19 ms·

This is going to lead to messy public arguments, at least in part driven by existing cab drivers that will be seeking rents from the successful upstarts. I thi

This is going to lead to messy public arguments, at least in part driven by existing cab drivers that will be seeking rents from the successful upstarts. I think this tactic was used before in other historically disrupted industries...the incumbents would push for unionization to keep inefficient players on life support, at the cost of the upstarts. Note I'm not opposed to people's freedom to unionize. In fact, it should not take an act of government to "permit it", and people should do it if they want. It's just the unintended consequences and manipulation of the move to unionize that are interesting.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> It's just the unintended consequences and manipulation of the move to unionize that are interesting. Which is caused by the wage levels of Uber drivers to be tantamount to indentured servitude. EDIT: A very small percentage of Uber drivers are coming out ahead after you account for their time, the wear and tear on their vehicle, and required commercial vehicle insurance (unless they're operating illegally on their own car insurance).
- pc86 11y ago
  EDIT: It appears I was wrong. Original comment: Uber is by definition a side gig. Nobody is doing Uber on the side in their 1989 LeBaron. You need a nice car, and you can't get a nice car if you only income is from Uber.
  - darkstar999 11y ago
    Not that I'm defending the comment you replied to, but your comment is simply untrue. Uber even partners with auto loan companies to provide leases to their drivers. You can absolutely survive 100% on just Uber income. Many do.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      What percentage of Uber drivers are able to support themselves above the federal poverty line driving for Uber alone?
      - prostoalex 11y ago
        They've claimed that those driving during busy hours in high-demand cities (with good potential of surge pricing) are faring fairly well http://newsroom.uber.com/2014/05/an-uber-impact-20000-jobs-created-on-the-uber-platform-every-month-2/ http://newsroom.uber.com/2014/05/an-uber-impact-20000-jobs-c... And that's just UberX. UberBlack and UberXL have higher revenues, but require higher upfront investments as well.
    - Apocryphon 11y ago
      Indeed, that's why classifying sharing economy workers as 1099's is not right. Some people rideshare as a side gig, but others do it full time. There ought to be a new classification to account for that range.
      - pc86 11y ago
        Whether you earn your sole income from an activity or not has no bearing on whether you are an employee or a contractor. It's a tax decision based on the employer's relationship to you.
  - fludlight 11y ago
    An unprofitable side gig is still a side gig.
- rconti 11y ago
  Well it depends 100% on how you "account for their time", now, doesn't it? If you value their time at $0/hour, they're all coming out ahead over a long enough time horizon barring some freakishly bad luck with car repairs. At $1000/hour, none of them are coming out ahead.
HillaryBriss 11y ago
A real union is more than just a collection of people getting 'organized'. A real union possesses legal rights to have the government, in effect, control labor rates for a class of services in a certain area. It's a good deal for union members. OTOH, for consumers seeking less expensive rides, it makes the services more expensive. It also means that workers who are satisfied with offering their services at a lower wage (because it means they have a higher chance of actually finding work) are not allowed to offer their services at that lower wage.
RickHull 11y ago
> Note I'm not opposed to people's freedom to unionize. In fact, it should not take an act of government to "permit it", and people should do it if they want. Everyone has the right to organize a voluntary union. What requires special legislated privilege are things like collective bargaining, which is not a normal component or outcome of voluntary negotiations. Modern unions in the United States enjoy many legal privileges that were specifically lobbied for. It's this type of privileged union which is being argued for, not a mere voluntary association under an impartial legal regime.
- gburt 11y ago
  Can you share some of the arguments in favor of involuntary unions? (I'm even willing to invest some time digging if anyone has some pointers to potential sources of literature, I am genuinely interested.) My personal experience has been that when I've been the so-called "beneficiary" of one, it has not actually benefited me and has often made for awkward scenarios where there is me and the counterparty ("employer") and this weird semi-interested third-party regulating how we can interact, regardless of what is actually in my self-interest. Just to be clear, I am all for collective bargaining in the sense of a bunch of (small) actors choosing to work together against an adversary. I would do this myself if I deemed it beneficial. I don't understand why we would mandate that individuals had to be bound by the agreement whether they want to participate or not. I recognize that this is a common structure though.
  - MCRed 11y ago
    In fact, in the two instances where I've worked at "closed shop" places early in my career, the combination of HAVING to join the union to keep my job, and Union dues, meant that I would have been making LESS than minimum wage as a result! (Worse in one case the dues were annual but I had to pay half up front-- which I wouldn't get back if I lost the job.)
  - nerfhammer 11y ago
    I think the argument is that if people aren't required to be in the union then people can free ride on the union's efforts without paying dues.
supercanuck 11y ago
Sounds like union seeking is an attempt to extract higher wages. Is this not just an indication that the pendulum (in terms of control) has tilted to far in one direction (Uber's)?
obrero 11y ago
> existing cab drivers that will be seeking rents from the successful upstarts It's difficult for me to imagine how warped someone's thinking can get. The people doing the work are the cab drivers who have been driving in Seattle for decades in some instances. The rent seekers are the VC LPs of Uber - parasite heirs sitting on their asses, making money off the labor of cab drivers. The "disrupting" "successful upstart" had a simple innovation - break the law. Now they're looking to the law to protect their expropriation and parasitism on those doing all the work and creating their wealth for them.

