Biden Blocks Trump's Gig-worker Rule (protocol.com) 109
The Biden administration has blocked a Trump-era rule that would have made it easier for companies like Uber, Lyft and Instacart to continue classifying rideshare drivers and delivery workers as independent contractors under federal law. From a report: The rule pertained to the classification of gig workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires employers to pay non-exempt employees at least the federal minimum wage. The Trump administration published the rule in January 2021, and it was originally set to go into effect on March 8. In February, Biden's labor department delayed implementation until May 7. Now, the Department of Labor has officially withdrawn the rule. The decision to rescind the rule does not mean gig workers will be considered employees. But it does mean certain gig workers won't face an additional obstacle in their efforts to be classified as employees. The rule would have implemented a new interpretation of what type of worker is an independent contractor. The DOL, however, determined that it would have "narrowed the scope of facts and considerations" in determining whether someone is an independent contractor or employee.
Build Back Better (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like Biden is righting some real injustices in our employment laws.
The race to the bottom has to stop. The bottom is already well below the poverty line.
We cannot allow businesses to operate on the basis of impoverishing their employees.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I understand the sentiment, however if it were so bad there would be no employees willing to do the job.
Because instead they'd...happily live in treehouses and eat the manna that regularly rains down on them?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe they would, but apparently they've decided they'd rather have the job. Look, your lack of options isn't your employer's problem to fix. He has a job, he's willing to pay X amount of dollars to get it done. If you don't think X is sufficient, you're welcome to turn down the job. If you can't find anyone who will pay you more, then I submit your employer's estimate of your worth is a lot more accurate than yours.
Re:Build Back Better (Score:4, Insightful)
People will settle for all kinds of terrible employment conditions if the alternative is abject poverty and starvation. Read up about Victorian England some time, or the US from reconstruction to the gilded age.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I swear half of the posters here got 3 chapters into A Christmas Carol and thought "this Scrooge guy is awesome" and stopped reading.
Re: (Score:2)
People will settle for all kinds of terrible employment conditions if the alternative is abject poverty and starvation. Read up about Victorian England some time, or the US from reconstruction to the gilded age.
Victorian England is why we ended up with powerful unions who introduced the 40 hour working week, mandatory 2 days off, 30 days holiday, social security safety nets, et al. so that the alternative to taking a shitty job is not abject poverty and starvation.
You would happily see that undone just because you're too lazy to cook your own chicken nuggets?
If you've ever said "thank god for the weekend" remember that fucker wanted you to slave for six days and prostrate for the other... If you like the weekend,
Re: (Score:2)
"Victorian England is why we ended up with powerful unions who introduced the 40 hour working week, mandatory 2 days off, 30 days holiday, social security safety nets, et al."
I'm pretty sure Henry Ford introduced the 40 hour and 5 day work week.
Social Security and many other safety nets were pioneered by FDR.
In 1910 Taft proposed paid vacations. In the UK, the Holidays with Pay Act 1938 gave those workers whose minimum rates of wages were fixed by trade boards, the right to one weeks' holiday per year. How
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, your idiot-ology really scripts everything for you, doesn't it?
Why do you think Ford introduced it? Couldn't *possibly* be that socialists and unions demonstrated for it for decades (like women demonstrated for the right to vote)?
No, no, Henry Ford was John Galt....
Re: (Score:2)
This is such a laughably simplistic understanding of the labor market. It's like you missed all of the lessons of the last 150 years. We don't need you to give us examples of what you don't know. It would be better for all of us if you stuck to what you know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If the 146 garment workers who died in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory didn't want to burn to death, they wouldn't have taken the job. Free markets!!"
Re: (Score:2)
"Many canâ(TM)t go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population"
Yes, let's deconstruct all social problems to iTs JuSt A rAtIoNaL bUsInEsS tRaNsAcTiOn. Worked so well last time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Build Back Better (Score:4, Informative)
9% of Uber drivers drive full time. They complete 25% of all rides.
Even fewer are the sole source of income for their household.
How many Uber drivers are full-time? [axios.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I've taken Lyft many times (Used to take Uber until they went against the NY Taxi Cabs Drivers' 1 hour Boycott [inquisitr.com]) and have never heard one of the drivers say they're unhappy with what they do (and I ask every time). I don't think they're particularly bad at math, but they either don't care about benefits like healthcare and sick time, or have a spouse who can provide them with healthcare coverage.
The solution to that is government-provided healthcare coverage for everyone. Let the government provi
Re: (Score:2)
You're sampling procedure is flawed. Any Lyft driver who said anything negative lost the gig on the first report.
