Slashdot Mirror


Uber CEO Urges 'Portable Benefits' for Gig Economy Workers (thehill.com)

An anonymous reader quotes The Hill: Uber's chief executive is calling for Washington state to develop a "portable benefits system" to give contract workers in the so-called gig economy access to health care and retirement planning accounts. Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi signed onto a letter with Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 775 President David Rolf and Seattle investor and workers rights advocate Nick Hanauer urging the state to take action.

Uber does not hire drivers as actual employees meaning the company does not offer them benefits beyond compensation. Khosrowshahi said having the state change laws so that contract workers can carry benefits between jobs would be preferable to Uber hiring them as full employees.

137 comments

  1. Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    call them part times jobs, thatâ(TM)s what they are

    whatâ(TM)s with millenials trying to rename everything

    1. Re:Why is it a gig economy by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      This is more about Uber fighting yet another losing fight in trying to call their employees "contractors".

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Why is it a gig economy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      call them part times jobs, thatâ(TM)s what they are

      Because that is not what they are. A part time job means that you are an employee with reduced hours. A "gig" means you may set your own hours, decide for yourself which days to take off, work for Uber for one fare, and then take a Lyft fare 10 minutes later, etc.

      All benefits should be portable. For everyone.

    3. Re:Why is it a gig economy by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      call them part times jobs, thatâ(TM)s what they are

      Part-time? I work between 32 and 55 hours a week driving for Lyft.

    4. Re:Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except when Uber finds out you're working for Lyft and then punishes you for it. They've hidden drivers on the Uber map for people that worked for Lyft as well.

    5. Re:Why is it a gig economy by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do know that Uber is actually losing these case, because, as shocking as it may be, most taxation authorities have a set of tests to determine whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And exactly what test out of these "set of tests" as you call them does Uber fail?

      Uber is a pretty shitty company I'll give you that, but as someone who has worked both sides of the coin and very familiar with the rules or regs regarding 1099 employment, I fail to see exactly which one everyone seems to assume that uber is violating when it comes to the drivers being 1099/W-2 in the US?

    7. Re:Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in the last 6 months, taking 3 or 4 ubers a week, I've yet to see ONE that doesn't also have a Lyft logo in the dash..... almost all of them work both sides... that's just a myth or only for regions where hoping like that isn't commonplace.

    8. Re:Why is it a gig economy by Khyber · · Score: 1

      http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shar...

      Too stupid to know actual law, because you are NOT a contractor nor have you ever been a contractor, otherwise you'd know THIS EXACT LAW.

      Which is why your lying ass posted as AC.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:Why is it a gig economy by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      I can't believe that I'm defending the scum.

      But no, you were not punished for it. Uber offered you better weekly incentives if you were found to be working for Lyft. It was a way for them to undercut Lyft since they were bigger and had more funding than Lyft.

      And since Lyft usually has less drivers, it's Lyft that looks bad to potential customers when Uber gives a fare to a driver who does both Lyft and Uber.

    10. Re: Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And exactly what test out of these "set of tests" as you call them does Uber fail?

      Uber is a pretty shitty company I'll give you that, but as someone who has worked both sides of the coin and very familiar with the rules or regs regarding 1099 employment, I fail to see exactly which one everyone seems to assume that uber is violating when it comes to the drivers being 1099/W-2 in the US?

      Go to IRS.gov for the test relating to federal taxation status of contractors. For every state and almost every international jurisdiction go to their tax boards.

      Any other questions?

    11. Re:Why is it a gig economy by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Do you mind giving a rough estimate for a typical week? Or for a 'great' week with a convention in town?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    12. Re:Why is it a gig economy by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      By the way, I meant dollar or pay estimate. Not hours again.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    13. Re: Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. He asked people to justify the vague assertion they're making, and you followed up with an even vaguer one: "Look it up. Figure out what it is that people are vaguely referring to."

    14. Re:Why is it a gig economy by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Post part time jobs want 50 hours of availability any given week (telling you what 20 you get the Thursday before).

      They also frown upon deciding you want two weeks off with 30 seconds notice.

      The gig economy is different (and better) than part time work.

      Probably not better than full time in most instances though.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    15. Re:Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and a contract job means you can negotiate your pay... hah, try doing that with Uber

    16. Re: Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry about u being a poor

    17. Re: Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I'm sure the millennials are in charge of the media renaming part time jobs, you dumb fuck.

      Us millennials have figured it all out, though. Can't really pull the wool over our eyes at this point. You idiot 40 and 50 year olds, though? Dumb as rocks.

      Funny thing about uber is that every time I have used it, I don't get some middle class white yuppie or hipster driving me around. It's an immigrant. Same guy you'd normally see running a cab anywhere else.

      Yeah. Millennials, amirite?

    18. Re:Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Not a gig economy. It's a

      I tot I `ARR . ASTIR .
      PM on I . I . I tot I `
      I I . I . I . I us are
      I `I `I . I . I `BDRM `
      I . I I . I . I tot I `
      I on PM . I . I tot I `
      I tot I `ARR . ASTIR .

      economy

    19. Re:Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you obviously aren't actually "very familiar" with the laws regarding contractor vs employee status, because uber drivers *should be* employees. and that is plain-as-day. so, why not go ask any competent tax accountant or employment law attorney who will tell you the same thing.

      and, go get your eyes checked. if you fail to see something this obvious, that brick wall that turns your face into mush when you walk into it is going to come out of nowhere.

    20. Re:Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because benefits including healthcare, sickness and superannuation, bonuses, public holidays and liability insurance can add 33% to the base wage. Oh, add in sexual harassment claims, reputational /brand damage, and office overheads, and payroll costs. And sacking costs when the image or age goes sour. Yup, discrimination is alive, we just pretend it is not there.

      So companies have been gifted oncosts relief, and now moves are afoot to transfer these costs onto the public purse, because they are not coming from the employer. Also as a contractor, some 'intellectual property and brand licensing skim-offs' can further reduce tax.

      Well, some tax authorities are not that stupid, when the contractors take orders and directions that are prescriptive, usually with an element of exclusivity or competition exclusion. Some consider 'gigs' as a 4th class employee - you are up the shitter unless you are in high demand like a doctor or surgeon. And a gig economy job does not work well with say paying a mortgage, which is why say teachers and firemen are usually employees, for the time being.

      People like sleazy Trump love gig economies. Work 1 hour and bingo you are not unemployed and he has created a job - usually self employed cleaner or car washer. Good luck paying rent and food in say San Jose. Thankfully annual income makes people vote out those making them go backwards. The gig economy is a political tool for people to blame themselves, rather than congress.

    21. Re:Why is it a gig economy by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      This is not "millennials" trying to rename anything.

      This is one of the many age old practices of employers trying to fuck over their workers.

      In this case, the so-called "gig economy" is just piece-work or day-labour - ripping off the workers by attempting to falsely classify employees as independent sub-contractors so that they can weasel out of the wages and conditions they're obligated to provide to employees.

