The best way to get drones to obey regulations is to put them in charge of the Obamacare death panels. Now that I have captured your interest, I will explain what I mean by "Obamacare death panels" as something completely mundane and poorly labelled.
In addition to being very old definitions, they are also current definitions (i.e. the fact that Math and Science are part of the definition of "liberal arts" hasn't changed). You also seem to be confusing the definition of "liberal arts" with the common definition for "art".
You may as well argue that people with Ph.D.s are all medical doctors that are also good at philosophy.
I am merely pointing out that the term "liberal arts" is a poor choice of label for majors that don't math and science, because they specifically include those subjects.
In the same way that "STEM" is used to refer to a group of subjects, maybe a similar acronym can be made for all the majors that a naive person might imagine when thinking of "liberal arts".
Or maybe we can just call it "[^STEM]" to make a nerdy programming reference to regular expressions.
What's really sad is that pointing out a poor choice of terminology (e.g. liberal arts) is considered and "attempt to appear superior" by some people. I suppose anything can seem like an attempt to appear superior if you are dumb enough.
In modern times, liberal arts education is a term that can be interpreted in different ways. It can refer to certain areas of literature, languages, art history, music history, philosophy, history, mathematics, psychology, and science.
I don't disagree that there are probably a lot of people driving for uber that think they are making more money than they really are for the reasons you cited. But these are the same people that don't have savings accounts, use payday loan services, only pay the minimums on their many credit cards, etc. I don't know that more regulations is really going to do these people any more good. I feel like the best way to educate people is to let them learn a few lessons the hard way.
Furthermore, if uber can leverage the ignorance of people in regards to what is involved with being an independent contractor, it means the government is not doing a very good job in enforcing those regulations. I got tricked in my 20's when my employer switched me to being a contractor, and the IRS came after me for back taxes 3 years later.
You really like to take your labels literally. I would suggest maybe trying to think about what is actually going on rather than just accepting labels at face value.
The rationale for the rules for worker classification are normative in nature (e.g. "A company who operates like A, B, C, should be forced to give it's workers X, Y, Z). Not only are those rules rather arbitrary, whether they are even being followed or not is fairly subjective.
It's not normative vs. descriptive, it's declared vs. actual.
but this is about there being an employer/employee relationship, which is not the same thing.
I don't find the evidence for an employer/employee relationship as cited in the article to be more convincing than the evidence for a contractor relationship. Uber offers jobs to people explicitly as non-employees (and without any of the benefits employees are entitled to), and those people agree to those terms.
I agree that there is an incentive for employers to convert their workforce to contractors rather than employers (i.e. because you don't have to pay benefits), but traditionally employers also had to pay contractors more money to compensate for the lack of benefits, job security, etc. Are uber drivers better off being employees? Those benefits would likely come with a pay decrease, and maybe less flexible schedules.
Internal Revenue considers someone to be a contractor ("entrepreneur") if they are free to set rates, and perform their assignments as they think best.
An uber dirver is free to "set rates" in the sense that they can decide not to drive their car when rates are low. All actual "rates" are an agreement between 2 parties. If either side does not agree on the rates, then the contracted labor doesn't happen.
If a client or an agency sets too many conditions and rules, the tax office may decide that there is in fact an employer-employee relationship. That doesn't make the contractor an actual employee, but it does entitle him for benefits, and also makes him and the employer liable for social security taxes.
I agree that this is true, but it does seem rather arbitrary to me. I am a proponent of the free market, but I do accept that people are often irrational. That said, I think the "solutions" to the problem of the irationality of people are often poorly thought out and often just make things worse.
I like the idea of creating a special class of people (employees) that have a common mechanism in regards to taxes, benefits, etc. It theoretically should reduce paperwork and increase efficiency which is good for everyone, but if companies are trying to avoid this classification, that theoretically should be less work, something is wrong with the system.
That was intentional (although I don't agree that the "backwardedness" makes it incorrect).
(P implies Q) implies (!Q implies !P)
If being an employee implies that you have benefits, then not having benefits implies that you are not an employee.
All I am saying is that the *fact* that they do not receive benefits is different than whether they *ought* to receive benefits (which is what the court seems to be arguing).
This is roughly analogous to so many companies designating IT workers (especially programmers) as "salaried exempt" in order to get around overtime laws. That went on for years until a few high-profile cases (specifically IBM) finally scared employers into obeying the law. Employers - or contract negotiators - don't get to decide these things unilaterally.
I am currently a salaried exempt programmer, and as far as I know our company (which is a defense contractor) is operating within the law. Furthermore, I am quite happy with this arrangement. It focuses my attention on completing tasks rather than on working hours. I have a very flexible work schedule, and do not frequently need to work more than 40 hours per week. If I happen to pull a really long week (e.g. 48+ hours), it is customary to take a day off the following week. I like really like this arrangement as it gets more work done (when it needs to be done by) for basically the same amount of effort.
