
Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says - MBCook
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/business/economy/nlrb-uber-drivers-contractors.html
======
dcosson
It’s sad that the idea of people being able to get by and live a comfortable
life without the benefits from a full time job is so far outside the Overton
window that it’s not even mentioned in these conversations.

That seems like such an obviously better outcome for everyone - what if we got
rid of healthcare benefits and other types of favorable tax treatment that are
tied to full time employment so that everyone is in the same boat? Then all
contractors, including Uber and Lyft drivers could keep the freedom and
flexibility of being contractors (which anecdotally, I have talked to a lot of
drivers who really like this aspect of it), but also not struggle as much to
get by?

(Universal healthcare is one path towards this world but not necessarily the
only one, I think even the current healthcare system we have would work a lot
better if premiums weren’t paid pre-tax by employers and people had actual
choice and paid for their care with real money).

~~~
TheRealDunkirk
1\. Deregulate the health insurance market so you can sell across state lines.
2\. Employers start giving their employees the money they pay on their behalf.
3\. People shop for the health insurance they want/need.

In a year, every other advertisement on TV would be for health insurance, like
it is with car insurance now.

~~~
timoth3y
> 1\. Deregulate the health insurance market so you can sell across state
> lines.

I've always found this suggestion a bit disingenuous.

First, there is no federal law that bans insurance from being sold across
state lines. What they really mean (but can't say because it is not
politically appealing) is "Don't allow states to regulate insurance sold in
their state."

State boards regulate insurance. They seem to do it well. No insurance
companies failed during the 2009 financial crisis and the ones that came close
(looking at you AIG) did so because of their activities and investments that
fell outside of the state regulations.

Not allowing states to regulate insurance would reduce costs, but not for the
reason you think. The cost of getting a product approved in a given market is
predictable and a very small part of the cost of doing business.

By taking this right away from the individual states, we could see a race to
the bottom where all insurance companies would incorporate in whatever state
offered the lowest reserve requirements and loosest oversight. This would
decrease the cost of policies and increase the profitability of the insurance
companies.

It would be great until there was a hard year and the insurance companies
would have the be bailed out by the taxpayers.

State regulation of insurance companies is a great thing. The states keep each
other in line and they keep the industry solvent.

Edit: BTW, auto insurance is also regulated on the state-level.

~~~
roenxi
I don't live in America, but having strong opinions is fun so I'll wade in
anyway :D

The things you are talking about are regulatory standards. I've not seen
anyone really suggesting that regulatory standards are a problem in the
Americas (on the contrary, everything I've read suggests if you have in
insurance the whole process can be pretty comfortable).

gp's post is, in my eyes, clearly going towards the point that people should
be choosing their own insurers, rather than their employers choosing insurers
(on employees behalf). It seems like common sense to me that an individual
will be better at choosing a healthcare provider than their employer.

The idea that healthcare benefits are a factor to consider when choosing an
employer is bizarre. The only reason to link the two is because Americans
enjoy being different. And strangely anti-individual-choice in this instance.
That dynamic is an obvious perversion of the market to deregulate.

~~~
wpietri
> It seems like common sense to me that an individual will be better at
> choosing a healthcare provider than their employer.

I have picked insurance as an individual and as an employer, and that is 100%
wrong.

Any kind of insurance is difficult to shop for, because it's for something
you'll only really need if you're unlucky; that means it's hard to tell
whether the choice you make is a good one. Health insurance is worse, because
it's an extremely complicated product.

A company, on the other hand, gets to amortize the cost of figuring out the
right options across all of the employees, meaning they can do a better job.
They will often have a professional doing it, which helps more. They also get
to gather statistical data on how well the insurance performs. And they have
have much more negotiating power than individuals.

One way to think of it is that markets work best when you have actors a) of
approximately equal power, b) making frequent choices, c) where the products
can be easily evaluated, and d) where experience with the product happens
quickly, so that the feedback loops are short. Health insurance is exactly
none of those things. Markets are tools, not magic wands.

> but having strong opinions is fun so I'll wade in anyway :D

Note that this is literally a life or death question for people in the US. You
might think it's fun/funny. Having watched both my parents deal with cancer,
that comes across poorly to me.

> The only reason to link the two is because Americans enjoy being different.

