back to article Trump-era rules reversed on treating gig workers as contractors

The US Department of Labor (DOL) on Tuesday issued a rule for determining at what point workers should be classified as employees or independent contractors under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. It's a move that may upset the business model of gig economy companies. The distinction between the two classifications is a …

  1. Sora2566 Silver badge

    Pro tip: If someone tells you how much you are going to be paid and what work you are going to do, and you can't say no, then you're an employee, not a contractor.

    This rule of thumb thus indicates that most doctors in America are employees of the insurance companies, not the hospitals/practices etc.

    1. doublelayer Silver badge

      The test you propose isn't very good at dealing with this question. For example, in the case of the ridesharing companies, the person driving is told how much they would be paid and what they would be doing, but they have the choice to individually accept and reject those occasions. If we were using your test, I think that would not meet your qualification for employees. There would be a lot of arguing from the companies that this makes the workers independent. If that's not what you intended, you may need a different test.

      1. Sora2566 Silver badge

        If they have no other source of income and cannot afford to say no, to the point where Uber etc can assign them any job and they'll do it, then they're an employee under this test.

        If they have the financial ability to tell Uber etc to get lost, *then* they're actually a contractor.

        1. elsergiovolador Silver badge

          If you are running the business and you are struggling, you are going to take any client you can get, even if they want to pay well below your desired rates.

          This doesn't make someone an employee.

          1. Snake Silver badge

            RE: doesn't make someone an employee

            That's very true. But if the company penalizes you for refusing work assignments, based upon their own choice of said work assignments, then you are being treated like an employee. A contractor should always have the right to accept or refuse work, because they are 'self-employed' and answer only to themselves.

            Of course the employer can always simply stop giving the independent contractor jobs if the contractor turns too difficult to deal with.

            It''s a sticky subject with no X / Y answers - that's why they have a 6-point test. And I agree with that, good idea. But, in a very general way, you can tell an "employee" versus a "contractor" by how that person is treated by the employer - if the employer is lording over you, and you can't tell them "Jump in a lake", then you're likely an "employee".

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: RE: doesn't make someone an employee

              @Snake

              if the employer is lording over you, and you can't tell them "Jump in a lake", then you're likely an "employee".

              As an employee or contractor you can do that. But dont expect great treatment from them in future including cutting you off

            2. Grinning Bandicoot

              Re: RE: doesn't make someone an employee

              If you are told a start and stop time is the first thing to consider in being an employee but if you agree to finish a job by a given date for a given amount then you look like a contractor. Where it gets tricky is when unrelated regulation (noise, dust,parking or such things) or the ordinary operating hours determine your work schedule. Taxifornia made the determination that track exercise boys were employees of the trainers because the of long continuing relationship, the assignment of the mount, and that the trainer had to be present.

              What is not considered is the person employable in the labor market or through some debility find a barrier to employment. Will these rules prevent someone between normal employment or short of cash an opportunity to Not sleep in a tent or under a bridge. This in many ways sounds like an attempt to boost the NLRB and its union activities. I know for myself that if I need a helper for some home project it won't be done unless I can afford the costs before I start. Maybe too much Ann Rynd in me?

        2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          "If they have the financial ability to tell Uber etc to get lost, *then* they're actually a contractor."

          If your are driving for Uber and have no other source of income, then you are doing it wrong and don't understand the "gig" business. You should be registered with not only Lyft and others, bit also delivery businesses too. Then you can pick and choose your jobs based on distance and price to maximise income. If you only work exclusively for one "job supplier" then your more likely to be classed as an employee. Certainly the foundations that Uber was built on and so many others copied, was the idea that it would not be your full time job, but a way of earning extra cash "out of hours" from your main job.

          If the likes of Uber want regular drivers they can rely on to be available at certain times and certain areas, then they should be hiring them as employees. If they can't cope with and manage a mix of the two types, then they need to take a step back and re-examine how they operate their business.

          1. Headley_Grange Silver badge

            You're right (I call it the Paper Round model), but what happens when the gig companies have put all their competitors out of business and every job is a gig job?

            1. sabroni Silver badge

              re: but what happens when ... every job is a gig job

              Collective bargaining.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: re: but what happens when ... every job is a gig job

                It's illegal for independent contractors to do that in the US. It's considered an antitrust law violation.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: re: but what happens when ... every job is a gig job

                Collective bargaining.

