Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Transportation

Uber CEO Urges 'Portable Benefits' for Gig Economy Workers (thehill.com) 137

Posted by EditorDavid from the social-insecurity dept.
An anonymous reader quotes The Hill: Uber's chief executive is calling for Washington state to develop a "portable benefits system" to give contract workers in the so-called gig economy access to health care and retirement planning accounts. Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi signed onto a letter with Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 775 President David Rolf and Seattle investor and workers rights advocate Nick Hanauer urging the state to take action.

Uber does not hire drivers as actual employees meaning the company does not offer them benefits beyond compensation. Khosrowshahi said having the state change laws so that contract workers can carry benefits between jobs would be preferable to Uber hiring them as full employees.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uber CEO Urges 'Portable Benefits' for Gig Economy Workers More

Uber CEO Urges 'Portable Benefits' for Gig Economy Workers

Comments Filter:

  • Wasn't that the whole point of obama care. Economic mobility even when you have a pre-existing condition.

    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Yeah, right.

      Before Obama-care, I had a health insurance policy that was good state-wide. Ideally, ACA should have made that portable across the entire USA. Instead, the insurance industry was granted enough loopholes that they started breaking their policies up by county.

      • just state wide? loser. Did it cover pre-existing conditions? Did you get it from your employer? Did you have anyone in your family with pre-existing conditions.?

    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

      Wasn't that the whole point of obama care. Economic mobility even when you have a pre-existing condition.

      No. Obamacare is for the self-employed, not for people getting insurance through their employers.

      It was a bandaid solution applied to a broken and bleeding system that already had a pile of bandages a foot thick. A clean, sensible solution to America's healthcare system is not politically feasible. Obamacare sucks. The Republican alternative doesn't exist. So here we are.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by twistedcubic ( 577194 )

      This is an indication of Obamacare's shortcomings. We should have Medicare for all, and end this nonsense now.

      • I would have liked to see a public option as part of Obamacare. That seemed like a nice compromise, but we don't do that anymore.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by gtall ( 79522 )

          That's because the Republicans theorized that the public option would result in government "Death Panels". I wonder what they think the insurance companies' actuaries, accountants, and claims reviewers actually are.

          • The Republicans opted out of the process entirely. I think this was a huge mistake, because Obamacare could have been a market-driven way to keep healthcare costs down. They blew it. With that said, the resulting law had nothing at all to do with Republicans - the entire law rests at the feet of the Democrats.

            • The Republicans opted out of the process entirely. I think this was a huge mistake, because Obamacare could have been a market-driven way to keep healthcare costs down. They blew it. With that said, the resulting law had nothing at all to do with Republicans - the entire law rests at the feet of the Democrats.

              To actually make health care affordable the fact that the US pays many times more for the same drugs would have to be addressed. As both D and R have been bought off don't expect that to happen.

      • https://www.npr.org/2017/09/14... [npr.org]

        Payment is unclear. A generous plan that covers all Americans is going to require more revenue. There's no exact plan for how to pay for Sanders' bill, but he did on Wednesday afternoon release a list of potential payment options. Among the proposals: a 7.5 percent payroll tax on employers, a 4 percent individual income tax and an array of taxes on wealthier Americans, as well as corporations. In addition, Sanders' plan says the end of big health insurance-related tax expenditures, like employers' ability to deduct insurance premiums, would save trillions of dollars.

        But even with all of those potential revenue-boosters, Sanders may still fall far short of the total amount of money needed to pay for his ambitious program. Altogether, his estimates of how much money his funding mechanisms would generate totals up to around $16 trillion over 10 years. In a 2016 report on his presidential campaign's "Medicare for All" plan, the Urban Institute estimated that the plan would cost $32 trillion over 10 years.

        Right now the total US debt is $20 trillion

        https://www.treasurydirect.gov... [treasurydirect.gov]

        So you're looking at adding another $16-$32 trillion to that over ten years depending on how overly optimistic his plan turns out to be. I'm sure that won't cause any problems, like a sovereign debt crisis for example, at all.

        After all single payer for all worked out fine in Vermont. Oh wait, not it didn't.

        https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 )
      But the ACA was a cobbled together mess that didn't solve that problem regardless of what it was intended to do.