What's the difference between an employee and a contractor? The contractor doesn't receive any benefits. Since the uber drivers do not receive benefits, they are contractors. This seems like a problem of normative vs. descriptive (is vs. ought) claims. The uber drivers are contractors that don't recieve benefits vs. The uber drivers should receive benefits and therefore be employees.
There are plenty of people with good resumes. Then you bring them in for interviews, and it becomes apparent that they don't know shit. There are not enough skilled workers to meet demand (foreign + domestic).
A temporary worker has no interest in improving their host country.
First of all I don't think you get to speak for all temporary workers, and secondly, many permanent workers have no interest in helping their countries either. Luckily the success of the economy does not depend on the good will of those working within it. Workers with no desire to help the countries they work in (foreign and domestic) will help those countries regardless.
It's sad that we don't consider developing these skills in our own population.
I think just about everyone who has thought about the subject has considered this.
The US is a huge country and probably contains the same number of potential STEM workers that we're "taking" from the rest of the world.
If only someone would simply consider leveraging that potential./s
It just so happens that we don't really want to invest in Americans. Universities, as a whole, tend to like foreign students who pay full tuition.
Actually it is that universities like the best students they can get. They take the best foreign and domestic students they can.
From kindergarten on, we consider most US students to be a burden unless you choose your parents wisely and are able to go to a private school.
There are plenty of good public schools, even if they are often in affluent school districts.
Yes we do have problems with the public school system in this country, but I disagree with your analysis of those problems.
Collectively, immigrants -both legal and illegal- send tens of billions of dollars back to their respective countries every year, removing that currency from US markets. How again is that a "good deal" for the US economy?
1. We get the services for which we paid them. 2. They do spend a lot of their money here (even if it's not all of it). 3. helping the world economy also helps the US economy.
And when The Intercept published a piece condemning the puritanical glee over the data dump...
It's not puritanical to value honesty. I have plenty of polyamorous friends who have multiple partners, but even in that scenario it is still important to be honest with the people you are intimate with.
Yes it's bad that a few "innocent" people are being caught up in this, but the site is *for* being dishonest with your partner(s).
Slashdot Mirror
The best way to get drones to obey regulations is to put them in charge of the Obamacare death panels. Now that I have captured your interest, I will explain what I mean by "Obamacare death panels" as something completely mundane and poorly labelled.
In addition to being very old definitions, they are also current definitions (i.e. the fact that Math and Science are part of the definition of "liberal arts" hasn't changed). You also seem to be confusing the definition of "liberal arts" with the common definition for "art".
You may as well argue that people with Ph.D.s are all medical doctors that are also good at philosophy.
And to be clear, you are definitely wrong.
Let me guess, you're not a rocket scientist are you?
I am merely pointing out that the term "liberal arts" is a poor choice of label for majors that don't math and science, because they specifically include those subjects.
In the same way that "STEM" is used to refer to a group of subjects, maybe a similar acronym can be made for all the majors that a naive person might imagine when thinking of "liberal arts".
Or maybe we can just call it "[^STEM]" to make a nerdy programming reference to regular expressions.
Is it impossible for you to admit you are wrong?
What's really sad is that pointing out a poor choice of terminology (e.g. liberal arts) is considered and "attempt to appear superior" by some people. I suppose anything can seem like an attempt to appear superior if you are dumb enough.
In modern times, liberal arts education is a term that can be interpreted in different ways. It can refer to certain areas of literature, languages, art history, music history, philosophy, history, mathematics, psychology, and science.
The S and M in STEM (science and math), are both liberal arts.
I don't disagree that there are probably a lot of people driving for uber that think they are making more money than they really are for the reasons you cited. But these are the same people that don't have savings accounts, use payday loan services, only pay the minimums on their many credit cards, etc. I don't know that more regulations is really going to do these people any more good. I feel like the best way to educate people is to let them learn a few lessons the hard way.
Furthermore, if uber can leverage the ignorance of people in regards to what is involved with being an independent contractor, it means the government is not doing a very good job in enforcing those regulations. I got tricked in my 20's when my employer switched me to being a contractor, and the IRS came after me for back taxes 3 years later.
You really like to take your labels literally. I would suggest maybe trying to think about what is actually going on rather than just accepting labels at face value.
It's not normative vs. descriptive, it's declared vs. actual.
Those 2 dichotomies are not mutually exclusive.
but this is about there being an employer/employee relationship, which is not the same thing.
I don't find the evidence for an employer/employee relationship as cited in the article to be more convincing than the evidence for a contractor relationship. Uber offers jobs to people explicitly as non-employees (and without any of the benefits employees are entitled to), and those people agree to those terms.
I agree that there is an incentive for employers to convert their workforce to contractors rather than employers (i.e. because you don't have to pay benefits), but traditionally employers also had to pay contractors more money to compensate for the lack of benefits, job security, etc. Are uber drivers better off being employees? Those benefits would likely come with a pay decrease, and maybe less flexible schedules.
