Work Reform

9976 readers

50 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.

Our Goals

Higher wages for underpaid workers.
Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
Better and fewer working hours.
Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

seeCseas@lemmy.world

tintory@lemm.ee

TinMod@lemmy.world

503

Uber and Lyft now required to pay Massachusetts rideshare drivers $32 an hour (www.theverge.com)

submitted 4 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/workreform@lemmy.world

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 25 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's pretty typical, honestly. When working regular jobs, I've been paid one way, and not paid for time not working. The term is "waiting to engage", versus "engaged to wait". That is, if they want me to sit around to be available at a moment's notice, they pay me for that time. If I can go off and do other stuff and be vaguely available with whatever delay, then I don't get paid, because I'm not working and I'm not losing any of my own time.

I don't really think Uber should pay for time back directly, but they should definitely increase the cost of longer runs, especially to lower-volume areas where the driver might not have a fare in the other direction. (The driver is also not required to take any particular fare at all, so if they feel they'd lose money on it, they shouldn't take it.)

Honestly, you could make a strong argument that drivers are indeed independent contractors under US labor law. However, if the court has found that they should qualify for more pay and benefits, I'm certainly not going to argue that it should be taken away. In fact I'm going to celebrate it.