Bingo. What all of these supposed "gig" economy jobs have in common is the parent company's tendency to shift all the risk to non-employees / ICs while reaping most of the economic value of the reward -- taking a heftier cut than it should from the business transaction.

The value derived from being an IC that's truly independent is being able to charge more for the "temporary" nature of the work and the risk of end-client fickleness. But this chunk of value is getting eaten by the middlemen (marketplace and escrow).

As such, this is especially evident in companies that have integrated a "marketplace payments platform" directly into their systems -- AirBnB, Uber, Kitchit, Instacart (any one of the companies whose payment processor is a member of the cartel: http://ink.hackeress.com/2014/12/crowdfunding-is-too-expensi...).

Right, that's all context around this situation. Obviously companies want whatever they can get.

But it's actually less grim than it seems:

1. there are laws,

2. the price pressures exist for the coordinating companies as well, as long as there continues to be competition, and

3. 'real' autonomy has a lot of benefits for people who are into that.

So first, there are already laws for this. (Which may or may not be sufficient regulation, but they cover a certain amount of what's discussed in the article, hence the lawsuit). Existing laws already stipulate what is/isn't a private contractor, for instance.

Ie, for work like programming, usually one can't be mandated to work in a specific office, or on specific hours, unless there's something about the job that particularly demands it. (Not that this sort of thing comes up a lot in programming, but there are definitely laws around this).

And in fact it's much easier for companies like Uber and Handy to be targeted for misclassification of workers than the more informal economies of construction workers, etc. So if there are holes in the law and they get plugged, that could be cool.

Secondly, "taking a heftier cut than it should from the business transaction" isn't a very damning indictment. But if Uber faces real competition with Lyft, for instance, the cut they can take is dictated by the market, both for drivers and passengers!

Lastly, it's not just workers taking on risk. Workers also gain freedom.

That sounds comical to some.

But I know a lot of people who are very passionate about volunteer work, and absolutely love jobs that they can do for a few hours a week and forget about -- even if it means they're living very simply. (I'm one of those people myself).

I do think things are as the grandparent noted. These companies are shifting risk around and attempting to reap reward.

I have a feeling that your 'there are laws' is more a general rallying cry rather than the particular nuances around these laws.

So, ie: for work like programming, usually one CAN BE mandated to work in a specific office, on specific hours. It happens all the time. The consequence is usually the exercise of the 'at will employee' and being terminated. Subordination is a valid reason for termination and it does happen.

As for misclassification of workers, the issue isnt there are holes in the law, the issue is likely that these companies are actually just violating the law.

Finally, the competition Uber vs Lyft thing hasn't actually worked to reduce the Uber cut in a percentage-basis. Competition isnt a magical bullet. It often ratchets up the abuse and pushes marginal contractors to the edge. This is the very nature of competition, working harder for less.

> Bingo. What all of these supposed "gig" economy jobs have in common is the parent company's tendency to shift all the risk to non-employees / ICs while reaping most of the economic value of the reward -- taking a heftier cut than it should from the business transaction.

What kind of cut should they be taking? Bear in mind that Uber takes a smaller cut than Apple does. Lyft goes as low as 10%.

It will never occur until the workers start making a concerted organized effort to tip the scales the other way. The majority of the profits of any enterprise should go to those doing the work, whether it's driving a car or developing software.

I agree, and it's part of why I find startup-news increasingly depressing: Most of the biggest successes seem to be based on their capacity to... well, to "do evil".

Either it's about doing evil right now (skirt or violate laws and regulation) or it's about luring investors with something that could be evilly-monetized in the future (invade privacy, put ads on everything, sell all the users' data.)