                That work for a relatively short period after WW1, when there was a huge shortage of labour. The "gig" economy isn't new, it's what we had for centuries before that, and we're now back to it again as supply & demand for unskilled labour level off.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: re: but what happens when ... every job is a gig job

                  The latter half of the 20th century will be seen as having been a brief sunny respite for workers from the usual feudal condition.

          2. elsergiovolador Silver badge

            If you only work exclusively for one "job supplier" then your more likely to be classed as an employee.

            If you have one good client, that doesn't automatically make you their employee. You know that people can be employed at multiple employers as well, it doesn't suddenly make them contractors.

            As a business you have autonomy to decide who you work with. If rides supplied by Uber suits your business, you shouldn't be forced to take on other clients just to prove something.

            Just like employees shouldn't be forced to only have one employer.

          3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            If your are driving for Uber and have no other source of income, then you are doing it wrong and don't understand the "gig" business.

            However the more general case needs to be addressed, not just Uber or even the driving market. If you make a rule based on Uber and no other source of income then there are other situations which would would be dragged in.

            At the other extreme it used to be said for instance that there were several law firms which just serviced IBM's litigious habits. On the Uber-only test their employees might become IBM's employees.

            Somewhere in the middle is the freelancer who lands a 3-month gig for S/W development, then gets an extension when the client themselves get a new contract that needs development and then another. Is the freelancer supposed to take the most unbusinesslike step of turning down a perfectly good contract just to prove to HMRC or its equivalent elsewhere that they're an independent business?

      2. Alumoi Silver badge

        What raidsharing companies? You mean the ones that operate just like taxi companies but refuse to obey the law (licensing, insurance, responsability)?

        1. doublelayer Silver badge

          Yes, generally those ones. You know what I meant, and my comment wasn't necessarily supporting them. They do exist, however, and they're one of the major reasons people are trying to create these tests. Therefore, if the test doesn't even generate the intended result for those people, it's likely to be unsuitable for the general case and needs to be adjusted. The existing test mentioned in the article already has some ambiguous aspects, but it's much clearer than this one-point one.

      3. jmch Silver badge

        In the case of ridesharing companies, is a driver allowed eg by Uber to also drive for Lyft or any other company, and vice-versa?

        Can a driver individually negotiate a rate with the ridesharing company?

        Indeed, can a driver even communicate with a ridesharing company to even try to negotiate anything at all, or can they only interact with a web of circular, self-referential web pages and 'help' lines that lead nowhere?

        Can a driver independently record what they are owed (including knowing what, if any, tips has the customer added to the fare), or transparently access the data ,and can they bill the rideshare company and/or successfully contest a disputed payment amount? Or is it just 'take it or leave it'?

        I don't know the answers to all these, nor do any one of them individually determine contractor vs employee. But that's exactly why the decades-old standard looks at those 6 separate questions, the combined answers to which determine the classification.

        1. VicMortimer Silver badge

          The answers are:

          Yes, a driver can work for more than one company. This has zero to do with employee vs contractor, you can also have more than one job as an employee.

          No, a driver has absolutely no way to negotiate anything at all, there's no way to communicate with anyone with the power to change rates.

          A driver can record anything they want, but there's absolutely nothing they can do with it, pay is "take it or leave it".

          The only remote similarity between Uber drivers and true independent contractors is that drivers can choose when to work and they own their own tools.

          There's really no question, drivers are misclassified employees. And "flexibility" is a red herring, there's nothing in the law that requires employees to have a set schedule.

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            "Take it or leave it" is itself negotiation.

            1. Brian 3

              Take it or leave it is a decision, not a negotiation. Negotiation requires back and forth.

    2. elsergiovolador Silver badge

      In the UK someone can tell you whether you are a contractor or a deemed employee and there is penalty when they tell you are a contractor where the tax man in their infinite wisdoom thinks they are wrong. You can no longer decide that yourself (with some exceptions).

      The twist is that as a deemed employee you actually don't have any employment rights.

      This law has been created to ensure IT talent doesn't leave big consultancies and create competition cutting out the middleman.

      Now virtually any service based small business where someone who owns more than 5% shares does the work for the client is bound by this legislation and so their clients can be liable for penalties and tax if they don't engage with that business correctly.