No. The American system grew up as it did for particular local reasons, not
just a random desire to be contrary on some imagined global stage. It was in
retrospect an obviously bad choice given that we spend way more than others
while getting worse results. But it made sense at the time.

~~~
roenxi
> Health insurance is worse, because it's an extremely complicated product.

Get sick, go to hospital, insurer covers. There is a shortlist of things the
insurer won't cover. You pay the insurer each month.

Insurance isn't complicated. It is a complicated by bad regulation that mean
insurers aren't trying to sell to individuals.

> A company, on the other hand, gets to amortize the cost of figuring out the
> right options...

That sounds like a pretty decent argument until the implications are examined.
An identical argument could be made for:

* Food

* Housing

* Schooling

* Entertainment

The truth is that the amortization of figuring out what people want is best
done _by the insurer_ , and then people just buy whatever their friends have.
Like everything else.

> You might think it's fun/funny.

I think it is funny that I'm commenting on a system more than an ocean away,
I'm not laughing at sick people. That would be a bit weird.

> No. The American system grew up as it did for particular local reasons...

The reasons are, in hindsight, stupid. They should switch to using a system
that makes sense. Either the capitalist way or the socialist way. The crazy
hybrid that is used in practice is crazy.

Just because there is a stupid system in place today is not a reason to stick
to it, and everyone agrees with that idea.

~~~
wpietri
> Get sick, go to hospital, insurer covers. There is a shortlist of things the
> insurer won't cover. You pay the insurer each month.

It is extraordinarily clear that you've never had to do this. And apparently
never had to deal with a serious illness in your family. Which is great for
you, but please understand that's not the case for others.

> An identical argument could be made for [...]

No, not at all. The only one of those that might meet the four factors I
describe is schooling, which is also a highly fraught choice, but it's still
not as bad on dimensions B, C, and D. Individual educational needs are also
less varied and more predictable than medical care needs. And for choosing
education, society puts extensive effort into helping people make those
choices well: school rankings, guidance counselors, oceans of books and
articles, school accreditation, etc, etc. Until the ACA, there was basically
no assistance for picking an individual care plan. ACA marketplaces help a
bit, but it's still an extremely difficult choice.

------
inkaudio
Uber drivers are fighting the wrong fight in this case. They should focus on
fighting for a minimum wage that accounts for expenses. Uber's edge is not
their technology, their edge is the ability to burn billion dollars a quarter
subsidizing rides. Uber is masking customer demand and this sort of behavior
is anticompetitive and should not be allowed in an industry as critical as
transportation.

Case in point, when Uber/Lyft was forced to pay their drivers a minimum wage
that accounted for expenses, Uber and Lyft stopped accepting new drivers in
New York City. They were force to act according to true supply and demand.

Link: [https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/29/18522885/uber-lyft-not-
ac...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/29/18522885/uber-lyft-not-accepting-
new-drivers-nyc-rules-supply-demand)

~~~
ralusek
What do you mean "true" supply and demand? What was happening before was true
supply and demand. They offered a rate, people were capable of consenting to
the terms while accounting for expenses, and they did. Then an intermediary
stepped between the consenting transactors and told them that they could no
longer accept those terms, and now those transactions can no longer transpire,
regardless of whether or not both parties would like to engage. How is that
true supply and demand?

~~~
romwell
>They offered a rate, people were capable of consenting to the terms while
accounting for expenses

See, on party here has a lot more data on said expenses, and all the
incentives in the world to be misleading about them.

The existing demand was not "true" under the reasonable assumption that nobody
wants to work for less than minimum wage after expenses.

~~~
kgc
There are definitely people who are willing to work below minimum wage. It's
actually quantifiable if you look at the workforce reduction after minimum
wage hikes in locales.

~~~
romwell
>It's actually quantifiable if you look at the workforce reduction after
minimum wage hikes in locales.

People definitely _are_ willing to work below minimum wage; that's exactly
_why_ we _need_ minimum wage!

------
manigandham
People seem to forget that "professional driver" is an actual job available
for close to a century now if you really wanted a full-time position. Uber
already works with FTE drivers at higher tiers like Lux and Black.

