The Gig Economy

[Benton]

(05-09-2019, 08:19 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As I stated previously, they should find other sources of employment.  Let the free market play itself out.  If you take the ride share companies at their word, they never intended for drivers to be attempting to make a full-time living from the app.  With that in mind, those drivers could simply just focus on their day jobs, and continue to look for another side hustle..

In my experience, never take big companies at their word. They're generally lying in the name of profit. And who knows if those drivers have day jobs. I've met many Lyft drivers (I stopped using Uber as the drivers were all pretty unhappy) who were doing only that. For many folks, the days of just working a day job are over. That's the pro-corporate climate we're in.

I do agree on the free market issue, though. Those guys should seek other jobs. I do, however, think they might have some kind of class action case if what they say is true. If I contract with you to pay me X dollars for Y work, and you later pay me X-W dollars for Y work based off some nonsensical reason, I'd be pretty %$#*ing ^$#%ed.

[Au165]

(05-09-2019, 08:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I see that nobody is getting the real thing here, not even you.  (and I consider you one of the brightest folk on here)

The real issue is a matter of supply and demand.  When Uber and the like were in need of drivers, it paid well.  Now, that too many people are doing it, the pay goes downs.  When objects, commodities, skills, etc. are in demand, the pay is always higher.  When a particular market is flooded with people all equally capable of doing the same exact thing, their value goes down.  It's the same with any job sector.

Good point. If Uber must treat them as employees they will eliminate a large amount of the drivers. They allowed everyone to join when they were contractors because Uber's cost to on board was minimal. This meant they weren't very selective and demanded very little in terms of production from each individual. If they must carry them as employees then they will have to remove a large portion to offset the expenses, especially in the over saturated markets. They will start demanding certain production standards and most likely scheduled hours as well. 

These people protesting ironically enough may be protesting their way out of a job. I actually believe Uber when they say they never planned for these people to be full time drivers because they were never trying to get into being a Taxi company. The idea like a lot of similar ideas in different markets at the time was build a platform to connect suppliers with demand. If you read early articles the idea was "Hey I am heading this direction, let's see if anyone around me is too and I can get paid to go where I was going anyways". Now obviously business models and ideas change, but that was the gist of the starting concept.

As for being mad at what they are paid per trip, in their agreement the rate is set by Uber. Similar to most people your employer can choose to change your pay at anytime for future payments. Similar to any employee you can choose to quit if you do not like the rate you will be paid going forward. They can't change the pay for services already rendered, but simply changing the pay scale is nothing unique to Uber/Lyft.

[CKwi88]

(05-09-2019, 11:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: driving or riding? 

Both. Although I was referring to driving. There is a fascinating ecosystem within Uber, Lfyt and a bunch of other gig economy apps like Instacart. Not 3 weeks ago at a party I was offered $500/month to make an account and "rent" it to someone who didn't have all the necessary information to make an account. Happens all the time. The apps don't care because they're probably getting someone who works more hours and doesn't care and/or understand the motives for strikes like these. And if the person doesn't pay taxes on their earnings it's not the app that  would get in trouble. 

[Dill]

(05-09-2019, 09:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I understand the point you're making, and will reflect back to my own example, once again.  Prior to the last "big recession", I had a semi-successful career as a self-employed contractor in the skilled trades.  I did quality work, I climbed up the ladder of shops to subcontract from, and was pretty much near the top.  I worked in Beach Houses, people's retirement palaces on Golf Courses, did store renovation work for good name brands.  When the recession hit, it was like someone pulled the plug on a light.  I toughed it out for a few years, hoping the work would come back.

Along the way, I blew every dollar I had stashed away, had to cancel health insurance, allow student loans to go back into delinquency, was falling behind on simple truck and house payments.  All that, just hoping that the work would come back, the way it used to be.  Finally, my father sat me down and told me it was time to think about doing something different.  He said "You've already got a degree that you don't use (Mass Comm), why don't you think about going back and studying something that gives you a better skill set?  Being 40 at the time, this seemed most daunting, the idea of going back to school at 40 sounded more like a joke than a solution.  But, I took a couple weeks and started checking out options.  I eventually settled upon Land Surveying Technology, as the nature of the profession appealed to me, and the folks I asked around the community told me that Surveyors had work, even in tough times.

Along the way to getting where I am currently, the work from my previous profession started to come back.  However, I noticed a stark difference.  The work that I used to do for "X" amount of dollars per square foot, was now cut in half.  When I took a look around, I quickly saw why.  The Latino crews had taken all of the work, at a much lower price, just to secure the work.  They would flood a job with bodies, and get it done in half the time, and move onto the next one.  I don't dog them for that, they work hard.  But, the motto of construction is still;  Cheap, fast, good.  Pick any two..  I took pride in high quality work, and could not compete with lower cost, "speed crews", so I am glad that I chose to learn a skill that less people are capable of doing.

