SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CNET, Business Insider, techcrunch and many others report on Hillary's beef with "on-demand/gig economy". Specifically:
"Many Americans are making extra money renting out a small room, designing websites, selling products they design themselves at home, or even driving their own car," Clinton said during a speech at the New School in New York City. "This on-demand, or so-called 'gig economy,' is creating exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation. But it's also raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future."
"Fair pay and fair scheduling, paid family leave and earned sick days, child care are essential to our competitiveness and growth," the former secretary of state said, referring to benefits not accorded to independent contractors such as drivers at Uber.
Meanwhile, others are quick to point that her "main super PAC decisively favored Uber over conventional cabs by a 25:1 margin" (doh, she didn't say Uber is bad, only that it is evil toward its empl... err... contractors) and Rand Paul tweets: "America shouldn't take advice on the sharing economy from someone who has been driven around in a limo for 30 years." (yeah, Dr Paul, zillions of male gynecologists were never pregnant, of course they know nothing about giving birth).
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday July 15 2015, @01:35AM
I'm no Hillary fan, but she has a good point here. This kind of employment really isn't good for the employee, not at this wage level. Way too many people are paid these days as "private contractors", even though their relationship with the employer is clearly an employer-employee relationship as defined by the IRS. Unfortunately, the IRS doesn't seem to investigate or penalize employers who abuse this at all (I've filed an SS-8 before and nothing ever happened).
Uber is a great idea, and the taxi industry really does need an overhaul like that, but employees need better treatment than this. This doesn't mean that companies like Uber should only employ people as 40-hour full-timers, having flexibility really is good for a lot of people, so maybe our employment laws need a big overhaul so that there isn't this big line between "part time" and "full time" at 40 hours.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:20AM
I was an Invisible Girlfriend for a month [fusion.net]
What I regard as most problematic is that they are required to be upbeat. All the girls I'm with slash their wrists.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:35PM
Filter error: Kuro5hin's modus receives 5 mod points every night just after midnight
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:41AM
> Uber is a great idea, and the taxi industry really does need an overhaul like that, but employees need better treatment than this.
Uber is half a great idea - the part about taking down the status quo has accreted to benefit the ownership class at the expense of drivers and riders. But the problematic half lies in the misleading term "sharing economy." This ain't no fucking sharing economy, this is Uber becoming a defacto monopoly in a position to extract maximum money from drivers and riders. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
A scheme worthy of the term "sharing economy" would not have Uber sitting right in the middle of everything, tithing every transaction. Instead Uber would be one of many service providers selling services like payment processing, driver and rider authentication/ratings, market matching, etc to everybody.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @08:36PM
I'm no Uber fan, but I think you seriously misunderstand the term "monopoly"
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:39AM
Um, Uber is one of many service providers. Have you forgotten about their competitors Lyft and Sidecar, among others?
Also, I fail to see how being a poorly-paid cab driver for a regular cab company is so much better than being a poorly-paid driver for Uber and Lyft. And if they're paid so poorly, why is it every time I've taken an Uber ride, it's been in some car quite a bit more expensive than my own, while every time I've taken a cab ride, it's been in some old piece of shit that I'm amazed still runs? Considering that with Uber, the driver owns the car, it looks like they aren't being paid too poorly.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:33AM
While the IRS should prosecute Microsoft, Apple and friends it doesn't. I expect there's some reason for that but can only speculate.
However anyone who is considered a contractor by their employer may sue in civil court; recently a California resident sued Uber and won.
So what you can do is driver for Uber for a day or so then file a complaint. While the California ruling is not binding precedent it does provide persuasive argument, also the discovery and deposition has mostly already been done.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:35AM
I'm not talking about MS, Apple, etc. hiring contractors. That's a different kind of contractor, really: it's an employee who usually works through a 3rd-party agency, and both sides sign an employment contract for 3, 6, 12 months etc. Short of the employee doing something really really bad, the company can't fire them in that time (without paying the full salary through the end of the contract term). It has its drawbacks for sure, but it's not that bad.
What I'm talking about is people (not software developers) who work for small companies, and instead of being paid as W-2 employees, are paid as 1099 contractors because it's cheaper for the employer since they don't pay your FICA taxes like they're supposed to, and other taxes associated with full-time employees. The practice is rampant in many industries (dominated by small companies). The IRS even supposedly looks for this and will penalize employers, but I've never seen any evidence of this. You can file a SS-8 form if you think your employer classified you wrongly; basically the criteria are things like if you were contracted to do a job (like fix a plumbing leak or install an HVAC unit), or if you were treated like an employee (come here every day, follow the employer's orders, report to a boss, collect a paycheck for $/hour). If it's the latter, you're supposed to be an employee, not a contractor.