Topic: Uber Doordash plunge after regulation proposal change to worker classification (Read 117 times)
October 14, 2022, 06:41:37 PM
This will just mean that less and less people looking for Uber and the likes as a side job would be tempted to apply. The pay that they are receiving from doing such tasks is very minimal, though still crucial to supplement whatever profit/salary they may have monthly because of the rising prices. If this regulation is to be implemented, it's possible that Uber and the likes would just resort to full time employment because of the added cost on their shoulders. Not good at all, though from the safety perspective I can see why they want to pass this regulation. Perhaps it could be made more flexible, but you know how the regulators roll.
October 14, 2022, 05:55:10 PM
I was reading your post in all seriousness until I came to the above....and I just have to ask: are you joking?? I hope so, because not only wouldn't the gig workers not go for that (they'd be crazy if they did), but who's going to fly to Mexico for a yearly physical or a broken leg or, or, or...I could just keep going on about how impractical that would be.
Healthcare and dentistry industries in countries like mexico are designed for an average worker in those places who might earn 10 times less than you do. Based upon that observation alone, how much more affordable would you guess healthcare is in those countries.
Travelling to south america, mexico or abroad to get plastic surgery or assorted high cost medical operations done is an old trend. I remember reading about it in the news 10 years ago. At the peak of Kim Kardashian's fame (butt) there were women travelling to south america to get butt lifts. Which unfortunately turns out to be the most dangerous plastic surgery option to have done. As it resulted in many fatalities.
While it might not apply to every healthcare situation that comes up. It is definitely a valid practice for many.
I have seen recent specials were plane tickets from the united states to south america were selling as low as $50.
October 14, 2022, 03:42:36 PM
Even Mexico is not really a solution because providing benefits even there means added costs and that's way too much. These places do not offer you anything other than money, and that's it, a chance to make money, but at the end of the day it means you are going to be employed and making a good income.
Depending on the place you live, it could provide you with money that no other job could, normally people who couldn't find decent jobs would work as dishwashers, or work at McDonalds or whatever, but with these jobs you would make 5k+ dollars per month, and after taxes you would live a decent life, not great one but decent enough, that is the only thing it promised. Worst case scenario, they would have to get a bigger cut, workers would get 3k instead of 5k, and the rest would go to benefits provided by Uber like companies.
Depending on the place you live, it could provide you with money that no other job could, normally people who couldn't find decent jobs would work as dishwashers, or work at McDonalds or whatever, but with these jobs you would make 5k+ dollars per month, and after taxes you would live a decent life, not great one but decent enough, that is the only thing it promised. Worst case scenario, they would have to get a bigger cut, workers would get 3k instead of 5k, and the rest would go to benefits provided by Uber like companies.
October 13, 2022, 04:13:52 PM
A better compromise could be for businesses to provide independent contractors with plane tickets and funds to receive healthcare in mexico.
I was reading your post in all seriousness until I came to the above....and I just have to ask: are you joking?? I hope so, because not only wouldn't the gig workers not go for that (they'd be crazy if they did), but who's going to fly to Mexico for a yearly physical or a broken leg or, or, or...I could just keep going on about how impractical that would be.Why do I get the feeling that the timing of this is suspicious, with midterm elections coming up? I haven't been following any political news lately, simply because my sanity depends on it, but I'm certainly not naive as to how politicians bob and weave when voters are paying attention to their moves the most. Remember, their primary goal, first and foremost, is to get elected and/or remain in power. If that means pandering to the working class by performative legislation, it's not beneath any of them.
Goddamn, we need a Republican in the White House more than ever. It's unfortunate that Trump might be the only viable candidate next time around, but Biden is just a meat puppet who'll be lucky if he doesn't die in office. Ugh.
October 13, 2022, 12:38:07 PM
Obviously it’s good for the drivers but bad for the company or investors.
And for everyone that was using it since obviously the cost will increase, with everything becoming more expensive some cleitns will stop ordering o using the car-sharing service and in the end with fewer customers, the drivers themselves will find themselves with benefits but, out of work! Carsharing services have put traditional taxis on the verge of bankruptcy because there were more affordable, easier to order and the pay was better distributed, now since they know better, they will ruin this too.
In the end, the only ones happy will be the stupid ones in congress who will declare victory for the worker against corporations!
This feels like it'd just be an extra tax paid by those companies too and paying an extra 20% on fares or delivery costs doesn't sound too bad
Yeah, this is how it all starts, a little tax won't hurt, a little more tax for unemployment won't hurt as there are benefits, a little more tax for healthcare won't hurt, and add another few percent as all that money comes back to the population through government spending and soon we're going to reach levels where a company pays 90% in taxes and 10% in wages, we're already at 50/50 here, so if for example, my company would want to increase my wage by 500 euros they would actually have to pay 1000 as another half goes to the government, for, stuff!
October 12, 2022, 10:16:17 PM
Yeah Uber stock had a crazy crash when everything was mostly trading sideways. I assumed it was bad earnings however their earnings aren’t out yet. Then I read about this news.
Obviously it’s good for the drivers but bad for the company or investors. Generally some rules should apply. Where if the driver works closer to 40 hours a week then he can get coverage. I don’t think they will be sending people to Mexico for any health work. No company does that.
Obviously it’s good for the drivers but bad for the company or investors. Generally some rules should apply. Where if the driver works closer to 40 hours a week then he can get coverage. I don’t think they will be sending people to Mexico for any health work. No company does that.
