4 ms·
One interesting thing is, they do not seem to need to "ignore" them. The law is just about allowing communication for drivers to band together. Uber could easil
by yazaddaruvala 10y ago
One interesting thing is, they do not seem to need to "ignore" them. The law is just about allowing communication for drivers to band together. Uber could easily cooperate with this law, but not cooperate with demands of a future driver's union.
Because, the brilliance (terrible?) part about Uber is that its so easy for them to get new drivers. The barriers to entry are soo very low. Almost every American that is able to work, is trained to drive, the large majority of them have cars, a decently large set of those people would like extra money, and they have the spare time.
If there was a strike, 1. Surge pricing would kick in, tempting a lot of people to forgo the strike. 2. Within days/weeks there will be a new set of drivers willing to work at the current price.
This whole notion of a "strike" only works if you get 100% of the able bodied men/women to cooperate. The larger the working pool of people, the lower the chances of a successful strike.
- literallycancer 10y agoA strike would not be limited to not working, right? They could block the roads and so on.
- twblalock 10y agoThey would lose most of their public support if they did that. This isn't like France, where the majority of people are wiling to put up with hardship to support strikers. Block the roads in the US, or prevent transit from working, and people won't like you anymore.
- pm24601 10y agoMy understanding is that there is a requirement to negotiate in good faith. I don't know what that means in actual practice - as companies have certainly proven adept at NOT doing so.