I guess the moral of my story is that even though I was studying a new profession, my old work did come back.  I took a look around and saw how flooded the market was, and decided to stay the new course.  Perhaps those ride share drivers should consider doing something similar?

Yow Sunset! I admire your character. Also, this may be the best description of how the "Gig Economy" works from the bottom up that I have seen so far.

But here you are not describing some natural adjustment of markets to supply and demand. You are describing a recession which followed two decades of (engineered) financial deregulation, and was no more "necessary" than the Iraq War.  You are describing how quality work done for a quality wage devolved to shoddy work done for a shoddy wage--how the same amount of labor still went into building the same size house while the pay for that labor (and probably the quality of the house) went down. If that house was sold for the same price or more on the market, then the "savings" from lowered wages flowed upward, to the big corps and banks and their stockholders--while you used up your own hard earned and thriftily preserved resources to retrain.

The resulting wage gap is not accidental, and will  only grow ever wider until enough people realize that it is not "Latino crews" who preside over the gig economy, though they may seem the face of it at ground level.

If you went back to college at a public institution, maybe you noticed tuition costs had doubled between 1985-2008, while many classes were being taught by part-time professors (in some places by administrators who would certainly use "Latino crews" if they could get away with it). If you were listening to the news back then, you heard something of contracting scandals in the Middle East; hundreds of millions of dollars disappeared into the black hole of private contracting, appropriations justified before Congress on grounds that "big government" would be inefficient at rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. (Give me a moment. Just had a flashback of grimy, dangerous FOBs in Afghanistan where Pakistanis locked into two-year contracts earned 200 bucks a month doing my laundry, and of 24 laptops, $2,000 bucks a piece, which sat on a row of tables in tent for 6 months without ever being used or even turned on, before they were sent back to the US, and of KBR employees, many who had never fired a weapon or were not allowed to carry one, but promised an incredible 50,000 dollars a year to "guard" an Army base full of combat vets in Qatar.)

I could offer more examples of this process from the health care field, but its early in the morning (for me) and I am going back to bed.

Once last comment though. Retraining, of which many are no longer capable, is not a national solution. Voters need to stop blaming other workers for trying to maintain/regain control of their labor and start looking at who really runs the economy, and how. They need to pay attention when the people who think money is free speech want you to ban Muslims, build a wall, outlaw abortion--and cut their taxes.

PS my last last comment.  Was just watching season 4 of Orange is the New Black last night, dramatizing what follows when a private corporation takes over management of a state prison for women. Anybody here watch that series? Remember what happens when they cut the professional guards to half time and start hiring untrained part-timers, start buying prison food already prepped (and cheaper), then bring in bunk beds to double the head count in the same living space and covert an allocation for a GED education program to "on the job training" in a "life skills" program--which turns out to be construction labor for a new dorm to pack even more bodies onto the prison ground at $30,000 a head, labor which the corporation doesn't have to pay for since it is categorized as "Education"?  Lol one of the guards becomes an Lyft driver to make ends meet.

[GMDino]

I guess we're back to the "just move and get another job" argument rather than looking at how labor is being treated in this country.

Good times....good times.

[Au165]

(05-10-2019, 09:30 AM)GMDino Wrote: I guess we're back to the "just move and get another job" argument rather than looking at how labor is being treated in this country.

Good times....good times.

In this case they are being treated exactly as they were told they would be treated when they signed up. There were no promises of being employees. They in their minds have turned their business agreement into something they were never told it was. They took it to court and the courts agreed it never constituted employment. If they don't like the business model they signed up to be a part of then yes, they should move on.

This idea that businesses should change their whole structure to fit workers preferred employment method makes no sense. They are what they agreed to be and if they don't want to be it then they should leave. That is not some evil concept that is free choice and we all have it. If I was hired as a commissioned salesman and decided one day I don't want to be commissioned anymore I just want a salary, should the entire business change it's model and pay me a salary just because I want it to? How should I proceed?

The funny thing is if they really want to drive we are DESPERATELY in need of truck drivers in this country, so much so that companies will pay the total cost of getting licensed yet no one wants to do it. I believe the reason no one wants to do it is because the hours are long and the work is tedious but it pays a really good living wage. 

[Dill]

(05-10-2019, 09:30 AM)GMDino Wrote: I guess we're back to the "just move and get another job" argument rather than looking at how labor is being treated in this country.

