> One of the great things about DD is one can do it in their down time.
I agree: if people want to work in the gig-economy on a part-time or "side-hustle"-basis, then of course they should.
But I also think that if people would prefer to work in gig-economy as their full-time job then they shouldn't be screwed-over either.
I do recognize that being a "full-time gig-economy worker" working 12+ hours a day can, in-practice, mean working 3-4 hours/day for each of 3-4 completely separate companies, and on that basis I don't believe there's currently a workable way
(in the US, at least) to require any single gig-company (like Uber or DoorDash, etc) to extend FTE benefits like that, but this a new paradigm (is it really that new though?) that needs to be written into employment law with a solution that works well for everybody: it's demonstrable that the greater-society loses when more people don't have decent health-insurance coverage or childcare or even good ol' fashioned time-off.
If they paid those things then (a) the hourly would be significantly less and (b) there'd be less flexibility in hours-per-week or hours-per-month, because benefits are paid at a fixed rate.
> there'd be less flexibility in hours-per-week or hours-per-month, because benefits are paid at a fixed rate.
You're not wrong on point a), but I don't think we'd see a "significant" difference though - but you're incorrect on point b) because I've had (and have) very, very flexible working conditions with the same full benefits as everybody else. Benefits don't necessarily have to be fractional nor tied to any kind of fixed rate. If a company wants to extend its health-plan to its part-time workers there's certainly no US tax-code or insurance reg stopping them - nothing other than the generosity (or lack-of) on the part of company leadership.
I guess in theory you're correct about (b) but the implications for (a) are that the hourly rate is even lower for people who work few hours. A person who worked 1 hour a week would need to pay the company in order to true-up for the benefits.
DoorDash isn't avoiding anything by not paying benefits -- they are paying cash instead of benefits. Maybe it's the case that the employees should net out more than they do; but that's quite separate from whether they get benefits or not, because it's all cash out the door at the end of the day.
I agree: if people want to work in the gig-economy on a part-time or "side-hustle"-basis, then of course they should.
But I also think that if people would prefer to work in gig-economy as their full-time job then they shouldn't be screwed-over either.
I do recognize that being a "full-time gig-economy worker" working 12+ hours a day can, in-practice, mean working 3-4 hours/day for each of 3-4 completely separate companies, and on that basis I don't believe there's currently a workable way (in the US, at least) to require any single gig-company (like Uber or DoorDash, etc) to extend FTE benefits like that, but this a new paradigm (is it really that new though?) that needs to be written into employment law with a solution that works well for everybody: it's demonstrable that the greater-society loses when more people don't have decent health-insurance coverage or childcare or even good ol' fashioned time-off.