Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Current employment law really isn't well suited for cases where someone can be an "employee" of 4 or 5 companies at a time, and stop and start on a whim as they see fit. I mean, just look at unemployment insurance. When the nature of the job is essentially a bid out to people willing to do the work, what does it mean for someone to be unemployed in the first place if there is just less work to go around? Flexibility DOES have a lot to do with it: I'm fine with the company not guaranteeing me a set number of hours per week if I can just choose to not work a particular week if that's what I want.

I agree with some other posters, I think a new categorization for "gig" workers is necessary, as I think a lot of your other points (e.g. paying workers comp) make sense.




I wonder if a model, more like the SAG-AFTRA union would be possible. Register with the union and workers can operate on as many platforms as possible. Common reporting on hours could prevent worker overlapping across platforms against a minimum wage. Health insurance is available through union with companies paying portions in.

Workers can choose platforms that maximize the worker's wages while platforms would need to minimize costs for customers. The more efficient the platform gets, the better position they would be in vs competitors.


> I wonder if a model, more like the SAG-AFTRA union would be possible.

Possible in what sense? Legally possible, or do you mean economically feasible?


> what does it mean for someone to be unemployed in the first place if there is just less work to go around?

As we've seen with the pandemic, unemployment can mean withdrawal of healthcare and eviction.

Really the question here is risk. Who takes the risk that employees can get sick? Who takes the risk that levels of work coming in can vary?

Should it be the individual employees, who generally have a couple month's income saved or less, or should it $50 billion market cap company? Which is better able to absorb risk? Or should the risk instead be handled by the state or federal government?


> Current employment law really isn't well suited for cases where someone can be an "employee" of 4 or 5 companies at a time

There are plenty of people working more than one job in the US where they're classified as an employee at all of them.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: