Uber CEO Calls For 'Benefits Funds' for Gig Workers

[the cac mamba]

What happens when these people don’t have health insurance, unemployment or ssi when they’re older in the current model?

the same thing that happens to a house inspector who works for himself

 

[Easy-E]

can someone explain why this isnt between the drivers and uber its none of our business

tons of drivers kill it on uber and dont need the government fukking with their money/schedule. and if you're a grown ass man who cant do the math and figure out if its worth it then just dont drive

and none of these drivers WANT to be classified as employees, because then theyd have to work assigned hours instead of turning it on and off whenever they feel like it

Where'd you get this from?

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

What happens when these people don’t have health insurance, unemployment or ssi when they’re older in the current model?

Forcing them to be employees for those benefits only reinforces the current paradigm that you’ll only have a slight chance at safety and benefits based on having “good” employment. That’s the model that needs to be broken. I’d rather Cali be working on their own M4A as opposed to reinforcing that the only way to get healthcare is through employment

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Where'd you get this from?

Lots of drivers here don’t want to be employees and are happy being in full control of when, where, and how often they drive

The Uber Driver's Subreddit

 

[the cac mamba]

Where'd you get this from?

i read the uber forum today. these dudes do NOT want uber to be a "job" where uber tells you when and where you have to work. they dont want to be forced to accept rides

and yes, im pretty sure a fair amount of uber drivers do well driving uber, or are content picking up a couple hundred bucks on the weekend. its popular for a reason

whats with this bullshyt narrative that uber drivers are helpless serfs who can't think for themselves

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

Forcing them to be employees for those benefits only reinforces the current paradigm that you’ll only have a slight chance at safety and benefits based on having “good” employment. That’s the model that needs to be broken. I’d rather Cali be working on their own M4A as opposed to reinforcing that the only way to get healthcare is through employment

lol okay

unemployment?
social security?
housing?

How far are you willing to go to subsidize companies?

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

lol okay

unemployment?
social security?
housing?

How far are you willing to go to subsidize companies?

How is all that handled for contractors now? Healthcare shouldn’t be attached to employment one way or another, that’s behind this fight, and housing has nothing to do with being an employee or contractor. I don’t get the leap here, drivers are contractors, they know that, and should undertake the protocol contractors do in other industries re unemployment, ssi withholding, etc

 

[Armchair Militant]

I read the op-Ed. So he wants the government to force gig work companies to pay for benefits like health insurance. He claims Uber is going to start offering benefits, but he wants competitors to be required by law to do the same.

For example, if Uber decides to pay for health insurance, they may have to raise prices for riders. If Lyft refuses to do the same, Lyft could have the advantage of offering cheaper rides.

Seems like he wants a legal standard for gig work companies to prevent a race to the bottom. Kinda similar to the concept of a minimum wage.

I don’t think the government should get involved in that.

 

[Serious]

Where'd you get this from?

Most don’t want to be classified as employees. They love the freedom.

they just want employee benefits

 

[Liu Kang]

The gig economy is and will forever be a sham as a business model. It's a system that offsets costs (healthcare, benefits, expenses, taxes etc) from the company on the worker so that's why they don't want employees but contractors (aka 1 man companies).

The economy is changing but the current gig worker model is not sustainable and will only serve to create a fragile and disposable workforce with no leverage against companies. Majority of Uber's workforce are drivers objectively speaking and the "we're a tech company first" excuse is easily disprovable simply by looking at this. So they are hypocrites to start with.

Even worse, the premise the CEO talk about as employees have no to little flexibility is flat out wrong. The flexibility of an employee job entirely depends on the companies' sector, rules and logic. Myself, I'm an employee and I work the hours I want, from home if I want as long as my work is satisfying/done etc. The premise should not be to choose from no flexibility+benefits and no benefits+flexibility (which is what Uber wants to make believe to be the only choices) but to choose between hour-based logic and target/kpi based logic (or some other logic)

Uber could have tried to work a model centered around distributing benefits relatively to fares/number of clients/whatever KPI they see fit but they were more than happy to crush the taxi model by paying none thanks to that contractor drivers model which was an essential part for them to be that competitive.

 

[Uitomy]

They have too many drivers plain and a simple.
You can't have a buisness run properly if the amount of contractors you have is effectively limitless
There wouldn't be this issue if there were like a few hundred to thousands of drivers max depending on the city. This is what corporate greed leads to, you can only grow and expand a buisness like this all over the world for only so long till it gets to the point you have to overcharge for the service cause you got 40% too many people to pay.

 

[CrimsonTider]

well uber is now out of california. sounds like a huge win for the drivers

How do they replace that revenue?

Uber has been losing 1 billion dollars a quarter since their IPO and they lost 3 billion last Quarter

They have too many drivers plain and a simple.
You can't have a buisness run properly if the amount of contractors you have is effectively limitless
There wouldn't be this issue if there were like a few hundred to thousands of drivers max depending on the city. This is what corporate greed leads to, you can only grow and expand a buisness like this all over the world for only so long till it gets to the point you have to overcharge for the service cause you got 40% too many people to pay.

you can not effectively manage a business when you don’t know what you’re cost will be month to month especially labor cost which should be somewhat fixed

Uber’s current business model has no path to profitably

 

[the cac mamba]

How do they replace that revenue?

Uber has been losing 1 billion dollars a quarter since their IPO and they lost 3 billion last Quarter

this is what's pissing me off about this

its not like uber is a rich company sitting on its billions and withholding health insurance because its greedy its very easy to look up the fact that uber loses money as-is

and we have Mass Health in my state for people to buy into. i thought there was Obamacare. cant uber drivers get the same insurance as anyone who doesnt get it through their job? dont most uber drivers NOT even drive full time? its not even marketed as your full time job

why attack this industry thats wildly popular with the entire country?

 

[the cac mamba]

The gig economy is and will forever be a sham as a business model. It's a system that offsets costs (healthcare, benefits, expenses, taxes etc) from the company on the worker so that's why they don't want employees but contractors (aka 1 man companies).

The economy is changing but the current gig worker model is not sustainable and will only serve to create a fragile and disposable workforce with no leverage against companies. Majority of Uber's workforce are drivers objectively speaking and the "we're a tech company first" excuse is easily disprovable simply by looking at this. So they are hypocrites to start with.

Even worse, the premise the CEO talk about as employees have no to little flexibility is flat out wrong. The flexibility of an employee job entirely depends on the companies' sector, rules and logic. Myself, I'm an employee and I work the hours I want, from home if I want as long as my work is satisfying/done etc. The premise should not be to choose from no flexibility+benefits and no benefits+flexibility (which is what Uber wants to make believe to be the only choices) but to choose between hour-based logic and target/kpi based logic (or some other logic)

Uber could have tried to work a model centered around distributing benefits relatively to fares/number of clients/whatever KPI they see fit but they were more than happy to crush the taxi model by paying none thanks to that contractor drivers model which was an essential part for them to be that competitive.

i dont disagree that the gig economy is kinda bullshyt, but the fact is that a model where you choose when and where to work is NOT "employment" in the standard sense. its contracting

if my company let us work like uber drivers, the company would not continue to function

so i guess at the end of the day, you can champion the government forcing uber to switch to an employee model, but who asked them to? because it isnt the drivers and it isnt the riders

i dont think uber is bluffing here; they lose money already. so when they pull out of california what's drivers' reactions gonna be?

 

[Th3G3ntleman]

I think these gig jobs should be completely eradicated. I don't give a fucck that it's potential work for average Americans. It's an exploitative business model that shut be fukking killed. Airbnb looks like it's dying and it looks like this is following suit. Good