I think it sucks that Uber drivers aren't direct employees of Uber. Were they once upon a time? I forget. Anyhow, it's just a bullshit game for Uber to avoid regulations. It'd be much better for everyone involved if drivers could just be salary employees.
> It'd be much better for everyone involved if drivers could just be salary employees.
uber probably wouldn't exist if this were the case. the cost overhead of hiring someone would mean drivers would have less freedom - no moonlighting for lyft or sidecare - and rates would be higher.
isn't it better to look at ways of changing the employer/employee dynamic instead of insisting that everything work that way?
Please explain your logic? As a user of uber the experience is so much better then a cab. If a driver does not perform to very high standard they are cut out of the system with customer reviews.
For the drivers I talk to ( 6x trips a week) they love the flexility and money. The only reason your hearing anything is taxi shields are a scam. They are now a commodity that is "rented" while the companies sit there and trap the drivers with high rental fees.
Sure it's not perfect but I feel safer in a Uber car then a cab. They usually drive better, there is a lot of who's car I got in, where I was picked up, when the ride started, and where it ended. In a cab you have none of these.
i'm not sure how we disagree. my point was to GP - that making uber hire all of the drivers wouldn't benefit the drivers, the customers, or uber. it would benefit the cab unions though.
Which is fine if you think the regulations are outdated.
The fact that drivers have tracked feedback, pre-negotiated prices, and a dispatch system that isn't overwhelmed by surges effectively negates the market failures that the regulations were originally designed to fix. I suspect that the regulations were a net value-add for most of their existence, but now that the smartphone age has enabled a market solution it's time to reevaluate the necessity of the regulations.
Oh the irony. The heralds of the "sharing" economy are getting a dose of some shared negative sentiments. Then again maybe that's not the kind of sharing they meant.
>DeWolf cited a recent mandate from Uber requiring all Uber Black drivers with cars older than 2010 to switch over to UberX within two weeks (they later switched it four), where they will make less money.
God forbid Uber try to maintain a high quality service!
Is a four year old black car really that massive of a quality difference than a two year old black car, such that it should be put into the same price category as Prius's (where the driver is able to pay less in gas and offers a significantly less impressive service?)
This is really interesting. Uber and Lyft are trying so hard to recruit drivers in the face of their rapid growth. A strike, or whatever the equivalent is in this "association", would really hurt them. It flies in the face of Uber's mantra of always available.
Given the vulnerability, I expect it won't be too long until we see one, unless drivers' concerns are addressed.
You could say with Uber's war chest they could wait out a strike, but again, it flies in the face of their long held core value prop - always on. It will create massive surge conditions.
If I was Uber, I'd eat the difference between surge price and normal fare and starve the union out.
If I was Uber, I'd eat the difference between surge price and normal fare and starve the union out.
Let's not think about the children right now, let's think about the drivers instead. When you are between jobs it might easily be you behind the wheel. Think very carefully which of the two dogs in the fight you should support.
Kalanick would have to be an idiot (which he's not) to let them unionize. Uber has a ridiculous amount of funding, and I can't imagine any of their investors would oppose them taking advantage of it to starve any unions out. People will forget soon enough that Uber wasn't available for a while, but a union will be like an open wound that just won't go away.
After all, if the drivers go to their competitors, then they'll just unionize there too. And once the situation has stabilized, Uber can just undercut their unionized competitors and put them out of business.
Well, an employer really doesn't get to choose whether or not employees can unionize. They just get to employ unfair and illegal labor practices without much retribution.
Step one is employees forming a union. Step two is negotiating a labor contract. If an employer says no to a labor contract and fires everyone, the employees are back at square one.
Back in the day if a union tried to fire everyone and rehire, the union would physically assault scab workers and their families. Hence the close ties between unions and organized crime. (EDIT: I added this part to point out unions do not have any leverage anymore to work with, sorry if you misunderstood it as implying unions still regularly employ violence)
No, there is just no legal recognition of a union (as is understood in the US) for freelance contractors. Contractors organize through professional associations, instead.
I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than this... but when a majority of employees vote to unionize, and the union is certified, the union then has sole authority to negotiate employment terms with the company. I think from that perspective, it makes sense why independent contractors, who are by definition negotiating directly with the company, can't unionized.
It seems only logical. It's evident that at some point it will be a race to the bottom between services with similar propositions, so labor will eventually get some cost cutting.
Is it even possible to keep people from scabbing a service like Uber? There's no central place to go to work, so I can't imagine any kind of picket line situation. How will a union maintain any kind of power when they can't control who goes in and out of a work site?
Unions historically employed violence (or fear of violence) to prevent scabs because of the close ties to organized crime. Failing that, there is no real way that the union can avoid scabs.
(Edited to clarify. Yes I acknowledge employers can be evil too, I assumed that was obvious.)
Protecting picket lines is a strategy that goes back to the Chartist movement in England. The whole point of a picket line is to shut down production. Many early labor wars involved management hiring private armies that beat up and even shot strikers.
Organized cribs involvement started during McCarthyism in particular (red scares more generally). When socialists (with a rank and file power perspective) were driven out, the vacuum left was filled by mobsters (in some cases).
Is there a name for the logical fallacy where one knowingly misrepresents true statements to suggests things that aren't true? (ie that only unions used violence or had criminal ties).
Yes, 100 years ago factory owners sure did (Ford being a classic example). More recently they have not.
Low level violence is frequently applied by strike workers today. I once worked (white color job) for a shipping company and we had one strike every couple of years, sometimes more than one in a year (stevedore and sailors were both unionized so there would be two separate negotiations, each of which inevitably ended in a week or two week strike).
Try driving through a picket line of stevedores and see what happens to your car. Actually don't, you will regret it. If they think you are a scab, you will be punched.
If a hardcore unionist calls you a scab, be scared. Its the worst insult they know, and its backed by extreme hatred.
As far as organized crime violence goes, I have no experience with that. I always assumed that was Sopranos fiction.
Unionism has done good things, but I don't believe it has a place in a high tech industry. What Uber needs is solid competition so that drivers can simply defect to a competitor.
> Unionism has done good things, but I don't believe it has a place in a high tech industry.
Since when was driving a car a high tech industry? Every industry uses high tech, but that doesn't mean they should be subjected to Silicon Valley's poor labor practices.
Your position is privileged beyond belief. That you don't see that is both amusing and scary.
Uber is not in the tech industry, they're in the taxi industry, driving cars. This us/them elitism is the scourge of the tech industry. Just pray you don't become as expendable as the drivers are.
I teach the LSAT. This fallacy occurs all the time. It's "incomplete comparison". Giving information about only one half of a comparison, then stating or implying a conclusion based on that inadequate information.
Striking drivers don't need to shut down Uber to cause major problems. If a significant fraction of the drivers withhold their labor, then Uber won't be able to meet all of the demand for rides. Prices will go up, which will be great for scabs. But higher prices and less reliable service will discourage customers, which hurts both Uber's brand and bottom line.
Uber drivers aren't invisible. It wouldn't take much effort to use the app to flag one down, note the license plate, and give them a nice little talking to. I doubt many part-timers would stick with it if they thought there was a chance for trouble.
What promising idea is that, making a business on the basis of ignoring the laws of the municipalities your business is in, or having the drivers, who were in business before Uber and will be in business after Uber, do all the work and wealth creation while some startup and its VCs and its VCs LP's parasitically suck up profits from all that labor?
The "laws of the municipalities" in most cases were bull shit regulatory capture created distorted market and offered terrible service for the consumers in favor of the old holders of capital (see: token systems)