      This has largely killed the economy.

      1. Sora2566 Silver badge

        That sucks.

        1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

          It's also not true.

          1. elsergiovolador Silver badge

            It is true. If you think it is not, then please enlighten us.

          2. Chris George

            It's quite true:

            "someone can tell you whether you are a contractor or a deemed employee"

            Yes, in UK, because of iR35, the client/employer decides if the contractor they hire (independent worker) is deemed employee (so inside IR35) or real contractor (outside IR35), the contractor has no say in this. If the client/employer says you're out of IR35 and the tax man thinks they're wrong, there's a penalty for the client/employer. As such, most clients/employers deem all freelancers inside IR35.

            "as a deemed employee you actually don't have any employment rights"

            Exactly: inside IR35, you pay the same tax as perm employees but get no insurance, no NI, no holiday, no job security (they can fire you today, with zero notice). But you're still a company performing the work so you must have a £1m professional insurance, accountant and the rest.

            "This law has been created to ensure IT talent doesn't leave big consultancies and create competition cutting out the middleman"

            Kind of true: you and 3 friends start a LTD company not to build/sell software products but provide software development services, your clients must decide if you're deemed employees or not, your clients fear the tax man so they'd rather say you're inside IR35. As such, you and your small company end up unable to compete with the big guys because your actual tax is not 20% but more like 35-60%, not on profits but on income, because all 4 of you pay like employees, not like business owners.

            I'm not sure-sure this has been created specifically to kill competition of Accenture, Avanade, Wipro, etc., but it helps them greatly.

            1. Evil Scot Bronze badge

              "I'm not sure-sure this has been created specifically to kill competition of Accenture, Avanade, Wipro, etc., but it helps them greatly"

              I am old enough to remember the party which introduced this gained funding from such a provider.

              1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

                So am I. Initially it was more likely a sop to the trade unions - can't have these ununionised types going about negotiating for themselves and it didn't require the client to making what would necessarily be a self-serving determination. But, while at that time it was said the IR as it then was had tried to get the same thing past previous Conservative governments and failed, subsequent change of government not only didn't result in repeal, it also dragged the clients into doing HMRC's bidding. Plenty of blame all round.

    3. EricB123 Silver badge

      We Are All Bozos, er, Gig Workers on this Bus

      Bravo! I go to a doctor in the USA and he makes a careful diagnosis, and prescribes the treatment needed to restore my health. Then my insurance company, knowing nothing about me or my condition, denies the request. I'd say the doctor is a gig worker for the insurance company. And my $1,500 monthly health insurance premium is merely a ransom.

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Re: We Are All Bozos, er, Gig Workers on this Bus

        No, if they were controlling him like a gig worker he wouldn't be allowed to prescribe you any treatment without first checking with the insurance company to see what they will pay for. Now you might ASK him to do that, if you don't want him to prescribe you drugs that cost $20K/month that you can't afford, but he won't do that without you asking him.

        1. Grinning Bandicoot

          Re: We Are All Bozos, er, Gig Workers on this Bus

          Under your definition I read 95 percent of MDs in the good ol' USA that are straight-jacked by Medicare rules and regulations are government employees.

    4. DS999 Silver badge

      This rule of thumb thus indicates that most doctors in America are employees of the insurance companies, not the hospitals/practices etc.

      Wrong. Insurance companies tell hospitals how much they are willing to reimburse for various things like an office visit, CT scan, and so on. They don't tell the hospital how much to pay the doctor or how to tell whether your scan indicates cancer or not. If they had that level of control all doctors would be paid the same, and it wouldn't make any difference which doctor you saw for anything because they'd all be following insurance company scripts for everything they did.

      Now I will say insurance companies would LOVE to gain that level of control, but even in "socialist" government run healthcare (which we have in the US, its called the VA) doctors are paid different salaries even in the same specialists depending on experience, etc. and they aren't dictated to in every decision by the government.

      That is all very different from something like Uber which tells drivers exactly how much they can charge for a given ride. They only have the power to take it or leave it. Which is pretty much the same thing that happens when you get offered a job and the company tells you what salary they are willing to pay you (their "final offer" if you negotiate it) and you only have the power to take it or leave it. The only real difference is that the Uber driver gets the "take it or leave it" choice a bunch of times each day, while unless you are a prolific job hopper someone working "permanent" jobs only gets the take it or leave it decision a few times a decade.