      Are you an idiot sociopath indulging in some victim blaming, or a corporate shill doing a bit of paid astro-turfing?

    22. Re: Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've just described piece work. The OP may have misnamed it part-time work, but the point about unnecessary renaming still stands.

    23. Re:Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shar...

      Too stupid to know actual law, because you are NOT a contractor nor have you ever been a contractor, otherwise you'd know THIS EXACT LAW.

      Which is why your lying ass posted as AC.

      From your own link:

      "A worker does not have to meet all 20 criteria to qualify as an employee or independent contractor, and no single factor is decisive in determining a worker's status."

      Thank you Helpy Helpterton, for supplying overly vague bullshit from a single state in which Uber operates in. Clear as mud now.

    24. Re:Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Benefits ARE portable. IRAs, HSAs and on-market medical insurance are all agnostic. It's yours. You own them. Then what is the problem?

    25. Re:Why is it a gig economy by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Idiot can't read. That "one state" is quoting Federal law directly.

      And apparently you don't know how these legal tests work, so you're still just as stupid as before.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    26. Re:Why is it a gig economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the DoL is examining this from the perspective of, "How much control does the employer exert?" Uber drivers can't pick their hours in most senses, they can't set their own prices, cannot subcontract, and if they refuse work they won't get further work. Also, their work is Uber's core business function. In essentially all jurisdictions internationally, this has been upheld as an employee relationship. Uber exercises as much control over their "contractors" as possible, and they are essentially its entire business.

      But hey, it's not like there haven't been dozens of legal cases about this exact point of law, most of which have been covered here on Slashdot. If your vast experience of contract law is insufficient, maybe you could try a f'ing search engine. Unless your purpose is to waste everyone's time and muddy the waters, in which case we hope you are well-paid for your efforts.

    27. Re: Why is it a gig economy by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      Benefits are already "portable". There are plenty of options for self employed people to get insurance - there isn't a law against it. The problem is these plans are prohibitively expensive because they have not been negotiated by a group. If everyone could "port" their plans, then group negotiated rates would no longer work... It would result in higher prices for all...

      What these people should be looking into is plans under their local Chambers of commerce. These groups usually have group negotiated plans SPECIFICALLY designed for small businesses and self employed.

  2. Like Obama Care by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Wasn't that the whole point of obama care. Economic mobility even when you have a pre-existing condition.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Like Obama Care by PPH · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Yeah, right.

      Before Obama-care, I had a health insurance policy that was good state-wide. Ideally, ACA should have made that portable across the entire USA. Instead, the insurance industry was granted enough loopholes that they started breaking their policies up by county.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Like Obama Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely not like that at all. Obamacare fucked it up.

    3. Re:Like Obama Care by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Wasn't that the whole point of obama care. Economic mobility even when you have a pre-existing condition.

      No. Obamacare is for the self-employed, not for people getting insurance through their employers.

      It was a bandaid solution applied to a broken and bleeding system that already had a pile of bandages a foot thick. A clean, sensible solution to America's healthcare system is not politically feasible. Obamacare sucks. The Republican alternative doesn't exist. So here we are.

    4. Re:Like Obama Care by twistedcubic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is an indication of Obamacare's shortcomings. We should have Medicare for all, and end this nonsense now.

    5. Re:Like Obama Care by alvinrod · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But the ACA was a cobbled together mess that didn't solve that problem regardless of what it was intended to do.

      Near as I can tell it was just a gift to insurance companies because it allows them to have higher overall profits, because now everyone is (theoretically) forced to buy insurance policies (which in some cases that they can't even really afford to use, but that's a side issue) which means overall revenue for the companies goes up, so even though they still pay out the required ~80% percentage of that in health care claims, they still an overall increase in the remaining ~20%. There's also an incentive to keep increasing the cost of health care as that just means that the remaining ~20% is even larger. There's some other bad behavior that's incentivized since they can't really force you to buy it, so you can get away with not doing it, which may be the best financial decision for a lot of people, especially since they can always buy the insurance only when they need to use it since presence of a pre-existing condition doesn't disqualify them from purchasing insurance now.

      I think that if that government wanted to do things sanely, they'd handle emergency room visit costs and the like since hospitals are required to treat people which creates some similarly bad incentives in terms of behavior, but that's another aside. That way if the government feels someone is abusing the ER, they can easily garnish wages or take other actions to remedy the issue. Beyond that, they should just get out of healthcare entirely. If they want to provide some kind of portable benefits, just create a basic income because sometimes people need to buy a car to get to a new job or to purchase food more than they need a guarantee of medical care. Making hospitals have a list price for treatments would probably go a long way as well, because that lets consumers make price decisions just like they do at grocery stores, retail outlets, etc.

    6. Re:Like Obama Care by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I would have liked to see a public option as part of Obamacare. That seemed like a nice compromise, but we don't do that anymore.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Like Obama Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ACA didn't have to do with the constant economic gouging from insurance companies and healthcare providers, this is a natural response because the global economy will always lead to rising profits even if it costs people's life, profits are more important than the social contract they were supposed to serve, it's the way our economy had been working since forever, ACA only tried to mitigate the natural results of the business model, in that they asked insurance companies (because they didn't enforce anything, any insurance company could not want to allow that but then they wouldn't receive all the money) to provide a more crappy service for people that have health risks.

      The thing is: Our social structure is inside our economic model and it will always put profit over people's lives, that's a fact that we as a nation accepted and continue to enforce in the rest of the world, that is why we allow people die from easily treatable diseases because it will cost profit gains to insurance companies and pharmaceuticals, and the future will be worse because at the end of 2020 the effects of wealth accumulation will be undeniable for more than 70% of the population, and our politicians will continue to blame each other and keep manipulating and dividing people, governing with ideals and not with reason, ethics or even practicality, all while they keep sleeping on juicy bank accounts.

    8. Re: Like Obama Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should use more periods.

    9. Re:Like Obama Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how many companies fought that when in fact Obamacare is very pro-business. If anything, it allows these 'gig jobs' to be a viable option. Furthermore, even companies that offer benefits, they're having problems retaining employees as healthcare costs are rising fast while bigger companies (due to volume) can do a better job keeping the insurance costs for their employees. So, if you're a start-up/small company, good luck getting talent (it's already hard enough to pay competitive wages).

    10. Re:Like Obama Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One huge advantage for Medicare is stopping the gouging, mainly from healthcare providers. Healthcare providers get paid x for y service (period). If doctors/hospitals feel like charging whatever they want (after the procedure of course), then they'd have to try another profession.

      Again, this is how most of the civilized world works. Only in the US we have this mess, and to everybody's surprise, prices are rising 20% each yet for a crappy service.

