _] I want to be an employee
[ _] I want to be a contractor
And then provide pay, benefits and working terms accordingly.
The issue is dark money & fear mongering (Score:2)
The other side didn't have a lot of money to spend, having blown what little the had on the first round.
This left Uber in complete control of the Narrative, and they scared the shit out of voters. Money talks.
Would I like voters to be able to see past that? Yeah, I would. Can they? Not when you drop half a billion on a single proposition. The amount of misinformation and lies is staggering. And the media, who
Re: (Score:2)
"Then Uber spent half a billion dollars ramming a bill through to undo that classification. "
Let's unpack that.
Did Uber LITERALLY pay to push legislation through? Is that it, they just write a big enough check and legislation passes?
Of course not.
What you're saying is that uber donated lots of money to various politicians, enough to sway their vote.
So why attack uber? That's like complaining that a bear shits in the woods - we might agree its shady, but it's doing the right thing by its shareholders spend
I always preferred being a contractor (Score:2, Interesting)
in the days when I was working for others I was always a contractor (except when I was a university student, at that time a was on a permanent position, but then it didn't matter at all). I never understood why would anyone not want to be a contractor? I had offers from Google, Amazon and others back around 2004-2008, I always declined because they wouldn't let me work on a contract, for some reason they only would offer the jobs if I became a permanent employee, I never accepted such offers. I was always
Re:I always preferred being a contractor (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Trump rule they want to remove allows for "workers who own their own businesses or have the ability to work for competing companies, such as a driver who works for Uber and Lyft, can be treated as contractors."
Biden wants to switch batch to rule where your economic dependency is what matters. So if you where taking a long contract with company X as an independent contractor so that they are your main source
Re:I always preferred being a contractor (Score:5, Insightful)
. I never understood why would anyone not want to be a contractor?
You are talking from a position of privilege, and I say this as a former software contractor who did well financially.
This is not aimed at "real" contractors, but gig workers. You see those people cleaning offices, or security guards? They are contractors, typically given only a part-time job without benefit. As a result, they must work multiple part-time jobs to makes end meet (and still be without basic benefits, like vacation or health insurance.)
This is a situation that is not tenable. This is also rather unique to our country, since we tie health care plans to full-time employment.
There used to be a time, about 30 years ago, that firms large and small would hire their own cleaning crews and security guards. They would have access to benefits, and in many cases, even access to on-the-job training and promotion. It was not uncommon for the cleaning lady to take classes after hours, provided by the company, and then climb into a data entry position.
But then the 90's came, and we shifted from "Personnel Department" to "Human Resources Department". The shift wasn't just in words, but in practice and procedure and the treatment of certain classes of workers as disposable or off-sourceable (sic). An entire class of employees all of a sudden became contractors. And from there, shoved into part-time contractual gigs.
And thus the shift came. Great for writing some things as opex, but terrible for millions of workers. We can somewhat pin the start of our increasing inequality to that point in time.
This is not how we can sustain a capitalist economy for long. And if we don't try to remedy this somewhat, our kids will deal with the aftermath. There isn't a happy ending to this if we leave it unattended.
Re: (Score:2)
I travel extensively, all around the world I use Uber (where available) and I know for a fact that Uber drivers are also Lyft drivers, they also drive for some local companies, whoever sends them the next best request is what they take. They are independent contractors. Also some of them have other jobs / some are seasonal workers, things like that. I will not talk about cleaners, but if I was driving Uber I would also do other things and drive for other companies and I would be against any government co
Re: (Score:3)
I would be against any government coming in to change my way of life
Most people who drive for Uber average less than minimum wage. If it wasn't for the government, there wouldn't even be a minimum wage.
The role of government should be to ensure a high quality of life for its citizens, and setting the conditions of work and pay is a big part of that
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-uber-drivers-really-make-2018-05-15
Re: (Score:2)
Real minimum wage is 0, you cannot force someone to give you a job that pays anything, however again, all Uber drivers I used are working for multiple companies, this makes them contractors, they choose to accept a fair from any of the dispatching systems, they are using their own equipment, they are not employees regardless of how much they make.