    5. Mike 137 Silver badge

      The real acid test?

      In the UK at least, key deciders are whether the worker [1] can refuse an assignment, [2] can decide how to carry it out, and [3] must complete or remediate at their own expense if things go pear shaped. If yes to all three they're probably an independent contractor (the infamous IR35 excepted).

      1. doublelayer Silver badge

        Re: The real acid test?

        Which works a bit better, but may not produce the intended result in the rideshare example:

        [1] can refuse an assignment,: Yes.

        [2] can decide how to carry it out,: Probably not, depending on what counts, although they can take different routes if they want.

        [3] must complete or remediate at their own expense if things go wrong: Yes, I think that's how it works, since the price was agreed on up front.

        So this may not classify them as employees.

  2. Stoic Skeptic

    Hope you enjoyed getting your dinner delivered to you. You will be getting it now.

    1. aerogems Silver badge
      Facepalm

      While there are some people who may not have cars or are unable to make the trek themselves, honestly, the vast majority of people will not be that put out if things like DoorDash go away. Somehow society managed to survive, thrive even, for thousands of years before people could order food on their phone to be delivered. I'm sure it would find a way to keep on chugging even if all delivery services went away.

      1. GloriousVictoryForThePeople

        But how are we going to get our Brawndo?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Camacho 2024!

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "Somehow society managed to survive, thrive even, for thousands of years before people could order food on their phone to be delivered. I'm sure it would find a way to keep on chugging even if all delivery services went away."

        It's the technology that's changed, not the principle.

        I grew up in a rural area, in fact, after a good deal of shunting about I live there once again. Back then a local bakery had a salesman who would go round in a car (a relatively uncommon item of technology for private individuals to own even in the '50s) to take grocery orders to be delivered a couple of days later. It was far more practical than my mother going to buy supplies for an extended multi-generation household when we lived half a mile from the bus route. Same principle as my neighbouring house-bound SiL ordering from Tesco, just different technology.

        A green-grocer had a weekly sound with a mobile shop back then. Even earlier, so I believe, one of my grandfathers, a tin-smith, would occasionally make deliveries by horse and cart and years before that this valley was a trade route for pack-horse operators conveying goods such as salt from Cheshire.

        Delivery services have been the difference between society just chugging away and thriving.

        1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Fine. Then by your own examples, we had delivery services long before the "gig economy" created with aggregators and apps. And we will have them after the gig delivery services are undermined by Evil Government Regulation (scary!), should that happen (unlikely), if there's demand.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Somehow society managed to survive, thrive even, for thousands of years before people could order food on their phone to be delivered. I'm sure it would find a way to keep on chugging even if all delivery services went away.

        I'm not so sure. Some people seem to have so little in the way of domestic skills that they'd probably starve. My mum-in-law had neighbours who used to order-in their breakfast coffee, despite having no jobs and so little income that the landlord eventually evicted them for non-payment of rent.

  3. Terry2000

    It’s all about the Greed

    Everyone always forgets the REAL minimum wage is $0.00 / hr.

    Pizza Hut just fired every delivery driver in California because they changed the law (again).

    Quite simply an on demand driver is not worth $20++ / hr just in case someone wants a ride. So Uber etc that were already operating on a model with no wiggle room will simply have to close. Then these asshats on their “essential” federal jobs will congratulate themselves on moving the workers from contractor status to welfare status.

    Finally as proof the workers control their own fate recall the articles from a couple years ago about how they organize to withhold service at major airports until the Uber app offers them surge pricing. Only then would they consent to carry passengers. In the meantime of course their CONSPIRACY was NOT prosecuted by the government. Because business bad, work stoppages good.

    Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money

    — Margret Thatcher

    (The last, practically ONLY good PM the UK has ever had)

    1. aerogems Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: It’s all about the Greed

      It is indeed all about the greed. Companies like Uber and Lyft have been abusing the contractor status as a means of underpaying employees contractors. Instead of a W2 tax form, they get a 1099 where the employee contractor is responsible for the full tax burden. They also simply ignored all the regulations taxi companies have to abide by, banking on being able to make enough money to bribe lobby enough legislators to legalize it after the fact before the wheels of justice had enough time to start turning and grind them into a fine paste.

      Is this the best balance between two competing interests? I don't know. Is it moving the pendulum in the right general direction? Absolutely.

      Also... your "conspiracy" is a perfectly legitimate action. Nothing illegal about it at all. First off, you could argue that they were banding together to negotiate better terms and conditions of employment, a right they are guaranteed under the National Labor Relations Act. Second, Uber, Lyft, and all the others love to talk about how people can pick and choose whichever "jobs" they want. So, which is it? Are they contractors who can pick and choose which jobs they want to take, in which case choosing not to pick up people at the airport is perfectly justified, or are they employees who have to take any work thrown their way because they're on the clock? Seems like you want to have it both ways. I've never understood people who think like you do. You seem intent on working against your own best interests and see it as a virtue instead of insanity. It's one thing to argue for failed policies like supply side economics, it's another entirely to actively work for the interests of the people exploiting you for their benefit. It's like if Xitler came along, kicked you in the teeth with a steel toed boot, and then thanking him for allowing you to pay for your own dental work. It just makes no sense.

    2. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      Re: It’s all about the Greed

      "their CONSPIRACY was NOT prosecuted by the government"

      Probably because it wasn't illegal?

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: It’s all about the Greed

        But he used BLOCK CAPITALS! How can you disagree?

    3. gandalfcn Silver badge

      Re: It’s all about the Greed

      " Margret Thatcher

      (The last, practically ONLY good PM the UK has ever had)"

      Who sold the country's off cheap to her mates and effectively bankrupted it.

      PS. The "trickle down" economy is total bs designed to fool the gullible/

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: It’s all about the Greed

        Just guessing, but did you choose and buy some sort of telephone as an alternative to waiting your turn to get the standard black one?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It’s all about the Greed

          Black GPO telephones were long gone before Maggie arrived on the scene. Even the notorious Trimphone dates from 1965.

    4. blackcat Silver badge

      Re: It’s all about the Greed

      I foresee this being a bit like California AB5.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(2019)

      Much applause, much back slapping and lots of support from the media. And then a load of freelance journalists lost their contracts with Californian media companies because of it....

      Oops!

    5. Pete Sdev
      Mushroom

      Re: It’s all about the Greed

      Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money

      — Margret Thatcher

      (The last, practically ONLY good PM the UK has ever had)

      Like pretty much everything that vile person said, it was nonsense. The attempt to propagate the notion, still made in certain quarters, that running a nation state's exchequer is equivalent to managing a household budget. Which is plainly poppycock, the most obvious difference being a state can print more money if it wants/needs to. As many did as a response to the 2007 crisis, for example.

      This quote was made by the way in the context of criticising Social Democratic governments, particularly the then Labour government, for nationalisation.

      1. aerogems Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: It’s all about the Greed

        Even more than that... money doesn't exist. What is it exactly? A bit of paper, maybe some round metal discs. It only has value because we collectively agree it has value. There's absolutely nothing stopping us, except ourselves, from embracing a collective fiction that working to help one another is the equivalent to money. The more you make positive contributions to society, the more "wealthy" you are. It's just a matter of what we choose to value. Material goods or societal benefit.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: It’s all about the Greed

          @aerogems

          "There's absolutely nothing stopping us, except ourselves, from embracing a collective fiction that working to help one another is the equivalent to money."

          That would be to reintroduce the problem that money solved. Money isnt necessarily government issued currency and lots of different things have been used as money. Hell 'real' money is gold still (some places it was silver). The reason is the difficulty in trade of your 'positive society contribution' and how it makes specialisation much more difficult too. Agreeing to swap your time and effort for 'money' then trading that at agreed prices for items/services is much more flexible and useful.

          For those who miss 'real' money I would suggest looking at tallymoney. But I wouldnt consider going back to the old barter system.

          1. Pete Sdev
            Alien

            Re: It’s all about the Greed

            That would be to reintroduce the problem that money solved.

            My favourite quote:

            Money implies poverty

            -- The Culture

            By the way, I think perhaps you're failing to differentiate between currencies and mediums of exchange.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: It’s all about the Greed

              @Pete Sdev

              "Money implies poverty"

              While an interesting quote I dont think it works. Without money there is still poverty and degrees of lifestyle and consumption.