October 12, 2022, 09:17:40 PM
This will just result in Uber and Lyft hiring less workers. The appeal of gig work was that the employment hours were generally on your own terms, with no commitments. Presumably Uber/Lyft would be forced to retain employees at a higher rate, and force them to commit to full time employment.
Isn't that how it always is. The labor "experts", or plainly stated, far left activist that believe for-profit companies need to take any profit margins and throw it back at the employees? Gig work has never been comparable to a full time job with benefits.
The companies have argued that flexible schedules are attractive to workers, pointing to surveys showing the popularity of the model, which they say is made possible by the use of independent contractor status. Some labor experts and activists have disagreed, however, saying the companies use the contractor model to reduce their own costs while denying workers important protections such as health-care benefits, overtime pay and the ability to organize into unions.
Isn't that how it always is. The labor "experts", or plainly stated, far left activist that believe for-profit companies need to take any profit margins and throw it back at the employees? Gig work has never been comparable to a full time job with benefits.
October 12, 2022, 09:16:54 PM
It'd make sense if these laws were added to employees oblnly after a certain threshold of time was passed (such as 20 hours a week or 80 hours a month - or however long half the average number of hours worked by an American is). This feels like it'd just be an extra tax paid by those companies too and paying an extra 20% on fares or delivery costs doesn't sound too bad (if they'd be able to cover health insurance within that - if it became higher than a few dollars then a lot more restructuring might be required or advertising/launching services in other countries where that's less likely to be a problem).
I think a government owned health insurance company will probably come out in the US, but that'll be a long time away and require quite a lot of reconstructing (reducing their gdp by 30% doesn't sound like it'll please a lot of people).
I think a government owned health insurance company will probably come out in the US, but that'll be a long time away and require quite a lot of reconstructing (reducing their gdp by 30% doesn't sound like it'll please a lot of people).
October 12, 2022, 06:54:37 PM
Quote
- The Biden Labor Department released a proposal Tuesday that could make it possible for gig workers to be reclassified as employees, rather than contractors.
- The proposed rule sent stocks of gig companies like DoorDash, Lyft and Uber down.
- It comes after a court reinstated a Trump-era rule Biden’s Labor Department tried to block that would have made it easier to classify gig workers as contractors.
The Biden Labor Department released a proposal Tuesday that could pave the way for regulators and courts to reclassify gig workers as employees rather than independent contractors.
The proposed rule, if adopted, could raise costs for companies like Lyft, Uber, Instacart and DoorDash that rely on contract workers to pick up shifts on their own schedules. Shares of Lyft fell 12% on Tuesday, while Uber dropped 10.4% and DoorDash shed 6%.
The companies have argued that flexible schedules are attractive to workers, pointing to surveys showing the popularity of the model, which they say is made possible by the use of independent contractor status. Some labor experts and activists have disagreed, however, saying the companies use the contractor model to reduce their own costs while denying workers important protections such as health-care benefits, overtime pay and the ability to organize into unions.
In 2020, a California law went into effect requiring many companies to reclassify contract workers as employees, but later that year, voters approved a proposition that exempted app-based ride-hailing and delivery companies from the law.
Last year, the Biden administration rescinded a rule created under Trump’s Labor Department that would have made it easier for gig companies to classify workers as independent contractors instead of employees. But after a legal challenge, a court reinstated the Trump-era rule.
Biden’s Labor Department said in its notice in the Federal Register that it had considered waiting longer to see how the Trump-era rule played out. But it decided to move ahead with the proposed regulation instead because it believes keeping the earlier rule in place “would have a confusing and disruptive effect on workers and businesses alike due to its departure from case law describing and applying the multifactor economic reality test as a totality-of-the-circumstances test.”
The proposed rule would allow the determination of whether to classify a worker as a contractor or employee to rely on a more holistic assessment, including whether the work is an “integral” part of the employer’s business. The goal is to protect workers from being classified improperly while providing consistency for businesses that wish to employ independent contractors, the agency wrote.
The new proposed rule will still need to make its way through the formal regulatory process, including allowing time for the public to submit comments, before it is adopted.
Uber’s head of federal affairs, CR Wooters, said in a statement that the proposed rule “takes a measured approach, essentially returning us to the Obama era, during which our industry grew exponentially. In a time of deep economic uncertainty, it’s crucial that the Biden administration continues to hear from the more than 50 million people who have found an earning opportunity with companies like ours.”
In a blog post Tuesday, Lyft wrote that there “is no immediate or direct impact on the Lyft business at this time,” noting the 45-day public comment period. It added that the rule “Does not reclassify Lyft drivers as employees,” and also doesn’t force it to change its business model. Lyft said the rule simply reverts the standard to that used under the Obama administration, which previously applied to its company “and did not result in reclassification of drivers.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/11/uber-doordash-plunge-as-labor-dept-proposes-gig-worker-change.html
....
The dispute here is uber, doordash, uber eats and similar platforms. May have to provide health insurance and benefits to everyone who drives for them, if this regulation is implemented.
Given the enormous cost of health insurance in the united states, the regulatory shift could make business models of those enterprises unsustainable.
A better compromise could be for businesses to provide independent contractors with plane tickets and funds to receive healthcare in mexico.
Many americans already travel to south american nations to receive dentistry or healthcare due to the greatly reduced cost.
If healthcare in the united states cannot be reformed properly, delegating the role to other nations who can provide quality care at reduced cost would seem to be a natural progression.
Jump to: