Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
EU Government

Gig Economy Shift: Spain Declares Delivery Drivers are Employees (apnews.com) 124

"The Spanish government on Thursday announced legislation that classifies food delivery riders as employees of the digital platforms they work for, not self-employed," reports the Associated Press: The Minister for Labor, Yolanda Díaz, said the new law is "pioneering" and is part of "a modernization of the labor market" in Spain, updating regulations in accordance with technological developments to ensure workers' rights are upheld...

The legal changes are the latest affecting companies and workers in the gig economy. Last month, Britain's top court ruled that Uber drivers should be classed as "workers" and not self-employed, in what was seen as a major setback for the ride-hailing giant. The Spanish government agreed on the new law with the country's main business groups and trade union confederations.

But the law, which is expected to come into force within months, was quickly contested by an association of digital platforms providing food delivery services and by some riders who prefer the flexibility of being self-employed.

The Association of Service Platforms calls the rule "an assault on the most basic principles of the freedom to do business..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gig Economy Shift: Spain Declares Delivery Drivers are Employees

Comments Filter:
  • Spain (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gmack ( 197796 ) <<gmack> <at> <innerfire.net>> on Sunday March 14, 2021 @09:54AM (#61156860) Homepage Journal

    Of everywhere I have ever lived, Spain was the most difficult to do business in. I don't think I've ever seen a government work so hard to keep people from making money. It is so bad they even joke about government workers who keep people from doing anything [youtube.com].

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Then you would think they would be heralding in the gig economy and calling everyone independent contractors, for that is the surest way to keep people from making money.
      • by gmack ( 197796 )

        So what if someone has a day job and wants to make a little side money during the evening? They suddenly need to be an employee? Also it's Spain, they will just hire agencies to handle the new employees, one that makes almost no money, doesn't bother to follow the rules, and folds if anything gets too hot. It is literally the Spanish way, I've even seen the interior ministry hire illegals to teach English by using a contracting agency. I knew a lot of Americans who were illegally in Spain working for

        • Sounds like there is a lot in Spain that needs to be fixed. You don't purposely leave other things broken if you want if make things better. You bring in new things better and fix the old.
    • Re:Spain (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Sunday March 14, 2021 @11:33AM (#61157234)

      They get to take siestas in the day, then drink and dance all night while living in a beautiful place. Who cares how much money you make - care what life you have.

      • This has always been a great consolation to wage slaves living in the tropics. It must be why the Caribbean islands tolerated slavery for so many centuries.
        • huh, I said 'the government forcing you to live a good life because you don't need to accumulate millions too pay for surgeries and retirement and get to enjoy life" is nice. And you said "what about slaves in the tropics?"

      • This is sarcasm, right? Spain is not like that at all.
        • You live in the wrong area of Spain. It is absolutely like that in many areas. I thoroughly enjoy travelling to our Spanish sites. Sure our facilities are operating facilities so people don't actually sleep at lunch but they make up for it by finishing the day early and sleeping after work. Then they get up in the evening for dinner and party until 1am.

          I still remember my first trip going into a restaurant at 9:30pm and being told I could have a drink but the kitchen wasn't open yet.
          Then I couldn't sleep be

          • Fireworks? That sounds like there was some kind of holiday where you were. I don't know the whole country and things might be a bit looser in smaller towns but in the big cities: Almost no one sleeps at midday because they simply don't have the time. I can assure you most people don't party at night on weekdays. We may have our cutural idiosincrasies (like yes, meal times are different from most other places in Europe) but I think we lead pretty "standard" western lives.
          • by gmack ( 197796 )

            It sounds like you were in one of the tourist zones. I never had trouble finding top notch food at 6 - 7 pm. The lifestyle I was happy with although even the constant free drinks get old after a bit. When I left Spain, I stopped drinking for several months.

            What I wasn't happy about, was an overly expensive Madrid area where the prices for everything was high but the wages weren't high enough to justify it. I also wasn't happy with the way government regulations got in the way of getting things done, an

      • by gmack ( 197796 )

        When was there, it was only government workers who got to take siestas. Also, being payed well over the country's median wage and only being able to afford a bedroom in a shared apartment is not the class of life that I enjoy.