Re: (Score:2)
You could have made exactly the same argument, in the same words, 100 or 150 years ago as well. It turns out that a completely free market never creates decent living conditions for the majority of people working under it.
Re:Build Back Better (Score:4, Interesting)
The misinterpretation you made is assuming that happens and it's done, when in fact economics measures the shift in the balance of supply and demand over time. When you're talking about 100-150 years ago you're talking about the industrial revolution I assume (Victorian England, gilded age US, etc.). In economics terms, automation in the fields and a relatively high birth rate combined with limited access to capital to create new businesses led to an oversupply of labor (the "Sell" side) and barriers to new businesses getting started (the "Buy" side) limiting demand. Thus wages were low. Also, people were just starting to understand these principles. The experience of this history taught how to utilize free market capitalism efficiently.
Today, if you suspect a lot of people will suddenly be looking for work, then the government can step in to both remove barriers for businesses to get started by freeing up capital (lower interest rates, etc), as well as create workforce training programs so that the labor is retrained and increased in skills. The awful thing happening here is what the administration is doing is artificially increasing the price of labor (employees get benefits which cost teh company), which alters the amount the companies will pay for, reducing the supply and creating inefficiencies. If instead the Biden administration invested in workforce training in trades to address the massive skilled trades labor shortage in this country, they'd both reduce the supply of gig workers thus increasing their pay as well as shift surplus workers into higher paying trades jobs. Biden has pledged to do a lot of this kind of stuff, but nothing has materialized as truly actionable yet.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as unemployment is a positive number, no employer has an economic incentive to offer more than the next employer in commodity jobs. In fact, they have every incentive to reduce what they pay down to the lowest pay in the market.
Imagine trying to sell a commodity where there is an over-supply and has been for decades.
Of course, for any other commodity, suppliers would exit the market until supply is reduced to just about meet demand. Unfortunately, in employment that means you either have to somehow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've tried laissez faire capitalist approaches to the labor market. The result has been wages steadily declining against inflation.
We have to at least set a minimum wage since we have actually seen that otherwise employers will actively use social safety net programs as a payroll subsidy.For example, HR at Walmart will help you fill out forms for food stamps (or whatever they call it now).
The disappearance of employer based training shows that the unemployment is well above that which might be caused by fr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no doubt that some workers haven't made any effort to better their situation. The ones you referred to certainly seem to be on the lower half of the bell curve. Of course, it could also reflect a deep failure of the schools they went to or a fundamental mistrust of banks (not entirely unjustified but a bit extreme).
But even so, the minimum wage in 1969 was about $12/hr in 2020 dollars. A single income from a skilled worker was enough to own a modest home and a car. Even degreed professionals have f
gig wokers makeing at or little over min wage tax (Score:2)
gig wokers makeing at or little over min wage should not be hit with the full tax load of an 1099. And they should have control over there work and not be an 1099er in name only. Also at very least they should be paid at site waiting for job time. Just think if convenience only payed workers an % of sales but wanted them to be there all night even when it's very slow so you may have only 1-2 sales over an few hours and it may be gas so will do that for $0.02 in pay gal. Maybe getting $0.10 from an candy bar
Re: (Score:3)
There is no such thing as a free market.
If you have a market without regulation, then someone dominates it and it is no longer free.
If you have a market with regulation, it is also not free. It is regulated.
The closest you get to a free market, though, involves having regulations which try to make the market fair.
Therefore, if you want the fairest labor market possible, you outlaw starvation wages (that is, anything below a living wage) because they are undesirable and anyone whose business model doesn't le
Re:Build Back Better (Score:5, Interesting)
In part it's because the free market never starts on a level playing field, and there is no failsafe to keep it somewhat level.
When the playing field starts with a company town where the company owns everything for miles in every direction, and every job is a company job paid in company script redeemable only at the company businesses and you can only rent not buy, it's near impossible for a family to break out of that.
When the playing field starts with a rich corporation that plays hard and fast with laws and the truth, plays up good jobs with asterisks after them leading to a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo, it can be really hard for the average person to be able to tell exactly what they're getting into.
That said, I'm against a minimum wage. Why? I'm for UBI and universal healthcare. When you have food on the table and enough money to eat rice and beans and put a roof over your head, your basic needs are met. If you get sick you'll get cared for. If you want more money, find a job that will pay you more money. And if you decide you'd be happier going back to rice and beans and dog walking for $2/hr than doing that job anymore, that employer no longer has a solid hold over you.