All of the drivers I've asked over 1000's of rides have said they prefer the
freedom and flexibility to work on their own time. Yes they want more money,
but not at the cost of the flexibility. They already have day jobs, or are
students, retirees, business owners, etc, and are making extra income with an
opportunity that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Perhaps the tiny handful of people who are suing to become employees should
just go out and become employees instead of trying to change the rules for
everyone else.

~~~
michaelt

      All of the drivers I've asked
      over 1000's of rides
    

I have had the same experience (with far fewer rides) but I'm sceptical about
how reliable it is given the driver is incentivised to give me an enjoyable
ride. Same as a waiter who hates his job will make more in tips by putting on
a smile.

~~~
manigandham
The almost always have a day job or some other obligation. The only ones that
could even do it full time would be the retirees but they specifically don’t
want to.

There’s also the economics of oversupply. It’s easy low skill flex work so
there will be a lot of competition.

------
Kaotique
Uber represents the new kind of company where all the risk is pushed to the
employee, while all the profits are pulled to the company. Making all your
employees supposedly outside contractors facilitates a race to the bottom
between these contractors.

Same with food delivery companies. The drivers have to provide and maintain
the vehicle, organize their own health care, pension and insurance. Some
companies even disallow them to work for different companies, which is a
direct violation of the contractor dynamic. Recently a Dutch judge ruled that
these food delivery contractors were not actual free agents but bound to their
one supplier of rides. The judged ruling was that this is not correct as they
lacked the freedom to work for other companies.

I find it very disappointing that companies like Uber and Airbnb managed to
create these amazing platforms but have such disrespect for the wellbeing of
their workers or how they affect communities in the world.

~~~
creaghpatr
It's the same with industries like film in the US, only difference is the
hourly rate gets to be pretty high after a few years of work and presumed
advancement.

~~~
maxxxxx
In film you have a chance to be a real freelancer. You have a track record and
you can jump between different productions. You can work your way up. An Uber
driver has none of this. He will always stay a driver, never move up, have no
reputation to increase market worth. It’s a total dead end.

------
whack
Relying on corporations to help the lower middle class, is an outdated idea.
Corporations are expressly designed to create value at the lowest possible
cost, which necessarily means minimizing labor expenses. Relying on
corporations to achieve universal healthcare and a living wage, is expressly
going against what they were designed for.

There is a far better way to help the lower middle class: through the
government. Raise taxes on the rich, raise the capital gains tax rate, and use
the revenue to subsidize college tuition, to provide universal healthcare, and
to supplement the earned income tax credit.

Let corporations do what they do best: provide services at the lowest possible
cost. And start demanding that our government do what it's supposed to do:
ensure that the wealth generated by corporations is adequately shared by all.

~~~
newshorts
agreed. Ordoliberalism is really the only fungible path to ensuring most
people in a society get a fair shake.

~~~
stochastic_monk
The social market economy has been very successful, but your use of “fungible”
doesn’t seem to make sense, unless this is satire.

------
derekp7
I wonder if a simple change to Uber's app would fix all this -- let drivers
set their own rates, and customers could pick from a number of drivers nearby
based on how close they are, and what rate they charge. And/or let customers
put out a bid for the rate they want to pay, then any driver can accept that
bid and get the fare.

That way drivers could be more legally considered contractors (they set their
own rates), and none would feel underpaid (after all they get paid the rates
they set).

~~~
uber-employee
FYI, Sidecar did this in 2013 - you could set your own price, both as a rider
and driver. Then, when you request a ride, it would be more like market-
making, with you getting matched with the driver whose price is closest to
your requested price, but under it. I personally tried using this many times -
it was a poor experience for riders. I can imagine it wasn't very pleasant for
drivers either.

The theoretical ideal price for a ridesharing trip changes in realtime and
depends on many different factors like how many drivers are nearby, how many
other riders are nearby, each driver's willingness to drive to your
destination, etc. Letting riders and drivers set their own prices would make
the market significantly less efficient, and would make both the experience
for both sides of the marketplace quite miserable, especially during events
like demand spikes. There is literally a several hundred-strong organization
at Uber (Marketplace) whose single focus is to make a maximally efficient
marketplace. It's honestly kind of dismissive to suggest something like this,
and to call it "a simple change".

Disclaimer: the above is not meant to be a representation of how Uber pricing
works, just my own theoretical musing

~~~
TeMPOraL
Honestly, even trying to achieve the "theoretical ideal price" based on supply
and demand is already screwing up with the market. Regular people are not like
HFT algorithms, with infinite pools of money available and ability to turn
opportunity cost into profit. Having a stable and predictable price is
important when deciding whether or not order a taxi/rideshare at all.