    • by quenda ( 644621 )

      I don't think I've ever seen a government work so hard to keep people from making money.

      I know. Spain has been like that since they abolished slavery in 1834. Bloody socialists.

      • I don't think I've ever seen a government work so hard to keep people from making money.

        I know. Spain has been like that since they abolished slavery in 1834. Bloody socialists.

        Spain didn't become Socialist until the 1930's well after slavery was abolished and shortly before Spain went from world power to dictatorship and C grade economy.
        Socialism always produces the same results over and over again, but for some reason its adherents continue to believe that the next time will be different...

        • by quenda ( 644621 )

          Socialism always produces the same results over and over again, .

          You must be American. Socialism can mean many different things, as does democracy or capitalism.
          Sweden is hardly the same as Venezuela.

          And BTW, I was making a joke, equating abolition of slavery with protection of gig workers, and socialism. Perhaps we should let the free market decide on slavery?

          • You must be American.

            Are you making a point of being wrong lol...

            Sweden is hardly the same as Venezuela.

            Yawn. Sweden is not Socialist, regardless of what uneducated Bernie bros try and tell you. Sweden has one of the highest levels of economic freedom on par with the US: https://www.heritage.org/index... [heritage.org]. Pro tip: Economic freedom is the opposite of Socialism.

  • That's kind of silly (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eggstasy ( 458692 ) on Sunday March 14, 2021 @09:57AM (#61156870) Journal

    Here, in neighboring Portugal, we simply made it a requirement that everyone working for Uber and the like, needs to be employed at a partner company and not a "freelancer". All drivers and delivery men have the same full benefits of any other employee at any other company. Why make everything controversial by doing something radical after the fact instead of planning for it and incorporating innovation into the existing legal framework from the earliest stages?

    • by schwit1 ( 797399 )

      This may be a second job and they get benefits from the primary job or their spouse may have them on their benefits package.

      People should be allowed to choose no benefits IF they have benefits options elsewhere.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Why make everything controversial by doing something radical after the fact instead of planning for it and incorporating innovation into the existing legal framework from the earliest stages?

      Because they don't want to incorporate it into an existing legal framework. They want a monopoly. That's it. Whenever you see a tech startup use the word "disrupt", just mentally swap in the word "monopolize". Why do you think they get pumped full of huge geysers of investment cash? It's not because the investors think they're going to improve the world, that's for sure.

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      needs to be employed at a partner company

      Can I start my own partner company? With myself as the only employee? And maybe I incorporate it in the Caymen Islands, keeping all my company records in a locked filing cabinet there. In a disused restroom with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard".

      • needs to be employed at a partner company

        Can I start my own partner company? With myself as the only employee? And maybe I incorporate it in the Caymen Islands, keeping all my company records in a locked filing cabinet there. In a disused restroom with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard".

        You can do anything you like. I wouldn't go talking about your plans online though.

      • Can I start my own partner company? With myself as the only employee? And maybe I incorporate it in the Caymen Islands

        Millions of people have personal corporations. Many of them are incorporated in the Cayman Islands, which is cheap and convenient, although incorporating in Delaware is a more common choice. The cost is about $200 and takes about an hour.

        If you work as a contractor, incorporation makes the arrangement clean and easy for both you and the contractee. Tax reporting and deductions for expenses like your home office are also much easier.

  • The Association of Service Platforms calls the rule "an assault on the most basic principles of the freedom to do business..."

    That doesn't mean I'd want to fuck them. Though I'm sure they'd like to fuck me if they could.

    • The Association of Service Platforms calls the rule "an assault on the most basic principles of the freedom to do business..."

      That doesn't mean I'd want to fuck them. Though I'm sure they'd like to fuck me if they could.

      The problem of course, is that if you want to pay shit wages and benefits, you get shit people.

      • The problem of course, is that if you want to pay shit wages and benefits, you get shit people.

        The problem of course, is that if you want to pay shit wages and benefits, you're a shit person.

        There, I fixed that for you.

        • The problem of course, is that if you want to pay shit wages and benefits, you get shit people.

          The problem of course, is that if you want to pay shit wages and benefits, you're a shit person.

