NationStates

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:22 am**

This proposal is still a work in progress. If you wish to view it, the spoiler is down below. I would appreciate any comments that help to build the document further.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:24 am**

"Uber or Lyft" are both illegal real-world references and your two definitions are used exactly once (in a seemingly non-serious context). Otherwise, full support at least in principle </ebilcapitalist>

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:26 am**

Got that, thanks.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:28 am**

Untecna wrote:
1. DEFINES
1.1: "App-based driving" as a means of income for someone by bringing people where they need to go,
1.2: An "App-based driver" as someone who drives people where they need to go using an app, such as Uber or Lyft,

.

OOC: RL reference rule violation. (Uber, Lyft)
Also, they use the app to drive people to where they need to go, As in the app itself is the mode of transport?
Also, don't think something this specific is an international concern.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:52 am**

Ardiveds wrote:
Untecna wrote:
1. DEFINES
1.1: "App-based driving" as a means of income for someone by bringing people where they need to go,
1.2: An "App-based driver" as someone who drives people where they need to go using an app, such as Uber or Lyft,

.

OOC: RL reference rule violation. (Uber, Lyft)
Also, they use the app to drive people to where they need to go, As in the app itself is the mode of transport?
Also, don't think something this specific is an international concern.

1. Got rid of RL Reference Rule Violation.
2. This could definitely be an international concern.
3. An app is on a device. An app doesn't have wheels. It doesn't drive. So, it's not the actual mode of transport, just a way to get transport.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:57 am**

Untecna wrote:1.1: "App-based driving" as a means of income for someone by bringing people where they need to go,

Under this definition, a tour guide, a university porter and a standard taxi driver (i.e. black/yellow cabs) are all working in the sector of app-based driving. Choose a better definition

RE Article 4: Are you sure this doesn't make the proposal optional = I L L E G A L ?

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:37 am**

OOC: Making these drivers "independent contractors" is, in many cases, entirely contrary to "protecting" them, by denying to them the right to have benefits that may be associated with employment in member states' laws, like healthcare (in the few backward WA members without universal healthcare

), paid sick leave, etc.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:04 am**

Tinhampton wrote:
Untecna wrote:1.1: "App-based driving" as a means of income for someone by bringing people where they need to go,

Under this definition, a tour guide, a university porter and a standard taxi driver (i.e. black/yellow cabs) are all working in the sector of app-based driving. Choose a better definition

RE Article 4: Are you sure this doesn't make the proposal optional = I L L E G A L ?

What I said is that the app(s) are NOT the modes of transport outlined in the draft, therefore the apps are a means of getting transport. So where in that do you get tour guide, university porter, and a standard taxi driver?

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:08 am**

Against, this violates the right of nations to determine if they wish to allow computers in their nation.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:16 am**

Untecna wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:Under this definition, a tour guide, a university porter and a standard taxi driver (i.e. black/yellow cabs) are all working in the sector of app-based driving. Choose a better definition

RE Article 4: Are you sure this doesn't make the proposal optional = I L L E G A L ?

What I said is that the app(s) are NOT the modes of transport outlined in the draft, therefore the apps are a means of getting transport. So where in that do you get tour guide, university porter, and a standard taxi driver?

...I mean if they were paid to do so. Tour guides bring people to different museum exhibits/city landmarks; porters in plodges yes, I'm old - although almost invariably unpaid for their services in the real world - bring university students to their room (at least that was my experience yes, I'm still old); taxi drivers literally earn their money "by bringing people where they need to go!"

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:04 am**

This could definitely be an international concern.

How so? Explain.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:57 pm**

"Opposed. Taxi and hackney drivers might or might utilised internet technology for advertising their services and accepting fares, and they might or might not work for someone else. We have no need of the WA telling them all that they're no longer employees.

"And hard no to any unregulated ordinary Joe being able to pick up passengers for hire. Who knows if he has the appropriate driving licence, motor insurance, police vetting and certificate of roadworthiness."

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:45 am**

"What rights are being protected? You mentioned the word 'rights' a lot but I don't see any of it. If anything, kicking app-based drivers out of corporations and forcing them to remain as independent contractors are likely to deprive them of the benefits of employment in those app-based driving corporations where they are hired."

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:13 am**

2. CLARIFIES that the app-based driving industry is no laughing matter,

Lol

Posted: **Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:04 am**

Untecna wrote: 1.2: An "App-based driver" as someone who drives people where they need to go using an app,

OOC: You can say it OOCly howevermanytimes you like, but as long as this definition is written like this, you ARE referring to the app being something that they're driving. Or that they're driving with (thinking like remote-controlled cars here). Like has been said before, you need better definitions.

Might also want to check the fairly recent resolution with the name Rights of the Employed or something like that. And Freedom to Contract (quite old resolution). At least.

EDIT: I honestly clicked this thread expecting it to be an adbot for an antivirus program that protects your computer's drivers.