      Near as I can tell it was just a gift to insurance companies because it allows them to have higher overall profits, because now everyone is (theoretically) forced to buy insurance policies (which in some cases that they can't even really afford to use, but that's a side issue) which means overall revenue for the companies goes up, so even though they still pay out the required ~80% percentage o

      • befor ACA the ER was the only place for some both poor and others who where sick that they went to the only place that takes them and gives medical care with out checking if you can pay.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by cats-paw ( 34890 )

        because now everyone is (theoretically) forced to buy insurance policies

        huh wut ? of course everyone is forced to buy it , it's INSURANCE.

        i still can't quite parse the word salad that is your first paragraph. so let me sum up.
        you can't have people buy insurance "when they need it". then it's not insurance. and remember that your paying into insurance when you "don't need it" precisely for others in the pool and for the day you DO need it.

        you want to not pay insurance and then pay for it when you need it ?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pots ( 5047349 )

        I think that if that government wanted to do things sanely, they'd handle emergency room visit costs and the like

        You are wrong about insurance companies profiting from the ACA. Health insurer profits, which were never extraordinarily high, are down [forbes.com] since 2007. The most profitable sector in health care is pharmaceuticals, thanks to their sacrosanct ability to charge anything that they want for drugs, but even they can't be blamed for everything.

        The ACA is indeed a mess, but that is because our health care system is extremely extremely messy. (Before you say, "No one could have known that." just... don't. Don't say

  • This might be a great startup idea. Create a company that provides benefits with several standard packages. Companies could buy into a package for their employees. If an employee leaves, he could continue to pay his own portion of the package (optionally changing to a cheaper or more expensive package), but unlike Cobra, it would be the full benefits and could continue indefinitely. If starting a new job with another company that uses the same benefits company, there would be no changes in benefits.

    I co

    • I'll buy in. The biggest problem with switching companies as a contractor or getting hired on through another company is dealing with benefits and making sure your family is covered.

      Someone should set up a company on paper and 'contract' out a large chunk of it. Manage my 401k and health care and let me find jobs. You take a portion off the top smaller than current companies are scamming us for and you have a hit.

    • Re:Outsourcing Benefits (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Saturday January 27, 2018 @07:04PM (#56017219)

      Create a company that provides benefits with several standard packages. Companies could buy into a package for their employees.

      It already exists. It's called insurance. Uber simply doesn't want to pay for it for its employees. It wants the taxpayers to pay for it.

  • Its already happening without government intervention. For several years I've been seeing contracts where a small company's healthcare package is that one's paycheck is your pay plus your payment to an exchanged based healthcare policy.

  • Portable benefits my ass (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday January 27, 2018 @06:34PM (#56017087)
    This is about the worst thing to come out of Uber yet. Rather than support a single payer system (that they're afraid they might have to chip in for) they want 'portable' benefits. e.g. completely paid for by the (underpaid) drivers. The best part is this makes it sound like he's doing it for the little guy when all he's really doing is trying to divert attention away from the fact that his company broke one of the fundamental social contracts in America (to wit: "Work for us and we'll take care of your healthcare).

    • Re: We'll take care of your healthcare. (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      But the insurance company will cut you off when you get cancer, causing you to lose all of your life's savings paying for treatment and then bank will take your home so you can die penniless in the street. America, what a cuntry!

    • Portable retirement accounts are called "IRAs". They've been around for decades. Use them. IRAs and 401ks, plans owned by the employee (as opposed to traditional pensions) are wonderful things. No one but me can make a stupid decision and screw up my retirement.

      Portable health care insurance is a fabulous idea. I hate having to change my insurance plan (and possibly my doctors) every time I change jobs. If I could make a wish and change one thing about the US health financing system, it would be to remove e

      • Personally, I wouldn't make that wish. I'd wish for a universal single-payer option. Medicare for all. Why? Because if an employer wants to offer a better health insurance program, they definitely should be able to as an incentive. But if they don't or can't, (or if the employee is no longer employed) the employee shouldn't be penalized with no health insurance.

        • Personally, I wouldn't make that wish. I'd wish for a universal single-payer option. Medicare for all. Why? Because if an employer wants to offer a better health insurance program, they definitely should be able to as an incentive. But if they don't or can't, (or if the employee is no longer employed) the employee shouldn't be penalized with no health insurance.

          That is a very interesting and point. I'm open to considering it but here are some issues.

          First, both participation and payment need to be optional. If I'm paying Medicare for all taxes and am entitled to the benefits, that pretty much destroys any market for private insurance (either paid directly by me or via my employer). So what I think it would need to look like is a government-sponsored enterprise. Examples of this are the Post Office, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Technically these are all independent

          • First, both participation and payment need to be optional.

