When Your Boss Is An Algorithm (ft.com) 178
Slashdot reader Presto Vivace shares an article on FT.com about "workers without a workplace, striking against a company that does not employ them...managed not by people but by an algorithm that communicates with them via their smartphones."
And what they are rebelling against is an app update... They might be free to choose when to work but not how to work or, crucially, how much they are paid... Some gig-economy workers and unions are bringing this question to court. They argue that these companies' algorithms exert so much control over workers that they are really employees in the eyes of the law and thus owed hourly minimum wages, sick pay, holiday pay and the like.
The article offers a detailed look at historical precedents for today's strict "service level assessments," noting that for the companies, "algorithmic management solves a problem: how to instruct, track and evaluate a crowd of casual workers you do not employ, so they deliver a responsive, seamless, standardized service." But for workers in the gig economy -- 800,000 in the U.S. alone -- the question becomes whether reporting to an algorithm in an app is liberating -- or exploitative?
The article offers a detailed look at historical precedents for today's strict "service level assessments," noting that for the companies, "algorithmic management solves a problem: how to instruct, track and evaluate a crowd of casual workers you do not employ, so they deliver a responsive, seamless, standardized service." But for workers in the gig economy -- 800,000 in the U.S. alone -- the question becomes whether reporting to an algorithm in an app is liberating -- or exploitative?
fiction becomes reality (Score:2)
http://marshallbrain.com/manna... [marshallbrain.com]
Temporary (Score:3)
Whether it's liberating or exploitative doesn't really matter. Above all, it's temporary until the app replaces the workers entirely.
Get over it, you are a mediocre useless pile of flesh that is inefficient at best, and certainly unneeded to generate wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
So if you only get exploited for the next 10 years, it doesn't matter? If all the drivers quit today, Uber and Lyft would go out of business tomorrow. They can't exist without those "useless" piles of flesh. Just because the humans may get replaced by automation in the future, that doesn't give anyone the right to exploit them today.
Re: (Score:2)
and certainly unneeded to generate wealth.
...but certainly needed to consume wealth.
There is a simple solution (Score:2)
I'm impressed. (Score:3)
I'm impressed: you managed to not mention Ü... a single time in this summary. A....b isn't mentioned either, but this is expected. At least, all "related links" are about Ü... .
I think that company deserves its own icon, just as "the real-life Tony Stark". After all, Bitcoin has its own.
(Salt at your convenience)
Better than many of my bosses/Can it be hacked? (Score:3)
I had never thought of it, but these types of apps/employment opportunities treat everybody in the organization exactly the same way and looks only their results. Bonuses/promotions/inducements are laid out as an algorithm for everyone to see and understand. If changes are to be made, then they have to be spelled out to a coder who then updates all the "bosses" at the speed of light - as a bonus these changes do not need to be interpreted by management and HR.
This is a hell of a lot better than some of the companies/managers/executives I've worked for.
If the question is that when the rules/conditions are changed, how do you push back? You're only option is to vote with your feet which may not be as bad as it first seems. Say a company like Uber suddenly triples their take from their "employees" because their marketing efforts in somewhere, let's say China, aren't going well and they're sinking a mountain of cash into it. The employees stop taking assignments from the app in response, essentially quitting - now the company, in real time, is getting a response that they've gone too far and now cannot provide the same level of service, upping complaints in the region causing them to back off the problem change, probably have to offer inducements to get the (productive) employees back and update their algorithm for making changes to eliminate this problem in the future.
Now, having said all this, I would wonder if this type of "employer" could be hacked? I could see a black hat offering a service where subscribing employees are given advantages like a lower take from the company (the numbers are fudged going into the company) or given prime assignments over other employees. This ends up treating some employees preferentially and leaving others out in the cold.
Going right back to the situation where some employees are treated favourably and others are essentially abused.
Plus ca change plus ca meme chose.
Sure, it can be hacked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't thinking in terms of actual fraud (which, I agree, would be found pretty quickly) but preference in getting (better) opportunities - to the same level as somebody getting favourable treatment/opportunities from a human boss?