    11. Re:Like Obama Care by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      https://www.npr.org/2017/09/14...

      Payment is unclear. A generous plan that covers all Americans is going to require more revenue. There's no exact plan for how to pay for Sanders' bill, but he did on Wednesday afternoon release a list of potential payment options. Among the proposals: a 7.5 percent payroll tax on employers, a 4 percent individual income tax and an array of taxes on wealthier Americans, as well as corporations. In addition, Sanders' plan says the end of big health insurance-related tax expenditures, like employers' ability to deduct insurance premiums, would save trillions of dollars.

      But even with all of those potential revenue-boosters, Sanders may still fall far short of the total amount of money needed to pay for his ambitious program. Altogether, his estimates of how much money his funding mechanisms would generate totals up to around $16 trillion over 10 years. In a 2016 report on his presidential campaign's "Medicare for All" plan, the Urban Institute estimated that the plan would cost $32 trillion over 10 years.

      Right now the total US debt is $20 trillion

      https://www.treasurydirect.gov...

      So you're looking at adding another $16-$32 trillion to that over ten years depending on how overly optimistic his plan turns out to be. I'm sure that won't cause any problems, like a sovereign debt crisis for example, at all.

      After all single payer for all worked out fine in Vermont. Oh wait, not it didn't.

      https://www.politico.com/story...

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    12. Re: Like Obama Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you just assume they gender. Scum.

    13. Re:Like Obama Care by cats-paw · · Score: 1

      because now everyone is (theoretically) forced to buy insurance policies

      huh wut ? of course everyone is forced to buy it , it's INSURANCE.

      i still can't quite parse the word salad that is your first paragraph. so let me sum up.
      you can't have people buy insurance "when they need it". then it's not insurance. and remember that your paying into insurance when you "don't need it" precisely for others in the pool and for the day you DO need it.

      you want to not pay insurance and then pay for it when you need it ? that's not insurance, and health care requires a pool. you don't know when you'll get ill or how bad it will be. every civilized country on the planet realizes this, except the USA, because people like you keep trying to push false narratives about a how a rational health care system should work.

      Making hospitals have a list price for treatments would probably go a long way as well, because that lets consumers make price decisions just like they do at grocery stores, retail outlets, etc.
      that's sort of a rational expectation, but once again everybody thinks they can compare getting leukemia to buying eggs at the grocery store.

      jesus H christ can we please stop automatic up-voting of idiotic libertarian memes ?

      --
      Absolute statements are never true
    14. Re:Like Obama Care by gtall · · Score: 2

      That's because the Republicans theorized that the public option would result in government "Death Panels". I wonder what they think the insurance companies' actuaries, accountants, and claims reviewers actually are.

    15. Re: Like Obama Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not arguing against what you say, but if that's what it costs to provide heath care to everyone then it's going to get paid one way or another. UNLESS, you're arguing that some people shouldn't have healthcare and just die from preventable/curable diseases.

    16. Re: Like Obama Care by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Different health care systems have different costs. And pulling all health care into a government run health care system pushes up the debt to GDP ratio. At some level of debt to GDP ratio you get a sovereign debt crisis.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    17. Re:Like Obama Care by pots · · Score: 1

      I think that if that government wanted to do things sanely, they'd handle emergency room visit costs and the like

      You are wrong about insurance companies profiting from the ACA. Health insurer profits, which were never extraordinarily high, are down since 2007. The most profitable sector in health care is pharmaceuticals, thanks to their sacrosanct ability to charge anything that they want for drugs, but even they can't be blamed for everything.

      The ACA is indeed a mess, but that is because our health care system is extremely extremely messy. (Before you say, "No one could have known that." just... don't. Don't say that.) If you need a single thing to blame for the increase in costs it's drugs, but blaming a single thing is not going to really get you anywhere.

    18. Re: Like Obama Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every doctor Iâ(TM)ve met drives a Mercedes or something equally expensive.

      Every pharma exec (and there are soooo many) drives a Range Rover and lives in a huge house with a salary that sounds more like a lottery payout than payment for work.

      We need to fix that, then maybe those estimates of tens of trillions for health care will become sane.

    19. Re:Like Obama Care by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The Republicans opted out of the process entirely. I think this was a huge mistake, because Obamacare could have been a market-driven way to keep healthcare costs down. They blew it. With that said, the resulting law had nothing at all to do with Republicans - the entire law rests at the feet of the Democrats.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    20. Re: Like Obama Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only adds to the debt if it is not appropriately funded. If you look at healthcare in the USA and compare the cost to European options, then it's fairly clear you could raise taxes to cover it, and for US citizens bed better off due to lower cost. Thus, there is no reason for it to add to the US national debt unless adding to it is desired.

      The additional money US citizens would have in aggregate would be balanced by a deduction in healthcare, of course.

    21. Re:Like Obama Care by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      just state wide? loser. Did it cover pre-existing conditions? Did you get it from your employer? Did you have anyone in your family with pre-existing conditions.?

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    22. Re:Like Obama Care by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      The Republicans opted out of the process entirely. I think this was a huge mistake, because Obamacare could have been a market-driven way to keep healthcare costs down. They blew it. With that said, the resulting law had nothing at all to do with Republicans - the entire law rests at the feet of the Democrats.

      To actually make health care affordable the fact that the US pays many times more for the same drugs would have to be addressed. As both D and R have been bought off don't expect that to happen.

  3. Outsourcing Benefits by crow · · Score: 1

    This might be a great startup idea. Create a company that provides benefits with several standard packages. Companies could buy into a package for their employees. If an employee leaves, he could continue to pay his own portion of the package (optionally changing to a cheaper or more expensive package), but unlike Cobra, it would be the full benefits and could continue indefinitely. If starting a new job with another company that uses the same benefits company, there would be no changes in benefits.

    I could see this mostly being a mix of small businesses and contract employees, but it could also be larger companies and government agencies if the system worked well enough.

    1. Re:Outsourcing Benefits by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      I'll buy in. The biggest problem with switching companies as a contractor or getting hired on through another company is dealing with benefits and making sure your family is covered.

      Someone should set up a company on paper and 'contract' out a large chunk of it. Manage my 401k and health care and let me find jobs. You take a portion off the top smaller than current companies are scamming us for and you have a hit.

    2. Re:Outsourcing Benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is close to how things already work. My company gets us access to a menu of plans through an HR company that also technically employs us. This was set up at our incubator, where the same deal was offered (and taken) by many other startup companies. Moving from one company to another in their group allows us to generally keep the same plan. The trick is that when you leave a job, you're responsible for directly paying the whole cost of benefits, and that some companies pay different percentages of the individual plan costs.

    3. Re:Outsourcing Benefits by quonset · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Create a company that provides benefits with several standard packages. Companies could buy into a package for their employees.

      It already exists. It's called insurance. Uber simply doesn't want to pay for it for its employees. It wants the taxpayers to pay for it.

