I thought the whole draw of driving for Uber was that it was a casual thing that you could just do as desired here and there. Locking into an employee/employer contract with benefits would presumably eliminate this.
Or do they think that they'll be able to get benefits while still only driving if and when they feel like it?
Link?
here you go: wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/07/uber-lyft-drivers-to-go-on-strike-over-low-wages-and-benefits.htmlLink? wrote:
Link?
Two options:
1. Drivers get better jobs with better pay and benefits.
Or.
2. Negotiate for better pay and benefits.
Also, from that article it seems it is mostly in big cities are drivers protesting. In my experience, most of the drivers I've dealt with are retired who are just doing it to pass the time. Can't afford to live in a big city, don't live in one.
A favorite pastime of poor people is to take jobs that were never meant to be full time work that could support a family, and then act outraged that their job is not full time work that can support a family.
I was going to join their protest but don't have a ride!!
I've been offered less money/worse benefits than I was willing to work for before. I didn't protest or make a scene. I just said "no thank you" and took a different job. Most other people do the same. Not sure why this relatively simple process has to be turned into a public spectacle with mass participation.
I'm currently working as a GrubHub driver, and my experience has given me a few insights into the toll this type of work takes on the driver, as well as the functioning of these industries as a whole. Companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and GrubHub treat their drivers as contractors even though the drivers alone provide the actual services offered. This helps them shirk any requirements to provide benefits to the drivers.
As of yet, these companies have not been able to prove sustained profitability (with the exception of a few quarters here and there), but they must also try to understand the risks and costs incurred by their drivers, such as 1. car depreciation, 2. general driving risk, 3. parking issues (often requiring payment or ticket risk), 4. gas money (those that do account for distance traveled do not come close to making the driver whole on this), and, for Uber and Lyft, 5. the exposure to sundry ill-mannered individuals. On the whole, it remains to be seen whether services like Uber or GrubHub will be able to produce positive net incomes while treating their 'contractors' in a fair and humane manner.
@doctorgrubhub
The gig economy sucks and just takes advantage of people at their most vulnerable points. Why can't we all just agree as a society that if someone is willing to work, they should be paid a living wage? Why do we find this so hard to accept?
DoctorGrubHub wrote:
I'm currently working as a GrubHub driver, and my experience has given me a few insights into the toll this type of work takes on the driver, as well as the functioning of these industries as a whole. Companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and GrubHub treat their drivers as contractors even though the drivers alone provide the actual services offered. This helps them shirk any requirements to provide benefits to the drivers.
As of yet, these companies have not been able to prove sustained profitability (with the exception of a few quarters here and there), but they must also try to understand the risks and costs incurred by their drivers, such as 1. car depreciation, 2. general driving risk, 3. parking issues (often requiring payment or ticket risk), 4. gas money (those that do account for distance traveled do not come close to making the driver whole on this), and, for Uber and Lyft, 5. the exposure to sundry ill-mannered individuals. On the whole, it remains to be seen whether services like Uber or GrubHub will be able to produce positive net incomes while treating their 'contractors' in a fair and humane manner.
@doctorgrubhub
You are a contractor. This isn't some false claim they are making or some kind of technicality. You just are.
And if they weren't paying enough, people wouldn't be willing to do it. If the benefits didn't outweigh the costs you list, there simply would be no Uber drivers.
That might be the ONLY day these companies make a profit!!!!!!!!
Gig schmig wrote:
The gig economy sucks and just takes advantage of people at their most vulnerable points. Why can't we all just agree as a society that if someone is willing to work, they should be paid a living wage? Why do we find this so hard to accept?
Because unfair! That wasn't how it worked out for me, I had to go find a better job. Waaaaa!
Bad Wigins wrote:
Gig schmig wrote:
The gig economy sucks and just takes advantage of people at their most vulnerable points. Why can't we all just agree as a society that if someone is willing to work, they should be paid a living wage? Why do we find this so hard to accept?
Because unfair! That wasn't how it worked out for me, I had to go find a better job. Waaaaa!
The gig economy hurts everyone.
Lower wages for the same amount of work leads to poor quality product - look at Boeing in SC.
Leads to less consumer spending - bad for all sorts of businesses.
It also leads to lower saving rates, and generally less investment in their future - in buying home, in their children's education, etc.
The money that accumulates at the top in the form of unearned income doesn't circulate to the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker the same way as if you paid that money to someone who worked for a living.
