Quality is debatable but none of eBay, Amazon, or Etsy enforce prices. Fundamentally choosing prices is what defines markets, trying to set them is the actions of an employer.
As a kid I refereed soccer games. There was a set cost structure for each game depending on age group and whether I was assistant referee or center referee.
There was a system where I could sign up in advance if I wanted the work or not. Uber drivers know exactly what they are getting into and they are free to quit at any time.
I was not an employee of the soccer leagues, I was an independent contractor who was able to work for multiple leagues if I wanted to and who was able to quit at any time.
There is a fundamental role in society for temporary work.
The employer will always set the price in any kind of business relationship. If I hire a contractor to remodel my house for 4 weeks does this mean he is a full time employee of mine and I need to provide him benefits. If he doesn't want the work, he doesn't need to be there.
> I was not an employee of the soccer leagues, I was an independent contractor
Actually you were an employee, just misclassified. If you took them to court you would likely win.
Being able to set your own hours, working part time, working for other employers, quitting at any time - these are all possible in an employee relationship.
Just because they are possible in an employee relationship, setting your own hours is typically not representative of an employee relationship. Doing the same job for multiple customers is typical of an independent contractor relationship. I see no evidence of misclassification where this person was employed by multiple employers. Which of the leagues do you believe was his employer?
Working 2 to 3 part time jobs is extremely common in the US for low level staff and has been for decades. These people say when their available and then get scheduled in.
Of course, but that is not what make them employees, but is actually the part of the criteria for being able to claim independent contractor status. If you work one game for a soccer league, it is highly inefficient to have to create an employment relationship.
My point was having 100 clients is a strong sign that someone is a contractor having 3 is not. It’s also just one of ~20 factors.
Also, length of relationship is judged on how renewable it is not how long it lasted. You can fire anyone on their first day.
It’s really a question of how open ended the work is not how long someone spends doing it. A restaurant always needs people to cook food and a league always needs a referee as an inherent part of it’s business model. On the other hand a company might only need an architect when designing their new office, aka it’s inherently a finite business need. That architect can largely work at a location and time of their choosing, the referee needs to be where and when the games are taking place. Similarly, an Uber driver needs to be picking someone up at a specific location and specific time going somewhere else or waiting 1 hour doesn’t work.
Under current laws you are correct but I think he is trying to highlight the point that maybe the laws shouldn't have this dichotomy and we should recognize there are instances where not being a full employee yet not filling the exact current definition of a contractor should exist
The reason these laws exist is because corporations will use them to reclassify the maximum number of employees possible as contractors, so they can avoid a whole host of legal constraints around employment.
In general, flexibility in classification of workers almost always plays out poorly for the majority of workers.
Yeah, to me a contractor is just someone that does one-offs. All these other things (setting prices, hours, etc) never actually struck me as accurate.
A contractor is someone you hire to perform a particular piece of work. An employee is someone you hire for their skill who is then expected to do many (sometimes varied) pieces of work.
Uber drivers know exactly what they are getting into and they are free to quit at any time.
New Uber drivers don’t know what their pay will be. They can eventually keep a running average to get some idea, but that’s only meaningful as part of an ongoing relationship.
Surge pricing seems like a benefit to the drivers, but as they can’t simply decline endless non surge prices that’s not an individual price negotiation. Essentially, their options are quit the platform or accept the vast majority of whatever is being handed to them.
If you let people set prices some will set absurdly high prices. For good user experience those get filtered out. What gets left is the system that we currently have which is in fact price that is set by drivers—just not explicitly. When there's more drivers in the area, prices drop, when there are few drivers, prices go up. That's how it works and it makes little sense to revise the UI to present nonsensical prices (we'd always pick the lowest price of a certain threshold of driver rating) for the user to choose from in a list just to fit some arbitrary definition of contractor drafted by some dumb politician or lawmaker.
It's not really set by the drivers either, its set by the market. Uber is just a market maker. Prices too high and passengers won't use the service. Prices too low and drivers won't drive. The whole goal of Uber is to find the ideal price to maximize capacity.
I'm not sure but I think amazon enforces some kind of forced price adjustment policy. IIRC they change the prices if their algo detect lower prices somewhere else on the internet or on similar listings. I'll try to find the WSJ article where I've read about this.
Of note the way it’s implemented is actively designed not to be used. Effectively Uber lets those drivers multiply their existing calculation by some number but not for example simply set a minimum charge or actually negotiate individual trips. Further, regularly declining trips is not accepted.
Well they can in California and that’s what matters. Because this law is being contested in California.
I get the design. And of course uber wants to encourage lowering prices. However, the point remains: driver set prices, even if the design makes it less obvious. Eventually, if a driver has a number in mind, the driver flips a button to get that number.
As for negotiate individual trips, I don’t understand the point here. You set the prices for dollars per mile / per minute. The trip price is reflective of what the driver set already.
Not even everyone in California, further it’s US and other countries law ride sharing companies are breaking not just California law.
Why negotiation is important is overhead. Dollars per mile / per minute doesn’t cover time to pick someone up. If someone wants to go 1 miles and it’s going to take you X minutes to pick them up that’s much worse than a trip that’s 10 miles long and takes the same X minutes to pick them up. Uber really doesn’t want drivers to be able to decide such trips or people left for hours end up going to other platforms. However, Uber is pushing these losses to their drivers.
Now, if Uber is pushing people to take such unprofitable trips that’s fine if drivers are employees. But, it clearly breaks the model of drivers as independent contractors with each trip being independent.
PS: in term of breaking the law that’s not an automatic prosecution. Enforcement tends to be extremely lax on such issues.