    4. Re:Outsourcing Benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not pile up on Uber over this...1099 usage is becoming more and more like the norm. Anyone in the IT jobs market knows that. Either scan the ads online, or wait to see the 'opportunities' you get called about (heck, lot of them are not even 12 month gigs).

    5. Re:Outsourcing Benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called universal health care and it's great. As an Australian, the thought of being beholden to my employer for health insurance sounds like a nightmare. Our retirement plans have also been employer independent for years. Employers are required to pay retirement benefits into the fund nominated by the employee.

      Why the hell the US insists on letting insurance companies leach off your health care is a mystery to me. Paying for health care for the small percentage of unemployed adds trivially to health care costs compared to letting insurance companies siphon off their profits from everyone in return for providing no benefit at all.

    6. Re: Outsourcing Benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds great. Of course only the sick people will choose to pay out of pockets in advance for coverage. So i can't make money covering them. Maybe i should issue generous seeming plans but not have them actually cover anything. Like a 90% coverage plan that is available only at the 2200% price gouging facility.

    7. Re:Outsourcing Benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called universal health care and it's great. As an Australian, the thought of being beholden to my employer for health insurance sounds like a nightmare...

      Unless your universal health care is 100% free of cost, you are beholden to your employer, who supplies you with an income to pay for it.

      Why the hell the US insists on letting insurance companies leach off your health care is a mystery to me.

      Oh, you mean when an employer pays half the cost of an employees healthcare plan? Apparently the definition of leach is a mystery to you too.

    8. Re:Outsourcing Benefits by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      As an American, I'm mystified about it as well.

      Forcing the uninsured to either forgo preventive care or use the ER as their doctor costs far more than it would to just give them insurance. ER visits are generally at least 10x the cost of a regular visit, and forgoing preventative medicine costs even more than that.

      There's a damn good reason that we pay far more for health care in the US and get far less. We handle it almost as stupidly as possible with as much potential for people to profit off of other people's health and well-being as possible.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    9. Re:Outsourcing Benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's The Dream isn't it?

      It's not like it's anything new either, so must be working well!

      Captcha: perish

    10. Re:Outsourcing Benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you can go to many places to buy all your own benefits. Having a job doesn't give you any benefits you can't already get by yourself. You can even get investment perks. Hire a CPA if you don't know how to DIY. If anything, companies should be banned from providing benefits. Benefits should not be mandated.

  4. Half-assing a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This seems half-baked. The fundamental problem we have is that very universal and critical services (healthcare and retirement income) are tied to an ephemeral association (employment). Having a universal health care system, and a universal social-security system, would fix these problems without creating more bureaucracy than we already have.

  5. Already happened, without government, ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Its already happening without government intervention. For several years I've been seeing contracts where a small company's healthcare package is that one's paycheck is your pay plus your payment to an exchanged based healthcare policy.

    1. Re: Already happened, without government, ... by FuzzyDaddy2 · · Score: 1

      How much do they take out if I come in with a preexistibg condition and no current health insurance?

    2. Re: Already happened, without government, ... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      The same, with ACA the exchange plans are the same price with or without.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  6. Portable benefits my ass by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is about the worst thing to come out of Uber yet. Rather than support a single payer system (that they're afraid they might have to chip in for) they want 'portable' benefits. e.g. completely paid for by the (underpaid) drivers. The best part is this makes it sound like he's doing it for the little guy when all he's really doing is trying to divert attention away from the fact that his company broke one of the fundamental social contracts in America (to wit: "Work for us and we'll take care of your healthcare).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Portable benefits my ass by psmoot · · Score: 1

      Portable retirement accounts are called "IRAs". They've been around for decades. Use them. IRAs and 401ks, plans owned by the employee (as opposed to traditional pensions) are wonderful things. No one but me can make a stupid decision and screw up my retirement.

      Portable health care insurance is a fabulous idea. I hate having to change my insurance plan (and possibly my doctors) every time I change jobs. If I could make a wish and change one thing about the US health financing system, it would be to remove employers from the health insurance equation.

    2. Re:Portable benefits my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >fundamental social contracts in America: Work for us and we'll take care of your healthcare

      You high?

      That's not even slightly true.

      Down here on the ground things look pretty fucking different.

    3. Re:Portable benefits my ass by apoc.famine · · Score: 2

      Personally, I wouldn't make that wish. I'd wish for a universal single-payer option. Medicare for all. Why? Because if an employer wants to offer a better health insurance program, they definitely should be able to as an incentive. But if they don't or can't, (or if the employee is no longer employed) the employee shouldn't be penalized with no health insurance.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    4. Re:Portable benefits my ass by psmoot · · Score: 1

      Personally, I wouldn't make that wish. I'd wish for a universal single-payer option. Medicare for all. Why? Because if an employer wants to offer a better health insurance program, they definitely should be able to as an incentive. But if they don't or can't, (or if the employee is no longer employed) the employee shouldn't be penalized with no health insurance.

      That is a very interesting and point. I'm open to considering it but here are some issues.

      First, both participation and payment need to be optional. If I'm paying Medicare for all taxes and am entitled to the benefits, that pretty much destroys any market for private insurance (either paid directly by me or via my employer). So what I think it would need to look like is a government-sponsored enterprise. Examples of this are the Post Office, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Technically these are all independent organizations with their own profit/loss statements. Technically any could go out of business if they don't provide good value for the cost.

      They also run afoul of the moral hazard of any GSE. No one expects the federal government to let any of these three fail. Thus they can take risks a private enterprise can't. They also get pressured by politicians to do financially dumb things (and I'm mostly looking at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

      At that point, if it's an either/or sort of deal, you have to ask why you expect a GSE to offer better products than any random insurance company. I don't see any reason to expect that.

      So how about a different option? Suppose our Medicare for All enterprise only offers minimal coverage? Everyone would use the service and you could supplement with additional coverage if you wanted it. I believe this is sorta how the British system works but I'm not sure. The problem is defining that level of minimal coverage. We could have talked about this in 2013 but never got that far. So, MfA could cover, say, terminal cancer treatments but not routine checkups. To an extent we have this already, in that you can go to any emergency room and get treatment for acute conditions. That's a form of catastrophic coverage for everyone. I'm actually fine with this, it's a good pragmatic system and doesn't actually cost all that much. People love to complain that poor people overuse emergency rooms but it's actually small potatoes compared to other costs.

      Problem with that is politicians are really unlikely to do the brutal calculus to come up with a minimal level of care. What politician would you expect to actually meet with a constituent with a toothache and really tell that voter they need to get their tooth pulled (for $200) instead of a $2,000 root canal and crown? You can't, it's entirely unreasonable. So politicians are always going to press for more and more coverage, again crowding out any possibility of private insurance.

      BTW, we already see this in the ACA plan definitions. I'm pretty sure there's a viable market for plans below Bronze level but the ACA regulations make it impossible to offer that.

