Kinja reply list

Read More
JohannesClimacusHamilton Nolan
12/10/15 2:46pm
First thing we should do is stop burdening private enterpirse with providing health care. That should be the governmnet’s job. The current for-profit insurance and hospital billing system is Orwellian. It is time for a single payer system to take that cost off the plate of private enterprise and stop minting millioaire business school grads in health care. If we do that the resistance to classifying employees as employees will go down significantly. I’m sure greedy pre-IPO companies will still try to screw their employees as best they can, but it would be a start.
Reply
- Read More
  Meanwhile, ElsewhereJohannesClimacus
  12/10/15 2:59pm
  Private industry likes having that carrot to hang over employees heads, though. Do you know how many people I know staying at a job for the healthcare? Most of them.
  Reply
- Read More
  JohannesClimacusMeanwhile, Elsewhere
  12/10/15 3:01pm
  Even more reason to take it off their plate. It would do wonders for the labor market. That is one of the good things about O-care, but it doesn’t go far enough.
  Reply
Read More
ARP2Hamilton Nolan
12/10/15 2:43pm
My concern is that the “independent worker” definition will continue to expand at the expense of regular employees.

“That stockperson at the grocery store? He’s an independent worker, we just offer him windows of time in which he is able to work. He choses to accept those shifts or not via an app.”
Reply
- Read More
  TildavenARP2
  12/10/15 2:47pm
  Suddenly Walmart has no more employees. Only independent workers. Especially since, as above, independent workers do not have to be paid minimum wage. “Penny per can you stock.”
  Reply
- Read More
  ARP2Tildaven
  12/10/15 2:50pm
  Exactly- use an app as an intermediary and you’re set.
  Reply
Read More
ThrumbolioHamilton Nolan
12/10/15 2:48pm
“The object, Messrs. Harris and Krueger say, is to ensure that such companies thrive based on the strengths of their business model, not on ‘regulatory arbitrage,’ that is, their ability to pay less for employees than other firms do.”

Well holy shit - get rid of all the imbalanced bullshit, put everyone on a level playing field, and let businesses succeed or fail based on their effectiveness and public reaction (in the form of patronage) to said effectiveness? Knock me over with a goddamned feather.

Seriously though, I’d love nothing more than to see, say, Lyft base their marketing strategy on “We provide the same service, for a comparable price, and don’t treat our drivers like shit - try us out!” Put the cards on the table, let the public choose, and other companies can either follow suit or try to make it another way.
Reply
- Read More
  ThisismyBurnerThrumbolio
  12/10/15 2:57pm
  that would work in other fields but not in those where peoples safety can be severely compromised. Remember that for every rule there is a reason. Reason for safety regulations? People kept dying. Reason for insurance? People where left in a lurch after an accident in a taxi or hotel who could not cover the expenses. Reason for inspections? People keep trying to cut corners that can kill people.
  Reply
- Read More
  ThrumbolioThisismyBurner
  12/10/15 3:05pm
  Oh, I get it. I’m saying (or trying to) that once you subject (in this case) ride sharing services to the same or similar regulations (and/or revisit and update existing regulations for both taxis and ride shares), there’s an even playing field (more or less). At that point, it becomes a matter of which service the public chooses to use, which is influenced by all the usual considerations (effectiveness, cost, overall experience, etc.).
  Reply
Read More
Wayward ApologyHamilton Nolan
12/10/15 2:48pm
One thing that I have been grappling with is the idea that UberX drivers see as a “job”. I am sure there are many that do see it as a job and are being taken advantage of but also through my experience as a person that has taken UberX many, many times and knows people that drive for UberX many, many of them are not hurting for money in the least bit but see it as a good reason to get out of the house, talk to new people and hey, making a little extra cash doesn’t hurt either. Retiree in a Porsche Cayenne Turbo, financially successful white collar friend, students just trying to make a little bit of drinking money, there is a significant portion of their drivers that are absolutely not being taken advantage of and if they thought they were they would quit in a heartbeat.
Reply
- Read More
  911DucktailWayward Apology
  12/10/15 3:01pm
  I doubt you have an answer for this - but since you mentioned you had friends who drive for uberX - has uber or their insurance ever commented on what would happen if they got into an accident while driving an UberX passenger? I know in my insurance we technically arent even allowed to let junior deliver pizzas under our insurance because its a commercial venture
  Reply
- Read More
  Wayward Apology911Ducktail
  12/10/15 3:05pm
  I’ve never asked nor do I particularly care but he works in the finance industry and drives a new Infiniti Q70 so I doubt he is doing something completely reckless.
  Reply
Read More
BobbySeriousHamilton Nolan
12/10/15 2:44pm
I was in staffing for years. There are literally thousands of companies designating millions of workers as “contractors” illegally. Not nefariously in most cases, they just don’t understand the labor laws. And they have no idea of the massive lawsuit that awaits them once someone figures it out and sues. And I’m talking major corporations here, not small mom and pop shops.

