this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
253 points (98.8% liked)

Work Reform

9970 readers
10 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:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago

The underlying issue is RAMPANT employee misclassification. Most of these people aren’t contractors, they are just illegally misclassified.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

gig workers are being unfairly terminated, or "deactivated," as the companies call it.

I, for one, loathe our new techbro overlords.

[–] lasagna@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Workers being exploited is nothing new though. Same overlords, different labels.

[–] lorkano@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But usually there are some laws protecting them, they didn't have any.

THESE DAYS there are some laws protecting most workers. Those laws were written in the blood of striking miners.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Right to work doesn't apply to contractors. You have a contract.

If you get deactivated without cause, sue.

edit: Right to work lets employees be fired without cause. Contracts can't be breached as easily so deactivation without cause isn't legal. Suing is easy. File a complaint with your state labor board or department of labor. The gig corp will want to settle so precedent doesn't get set in court and lead to a big class action.

I did this to Instacart when they violated state labor laws They asked to settle. Mediation is next week so no idea yet how much they will settle for. 40k is the average for these types of cases.

edit 2: I was mixing up right to work with at will employment. My point stands though. Contractors aren't employees and can't be terminated without cause. Deactivating a contractor when they haven't done anything to violate the terms of the contract is a breach of contract .

[–] tjhart85@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

'Right to work' has to do with not being required to be in a Union in order to get a job (ie, you have a right to work at a location whether you're in the union or not).

Right to work is bullshit and definitely helped in gutting the unions, but, I'm not sure how that has to do with anything to do with gig workers at all.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

It doesn't; this guy is just unaware of what 'right to work' means (admittedly, it's a deliberately obtuse name), and seems to have no willingness to entertain the possibility that he might not know something.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right to work allows employment at will. Meaning you can be fired without cause.

My point is it doesn't apply to contractors and deactivating someone without cause is a breach of contract.

[–] tjhart85@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Do a quick Google search for "right to work vs at will employment" because you've got them mixed up.

Additionally, the gig folks don't have a contract that protects them and they're being classified as contractors when (it's being argued) they shouldn't be. That's literally the issue.

[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Washington does not have "right to work" laws.

You are mistaken.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay.

My point was contractors cannot be fired at will, even in right to work states where regular employees can be.

So, deactivating gig workers without cause is a breach of contract. Which you can easily sue for. And these assholes know they're wrong, so they will want to settle out of court. You don't even need a lawyer.

[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Any competent contractor will include a termination clause in their contract. I have signed many contracts, and every single one had language to terminate the contract under some specific circumstances.

Especially with a big company like uber they can bury a favorable termination clause somewhere in the contract, and you can't exactly negotiate with an app if the terms aren't to your liking.

Companies have lawyers who get paid handsomely to write language to let them get away with things. There's no way they would be deactivating contractors if it was opening them up to significant liabilities.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right to work refers specifically to laws that make mandatory union membership illegal. It has absolutely nothing to do with at-will employment, termination, or anything relevant here.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It does more than that. It lets you quit and be fired at will.

This doesn't apply to contractors and gig jobs firing contractors without cause is a breach of contract.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again, that is not what 'right to work' means. You are talking about 'at-will' employment, which is a completely different topic that is essentially unrelated.

Yes, it's a deliberately obtuse name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Note the "Not to be confused with At-will employment." bit at the top. This isn't really a debatable matter, so cheers. Have an enjoyable read.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks. I will check out the link and I appreciate the kind correction.

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The idea of the "right to work" is bizarre to me. I am a USA citizen and it still confuses me. Isn't our right to freedom from oppression, life, liberty, and happiness? I'm not sure how the right to work gets mixed up in there. I should be able to live happily if I work or not. Call me a commie but a strong social program (including free healthcare, free standardized education, and transit) and universal income would solve many of the issues the USA faces today. That all costs money of course but it doesn't take an economist to see how much the USA spends on the military, and we are not even in an active war, so I think the budget could probably be finagled a little. Anyway I forgot what I was talking about, and all I'm saying is if the guy at the Wendy's drive thru is replaced with a tablet for ordering he should still get paid.

[–] czech@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, use your piles of cash and unlimited time to get what you're already owed. Perfect system, you're right.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I sued Instacart over violation of state employment laws.

Lodged a complaint with the state and Instacart asked to settle in mediation

Cost me nothing and I didn't even hire a lawyer.

[–] czech@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago
[–] porkins@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

My DoorDasher picked up my order the other day and went to a mall parking lot and sat there for an hour until the order was cancelled since DD couldn’t get ahold of them. They presumably ate it. They should be deactivated. Bad workers shouldn’t get extra protections.