Is that against the law? Maybe the person who created the exploit (but I doubt they would be found in a country with an extradition treaty with the U.S.) but I don't see how the employee subscribing to the service could be sued.
Re: (Score:2)
unauthorized access , or tampering with a computer equipment is a crime in the united states, against the law, of coarse depends on your jurisdiction. But basically unless you are talking about some kind of 'social hack' anything that accessed Uber's software without their prior written consent and did anything they didn't like to it could land you with huge fines or in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
If the question is that when the rules/conditions are changed, how do you push back? You're only option is to vote with your feet which may not be as bad as it first seems. Say a company like Uber suddenly triples their take from their "employees" because their marketing efforts in somewhere, let's say China, aren't going well and they're sinking a mountain of cash into it. The employees stop taking assignments from the app in response, essentially quitting - now the company, in real time, is getting a response that they've gone too far and now cannot provide the same level of service, upping complaints in the region causing them to back off the problem change, probably have to offer inducements to get the (productive) employees back and update their algorithm for making changes to eliminate this problem in the future.
That works if you're working for extras, but fails miserably if you're working for food, clothing, and shelter. Sure, your clothes probably won't wear out before there's a correction, but your stomach and the bills won't wait that long.
Meanwhile, what happens when the algorithm settles into the ideal for the company and likewise for the other employers in the area and in that state you cannot make ends meet? The problem is that whatever the algorithm, it is hard coded to favor the company and probably only
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds nice in theory but there has to be human judgement in the loop somewhere. How do you measure productivity for a developer? Code lines? Applications developed? Time spent mentoring or helping junior devs? How does an algorithm judge code quality?
It's also really hard to eliminate bias in these systems, e.g. against part time workers or workers who recently took paternity/maternity leave.
contractor abuse is not an new thing or an app thi (Score:2)
contractor abuse is not an new thing or an app thing. Also there are w2 like employee rules that uber and others have that are not part of the Algorithm.
FedEx and other shipping / delivery places list there workers as 1099's but control them like w2 works and they even say you must rent / buy our software / hardware / trucks / uniforms (in some states employees can not be changed for them at all). And the app part is just routeing.
Unions could make a comeback (Score:4, Interesting)
If unions can successfully sell themselves as the only lever people have against things like the summary, then they could definitely make a comeback. Everything has a way of coming back in cycles, slightly improved. Look at the industry most of us work in (IT) -- virtual machines, containers, remote hosting -- all that stuff is decades old, and has been brought back with a better supporting environment. Until about the 1970s, even low-level factory workers could raise a family on one income and have a secure retirement on top of that. Wind the clock forward, and we have those same jobs paying just above minimum wage with no benefits, or they don't exist here and former factory workers have to take minimum wage jobs in retail, etc. This is directly attributable to a loss of union membership and leverage. Now, people in the gig economy don't even have stable employment; they have to stitch together tons of part time gigs to even come close to a solid wage. I feel that with automation and algorithmic management, this is going to get even worse.
I think a lot of the union bashing is a misinformation campaign. I would love to work in a unionized workplace, just for the convenience of paying a collective bargaining unit to ensure I get a fair salary and have some leverage against employers. Almost all the arguments against unions involve one of these:
- Corruption -- what political organization isn't corrupt? I'd deal with a low level of corruption if I were getting something that benefits me.
- Mediocrity -- as in "I'm a super-genius and employers are lining up to hire me for a high six-figure salary...no way will I help my colleagues by stooping down to their level." All I can say is this -- even if you are a super-genius, there will come a time where management finds a way to not pay you that huge salary regardless of your talent.
- Some anecdote -- the most common one is "I was at a trade show in a convention center, and the union electricians wouldn't let me plug my own things in." This one confuses me -- why wouldn't you want someone to do the job they are assigned to do while you do what you were there for?
Either the entire employment economy will collapse completely, or people are going to rediscover unions the same way they rediscovered VMs and ASPs. As employers slowly gain back all the leverage they lost, people are going to feel the squeeze and want something to restore the balance.
Corporate Boards are a HUUUGE problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporate law has changed over time and not for the better. Corporations are defined by law; therefore they exist by regulation which owes all it's force to the power of governments (external governments included.)