As for this new “designation”, just another step in the long journey of stripping away worker rights & benefits.
Reply
- Read More
  BrianGriffinBobbySerious
  12/10/15 3:35pm
  In all seriousness, report it to the IRS or TIGTA. There's a big focus on employment tax audits and these businesses can end up owing big.
  Reply
- Read More
  blameitonthecroutons goodbye tourBobbySerious
  12/10/15 3:50pm
  If they are major corporations that means that they have lawyers which means that they have access to knowing about those laws and complying. Perhaps not ‘nefarious’ as much as using the perception of goodwill as an advantage.
  Reply
Read More
Person29Hamilton Nolan
12/10/15 2:39pm
No, we do not need a new class of worker. All employees, as the article points out, are guaranteed certain things like minimum wage and workers compensation for on-the-job injuries. If we deny these, then the taxpayers wind up paying for these things.

52% of fast food workers are on government assistance, because their wages are too low to eat properly or care for children despite working full time. People who can’t afford health insurance due to low income use Medicaid. Both times, us taxpayers are paying for these. So my cheaper-than-a-licensed-taxi Uber ride still charges me in ways I don’t notice, and charges a lot more for it overall.
Reply
- Read More
  burps25Person29
  12/10/15 3:03pm
  This is very true for minimum wage jobs, both full and part time, but things get complicated when it’s applied to Uber. Min wage workers are clearly employed and the expectation is that it is a primary income source, and it should be enough to make ends meet. Uber wasn’t really setup with sole-source income in mind.
  Reply
- Read More
  SoapBoxcarWilliePerson29
  12/11/15 2:03pm
  Yes, all of these protections are important, and would likely be built into the new worker classification—if we’re not going to build them into the new classification, then there’s really no reason for the new classification at all (independent contractor status works perfectly fine for giving workers the shaft). The problem is that Uber drivers and other members of the gig economy really don’t fit neatly into either of the 2 categories that currently exist. Many Uber drivers (especially those that work in smaller towns across the country) enjoy being able to drive part time and make a little bit of extra money on Fridays and Saturdays, while also helping people get home from the bars safely (it’s been major for the small town I grew up in). Others drive full time, but don’t drive exclusively for Uber—if they’re employees they’ll have to pick one service and work for it, whenever it tells them to work. A new class of worker could actually enhance the relationship between companies and their workers (in addition to whatever legislative gains there are), because companies might be able to be more generous without risking their workers status as independent contractors.
  
  I’m actually curious how Uber drivers fare financially when compared with taxi drivers in the same city. I know that Uber is an easy target because it’s one large company, but the taxi industry is full of many unscrupulous players, often with connections to organized crime. Uber takes a pretty hefty cut of its drivers fares (20%) while making the driver provide their own car, pay for gas, maintenance, etc, but don’t taxi drivers often bear these same costs? A taxi driver either owns or rents their car (and owns or rents the medallion), and has to pay for gas, any repairs, etc. I’m not sure if there’s also a % of revenue taken out by the taxi company, although I’m sure there’s a fee for credit card processing, which the taxi driver has no power to negotiate.
  
