

The Uber Economy Requires a New Category of Worker - okuyiga
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/07/uber-economy-requires-a-new-category-of-worker.html

======
modeless
Regular cab drivers are usually classified as independent contractors too. I
didn't see a bunch of people lobbying for them to be employees before Uber
came on the scene. I also don't see the people who are mad at Uber caring
about regular cab drivers (e.g. this article doesn't mention that issue at all
and neither do the comments here). This makes me cynically think that the
source of all this recent noise about the issue is hardball political tactics
from Uber's powerful and connected opponents.

More generally I see a broad media campaign smearing Silicon Valley; spinning
a narrative of tech companies as an out-of-touch new elite bent on oppressing
the poor and middle class (e.g. the Google bus kerfuffle). That narrative
seems popular even in tech circles these days. Perhaps it's an inevitable
consequence of success.

~~~
bkor
> This makes me cynically think that the source of all this recent noise about
> the issue is hardball political tactics

Above attitude is pretty poor. There are many reasons why Uber(Pop) is not
acceptable from a European perspective. In various countries in Europe the
attitude is more about employees and social security. E.g. if I read the
article I just arguments for customers and companies. But who is going to pay
taxes? Who is protecting the employees?

With UberPop Uber actively tries to either break laws or skirt them. E.g.
they're contractors, but they won't work with the government to ensure that
the employees/contractors pay their taxes. Social security requires taxes to
be paid. Ensuring that this happens requires cooperation and cross checks.

Airbnb is similar. Assume it is not their responsibility.

Such attitudes totally conflict. I work in an international company, following
local laws is standard business practice. It's not a "OMG difficult". If it is
too difficult, do it anyway.

In most articles I see Uber described as a "ride-sharing" company, while it is
a taxi company. IMO there's a heavy pro Uber bias including the usual
assumptions that the taxi situation is the same all over the world.

~~~
pgeorgi
In Europe it's not just the social security angle.

There are laws and there's a US company ignoring these laws, with more money
than is good for them (much larger and powerful than "Uber's powerful and
connected opponents" that the GP spoke of). That matches every stereotype of
US companies that try to force the American Way onto Europe.

I can't think of many ways to make it easier for the media to produce a
scandal (which is how they make their money).

And to some degree it looks plausible: Uber is larger than most of the
incumbents (I'm pretty sure that they're larger than any of the existing taxi
companies in Germany). They're handed injunctions against the way they operate
all the time. They don't seem to care to work within the legal framework
(There might have been options in Germany - but they require some amount of
good will by elected officials, something that probably dried up by now), but
simply want to destroy it.

------
deegles
I don't see anyone besides Uber winning in the Uber economy. It's right in the
name. Forcing Uber and other ride-sharing companies to classify their
resources as employees will only give them further incentive to automate. Once
that happens (5 years, 10 max) it will be a moot point how a driver would be
classified.

Very few people wake up in the morning and say "Gee, I'm so excited to drive
for Uber today! I don't need the extra money, I just _love_ it!" The sharing
economy is only possible because of income inequality. Granted, ride-sharing
is letting a tiny drip of income back into the driver's wallets, but it's
temporary.

~~~
omonra
What % of jobs do you think people would do even if they didn't need the
money?

~~~
collyw
I spoke with an old friend from university recently.

Apparently his younger brother (also at university with us in the late 90's)
struck it lucky with a company he helped start up, and is now rich enough that
he doesn't need to work. He is planning on consulting part time, as he wants
something to fill his days (other than just kayaking - we all met through the
university kayak club).

~~~
omonra
Sure - I know a guy who retired from trading in mid 40s and is now a math
teacher because he likes that. But if our society relied on people working
because they chose to (as opposed to needed to) we probably wouldn't have one.

That's one thought experiment I conduct - imagine we find out that a comet is
going to approach Earth in 6 months. My main problem is us having to deal with
6 months of chaos (since nobody will be working) rather than instant
annihilation.

------
littletimmy
Is this a joke?

We do not need a new category of worker just because a few corporations decide
that they do not want to provide their workers with benefits. The benefits
that come with the employee designation are the _bare minimum_. A company that
cannot afford to provide those to employees should not exist.

~~~
natrius
Imagine that we could eliminate Uber and connect drivers directly to riders
with the same experience as Uber's app. Nothing has changed about the nature
of the driver's work, but there's no entity to be an employer in the first
place.

