Slashdot Mirror
Gig Economy Business Model Dealt a Blow in California Ruling (nytimes.com)
In a ruling with potentially sweeping consequences for the so-called gig economy, the California Supreme Court on Monday made it much more difficult for companies to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees. The New York Times: The decision could eventually require companies like Uber, many of which are based in California, to follow minimum-wage and overtime laws and to pay workers' compensation and unemployment insurance and payroll taxes, potentially upending their business models. Industry executives have estimated that classifying drivers and other gig workers as employees tends to cost 20 to 30 percent more than classifying them as contractors. It also brings benefits that can offset these costs, though, like the ability to control schedules and the manner of work. "It's a massive thing -- definitely a game-changer that will force everyone to take a fresh look at the whole issue," said Richard Meneghello, a co-chairman of the gig-economy practice group at the management-side law firm Fisher Phillips. The court essentially scrapped the existing test for determining employee status, which was used to assess the degree of control over the worker. That test hinged on roughly 10 factors, like the amount of supervision and whether the worker could be fired without cause.
for a bad job. It's better to not have a job than one that doesn't pay a living wage.
for a bad job. It's better to not have a job than one that doesn't pay a living wage.
Queue complaints about the federal minimum wage not being a "living wage" in California in 3.... 2.... 1....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Here is what they should do:
You are an employee if ANY of the following are true:
* They have any control over your clothing, besides requiring safety equipment
* They control your hours, rather than give deadlines.
* They can require you to do things using their method, rather than accepting any method.
* They make any attempt to find out if you are working for other people, let alone prevent you from doing this.
* They decide which sub-contractor does the work, rather than the head contractor.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
potentially upending their business models
Good.
A company's business model should not be based on exploiting people who are desperate for work.
Pay decent wages and benefits, or, GTFO.
Half of the gig economy is companies trying to cheap out on traditional worker benefits. Uber is one of them, and they can suck it up.
A worker-centric gig economy isn't managed by the platform: the workers should decide whether/how they deliver the goods or services, have some meaningful control over prices/profits, and be able to accrue a meaningful reputation.
If the gig platform forces its workers to behave 90% like employees, then yeah, round that number up and call them employees.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Having more people on the dole means more control so the government can take better caer of the people.
Save it the Libertarian/Conservative fairy tale shit.
The housing market has broken from the labor market. In the olden days, housing prices were limited by people's incomes.
No more. Thanks to cheap money for the last decade, hedge funds looking for returns, they have used that cheap money to buy housing; which subsequently pushed housing prices out of the reach of many people.
All over the country.
However, the market for labor - all up and down the food chain - hasn't kept up because unlike housing (and land), you can offshore labor one way or another (H1-bs, anyone?)
That's why in Silly Valley you can make what would be awesome money in most parts of the country and yet live pay check to pay check.
And that's why we're becoming a renters society.
I am just wondering what business model that employs any significant number of people you think is NOT based on exploiting people desperate for work?
Of course, there is desperate and there is desperate, but that is pretty much why it is called work, not fun, and its not easy to be paid to have fun.
Of course the translation of what you are saying is actually:
'I am set up enough to have a solid job with prospects, and I see no reason why people who are not should have a job, because they cannot earn enough to make it worthwhile in my view'
And that is pretty god damn bad.
So the right wing generally wants to improve things for the middle classes and try to life people into the middle classes.
Citation sorely fucking needed.
It seems it's more akin to:
left: you have yours, we're going to take it from you and give to someone else.
right: i have mine, fuck you.
this is actually cheaper and better for Uber,
- first they can forbid you to work for Lyft (anti-competitive clause) even in your off-time (you can still work for McDonalds in off-time i guess)
- second they can give you minimum wage and not a cent more (now some drivers get less but some much more)
- third they can employ you for maximum of 30 hours per week so you don't have any benefits like big grocery stores already do, in other words additional benefits costs are significantly reduced
- fourth they can tell you "you work only in rush-time when there is a lot of work" in other words Friday evening and other similar unpleasant time (for same minimal hourly wage), and we don't care you have to take your daughter to soccer practice
- fifth they can still easily fire you, just create a lot of small 5 man "companies" that are under contract with Uber to provide service itself (each with 5 drivers), and if they want to fire you with no money they just stop paying this 5 man company and let it go under, while other 4 people in your "company" get offer to switch to another also "5 man company" and continue working for Uber
the only cost will be that they have to buy/provide cars for you to use and do work, but i think savings on worker itself will make it more profitable in long run
and almost forgot, they are guaranteed to get workers which practically cant refuse to work, just tell unemployment provider to send them any workers with drivers licence, and if you refuse job you loose unemployment benefits you depend on for food
sometimes i think i would be great devil :)
Will this change also affect contractors that were independent contractors long before this new gig economy trend? For example, if a family owned rug store offers to tell rug installing contractors about sales done that day (with the approval of the customer), are those contractors now under threat of becoming employees? What if the store offers to arrange the timing of the appointment for installation?