The corporate board used to not be easily stacked with friends of the CEO... and that was historically the case. Also, it was less likely that a small population of buddies were on boards of each other's corporation in the past, which is a huge conflict of interest. Changing that would be new; however, modern times created a problem which needs to be addressed. People forget the problems of government power/corruption are human organization problems which exist in every organization.
Some nations such as Germany require by corporate law that boards have a significant portion of the board be WORKERS or their union. This makes so much sense it is hard to understand why it isn't mentioned in the USA.
The intended purpose of a corporation is to provide gainful employment; however, legally we define it as solely looking out for the share holders. That can be altered; in the past, there was a moral aspect in society which to some degree infected management. Ethics essentially has been removed from the culture and what remains is removed in MBA school.
The balance of powers within government systems has to be extended to everything within their grasp otherwise the loopholes will allow for the creation of monsters beyond the power of the system and will corrupt and hijack the government which defines/regulates them. It's like an unchecked disease becoming an epidemic and then killing off everybody at the CDC. That is where we are today...
Re: (Score:2)
The intended purpose of a corporation is and has always been to make money above all else. Some people might have ethics, (largely) companies do not. Many other countries (mostly in Europe) do capitalism in a way that is far more beneficial to the worker than America does.
Other places like China/India are trying to out-evil us in the race to the bottom. India has a massive worker strike going on, probably the largest in history, I saw that on imgur, not covered in major media.
It should be obvious that the o
Re: (Score:2)
The intended purpose of a corporation is and has always been to make money above all else.
How do you explain the existence of the barious non profit corporation structures, and structures such as members clubs and so on?
Re: (Score:2)
The intended purpose of a corporation is to provide gainful employment
That's a bizarre reinterpretation. The purpose of a corporation is to facilitate pooling of capital to enable the undertaking of large projects that no single person could fund, and to shield investors from potential losses -- which has pros and cons, but on balance is good. Capital would be much harder to raise if investors had to risk everything on each investment.
Large projects, such as making a product and distributing it on very large scales, usually do require employing people, usually a lot of peop
It's all about the jobs; think broader (Score:2)
No label covers it better than the modern "corporation". Which includes non-profit corporations and anything else government chooses to define in detail... and it is defined way beyond simply an investment shield.
From a broader, society perspective:
Hunter/Gatherer societies had no need for jobs. The food supply was your "employer" and supported your survival.
There was a tendency to worship the provider, which was nature so they strongly trend to pagan.
Money based societies all depend upon jobs. The employe
Re: (Score:2)
Society's perspective is always about survival, so the purpose of corporation is to be "job creators" and what the business produces is secondary.
Those of us who like to eat, wear clothing, communicate electronically and a million and one other things beg to disagree. The stuff that businesses produce is rather important at every level of Maslow's hierarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the corporation doesn't scale that well and when huge in size serious problems surface.
In previous generations some management felt responsible for their employee's jobs. This still tends to happen in small biz because they actually know the employees; while in larger corporations they do not-- it resembles conditions similar to the Milgram Experiment and other unpleasant discoveries about human nature... (like the Stanford Prison Experiment) plus just having abstractions amplify tiny flaws
Re: (Score:2)
even if you are a super-genius, there will come a time where management finds a way to not pay you that huge salary regardless of your talent.
"management", "salary"
If you have these kinds of talents, you are doing it wrong. Go to work as a sole proprietor/consultant. You contract to provide a service and are paid a price based on its value to your customer. Or they can go elsewhere.
If unions can successfully sell themselves as the only lever people have against things like the summary
That's the plan. You (the employee) will be loyal to your union rather than your employer or profession. And they will extract value from that relationship in the form of political power.
Re: (Score:2)
- Corruption -- what political organization isn't corrupt? I'd deal with a low level of corruption if I were getting something that benefits me.
I now understand why you like unions. Some of us are honest, so fuck you and fuck your union.
Mediocrity
I don't need to be a super-genius to see the damage that union pay bargaining causes. Mediocre people getting the same wage as high productivity staff. Mediocre people getting paid more than someone far better than them purely because they've been in the role for longer. Sub-mediocre people not being sacked because of the union.