A major side-effect of this would be to pump money (and health care) into some of the most impoverished parts of the US. That would help anchor the economies of those places, and start to revitalize them. The rust belt, Appalachia, small towns in the west, inner cities, etc., all would see some money flowing in. (A lot of these places have a median income of less than $12k a year!) We'd see folks living in expensive cities realize that they could move to a cabin in Wyoming and work on their novel, and still be able to live a moderately comfortable life. That would be more money flowing into the town, more needs for goods and services, etc.
Employers should be forced to pay the wages the market demands. The problem is that in many cases, they don't have to. Why? Because people don't have options in a lot of places. They're trapped in a location, in a skill-set, in an educational bracket, behind a criminal record, etc. If you give people the basics, that forces employers to pay the wages the market demands. Because if the basics are meet, people can say no without going homeless, having no retirement, having no healthcare, etc.
"We're hiring people with bachelor's degrees for $5/hr." **crickets**
"Ok, we're hiring people with bachelor's degrees for $10/hr now." **crickets**
"Ok, fine. We're hiring anyone who is reasonably qualified for $20/hr." **lots of inquiries**
Re: (Score:2)
When the playing field starts with a company town where the company owns everything for miles in every direction, and every job is a company job paid in company script redeemable only at the company businesses and you can only rent not buy, it's near impossible for a family to break out of that.
What is this, 1860? I don't think there have been company towns for over 100 years.
Employers should be forced to pay the wages the market demands. The problem is that in many cases, they don't have to. Why? Because people don't have options in a lot of places. They're trapped in a location, in a skill-set, in an educational bracket, behind a criminal record, etc. If you give people the basics, that forces employers to pay the wages the market demands.
Wait, what? You don't want companies to pay what the market demands. If people don't have any better options, then the market (that is to say, the unemployed workers) will demand a low price. A price lower than you like. Lower than you think is just. So you don't want a market price for labor, you want an above market price for labor.
Please at least be clear what you're advocating.
I'm fine with wanting people to earn more. No
Re: (Score:3)
I'm fine with wanting people to earn more. No one but a psychopath wants people to be poor. But the way to do that, as you've observed but ignored, is to make sure people have better options.
The way to make sure nobody is making slavery wages is to outlaw slavery wages. Then the vaunted invisible hand can remove businesses which depend upon them, as they are unsustainable.
Re: (Score:2)
When the playing field starts with a company town where the company owns everything for miles in every direction, and every job is a company job paid in company script redeemable only at the company businesses and you can only rent not buy, it's near impossible for a family to break out of that.
What is this, 1860? I don't think there have been company towns for over 100 years.
1) You might want to follow the context of a thread before bitching about somebody's reply. The person that mentioned company towns a) also mentioned the more modern equivalent, and b) was replying to someone talking about conditions 100-150 years ago.
2) Don't worry, some idiots in the Nevada legislature are trying to bring them back (though thankfully that seems to be on hold as of last week):
https://news.trust.org/item/20... [trust.org]
3) Although it might seem like it, 2008 wasn't quite 100 years ago. https://en.w [wikipedia.org]
Restaurant "Labor Shortages" Demonstrate Point (Score:2)
That said, I'm against a minimum wage. Why? I'm for UBI and universal healthcare. When you have food on the table and enough money to eat rice and beans and put a roof over your head, your basic needs are met. If you get sick you'll get cared for. If you want more money, find a job that will pay you more money. And if you decide you'd be happier going back to rice and beans and dog walking for $2/hr than doing that job anymore, that employer no longer has a solid hold over you.
We're seeing it right now: restaurants are seeing a massive labor shortage as many of their workers, sustained by COVID-19 relief, have realized that they are being underpaid and suffering poor working conditions. They may want to return to work, but not at the wages being proposed, and for the first time in a long while, they have a choice. [eater.com]
Re: Build Back Better (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are some people who will stay on welfare as long as they can (a small but visible minority)
But if we call it Universal Basic Income then they can blend in with the crowd.
Re: (Score:3)
benefit cliffs make it so that some don't want to (Score:2)
benefit cliffs make it so that some don't want to work more as picking up an few hours more can end costing you more in lost benefits then you get in added pay.
Re: (Score:1)
Alternatively we make these jobs prohibitively expensive, kill the business, and put those employees on welfare.
I'd love to read up on all the cases you can cite where this has happened.
Re: (Score:3)
> I understand the sentiment, however if it were so bad there would be no employees willing to do the job.
"employee" capture is a thing. Uber wasn't where I live for a long time but whenever I traveled I used it in cities that had it instead of cabs and I'd always chat with the drivers and ask them about it and how they were doing. When it first started people were making good money doing it because Uber was desperate to get drivers. Over time Uber started clawing back what the drivers made, and impos
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the sentiment, however if it were so bad there would be no employees willing to do the job. So it has to be worth it on some level to someone.