Your characterization doesn't hold. The right is also full of people who are dirt poor but still think their ship will come in. Meanwhile, there's some crazy wealthy people leaning left out there. Also a lot of people who work for a living that couldn't be called unsuccessful.
Most of the trap aspect of the safety net is the result of the right trying to push people out of the net before they're quite able to land on their feet.
When someone working 40 hours a week at the federal minimum wage has a gross income (not take-home) that is less than the rent on the average studio apartment in LA, it's not a living wage.
On the other hand, California has its own minimum wage, which is quite bit higher (and still nowhere near a living wage), so your whining is fairly stupid anyway.
Yeah....that seems to be a stickler in this country: many folks base a person's value on their ability to produce, IQ, and wealth (hence why Eric Trump is "worth" more than those school teachers in ....well, everywhere.)
Zuckerberg gets his ass kissed for pimping out people's data (and he'll never stop) while others get kicked in the ass for caring about the little things in life and the little people.
We have a segment of society that will literally kill to protect the unborn but when it comes to a living child's well-being, it's dog eat dog.
What a twisted fucked up society we live in.
Don't mind me; I have a great inheritance from a father that invested in defense stocks. Every time a POTUS says "bomb", I make enough to buy a low end BMW. And people kiss my ass because I got money from choosing my parents well.
I'd laugh if it weren't so pathetic.
The Right is more along the lines of, "I earned mine, you go earn yours". Part of that is setting policy that enables and rewards achievement. Not putting up roadblocks to keep people from advancing. Not bucketing people, not creating victim culture and not promoting mediocrity. Letting people keep what they earn and not giving handouts to those that don't try. Promoting the concept of being responsible for yourself.
It's better to not have a job than one that doesn't pay a living wage.
That is your opinion. In the opinion of some who seek a supplementary income, a job with is lesser rate of pay is acceptable.
A student who lives at home, a retiree with a pension, a housewife with free time while her kids are in the school each want to earn some additional cash in their free time. You demand that they be denied the right to some jobs which they would voluntarily accept.
This is why conservatives and libertarians regard leftism as inherently fascist; Leftists such as yourself seek the power of government to impose their own preferences on others, under threat violence, fines, and incarceration.
You should be free to accept or decline a job offer as you see fit. You should not be entrusted with the power to govern, because you will use that power to deny that same freedom to others.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
for a bad job. It's better to not have a job than one that doesn't pay a living wage.
My teenage son strongly disagrees and so do the two in college.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Next time, please be direct with your allegations.
What you're implying is completely false. This does nothing to illegals. Illegals can not drive for Uber/Lyft. Period.
And this does nothing to legal immigrants either, for instance, refugees, that can prove they've been driving in the State with a State's driver's license for more than one year. Those will still be allowed to drive for Uber/Lyft (assuming they can maintain more than ~4.6 stars after they've given more than 50 rides, the exact cut-off point varies by areas, but below 50 rides, they're allowed to have a low star rating unless the complaints are really bad).
The Right is more along the lines of, "I earned mine, you go earn yours".
What, the Republican Party? Really? Do you mean the people who enthusiastically shovel tax money at whichever industry happens to be funding their reelection campaign?
Or maybe you mean the Democrats who basically do the same thing.
Please don't pretend there's any left wing in US politics, because there is not.
I see the left as that homeless guy who'd give you his very last dollar if he thought it'd improve your day.
I see the right as the people who'd come to this homeless guy and sell him something he doesn't need, to get that last dollar, as if it were the last one on earth.
Most folks on the right are self-starters, independent, etc, not without compassion or morals. But they're DRIVEN by these factors. They earned every dollar that they have and are mighty protective of what they have. They earned it, they shouldn't be required to share ANY. They're more likely to teach someone how to do something before they'd give that someone -anything- of value. Self-reliance is a pillar of this mindset. If you can't make it on your own, well, like when a hatchling bird leaves the nest, fly or not, you're on your own. Sink or swim, and all that.
Most folks on the left are self-starters, independent, etc, not without compassion or morals, but they're DRIVEN by these factors. They make enough money to get by, and beyond that, they probably give excess money to those who need it and/or volunteer their excess time to worthy causes. And you know, some days, it just doesn't all go right and they're not afraid to ask a stranger for a hand up. Herd mentality and health seems is a pillar of the left. We're all in this together. Sometimes the herd health overrides personal health and considerations, the left understands this, or at least appears to.
