These all seem like legitimate demands/needs but the net result will most likely increase the cost of delivery and probably render most of the gig economy obsolete. If the cost of delivery is more than the cost of the item most people will stop using the service. When the gig economy first started it was built on the notion of people doing this in their spare time for extra money not that it was a full time job that paid a "living wage". Maybe it's time for these types of services to fade away. They add to traffic / climate change and are economically not viable as a full time job.

Soooo, what they are asking for is to be employees, right? ;)

It continues to astonish me that all this confusion continues to persist. How are these companies still being allowed to flagrantly and intentionally misclassify what are clearly employees. Even these so-called "gig workers" think they are some kind of employee, which is the first clue that they should be classified and treated in all respects as employees.

The laws seem pretty clear and straightforward on the subject. You are either an employee or you are a business--and that includes self-employed independent contractors. Employers can't call you an independent contract just because they want to (because it saves them money and allows them to steal from those who should rightfully be classified as employees). There are clear rules about what constitutes an employer/employee relationship and what constitutes a business-to-business relationship (such as hiring independent contractors). They can call you an IC all they want, but if they are telling you how and when to work, when they dictate your schedule and pay, when you answer to and are supervised and overseen by them, when the very product of their business is YOUR labor--YOU ARE AN EMPLOYEE.

It all sounds very attractive to these poor unsuspecting and often desperate souls to "be their own boss." But the reality is they are NOT their own bosses. They are clearly answering to these companies in just about every way as employees. When you are truly an IC (independent contractor), you are not a "worker" (gig or otherwise). You don't have employers, you have clients. And when you have clients YOU are the one who determines how and when you do the work, how much you charge, etc. You don't answer to these people and it's not up to them to dictate how much you are paid.

These companies have effectively created a third classification that is not supported by employment laws and create even more confusion for everyone involved, least of all these "workers" who are being stolen from in terms of the legally-obligated employer-paid shares of Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, worker's comp, and all the other usual and customary benefits, perks, and protections that properly classified employees enjoy.

In my opinion, these companies should not be allowed to continue these flagrant abuses. These people should clearly be classified as employees, if nothing else for the fact that the very product of these companies is the labor of these people. And if they are not employees and are in fact ruled to be ICs, then these companies have no basis whatsoever in setting minimum wages or otherwise--those are for each individual IC (i.e., self-employed IC business) to determine.

And if they are going to be IC, they should only be paying these companies for the use of their software, period. I get that this would then bring up a whole host of questions and issues about oversight, liability, safety, etc. And this again points right back to why they should be properly classified as employees--because their labor is the very product of these companies and it is the company basing their business on this labor who should be responsible for the liabilities, oversight, and responsibility for them.

If a business argues it has to underpay the workers who produce all its value in order to be viable, it is not viable. If they say this while still collecting any profits off that work, then they're just liars.

Isn't it so hip and techy how we call them gigs so we can more easily ignore the fact more and more people need multiple jobs to just survive? I love it!

Agree w/ @1. This will go the way of rideshares, and good thing, they’re abusive and not necessary honestly. I used delivery services for a hot minute at the beginning of COVID, but it’s expensive, lazy and wasteful when I can walk my own self down the street. Once prices reflect true cost, people will move in to the next flashy thing. Sara Nelson is right about this one.

Also, min wage jobs are having a moment. If one wants to work 40 hours/week, I’ve seen a lot of now hiring signs pretty much everywhere.

3: Their labor IS the product of the business and that in and of itself is one of the biggest regulators of employee classification. These companies can't have their cake and eat it, too (although, right now, being the cheating scofflaws they are, that is exactly what is happening). I would also say that they can be properly classified as employees while still having the option to choose when they work and which jobs they choose. There is nothing stopping these companies from allowing that to continue.

@3: Other than their greed, that is.

@3: This is also why I say that these companies should only be allowed to lease their software/app to these people they deem to not be their employees. That way, these ICs can operate in the proper, legally supported business manner, determine their own fees/charges (and get paid directly), and continue to decide when and how much they want to work.

4: Yuuup

"She also criticized Fare Share, which she said made rides more expensive and too costly for some riders. Because of this, she said hourly compensation might have gone up, but at the cost of available work."

Isn't this a valid point to raise? I mean, this industry only exists because delivery fees are relatively cheap. I personally stopped using ride share vehicles because they became too expensive, so I assume the same would hold true with people that regularly use these delivery services.

@5: Be aware that survival narrative doesn't apply to those just wanting something part time with flexible hours to make some more money. Why begrudge them that?

I was a gig employee for three decades and made a small fortune. I set my own hours and took as much work as they’d give me. Rarely made less than $100,000 a year and retired this year at 55. I catch is there were many weeks I worked 80 hours to achieve it. Are the entitled willing to put in that much time?

