Hacker News Reader

Comment by munk-a | Hacker News Reader

Contractors are employed persons. They're distinct under the law in the US for some fully BS reasons but in every meaningful manner these drivers are employees - they aren't independent courier services that happen to work part-time for Amazon, they're drivers that only run Amazon deliveries but are forced to operate as an independent company for Amazon's benefit.

There are cases where the contractor style of employment is valid and advantageous for the worker. But when it comes to the gig economy contractors are CINO (contractors in name only) - they're employees that companies like treating differently to get out of paying insurance for and that's it.

View on HN

I agree about the legal dodgery here. The way healthcare is available via employers means that contractors and part-time workers are hurt unreasonably. The solution to that is letting people keep their plan when quitting a job, reupping a plan that expired, and mandating set rates where health-insurance costs the same regardless if you're a company or an individual. This stuff is broken.

But contractor vs employee is a useful distinction for everyone and trying to fix all the other issues by neutering what contractor means goes the wrong way.

Contractors, INO or otherwise, have freedom to pick their shift and their employer on almost a daily basis, if not more frequently. Drivers have Uber and Lyft apps open, etc. Amazon drivers can give Bezos the finger and drive for a courier firm with no notice and no black-mark on their employment history.

> in every meaningful manner these drivers are employees - they aren't independent courier services that happen to work part-time for Amazon, they're drivers that only run Amazon deliveries but are forced to operate as an independent company for Amazon's benefit

There's no force involved. Even economic. The drivers drive for them despite having the same job options that non-drivers do, and they choose this.

> There's no force involved. Even economic. The drivers drive for them despite having the same job options that non-drivers do, and they choose this.

Yea - I think this is the core portion of what makes this more difficult to stomach during a pandemic - the other options are few and far between and the job market is highly distorted right now.

Most folks on HN still have cushy jobs (I work in a healthcare adjacent market so our market segment is actually doing quite fine) but a lot of folks that were either jobless going into covid or were laid off/furloughed due to it are in a hard place. Unemployment laws are such that folks can be forced to take contract gigs if they're available or else fail to qualify for unemployment and that can put folks in a really awkward position financially.

There is some serious exploitation here due to the lack of options. Something like UBI and national healthcare like we've got up here in Canada would seriously improve lives for folks that find themselves unable to cover expenses without working themselves to the bone and I think that everyone should have a right to a pleasant life. It's quite a tough situation.

> Unemployment laws are such that folks can be forced to take contract gigs

Suitable work definitions can never require you to lose money by working. And that's without the peeing-in-a-bottle type tricks to be more profitable. You're also allowed to include all of your costs (gas, depreciation, etc) in the calculation. If you had a Hummer you'd be paying more for gas than if you had a smart car so the value of the contract changes.

> UBI and national healthcare like we've got up here in Canada would seriously improve lives for folks that find themselves unable to cover expenses without working themselves to the bone

National healthcare is helpful because it covers 'acts of god'. UBI seems like it would be harmful to the economy by inflating itself into irrelevance while destroying wages.

> I think that everyone should have a right to a pleasant life

I think that everyone has the right to pursue that, and must not have unreasonable obstacles placed in their way.

But saying that someone deserves a thing implies that someone else is required to provide it. Your rights can't place a burden on me so that can't be a right.

> But saying that someone deserves a thing implies that someone else is required to provide it. Your rights can't place a burden on me so that can't be a right.

That's correct - maybe it's more accurate to say that I don't believe anyone else has the right to deprive others of a pleasant life. It goes with my general philosophy to strive to ensure that people I interact with in life find that interaction either neutral or pleasant and don't suffer from my existence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com