Somewhere between these two extremes is the majority of Americans.
The money for the new wages has to be created from something.
Costs are taken out of company growth. A company in CA stops growing to cover new wage costs.
New prices get put onto the price of a service and products.
Less profit for them company that offers work. Less jobs on offer.
Pass the full costs of the new wages to the people buying products and services.
People stop spending in CA and the company has less to pay their workers. Growth stops and less jobs are created in CA.
The few skilled people with jobs get to keep their jobs. New jobs that meet new state wages then cost too much to create.
The smart money then invests well outside CA. Away from new CA job regulations that reduce profits.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The basic crux of the problem here is part-time employment. It's been abused and misused to an extreme that is just unimaginable.
What used to be a rare sight, a fluke, a unicorn in the overall job market, the part-time job. The paper-boy route for the aspiring teenager. Or the babysitting gig for the stay-at-home mom.
Someone took this and ran into hell with in it and dragged us all along for a painful experience that we're currently living through. Part-time was never supposed to be a career choice. It was never supposed to be the only thing you could find. It was a stop-gap, a place for the teenager or young adult. Now it's become THE JOB MARKET. Fulltime employment is hard to come by now.
Why? Well, because part-time employees are cheaper. You don't have to pay benefits, or retirement plans for part-time employees. It's supposed to be a temporary job after all, not your career. But now, it is. The part-time job has metamorphosed into the mechanism by which the employer is abusing the employee. When they realized the gold-mine of cheap labor they had with the part-time employee, they did any good business person would do. They got rid of the expensive full-time employees and just hired a few more part-timers to fill the gaps.
Now employers are taking it a step further. Our employees, they're not employees at all. At least on paper. We pay them as contractors and as such, we're not subject to ANY employer/employee rules at all. Even cheaper. Nice. Another win for the top. Yay?
The race to the bottom is making no winners except for those at the very top. And you jerkoffs who come in here and scream personal rights about part-time or 'gig employment', you can just go take a flying leap. Your kind landed us in this awful situation, and I don't think you have any right to say anything anymore. The part-time job needs to be restored to a temporary thing, not the new normal. An awful lot of people died, spent time in jails, or detention camps, to win the rights we have as employees and I think it's pretty fucking selfish for some of our population to sell that out for their own selfish reasons.
I do contract work for many companies and my work is core to what they do. I set my own hours, use almost all my own equipment, work in my own office, subcontract out some QA and repairs, I even bill in 15 minute intervals - I don't see how I'm different from an Uber driver. The existing test of control made perfect sense.
Question - will I now have to be an employee of the American companies I'm currently doing contract work for? or just companies in California?
The most likely answer is the same way they deal with an increase in fuel/food/other costs. They pass it on to the customer. You don't think an increase in minimum wage is the first time a business has ever had to deal with a rising cost of business, do you?
Of course, that can (and often does) lead to a virtuous cycle. The employees have more money, so they can afford to buy things, so businesses have more money. At the same time, less demand for SNAP and other safety net services means we don't have that coming out of our pockets anymore. That also means more people with more to spend.
As a nice bonus, since low wage payers are forced to stop dipping into our pockets through subsidized payroll, they get our money based on merit, just like the market intended :-)
Employers are under no obligation to negotiate with you. Take it or leave it. That's the fucking problem.
Why should they be? Should they be obligated to take a losing deal that ends their company, and thus provides no jobs? Who says which negotiations they must take on? Do you think YOU should be forced to negotiate until you don't get what you need out of the job? Should you be forced to work for somebody because somebody else struck a deal with them? No? Why not? Should you be able to walk away and pursue something else? Of course you should. Just like a business owner should. If they don't want to offer enough money, they won't get decent people to work for them, and they lose. What's wrong with that?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
A- wealthy people can outwait starving people.
B- it becomes a horrific dystopia when there is a labor glut
C- No money getting to the bottom stifles the economy
D-Leading to instability, violence, murder, and overthrow of the government fairly frequently. When that fails, usually genocide.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I'm a liberal. I'd much rather more people were successful so that they didn't need to be on state support.
potentially upending their business models
Their "business model", if you want to call it that, was precisely to circumvent those regulations. It's a bit like basing a business on not paying taxes and then crying when the IRS comes knocking.
Really? Your business doesn't function anymore when you have to run it like a proper business? Maybe there's a problem with your business model in such case?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
A big issue with the safety net is having it done so horribly that in order to have the net you basically have to throw everything away. To be on food stamps you cannot have ANY savings. Having just a little in your account gets you kicked off food stamps, you can lose housing assistance, etc. Why are the poor underbanked? Because of this.