@13 exactly. Not every job is designed to support a family of 4 living in Seattle. Some jobs exist to provide supplemental income and nothing more. I don’t know when we got to this narrative that all jobs need to be paid $80k a year but it’s naive. There is a rate at which a job no longer becomes viable either due to lack of demand or because automation is more cost effective.

@2 - exactly right. The problem here is that the "gig" employers don't want to be employers, and so far have gotten away with it. If these people are actually bona fide independent contractors, I don't see how the City would have the authority to set their minimum prices.

Most of the gig companies are built on evading taxes and lowballing prices. They don't really seem to care if they are even profitable so long as those sweeeeeeeet VC dollars keep coming in. The day they have to start charging enough to cover their actual costs, they are done.

@17 Yuuuuppp

@16 You're not wrong--it should be the existing state and federal authorities who should be doing their GD jobs in upholding existing laws and holding these companies accountable.

@3
It's about much more than scheduling. A review of Form SS-8 shows a multitude of questions to determine employee vs self-employed. It's about management control of a worker vs paying the person for an end product - where the payer doesn't care how you do it.

On this one Hannah is absolutely right.

Give the gig workers min wage, plus extra benefits - L&I, Employment Security, Paternity Leave, 40 hours, social security, Medicare, insurance, pension, sick leave guaranteed mileage reimbursement/costs and finally complete and total rights to haul in their gig partner to court with triple damages for lost wages/gigs fees and lawyer fees.

Much like the city of Seattle getting involved with lift and uber fees, wait for the modest price increases in this service.

Or... we could just say, if you don't like the gig compensation.... then don't do it. There is a reason these folks choose a gig job.

@22: But they aren't employees. Those are benefits and protections that only employees are entitled to. The problem here is that these people working for these companies don't understand that they aren't employees. They don't understand what IC means. They think it's the same thing as an employee, and it is not. When you are an IC you are essentially a business--a self-employed business. And businesses set their own rates.

In response to your last comment/paragraph, it's not as simple as that. They are ignorant of the laws and don't understand that these companies are cheating and taking advantage of them by flouting employment laws. These are also desperate times. Many people are working in industries where they don't have the luxury of set schedules and reliable, consistent hours. Being able to take on side work that has the kind of flexibility to choose when and how much they work allows them to fill in those gaps. However, both sides need to understand, they can't have it all ways. You are either an employee or you are an independent contractor, one or the other. And the laws are in place to determine which category a workforce falls in.

@22 Your basic problem is that don't understand satire or when one is being satirical.

Its very simple if you are a gig worker, then you either accept or reject the "gig" and you work on the same level as a business owner. You are not an employee.

Its one business person negotiating with another. If you are ignorant of the law, inexperienced, lack negotiating skills... then just like any other new business person, welcome to the school of hard knocks. .... Very simple, end of story.

Hannah wants to treat gig workers like employees and that's not the deal.

@24: "Its very simple if you are a gig worker, then you either accept or reject the "gig" and you work on the same level as a business owner. You are not an employee."

That would be correct in theory, according to how the company wants to classify them. However, they are controlling too many aspects of the role for this to be the case, not the least of which is the fact that the labor of these people is the very product of the business. Of course, these companies try to hide behind the argument that they are just selling software. But that is blatantly disingenuous. I'll also add they don't care one bit about these people; they are just a resource to exploit in the cheapest way possible so no one should be falling for any of their insincere PR comments.

(Also hint to anyone else reading who may be doing this work: If you are a self-employed independent contractor, you are not anyone's "worker." "Worker" is a term of employment).

@25 - I think not being someone's employee is part of the attraction for some of the gig workers. there is a certain fraction of the population here who just can't stand the thought of working for someone else (I have known a few of them; thankfully most had skills that they could turn into real consulting work) and the gig economy provides an opportunity for them to feel like they are their own boss. It's bullshit, but apparently they fall for it. So they give up any protections that employees would have and do their minimum-wage jobs under even worse terms than minimum-wage employees would.

@28: Absolutely agree. I don't fault them for that one bit. I've been self-employed myself since the 90s. It's just that they don't appear to understand these legal distinctions, My disdain is for these companies who are taking advantage and exploiting that ignorance. My hope is that these people get educated on what it really means to be an IC vs an employee and why these legal distinctions exist (to their benefit). Once that happens, they can really start putting these companies in their proper place. That's the only way they have any hope of making more money. The way they are going about it now, though, they are begging to become employees. Many of them also don't seem to understand that "being your own boss" is a lot more than simply being able to work when and how much you want.

I want for these tech companies to stop getting away with murder, and I want for the people making them money to be able to operate as true ICs in the free and open market. I think the app could still work the same for all involved, except that these companies would not be allowed to be involved in rate-setting and would likely have to make some adjustments to their business model. But the way things are operating now, I don't see how any governing authority could step in and not deem these people to be employees based on several factors, not the least of which is the fact that their labor is the very product of the business.

"‘It's okay for us to
screw people because it
would cost us money if we didn't... '"

Relax:
it's just
Capitalism.

great
comments
bombardier!