8 ms·

> Uber owes its drivers more. Why? Not trying to be snarky; why do they owe their drivers anything but incentive to work for them (which seems sufficient, or w

by 1_2__3 10y ago

> Uber owes its drivers more. Why? Not trying to be snarky; why do they owe their drivers anything but incentive to work for them (which seems sufficient, or we wouldn't even be having this conversation int he first place). Expecting companies to be morally upstanding is silly and a modern invention by the right. The right way to solve this is now by complaining about what Uber "owes" its drivers but in legislation. But we don't want to legislate businesses, we want to stay "nimble" and "flexible", so this is what we get as a result. Don't complain about lying in the bed we've made.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
burkaman 10y ago
Well, some states and cities and drivers have also made legal arguments that Uber owes its drivers more, but they don't seem to be winning (yet?).
kafkaesq 10y ago
Not trying to be snarky; why do they owe their drivers anything but incentive to work for them? Because karma is bitch, and history bites back. And if Uber doesn't step up to the plate, and start doing what's not only right for its drivers, but (by any common-sense analysis) also right for its own balance sheets in the long term (as opposed to what appears to be right in the short-term for its megalomaniacal expansion plans)-- that is, make driving a sustainable profession to be in, and not just a "well as long as times aren't so great, let's see how long we can get away with screwing these people" (as appears to be their current motto) profession -- then soon enough, it's going to bite back on them -- hard.
- diminoten 10y ago
  What does "times aren't so great" mean?
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    The state of the economy (and life in general) for people who aren't tech workers, these days.
    - diminoten 10y ago
      Based on what metrics?
      - strken 10y ago
        Probably increasing wealth inequality and declining inflation-adjusted wages at the lowest income range. http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm
        diminoten 10y ago
        Seems mixed at worst, improving mildly at best, hardly the bleak picture painted above: https://data.oecd.org/united-states.htm https://data.oecd.org/united-states.htm
- civilian 10y ago
  I think that this would essentially mean that Uber has to be a shrewder lender. Uber must know how much drivers usually make, and when a car payment would make it difficult to live, especially based on region. The solution to Uber being a bad lender and encouraging this "perception of indentured servitude" is to disallow some people who already have money problems or are buying too expensive of a car from participating. Which is an okay decision for them to make. But it does feel like they're taking some nanny-responsibilty for people who ought to be able to make their own financial decision? And they would absolutely be disqualifying some responsible people who could have made it work.
LouisSayers 10y ago
They should however have a responsibility to ensure drivers are driving responsibly, that they aren't sleep deprived. Perhaps legislation will catch up here, forcing max hours and making Uber's car leasing model unsustainable. By the time it does however, the cars may be self driving in many cities anyway.
- DashRattlesnake 10y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Uber shown an unwillingness to follow regulations that it finds inconvenient? The solution seems like a combinations of regulation, increased enforcement, and heavy penalties.
  - LouisSayers 10y ago
    Very true, but I do see a difference between breaking laws that simply are out of date, and breaking laws which endanger public safety. I'd like to think that judges have some give and take with these things.
hackuser 10y ago
> why do they owe their drivers anything but incentive to work for them (which seems sufficient, or we wouldn't even be having this conversation int he first place). History is pretty clear on this point: Without protection, workers are at too great a disadvantage when negotiating with large businesses. Look at working conditions before unions became powerful and laws and regulations were passed - they were brutal and wrong.
- kefka 10y ago
  Nahh. The agency the corps hired, the Pinkertons, had full rights to murder people for not doing their job! I mean, this is laissez faire capitalism - of course the ones with the money have rights over other humans! /s Yeah, summed up libertarian beliefs and their logical conclusion in a nutshell.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space--were it not that I have bad dreams. It's the bad dreams that always get you.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  You're making a case for government action, not coroporate. (I also happen to agree with you)
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  You're making a case for government action, not coroporate. (I also happen to agree with you)
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> why do they owe their drivers anything but incentive to work for them I'd say they may owe it to themselves. Press like this demoralizes employees, dissuades potential customers and hints at the presence of political capital for the taking. Whether those costs and risks are worth it is a business decision, of course, but public perception isn't a non-issue.
syshum 10y ago
The right way to solve this is not via legislation, nor it is to expect Uber to be "morally upstanding" Corporations are amoral, always have been, always will be. The right way to solve this for people to stop using Uber, stop expecting the ultra low rates, just stop The way to force morality upon corporations is for the CONSUMERS to be moral, and stop using the products and services of corporations that have policies they disagree with. I love it when i hear people bitch about how terrible uber treats its drivers but continue to use them as their primary mode of transportation. THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. As as example, I dislike Walmart, I have not stepped foot in a Walmart store in more than a decade. If more people would vote with their wallet companies would change their policies, instead they look to government to use violence for force companies to change because anything else would inconvenience them. it is the lazy way out.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > Corporations are amoral, always have been, always will be. That's not true; all corporations make moral choices, probably even Uber. > The right way to solve this is not via legislation What's wrong with legislation? It's knee-jerk to reject it, but I like the democratic way of solving problems. > The way to force morality upon corporations is for the CONSUMERS to be moral Why is millions of individuals all making a moral choice more likely than one company doing it? How often does this work? The 'free market' assumes people will act in their own interests; where that invisible hand fails to deliver, such as situations like this one, we use laws and regulations to correct the situation.
  - syshum 10y ago
    >That's not true; all corporations make moral choices, probably even Uber. Morality is a human construct, Corporations are not people as such can not have Morality. People make moral choices. >>What's wrong with legislation? It's knee-jerk to reject it, but I like the democratic way of solving problems. There is soo much wrong here. First off, legislation often makes situation worse, and rarely improves things. After all Uber is a direct reaction to regulation of Taxi's, People wanted a less regulation more convenient service for their transportation needs, Regulation of Uber will just result in something else as people attempt to get out from under the government thumb. Further the call for regulation is a itself a knee jerk emotional reaction to a perceived injustice. Finally I do not like the "democratic way". I believe in individuality, not collectivism, I do not believe 51% of the population gets to dictate what the other 49% do or cant do. >The 'free market' assumes people will act in their own interests; where that invisible hand fails to deliver, I do not believe it is failing to deliver, clearly the people the drive for Uber believe driving for Uber is better than the other options they have, better than other jobs that are open to them. Simple because you do not like their choice or because you perceive it as "unfair" does not mean the people are not acting in their own interests. Shitty choices are still choices Where laws and regulation should come into play is for Fraud, false advertisement, and contract violations. All of which Uber has been accused of and it should be investigated. I also believe we should have strong Truth in Advertising laws to prevent companies like Uber from inflating income numbers, or getting people to sign terrible leasing programs like the ones Uber has. This would be good use of government regulation Requiring all kind of Employment regulations and other types of regulation people call for is not. >we use laws and regulations to correct the situation. We should not, nor is it effect Law and regulations should only be there to prevent direct physical harm, theft and fraud. Nothing else. They should not protect people from their own stupidity, they should not attempt to make the world subjectivity "fair" which is impossible as every person has a different definition of what is "fair" The only proper role of government is to ensure people are honestly transacting with each free from coercive threats of violence, or actual violence between persons. Beyond that any action by government ceases to be defensive in nature and becomes Aggressive and is IMO unethical
munificent 10y ago
> Expecting companies to be morally upstanding is silly and a modern invention No, it is accepting that a social group is somehow free of all moral and ethical obligations by virtue of calling itself a "business" that is a silly modern invention. Humans have are obligated to be morally upstanding. That obligation does not evaporate when we get together in a group, or when we file a business license to make that group "official".