      Anyway, I don't expect to convince you. This is a complicated topic. This is exactly what we should have been debating in 2013 but didn't because we all talked past each other.

    5. Re:Portable benefits my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Change is painful. We need to accept reality on this one. Likely we can't put the genie back in the box. Pensions and long-term bi-directional commitment between companies and their "human resources" no longer exist, and it wasn't the workers who made this change. Shit like Uber is a natural progression. Congress needs to accept that companies no longer provide for workers and don't even try to (they still try to bitch about "job hoppers" ironically enough though). We need single payer now.

    6. Re:Portable benefits my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why you may think that your employer should "chip in" for your health care insurance. I won't dispute that it would be a kindness for them to do so, however, benefits ARE portable. IRAs, HSAs and on-market medical insurance are all agnostic. It's yours. You own them. Then what is the problem?

    7. Re:Portable benefits my ass by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      First, both participation and payment need to be optional.

      If we're going to do a universal health care offering, everyone needs to pay into that safety net, because everyone will likely need it at some point. It's like not getting life insurance until you think you're going to die. That's not how insurance works. You pay into it in case you need it. And unless your company guarantees health insurance as retirement benefit until you die, you're going to need it when you're probably at the most expensive part of your medical life, outside of maybe birth or a terrible accident. I think we'd all want everyone paying in due to that alone.

      you have to ask why you expect a GSE to offer better products than any random insurance company. I don't see any reason to expect that.

      I don't either. What I do expect is that the products will be cheaper.

      Having worked with a number of large businesses, one thing that I've learned is that the agile, efficient free market most often isn't. All of them have been plagued by inefficient processes and staff who needed to be fired, stupid bureaucratic quirks that most people wouldn't expect out of a private company, and a host of other issues that we generally associate with government inefficiency. On top of that, they still needed to make a profit, and are, in fact, required by shareholders to make an ever increasing profit.

      That is not conducive to keeping costs for the customer down. While competition should in theory offset this, it hasn't in practice. I'm personally at the point where I think we can just call the private insurance scam for what it is, and move to a demonstratively better alternate.

      There's a reason that most developed countries have equal or better care for less money. When you have organizations who need to make increasingly more money involved in health care, they find creative ways to do it. (Like bribing politicians, for one very giant example.)

      I do agree about the difficulty in setting a minimum level of care. Ideally, it should be done by a non-political, educated, non-partisan panel. In practice I suspect that what you warn of is likely to happen:

      So politicians are always going to press for more and more coverage, again crowding out any possibility of private insurance.

      I'm not sure it will crowd out the possibility of private insurance, however, for one reason. Even if it covers nearly 100% of things, people are still going to want optional or cutting edge treatments, and they're going to want them now.

      If a company can offer either more innovative or faster treatment plans, that will be attractive even if the government one offers pretty much everything. And if not, so what? That's a lot less overhead for a company to have to worry about, and there are plenty of other ways to offer benefits that will keep employees there. Like just giving them some of the money you'd have used on health insurance, for one.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    8. Re:Portable benefits my ass by psmoot · · Score: 1

      If we're going to do a universal health care offering, everyone needs to pay into that safety net,

      I'm proposing a very different sort of system. I propose a system of equal opportunity to enter or not enter. If you want to take care of yourself, I think you should be allowed to do that. If you want to use a single-payer system, it would be nice to make that available too. Just like today my employer offers a choice between a low premium/high deductable PPO, a high premium/low deductible PPO, and an all-in-one HMO (Kaiser Permanente). I'd like to ensure people have choices so they can pick a plan which suits their needs.

      It's like not getting life insurance until you think you're going to die. That's not how insurance works.

      Yes, I understand how insurance works. Generally my fondest hope is that I'll never make a claim. That's not how we use health financing insurance today, where pretty much everyone is making claims all the time. I hestitate to call this "insurance". It's more like a financing plan. But I digress...

      I agree there is a free rider problem. I think there are ways to address it other than requiring everyone to pay into a system and take the benefits. For example, we could all pay into a system and get vouchers. We could have a system which has different premiums depending on whether the offering is allowed to take our health status and age into account. We could have offerings which cover pre-existing conditions and other offerings which do not. There's a large number of options.

      And unless your company guarantees health insurance as retirement benefit until you die, you're going to need it when you're probably at the most expensive part of your medical life...

      And this is one of the points I feel most strongly about. My health financing should not be tied to or paid via my employer. It's a goofy system, an historical accident from WW II. And I think it leads to all sorts of problems, mostly because the person getting the benefit (you and me) isn't the person directly paying the bills (my employer and the insurance company or government are intermediaries). With that indirection, there's very little direct pressure to hold down costs and improve service, and we wind up with a health care system which is expensive and less effective than it could be.

      I don't either. What I do expect is that the products will be cheaper.

      It must be nice living in your society. On Planet Pete, government agencies are routinely criticized for being inefficient, sluggish, and having poor customer service. I've worked at defense contractors and private companies too. Private companies are much more focused on controlling costs and improving products and services.

      I suspect you overestimate the amount of profit typical companies make. A pretty typical net profit is something like 6%. Walmart has a net profit of something like 2%. Apple has an outrageous net profit of something like 25%. Do you really think a government agency without a profit and loss statement will be within 6% as efficient as a private company? I don't.

      Let's look at some examples. Who would you rather deal with, FedEx or the US Post Office? A Ford dealer or the DMV? Charles Schwab (or any other bank/broker) or the IRS? A local home builder or your city zoning department? How about the company everyone loves to hate, your cable company or the municipal water district? Personally, I'll take the private enterprise every time.

      I'm not sure it will crowd out the possibility of private insurance, however, for one reason. Even if it covers nearly 100% of things, people are still going to want optional or cutting edge treatments, and they're going to want them now.

      I don't think I understand your comment. If a MfA plan covers 100% of things, why would I need new, cutting edge treatments? If they're not covered, then MfA doesn't cover 100% o

  7. Sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, but then you pay your fair share of corporate taxes to subsidize.

  8. Good idea by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    The rest of the world used that system for 100 years or so, it seems to work.

  9. What a bunch of BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they pod them more the employees / contractors can buy their own insurance and save for their own retirements.

  10. We should do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    even though it benefits the shitbirds of Uber.

  11. Uber not!!! Taxi!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The taxies were superior to Uber's in the american society.

    Uber is the rival of the taxies and does illegal competence (e.g, it's probable that Uber does not pay licenses that were paying the taxies).

    inmho, Uber = black taxi, Taxi is yellow taxi.

  12. CEO urges otherd to pay his fair share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SHOCKING.

    Fucking Ameriplebs dont even have universal basic care. LOL!

  13. Re: We'll take care of your healthcare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But the insurance company will cut you off when you get cancer, causing you to lose all of your life's savings paying for treatment and then bank will take your home so you can die penniless in the street. America, what a cuntry!