As to government and quality of life - government certainly cannot provide any quality of life, businesses do.
Re: (Score:3)
You actually believe that nonsense? LOL!
Crack open a history book kid. Read about 'company towns' and the many other ordinary horrors before things like the Fair Labor Standards Act put an end to that sort of abuse.
Re:I always preferred being a contractor (Score:4, Insightful)
Why, I would prefer a company town run by my company of-course. What abuse are you talking about
You'd want to be paid in script so that you can't save and move if you don't like your job? You want to be forced into debt because you can only spend your script at the company store and essentials are priced just out of reach?
It's amazing that you haven't drowned yourself in the shower.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Trust me, Uber, Amazon, etc. don't want their drivers classified as employees. This is more to force them to stop having their cake and eating it, too.
If Uber was forced to make all drivers actual employees, they'd suddenly be liable for every crash their drivers are in, and get sued into oblivion. I'm sure they'll do whatever it takes to keep them as contractors if the rules are updated.
amazon delivery is an mix of IC / W2 / franchise (Score:2)
amazon delivery is an mix of IC / W2 / franchise with W2 workers.
But the franchise people have like no control and workers under them look like the work for amazon and amazon has an lot of control over them.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was still doing contracts, I would find a way to prevent the government from reclassifying me as a perm, this is none of their business how I want to work.
Just keep doing what you're doing. No one is going after actual contractors. What you have demonstrated in your very post are a list of things that *employees* of Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, etc do not actually control or get a say in. You have choice and control, that's fundamental to being a contractor. Go work in the gig economy for a week to see how it differs from every other contracting role you've ever had. I'm sure you'll feel more like an employee than you ever have before ... except without any of the
My admittedly cynical take (Score:3, Insightful)
This appears to be an attempt to paint "Team Blue" as looking out for the working class while not actually doing anything to raise the ire of the Party's corporate ownership.
Coincidentally, "Team Red's" cheerleaders can point to this as part of a rallying cry to their base.
Can't have people thinking there are any alternatives, right?
some FedEx drivers are IC other W2 for 3rd party (Score:4, Interesting)
some FedEx drivers are IC other W2 for 3rd party.
But they have FedEx uniforms, use FedEx tools and drives a FedEx truck, but works for a third-party delivery service.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems like a much better example than Uber drivers. Uber drivers choose their own hours, are free to accept or reject any ride, are often working multiple "jobs" at the same time (e.g. driving for Uber, Lyft, DoorDash), and provide their own equipment. Ideally, one would think that if driving for Uber weren't profitable that people wouldn't do it. If there's a regulatory problem here, it's not that Uber should be forced to treat their drivers as employees, but rather that Uber should be required to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon does this too but they (used to?) go the extra mile and not let you contract with just one truck. You had to be an employer in your own right and have multiple drivers for Amazon. It's cemented as B2B for Amazon while still getting all the perks of independent contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
But are those people contractors or are they employees of a company offering a contracted delivery service? I'll save you the hassel: They are employees, just not employees of FedEx.
There's no rules saying if you as a company force your employees to wear a uniform that the uniform must have *your* name on it.
independent contractor classification is abused (Score:5, Insightful)
The independent contractor classification needs to change because it is being abused.
Re: (Score:2)
It's largely because workers are afraid of complaining because they'd lose their job. More gov't auditing would help, but without honest worker feedback, it would still be a problem.
This might not be good (Score:5, Interesting)
Some people like being contractors. Some small businesses couldn't exist if they had to do all of the paperwork and other legal stuff to hire employees. Some activities that are more like hobbies that make a bit of money would be restricted or eliminated. While I agree that many workers have been treated poorly and deserve help, making it harder to run a small or hobby business is not the answer
Re:This might not be good (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people like being contractors. Some small businesses couldn't exist if they had to do all of the paperwork and other legal stuff to hire employees. Some activities that are more like hobbies that make a bit of money would be restricted or eliminated. While I agree that many workers have been treated poorly and deserve help, making it harder to run a small or hobby business is not the answer
Bro, no all contractors are equal. As a software contractor, I can command a good salary and work with a contracting agency that provides me with benefits (health plans, 401k, etc.)