Fuck that. My employer has to attract staff to work for the company. Pay is one of those
My old boss (Score:2, Informative)
- Didn't come out to our site to meet me in person for the first 2 years I worked in the position.
- Rarely responded to emails or calls when I asked for his input on a certain situation.
- Didn't check my KPIs.
- Didn't do my performance reviews (local HR had to do them and they didn't even know what my duties were).
- Got angry when I talked with the local HR manager about getting a raise after my first year for doing awesome on my KPIs and having sterling feedback from coworkers on-site. (I didn't get that r
Re: (Score:2)
PTO = paid time off?
Sorry, I judge you just as much as your boss for tolerating it. "First 2 years" I take to mean that you were there for longer than that? Far too long.
Your boss, however, got tons of excellent work out of you for almost no extra compensation without ever taking any responsibility. He's laughing all the way to the bank.
I swear half the problem with bad workplaces and bosses is people never saying "Fuck off" (or equivalent) to their stupid demands.
Re: (Score:2)
Manna - this was done years ago (fiction) (Score:3)
Humans Still Behind Algorithm Setting Wages (Score:2)
Re:I think it's fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. And companies like Uber are recruiting real live people to devote their actual working lives and resources to supporting the company's profit-making business, with specific promises of the terms of work and pay. Then changing them (always in the negative direction) without warning, or appeal.
This is why company's everywhere need regulation. Crazy abuse of workers for profit will happen unless standards are imposed and enforced, otherwise it is always a race to the bottom. Uber sounds like it is turning into a sweatshop on the street.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. And companies like Uber are recruiting real live people to devote their actual working lives
Every one of the Uber/Lyft drivers I have used have professed to doing it to supplement income from their primary job.
Re: I think it's fair (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, their regular job doesn't pay a living wage, and neither does Uber or they would quit their regular job and do Uber full time. The "gig economy" is a symptom, not a solution, for the rising numbers of the precariate - people who are living with a precarious job because the benefits of the rising economy don't float all boats.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I would not be surprised if that is true.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, their regular job doesn't pay a living wage
That depends on how you want to live. Even minimum wage in America is more than is earned by 80% of the world. People don't work a second job to survive, they do it to improve their life and afford extra things.
and neither does Uber or they would quit their regular job and do Uber full time.
Who wants to sit in a car seat for eight hours a day? Also, demand for rides has a peak in the morning, a peak in the afternoon, and a peak in the evening. Other times are dead. It makes no sense for all the drivers to work all the time. They would spend most of the time idle, earning nothing.
The "gig economy" is a symptom, not a solution
T
Re: (Score:3)
That depends on how you want to live. Even minimum wage in America is more than is earned by 80% of the world. People don't work a second job to survive, they do it to improve their life and afford extra things.
"Minimum wage" doesn't mean "survival wage". You need at least a survival wage to pay for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, health care and so forth.
If a minimum wage job doesn't pay a survival wage - and such is the consensus on US minimum wages - then you darned well will get pushed into working a second, or even third jobs.
It really doesn't matter how much better USA minimum wage pays than pay in Kolkata if the cost of living in the USA is significantly higher than it is in Kolkata. Which it is, h
Re: (Score:2)
If a minimum wage job doesn't pay a survival wage - and such is the consensus on US minimum wages - ...
Not everyone is a head of household. The whole point of a minimum wage is for it to be a minimum, which means unskilled, entry level teenagers. If you come out of 13 years of free education (K-12) with no useful knowledge or skill other than flipping burgers, then maybe you should wait a while before starting a family.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why a moderately large tech company in Seattle thinks that US$10.00/hour for an Oracle certified database manager is an appropriate wage.
If someone is willing to accept the job, then it is an appropriate wage.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why a moderately large tech company in Seattle thinks that US$10.00/hour for an Oracle certified database manager is an appropriate wage.
If someone is willing to accept the job, then it is an appropriate wage.
They may not have a choice, is it still acceptable then?
Re: (Score:2)
They may not have a choice, is it still acceptable then?