          There, I fixed that for you.

          Neither statement is broken, neither need "fixed".

          • The problem of course, is that if you want to pay shit wages and benefits, you get shit people.

            The problem of course, is that if you want to pay shit wages and benefits, you're a shit person.

            There, I fixed that for you.

            Neither statement is broken, neither need "fixed".

            I disagree. All too often, good people have no other option that to do shit jobs.

            • The problem of course, is that if you want to pay shit wages and benefits, you get shit people.

              The problem of course, is that if you want to pay shit wages and benefits, you're a shit person.

              There, I fixed that for you.

              Neither statement is broken, neither need "fixed".

              I disagree. All too often, good people have no other option that to do shit jobs.

              Why? I hate to sound like a Republican, but I started out at the bottom, then worked my way up. I'd have worked for Uber as an independent contractor if I had to, but I'd be out of there as quickly as I could.

              I've found that the biggest impediments to upward mobility is lack of drive, Fear of change, or insisting that something else is more important, like living in the same town their entire life. We makes our choices, and we lives with them.

              • Why? I hate to sound like a Republican, but I started out at the bottom, then worked my way up. I'd have worked for Uber as an independent contractor if I had to, but I'd be out of there as quickly as I could.

                I've found that the biggest impediments to upward mobility is lack of drive, Fear of change, or insisting that something else is more important, like living in the same town their entire life. We makes our choices, and we lives with them.

                You can't argue with these people. I also started at the bottom, an immigrant with no money and I worked my way up through plenty of shit jobs to now be financially comfortable. The reason that older people tend to be Conservative is they've learned through a life of hard work that handouts are not a path to success.

      • The problem of course, is that if you want to pay shit wages and benefits, you get shit people.

        "Shit people" need jobs too. If you price low-skill people out of the job market, you are replacing low pay with no pay.

        • The problem of course, is that if you want to pay shit wages and benefits, you get shit people.

          "Shit people" need jobs too. If you price low-skill people out of the job market, you are replacing low pay with no pay.

          Sure. But the low skill people are suddenly going to have to shop for their own health insurance, make their workman's comp payments, do the SS stuff. Being na independent contractor is a great way fo find out you didn't estimate your quarterlies or didn't even pay into them at all.

  • by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Sunday March 14, 2021 @10:26AM (#61156966)

    In January the House passed HR 842 Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 [congress.gov] which has in it language that states (my emphasis):

    (b) Employee.—Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:“An individual performing any service shall be considered an employee (except as provided in the previous sentence) and not an independent contractor, unless—

    (A) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under the contract for the performance of service and in fact;

    (B) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and

    (C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.

    (B) seems to have the implications that if you contract as a delivery driver to a delivery business, then you should be classified as an employee, because doing deliveries is usual course of business of the company.

    I get what they are trying to do in protecting Gig workers from being exploited, but consider this: I am a self employed software contractor who 1099 contracts to a company whose main line of business is producing the type of software I specialize in. Am I going to be forced to become an employee? We'll see when/if the Senate passes this bill.

    This bill has huge ramifications for every professional person who contracts their skills to other companies. EG It could potentially force every independent contractor to become an employee of a staffing company.

    ---

    Caveat: I am not a labor lawyer or political analyst so take anything in this post with at least 20kg of salt.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      Am I going to be forced to become an employee?

      Perhaps. But then you could always become an employee of a job shop who contracts with with that business to provide your services.

      And then you could pull a trick like the one a friend of mine did when Boeing told her that they could no longer hire her as an individual contractor and she would have to work through a job shop. She started her own job shop. With one employee: herself. Now all the tax benefits flow to the business entity instead of to herself personally. But she is the sole owner of that busi

    • Why is govt stepping in and forcing two private parties on how their business relationship should function if both parties are fine with the arrangement? I can understand that a law should exist to protect exploitation but to force the type of relationship is a socialist method of dealing with this. If I had to guess, this is because of money. The government wants to be able to collect their taxes during payroll and they do not want to deal with the myriads of people who would choose to be their own busines
      • Why is govt stepping in and forcing two private parties on how their business relationship should function if both parties are fine with the arrangement?