  14. Re: Why Millennials feel the need to rename everyt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the only thing a void of a generation with no talent, ambition, or desire to bring meaningful change can do to ferl good about themselves.

  15. Its call Universal Health Care. by pjv936 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most nations have it except for the USA.

    1. Re:Its call Universal Health Care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socialism!!1

    2. Re:Its call Universal Health Care. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Most nations have it except for the USA.

      By most nations, I assume you mean most developed nations because universal or single payer health care isn't common in developing nations. However Uber isn't advocating this, Uber simply wants this to be someone elses problem.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  16. Already done by superdave80 · · Score: 1

    Uber's chief executive is calling for Washington state to develop a "portable benefits system" to give contract workers in the so-called gig economy access to health care and retirement planning accounts.

    Anybody can already sign up for an IRA or Roth on their own. What exactly is this CEO asking for?

    1. Re:Already done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the state to pay for what his employees want so they'll shut up.

    2. Re:Already done by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      All tied up in tax considerations. Company-paid "benefits" are tax-free; if you pay for those same services on your own, you're paying with after-tax dollars.

      The "solution" is to cut taxes nationwide, and eliminate tax-advantaged health and retirement plans.

  17. Just give them cash! by weepinganus · · Score: 2

    give contract workers in the so-called gig economy access to health care and retirement planning accounts

    How about you just give them the money and let them select and pay for their own benefits? While we're on the subject, let's do that for all the salaried workers too.

    There's no need (from first principles) for my employer to be involved with my personal health or finances in any way apart from paying me. Just give me the money you would have spent on my behalf and allow me to secure those services myself.

    Yes, I realize there is presently a discount for group insurance (or rather a penalty for individual policies), but that's only because it's expected that people will obtain their insurance through their company. If everybody arranged their personal health insurance personally, no such penalty/discount would exist.

    1. Re:Just give them cash! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If everybody arranged their personal health insurance personally, no such penalty/discount would exist.

      Not quite true - only the sick (or more likely to be sick) would buy insurance.

  18. Dara Khosrowshahi has benefits right? by dk20 · · Score: 1

    So.. Dara Khosrowshahi probably has a fantastic benefits package, but those who "work for him" cant have one?

  19. Predictable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...so that contract workers can carry benefits between jobs would be preferable to Uber hiring them as full employees.

    Uber would find it preferable that contract workers die in a fire rather than have to hire them as full employees.

  20. Divorce Employment from Benefits! by kenwd0elq · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The idea of "benefits" being attached to your job is a holdover from the wage & price controls enacted during World War II. Unable to increase wages, factories offered non-cash benefits like health care to attract skilled workers, and later the courts ruled that these health benefits were not taxable income. In the most extreme example, a shipyard started a medical clinic to provide medical care for shipyard workers and their families. Now the shipyard is long gone, but the medical clinic has grown into its own hospital chain; Kaiser.

    Abolish all that! Allow fraternal organizations to offer medical insurance. Let everybody pay for their own insurance, and pensions, and other "fringe benefits", and you eliminate the problem of "pre-existing conditions". A young adult would choose his/her own fraternal organization such as the Kiwanis or Knights of Columbus or Masons or Odd Fellows. You could go from employer to employer, and NEVER lose your health insurance.

    1. Re:Divorce Employment from Benefits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, basically the Trump Administration has proposed allowing this sort of thing to happen:

      The Federal Register. I haven't read the whole thing and it is coming from the Trump Administration so there is probably a bunch of nefarious garbage hidden in there, but I think the gist is to make Obamacare collapse by getting all the insurance companies to pull out because they are too busy offering plans through "associations" for less money because they don't cover as much stuff. Or something like that.

      But any "association" could just as easily offer good plans for people to buy, or so I would think.

  21. That's not what Uber's advocating for by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    because if it existed they'd have to pitch in tax dollars to pay for it. If it were they could jump on Bernie Sander's Medicare for All bandwagon. What they want is a system where their drivers pay for the benefits Of course, we have that now; only the drivers aren't paid well enough to afford health care on their own. This is a dodge. A distraction meant to keep single payer from happening. Nothing more.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  22. Uber can suck it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have had many, many opportunities to do things the right way from the start. Many of us referred to the 'sharing/gig economy' as the exploitation economy. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing and not doing. Now that the shareholders have their money, who gives a shit, right? Too little, far, far too late. I fully expect Uber to morph into a traditional company, in Silicon Valley parlace, 'in the next five years'. Pathetic and reprehensible.

  23. They are employees by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2

    Uber does not hire drivers as actual employees...

    Although Uber hires drivers as actual employees, it refuses to recognise them as such. In many countries and some states this is illegal.

    There, I fixed that for you.

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  24. Unemployment insurance by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    If Uber is honest about this, they should accept to pay for contractor unemployment insurance. And of course the more they would let unemployed, the most expensive for them it would be.

  25. Well duh by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The US concept that health insurance is tied to your employer is simultaneously anti-capitalistic and anti-socialist. In this system, nobody wins. We don't do it with anything else in our society: Not your car insurance, homeowners insurance, flood insurance, liability insurance, internet, telephone, food, electricity, or anything else. "Portable" insurance isn't some crazy idea, it just means "treat insurance like every other thing in society."

    1. Re:Well duh by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The US concept that health insurance is tied to your employer is simultaneously anti-capitalistic and anti-socialist. In this system, nobody wins. We don't do it with anything else in our society...

      Americans will never have anything like decent, affordable health care until this nonsense is ended. It's completely nuts. No other country in the world does this.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... don't do it with anything else ...

      Do corporate-owned pension funds still exist? Since the US court ruled that employers don't owe more than the legislated benefits (ie. A salary), a corporation can embezzle the pension fund and run.

      ... simultaneously anti-capitalistic ...

      Holding onto an employee's healthcare subscription is very capitalistic: That's why every politician fought Obama's single-payer system.

      ... and anti-socialist.

      Protecting the working class is the primary point of Marxism/socialism. That creates secondary benefits: An absence of price-gouging and increased consumption.

    3. Re: Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The American system is the ONLY system in the world that works for health care insurance companies. In capitalist places, you pay cash. In socialistic ones, national insurance is part of citizenship.

      Only in America can you insert yourself as a middle man between doctor and patient and make more than the doctor does. #MAGA /s

    4. Re:Well duh by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      How is it capitalistic? You can't choose who you buy it from, can't negotiate the cost, can't enroll any time you want, can't compare costs... I'm not seeing a single capitalistic aspect about it.