(At least, that's my experience. I wonder what your data has to say on it.)

As a customer, I'd be happiest if taxi companies charged a rate per-km, that's
calculated off their consumables + car amortization + some reasonable profit
margin. I think drivers may be happier too - recent personal experience with
myTaxi shows this. They offered a promotion in which the passenger would pay a
fixed cost known immediately in the app, but which calculations changed every
day or so. Some days, it would become a good deal for the drivers; other days,
the drivers would be working at a loss. I had a lot of problems getting a ride
when using this promotion, and chatting with the drivers revealed that they
instinctively ignore those requests, as from their POV the profits are
unreliable.

------
toomanybeersies
Here in Australia, most drivers seem to be using several other apps (Didi,
Ola, etc) at the same time as Uber. So in that sense, they are a contractor in
my eyes.

~~~
wvenable
They also, obviously, set their own hours and choose at any time to work or
not work.

~~~
sgustard
Per [https://legal.uncc.edu/legal-topics/contracts/contract-
check...](https://legal.uncc.edu/legal-topics/contracts/contract-
checklist/independent-contractor-rules-thumb)

"If the worker is not integrated into the institution's operations and the
right of control is not obviously apparent (no training, no work hours, no
reports), you are reasonably safe as long as the relationship is short-term
and the independent contractor has other customers."

I would say "integrated into the institution's operations" is the very
definition of Uber drivers. (What is Uber except for a network of drivers?)
And as far as "right of control": here's an app that tells you exactly where
to go, who to pick up, what route to follow, how much to collect. Many drivers
are not "short-term" nor have other "customers."

~~~
esoterica
By your logic craigslist sellers are employees of craigslist. What is
craigslist but a network of buyers and sellers?

~~~
kscz
Craigslist sellers decide on the price, how to exchange goods and money, etc.
Uber and Lyft are not free marketplaces where drivers can offer a ride for a
price they believe to be fair for their services - the platform owners decide
the prices and the drivers are forced to accept that rate in order to get
rides.

~~~
delinka
But the drivers have the option to use another platform to get rides; they're
not forced to stay on Uber only. They may also choose their own hours, Uber
does not dictate when they must turn their apps on.

~~~
kscz
Well there's two important things to address there, and they're both a bit
long-winded, but bear with me.

First, despite all the discussions of Uber's/Lyft's full-time drivers, there
are some proportion of drivers who are just people looking to make an extra
buck on their ride home from the airport and whatnot. These drivers really
don't expect/require a lot of money, and are just padding their income driving
somewhere they were already going. I had a friend with a six-figure income who
would do Uber rides in San Diego just because it was an easy way to cover gas
occasionally. This is important because it changes the market for taxi drivers
- suddenly a regular and lucrative set of rides (to and from airports) have
clientele who expect much cheaper rides - even if the cost those clients
expect to pay can't support an individual working full time at that rate. But
even if full-time drivers attempt to avoid the platform, the market has
substantially changed - they can no longer get the same price for their rides.
Now, this may just be a market correction, but let's look at the second
factor...

Uber and Lyft and burning VC money to power their operation - Uber lost ~$1.1
billion dollars in Q1 2019 [0], and Lyft lost ~$1.14 billion in Q1 2019 [1].
These sorts of numbers tell us that Uber and Lyft are generating demand for an
artificially low price for a service, which all but guarantees that the market
for sustainably-priced taxi rides will be destroyed. Why would a customer
purchase a ~$20 taxi fee when a VC-subsidised ~$10 ride exists?

The contention that Taxi drivers can "just not use Uber/Lyft" is pitting the
depth of the pockets of taxi drivers against the pockets of Uber/Lyft's
backers - it's not a reasonable expectation that taxi drivers can afford to
wait out venture-capital subsidizing an unsustainable business model which
destroys their livelihood in the meantime. According to the Federal Reserve in
2016, 46% of Americans reported that they would be unable to cover a $400
expense if some emergency came up [2]. I don't think we can look at Uber and
say "Taxi drivers could choose not to use it" \- it's looking at the choice to
use the platform in absence of the context of venture capital and the support
which exists for low-skilled workers against predatory employment practices.

