,亚洲欧美日韩国产成人精品影院,亚洲国产欧美日韩精品一区二区三区,久久亚洲国产成人影院,久久国产成人亚洲精品影院老金,九九精品成人免费国产片,国产精品成人综合网,国产成人一区二区三区,国产成...

首頁 500強 活動 榜單 商業 科技 領導力 專題 品牌中心
雜志訂閱

美國網約車問題重重,造成社會傷害

Steven Hill
2020-12-24

美國網約車的商業模式對司機、交通擁堵、環境和交通都有不利影響。

文本設置
小號
默認
大號
Plus(0條)

2020年10月,一名司機參加了在洛杉磯市政廳舉行的抗議活動,反對加州第22號公投提案,該提案將網約車司機劃定為獨立承包人而非雇員。圖片來源:Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images

在互聯網經濟中,零工工人應該擁有什么樣的保障機制呢?

自然要包括醫療保險,還有養老金計劃、病假、工傷和失業補償。他們應當享受到公平、可轉移的保障:假若零工工人在不同的公司做兼職,在換工作時,這些保障可以隨崗遷移。

好消息是,我們知道怎樣設計這種保障制度。壞消息是,數字平臺公司一直沒有把設計變成現實。

Uber和Lyft對于優化福利體系的諸多提案一清二楚。2015年,我的書《不公平交易:“Uber經濟”和失控的資本主義如何壓榨美國工人》(Raw Deal: How “Uber Economy” and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers)出版后,我同兩家網約車公司的高管見了面。我在會面中提出要建立“個人安全賬戶”——一個為司機和其他自由職業者設計的可遷移式保障計劃,這是我們會面的一大重點議題。

我的想法是,每個工人名下都設立一個強制的、受政府監管的個人安全賬戶,每一家雇傭這些工人的企業都應該按照其在本公司工作時長向賬戶內撥付相應比例的資金。然后,工人能夠使用賬戶資金支付醫保、社保、病假、工傷和失業補償等保障需求。

與其把靈活性放在安全性的對立面,也就是讓零工工人在想要的工作和需要的福利間做選擇,使用這種以“工時銀行”系統為基礎的可遷移式保障機制可以兩者得兼。美國影視演員工會(Screen Actors Guild)、國際職員服務聯盟(Service Employees International Union)和卡車司機工會(Teamsters)都有類似的多雇主計劃。按照我的設想,在沒有工會提供協調保障時,個人保險賬戶能夠填補缺口。

美國前總統貝拉克?奧巴馬在2016年的國情咨文中支持了我的想法。40位商界和政府領導——包括Lyft的聯合創始人——簽署了一份原則聲明,呼吁建立可遷移式保障機制。Uber的首席執行官達拉?科斯羅薩西也呼吁落實此類機制。

但是,當各州支付可遷移保障機制的賬單時,Uber和Lyft提供的資金并非員工工資的20%(根據聯邦保險精算表,20%是建立足額保障所需的最低數額),而是僅僅2.5%。

有研究發現,如果過去五年Uber和Lyft的加州司機被劃定為雇員而非獨立承包人,它們單是向州失業保險基金支付的資金就超過4億美元。然而,這些公司造成的巨大工資和福利缺口卻不得不由加州納稅人買單。

因為這些公司沒有足額繳款,加州議會通過了AB5法案,試圖通過將司機重新歸類為雇員而非獨立承包人來解決這個問題。但Uber和Lyft拒絕執行該法律,開始推動第22號提案。

這些公司愿意在一項毀滅性的公投提案上花數億美元,這么富有為什么不能對自己的員工好點呢?

答案是Uber和Lyft陷入了巨大的財務困境。它們每年虧損數十億美元。出租車行業的利潤率天生就很低,而它們用掠奪性的補貼模式進行低價競爭,每次行程補貼都超過成本的一半。

隨著22號提案的通過,這些公司現在已經通過立法,形成了另一種葛朗臺版的可遷移式保障機制,還試圖通過調整最低工資來挽回顏面。第22號提案規定的醫療福利約為每小時1.2美元,遠低于州和聯邦法律規定的每小時4美元至6美元的雇員福利。

第22號提案看起來將司機的最低時薪調整為16.8美元。但請閱讀細則:他們將使用一個復雜的公式,在計算最低工資時,只有“受雇小時數”(當司機車內有乘客時)才會被納入工作小時數。

一名司機,如果一班10小時,可能只有5個小時車上載有乘客。如果司機在這一班賺了100美元,那么每小時也就只有10美元,低于加州法律規定的最低12美元的時薪。然而,按照22號提案的公式,計算結果為每小時20美元,也就意味著公司無需把不足的補齊。