Yes, and that level is "I will starve eventually, but not today". I think the bar should be higher than that.
Alternatively we make these jobs prohibitively expensive, kill the business, and put those employees on welfare.
Your logical fallacy is false dichotomy. When that business dies, it opens up space in the market for someone with a better business plan, which involves paying more than starvation wages. If we kill the business, some other business will come into being. The bad businesses (those which pay unsustainable wages) suck the air out of the room.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sounds like Biden is righting some real injustices in our employment laws.
How? The rule was going to make sure gig employees received at least federal minimum wage. Biden rescinded it, so now they may receive less than minimum wage. How does that help gig workers?
Re:Build Back Better (Score:4, Funny)
If only there was an article you could read which would explain this!
Damn, I wish there was some website which posted articles with a comment section so that people who had read them could talk about the contents. I bet it would be great!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's why Biden allowed Trumps restrictions on H1B visas to lapse.
Maybe Joe just forgot?
Re: (Score:2)
The USA needs immigrants to sustain the population. Would you prefer those immigrants to be more educated, or less?
Re: (Score:2)
"I said I wanted to be a contractor."
You can't work the checkout at Wal-mart as a contractor either. I'm sure they'd love that option, but they are prohibited because entities like that have repeatedly shown they abuse that relationship. Uber is no different.
Just doing what they're supposed to do (Score:2)
All executive orders should have sunset provisions to expire with the subsequent administration, so that they have to renew it if they want it to stick.
Probably should do the whole government that way
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Heh, people have to vote for that, if they're really interested. But you said "get back...", what time frame do you have in mind? A lot of these guys are 40 year incumbents.
Re: (Score:2)
"executive orders" should never be used as a replacement for proper legislation
Sure. But we don't have proper legislation. So XOs fill the gaps in the law.
If Congress doesn't like the XOs, they have the authority to overrule them.
If the people don't like the XOs, they should change who they vote for. Elections have consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Never as a replacement, but sometimes as a tourniquet until congress puts in the fix.
Re: (Score:3)
Proper democracies don't allow them.
Re: (Score:1)
With a sufficient majority congress can always write a law to countermand any executive order
Re: (Score:2)
Forget Dreamers. Every immigrant showing up at the southern border should be handed natural born citizenship and a reparations check of no less than $1,000,000, in compensation for centuries of American imperialism.
Re: (Score:2)
"executive orders" should never be used as a replacement for proper legislation
Executive orders spring from legislation. A law is passed that gives various executive branch agencies authority to issue these types of orders.
Re: (Score:1)
The whole gig worker argument is ridiculous... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Finally ask yourself, would Uber have a company without the drivers? I mean, if I hire a contractor to build my website selling widgets I have a company that sells widgets. I'd still have a product with or witho
Automate everything (Score:2)
And thus Biden helped usher in the age of automation.
Re: (Score:3)
And thus Biden helped usher in the age of automation.
Automation is coming. Doesn't matter what old white guy lives in the White house.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is coming. But stuff like this and higher minimum wages will bring it in all the faster.
Automation will be a good thing, eventually. It's the short term that's the problem, change is painful. And in the long run we're all dead.
Re: (Score:2)
When it's more expensive to get work done with people, companies will invest more in automation, or will be more willing to give another company's automation a try.
Re: (Score:2)
Minimum wages have to rise high enough to make it cheaper to automate in order for them to speed automation significantly. But labor costs are a small part of the cost of most products, so they have to rise a whole lot — way more than doubling.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that labor costs (not just pay, but benefits, dealing with regulations, related legal issues, etc.) are a large part of most businesses. Something like Transportation Network Companies will be much more labor-heavy, and self-driving cars are coming quickly.
And costs don't even have to be a large part of the expenses to be cut with something cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
costs don't even have to be a large part of the expenses to be cut with something cheaper.
Sure, but automation isn't cheap, so they do have to be significant. People are acting like robot replacements are cheap already. They are not. They will be, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Which totally explains why Germany pays their auto workers twice as much while they produce twice as many cars. Not. And in civilized countries, increased automation means increased wages and fewer hours, not layoffs and more corporate profits. Hey look, there's Germany [usatoday.com] again.
Re: (Score:2)
And thus Biden helped usher in the age of automation.
You need to stop jerking off to Atlas Shrugged.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't read it, but I've been thinking about it- I have been listening to Michael Malice.
He also just moved to waive patent rights (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That means nothing. It's the Defense Production Act that blocks exports of critical resources. Which Trump invoked and Biden happily renewed.