        Yes, you should be free to sell yourself into indentured servitude.

      • Why is govt stepping in and forcing two private parties on how their business relationship should function if both parties are fine with the arrangement?

        If that's a genuine question, then please consider the imbalance of power between employers & employees in the vast majority of cases & especially so in casual labour. Every university Business 101 course preaches that the best/only/most effective way to increase profits is to decrease labour costs. That's the employers' mantra. Now how are workers supposed to negotiate their way through a labour market like that & not end up burnt out & living in poverty (Which happens in countries with wea

      • by mvdwege ( 243851 )

        Why is govt stepping in and forcing two private parties on how their business relationship should function if both parties are fine with the arrangement?

        Are you that dumb? Are you that deficient in historical knowledge? Go read up a few books on 19th century industrialism. Go look up piecework. Go read up on the history of the labour movement. Until you've educated yourself, STFU.

    • this talking point. See here [youtube.com]

      TL;DW the law only takes effect if there's an effort to create a Union. Actual Independent contractors generally don't Unionize.

      What's impressive is how Beau called it on the talking point the anti-Union crowd would use. Seriously, if you're not already watching BOTFC you should be.
      • by OzPeter ( 195038 )

        this talking point. See here [youtube.com]

        That's a fair comment and the reviews that I had previously seen hadn't made that distinction.

        FWIW I wasn't raising this issue in order to be anti-union.

        • but the talking point made it's way to you :). That's what's so impressive. You digested and regurgitated the talking point without even knowing it. It shows how good the anti-Union side is. They know what will resonate with people and spread on it's own.

          It makes sense too. They've got the money to do focus groups and research. And they've got 3 24/7 cable news networks, they own most of the local TV channels, all of talk radio and many if not most newspapers. Facebook is also more or less there's too (
    • I am a self employed software contractor who 1099 contracts to a company whose main line of business is producing the type of software I specialize in. Am I going to be forced to become an employee? We'll see when/if the Senate passes this bill.

      Exactly where is the harm in becoming an employee? The company could create a special class of employee that doesn't get any benefits. With "At will" employment, there is no commitment that you would not already take on as a contractor. Or is this really about having

    • It would probably fail any legal challenge. You cant force people to be employees, that is called slavery.

    • I mean at least that protects Uber. After all operating a car for hire service is outside the normal course of business for a company that whose core business model is to be a bunch of Tech-bros bilking investors with broken promises and breaking laws.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by nagora ( 177841 ) on Sunday March 14, 2021 @12:03PM (#61157340)

    This is just enforcing basic employment rules that most civilised countries have had since the 19th century.

    • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Sunday March 14, 2021 @01:12PM (#61157570)

      This is just enforcing basic employment rules that most civilised countries have had since the 19th century.

      It's funny how some folks want to return to the late 1800's when you didn't have to worry about retirement because you were dead.

      The interesting thing, as Joe Scarborough (conservative commentator on MSNBC) noted, is that most people who don't want people to get benefits, are they themselves, getting many benefits.

      I suspect that holds true for all the people here that have the "I got mine - fuck you!" outlook.

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        most people who don't want people to get benefits, are they themselves, getting many benefits.

        I don't want anybody, myself included, to be getting "benefits" from employers. (It is only a little bit better, than getting them from government.)

        It is a terrible situation, because you a) don't have much choice; b) lose the benefits together with the job in a crunch.

        Of course, limiting choice and otherwise keeping you shackled is what Illiberals are all about — the better to "take care of you" — no s

        • most people who don't want people to get benefits, are they themselves, getting many benefits.

          I don't want anybody, myself included, to be getting "benefits" from employers. (It is only a little bit better, than getting them from government.)

          It is a terrible situation, because you a) don't have much choice; b) lose the benefits together with the job in a crunch.

          Of course, limiting choice and otherwise keeping you shackled is what Illiberals are all about — the better to "take care of you" — no surprises here...

          The anarchist showed up, owning and drinking the tears of the "Illiberals". You were just born a century too late.

          The problem is that to get good people, you have ot give them reasons to work for you. And the idea of the everyone is an independent contractor is not going to entice good people.