如果選民否決了提案,司機仍然被算作正式雇員而不是獨立承包人,那么司機能夠得到的福利將遠遠超出22號提案。

Uber和Lyft的首席執行官們話說得很漂亮,說它們已經“準備好履行職責”為司機提供支持。但它們被自身無利可圖的商業模式束縛住了手腳,而且,這種商業模式對司機、交通擁堵、環境和交通都有不利影響。社會還可以繼續容忍這種商業模式多長時間?(財富中文網)

史蒂芬?希爾是書籍《不公平交易:“Uber經濟”和失控的資本主義如何壓榨美國工人》(How the “Uber Economy” and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers)和《擴大社會保障:如何確保美國人得到他們應得的退休生活》(Expand Social Security Now: How to Ensure Americans Get the Retirement They Deserve)的作者。本文最初是為Zócalo Public Square撰寫的。

譯者:Agatha

在互聯網經濟中,零工工人應該擁有什么樣的保障機制呢?

自然要包括醫療保險,還有養老金計劃、病假、工傷和失業補償。他們應當享受到公平、可轉移的保障:假若零工工人在不同的公司做兼職,在換工作時,這些保障可以隨崗遷移。

好消息是,我們知道怎樣設計這種保障制度。壞消息是,數字平臺公司一直沒有把設計變成現實。

Uber和Lyft對于優化福利體系的諸多提案一清二楚。2015年,我的書《不公平交易:“Uber經濟”和失控的資本主義如何壓榨美國工人》(Raw Deal: How “Uber Economy” and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers)出版后,我同兩家網約車公司的高管見了面。我在會面中提出要建立“個人安全賬戶”——一個為司機和其他自由職業者設計的可遷移式保障計劃,這是我們會面的一大重點議題。

我的想法是,每個工人名下都設立一個強制的、受政府監管的個人安全賬戶,每一家雇傭這些工人的企業都應該按照其在本公司工作時長向賬戶內撥付相應比例的資金。然后,工人能夠使用賬戶資金支付醫保、社保、病假、工傷和失業補償等保障需求。

與其把靈活性放在安全性的對立面,也就是讓零工工人在想要的工作和需要的福利間做選擇,使用這種以“工時銀行”系統為基礎的可遷移式保障機制可以兩者得兼。美國影視演員工會(Screen Actors Guild)、國際職員服務聯盟(Service Employees International Union)和卡車司機工會(Teamsters)都有類似的多雇主計劃。按照我的設想,在沒有工會提供協調保障時,個人保險賬戶能夠填補缺口。

美國前總統貝拉克?奧巴馬在2016年的國情咨文中支持了我的想法。40位商界和政府領導——包括Lyft的聯合創始人——簽署了一份原則聲明,呼吁建立可遷移式保障機制。Uber的首席執行官達拉?科斯羅薩西也呼吁落實此類機制。

但是,當各州支付可遷移保障機制的賬單時,Uber和Lyft提供的資金并非員工工資的20%(根據聯邦保險精算表,20%是建立足額保障所需的最低數額),而是僅僅2.5%。

有研究發現,如果過去五年Uber和Lyft的加州司機被劃定為雇員而非獨立承包人,它們單是向州失業保險基金支付的資金就超過4億美元。然而,這些公司造成的巨大工資和福利缺口卻不得不由加州納稅人買單。

因為這些公司沒有足額繳款,加州議會通過了AB5法案,試圖通過將司機重新歸類為雇員而非獨立承包人來解決這個問題。但Uber和Lyft拒絕執行該法律,開始推動第22號提案。

這些公司愿意在一項毀滅性的公投提案上花數億美元,這么富有為什么不能對自己的員工好點呢?

答案是Uber和Lyft陷入了巨大的財務困境。它們每年虧損數十億美元。出租車行業的利潤率天生就很低,而它們用掠奪性的補貼模式進行低價競爭,每次行程補貼都超過成本的一半。

隨著22號提案的通過,這些公司現在已經通過立法,形成了另一種葛朗臺版的可遷移式保障機制,還試圖通過調整最低工資來挽回顏面。第22號提案規定的醫療福利約為每小時1.2美元,遠低于州和聯邦法律規定的每小時4美元至6美元的雇員福利。

第22號提案看起來將司機的最低時薪調整為16.8美元。但請閱讀細則:他們將使用一個復雜的公式,在計算最低工資時,只有“受雇小時數”(當司機車內有乘客時)才會被納入工作小時數。

一名司機,如果一班10小時,可能只有5個小時車上載有乘客。如果司機在這一班賺了100美元,那么每小時也就只有10美元,低于加州法律規定的最低12美元的時薪。然而,按照22號提案的公式,計算結果為每小時20美元,也就意味著公司無需把不足的補齊。

