[secondtimeuse]

Discounting the tripe "You go girl" tone of the article, there is no divine law asserting that there ought to be only two forms of (W2/1099) employees. The labor laws should change in tune with evolution in technology. However given the current dysfunctional congress, and from experience with other Patent/Immigration laws this won't happen any time soon. Had it been about Patent/IP litigation and any other lawyer the tone of the article would be different.

This is parasitic legal rent seeking at its worst, let's call a spade a spade.

Here is an WSJ article that calls for change in labor laws.[1]

[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-if-there-were-a-new-type-of...

[rayiner]

Rentseeking refers to trying to get compensation for economic activity that would happen without you. What this lady is doing is not rent seeking, because the economic transactions at issue (treating workers as employees), would not happen without her lawsuits.

More generally, just because new technology exists doesn't mean that the law needs to change. Technology in this case has made engaging in certain work relationships easier, but hasn't created new work relationships. People have been freelancing as maids or drivers long before you could use an app to hire them to do those jobs. And the factors that fact typically used to figure out the treatment of workers still make perfect sense in the Uber context. E.g., Uber's drivers do have a lot of schedule flexibility. On the other hand, they impose tight service standards and tie them to their brand. How Uber's employees should be treated can thus be decided by applying the existing principles and factors.

The labor protection versus employment freedom debate is much older than Silicon Valley, and the debate today doesn't really involve any new concepts. The WSJ was pushing for weaker labor laws decades ago, for the same reasons as it is now. Of course they're donning the mantle of disruption now--that's standard procedure when you're trying to relitigate a settled debate. But that's just a rhetorical device.

[zzalpha]

This is parasitic legal rent seeking at its worst, let's call a spade a spade.

Or, its someone fighting organizations profiting illegally by flouting labour laws that have protected workers from corporate exploitation for decades.

But potato, potahto, right?

[secondtimeuse]

"Fighting organizations" is a rhetorical device used by lawyers to fool general public and people like you.

The reality today is that there is a large lobby of litigators actively trying to keep any change in labour/Patent laws from happening. [1]

I own no shares of Uber Inc. and any other companies involved in these litigations. But the reality is that by framing this incorrectly as David (The attorney) vs Goliath (Uber et. al.) fight the article is just pushing your emotional buttons. At end of the day litigation is not going to magically create jobs out of thin air. Uber will eventually shift to autonomous cars or will go bankrupt or might end having chinese drive the cars via video conference. It's easy to blame Uber for the mess that is the employer provided insurance.

Its not the Uber which created that problem, its the legislative gridlock which is at fault. But its cooler these days to hate Uber for all that ills the hapless middle class in USA.

[1] http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/16/how-the-tech-...

[geofft]

The way that inappropriate laws get fixed in the US is that new laws get passed, not that people violate the laws that seem irrelevant to them. I have no objection to Uber lobbying for laws to introduce a new class of employees (and I have absolutely no objection to Uber or anyone else making life hard for the taxi lobby). I do have a strong objection to Uber deciding to treat employees in a way prohibited by law because they, on their own, think it makes more sense.

"Legislative gridlock" is a weak excuse. Plenty of legislation gets through, from PPACA (which had, and continues to have, widespread objection) to USA FREEDOM (even if you claim PATRIOT's expiration was the result of "deadlock", the replacement came a day later) to JOBS (specifically legalizing things that startups wanted to do!) to allowing people to unlock their cell phones (not really a Big Foo priority). If the people really want Uber and Airbnb -- which they seem to -- why can't they just get a law passed? And why can't all these innovative, well-funded startups figure out how to disrupt and fix something as obviously dysfunctional as our political system?

My worry is not so much with these particular ways they're breaking the law; it seems like this is probably reasonable (though I'd still like someone other than Uber to consider it). My worry is with the loss of the rule of law, and the precedent that we're not going to care about whether the law is followed. It's certainly true that Uber et al. aren't the first companies to break laws, but this seems like a qualitative change in what laws are being broken and what the impact on society is, and a democratic society should be able to have an opinion on it.

[hollerith]

>The way that inappropriate laws get fixed in the US is that new laws get passed,

Fixed a lot of inappropriate laws, have you?

[1stop]

... It was a statement of fact.

I know how a plane flies without being a pilot.

Obvious troll is obvious.

[lazerwalker]

The fact that the core problem is more systemic than a specific company and set of grievances doesn't mean there isn't value in litigation.

Would forcing Uber to pay into state disability and worker's comp fix all of the problems our country has with labor / insurance / etc? Absolutely not. But at an absolute minimum, would it improve life somewhat in the short term for current Uber drivers? Probably.

[rayiner]

Employer provided insurance is a mess. Ideally, we would have only the most basic labor laws, but a guaranteed income or similar safety net to make up for it.

But we don't have that. What we have is an awkward balance where employer provided benefits are a big part of the safety net. While that remains the case, it's really important to make sure that companies follow the rules.

[Fomite]

Maybe labor laws should change, but they haven't changed. "Regulation is for other people" as a business model is a bad way to effect that change.

[secondtimeuse]

Yes, I completely agree. Travis Kalanick should have just watched and followed "I am just a bill"[1] video for instructions regarding changing labor law, prior to founding Uber.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-eYBZFEzf8

[Apocryphon]

Unironically agreed.

[janesvilleseo]

Let's call a spade a spade. Can anyone point to Uber showcasing their love for their employees? All I see is the opposite. I mean they are actively looking to replace them with self driving cars. They could care less about their 'contractors'.

[subatomic]

*couldn't

[fleitz]

Which is kind of the point, they aren't warm fuzzy come work for us, we're a family, you're a valued employee.

If you work as a driver for Uber you're a contractor, they could give a fuck whether you drive for them lyft, whatever, they don't care. Want to only work from 2am to 3am on Saturday nights? Knock yourself out. Didn't show up on time at 9am? Don't care. Oh, you're in South Africa this week and aren't taking any shifts? That's fine too. If there's work, work if not, fuck you.

To Uber you are the 'self' in the self driving car a machine to be replaced by a slightly cheaper model. That smells an awful lot like contractor and not a lot like employee. The only reason developers are employees is because contract developers are more expensive than employees who don't realize sodas aren't actually that expensive for adults with real skills.

[Sanddancer]

> The only reason developers are employees is because contract developers are more expensive than employees who don't realize sodas aren't actually that expensive for adults with real skills.

Uh, no. Being an employee has a lot of rights that a 1099 person doesn't have, like the right to unionize, the ability to collect unemployment insurance if the company you're working for goes under, being a part of a health insurance pool for lower medical costs, access to the Family and Medical Leave Act rights, etc. There are a lot of things that employees get that aren't just "free sodas".

[fleitz]

I've contracted and had access to all those things, though I don't see the point of unionizing as the sole employee in my own business... Nor would I see any point in rights under the 'Family and Medical Leave Act' when I could take as much time off as I liked and pay myself whatever I wanted to during said leave.

[SilasX]

I agree that the labor laws have an "impedance mismatch" with the on-the-ground reality and I tried to spell out what that was in another comment [1]. Basically, laws shouldn't be discontinuous like this -- where all the rules sharply change when you just 50.001% look like a contractor (or the opposite). It should be more like "as you start to look more like an employee, you must adhere to more of a certain requirement".

Don't know why you're getting voted down so hard.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10717768