  26. This is stupid: You can already buy benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a self employed individual and I don't get the hoopla about Uber and other "gig" work. Nobody was offering me benefits back when I did computer repair work or even worked for a retailer doing sales or repair work. Why is it that Uber drivers are somehow special? The solution to this problem is obvious. If the "gig" don't pay well enough don't take it. I currently purchase health insurance and always have of my own desire. When you are a contract worker you are suppose to charge a premium such that you can purchase these things for yourself. The reality is not all contract workers are worth the same. If your not worth $15 / hr then your not going to get it nor will you get free benefits regardless of what the law says. Uber will just lower the pay to compensate for hiring employees. And before you go into "but the minimum wage is $X" all you are doing by increasing the minimum wage is increasing the rate of pay for everyone which increases prices which puts these minimum wage workers having an effective income of less than they potentially had before because now you've f*cked with the efficiency of a free market economy. There is a reason socialist economies have been failing for nearly a 100 years or otherwise reverted haphazardly in part to free market capitalism to drive economic improvement.

    Evidence in point. I have employees purchasing houses and living comfortably off $12 / hr in New Hampshire. You can't do that in any of these big government countries/states/cities/towns where the government is stealing 70%+ of your wealth through hidden taxes on your employer, through your landlord/property taxes, vehicles, import taxes, sales taxes, etc. In silicon valley you couldn't even afford to eat on this income. So rather than complain MOVE. Move somewhere that isn't so big government authoritarian and heavy handed.

  27. Whose preference by techdolphin · · Score: 1

    "Khosrowshahi said having the state change laws so that contract workers can carry benefits between jobs would be preferable to Uber hiring them as full employees."

    I wonder whose preference this is. Perhaps the contract employees would rather be full-time employees.

  28. how does this work for part-time employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, you can login and be working then take the rest of the day off after say 10 minutes?

  29. befor ACA the ER was the only place for some by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    befor ACA the ER was the only place for some both poor and others who where sick that they went to the only place that takes them and gives medical care with out checking if you can pay.

  30. Sounds like a tax dodge by Solandri · · Score: 1
    One of the big factors the IRS uses in determining if someone is an employee or a contractor is whether or not they receive benefits like health insurance, retirement savings, etc. If you receive such benefits, you are almost always classified as an employee.

    This determination is important because for all practical purposes, a dollar received by a contractor is worth less than a dollar received by an employee. Payroll tax rates (Social Security and Medicare) are 12.4% and 2.9% respectively (there's a ceiling of $128,400 for social security, but it doesn't affect most people).
    • If you're an employee, half of these taxes are taken out of your paycheck, half paid for by our employer. If your pay is $50k/yr, the company is actually paying $53,825 on your behalf. You just never see the extra $3,825 because it's sent straight to the IRS. After subtracting your share of the payroll taxes, your take-home paycheck for a $50k job (before income taxes) is $46,175.
    • If you're a contractor, you have to pay all of the payroll tax - both the employee's share and employer's share - as the so-called self-employment tax. Your take-home paycheck for a $50k job is then $42,350. (You also have to pay for your own business liability insurance, but that's just an extra expense for you, not a cost savings for the company.)

    The net result is that a dollar paid to a contractor is worth 7.65% less than a dollar paid to an employee, because the contractor has to pay an extra 7.65% of it to the IRS as what would otherwise be the employer's share of these payroll taxes. This is one of the big mistakes people make when they first start working for themselves. They used to be paid $70k as an employee with $10k worth of benefits. The company offers to pay them $85k as a contractor and they jump at it. Only to discover later that they now owe an extra $6500 in payroll taxes which means their net take-home pay is less than before, plus the company can now fire them at any time without termination benefits. Meanwhile the company pats themselves on the back for turning an employee who used to cost them $86.5k ($70k salary, $10k benefits, $6.5k employer's share of payroll taxes) into a $85k contractor.

    What Uber is asking for is basically a loosening up of the IRS classification guidelines, so contractors can be given benefits. That would allow them to exploit the fact that most people don't grok that contractor pay is worth 7.65% less than employee pay, and they mistakenly equate $50k as an employee with $50k as a contractor. So by doing this, Uber can appear to be paying their contractors the same as employees and even offering them benefits, when in reality they'd be paying them less than if they just bit the bullet and made them an employee.

    The situation wouldn't have arisen if the government had just been up-front and deducted all of the payroll taxes from the employee's paycheck, instead of trying to be cute and hide some of it by having the employer pay for it. But that's water under the bridge now, and the system we have today is the system we're stuck with. And one of the consequences of that system is that a dollar received by a contractor is worth less than a dollar received by an employee.

  31. Uber: Benefits for drivers is not our problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're the problem of the US Congress, and the American taxpayers.

    Our problem is figuring out algorithms to shield as much money as possible from taxes, so our directors and senior executives can make 9 or 10 figures USD.

  32. This is what the SEIU wants, let them do it by JeffOwl · · Score: 1

    Increase dues to cover it, and negotiate increased hourly rates to offset the employer not paying the insurance. Let them manage the pension too. I'm sure they would be happy to take that on as well.

  33. Exploitation 101 by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

    If you've ever wondered what a blatant attempt to privatise profits while socialising costs looks like, look no further.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  34. This has been part of the GOP approach for years by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Make PERSONAL health care expenses at ANY level fully deductible, just like they are for businesses. Right now, tax laws make it beneficial for workers to have the company pay for health insurance, and that not only screws independent/part-time workers, but it also breaks the entire concept of the consumer actually paying for what they are consuming (health care).

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  35. These people are employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Contractors my ass

  36. Re: This has been part of the GOP approach for yea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck that. Make NO health care expenses deductible.

    Make the standard deduction $50k and get rid of all other deductions and paperwork. Tax labor and investment income at the same rate.

  37. no you make the problem worst by aepervius · · Score: 1

    "Let everybody pay for their own insurance, and pensions, and other "fringe benefits", and you eliminate the problem of "pre-existing conditions""

    no you don't eliminate this with private insurance. They have no reason to keep people insured which have such pre existing problem. The only way to eliminate this is to have a fix sum of money to be paid by everybody thus the healthy covering the sick: in other word UHC. Whether you want it governemental, or private due to the american allergy to some words, is up to you. But at least governemental UHC is a proven conept. Private HC without U, is a broken concept as the US prove times and times again.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:no you make the problem worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have a fix sum of money to be paid by everybody thus the healthy covering the sick

      How regressive, I'm assuming you meant "a fixed percentage". Otherwise you've got a pyramid scheme with the added fun of the poor supporting the rich.

    2. Re:no you make the problem worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people, even Democrats, no longer support progressive taxation. Most average people don't even really understand it, and, if they do, they don't see how it's fair that someone who makes 10x as much as someone else has to pay 15x as much in raw dollars (a higher percentage, which is what makes the tax "progressive") for the same thing (be it roads, welfare programs or healthcare). Democrats today are too busy worrying about gender neutral bathrooms and the latest gaffe made by our buffoon of a president. They can't be bothered to learn about progressive taxation; someone is "slut shaming" a college girl who has only slept with 36 guys! I say this as a moderate who thinks that income and wealth inequality is one of the biggest problems in the USA.