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> It's just the unintended consequences and manipulation of the move to unionize that are interesting. Which is caused by the wage levels of Uber drivers to be tantamount to indentured servitude. EDIT: A very small percentage of Uber drivers are coming out ahead after you account for their time, the wear and tear on their vehicle, and required commercial vehicle insurance (unless they're operating illegally on their own car insurance).

pc86 11y ago
EDIT: It appears I was wrong. Original comment: Uber is by definition a side gig. Nobody is doing Uber on the side in their 1989 LeBaron. You need a nice car, and you can't get a nice car if you only income is from Uber.
- darkstar999 11y ago
  Not that I'm defending the comment you replied to, but your comment is simply untrue. Uber even partners with auto loan companies to provide leases to their drivers. You can absolutely survive 100% on just Uber income. Many do.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    What percentage of Uber drivers are able to support themselves above the federal poverty line driving for Uber alone?
    - prostoalex 11y ago
      They've claimed that those driving during busy hours in high-demand cities (with good potential of surge pricing) are faring fairly well http://newsroom.uber.com/2014/05/an-uber-impact-20000-jobs-created-on-the-uber-platform-every-month-2/ http://newsroom.uber.com/2014/05/an-uber-impact-20000-jobs-c... And that's just UberX. UberBlack and UberXL have higher revenues, but require higher upfront investments as well.
  - Apocryphon 11y ago
    Indeed, that's why classifying sharing economy workers as 1099's is not right. Some people rideshare as a side gig, but others do it full time. There ought to be a new classification to account for that range.
    - pc86 11y ago
      Whether you earn your sole income from an activity or not has no bearing on whether you are an employee or a contractor. It's a tax decision based on the employer's relationship to you.
- fludlight 11y ago
  An unprofitable side gig is still a side gig.
rconti 11y ago
Well it depends 100% on how you "account for their time", now, doesn't it? If you value their time at $0/hour, they're all coming out ahead over a long enough time horizon barring some freakishly bad luck with car repairs. At $1000/hour, none of them are coming out ahead.

HillaryBriss 11y ago

A real union is more than just a collection of people getting 'organized'. A real union possesses legal rights to have the government, in effect, control labor rates for a class of services in a certain area. It's a good deal for union members. OTOH, for consumers seeking less expensive rides, it makes the services more expensive. It also means that workers who are satisfied with offering their services at a lower wage (because it means they have a higher chance of actually finding work) are not allowed to offer their services at that lower wage.

RickHull 11y ago

> Note I'm not opposed to people's freedom to unionize. In fact, it should not take an act of government to "permit it", and people should do it if they want. Everyone has the right to organize a voluntary union. What requires special legislated privilege are things like collective bargaining, which is not a normal component or outcome of voluntary negotiations. Modern unions in the United States enjoy many legal privileges that were specifically lobbied for. It's this type of privileged union which is being argued for, not a mere voluntary association under an impartial legal regime.

gburt 11y ago
Can you share some of the arguments in favor of involuntary unions? (I'm even willing to invest some time digging if anyone has some pointers to potential sources of literature, I am genuinely interested.) My personal experience has been that when I've been the so-called "beneficiary" of one, it has not actually benefited me and has often made for awkward scenarios where there is me and the counterparty ("employer") and this weird semi-interested third-party regulating how we can interact, regardless of what is actually in my self-interest. Just to be clear, I am all for collective bargaining in the sense of a bunch of (small) actors choosing to work together against an adversary. I would do this myself if I deemed it beneficial. I don't understand why we would mandate that individuals had to be bound by the agreement whether they want to participate or not. I recognize that this is a common structure though.
- MCRed 11y ago
  In fact, in the two instances where I've worked at "closed shop" places early in my career, the combination of HAVING to join the union to keep my job, and Union dues, meant that I would have been making LESS than minimum wage as a result! (Worse in one case the dues were annual but I had to pay half up front-- which I wouldn't get back if I lost the job.)
- nerfhammer 11y ago
  I think the argument is that if people aren't required to be in the union then people can free ride on the union's efforts without paying dues.

supercanuck 11y ago

Sounds like union seeking is an attempt to extract higher wages. Is this not just an indication that the pendulum (in terms of control) has tilted to far in one direction (Uber's)?

obrero 11y ago

> existing cab drivers that will be seeking rents from the successful upstarts It's difficult for me to imagine how warped someone's thinking can get. The people doing the work are the cab drivers who have been driving in Seattle for decades in some instances. The rent seekers are the VC LPs of Uber - parasite heirs sitting on their asses, making money off the labor of cab drivers. The "disrupting" "successful upstart" had a simple innovation - break the law. Now they're looking to the law to protect their expropriation and parasitism on those doing all the work and creating their wealth for them.