Why would they not have a choice? The only reason I can see is if no one else was willing to pay them more, in which case they aren't worth more than $10 per hour. And what the hell do you mean by "unacceptable" anyway? Do you mean it should be illegal to pay "Oracle Certified Database Managers" the same as a burger flipper? Who is going to enforce that? Are we going to have special payroll police, with a list of professions, qualifications, and certifications, with a minimum salary for each?
Re: (Score:2)
hmm... what is fair?
Do human beings have a right to eat? Do they have a right to be able to feed families? Is it ok for employers to try and create situations where employees don't have the resources to educate themselves and their children so they cannot move to other area's or develop better skills that might make them able to demand more for their pay? How safe should work be? After all, if I can find people to work someone for just enough money to eat and a there are lots of others who starve , aren't I
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They may not have a choice, is it still acceptable then?
Ever hear the saying, "beggars can't be choosers?"
Re: (Score:2)
Are we going to have special payroll police, with a list of professions, qualifications, and certifications, with a minimum salary for each?
There's already been talk of exactly that sort of thing due to the myth that men earn more than women for the same job.
Obama's New Equal-Pay Rules [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you are comparing wages between countries, you need to adjust for cost of living too.
Re: (Score:2)
>That depends on how you want to live. Even minimum wage in America is more than is earned by 80% of the world. People don't work a second job to survive, they do it to improve their life and afford extra things.
Bullshit. Most Americans who work more than one job do, indeed, do it to survive. Nearly all those people are on welfare and, quite frequently, the REASON they have two or three jobs is because welfare-to-work laws say they can't get foodstamps if they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, their regular job doesn't pay a living wage, and neither does Uber or they would quit their regular job and do Uber full time.
Don't you think that's presumptuous? I make very competitive money at my current job, and I intend to support my family solely on it once kids come into the picture, but until then, my income is supplemented by the job my wife works. That doesn't mean my job doesn't pay a living wage; it simply means that more money is more attractive than less money.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you live in a very wealthy city/neighbourhood because that is definitely not the norm. In most of the world for the vast majority of Uber drivers that's their only income - and frequently it earns less than the cost per kilometer of just fueling and maintaining a car.
So what actually happens is that some rich people go and buy a fleet of cars, then rent these out to people who use them to work as uber drivers. These agents make good money, while the uber drivers still have to pay the car rent out of th
Re: (Score:2)
>Then you live in a very wealthy city/neighbourhood because that is definitely not the norm.
I do but I only use ride hailing apps when I'm traveling, which I do a lot of.
Re: (Score:2)
Globally or just inside the US ? Which is hardly representative of Uber drivers - you do realize about 99.99% of them are not in America right ?
Re: (Score:2)
Globally or just inside the US ? Which is hardly representative of Uber drivers - you do realize about 99.99% of them are not in America right ?
Globally. Big, North hemisphere cities mostly. I don't believe your 99.99% number, you made it up.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Cape Town South Africa. There are an estimated 7000 Uber drivers in this city, which is relatively small for Africa. There are an estimated 800-thousand Uber drivers in the US.
If a tiny city in Africa has almost 1% as many drivers as the entire USA - then that 99.99% figure seems like a very conservative estimate. I imagine the figures are significantly higher in cities and countries where car ownership is lower. Uber also is surprisingly big in poorer countries where it is frequently a major sour
Re: (Score:2)
So you did make it up. Come back when you have actual data rather than supposition.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called estimation, and since I based that estimation on the best available data - you are full of shit. Americans can be so arrogant... you seriously think your relatively tiny country of 350 million people represent more than a tiny fraction of the drivers working for a company that operates in virtually every city on earth and employs thousands upon thousands of people in each of them ?
The very idea that America may represent MORE than what I estimated is prima facie ludicrous on it's face.
Now I may
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, if the US has 800,000 Uber drivers and 99.99% of drivers are elsewhere, then there are 8,000,000,000 Uber drivers. Which is everybody with 750,000,000 aliens from space added in, given that the world's population is about 7,125,000,000 humans.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to learn to do estimations better. The American number is also an estimation - no exact number exists and due to how Uber operates it probably can't. You could get an exact number of how many have ever existed but right now the number of active ones would be hard to determine as it changes too often.