[0] [https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-
earnings-q1-2019-losses...](https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-
earnings-q1-2019-losses-at-least-1-billion-2019-4)

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/07/lyft-
lost-1-14b-in-q1-2019...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/07/lyft-
lost-1-14b-in-q1-2019-on-776m-in-revenue/)

[2]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/25/the-s...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/25/the-
shocking-number-of-americans-who-cant-cover-a-400-expense/)

------
sgustard
I am forced to treat the people who cut my lawn and clean my house as
employees, according to tax law, for funding unemployment insurance among
other things.

But Uber's labor force, without which literally the company wouldn't exist,
are not eligible for the same benefits. The logical next step is that the
company has no liability for anything that happens to you in one of their
cars.

~~~
prepend
You treat your lawn care person and maid as employees? I guess if they are
full time. My lawn care is completely contractor based- they provide tools,
they set schedule, they don’t have a uniform set by me. They are exactly
contractors. Same with my maid.

If I for some reason had an estate that required employee Lawncare this would
be different and I would hire someone.

There’s a definition from the IRS in the US for employee and contractor that’s
not exactly black and white but has many tests for who is an employee vs
contractor.

~~~
brianwawok
Many people do not follow this, but

[https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-
employe...](https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-
employed/hiring-household-employees)

> You have a household employee if you hired someone to do household work and
> that worker is your employee. The worker is your employee if you can control
> not only what work is done, but how it is done. If the worker is your
> employee, it does not matter whether the work is full time or part time or
> that you hired the worker through an agency or from a list provided by an
> agency or association. It also does not matter whether you pay the worker on
> an hourly, daily, or weekly basis, or by the job.

> Household work is work done in or around your home by the following people.

> Babysitters Caretakers Cleaning people Domestic workers Drivers Health aides
> Housekeepers Maids Nannies Private nurses Yard workers

~~~
bm1362
From that link:

> You made an agreement with John Peters to care for your lawn. John runs a
> lawn care business and offers his services to the general public. He
> provides his own tools and supplies, and he hires and pays any helpers he
> needs. Neither John nor his helpers are your household employees.

In this comparison, a driver partner offers their services to multiple
marketplaces, provides his own supplies, etc.

~~~
vadym909
I don't think most people understand this principle. The deal you strike means
nothing, There are laws that dictate who is an employee

"Household work is work done in or around your home by the following people.

Babysitters Caretakers Cleaning people Domestic workers Drivers Health aides
Housekeepers Maids Nannies Private nurses Yard workers"

~~~
DuskStar
> The worker is your employee if you can control not only what work is done,
> but how it is done.

It's not just that they're doing household work, but also that they're doing
it in a manner you direct. An Uber driver isn't getting me from point A to B
in a manner Uber directs, or at least not always - otherwise I wouldn't see
nearly as many drivers using Google Maps/Waze instead of Uber's navigation.

------
dnautics
Having been an Uber /Lyft driver I can't even fathom what it would mean for a
driver to be an employee with expenses paid. Is the driver driving a gas
guzzling F250 entitled to a higher reimbursement for cost of driving than me
driving a Honda insight?

~~~
delinka
If I owned the company, I'd rather buy vehicles (with which I can reasonably
control costs) and provide the vehicle to the driver employee.

My second option, as owner, is to offer a fixed reimbursement - per mile, per
minute, whatever the economics dictate.

I'm not, as owner, going to invite 'come one, come all' with their random
expenses and offer to reimburse them all.

------
paulddraper
Important:

> The memo released on Tuesday, which was dated April 16, has no long-term
> value as a precedent and can be reversed by a future general counsel. Its
> immediate consequence is to render moot three formal accusations, filed in
> different parts of the country, that Uber had violated federal labor law.
> The memo instructs the board’s regional offices to dismiss the charges if
> the people who made them do not withdraw them first.

~~~
threezero
I’m guessing (hoping, really) that Peter Robb is out at the NLRB in two years
and someone far less right-wing replaces him. The biggest issue is that the
NLRB hasn’t been pro-worker in a long time.

------
xivzgrev
Taxi drivers have usually been considered independent contractors - what is
different with Uber? I’m assuming it’s because Uber exercises more control
over their income thru price adjustments (which taxi drivers aren’t subject
to).

I think Uber drivers should be organizing for that kind of protection eg some
accountability when Uber wants to drop rev share or fares.

------
jackschultz
The thing that always bugs me with these arguments is that people don't seem
to bring up the idea of creating a new legal class for these types of workers.
Arguing whether those workers fit contractors or employees isn't great to read
about because frankly, they fit in neither.

From Uber/Lyft drivers, to Door Dash delivery workers, to any other sort of up
and coming on demand work which I'm sure keep coming and evolving, I believe
creating a new legal class would be well worth the effort rather than arguing
about where they fit in the current system.

This type of solution isn't easy. With all the arguments about if the drivers
are contractors or employees, creating a new class of workers will easily be
just as difficult; instead of legal fees for the law interpretation, it'd be
legal fees for law creation.