Good times....good times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5_wCsDf_Hs

[GMDino]

(05-10-2019, 09:51 AM)Au165 Wrote: In this case they are being treated exactly as they were told they would be treated when they signed up. There were no promises of being employees. They in their minds have turned their business agreement into something they were never told it was. They took it to court and the courts agreed it never constituted employment. If they don't like the business model they signed up to be a part of then yes, they should move on.

This idea that businesses should change their whole structure to fit workers preferred employment method makes no sense. They are what they agreed to be and if they don't want to be it then they should leave. That is not some evil concept that is free choice and we all have it. If I was hired as a commissioned salesman and decided one day I don't want to be commissioned anymore I just want a salary, should the entire business change it's model and pay me a salary just because I want it to? How should I proceed?

The funny thing is if they really want to drive we are DESPERATELY in need of truck drivers in this country, so much so that companies will pay the total cost of getting licensed yet no one wants to do it. I believe the reason no one wants to do it is because the hours are long and the work is tedious but it pays a really good living wage. 

If they signed a contract then they are indeed bound to those terms.

I was more referring to the general labor than this specific case.

Of course if years after signing the contract they are still being paid the same while the company is making billions of dollars maybe they have a case that their work is contributing to the bottom line and perhaps a few crumbs could fall (trickle?)their way to keep them doing that?  

I don't even have a contract.  My job duties are not defined...only my pay.  I am fortunate to work at a place that (over time) learned to value my worth.  Others are not so lucky.

And currently "business" has swung the pendulum to "screw the employee, we'll find another just like you" as evidenced by payrolls not rising at a rate that would match up with the incredibly low unemployment.  (Many people are working two jobs too.)

But I agree about the truck drivers too.  And even with that many places are simply not paying enough based on the need.  A lot of them promise a good rate but make the work such that it doesn't work out that way.  We're looking for drivers all the time...but based on the pay schedule vs the hours and travel they can't attract good candidates.  Same with our shop. 

[Dill]

(05-10-2019, 09:51 AM)Au165 Wrote: In this case they are being treated exactly as they were told they would be treated when they signed up. There were no promises of being employees. They in their minds have turned their business agreement into something they were never told it was. They took it to court and the courts agreed it never constituted employment. If they don't like the business model they signed up to be a part of then yes, they should move on.

This idea that businesses should change their whole structure to fit workers preferred employment method makes no sense. They are what they agreed to be and if they don't want to be it then they should leave. That is not some evil concept that is free choice and we all have it. If I was hired as a commissioned salesman and decided one day I don't want to be commissioned anymore I just want a salary, should the entire business change it's model and pay me a salary just because I want it to? How should I proceed?

The funny thing is if they really want to drive we are DESPERATELY in need of truck drivers in this country, so much so that companies will pay the total cost of getting licensed yet no one wants to do it. I believe the reason no one wants to do it is because the hours are long and the work is tedious but it pays a really good living wage. 

It used to.

This argument has a long history, going back to early 19th century Britain when Parliament told coal companies to give children an hour lunch break and offer some reading instruction.  Then they passed laws forbidding women and children to work longer than 11 hours in the mines. Don't get me started on unions.

Do your really own your own business if government can tell you how to run it?

[Au165]

(05-10-2019, 10:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: Of course if years after signing the contract they are still being paid the same while the company is making billions of dollars maybe they have a case that their work is contributing to the bottom line and perhaps a few crumbs could fall (trickle?)their way to keep them doing that?  

I don't even have a contract.  My job duties are not defined...only my pay.  I am fortunate to work at a place that (over time) learned to value my worth.  Others are not so lucky.

Sure, everyone's work is contributing to the bottom line and you are paid for that upfront. No one is hired with the expectation that their work will result in a net gain of nothing, or a loss. You are hired with the expectation that you will add to profits. If the company loses money, are you okay with companies clawing back wages? If you believe you should get paid more when a company does well then it would make since you should be paid less if the company fails right? They have these positions they are called commission positions, or even piece work if we are talking manufacturing. 

I come from a belief that you have to risk something to get something. If you don't want to work a commissioned job (there are plenty available) then you have risked nothing to be rewarded for better returns. If you don't want to move to an area that values your skills more, then you have accepted that you are willing to be paid the going rate. If you won't go to school or learn a skill valued more than your current skill set then you are okay with the earning power your skill set receives. There are always opportunities to improve your situation, but if you don't take them it is not the worlds job to change for you.

In the rare cases that none of that applies to a person for whatever reason, then we have assistance programs to help them live life. I agree we can do more in terms of assistance programs, but I am a big believer you can still improve your own situation if your willing to risk/sacrifice something. I think career counseling is one of the things that should be made most available to people who do want to improve their lives.

[Au165]

(05-10-2019, 10:11 AM)Dill Wrote: It used to.