That's not the same as the cleaning lady in my building who is a "contractor" without benefits, who is given only a part-time job (so that the contracting agency doesn't pay benefits), and who has to work multiple part-time gigs with other cleaning agencies to make ends meet.
I stare at this conversation in disbelief. This is common knowledge, of a problem that has been going on for 30 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there are alternatives to being a contractor if you don't like being a. contractor....find a different W2 job.
And maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you do not sound like a contractor...getting benefits through you contracting house?
It sounds like you are a W2 employee of this "contracting agency"....
For taxes, do you get
Re: (Score:2)
that work in the 1099 world that WANT to work there
If you want to run a business, run a business. Then none of this affects you.
As things stand now, 1099 work is overwhelmingly just a cheap and easy way to screw your employees.
Sure it is a PITA with extra paperwork
It's not that hard. For people too stupid to run a business, but choose to anyway, quickbooks will take care of just about everything for you.
The problem is exploitation (Score:2)
> Bro, no all contractors are equal. As a software contractor, I can command a good salary and work with a contracting agency that provides me with benefits (health plans, 401k, etc.)
Maybe we should separate contractors by how much they're paid? I mean, I can see good cause why the law should worry more about whether the cleaning lady is really a contractor or an employee entitled to benefits than the software consultant making 6 figures.
And if they want to fix that by paying cleaning ladies 6 figures w
Re: (Score:2)
Some people like being contractors. Some small businesses couldn't exist if they had to do all of the paperwork and other legal stuff to hire employees.
No one is going after contractors here. They are going after employees who are misclassified as contractors and enjoy precisely zero benefits of being a contractor and all the downsides of being an employee.
The gig-economy is suffering legal failure after legal failure the world over ending up with employees correctly classified as such in many countries. In those countries no actual contractors are caught in the crossfire.
If you ever worked in the gig-economy you'd see how it's nothing like actually being
Not good for the government finances (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in-between? (Score:2)
It keeps seeming like we need a formal category in-between gig-worker/contractor and "employee". I'm not quite sure what it would look like, but let's start drafting up candidate rules. It would be required to contribute to unemployment & medical insurance, but not to the same degree as "employee". But it would require some degree of freedom for the worker in terms of hours and days off.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing in between is just "employee but with bad pay." Gig work can pay less than minimum wage, though, because it's not yet illegal and people are bad at math. The worker sometimes takes on a lot of expenses that they have to pay out of their income and their personal net profit does not legally have to beat minimum wage. Something like Uber seems like it pays ok until you start adding up the vehicle maintenance, extra insurance, and fuel.
Dependence (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
People actually like their independence as a independent contractor.
And those people actually get to keep their independence as an independent contractor. Those being targeted here are people who are objectively not independent despite being classified as "independent contractor" by their employer.
The gig-economy has suffered legal losses on this case the world over. Those people didn't suddenly lose their freedom, they didn't suddenly end up working a 9-5 job. What they suddenly got was pension and vacation time. I'm sure they are scared of those horrible concepts.
Re: (Score:2)
Formalized side gigs = Wage slavery (Score:2)
Contractor = sub-human employee (Score:2)
Delivery drivers come to mind (Score:2)
Then come the other delivery drivers. The so-called independent drivers for amazon are managed right down to telling them the route they were to foll
From the ground up (Score:3)
Refactoring big things like employment law, education, military, finance, etc shouldn't be a frequent thing, but it should be done when the situation warrants.
I think we are at a stage now that a rethinking of the whole set-up is worthwhile. As others have posted, there is a bunch of stuff that is tied to employment that doesn't make sense in 21st century. Healthcare, 401k / pensions, stuff like that needs to be officially separated from employment.
hourly and salaried likewise should not be a bifurcation (imho). 40 hours per week...that's over a century old and was arbitrary then as well.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)