~~~
SilasX
Agreed, but I would say that the whole employment/social insurance system is
due for a big "refactoring". We have this hodge-podge of sorta-overlapping
requirements based on long-obsolete and assumptions and models about how the
labor force works that's we're expecting to meet some desiderata that it also
incentivizes against.

We've already lost the game when we're counting angels on a pin to decide
whether you're "really" an employee so your employer can be forced to provide
insurance or pay into unemployment. But these things shouldn't be coupled at
all. Everyone, regardless of how they get income, should pay into an employer-
decoupled fund that can pay out for unemployment or health insurance. That
frees up admin costs from employers and cleans up labor markets to compete
over things that are actually relevant.

Contractor vs employee distinctions should only matter for liability, not for
taxes or benefits.

------
village-idiot
I do think it’s probably correct that Uber drivers aren’t employees, setting
their own schedule is a huge differentiator in the labor market. But I think
that we might need a new classification (and labor protections) for people who
are classified as contractors but fulfill such a large percentage of a
company’s actual work on a permanent basis. The season temp and the Uber
driver that’s mission critical to Uber’s daily functioning are just different
from a labor perspective, and should be given different protections and
leverage.

------
coding123
So do we need a middle type of worker at this point?

~~~
jppope
^^This is an incredibly important argument. Many Companies would love a middle
road, as well as employees. The funniest part is that most "good" companies
already operate on a performance basis. It should be considered

------
dalbasal
I'm not american, so I could be missing some nuance, but in general uber, lyft
and other gig-businesses have created a new type of labour. A court or a board
is going to approach this by analogy. Is this more similar to "contractors,"
day labourers, piecemeal arrangements, full time employees..

These gigs don't really fall into a pre-existing categories, or shouldn't. The
dynamic is totally different. The issues are different and the whole thing
merits its own fraework at this point.

It's not difficult to define "gigs" by their features (just like the features
used to test the "contractor" definition).

------
billions
W2 tax rate is the WORST in the country because regulations make it costly for
both, employee and employer. At least as a contractor you can write things off
fairly.

------
thierryzoller
Contrary to nearly every other jurisdiction in the world. Fun times.

------
specialist
Why aren't Uber drivers considered franchisees?

------
CaptainZapp
Not in Switzerland. They're not.

At least not according to a 3 week old judgement by the Lausanne labor court,
which ordered Uber to pay a driver for the legally mandated notice period
after deactivating him.

------
JulianMorrison
And this is why you need unions. Join the IWW.

------
C1sc0cat
Id look at what the IRS says as well

------
Fnoord
(In the USA.)

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
One of the symptoms of our current political paralysis is the over-reliance on
executive agencies to set policy instead of Congress debating and passing
laws. Instead of trying to get net neutrality through law, we depend on the
FCC trying to shoe-horn ISP into an old law designed for phone companies.
Instead of explicitly talking about what protections people who sign up for
the "gig" economy should get, we try to shoe-horn them into either employees
or contractors when in reality they are in a gray zone and we don't have the
political will to conduct a debate on what we should do.

The downside is instead of having an open debate about the pros/cons and
having a law with some staying power, the situation changes depending on the
whims of whoever is President and who they appoint to various administrative
positions.

~~~
ajross
I'm sorry, what? The "over-reliance on executive agencies to set policy" is
just shorthand for "congress can't pass these laws".

But that's not because some passive voice nonsense about "political
paralysis", it's because _these are partisan issues_. One party _doesn 't want
these laws to pass, and won't vote for them_.

It's not a passive structural problem. There are good guys and bad guys here.
If you actually care, it's time to take a stand.

~~~
glitchc
Take a stand against who? The politicians are empowered by regular Americans
who support them. Your neighbors and friends.

