This feels strongly in the same vein as rent price fixing (1). What is the path to the illegalizing of these abuses? Or should we see the below successful actions as indication that existing laws are sufficient? Should we expect similar action against exploitative "gig economy" companies?<p>(1) <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-realpage-algorithmic-pricing-scheme-harms-millions-american-renters" rel="nofollow">https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-realp...</a>
> But Shiftkey doesn't guarantee that you'll get work on any of those shifts – in other words, nurses have to pledge not to take any work during the times when Shiftkey might need them, but they only get paid for those hours where Shiftkey calls them out.<p>> The less money you have in your bank accounts and the more you owe on your credit cards, the lower the wage the app will offer you.<p>I guess nurses are being sold on the flexibility of working when they want to, but this is horrifying.<p>It seems sort of like the catch-22 of loans - you should only borrow money when you don't need to.
The fees out of each paycheck, including rent extracted for using the app, is just awful.<p>For facilities that use these apps: are these the only game in town? Where are we on the slope to nurses in a region having no other way to get shifts?<p>Why is it that nurses are down there with, maybe below, teachers? Perhaps because they are not expected to have a long-term relationship with their customer.
It's class warfare. With more economic problems, AI and robotics putting pressure on work of ALL types.. they may turn to actual warfare between the US and China as an outlet to avoid a shooting war/revolt internally in multiple countries.<p>We can hope that ideas like UBI will help somehow.
> Of course, these same libertarians will tell you that it should be legal for your boss to require you to sign a noncompete "agreement"<p>While I can't say it's the same <i>individual</i> people contradicting themselves, I've noticed a very similar conflict arising between:<p>1. "In the awesome free market, all deals and pricing information is public, making it extraordinarily efficient."<p>2. "In the awesome free market, everyone has the freedom to make secret contracts with hidden prices, which destabilizes cartels and makes them a non-problem."<p>Each boast involves a directly incompatible vision about what the "free market" <i>actually means</i>, yet proponents of either kind of free-ness go suspiciously silent when the other ones are talking.
Banning "gig work" seems like a very reasonable and even popular proposal. The economies it enabled are all terrible and it usually does very little to benefit consumers or workers.<p>Especially the point about workers assuming the risk of the corporation is not acceptable.