5 ms·
1. Nobody is forced to work for Uber. 2. Uber isn't the first company by any stretch of the imagination that employes a workforce of contractors. There is noth
by darkstar999 11y ago
1. Nobody is forced to work for Uber.
2. Uber isn't the first company by any stretch of the imagination that employes a workforce of contractors. There is nothing "evil" about that. It's supply and demand. Everyone can drive, so why should Uber pay more wages than they have to? The law will dictate the minimums they can pay.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago> Nobody is forced to work for Uber. Nobody is forced to prostitute themselves, rob or steal, etc. But heh, fuck social safety nets ya know? If they existed, both Walmart and Uber would have to pay real wages. > Uber isn't the first company by any stretch of the imagination that employes a workforce of contractors. There is nothing "evil" about that. It's supply and demand. Everyone can drive, so why should Uber pay more wages than they have to? The law will dictate the minimums they can pay. That's right, the law will. Good luck Uber.
- ryanlol 11y agoNobody is forced to do any of those things, you always have to choose.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoThe measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.
- darkstar999 11y agoWe have social security, unemployment insurance, medicare/medicaid, and on and on. You want part-time workers to be paid full time. How is that fair for the employer? There is no good answer to the part-time work problem. If the supply of workers outpaces the demand for work, the employer will hire part time. It's simple economics.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago> We have social security, unemployment, medicare/medicaid, and on and on. None of which are sufficient compared to proper first world countries (ie anywhere developed outside of the US). > You want part-time workers to be paid full time. How is that fair for the employer? There is no good answer to the part-time work problem. A government doesn't exist for your business interests; it exists to take care of its citizens. If you can operate your business in such an environment, great. If you can't, tough. Quality of life is a more important measure than your exit strategy or next quarter results.
- mason240 11y agoAble bodied independent workers are by far not our societies weakest members.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 11y agoI think its grossly shortsighted to assume only able bodied workers are working for Uber, Lyft, or any other joke of a startup you want to lump into the "sharing economy".
- mason240 11y agoIf they are working as a driver for Uber or Lyft, they are an able bodied workers by definition.
- prostoalex 11y agoIt's mainly a function of government though. Although there are some companies (HandUp, and a few others) started with the goal of treating the weakest members better.
- zorpner 11y agoWhen people are forced to "choose" between their survival and being exploited, it's no choice at all.
- Apocryphon 11y agoFreedom is always bounded by one's environment.
- intopieces 11y ago>But heh, fuck social safety nets ya know? If they existed, both Walmart and Uber would have to pay real wages. Safety nets do exist, that's why Uber and Wal-Mart don't have to pay real wages. The tax payers subsidize Wal-Mart and McDonalds for $153b a year [0]. We ought to account for the government benefits required by employees of large corporations and tack that on to their yearly bill -- no deductions -- and see what that does to their wages. [0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/15/we-are-spending-153-billion-a-year-to-subsidize-mcdonalds-and-walmarts-low-wage-workers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/15/...
- toomuchtodo 11y ago> We ought to account for the government benefits required by employees of large corporations and tack that on to their yearly bill -- no deductions -- and see what that does to their wages. Agree 100%. You either bill them directly, or you create a basic income, raise taxes to support it, thereby forcing companies to pay more to bring labor into the labor force.
- twoodfin 11y agoWhy does the safety net subsidize Walmart but not Costco, which hires far fewer employees per $ of revenue? Walmart is paying their low income workers something. Costco, where many of those workers would probably love to work instead, is paying them $0.
- intopieces 11y agoI'm not sure I understand your question or agree with its premise. The subsidy comes in the form the government benefits (WIC, SNAP, ACA, etc) that would otherwise be covered by an employer out of the revenue they generate from sales. Whether the safety net subsidizes Costco or not I can't say, as I don't have the data around how many Costco employees use these benefits from the government. Basically, the low prices you see at Wal Mart couldn't exist if the company paid their workers a wage that reflected the benefits given by the government. Additionally, Wal-Mart receives a significant amount of money in the form of the SNAP payments themselves from their customers. It's basically like the government food store, except the family that runs has a net worth of more than $100B. I don't understand your second sentence. Costco has employees that they pay $0?
- SilasX 11y ago>Nobody is forced to prostitute themselves, rob or steal, etc. But heh, [to the devil with] social safety nets ya know? If they existed, both Walmart and Uber would have to pay real wages. True, but how does that make Uber the bad guy here? If driving for Uber is unpleasant, and they don't force anyone to work there, then it must be less unpleasant than whatever these workers are doing it instead of. To the extent that society fails to offer a minimum baseline that isn't itself pleasant, then that's where the blame lies, not with Uber.
- lalos 11y agoUber drivers usually have a car loan so their hands are tied and they are convinced to start Uber-ing after being seduced by the 500 dollar signing bonus. At least this is what they mention when we talk about why they still do it if they don't like it. One driver told me he couldn't wait to pay off his loan and go back to being a taxi driver and have time to spend with his family.
- knfrlkewnf 11y agoThey're putting people out of work by shuttering taxi businesses which traditionally pay a liveable wage and replacing it with something that pays drivers a pittance while directing all the profits to a small handful of people. If they're destroying jobs at neighboring competitors, then yes, some people will be forced to work for them. You're probably going to post something about the lump of labor, but consider this: demand for jobs is inelastic. When have you ever seen a company prevented from doing business because their wages were too low? As long as there is a job opening, there will be people competing with each other to fill it since we have significantly more people than we do jobs, thanks to our capital-intensive economy.
- Paul-ish 11y ago> Nobody is forced to work for Uber. Some people have invested themselves in Uber based on the pay, which has since dropped. This has happened to people such as Mr. Creery from the article. Imagine you get hired for a job for some amount of money, pull up your roots and relocate. Then 3 months after you get there they drop your pay down by half. What a pain. Would you have taken the job if you knew that were going to happen? Probably not. And now you have a large switching cost to get away from this job if you have to move again. Unionized workers can in theory negotiate to mitigate those kinds of scenarios.
- alkonaut 11y ago1. Let's just assume that unqualified work will always be attractive and that. 2. If you are a big employer you have a big workforce that can, and should be able to wield some power as a collective. The idea here is that a company can't magically dodge having a powerful group of employees by not employing them. Paying as much as you have to means you pay the legal minimum wage, if the workforce as a collective thinks that is ok. Otherwise you pay more.
- calvinbhai 11y agocertainly. But, once you have ploughed in your savings and buy a car with a high interest loan based on glittery promises made by Uber, you are forced to work for Uber, like a slave, because you have to pay off the loan. Ask any uber driver who fell for the deal Uber has with Santander for sub prime loans.
- ThomPete 11y ago1. No and soon no one will be required to work at uber once they automate the car fleet. So sure in theory you are right. But that's hardly the most informative perspective to see this in. Many people have to take what they can get. 2. No but thats not really what they are. They are working as contractors but being treated as employees. For example they can't set their own price, they aren't allow to choose their own car, they can't subcontract which is the conditions employees normally are subject to. On the other hand they don't get ex. healthcare and have to maintain all expenses themselves. Uber works because it's managed to disrupt legislation. Sometimes thats great or necessary and the taxi medallion system surely are broken. But to ignore some of the deeper issues with the kind of disruption Uber is doing is simply ignoring some of the deeper issues of technology. And just as we are fine with companies being able to lobby for their legislated privileges so should the drivers be allowed to organize.