Gig schmig wrote:
The gig economy sucks and just takes advantage of people at their most vulnerable points. Why can't we all just agree as a society that if someone is willing to work, they should be paid a living wage? Why do we find this so hard to accept?
I find that hard to accept for several reasons. First is that we will probably never agree on what value is a living wage. Next, some jobs are not worth a living wage. Maybe a better way of saying this is that some jobs are worth significantly less. Mandating a living wage for them will cause cause a combination of things including 1. inflation which would raise the number required for a living wage., 2. automation which would eliminate the job (or reduce hours. If those things dod not happen then no one would want other living wage jobs that pay the same but are easier work. Another reason I find a mandated loving wage hard to accept is that I believe in freedom. This includes the freedom for an employer and employee to negotiate the wage.
I'll agree to a living wage when you agree hat an employee must contribute to the employer's bottom line that is 25% more than a living wage (need to cover employer taxes, insurance, overhead etc).
This idea if fraught with problems. The worst thing that could happen to you is to threaten to not show up to your voluntary job and everyone just shrugs and goes.. "OK" and just goes on about their day.
That's not a very effective strike.
The whole idea of Uber is to run a taxi service but duck all regulation by not calling it a taxi service. It’s traditional “shirk all responsibility” capitalism.
Not that simple wrote:
Gig schmig wrote:
The gig economy sucks and just takes advantage of people at their most vulnerable points. Why can't we all just agree as a society that if someone is willing to work, they should be paid a living wage? Why do we find this so hard to accept?
I find that hard to accept for several reasons. First is that we will probably never agree on what value is a living wage. Next, some jobs are not worth a living wage. Maybe a better way of saying this is that some jobs are worth significantly less. Mandating a living wage for them will cause cause a combination of things including 1. inflation which would raise the number required for a living wage., 2. automation which would eliminate the job (or reduce hours. If those things dod not happen then no one would want other living wage jobs that pay the same but are easier work. Another reason I find a mandated loving wage hard to accept is that I believe in freedom. This includes the freedom for an employer and employee to negotiate the wage.
I'll agree to a living wage when you agree hat an employee must contribute to the employer's bottom line that is 25% more than a living wage (need to cover employer taxes, insurance, overhead etc).
First, I think there are many necessary positions in businesses which do not generate $ value but which are necessary. The most basic example - taking out the trash, cleaning toilets.
But, I'll agree to your arbitrary argument if you agree that no single human being deserves a wage of more than 20 times someone else's wage within the same economy. So if you pay an individual $10/hr, the contributions of those above them are worth at the most $200/hr.
The point I'm trying to make is that you can't arbitrarily say people are worthless simply because you want more of the economic pie, which is what it boils down to after removing all of the superfluous (and invalid) arguments that simply because someone is the head of the organization they should get nearly all of the capital. The route run to its end becomes legalized slavery or feudalism or "insert economic policy here" that extracts all of the capital from the workers those at the top. I'm not advocating socialism though. I'm just advocating for some semblance of fairness to those willing to work instead of demonizing lower level workers.
sconehead wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
Because unfair! That wasn't how it worked out for me, I had to go find a better job. Waaaaa!
The gig economy hurts everyone.
Lower wages for the same amount of work leads to poor quality product - look at Boeing in SC.
Leads to less consumer spending - bad for all sorts of businesses.
It also leads to lower saving rates, and generally less investment in their future - in buying home, in their children's education, etc.
The money that accumulates at the top in the form of unearned income doesn't circulate to the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker the same way as if you paid that money to someone who worked for a living.
I disagree, how do lower wages for the same amount of work lead to poor quality product? Uber/Lyft's transportation service is a far superior product to a traditional taxi. I would call those efficiency gains that provide a better product for the consumer. There used to be high wages for a lot of ditch diggers, until a bull dozer was invented that could 10x the work at 1/10 the price (and labor).
An independent contractor strike is an antitrust violation. See FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers.
800 dude wrote:
An independent contractor strike is an antitrust violation. See FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers.
That is a boycott case. FTC has no jurisdiction over labor organizing.
Uber and all these different "side hack" jobs are supposed to be ways to supplement income, but they end up being full time jobs for people. Uber gets all the benefits of having these people drive full time but they shirk all the burdens by labeling the drivers as "independent contractors". And Uber's business model is to destroy the taxi business by undercutting their rates. That is why Uber doesn't make any profits When the taxi drivers are all gone, Uber will raise rates and lower pay for drivers to become profitable.