Re: (Score:2)
He also just moved to waive patent rights [...]
On the covid-19 vaccine internationally.
That means nothing. It's the Defense Production Act that blocks exports of critical resources. Which Trump invoked and Biden happily renewed.
Uh, what? This is about patent rights, not produced medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about patent rights
India, for example, already produces its own vaccines. So I fail to see exactly what patents it is waiting for.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxpayers funded the vaccines, patents should not apply.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be able to stay home because my state will still have early mail-in ballots, unlike the states where Republicans are doing their best to reduce the number of voters because if everyone votes, they will never win another election.
Other things to remember: (Score:2)
Biden's broken promises on increasing minimum wage and passing a public option.
Biden continuing the persecution of Assange after being Obama's attack dog on journalism.
Biden is sending more military hardware to cops than Trump did.
Biden is continuing crushing sanctions on Venezuela and Iran.
Biden's $20 billion increase to the Imperial Budget could end homelessness in USA.
Biden firing White House staffers for pot after hiring pot using Kopmala.
Biden continuing the drug war while giving his own crackhead son
Go fast, break things (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Turns out the things they are breaking are most likely employment laws.
They've broken tons of laws (employment, transportation, insurance, etc.), but they operate on a "forgiveness before permission" model.
No.
Laws, rules, and regulations exist for a reason, and they are often written in blood. Lyft and Uber decided to flout then and they say, "Oh sorry, my bad". These companies all should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Uber and Lyft approve of this action (Score:2)
Uber and Lyft approve of this action - so you know it's bad for the drivers.
Curious (Score:2)
When Trump tried to rescind the many stroke-of-a-pen Obama presidential rules, he was met by a barrage of 100's of lawsuits INSISTING that just because a rule was issued by presidential fiat, doesn't mean it could be rescinded as easily.
Doesn't anyone find it curious that I don't see similar waves of lawsuits now going the other direction (or the news isn't covering them, I genuinely don't know which is true)?
Sorry to repeat this but (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, the opposite. Uber et al create fake jobs that would be taxi drivers sign up for and then find they can't make ends meet. During this time they put the taxis out of business by subsidizing them.
So this undoes a lot of job destruction.
Re: (Score:1)
That "fake" job is better than no job.
Re:Kill more job (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Uber was built on the model of people moonlighting for a couple of hours at random times to pick up a little extra cash.
That may have been their original intent, and that may be what Uber's marketing is still all about, but Uber does depend on full-time drivers for the bulk of its business.
If you don't believe me, just look at their weekly bonus system. With the number of rides they want you to give each week, you have to work 50-80 hours a week (and I'm not talking about their new drivers, new drivers are asked to drive a lot less initially).
And again, if you don't believe me, just ask the next 5 Uber/Lyft drivers you get,
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't believe me, just look at their weekly bonus system. With the number of rides they want you to give each week, you have to work 50-80 hours a week
As I said, anyone who thought it's a full-time job is kidding himself. It's a side hustle, nothing more. I'll grant you that Uber makes it tempting to try and turn it into a real job, but there's no way anyone who looks at it objectively would come to that conclusion.
Working at McDonald's or Pizza Hut, restocking the shelves in a supermarket...
None of those jobs let you choose your own hours and how many hours you will work, or even whether you'll work any hours at all in any given week.
That is absolutely not true (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How far are you willing to pare down the definition of a legitimate job? If all the jobs people tell me are illegitimate, "for teenagers" etc., were vanished tomorrow, we'd only have jobs for 1 in 3 adults. It's less than 2 in 3 as it is. Labor force participation dipped below that in the financial crisis 13 years ago, and never came back up.
Keep in mind the "unemployment rate" everyone talks about only counts people out of work for less than 6 months. It's really an indication of recent firings and layoffs
Re: (Score:2)
Well, somebody needed to put the taxis out of business, so it's all good, I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, the opposite. Uber et al create fake jobs that would be taxi drivers sign up for and then find they can't make ends meet. During this time they put the taxis out of business by subsidizing them.
So this undoes a lot of job destruction.
The tax cab companies don't treat their employees any better than Uber or Lyft to their gig workers. Some companies even require them to rent the cabs among paying other fees. The cab companies artificially keep their units down, otherwise they'd have a surplus.
In addition, you must live in a large city where you can get a taxi by walking a couple of blocks and at any time of the day/night. In a suburb, you'll have to call ahead for a cab with a wait time of 30-90 minutes, and then they MAY show up (firs
Re: (Score:1)
Such cornball nonsense, why not just use "Demoncrat", I feel like that one works better
anyway, die mad every time Biden does something not terrible.