            If we're going to do a universal health care offering, everyone needs to pay into that safety net, because everyone will likely need it at some point. It's like not getting life insurance until you think you're going to die. That's not how insurance works. You pay into it in case you need it. And unless your company guarantees health insurance as retirement benefit until you die, you're going to need it when you're probably at the most expensive part of your medical life, outside of maybe birth or a terribl

            • If we're going to do a universal health care offering, everyone needs to pay into that safety net,

              I'm proposing a very different sort of system. I propose a system of equal opportunity to enter or not enter. If you want to take care of yourself, I think you should be allowed to do that. If you want to use a single-payer system, it would be nice to make that available too. Just like today my employer offers a choice between a low premium/high deductable PPO, a high premium/low deductible PPO, and an all-in-one HMO (Kaiser Permanente). I'd like to ensure people have choices so they can pick a plan which s

  • Good idea (Score:3)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Saturday January 27, 2018 @06:38PM (#56017097)

    The rest of the world used that system for 100 years or so, it seems to work.

  • Its call Universal Health Care. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mark Stewart ( 4494361 ) on Saturday January 27, 2018 @07:16PM (#56017247)
    Most nations have it except for the USA.
    • because if it existed they'd have to pitch in tax dollars to pay for it. If it were they could jump on Bernie Sander's Medicare for All bandwagon. What they want is a system where their drivers pay for the benefits Of course, we have that now; only the drivers aren't paid well enough to afford health care on their own. This is a dodge. A distraction meant to keep single payer from happening. Nothing more.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Most nations have it except for the USA.

      By most nations, I assume you mean most developed nations because universal or single payer health care isn't common in developing nations. However Uber isn't advocating this, Uber simply wants this to be someone elses problem.

  • Uber's chief executive is calling for Washington state to develop a "portable benefits system" to give contract workers in the so-called gig economy access to health care and retirement planning accounts.

    Anybody can already sign up for an IRA or Roth on their own. What exactly is this CEO asking for?

    • All tied up in tax considerations. Company-paid "benefits" are tax-free; if you pay for those same services on your own, you're paying with after-tax dollars.

      The "solution" is to cut taxes nationwide, and eliminate tax-advantaged health and retirement plans.

  • give contract workers in the so-called gig economy access to health care and retirement planning accounts

    How about you just give them the money and let them select and pay for their own benefits? While we're on the subject, let's do that for all the salaried workers too.

    There's no need (from first principles) for my employer to be involved with my personal health or finances in any way apart from paying me. Just give me the money you would have spent on my behalf and allow me to secure those services myself.

    Yes, I realize there is presently a discount for group insurance (or rather a penalty for individu

    • If everybody arranged their personal health insurance personally, no such penalty/discount would exist.

      Not quite true - only the sick (or more likely to be sick) would buy insurance.

  • So.. Dara Khosrowshahi probably has a fantastic benefits package, but those who "work for him" cant have one?

  • Divorce Employment from Benefits! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kenwd0elq ( 985465 ) <kenwd0elq@engineer.com> on Saturday January 27, 2018 @08:22PM (#56017519)

    The idea of "benefits" being attached to your job is a holdover from the wage & price controls enacted during World War II. Unable to increase wages, factories offered non-cash benefits like health care to attract skilled workers, and later the courts ruled that these health benefits were not taxable income. In the most extreme example, a shipyard started a medical clinic to provide medical care for shipyard workers and their families. Now the shipyard is long gone, but the medical clinic has grown into its own hospital chain; Kaiser.

    Abolish all that! Allow fraternal organizations to offer medical insurance. Let everybody pay for their own insurance, and pensions, and other "fringe benefits", and you eliminate the problem of "pre-existing conditions". A young adult would choose his/her own fraternal organization such as the Kiwanis or Knights of Columbus or Masons or Odd Fellows. You could go from employer to employer, and NEVER lose your health insurance.

    • "Let everybody pay for their own insurance, and pensions, and other "fringe benefits", and you eliminate the problem of "pre-existing conditions""

      no you don't eliminate this with private insurance. They have no reason to keep people insured which have such pre existing problem. The only way to eliminate this is to have a fix sum of money to be paid by everybody thus the healthy covering the sick: in other word UHC. Whether you want it governemental, or private due to the american allergy to some words, is

    • A young adult would choose his/her own fraternal organization such as the Kiwanis or Knights of Columbus or Masons or Odd Fellows.

      The only thing worse than having my health benefits tied to a job I could be fired from, would be to have them tied to a fraternal organization that might release me from being a member because my religious or political beliefs vary from theirs.

      • So choose an organization with values that ARE aligned with yours - or a true "fraternal" organization that exists only for this purpose.

        • So choose an organization with values that ARE aligned with yours - or a true "fraternal" organization that exists only for this purpose.