              "By the way, I think perhaps you're failing to differentiate between currencies and mediums of exchange."

              That was the difference I was trying to point out. Currency (money) makes exchange easier.

        2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: It’s all about the Greed

          What is it exactly? A bit of paper, maybe some round metal discs.

          That is not "exactly" what money is. It's not even approximately what money is.

          As a dismissive description of cash, I suppose it'll do. But cash very much ≠ money.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It’s all about the Greed

        This quote was made by the way in the context of criticising Social Democratic governments,

        And it applied to the New Labour one that replaced her, and still applies to social democrats like Sunak & co today.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It’s all about the Greed

          "social democrats like Sunak & co"

          thanks for letting us know you know jack shit

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: It’s all about the Greed

            You don't seriously think that Sunak is a true conservative, do you? Kier Starmer (who recently lauded Maggie Thatcher!) is more of an economic Tory than Sunak or Hunt

            1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

              Re: It’s all about the Greed

              Do tell what more "conservative" stuff Sunak should be doing?

    6. OhForF' Silver badge

      Less than minimum worker wage for contractors?!

      If a contractor is getting less than the minimum wage an employee would have to receive by law something is very wrong.

      As a contractor doesn't have the benefits an employee receives he will need to get more money up front than an employee doing the same task. The contractor has to pay for his own insurance/taxes/pension funds and build some rainy day fund for periods when business is slow.

      So either that contractor has very poor business skills and should be barred from contracting for his own protection or he was somehow forced into that "contract".

    7. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Pirate

      Re: It’s all about the Greed

      I've been doing mostly gig work for DECADES. Being "an employee" is HIGHLY overrated.

      That being said I'll take a higher pay rate and intermittent work over "benefits" and layoffs ANY day

      Gummint does NOT need to make my decisions FOR me, "For my own good".

      And all *THEY* want to do is use regulations to FORCE you to buy what you do not want by having your employer buy it FOR you and then reduce your pay accordingly.

      It's all a giant power grab and method of control, a way to transfer money out of OUR hands and into THEIRS.

      Way around: create a corporation like S or LLC, bill customers and do your own pay-related stuff, manage expenses, etc.. Then of course you'll see just how deep into your pockets the GUMMINT hand goes...

      [yet another Trump era "good thing" being RUINED by "KING BIDAS" (Biden) by using the 'Bidas Touch', i.e. everything he touches turning to CRAP]

      1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: It’s all about the Greed

        1) Not everyone is like you.

        2) Not everyone lives in USA like you.

        3) There's so much you don't know anything about.

  4. aerogems Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Good

    I don't know if this is necessarily the optimal balance between these two interests, but there has been way too much abuse of the contractor status of late and it's well past time someone did something about it.

    Instead of hiring and purging binges, like seem to be all the rage in the corporate world these days, maybe (yes, I know there's like a ≥99.99999999999999999% chance it will fall on deaf ears) top execs at companies will start hiring a bit slower to make sure the growth is sustainable. They may not hire as many people, but they won't have to lay as many off either, giving the company and employees more stability which is a win-win.

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Megaphone

      Re: Good

      apparently you do not understand the free market very much.

      Stability would make you FAIL. To stay in business you need to adapt QUICKLY to rapidly changing conditions, especially true for tech and R&D stuff. If you get a contract from a customer, you hire TEMPORARY people (contractors) to make it happen or someone ELSE will do that FOR you and make the money you WOULD have made.

      And then when the contract is complete, most of those employees go their own way, willingly.

      It's not like the gummint is your only customer and has a steady demand. New products come and go all of the time, based on market demand. And if it does not sell the people who make it lose their jobs. It's just the reality of the world, and *NO* "pie in the sky" idealistic *FEELINGS* are gonna change that.

      Before gummint got involved EVERYONE was (for the most part) an "independent contractor". Then gummint, like union bosses, realized their greedy ambitions through manipulation and power grabs, just like this LAST one by the Bidas administration, another RAW DEAL coming from the WORST president the USA has ever had (even worse than WOODROW WILSON) *JUST* to UN-do something GOOD that one of the BETTER presidents got RIGHT.

      1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: Good

        You can type "government". You are not 5 years old.

  5. Winkypop Silver badge

    I gig, therefore I am not

    US labor laws have got to be the worst in the developed world.