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:52 pm**

Untecna wrote:The World Assembly,

Understanding that app-based driving is a growing business,

Knowing that with that comes the need for protections, regulations, and other sorts of legal attention,

Hereby enacts these provisions into law:

1. Definitions
1A: "App-based driving" as a means of transport via an app on a smartphone, to get people to where they need to go,
1B: "App-based driver" as a registered driver with the rideshare company; the person driving the people that use the service,

2. Classifies drivers as independent contractors and not employees of the company, unless the company sets hours, wages, gives standard benefits, etc.,

3. Drivers will receive these benefits as independent contractors:
3A: Vehicle insurance
3B: Healthcare subsidies
3C: Minimum earnings (the standard earnings in each member nation, according to their laws)

4. Restricts certain regulation for the drivers,

5. Criminalizes the impersonation of drivers,

6. Enforces background checks on drivers,

7. Drivers MUST receive safety training from the company, regardless of if the driver is an independent contractor or an employee,

8. Drivers are not eligible to be a driver for the company if:
8A: They have a criminal record,
8B: Have a medical condition that prevents them from driving,
8C: Are younger than 18,
8D: Have not received the mandatory safety training,

9. These provisions are not nesessary in nations that have no vehicles.

10. This law wishes not to duplicate or void existing legislature in the World Assembly.

As can be seen here, the proposal has been changed to be more understandable and useful.

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:00 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Untecna wrote: 1.2: An "App-based driver" as someone who drives people where they need to go using an app,

OOC: You can say it OOCly howevermanytimes you like, but as long as this definition is written like this, you ARE referring to the app being something that they're driving. Or that they're driving with (thinking like remote-controlled cars here). Like has been said before, you need better definitions.

Might also want to check the fairly recent resolution with the name Rights of the Employed or something like that. And Freedom to Contract (quite old resolution). At least.

EDIT: I honestly clicked this thread expecting it to be an adbot for an antivirus program that protects your computer's drivers.

"EDIT: I honestly clicked this thread expecting it to be an adbot for an antivirus program that protects your computer's drivers"

Lol

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:06 pm**

Picairn wrote:"What rights are being protected? You mentioned the word 'rights' a lot but I don't see any of it. If anything, kicking app-based drivers out of corporations and forcing them to remain as independent contractors are likely to deprive them of the benefits of employment in those app-based driving corporations where they are hired."

Yes, that is true, but think about this:

Let's say your a guitar player. You play at a bar every Thursday night. Is it really a good idea to give you employee benefits if you only play one night a week? No, it isn't.

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:06 pm**

OOC:
What is appalling policy in real life, remains appalling policy on NS, and is certainly not grounds for international law.
Try to take inspiration from laws that haven't been written up by tech-company stooges to protect exploitative business practice.

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:09 pm**

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
What is appalling policy in real life, remains appalling policy on NS, and is certainly not grounds for international law.
Try to take inspiration from laws that haven't been written up by tech-company stooges to protect exploitative business practice.

Thank you for your feedback.

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:11 pm**

"Regardless of whether the policy of hiring app-based drivers as contractors or employees is better, this is an astonishing piece of micromanagement. The particulars of employment is not even a national issue, it is not even a local issue. It is a business issue. Opposed to the very core concept."

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:14 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Regardless of whether the policy of hiring app-based drivers as contractors or employees is better, this is an astonishing piece of micromanagement. The particulars of employment is not even a national issue, it is not even a local issue. It is a business issue. Opposed to the very core concept."

"Ambassador, thank you for your feedback, however, it seems that yet again, our opinions on a topic do not align. I disagree with you, but I do not wish to argue about it. And as always, thank you for your feedback. It will help make the resolution better."

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:15 pm**

Untecna wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Regardless of whether the policy of hiring app-based drivers as contractors or employees is better, this is an astonishing piece of micromanagement. The particulars of employment is not even a national issue, it is not even a local issue. It is a business issue. Opposed to the very core concept."

"Ambassador, thank you for your feedback, however, it seems that yet again, our opinions on a topic do not align. I disagree with you, but I do not wish to argue about it. And as always, thank you for your feedback. It will help make the resolution better."

"Then, ambassador, you can anticipate our active opposition upon submission."

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:16 pm**

Untecna wrote:Yes, that is true, but think about this:

Let's say your a guitar player. You play at a bar every Thursday night. Is it really a good idea to give you employee benefits if you only play one night a week? No, it isn't.

IC: "Why wouldn't it be? Anyone working for me is automatically entitled to all worker benefits. After all, they are working for me," the plant... creature said.

OOC: Why wouldn't it be? And what are "employee benefits" in your understanding anyway?

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:17 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Untecna wrote:"Ambassador, thank you for your feedback, however, it seems that yet again, our opinions on a topic do not align. I disagree with you, but I do not wish to argue about it. And as always, thank you for your feedback. It will help make the resolution better."

"Then, ambassador, you can anticipate our active opposition upon submission."

"Well, I do not intend to submit it until I gain your approval. So, while it may be a long and perilous journey getting there, I hope for the best!"

NationStates

WIP App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Act

WIP App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Act