  Fast food workers are a different issue entirely, solely related to the federal government’s inability/unwillingness to raise the federal minimum wage by a meaningful amount, as well as certain states’/cities’ inability/unwillingness to do the same. There should be room in fast food businesses margins to raise the employees’ wages, but that’s not necessarily true for all businesses. Some industries are experiencing record-low margins, and a rise in the minimum wage without the ability to pass on some of the costs to customers would result in some of these businesses closing and/or jobs being lost (as these businesses look for technological solutions that can replace people—like self-checkout at many stores and supermarkets). Maybe these industries are oversaturated, and in the long run it will be better for the businesses and employees that remain, but there will be some industries that experience job losses if wages go up to “living wage” levels.
  Reply
Read More
amgarreHamilton Nolan
12/10/15 2:44pm
I do see more people nowadays doing gigs. Even people with full-time work. So I think it would be useful to have a category for it, especially if that category does something to lower your self-employment taxes. I just don’t see how people who do gigs should have to pay same tax as real independent contractors who have actual contracts and somewhat stable income. I did gigs for six months when I was laid off. I would have been better off not working at all when tax time came around.
Reply
- Read More
  Twitching And Salivatingamgarre
  12/10/15 3:16pm
  I did gigs for six months when I was laid off. I would have been better off not working at all when tax time came around.
  
  How could this possibly be true? You’d have been better off making no money, than making money and paying taxes on it?
  Reply
- Read More
  amgarreTwitching And Salivating
  12/10/15 3:31pm
  Because my income was so low that year and they had taken taxes out based on my full-year income for the part of the year that I worked, I would have gotten a refund larger than what I made gigging if I hadn’t gigged at all.
  
  ETA: That’s just based on my TurboTax calculations, which admittedly could have been wrong. The upshot is I ended up owing taxes instead of getting a refund. It was a mess.
  Reply
Read More
Sir Winston Thriller, the Gray manHamilton Nolan
12/10/15 2:42pm
How about Serf?
Reply
- Read More
  Johnny ChundersSir Winston Thriller, the Gray man
  12/10/15 2:51pm
  I like it! It’s got a retro hominess to it.
  Reply
Read More
Meanwhile, ElsewhereHamilton Nolan
12/10/15 3:04pm
Citizen and employee are terms outdated from reality, there are really just corporate charters, consumers, and wage slaves.

Maybe the solution corporate-personhood is... personal-corporatehood, where you are only taxed on what is left as profit after the cost of living, are not liable for anything you do while making money and, most importantly, the national profit margin can’t be said to be increasing without bringing all working people along with it. Et cetera for a long list of perks.

Every person would be their own business, in the full definition of the term, and not just when it is convienent to a corporate charters profit margin.
Reply
- Read More
  ARP2Meanwhile, Elsewhere
  12/10/15 3:16pm
  - Then I can blame my accounts payable system for not paying bills on time, not submitting appropriate documentation to justify the bill, which I can reject for minor technical errors.
  - I can violate the law as long as I have a policy in place that says I should follow it.
  Reply
- Read More
  VanNostrandMeanwhile, Elsewhere
  12/10/15 4:02pm
  This is a good idea, especially combined with single payer health. The insanely wealthy will end up paying a much higher rate because of how much “profit” they have left over.
  
  The real question of ethics and morals is weather a corporation with personhood and a person with corporatehood will then be able to marry(merge). Dystopian sci-fi writers, eat your heart out.
  Reply
Read More
ad infinitumHamilton Nolan
12/10/15 4:26pm
Can I brag for a minute? I got a job this week! A full-time job, with full (and excellent!) benefits, after being a contractor for the last few years and unemployed for the last six months. And, amazingly, making about what I did as a contractor—I was sure I’d have to take a pay cut to get benefits, and quite possibly a significant one. But no! Great job! Great company! Great salary! Great benefits!

GODAWFUL fucking commute, so I’m going to keep having painfully long days for awhile (my poor dogs miss me!), but I’ll just have to move closer once we get through El Niño.

Hooray for gainful employment!
Reply
- Read More
  benjaminalloverad infinitum
  12/10/15 4:51pm
  Great news! Well deserved.
  Reply