How do you dig yourself out of being on welfare, by saving money. But when having $500 in the bank* means you lose the $500 of food stamps for your family of 5, how can anyone ever save themselves out of poverty? If they were putting aside $100/mo for 5 months, then lose $500 of benefits for having the audacity to save money you create an unpenetrable barrier for the poor to pass through, with the only possible way to find a job that increases your income by more than the benefits you lose.
With this method there is no way for them to have an emergency fund, no way to pay for car repairs, or to buy a nice pair of shoes that will last a year rather than a few months. It gets expensive to be poor, taking out payday loans, or suffering from the repeating late fees that are stacking up.
As a middlish class person (I really have no idea what class I belong to) so many things come free. I don't pay for banking, I never have late fees, hell, I can even travel hack with credit cards throwing $500 at me every month for signing up and travel internationally for free. Things like this are beyond the reach of those on welfare. Why might one have a shiny iPhone, because the $600 phone doesn't get their $500 food stamps taken away, whereas that same money in a bank account would.**
The Republicans want to make this system worse, have higher requirements for it, make the time people can collect shorter, screen out as many people as possible.
TL;DR I agree with you.
* It might be $2k, I'm not sure, but the point is still the same
** I don't know how many on welfare have one, or if this is the exact logic they used
In any negotiation where you aren't just as willing to walk away as the other party you have no power.
If it is easy for you to find another job you have negotiating power regardless if you are employed or contracting.
If your work opportunities are slim and you need a particular employer they have power over you, regardless if you are employed or contracting.
The choice California gives you is either to be an indentured servant to both corporations and the state, or to become a government-dependent welfare recipient. They control you either way.
They hate independent contractors and the gig economy because it allows people to get away from their stifling regulations and taxation.
'I am set up enough to have a solid job with prospects, and I see no reason why people who are not should have a job, because they cannot earn enough to make it worthwhile in my view'
There are a couple of issues. The first is the difference in negotiating power. In a high-skill or high-demand occupation, there is a vaguely level playing field between employer and employee. If the employer doesn't treat the employee well, then the employee can leave and continue employment elsewhere (and the departure is likely to financially hurt the employer). In a low-skill occupation, there is a huge imbalance. The employee is replaceable, but probably needs the job to be able to afford to live. There is a large mass of historical evidence that, when employers are allowed to abuse this bargaining power, they will do so. The only ways that have historically worked to prevent this abuse are minimum wage and related regulations and collective bargaining. The latter works only if the majority of the workforce opts into it.
The second issue is one of indirect subsidy. If a company is not paying enough to live, then that slack has to be picked up elsewhere, typically by welfare payments. We, as taxpayers, are paying that bill. If a large chunk of my income is going to welfare payments, I'd much prefer that it were going to help people less fortunate than my and not to subsidise abusive business models from companies that couldn't compete if they paid a living wage.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
One could say, you are forcing everyone into this kind of job market where no one pays a living wage
Freedom is force, got it. Is war also peace?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Please don't pretend there's any left wing in US politics, because there is not.
The problem... is stupid-fuck, meaningless, divisive terms like "left" and "right" but to be fair, they fool a rather large proportion of otherwise seemingly intelligent people.
As for "liberal" and "conservative," these words are also rather meaningless, as a traditional "European conservative" believed that power should be retained by the feudal aristocracy (allowing the peasants to own arms and defend themselves would be, by this defintion, as "left wng" as it gets.
However, over here in the States, a certain idealogical debate gripped the nation, with Jefferson espousing a "conservative interpretation of the powers granted to the federal gov't by the Constitution" (as progressive of a position as one could take), while Hamilton, being in favor of traditional European "values," thought the idea of empowering the masses was insane, and thus chose a "liberal interpretation of the powers granted to the gov't by the Constitution," thus coming closest to resembling a traditional European "conservative."
It's really too bad about what passes for "education" - on both sides of the ocean; everyone should already know this shit.
This freethinking, gun-owning vegetarian apologizes, in advance, for any cognitive duress experienced by our clearly 'well-intentioned but otherwise government-educated' brethren in the UK - lay off the soy, boys; the effects of phytoestrogen are showing... ;)
So the right wing generally wants to improve things for the middle classes and try to life people into the middle classes.
Citation sorely fucking needed.
It seems it's more akin to:
left: you have yours, we're going to take it from you and give to someone else. right: i have mine, fuck you.
The way I see it is:
Left: We'll educate the embetter the poor and we'll have a better economy with worker that will make more and spend it and a rising river lifts everybody
Right: If we give more money to the rich, they'll buy more stuff, which will require more workers and lift the economy
From there, it's just a matter of which one you think will work.
It's the DPRC (Democrat People's Republic of California) bitching that they can no longer control everyone's money and dole it out as they see fit.