          Post retirement, I am doing independent contracting. But the amounts I am demanding and getting are quite high, and I also demanded and received W2 rather than 1099 status. It's simple - I got what I demanded, t

          • by mi ( 197448 )

            The problem is that to get good people, you have ot give them reasons to work for you.

            That "reason" is called "money". Just pay me, what you would otherwise spend on my benefits, and I'll spend it the way I want.

            And the employers certainly would — if it weren't for the perverse tax-incentives, whereby their paying for my benefits is tax-deductible, but my paying for my own is not...

            The rest of your drivel is either incoherent or irrelevant and thus left ignored.

            • The problem is that to get good people, you have ot give them reasons to work for you.

              That "reason" is called "money". Just pay me, what you would otherwise spend on my benefits, and I'll spend it the way I want.

              A lot of people do that, and spend the money on themselves. My Wife's best friend's husband did, and it was remarkable the problems he had with SS, Federal, and local taxes, workman's comp, and other stuff.

              But something tells me you don't believe in any of that stuff.

              • A lot of people do that, and spend the money on themselves. My Wife's best friend's husband did, and it was remarkable the problems he had with SS, Federal, and local taxes, workman's comp, and other stuff.

                But something tells me you don't believe in any of that stuff.

                I don't get your argument here. If you wife's boyfriend wasn't paying tax then he gets what's coming, why is that my problem?

              • by mi ( 197448 )

                A lot of people do that, and spend the money on themselves

                And here comes that, not especially pioneering, idea, that politicians know better, how people should be spending their money.

                Still haven't grown up yet, have you? Can't live without somebody taking care of you — and want same for everybody else...

                • A lot of people do that, and spend the money on themselves

                  And here comes that, not especially pioneering, idea, that politicians know better, how people should be spending their money.

                  Still haven't grown up yet, have you? Can't live without somebody taking care of you — and want same for everybody else...

                  You certainly do make a lot of assumptions. Taxes and all the little details of being an independent contractor aren't complicated. In similar fashion, tame goes for doing my own work on my vehicles. I can do it, it's simple. I do still do all of my motorcycle work for entertainment. But I can have other people do it as well.

                  All this leaves my time available for more profitable pursuits.

                  You're stuck in a small frame of mind. So busy worried about small things, Think bigger.

                  • by mi ( 197448 )

                    I do still do all of my motorcycle work for entertainment.

                    So, you'd expect other people, who are not as good at motorcycle-repairs, to be getting such repairs from their employers — as a government-mandated "benefit"?

                    But I can have other people do it as well.

                    You can — and that's your choice.

                    The above-mentioned perverse tax-incentives are limiting that choice: yes, you can pay for your own health-insurance, but it will cost you more than it costs your employer, because you will not be able to ded

                    • So, you'd expect other people, who are not as good at motorcycle-repairs, to be getting such repairs from their employers — as a government-mandated "benefit"?

                      Are you a bot? You aren't making sense. Sorry, but I work on my motorcycle as a form of relaxation. A hobby as it were. I don't work on my own cars any more because it is not a profitable use of my time. Otherwise, go bother someone else with your non-sequiturs.

                    • by mi ( 197448 )

                      Sorry, but I work on my motorcycle as a form of relaxation

                      You started this thread to mock the supposed inconsistency of those objecting to employer-provided benefits, who are themselves happily getting their own.

                      When I pointed out, that there is no inconsistency — we do not want employer-provided benefits, but are forced, by the perverse tax-incentives, to accept them — you stated, that people cannot take care of everything, and that many are happy to delegate benefits-selection to others.

                      You th

        • by nagora ( 177841 )

          Yeah, yeah. That's been tried and it doesn't work. So suck it up or go live somewhere else where you can experience the whole horrorshow of Free Market economics in action without shitting on the rest of us.

      • The interesting thing, as Joe Scarborough (conservative commentator on MSNBC) noted, is that most people who don't want people to get benefits, are they themselves, getting many benefits.

        Did he provide actual examples, or were these 'most people' the same most people used in every lame argument everywhere?
        Personally as a contractor I get no benefits. A business advertises a fixed term role, offering a fixed rate and I take it or leave it and that's my only form of compensation. This style of working is not for everyone, you have to be good at your job and stay on top of latest trends to keep getting work, but along with higher risk comes higher reward. So I'm one example that disproves your theory.