That said - let me correct your maths. For Uber to have the kind of response times, in as many cities as they do, considering the size of those cities and the level of demand - it's simply physically im
Re: (Score:2)
You need to learn to do estimations better. The American number is also an estimation - no exact number exists and due to how Uber operates it probably can't. You could get an exact number of how many have ever existed but right now the number of active ones would be hard to determine as it changes too often.
That said - let me correct your maths. .
Please re-read. I was quoting the your numbers and showing them to be ridiculous.
The counter argument to that (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I could write two or three paragraphs debunking the above, but they would be dry and make people feel down. Deregulation is a nice, simple solution to a complex problem. Like most simple solutions to complex problems it causes more problems, but simple solutions feel great, make great sound bites and are easy to market.
It's the difference between Hilary boring everyone to tears saying she's gonna sweat the details on Donald Trump's wall. They're both solutions to our economic problems, but the latter is simpler, bolder and just feels better (as long as you don't think too much about it).
If anyone knows a way to make the hard work of solving complex problems marketable let me know.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Ghu, please please do.
While I do think we have a bit of too much Government in many cases, I also think we shouldn't throw baby out with the bathwater.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
even if the price is nation-wide economic inefficiency?
I don't think you mean what you say with this. economic means that it is about goods and services, people and work. financial is about money. So replacing humans with machines is a horrible thing to do economically, because more people get unemployed and if they hardly have an income, they cannot keep other people working either. The problem is off course that for one bloke at the top this pays off financially. Only if you believe the fairy tale of the "trickle down economy", you could say that there is an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And goods, services, people and work have no exchange value?
Well, obviously, otherwise there was no economy. But if only one side determines the price (this is not equal to the value), it is nothing less than extortion. So don't mix economy with finance, and do not mix value with price. For example, the online casino that we call stock market offers no economic value at all, but has a huge financial impact. The fact that a real-economy bread is paid in the same currency as virtual-economy "futures" for grain that will never be planted is a huge problem. Seen from th
Re: (Score:2)
funny phrase: "Crazy abuse of workers for profit will happen unless standards are imposed and enforced"
It's not crazy if it profits the abuser- just common sense. But it seems immoral. And standards are imposed, but this new concept has delayed proper legal analysis.
If I could enslave workers in a similar fashion and profit by it (to the tune of billions of shekels), I would be sorely tempted.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree that Capitalism is broken, but what's a decent replacement system. Remember, you don't only need to consider the ideal outcome, but also it's instabilities. E.g., bureaucracy tends to shift into despotism and Aristocracy. Democracy is unstable between Dictatorship and Anarchy. Socialism tends to convert into Monarchy (as do dictatorships). Etc.
Now Capitalism is an incomplete system, needing a host system to be parasitic upon, but it can parasitise multiple hosts. It can easily embed itself
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think you think you are making sense.
I'm not even arguing against your conclusions here, though I do disagree, I'm arguing against your argument, which is incoherent. If I step through it carefully each piece seems to make sense, but the rules of deduction are not clear, and, at a guess, could be "I know what conclusion I want, so head in that direction.".
I'm reminded of a story about Euler who once when asked to prove a statement said "To the true mathematician it is intuitively obvious that e to
Re: I think it's fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think it's fair (Score:5, Interesting)
Oblig: http://marshallbrain.com/manna... [marshallbrain.com]
Manna - management by algorithm - the final precursor step to total automation.
Re: (Score:2)
Oblig: http://marshallbrain.com/manna... [marshallbrain.com]
Manna - management by algorithm - the final precursor step to total automation.
..or total subjugation by our man made god... once a system is in place where we've given up our free will to a machine and generations are born into and accepting that system, it will be almost impossible to escape it.
Re: (Score:2)
Algorithms decide and optimize as they are tuned to... they're also easy to cheat, game, and otherwise manipulate - human managers can adapt and compensate when worker bees start to game the system.
Re: (Score:2)
was looking for the Manna reference.
it's coming.