This argument has a long history, going back to early 19th century Britain when Parliament told coal companies to give children an hour lunch break and offer some reading instruction.  Then they passed laws forbidding women and children to work longer than 11 hours in the mines. Don't get me started on unions.

Do your really own your own business if government can tell you how to run it?

Do you own your house if the government can tell you how to build it (Building codes) or live in it (blighted property ordinances)? Do you own your own car if the government can tell you how to drive it (Driving laws)? If we head down this road then no one owns anything, which may be true but I like to think that isn't really the case.

In my mind safe working conditions are a right, preferred working conditions are not. 

[*michaelsean*]

(05-10-2019, 09:30 AM)GMDino Wrote: I guess we're back to the "just move and get another job" argument rather than looking at how labor is being treated in this country.

Good times....good times.

Yeah but these drivers aren't labor.  They basically own a small business.  This is not set up as a full time job where you can make say $50,000 after expenses.  Not without busting your ass.  And you have to be driving the weekends and holidays at 2am so you can get in on the surges.  So your're up until probably 4:00am and you can't go out drinking with your friends of course.   This job is perfect for supplementing income, not full time.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2019, 11:06 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah but these drivers aren't labor.  They basically own a small business.  This is not set up as a full time job where you can make say $50,000 after expenses.  Not without busting your ass.  And you have to be driving the weekends and holidays at 2am so you can get in on the surges.  So your're up until probably 4:00am and you can't go out drinking with your friends of course.   This job is perfect for supplementing income, not full time.

Then they can renegotiate what they are paid to supply their labors, right?

Or they can quit.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-10-2019, 12:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: Then they can renegotiate what they are paid to supply their labors, right?

Or they can quit.

Absolutely.  I don't have a problem with them "striking".  It's like a contractor not accepting work.    

[Au165]

(05-10-2019, 12:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: Then they can renegotiate what they are paid to supply their labors, right?

Or they can quit.

Sure, and the company can choose not to renegotiate the deal. This is how most companies work. I can ask for a raise, it doesn't mean I'll get a raise. If I'm denied a raise my choice of continuing to work without it is mine alone. 

[Dill]

(05-10-2019, 10:36 AM)Au165 Wrote: Do you own your house if the government can tell you how to build it (Building codes) or live in it (blighted property ordinances)? Do you own your own car if the government can tell you how to drive it (Driving laws)? If we head down this road then no one owns anything, which may be true but I like to think that isn't really the case.

In my mind safe working conditions are a right, preferred working conditions are not. 

I think I only "own" anything because I live in a society which can create regulations to record and protect what I own as property as "property." Otherwise I just "have" stuff. From this perspective building codes are a condition of ownership, as labor regulations and rights are conditions for owning a business.

When people first argued against child labor and for safety, no one considered safe working conditions a "right."

And a one-hour lunch break looked like a "preferred working condition" in 1800, as did the demand to keep children from working below ground. (There were other children ready to go down in the mine if the ones you had were not ready to stick to their agreement.)

I do think that idea "businesses should never have to change their whole structure" certainly can be an evil concept in circumstances when "free choice" really means "no alternative." In 1800, that was the kind of choice children with poor or no parents had. 

Fast forward to the present, and "freedom" of any choice still depends on a range of economic conditions around workers. It is how we assess those conditions that determines whether labor demands can be "rights" or dismissed as "preferences." If you are on board with building codes and driving laws, then you can surely understand that those codes and laws must keep up with new technology and other conditions.  Same for how we understand labor relations--e.g., in the present discussion of Ueber, where labor is regulated by software, and the savings created destroy others livelihoods and opportunities.

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2019, 09:51 AM)Au165 Wrote: In this case they are being treated exactly as they were told they would be treated when they signed up.

No they aren't.  Their pay was cut.

[fredtoast]

Here is what it all boils down to.

The business owners have all the power. Their only motive is profit so they will exploit labor as much as possible to make the highest profits.

The individual worker has ZERO power. He could leave and go to another job, but at that job the owners will have all the power also. The only way for workers to have any power to protect themselves from exploitation is if the organize and work together.

That is the free market at work. And that is what these drivers are doing.

[Au165]

(05-10-2019, 01:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is what it all boils down to.

The business owners have all the power. Their only motive is profit so they will exploit labor as much as possible to make the highest profits.

The individual worker has ZERO power. He could leave and go to another job, but at that job the owners will have all the power also. The only way for workers to have any power to protect themselves from exploitation is if the organize and work together.

That is the free market at work. And that is what these drivers are doing.

They could start their own company.

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2019, 01:35 PM)Au165 Wrote: They could start their own company.

Not everyone has the resources to start their own company that could compete with Uber or Lyft.

Organized labor is just the free market at work.  Why do you oppose that?