如果選民否決了提案,司機仍然被算作正式雇員而不是獨立承包人,那么司機能夠得到的福利將遠遠超出22號提案。

Uber和Lyft的首席執行官們話說得很漂亮,說它們已經“準備好履行職責”為司機提供支持。但它們被自身無利可圖的商業模式束縛住了手腳,而且,這種商業模式對司機、交通擁堵、環境和交通都有不利影響。社會還可以繼續容忍這種商業模式多長時間?(財富中文網)

史蒂芬?希爾是書籍《不公平交易:“Uber經濟”和失控的資本主義如何壓榨美國工人》(How the “Uber Economy” and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers)和《擴大社會保障:如何確保美國人得到他們應得的退休生活》(Expand Social Security Now: How to Ensure Americans Get the Retirement They Deserve)的作者。本文最初是為Zócalo Public Square撰寫的。

譯者:Agatha

What would a safety net look like for gig workers in the Internet-based economy?

It would provide health insurance, naturally, and a retirement plan, sick leave, and injured worker and unemployment compensation. And it would be equitable and portable: A person working part-time for different companies would have robust benefits that travel with them from job-to- job.

The good news is that we know how to design that sort of safety net. The bad news is that the digital platform companies keep missing opportunities to make it a reality.

Uber and Lyft are well aware of proposals to build better benefits systems. Following the publication of my book, Raw Deal: How the ‘Uber Economy’ and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers in 2015, I met with executives at both ride-sharing firms. A central part of the discussions was my proposal for an “Individual Security Account,” a portable safety net for drivers and for other freelance workers.

My idea was that each worker would have a mandatory, government-regulated Individual Security Account, and that any business that hires a worker would contribute an amount pro-rated to the number of hours worked for that business. The worker would then use those funds to pay for safety net needs such as health care, Social Security, sick leave, injured worker and unemployment compensation.

Instead of pitting flexibility against security—making a gig worker choose between the work they want and the benefits they need—a portable safety net based on this kind of an “hours bank” system would allow for both. (The Screen Actors Guild, the Service Employees International Union, and the Teamsters all manage these kinds of multi-employer plans). The Individual Security Account, as I envisioned it, would fill in the gap when there is no labor union to coordinate contributions.

President Barack Obama endorsed my idea in his 2016 State of the Union address. Forty business and government leaders—including the co-founders of Lyft—signed a statement of principles calling for a portable safety net. Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi also called for enacting a portable safety net plan.

But when bills for portable safety nets were introduced in states, Uber and Lyft, rather than contributing 20% of a worker’s wages (the minimum necessary to fund an adequate safety net according to federal actuarial tables) offered to contribute 2.5%.

One study found that if their California drivers had been classified as employees rather than contractors these last five years, Uber and Lyft would have paid more than $400 million into the state unemployment insurance fund alone. Instead, California taxpayers have had to foot the bill for the significant wage and benefit gaps created by these companies.

Without a serious offer from the companies, the California legislature passed AB5, which attempted to solve the problem by reclassifying drivers as employees rather than independent contractors. Uber and Lyft refused to implement the law, and pursued Proposition 22 instead.

Why can’t these companies, rich enough to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a ruinous ballot measure, do better by their workers?

The answer is that Uber and Lyft are in huge financial trouble. They lose billions of dollars every year. Profit margins are inherently low in the taxi business, and their predatory model subsidizes more than half the cost of every ride in a bid to undercut competition.

With the passage of Prop 22, the companies have now legislated into existence another miserly version of a portable safety net, along with a face-saving attempt at a minimum wage. The value of Proposition 22’s health benefit is estimated at about $1.20 an hour—well below the $4 to $6 hourly value of benefits mandated for employees under state and federal laws.

Proposition 22 also appears to offer to drivers a new hourly minimum wage of at least $16.80 per hour. But read the fine print: A complex formula will be used in which only “engaged hours” (when the driver has a passenger in the car) will be counted as hours worked when calculating the minimum wage.

A driver, in a 10-hour shift, might only have passengers for five hours. If the driver earns $100 in that shift, that would amount to only $10 per hour—less than California’s legal minimum wage of $12 per hour. Yet the Prop 22 formula will calculate that wage as $20 per hour, meaning the companies will have no obligation to top it up.

None of Prop 22’s offerings come close to what drivers would receive if voters had rejected the initiative and drivers had remained regular employees instead of independent contractors.

The CEOs of Uber and Lyft talk a good game, saying they are “ready to do their part” to help their drivers. But they are hamstrung by their own unprofitable business model, which has also turned out to be bad for many of their drivers, for traffic congestion, for the environment, and for transportation. How much longer can society afford to allow this business model to continue?

Steven Hill is the author of Raw Deal: How the ‘Uber Economy’ and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers and Expand Social Security Now: How to Ensure Americans Get the Retirement They Deserve. He originally wrote this article for Zócalo Public Square.

0條Plus
精彩評論
評論

撰寫或查看更多評論

請打開財富Plus APP

前往打開