Re:I think it's fair (Score:5, Informative)
The terms "contractor" and "employee" have legal definitions. The question is which one applies here. Uber says, "We're a software company, not a taxi company. The only thing we do is make a phone app to help independent drivers find business." If that were true, every driver would be setting their own prices, and they'd all be competing with each other on price. Because that's part of the legal definition of a contractor, and the maker of a phone app has no business telling independent drivers how much they have to charge the people they transport.
So either Uber is lying and the drivers are actually employees, or else they're coordinating a massive price fixing scheme. There are lawsuits in progress alleging both of these things.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious why Uber doesn't let the drivers set their own prices, that would seem to eliminate some of the complaints.
Allow drivers to set their own prices and view the prices of other drivers in the area. Customers get a list of drivers in the area with information like cost and estimated time to pick-up. They can choose to go with the cheap guy 15 minutes away, or the most-expensive driver that's just around the block.
Re: (Score:2)
But it isn't really the same. Real freelancers/contractors are generally able to work for multiple companies, can negotiate the terms of their contracts and can select customers.
These guys are generally tied to a single one - which controls every aspect of their work just like a full-time employee. They have all the *risks* of being a contractor - but none of the rewards. I've been a contractor - and I made a lot more money than I do as an employee, which compensated for the lack of benefits (I ultimately c
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly, I don't disagree.... but I think my state is on the right track by putting serious limits on what can be called a "contract" position and doesn't allow people to just be hired as contractors instead of employees. It HAS to either be temporary work or an actual external service as could be provided to multiple customers.
Just bringing someone in with all the trappings of employment and calling them a contractor doesn't cut it here, and I think that is entirely appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
3: The contractor is not working as a direct report to a company employee. To change what the employee is doing, they need to go through the contracting company.
"the contracting company"
The IRS seems to have trouble wrapping its little pea brain around the fact that some people are sole proprietors and manage their own employment contracts. Same thing for #4. I negotiate the terms of my contract with my customer. As a part of that negotiation, I am "interviewed" by the customer and can be "hired" (enter into a contract with) or "fired" (contract terminated by) them.
Re: (Score:3)
4: The contractor cannot be interviewed by, hired, or fired by a company employee they are a direct report to
That's insane and impossible.
I need some software writing. I decide to engage a contractor to do it for me. Talking to them beforehand is interviewing them, so I can't do that. Asking them take on the work in return for payment is hiring them, so I can't do that. Deciding they're a complete fuckwit, something I couldn't tell beforehand because I couldn't interview them, I can't terminate their contract because that would be firing them.
How exactly do I engage them then?
Utter fucking nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
I find people like you fascinating.
Re: (Score:2)
"1) The world does not owe you a living"
Yet you feel the world owes cheap labor and no taxes to corporations? Why do you worship takers?
What is the purpose of science and technology if you feel like we should live like in the Middle Ages?
"2) If someone is willing to do your job as well as you for less money than you, they should have the job."
Sure, and that doesn't mean I should now starve in a world like ours. But to you and your delightful Bronze Age sensibility, it does.
Figures you're a software type.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, stop hiding behind the term "corporations"; we're talking about employers here.
And it's not difficult to figure out how this works. If I can hire you to mow my lawn for $10/h, I may do that. If I have to pay your $50/h, I'll mow the lawn myself or get rid of it. Trying to force me to give you a $50/h job isn't going to work. It's no different with employers.
You tell me, since it's you who "worships
Re: (Score:2)
"1) The world does not owe you a living"
Yet you feel the world owes cheap labor and no taxes to corporations? Why do you worship takers?
What is the purpose of science and technology if you feel like we should live like in the Middle Ages?
"2) If someone is willing to do your job as well as you for less money than you, they should have the job."
Sure, and that doesn't mean I should now starve in a world like ours. But to you and your delightful Bronze Age sensibility, it does.
Figures you're a software type.
You are arguing with a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. I highly doubt that this will end well for you - "Never wrestle with a pig..."
Re: (Score:2)
This whole argument basically comes down to:
Do you believe humans have intrinsic value ( if so where what cause that value, historically deity ( aka images of the Living God loved by Him) , is there another source?)
