|
|
|
|
|
by yummyfajitas
4292 days ago
|
|
I'm confused. Are you trying to assert that if homejoy did not exist, these workers would be receiving higher wages and would not need government services? Or perhaps that if the government services you describe (e.g., free money if you don't work) did not exist, workers would have a stronger bargaining position to request higher rates from homejoy? Could you clarify your counterfactual? |
|
As noted in the article I link and quote further down the thread, these companies utilize an often-desperate workforce that will take whatever they can get to work. These companies keep their workers as independent contractors without any benefits. Sometimes that is fine, especially if someone is working as a Taskrabbit during his/her weekend to make some extra money. But the reality is that many of these people are relying on these services for nearly all their income and then leaning heavily on government support to make up the difference (i.e. what keeps a roof over their head or food in their stomach).
I am not making a case for any wholesale policy change on the part of these new services. I am just stating that there is baggage here and that maybe it would be better if benefits were offered through these jobs to their workers/contractors so that the customer pays for the complete cost of the service and that business model, instead of taxpayers.
And I am no economist or expert in the matter ––– all I know is either from news articles or anecdotes. Maybe I'm wrong.