8 ms·
Growth in the ‘Gig Economy’ Fuels Work Force Anxieties
- AndrewKemendo 11y agoI've taken a lot of uber rides and have never met a driver who was planning on doing it long term - it was a stop gap measure for them till they got a better job. So what happens when those people who have uber ready cars get other jobs? Seems like a stiff barrier to entry for new drivers - having a nice car that is.
- tomerico 11y agoI think that the (sad) more likely prediction is that there is no other job. As productivity and automotation increases, demand will increase for limited qualification jobs (until they are gone)
- rodgerd 11y ago> I've taken a lot of uber rides and have never met a driver who was planning on doing it long term That was always the spin about why it was OK that McDonalds and Walmart were terrible places to work. Because it's just a starter job for kids. Yeah, not so much.
- x5n1 11y agoso unionize. corporations and capitalists are looking out for their own profit margins and bottom lines. it's time you guys start doing the same again. in university's management class that i took the prof basically said corporations that get unions usually deserve those unions. it seems like the economy needs it now. it's the only way that we're are going to survive a capitalist economy at perfect efficiency. where corporations and capitalists are taking out profits from employee's paychecks.
- vijayr 11y agoso unionize Easier said than done. Most people don't realize they are getting screwed out of their wages. They just think they need to work harder/smarter to get ahead. They also think unions are socialist/communist etc. Then there are corporations who will do anything in their power to stop people from unionizing.
- aianus 11y agoI would rather make less money than have part of my paycheck forcibly removed and given to politician-types so they can defend other losers' jobs against competition because they have 'seniority'.
- BrainInAJar 11y agoso you'd rather fuck yourself out of spite?
- aianus 11y agoAbsolutely. It's all relative anyways; doing better in absolute terms is less important than doing better relative to parasitic morons like those protected and enriched by unions.
- x5n1 11y agomy unions prof said he wanted the right to fire one moron per year and that would be enough to solve this problem. because usually there is only one or two problem employees.
- mc32 11y agoI don't think that would fix it. If he doesn't fire anyone, it's not effective, and once he does the quota is filled and the rest are free to dilly dally the rest of the year.
- 11y ago
- eru 11y agoIf unions really manage to drive up wages, why would any company want to hire anyone in a union? (Especially for gigs where you can hire anyone worldwide.)
- interesting_att 11y agoManagement usually don't WANT unions. But in many cases, they can't stop them from forming, so they have to deal with them.
- eru 11y agoLet the unions form all they want. As long as the boss doesn't negotiate with them, how do they have any power? Or is there some legal protection that says you can't fire people who refuse to work (ie strike) if and only if they are in a union? Of course, the boss would have to have a reputation / commitment to acting that way, so that people don't try.
- x5n1 11y agoyou can not fire people in unions just for belonging to a union and yes there is legislation that says that if a union forms then you have to deal with the union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law#Right_to_organize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law#Right_...
- eru 11y agoOK, then just don't negotiate at all (or only negotiate pro forma, if legally obliged), and fire anyway who goes on strike? Make it clear that this will happen, and if your commitment is credible, you'll never see a strike.
- pdkl95 11y agoEscalating the conflict is rarely a good idea. It's not like this hasn't been tried before; labor simply had to find more creative ways of taking Direct Action; the "strike" is only one of their options. The "blue flu" is a traditional way get around that type of threat. A particularly effective tactic is "work to rule", which is a de facto strike specifically designed to get around threats from management; it's harder to justify firing someone for following all safety/regulatory requirements. If an industry is being particularly problematic, this is where it pays to be on good diplomatic terms with other unions, because the "nuclear option" for a network of unions is the General Strike. If management has any sanity at all, they will choose to negotiate well before such tactics become necessary. Strength in numbers is usually a winning strategy, and the most effective counter is to convince people that they shouldn't fight back.
- tbrownaw 11y agoDon't unions only work if hiring non-union people doesn't work well?
- lumberjack 11y agoI don't think unions are going to cut it this time round. The problem is that there is too much labour competition in the first place. It's probably more fruitful to look into the whole "I file taxes as a contractor and get no benefits but I am effectively an employee" thing. I remember people on here complaining about that for a long time so it's a big enough issue that affects people in many job sectors.