    People need to pay what real wages are worth.

    Yes, prices will go up, deal with it.

    1. Headley_Grange Silver badge

      Re: I gig, therefore I am not

      The problem is with app-based services they have, effectively, exported these labour laws to other countries.

    2. SundogUK Silver badge

      Re: I gig, therefore I am not

      People are worth exactly what employers are willing to pay. Demand more than that and you are out of a job.

      1. ecofeco Silver badge

        Re: I gig, therefore I am not

        Don't pay enough and you are out of business.

        Choose.

        1. SundogUK Silver badge

          Re: I gig, therefore I am not

          Absolutely. If your business plan requires employing people at x/hour and nobody is willing to work for that, you don't have a business. Go do something else.

    3. aerogems Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: I gig, therefore I am not

      You know there's something wrong when even China has labor tribunals. If China is in any way ahead of you in terms of worker's rights, that should be a serious wakeup call.

  6. xyz Silver badge

    Tricky one...

    On the one hand you have businesses wanting to maximise their returns by using "gig workers" .

    On the other hand you have the govt wanting to maximise its slice of cheese by reclassifying "gig workers" as employees.

    And in the middle of all this is the "gig worker" just trying to feed its family.

    Basically, you have 2 groups, each trying to suck your blood for their benefit.

    For me, I prefer to have my blood sucked for a financial return than sucked to keep some public servant's pension pot happy.

  7. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "a move that will decrease flexibility and opportunity"

    Yes, it's a move that will decrease the flexibility and opportunity of companies looking to pay the bare minimum they can get away with.

    And I note that there isn't any comment disagreeing with this move that is from a gig worker. They probably don't have time to comment, being too busy with simply trying to feed their family with the scraps they are so generously given.

    1. aerogems Silver badge
      Flame

      Re: "a move that will decrease flexibility and opportunity"

      Once upon a time, in the US at least, companies actually treated employees like people -- if you were a white male at least -- and they paid a living wage. As a result people tended to stay at one company for several years if not their entire career, and then companies rewarded that service with a modest pension. Then along comes the idea of maximizing shareholder value, a notion even the originator has since disavowed, and all that went out the window. There were literal riots in France because they raised the retirement age by two years, while in the US retirement is increasingly something people can't afford to do.

      There was some analysis I came across involving the TV show The Simpsons. When that show first aired, the idea of a single income household like that was the norm in the US. These days, you can barely afford to buy a tiny little shack of a house, never mind afford to have kids. People like Xitler (just a convenient example for once) are "concerned" about the low birthrates in the US, but then actively contribute to making it so that people can't afford to have kids by not paying a living wage to their employees.

      1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        Re: "a move that will decrease flexibility and opportunity"

        There were literal riots in France because they raised the retirement age by two years, while in the US retirement is increasingly something people can't afford to do.

        They soon won't be able to afford it in France either. French pensions are redistributive, pensioners today are paid from the contributions of today's workers. Unfortunately that system was set up when the ratio of workers to pensioners was 4:1, today it's 2:1 and falling. The pension system is running out of money, and legally it cannot run at a loss, so at some point it will fail. Either people have to work longer, retire later, or pay larger contributions. No amount of street rioting is going to change that basic equation.

        1. aerogems Silver badge
          Unhappy

          Re: "a move that will decrease flexibility and opportunity"

          Whoosh!

  8. willyslick

    The gig model is all about shifting the financial risk to the workers, while taking a cut of each transaction. Great deal for these "sharing economy" enterprises and the tech bros that run them, not so good for the rest of us as quality generally suffers and safety is sacrificed.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Max to min/median salary ratio

    Targeting min salary is a distraction.

    It is better to regulate salary ratios: max-to-median AND max-to-min for any company or government job, including sub-contractors. All benefits included. Better businesses could pay higher min salaries. Less profitable businesses by their nature are supposed to pay lower salaries at every level.

    This would force upper management to run companies more efficiently, because the only way to earn more is to make everyone earn more. And, more importantly, this is true equalizer to reduce exploitation. A side effect is reduction of corruptive capacity of the rich. Because once very rich, it is easier to buy anyone with the money.

  10. ecofeco Silver badge

    About time

    The rules of who is a contractor, who is salary and who is hourly have been clearly stated for decades.

    About time they were enforced.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like