by 1_2__3 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

burkaman 10y ago

Well, some states and cities and drivers have also made legal arguments that Uber owes its drivers more, but they don't seem to be winning (yet?).

kafkaesq 10y ago

Not trying to be snarky; why do they owe their drivers anything but incentive to work for them? Because karma is bitch, and history bites back. And if Uber doesn't step up to the plate, and start doing what's not only right for its drivers, but (by any common-sense analysis) also right for its own balance sheets in the long term (as opposed to what appears to be right in the short-term for its megalomaniacal expansion plans)-- that is, make driving a sustainable profession to be in, and not just a "well as long as times aren't so great, let's see how long we can get away with screwing these people" (as appears to be their current motto) profession -- then soon enough, it's going to bite back on them -- hard.

diminoten 10y ago
What does "times aren't so great" mean?
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  The state of the economy (and life in general) for people who aren't tech workers, these days.
  - diminoten 10y ago
    Based on what metrics?
    - strken 10y ago
      Probably increasing wealth inequality and declining inflation-adjusted wages at the lowest income range. http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm
      - diminoten 10y ago
        Seems mixed at worst, improving mildly at best, hardly the bleak picture painted above: https://data.oecd.org/united-states.htm https://data.oecd.org/united-states.htm
civilian 10y ago
I think that this would essentially mean that Uber has to be a shrewder lender. Uber must know how much drivers usually make, and when a car payment would make it difficult to live, especially based on region. The solution to Uber being a bad lender and encouraging this "perception of indentured servitude" is to disallow some people who already have money problems or are buying too expensive of a car from participating. Which is an okay decision for them to make. But it does feel like they're taking some nanny-responsibilty for people who ought to be able to make their own financial decision? And they would absolutely be disqualifying some responsible people who could have made it work.

LouisSayers 10y ago

They should however have a responsibility to ensure drivers are driving responsibly, that they aren't sleep deprived. Perhaps legislation will catch up here, forcing max hours and making Uber's car leasing model unsustainable. By the time it does however, the cars may be self driving in many cities anyway.