        • The interesting thing, as Joe Scarborough (conservative commentator on MSNBC) noted, is that most people who don't want people to get benefits, are they themselves, getting many benefits.

          Did he provide actual examples, or were these 'most people' the same most people used in every lame argument everywhere?

          You'll have to take that up with him. You might even get some TV time as the guy who shuts Joe down with the ripost "Citations please"

  • There is nothing surprising about governments seeking to be more relevant — commanding submission of and control over the citizenry.

    The Spanish government on Thursday announced legislation

    And changing rules as they go along too.

    • > There is nothing surprising about governments seeking to be more relevant — commanding submission of and control over the citizenry.
      And paying people next to nothing and reducing basic rights is so liberating. I guess you call being a slave the ultimate expression of freedom.
      The Spanish gov isnt perfect, but you can be sure they take care of their citizens far more than the gig economy companies do. Which do you think will help Spanish people when their luck is down and they need benefits or
      • by mi ( 197448 )

        And paying people next to nothing

        No idea, what you're talking about.

        reducing basic rights

        What "basic rights"? Neither the Life, nor Liberty, nor the Pursuit of Happiness are affected by someone working as an employee or otherwise.

        you can be sure they take care of their citizens far more than the gig economy companies do

        The governments aren't there to "take care" of citizens. Only to ensure the above-enumerated rights. Everything else is mission creep [wikipedia.org] — with governments seeking to expand into and contr

        • > What "basic rights"? Neither the Life, nor Liberty, nor the Pursuit of Happiness are affected by someone working as an employee or otherwise.
          What utter rubbish, because people need a decent income to be able to feed themselves and so on.
          I have no idea why you are making the case for mega corporations, they are not your friend.
          > The governments aren't there to "take care" of citizens. Only to ensure the above-enumerated rights. Everything else is mission creep [wikipedia.org] — with gover
  • Who would have gussed the gig economy was invented to screw people over...
  • It's incremental evil steps like this which choke the freedom sane people need to survive and be productive.
    If a worker is working on hours they define, they are contract, period. They are free.
    Unless the government enslaves them with rationalized B.S. laws like this.
    Utter insanity.
    Lower quality of life for all Spaniards, while a few progressives - who would never actually hold gig-style jobs *themselves* - get to feel good about their virtue signaling and their 'efforts to help poor people'.
    So sa
  • Employees have set hours, specified breaks and lunch and limited vacation time that they do not get to set themselves. This will kill the opportunity for the people doing this in their spare time, or for an hour on here and there for a few extra bucks. This will also cause increased funding into self driving cars to replace person drivers, leading to these "employees'" loosing their jobs sooner.
    • Employees have set hours

      Not sure where you get that idea from. You seem to be under the impression that there is no middle ground between a 9-5 office worker and some contractor who comes and goes as they pleases. The reality is a good 40% of the workforce would disagree.

      This will kill the opportunity for the people doing this in their spare time, or for an hour on here and there for a few extra bucks.

      Nope. Contract delivery drivers exist and will continue to exist. What this prevents is some tech bro startup taking advantage of the "gig economy" to fuck over people rightfully considered their employees while making money.

      You don't want employees, fine, don't h

      • by bjwest ( 14070 )

        Employees have set hours

        Not sure where you get that idea from. You seem to be under the impression that there is no middle ground between a 9-5 office worker and some contractor who comes and goes as they pleases. The reality is a good 40% of the workforce would disagree.

        We're not talking office workers or even burger flippers here, TFA is talking specifically about "food delivery riders as employees of the digital platforms they work for, not self-employed,". These platforms were created for part-time, clock in when you want, type of work for people to make a little extra money in their spare time, not as a source of a full time livable income.

        Nope. Contract delivery drivers exist and will continue to exist. What this prevents is some tech bro startup taking advantage of the "gig economy" to fuck over people rightfully considered their employees while making money.

        No, what this is doing is forcing a company who's purpose is to offer people the opportunity to make money in their spare time t

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Working...