- einrealist 11y agoAs much as I like that idea, there are two basic misconceptions about that. First, the contractors are self-employed and therefor compete with each other. In a union, employees do not really compete with each other. Second, because the contractors compete with each other, they are liable to competition laws. A "union" in this matter would be a cartel and thus illegal. Although, a state could and should introduce regulations that strengthen the interests of small contractors.
- x5n1 11y agoThough contractor can not unionize workers of a certain industry can unionize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_unionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_unionism Workers can also unionize according to craft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craft_unionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craft_unionism The point of the article was that in some cases the judges have ruled that the "contractors" should be employees. And then if that's the case then they should be able to form a union. I however was making a general point and not a specific point. Corporations and employers obviously want to force everyone into a freelance sort of position with no job security. There are numerous benefits in it for them. Someone has to do something to fight this. Because they do hold all the cards in this case. And they don't really need employees. Uber's long term strategy of automation, which is what this is about in the long run, will essentially destroy the industry. In the long run that's really what you are dealing with. This is just one shot in that battle.
- einrealist 11y agoOf course, people and businesses can form interest groups. But they are still liable to competition laws. Price fixing is not allowed. Such a interest group can agree on certain standards, but not pricing or anything that would stifle competition. Yes, if Uber needs to employ their former contractors a because of misclassification rulings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misclassification_of_employees_as_independent_contractors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misclassification_of_employees...) - I like the German word "Scheinselbstständigkeit" - they then can form a union.
- radmuzom 11y agoThe piece by Nick Hanauer and David Rolf, linked in the article, is great. Long read, but worth it. http://www.democracyjournal.org/37/shared-security-shared-growth.php http://www.democracyjournal.org/37/shared-security-shared-gr...
- rumcajz 11y agoA dwindling number of people can do all the work nowadays. And the productivity is not going to decline any time soon. Unions are not going to help unless they lobby for a 20hr working week, guaranteed basic income or something in that vein.
- bjwbell 11y agoFor the best people there's an unbounded amount of work. But if you're not the best too bad for you. A lot more fields are becoming winner takes all (acting, athletes etc. are all this way).
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- x5n1 11y agoWhatever that is, it's a group struggle. It's not an individual struggle or a battle that can be fought individually.
- mkhpalm 11y agoPersonal nit but can we stop calling Uber a "startup" already? When you're getting valued in billions and running around with hundreds of millions hiring whoever you want to hire. You're probably a corporation, not a startup.
- rahimnathwani 11y agoUber is still: 1) Growing very fast, and 2) Spending investors' money to acquire market share of both drivers and customers. In China, the prices are so low, and the subsidies for drivers so high, that I wonder whether Uber has even reached unit profitability (i.e. positive gross margins). Plus, they're spending money on customer acquisition, and investing in infrastructure. Do we already know that Uber has found a repeatable business model?
- anon4 11y agoAlong the same lines, can we also stop talking about how the Great Recession has ended? It hasn't ended for something like 99% of people.
- andyfleming 11y agoReminds of this more direct article about the "servitude bubble": https://medium.com/bad-words/the-servitude-bubble-c9e998c437c6 https://medium.com/bad-words/the-servitude-bubble-c9e998c437...
- littletimmy 11y agoUnions were a solution at one point in time, but I doubt their effectiveness in an information economy. What we have is simply a lack of jobs for a lot of people. We have to move towards a basic income - you get paid even if you do nothing. That way at least there's a hard floor on living standards.
- anon4 11y agoThat might be a lot more palatable to people if it came with strings attached. Maybe if you're not allowed to marry and have children if you're on basic income? After a few generations, the problem should disappear then.
- aianus 11y agoBasic income would be for everyone, even billionaires. You're free to go out and earn more on top of that or not. But yeah, you definitely shouldn't get more basic income for having children or children would become some kind of perverse cash cows.
- littletimmy 11y agoWhy? People who do no work have a right to have children.
- jazzyk 11y agoNo, it is the mis-allocation of capital. There are so many bridges, highways which need to be fixed. There is so much trash in cities which could be picked up from the streets. There are so many older people who need/will need care. There is no money to pay for all this. But there is money sloshing around, buying $50M apartments in New York City, etc.