    3. Re:no you make the problem worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you give a shit about bathroom bills, you're not a moderate. You are a social regressive who is far too easily led around by the nose by your outraged moral standards.

      "Democrats don't care about x", where x is whatever propaganda being spewed by Fox News at the moment. You are a disgrace to this country.

    4. Re:no you make the problem worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Democrats don't care about x", where x is whatever propaganda being spewed by Fox News at the moment. You are a disgrace to this country.

      All that Fox News propaganda about the need for more progressive taxation. That make sense. See this is what I'm talking about. Far too many people on the left don't even listen. It's bad on the right, but, somehow, it's become worse on the left. They just hear one thing they don't like and start getting angry and spewing insults. Please read what I write before you respond to it. It's basic courtesy that I've extended to you.

  38. legal, policy, and political by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... contract workers can carry benefits ...

    This is why pension and healthcare subscriptions should be handled by a third-party: So the employer sticks to its core functions and has less impact on the investments of its employees. Other countries have already done this.

    ... legal, policy, and political hurdles ...

    An employer can easily demand that every employee have a pension and a healthcare provider, and pay subscriptions as needed. The biggest hurdle has been employers.

    ... everyone should have the ability to protect themselves ...

    My cynical mind reads this as "everyone is responsible for demanding a salary that includes pension and healthcare subscriptions". It would be nice if selfishness worked but this ignores an important contaminant: The leverage of employers.

  39. So In Other Words... by ytene · · Score: 2

    ... the CEO of Uber wants to nationalize the overheads and expenses of having Gig workers [and get private tax-payers to pay for it], but wants to privatize the profits.

    My, what a complete surprise...

  40. Re:This has been part of the GOP approach for year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should healthcare be deductible at all? Just more handouts to the insurance companies.
    If you want your fellow taxpayers to pay for your healthcare, just vote for the party that will do that, oh nevermind I see the problem now.

  41. What US IRS has to say - it's rather clear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IRS Publishes this Independent Contractor (Self-Employed) or Employee?
    Or you can file an SS-8 form and have IRS make the determination.
    "If, after reviewing the three categories of evidence, it is still unclear whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, Form SS-8, Determination of Worker Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding (PDF) can be filed with the IRS."

  42. What could possibly provide that portable benefit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about meaningful Social Security, and Universal Healthcare.

    But it is a proven fact that no developed country has ever been able to sustain that. Oh wait, most have, except the U.S.

  43. I want portable benefits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iâ(TM)d prefer to go from consulting gig to consulting gig and would find it way more interesting and engaging than my day to day sys admin work but need steady benefits. If I could do that portably Iâ(TM)d love it. And Iâ(TM)m far from a 3 minimum wage job worker.

  44. We can thank the government for the problem by kaybee · · Score: 1

    Letâ(TM)s fix it by deregulation, not more regulation. When I switch jobs there is no impact on my life insurances, homeowners insurance, and car insurance. I simply buy these on my own. But health and disability insurance are only deductible if your employer provides them which is just dumb. Employers started providing healthcare during WW2 to attract and retain employees when the government froze wages.

    1. Re:We can thank the government for the problem by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      another simplistic moron claims some big "government" is the "problem" to all our ills.
      BS... "the government" is owned by huge corporations that give money to ensure their pawns are elected to enact legislation that benefits big corporations... case and point: Net Neutrality.
      All the right-wingers that claim these "job killing rules" are stiffing growth.. Yet in a time with record corporate profits, some how things like clean air, clean water, child labor laws are the "job killing rules". Hardly. They simply stop the oligarchy from pillaging every last resource and prevent the United States from becoming a polluted wasteland like China.
      These rules were put in place because companies refuse to do what's right and in practice place profit over life and safety. Fire escapes for example: It was the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire that killed 146 people because there were no fire escapes and doors where chained shut to keep people working. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Because of the tragedy, we now have fire escape laws, unlocked door laws. Just like tall buildings in earth quake areas need to be earth quake resistant.
      Return to what you want and we'll return to the time of Dickens where everyone but a few are paupers. We've been there and it sucked. I'm willing to bet you're not one of the privileged....

    2. Re: We can thank the government for the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try some reading comprehension next time.

  45. Cut the crap, it's already possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid... if you get a 1099, then you already have access to a 401K, SEP, SIMPLE, IRA, etc.... you just need to setup the account and start funding it from the money you get from Uber or Lyft or whatever gig you're working....the government allows you to deduct those expeses... you might want to educate yourself to the ways of business and income/expenses and profit!

    We don't need another stupid government program to take money from the economy to pay govt workers (benefits, office space, salary, retirement, vacation, healthcare, etc, etc, etc.) all so they can "manage" money taken from your 1099 pay so that you can have a pittance of a government funded retirement or healtcare or whatever stupid program the ignorant masses wants the government to provide.

    Freedom from goverment programs is the answer, not another wasteful, over bureacratized government program!

    Peace out!

  46. Scum Bag by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    No, what this scum bag is really admitting is that his company doesn't pay livable wages, isn't about to, and wants tax payers to come to the rescue.
    Driving someone you don't know, to a place you're not going, for money, is NOT a ride share, that is the definition of a taxi. Uber is skimming money off the backs of the lowest workers and trying to call it profit. A taxi service costs more because it's a real business, with real benefits, that PAYS it employees real wages.
    Stop using uber/lyft and use a real taxi. Support workers.

  47. We are UNION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, that idea smells exactly like a union. First, you pay union dues, then you pay for your insurance, an after taxes, hopefully there is some left for you. Since that won't really work, Drivers will have to up the rate costs, to lets say $63.52 per mile, then of course Uber dies and the Govt. bails out the contractors. Really cool idea there folks!

  48. No, thank you. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    A young adult would choose his/her own fraternal organization such as the Kiwanis or Knights of Columbus or Masons or Odd Fellows.

    The only thing worse than having my health benefits tied to a job I could be fired from, would be to have them tied to a fraternal organization that might release me from being a member because my religious or political beliefs vary from theirs.

    1. Re:No, thank you. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 2

      So choose an organization with values that ARE aligned with yours - or a true "fraternal" organization that exists only for this purpose.

    2. Re:No, thank you. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      So choose an organization with values that ARE aligned with yours - or a true "fraternal" organization that exists only for this purpose.

      You presume one exists. You presume wrongly. (Seriously, are you that stupid?)

  49. God forbid by eggstasy · · Score: 1

    That anyone should ever have to participate in the economy, know how the game works and how to play it. Good heavens, what would we do if people were proactive and entrepreneurial instead of "i can has job gimme"?
    I was only 27 when my tiny startup rose up to $500k/year gross income. It's what happens when freelancers are competent.
    Some Uber drivers I have stumbled upon, started their own business and have already grown it to 2 or 3 cars.