          You presume one exists. You presume wrongly. (Seriously, are you that stupid?)

  • They are employees (Score:3)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Saturday January 27, 2018 @08:50PM (#56017615)

    Uber does not hire drivers as actual employees...

    Although Uber hires drivers as actual employees, it refuses to recognise them as such. In many countries and some states this is illegal.

    There, I fixed that for you.

  • If Uber is honest about this, they should accept to pay for contractor unemployment insurance. And of course the more they would let unemployed, the most expensive for them it would be.

  • Well duh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Saturday January 27, 2018 @09:07PM (#56017665) Homepage

    The US concept that health insurance is tied to your employer is simultaneously anti-capitalistic and anti-socialist. In this system, nobody wins. We don't do it with anything else in our society: Not your car insurance, homeowners insurance, flood insurance, liability insurance, internet, telephone, food, electricity, or anything else. "Portable" insurance isn't some crazy idea, it just means "treat insurance like every other thing in society."

    • The US concept that health insurance is tied to your employer is simultaneously anti-capitalistic and anti-socialist. In this system, nobody wins. We don't do it with anything else in our society...

      Americans will never have anything like decent, affordable health care until this nonsense is ended. It's completely nuts. No other country in the world does this.

    • Re: Well duh (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The American system is the ONLY system in the world that works for health care insurance companies. In capitalist places, you pay cash. In socialistic ones, national insurance is part of citizenship.

      Only in America can you insert yourself as a middle man between doctor and patient and make more than the doctor does. #MAGA /s

  • "Khosrowshahi said having the state change laws so that contract workers can carry benefits between jobs would be preferable to Uber hiring them as full employees."

    I wonder whose preference this is. Perhaps the contract employees would rather be full-time employees.

  • One of the big factors the IRS uses in determining if someone is an employee or a contractor [irs.gov] is whether or not they receive benefits like health insurance, retirement savings, etc. If you receive such benefits, you are almost always classified as an employee.

    This determination is important because for all practical purposes, a dollar received by a contractor is worth less than a dollar received by an employee. Payroll tax rates [irs.gov] (Social Security and Medicare) are 12.4% and 2.9% respectively (there's a c
  • Increase dues to cover it, and negotiate increased hourly rates to offset the employer not paying the insurance. Let them manage the pension too. I'm sure they would be happy to take that on as well.

  • If you've ever wondered what a blatant attempt to privatise profits while socialising costs looks like, look no further.

  • Make PERSONAL health care expenses at ANY level fully deductible, just like they are for businesses. Right now, tax laws make it beneficial for workers to have the company pay for health insurance, and that not only screws independent/part-time workers, but it also breaks the entire concept of the consumer actually paying for what they are consuming (health care).

  • So In Other Words... (Score:3)

    by ytene ( 4376651 ) on Sunday January 28, 2018 @04:25AM (#56018981)
    ... the CEO of Uber wants to nationalize the overheads and expenses of having Gig workers [and get private tax-payers to pay for it], but wants to privatize the profits.

    My, what a complete surprise...

  • Letâ(TM)s fix it by deregulation, not more regulation. When I switch jobs there is no impact on my life insurances, homeowners insurance, and car insurance. I simply buy these on my own. But health and disability insurance are only deductible if your employer provides them which is just dumb. Employers started providing healthcare during WW2 to attract and retain employees when the government froze wages.

    • another simplistic moron claims some big "government" is the "problem" to all our ills.
      BS... "the government" is owned by huge corporations that give money to ensure their pawns are elected to enact legislation that benefits big corporations... case and point: Net Neutrality.
      All the right-wingers that claim these "job killing rules" are stiffing growth.. Yet in a time with record corporate profits, some how things like clean air, clean water, child labor laws are the "job killing rules". Hardly. They s
  • No, what this scum bag is really admitting is that his company doesn't pay livable wages, isn't about to, and wants tax payers to come to the rescue.
    Driving someone you don't know, to a place you're not going, for money, is NOT a ride share, that is the definition of a taxi. Uber is skimming money off the backs of the lowest workers and trying to call it profit. A taxi service costs more because it's a real business, with real benefits, that PAYS it employees real wages.
    Stop using uber/lyft and use

  • That anyone should ever have to participate in the economy, know how the game works and how to play it. Good heavens, what would we do if people were proactive and entrepreneurial instead of "i can has job gimme"?
    I was only 27 when my tiny startup rose up to $500k/year gross income. It's what happens when freelancers are competent.
    Some Uber drivers I have stumbled upon, started their own business and have already grown it to 2 or 3 cars.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close