Internal Revenue considers someone to be a contractor ("entrepreneur") if they are free to set rates, and perform their assignments as they think best.
An uber dirver is free to "set rates" in the sense that they can decide not to drive their car when rates are low. All actual "rates" are an agreement between 2 parties. If either side does not agree on the rates, then the contracted labor doesn't happen.
If a client or an agency sets too many conditions and rules, the tax office may decide that there is in fact an employer-employee relationship. That doesn't make the contractor an actual employee, but it does entitle him for benefits, and also makes him and the employer liable for social security taxes.
I agree that this is true, but it does seem rather arbitrary to me. I am a proponent of the free market, but I do accept that people are often irrational. That said, I think the "solutions" to the problem of the irationality of people are often poorly thought out and often just make things worse.
I like the idea of creating a special class of people (employees) that have a common mechanism in regards to taxes, benefits, etc. It theoretically should reduce paperwork and increase efficiency which is good for everyone, but if companies are trying to avoid this classification, that theoretically should be less work, something is wrong with the system.
You're applying the logic backwards.
That was intentional (although I don't agree that the "backwardedness" makes it incorrect).
(P implies Q) implies (!Q implies !P)
If being an employee implies that you have benefits, then not having benefits implies that you are not an employee.
All I am saying is that the *fact* that they do not receive benefits is different than whether they *ought* to receive benefits (which is what the court seems to be arguing).
This is roughly analogous to so many companies designating IT workers (especially programmers) as "salaried exempt" in order to get around overtime laws. That went on for years until a few high-profile cases (specifically IBM) finally scared employers into obeying the law. Employers - or contract negotiators - don't get to decide these things unilaterally.
I am currently a salaried exempt programmer, and as far as I know our company (which is a defense contractor) is operating within the law. Furthermore, I am quite happy with this arrangement. It focuses my attention on completing tasks rather than on working hours. I have a very flexible work schedule, and do not frequently need to work more than 40 hours per week. If I happen to pull a really long week (e.g. 48+ hours), it is customary to take a day off the following week. I like really like this arrangement as it gets more work done (when it needs to be done by) for basically the same amount of effort.
I don't see how uber could stop you from also having another job.
What's the difference between an employee and a contractor? The contractor doesn't receive any benefits. Since the uber drivers do not receive benefits, they are contractors. This seems like a problem of normative vs. descriptive (is vs. ought) claims. The uber drivers are contractors that don't recieve benefits vs. The uber drivers should receive benefits and therefore be employees.
There are plenty of people with good resumes. Then you bring them in for interviews, and it becomes apparent that they don't know shit. There are not enough skilled workers to meet demand (foreign + domestic).
I didn't realize the totality of what it is to be American could be boiled down to what is contained in that one document.
Who exactly are the prejudiced against? You can't say Indians, as if you read through, they say to hire the lower caste student.
Well to any person with satisfactory reading comprehension abilities who read this post, the answer is obviously "Brahmen (top Indian caste)".
If we are going to be prejudiced, at least do it right and be prejudiced against any related to ITT.
It's not just the corporations getting more money. It also results in lower prices for what is produced.
A temporary worker has no interest in improving their host country.
First of all I don't think you get to speak for all temporary workers, and secondly, many permanent workers have no interest in helping their countries either. Luckily the success of the economy does not depend on the good will of those working within it. Workers with no desire to help the countries they work in (foreign and domestic) will help those countries regardless.
It's sad that we don't consider developing these skills in our own population.
I think just about everyone who has thought about the subject has considered this.
The US is a huge country and probably contains the same number of potential STEM workers that we're "taking" from the rest of the world.
If only someone would simply consider leveraging that potential. /s
It just so happens that we don't really want to invest in Americans. Universities, as a whole, tend to like foreign students who pay full tuition.
Actually it is that universities like the best students they can get. They take the best foreign and domestic students they can.
From kindergarten on, we consider most US students to be a burden unless you choose your parents wisely and are able to go to a private school.
There are plenty of good public schools, even if they are often in affluent school districts.
Yes we do have problems with the public school system in this country, but I disagree with your analysis of those problems.
Collectively, immigrants -both legal and illegal- send tens of billions of dollars back to their respective countries every year, removing that currency from US markets. How again is that a "good deal" for the US economy?
1. We get the services for which we paid them. 2. They do spend a lot of their money here (even if it's not all of it). 3. helping the world economy also helps the US economy.
And when The Intercept published a piece condemning the puritanical glee over the data dump...
It's not puritanical to value honesty. I have plenty of polyamorous friends who have multiple partners, but even in that scenario it is still important to be honest with the people you are intimate with.
Yes it's bad that a few "innocent" people are being caught up in this, but the site is *for* being dishonest with your partner(s).
Uber can claim whatever it wants, but it is each jurisdiction gets to decide on it's own business rules, including what counts as an employee.
All I am advocating for is better laws, and laws which are incapable of dealing with uber are not good laws.
youtube is blocked at my work, so...