Employee benefits for this kind of work just won't exist. Technology is making
it easier for people to provide services for a wide pool of individuals
without needing a company to employ them. The companies make an easy target
for this sort of complaint today, but they are middlemen that will be
eliminated by decentralized systems.

~~~
littletimmy
I've been thinking along those same lines. Is Uber the corporation in any way
essential to Uber the service?

I have a feeling this can be done via a worker's coop. But someone will need
to take the initiative to start.

~~~
tracker1
There's also the overhead, but a $x fee/year for each driver/user (as part of
the first ride fee) would probably cover that pretty easily...

------
wanderer2323
The downside of "the employee designation" for the business is having to pay
the employee (the overtime, the insurance, etc). The downside for the employee
is ... "far less workplace flexibility". Yeah, those things are totally equal.
Tell you what: if it is important for a company to tap the segment of
workforce that values "workplace flexibility", it can provide that flexibility
on top of the benefits. Offer them less in terms of the salary if you have to
and see if anyone bites. ("But I already don't plan to pay them more than
minimum wage" Tough luck)

------
Animats
From the article: _" But it would ameliorate one of the worst problems with
the 1099 economy without fundamentally quashing the business model, namely pay
that works out to less than the minimum wage."_

The entire purpose of labor law is to quash that "business model".

 _Unions. The people who brought you the weekend._

~~~
hkmurakami
There's one area where hourly wages are way below minimum wages in a country
you wouldn't expect: Animators in Japan. It's not uncommon for them to make
~$2/hour because they're paid "per sheet" that they draw.

(I think minimum wages are 800 yen per hour, or roughly $6.50)

~~~
deciplex
Seeing that makes me wince. It was not long ago that you would have instead
typed "or roughly $10". I'm not sure to what extent that's affected minimum-
wage workers in Japan though, if at all.

------
noja
The more I learn about Uber, the less I want an Uber Economy.

~~~
dylanjermiah
Talk to the actual drivers, not the press.

~~~
uptown
This is a good read from a driver's perspective:

[http://citypaper.net/uberdriver/](http://citypaper.net/uberdriver/)

------
lsc
the problem is that the "independent contractor" category, as most of us know
it, doesn't really exist. Nearly all "independent contractor" jobs, in the
eyes of the IRS, are actually employee jobs, if you get audited.

Now, employers still want to treat employees like independent contractors,
right? So what does this mean?

As a computer nerd, this means that if I work as an independent contractor for
a company with a legal department, I have to go through a body shop, a company
that takes 30-50% off the top, and then wants to hire me as a W2, of course,
but without benefits. Which is a pain in the ass, because that means the
benefits I buy for myself need to come out of post-tax money.

(Now, if you find an especially shady body shop, they will often let you go
"corp-to-corp" \- usually they tell you that they will be telling the client
that you are a W2, as that provides better protection to the client. But you
can find some honest body shops that will let you go corp to corp, especially
if you can demonstrate insurance and revenue for your company that isn't you.)

Of course, labor laws are there to protect the low end, and driving is one of
the most dangerous jobs that you can get in a modern economy, so I certainly
agree that uber drivers need some sort of "workers comp" like disability
insurance, just because their job is so dangerous.

I'm just pointing out that telling companies that they can't hire contractors
directly doesn't always end up working out better for the employees.

------
jacquesm
I'm of two minds about all this.

From a European perspective Uber, AirBNB and so on are a setback.

But in _some_ (not all) cities taxi services are ridiculously expensive.

Some regulation of this industry is good, if Uber (and AirBNB for that matter)
are willing to get their drivers/vehicles on the same footing as the
competition and if they ensure that their contractors are not going to skip
out on paying taxes and background checks then I'm fine with it.

The thing that bugs me is that the way both these entities position themselves
they essentially leave others to hold the bag while they rid to riches and
that's an issue. The new middle men are in that sense not better or worse than
the old middle men, they're just different people.

------
dimitar
Aren't Uber drivers basically franchise operator or franchisees?

------
higherpurpose
Is that category a robot?

------
acd
Another pets.com I do not understand what is so revolutionary about Uber
especially in countries which as good Taxi companies. For me Uber is a hyped
glorified black taxi.

$50 billion valuation for a taxi company common!

~~~
fineman
Yeah, the valuation is all in the trademark. "New Economy". There's nothing
preventing Uber2 from taking over (except a big ugly pink mustache.)

But the customer service of Uber/etc is night and day different than Taxis.
There's no question the takeover will happen.

Taxi drivers and taxi companies seem to see medallions as a license to cheat
and steal. Good riddance.