OR
From a materialist standpoint, human beings are just resources to be consumed and destroyed by whatever processes happen to be of no more particularly value then there interchangeability in the process. Survival of the fittest, might makes right.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't, in theory or practice, kick an algorithm in the groin until it vomits. Then stamp on its ankles and knees.
Re:it's pretty simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I find this type of person fascinating; to me they're like any broken system, I want to know what went wrong and where.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you a hint: I was disabled, and literally did not have enough money for food. I went to the government for help. I was rejected, while other people (of a more politically favored class) that were not disabled at all were given money.
Eventually, I found a job were I could work somewhat. I then had to pay taxes to support those favored by the government, when I could barely afford rent.
You trust the government, because you have never been abused by it. You're probably also pretty good at gettin
Re: it's pretty simple (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
And now the abused becomes the abuser.
Re: (Score:3)
In the 80s much of the economic growth moved to the underdeveloped parts of the world. China, India, eastern Europe, Brazil etc.
They have a mixed record of putting the growth to good use. Don't ignore the successes. Eastern Europe is full of them. They still have cheap costs, but have growing 'consumer classes'. China is the obvious 300 pound gorilla in the room, they will find their own way, eventually. India? The same, but different.
But in the long run what were we (the developed world) going to do?
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that's "broken" here is that you are reasoning like a Luddite. I.e., it's you who's broken, not me.
Re: (Score:2)
I want a work-free society that uses the technology and resources we have. You want a serf-based "work or die" Bronze Age mentality.
I'll let you decide who is the "Luddite" here. You may want to spend the rest of your weekend (get it?) to reflect upon why you are such a horrendous person.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's what you want, but taxes and unions are the antithesis of a "work free society".
You're right: you're not a Luddite, you're simply an idiot, and a greedy, selfish, and despicable one at that.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be amazed at all the social institutions that made sense a century ago but that are obsolete now.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is willing to do your job as well as you for less money than you, they should have the job.
so it's ok for someone to work under the table with no auto insurance driving some jalopy and when something go wrong the victims are on there own and the driver just goes to ER.
Re: (Score:2)
to him? yes! It's not his problem, and he gets even cheaper labor!
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all; people in the gig economy, of course, are required to pay taxes, like any other independent contractor.
That's illegal for people in the gig economy just like for everybody else.
The Uber and Lyft cars I have taken have been a lot nicer than any taxi I have ever been in.
In fact, gig companies like Uber and Lyft are much better in that
but more and more places are trying the 1099 route (Score:2)
but more and more places are trying the 1099 route.
We need to come down hard on that. To many places are abusing it so it time to make it very hard for someone to be an 1099 so that the places have to at least make the works W2's. Just think if some restaurant try the you get payed when people are in the place but you need to be there for your full shift and you need to work after closing to do clean up (off the clock but needed if you want to be on the work list for later).
Re: (Score:2)
How young are you?
It hit IT long before it hit musicians, journalists or retail workers. H1B visas in the US came long after offshoring, long after the UK IT industry seriously damaged itself by cutting off the supply of local talent.
Cloud? Mostly irrelevant. The only reason the IT industry hasn't been in massive decline for two decades is that the growth in technology dependence has kept pace with the growth in offshore and outsource stupidity.
I stopped programming for a living in 2003 because there were t
Re: (Score:2)
I anticipated the flood of programmers back when I was in school - it was such a 'cool field' I knew the market would be flooded. So I decided to go into the comparatively boring area of networking instead.
But this then met with my total lack of ambition an fear of risk-taking, so now I work a crappy-pay job as a low level IT technician, which I keep because it is conveniently local and very stable.
Re: (Score:3)
It's about you working as a delivery worker, but you receive orders from a remote computer, through a smartphone. They're of the kind "you have 20 seconds to comply and accept to go to A to collect the package", "distance to B : 3.24 miles, estimated time of arrival : 12:40. 12:39 remaining.. 12:38 remaining...". BUT you can refuse that delivery in the first place ; it goes to a pool of checked-in delivery boys in the right area and time, not to you in particular.
But they ask you to register as an independ