DashRattlesnake 10y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Uber shown an unwillingness to follow regulations that it finds inconvenient? The solution seems like a combinations of regulation, increased enforcement, and heavy penalties.
- LouisSayers 10y ago
  Very true, but I do see a difference between breaking laws that simply are out of date, and breaking laws which endanger public safety. I'd like to think that judges have some give and take with these things.

hackuser 10y ago

> why do they owe their drivers anything but incentive to work for them (which seems sufficient, or we wouldn't even be having this conversation int he first place). History is pretty clear on this point: Without protection, workers are at too great a disadvantage when negotiating with large businesses. Look at working conditions before unions became powerful and laws and regulations were passed - they were brutal and wrong.

kefka 10y ago
Nahh. The agency the corps hired, the Pinkertons, had full rights to murder people for not doing their job! I mean, this is laissez faire capitalism - of course the ones with the money have rights over other humans! /s Yeah, summed up libertarian beliefs and their logical conclusion in a nutshell.
- hackuser 10y ago
  I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space--were it not that I have bad dreams. It's the bad dreams that always get you.
1_2__3 10y ago
You're making a case for government action, not coroporate. (I also happen to agree with you)
1_2__3 10y ago
You're making a case for government action, not coroporate. (I also happen to agree with you)

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> why do they owe their drivers anything but incentive to work for them I'd say they may owe it to themselves. Press like this demoralizes employees, dissuades potential customers and hints at the presence of political capital for the taking. Whether those costs and risks are worth it is a business decision, of course, but public perception isn't a non-issue.

syshum 10y ago

The right way to solve this is not via legislation, nor it is to expect Uber to be "morally upstanding" Corporations are amoral, always have been, always will be. The right way to solve this for people to stop using Uber, stop expecting the ultra low rates, just stop The way to force morality upon corporations is for the CONSUMERS to be moral, and stop using the products and services of corporations that have policies they disagree with. I love it when i hear people bitch about how terrible uber treats its drivers but continue to use them as their primary mode of transportation. THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. As as example, I dislike Walmart, I have not stepped foot in a Walmart store in more than a decade. If more people would vote with their wallet companies would change their policies, instead they look to government to use violence for force companies to change because anything else would inconvenience them. it is the lazy way out.

hackuser 10y ago
> Corporations are amoral, always have been, always will be. That's not true; all corporations make moral choices, probably even Uber. > The right way to solve this is not via legislation What's wrong with legislation? It's knee-jerk to reject it, but I like the democratic way of solving problems. > The way to force morality upon corporations is for the CONSUMERS to be moral Why is millions of individuals all making a moral choice more likely than one company doing it? How often does this work? The 'free market' assumes people will act in their own interests; where that invisible hand fails to deliver, such as situations like this one, we use laws and regulations to correct the situation.
- syshum 10y ago
  >That's not true; all corporations make moral choices, probably even Uber. Morality is a human construct, Corporations are not people as such can not have Morality. People make moral choices. >>What's wrong with legislation? It's knee-jerk to reject it, but I like the democratic way of solving problems. There is soo much wrong here. First off, legislation often makes situation worse, and rarely improves things. After all Uber is a direct reaction to regulation of Taxi's, People wanted a less regulation more convenient service for their transportation needs, Regulation of Uber will just result in something else as people attempt to get out from under the government thumb. Further the call for regulation is a itself a knee jerk emotional reaction to a perceived injustice. Finally I do not like the "democratic way". I believe in individuality, not collectivism, I do not believe 51% of the population gets to dictate what the other 49% do or cant do. >The 'free market' assumes people will act in their own interests; where that invisible hand fails to deliver, I do not believe it is failing to deliver, clearly the people the drive for Uber believe driving for Uber is better than the other options they have, better than other jobs that are open to them. Simple because you do not like their choice or because you perceive it as "unfair" does not mean the people are not acting in their own interests. Shitty choices are still choices Where laws and regulation should come into play is for Fraud, false advertisement, and contract violations. All of which Uber has been accused of and it should be investigated. I also believe we should have strong Truth in Advertising laws to prevent companies like Uber from inflating income numbers, or getting people to sign terrible leasing programs like the ones Uber has. This would be good use of government regulation Requiring all kind of Employment regulations and other types of regulation people call for is not. >we use laws and regulations to correct the situation. We should not, nor is it effect Law and regulations should only be there to prevent direct physical harm, theft and fraud. Nothing else. They should not protect people from their own stupidity, they should not attempt to make the world subjectivity "fair" which is impossible as every person has a different definition of what is "fair" The only proper role of government is to ensure people are honestly transacting with each free from coercive threats of violence, or actual violence between persons. Beyond that any action by government ceases to be defensive in nature and becomes Aggressive and is IMO unethical

munificent 10y ago

> Expecting companies to be morally upstanding is silly and a modern invention No, it is accepting that a social group is somehow free of all moral and ethical obligations by virtue of calling itself a "business" that is a silly modern invention. Humans have are obligated to be morally upstanding. That obligation does not evaporate when we get together in a group, or when we file a business license to make that group "official".