
Tech cos, labor advocates, think tanks call for reforms to social safety net - Futurebot
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/12/tech-companies-labor-advocates-and-think-tankers-of-all-stripes-call-for-sweeping-reforms-to-the-social-safety-net/
======
mjevans
If we want all workers to have these benefits, why aren't we doing a 'single
payer' style system where contributing to it is a form of tax dependent on
worker utilization?

~~~
kspaans
Yup, generally speaking in Canada self-employed people still can contribute to
and get health care, (un)employment insurance, and a government-run pension.

------
nugget
Basic income is the only solution in the medium to long term, we might as well
start planning the foundation for it now.

~~~
dsfsdfd
If they can deny climate change, you can bet your bottom dollar they can deny
the necessity of basic income. If only people had a 'be bloody logical for one
God damned moment' switch on the back of their heads...

------
Animats
One way to do this for the "gig economy" is to provide benefits through a
union. That's how Hollywood works.[1][2] Employment is short term, but pension
credits build up with the union.

But most of these new "gig economy" operations are ordinary employers. Few
people, if any, drive for Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and FedEx Ground on different
days. FedEx just lost on this issue.

[1] [https://www.iatsenbf.org/assets/IATSE-Pension-Plan-C-
SPD.pdf](https://www.iatsenbf.org/assets/IATSE-Pension-Plan-C-SPD.pdf) [2]
[http://iatse.net/us-organizing/your-health](http://iatse.net/us-
organizing/your-health)

~~~
mahyarm
But many drive for lyft and uber at the same time. Or 4 different delivery
companies at a time. They have multiple apps open at once, and once they get a
job turn off the other apps until they are ready for their next job.

So if you job dispatch from multiple corporations, work for a random 2-60
hours per week, provide your own car and determine your scheduling, then what
are you?

~~~
makomk
Don't both Lyft and Uber try and discourage you from working for both, as well
as penalizing people who work too few hours a week through their fee schedule,
and completely controlling the prices customers pay drivers?

~~~
mahyarm
I have no idea, I'm just going on my experience from conversations &
observations as a customer. People do definitely use multiple apps.

As far as a controlled price, that is why you want multiple apps, so there is
competition pushing for efficiency.

As a customer it would be far more annoying to use the app if you had to screw
around with a price auction every time you wanted a pickup. If I set a price
too low, I could be waiting a long time for a ride, if I set a price too high
I lose money. The automatic price system makes it far faster.

------
te_chris
Or you know, just do social democracy properly like most of the western world.

------
crdoconnor
The lawsuits are nothing to do with these companies _wanting_ to provide more
benefits and everything about them not classifying their workers as employees
because they _don 't want_ to provide benefits.

This is just Uber et al. wanting to escape legal culpability for their
regulatory arbitrage.

~~~
yummyfajitas
If you read the article, you'll clearly see that they want to provide
something, as long as it doesn't obligate them to provide a huge package. I
assume their reasons for wanting this are to compete for employees.

See, the current regulation is a very odd copenhagen theory of ethics type
mess. It bans providing a small packages of benefits - either provide a big
one or provide nothing.

~~~
crdoconnor
>If you read the article, you'll clearly see that they want to provide
something

I know they said that. I just don't believe it for a second.

They want a new legal designation for their employees that does not require
them to provide any benefits at all. They claim that despite this new-found
freedom from legal culpability they will _definitely_ provide some benefits.
Honest.

But don't _force_ us to provide benefits or anything.

The current status of their drivers as contractors opens them up to an awful
lot of legal risk which they'd like to mitigate, ideally without it costing
them anything other than an easily broken promise.

~~~
yummyfajitas
People irrationally overvalue benefits (relative to money). Plus many benefits
are tax advantaged aUnd they are also easier for big players to provide.

If they were allowed to provide limited benefits without being obligated to
provide full benefits, it would provide a barrier to entry for competitors.
How will Gett (a little guy competing with Uber in Manhattan below 110th only)
find drivers if it can't provide benefits?

Economics >> moral posturing.

~~~
crdoconnor
>People irrationally overvalue benefits

People giving their own opinions irrationally undervalue citations.

>Plus many benefits are tax advantaged aUnd they are also easier for big
players to provide.

I guess that explains why Uber is fighting tooth and nail not to provide any
benefits at all rather than embracing a new competitive advantage. Oh wait.

>If they were allowed to provide limited benefits without being obligated to
provide full benefits, it would provide a barrier to entry for competitors.

As opposed to the regulatory arbitrage they do where their early entrance to
new markets depends upon the vast amount of cash they spend on lobbying and
unchallenged legal loopholes.

>Economics >> moral posturing.

What passes for supposedly objective economics these days is mostly disguised
moral posturing. Some entire schools including Monetarism and Chicago pretty
much only do that which is why they have a horrible prediction record.

Other supposedly objective economic reasoning leads to bizarre conclusions
like the idea that Uber would lobby hard _against_ legal reforms that would
give them a competitive advantage.

