4 ms·

The criticism makes no sense...just because one isn't "forced" to work doesn't mean protections from employer abuse or misconduct suddenly don't matter if someo

by iamdave 11y ago

The criticism makes no sense...just because one isn't "forced" to work doesn't mean protections from employer abuse or misconduct suddenly don't matter if someone decides to take the work.

SilasX 11y ago
But this isn't some random abuse with "take it or leave it". It's something they knew about all along and went into with open eyes. What doesn't make sense is this dogmatic insistence that no right should be waivable under any circumstance. In what sense is it actually misconduct. As I said initially (and which I didn't see a response to), if you legitimately believe a case of lawbreaking is harmful and the kind of thing we should care about, that should translate into "here is a public goods problem whose solution that disrupts". So how does this lawbreaking do that? And why not just spell that out the first time around? The opposite position is like saying, "you are the rightful owner of that apple, therefore you can't trade it for something better even if you want to, because that would be abusive of your rights".
- ThomPete 11y ago
  I have already explained the issue. Uber takes the best of having them self-employed and give them all the worst things about being employed as working conditions. The Uber driver have absolutely no way of building a business or expanding it. No way of making more money. No way of hiring people. No control over which car to use and so on. This is not the conditions someone who is self-employed work under.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    And that's still not responding to the criticism: even with those downsides, it's better than all the government-endorsed options. Whose fault is that, and what does arresting them accomplish with respect to their welfare? (Which I believe was your motivation for objecting to the practice.) Edit: I'm not trying to be snarky; it's just that this issue comes up a lot, and I always look for such an explanation and yet never get it. Hence why someone came up with the "Copenhagen interpretation of ethics" argument. If you could actually fill this gap in my understanding, I would gladly help spread the insight to those like me who don't see consistent internal logic behind it.
    - iamdave 11y ago
      So I just want to make sure I understand the criticism, as I feel we may have inadvertently drifted here: Someone who knows the risks (physical, emotional, mental what have you and furthermore etcetera) of a job shouldn't be afforded certain protections from the government to minimize those risks, if they take a job that opens them up to the possibility of said risks?
      - SilasX 11y ago
        They should be afforded those protections, but they should be waivable by informed parties (barring some dynamic that would explain why this is a bad idea and which no one in the thread has articulated). Is there a reason to believe the drivers aren't informed of such tradeoffs or did not become informed very soon?
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    >The Uber driver have absolutely no way of building a business or expanding it. No way of making more money. No way of hiring people. No control over which car to use and so on. They have strictly as much or more opportunity to do all of these things than if Uber didn't exist. Driving for Uber doesn't stop you from doing other drive-for-hire work. And because Uber exists, they can at least make some money when they aren't getting any customers of their own.

by iamdave 11y ago

The criticism makes no sense...just because one isn't "forced" to work doesn't mean protections from employer abuse or misconduct suddenly don't matter if someone decides to take the work.

SilasX 11y ago

But this isn't some random abuse with "take it or leave it". It's something they knew about all along and went into with open eyes. What doesn't make sense is this dogmatic insistence that no right should be waivable under any circumstance. In what sense is it actually misconduct. As I said initially (and which I didn't see a response to), if you legitimately believe a case of lawbreaking is harmful and the kind of thing we should care about, that should translate into "here is a public goods problem whose solution that disrupts". So how does this lawbreaking do that? And why not just spell that out the first time around? The opposite position is like saying, "you are the rightful owner of that apple, therefore you can't trade it for something better even if you want to, because that would be abusive of your rights".

ThomPete 11y ago
I have already explained the issue. Uber takes the best of having them self-employed and give them all the worst things about being employed as working conditions. The Uber driver have absolutely no way of building a business or expanding it. No way of making more money. No way of hiring people. No control over which car to use and so on. This is not the conditions someone who is self-employed work under.
- SilasX 11y ago
  And that's still not responding to the criticism: even with those downsides, it's better than all the government-endorsed options. Whose fault is that, and what does arresting them accomplish with respect to their welfare? (Which I believe was your motivation for objecting to the practice.) Edit: I'm not trying to be snarky; it's just that this issue comes up a lot, and I always look for such an explanation and yet never get it. Hence why someone came up with the "Copenhagen interpretation of ethics" argument. If you could actually fill this gap in my understanding, I would gladly help spread the insight to those like me who don't see consistent internal logic behind it.
  - iamdave 11y ago
    So I just want to make sure I understand the criticism, as I feel we may have inadvertently drifted here: Someone who knows the risks (physical, emotional, mental what have you and furthermore etcetera) of a job shouldn't be afforded certain protections from the government to minimize those risks, if they take a job that opens them up to the possibility of said risks?
    - SilasX 11y ago
      They should be afforded those protections, but they should be waivable by informed parties (barring some dynamic that would explain why this is a bad idea and which no one in the thread has articulated). Is there a reason to believe the drivers aren't informed of such tradeoffs or did not become informed very soon?
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  >The Uber driver have absolutely no way of building a business or expanding it. No way of making more money. No way of hiring people. No control over which car to use and so on. They have strictly as much or more opportunity to do all of these things than if Uber didn't exist. Driving for Uber doesn't stop you from doing other drive-for-hire work. And because Uber exists, they can at least make some money when they aren't getting any customers of their own.