Hacker News Reader

Comment by laveur | Hacker News Reader

Am I the only person that feels that places like Uber/Lyft/Etc are fighting the wrong battle? I think their money would be better spent instead fighting for a new classification of labor. One that defines exactly what a Gig (Hate that term) worker is and how the industry operates. Its clear to me that tons of people want a job like Uber offers. I think its time we make a law that represents that. Instead they waste their time fighting in courts to keep them as a contract employee, which according to the law is not what they are. But I feel they are also not a regular employee. I think adding a new classification for them is win win for both sides. It gives both sides rights under the law.

View on HN

The problem is that people want the easy access of Uber (taking the term generically) jobs but when they get it, they also want the security and paternalistic perks of standard employment jobs. Of course, this can not exist together - the whole point of Uber jobs is that they are not standard employment, that's why they are so easily accessible and so easy to respond to demand.

It is a fundamental contradiction - the perks of standard employment is exactly what makes it more expensive and less dynamic. You can not solve this fundamental tradeoff by introducing some new classification - whatever classification you choose, you'd have to place it somewhere on the spectrum between complete isolation (like ads board having nothing to do with advertised businesses) and complete integration (like full-time union employee).

Whenever you place it, it would be a tradeoff between the interest of the employer, the employee and the consumer. In ideal unicorn-rainbow world, the optimal points would be decided by a free market. In real world the fixed points would probably be negotiated by courts, lawmakers, unions and brazen new companies like Uber finding new optimum spots on the spectrum not explicitly prohibited by the regulators. Of course, the regulators can prohibit those spots then, and that's what is smart for Uber to fight - without it, they're back to existing spots and then what's the point in them being there?

Perhaps the government could pay for unemployment insurance or benefits when there is reduced work for gig employees. The government can fill in the gaps to make sure business have access to a stable pool of gig workers with the ability to retool for different gigs.

There's a stable pool of gig workers right now, which success of Uber and alike demonstrates very vividly. So the availability of the workers is not a problem which needs to be solved.

Sorry for being unclear by my use of stable pool. I meant to say that the pool was stable in the sense that it was healthy and sustainable for people despite market fluctuations.

"I think their money would be better spent instead fighting for a new classification of labor."

But there's no need for it. These companies not wanting to pay people what the law requires is not a need.

"But I feel they are also not a regular employee."

Why not? Many of the things people cite (get to choose hours, use own equipment, etc) are things that many regular employees also have. How many of us here have flex time?

"It gives both sides rights under the law."

What rights would the employees have under this law? Would they get a minimum wage for the hours that they're logged into the app? Would they get vacation time? Would they get sick leave? Cause unless they get more than they get now, I don't see how this would benefit them.

I've used a number of the services over the years, and I agree. There are a visibly different category of work; a kind of blend of piecework employee and contractor - and should be properly classified as such.

Yes, making new laws is always yhe solution. The fight is more about is Uber drivers should get minimum wages when they are have a low day than status.

I don’t think companies who have profited from the declining power and wealth of American workers should be able to buy themselves a new labor classification that serves their interests. That’s not how a healthy democracy works.

In a healthy democracy the people get what they want, even if it's dumb. Prohibition is the first example that comes to mind that won't offend many people here.

If the companies can convince the people to want a new labor classification badly enough then they can get it. Of course things will swing back if it turns out to be crap that is bad for enough people and good for too few.

The arc of progress is long.

Companies don't "convince" people of this kind of stuff. They use their wealth and power to force it on workers with bought-and-sold politicians.

People sleeping in their cars in between working at an Amazon distribution center or driving deliveries don't want a new labor classification. They don't want to die in poverty and are just trying to survive this ceaseless assault.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com