8 ms·

Drivers on Uber are contractors. Isn't it each driver's choice to decide if they want to strike or not?

by wikyd 10y ago

knieveltech 10y ago
It absolutely is. This doesn't make scabbing any less vile, however. All it has guaranteed in this instance is that a bunch of hapless Uber drivers are going to be feeling the backlash. Friends don't let friends scab.
- hueving 10y ago
  >This doesn't make scabbing any less vile This is a political opinion, and the context definitely matters. This wasn't a strike for higher wages, this was a strike to back a political stance. How would you feel if the cabbies went on strike because we allow Muslims to vote? Would you so vehemently blast people that want transportation to continue functioning in the interim in that case as well?
  - cderwin 10y ago
    Moreover, because this strike was inherently political, should taxi drivers who actually support the immigration EO (or at least don't feel compelled to protest) be forced to partake in the strike? That sounds like an utterly indefensible position to me.
  - wfo 10y ago
    It wasn't a strike for higher wages, it was a strike to stop being banned from the country. Strikes are always political. The point of a strike is to say "you need us" and a HUGE proportion of taxi drivers are Muslim. Their family, friends, the people who keep their family and friends safe risking their lives helping the US military in their home countries were all screwed by this. They wanted to strike to say 'if you ban Muslims, it doesn't JUST mean the US is now run by weak cowards. It means you won't be able to find a taxi because we won't help you. You need us'. The goal was that plenty of Trump supporters missed their flights because of it and had to think about it -- the services they rely on are run by the people they are attacking. Not sure it happened, but at least they tried.
    - muninn_ 10y ago
      Well then the price of Taxi rides will increase and people will stop working at McDonalds and drive taxis. That's how the world works. And the "Trump supporters missed flights", yeah so did people who were flying home to see loved ones, didn't support Trump, or didn't care.
  - ajamesm 10y ago
    Hoffa is directly collaborating with Trump. You can see for yourself how the left is reacting to union organizers pulling for right-wingers. (In this case, they dislike Hoffa's collaboration, but nobody started calling for the dissolution of unions.)
- wyager 10y ago
  > This doesn't make scabbing any less vile, however... Friends don't let friends scab. "If you don't actively participate in my exact form of political activism, you're a bad person!" This is the kind of rhetoric that pushed a ton of people on the fence towards Trump. For some reason, it's a common leftist tactic right now to insist that if you aren't actively engaged in whatever form of extremism the speaker is advocating, you are evil and (propping up the man | part of the patriarchy | oppressing <group> | a literal nazi | etc.). Entirely predictably, this is likely to alienate anyone even slightly to the right of the speaker and push them further right. Maybe most Uber drivers don't really want to protest in this way. Maybe they agree with Trump. (Probably not, given that it's Manhattan, but who knows.) Maybe they feel like they don't have all the facts and don't want to make a stand based on an incomplete understanding. Either way, attacking them for it is counterproductive for you.
  - tiles 10y ago
    > This is the kind of rhetoric that pushed a ton of people on the fence towards Trump. I hate to pick on this quote (I appreciate and suggest people read the rest of your post) but I don't agree with this. A common rightist tactic is to suggest either 1) I was okay with X policy when Obama did something so I have no moral authority to judge it now, or 2) I'm just a liberal whiner, too young, or too weak to appreciate that someone else is in charge so my beliefs are invalid. I am pushed to the left by conservative intolerance just as much as the reverse is true. Both sides have extremes. I think it balances out. You are following your own proclivities of reasoning, fixating on which messaging you're most enticed by or most repulsed by.
    - rtx 10y ago
      Calling out people for staying silent under Obama is not a tactic. It's just a way to highlight a person's motivation.
      - jakeogh 10y ago
        It's an intellectually honest way to point out inconsistency. The hypocrisy is asymmetric from my pov. I know people who were horrified Obama got elected and some indulged in variations of the 'he's Hitler' BS, but the current reaction by the extreme neo-left is a magnitude of order worse. There's plenty (a majority I bet) of Dems that are not making that mistake, but the echo chamber prevents them from speaking unless they are willing to piss off their peers.

Drivers on Uber are contractors. Isn't it each driver's choice to decide if they want to strike or not?

by wikyd 10y ago

Drivers on Uber are contractors. Isn't it each driver's choice to decide if they want to strike or not?

It absolutely is. This doesn't make scabbing any less vile, however. All it has guaranteed in this instance is that a bunch of hapless Uber drivers are going to be feeling the backlash. Friends don't let friends scab.

hueving 10y ago
>This doesn't make scabbing any less vile This is a political opinion, and the context definitely matters. This wasn't a strike for higher wages, this was a strike to back a political stance. How would you feel if the cabbies went on strike because we allow Muslims to vote? Would you so vehemently blast people that want transportation to continue functioning in the interim in that case as well?
- cderwin 10y ago
  Moreover, because this strike was inherently political, should taxi drivers who actually support the immigration EO (or at least don't feel compelled to protest) be forced to partake in the strike? That sounds like an utterly indefensible position to me.
- wfo 10y ago
  It wasn't a strike for higher wages, it was a strike to stop being banned from the country. Strikes are always political. The point of a strike is to say "you need us" and a HUGE proportion of taxi drivers are Muslim. Their family, friends, the people who keep their family and friends safe risking their lives helping the US military in their home countries were all screwed by this. They wanted to strike to say 'if you ban Muslims, it doesn't JUST mean the US is now run by weak cowards. It means you won't be able to find a taxi because we won't help you. You need us'. The goal was that plenty of Trump supporters missed their flights because of it and had to think about it -- the services they rely on are run by the people they are attacking. Not sure it happened, but at least they tried.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    Well then the price of Taxi rides will increase and people will stop working at McDonalds and drive taxis. That's how the world works. And the "Trump supporters missed flights", yeah so did people who were flying home to see loved ones, didn't support Trump, or didn't care.
- ajamesm 10y ago
  Hoffa is directly collaborating with Trump. You can see for yourself how the left is reacting to union organizers pulling for right-wingers. (In this case, they dislike Hoffa's collaboration, but nobody started calling for the dissolution of unions.)
wyager 10y ago
> This doesn't make scabbing any less vile, however... Friends don't let friends scab. "If you don't actively participate in my exact form of political activism, you're a bad person!" This is the kind of rhetoric that pushed a ton of people on the fence towards Trump. For some reason, it's a common leftist tactic right now to insist that if you aren't actively engaged in whatever form of extremism the speaker is advocating, you are evil and (propping up the man | part of the patriarchy | oppressing <group> | a literal nazi | etc.). Entirely predictably, this is likely to alienate anyone even slightly to the right of the speaker and push them further right. Maybe most Uber drivers don't really want to protest in this way. Maybe they agree with Trump. (Probably not, given that it's Manhattan, but who knows.) Maybe they feel like they don't have all the facts and don't want to make a stand based on an incomplete understanding. Either way, attacking them for it is counterproductive for you.
- tiles 10y ago
  > This is the kind of rhetoric that pushed a ton of people on the fence towards Trump. I hate to pick on this quote (I appreciate and suggest people read the rest of your post) but I don't agree with this. A common rightist tactic is to suggest either 1) I was okay with X policy when Obama did something so I have no moral authority to judge it now, or 2) I'm just a liberal whiner, too young, or too weak to appreciate that someone else is in charge so my beliefs are invalid. I am pushed to the left by conservative intolerance just as much as the reverse is true. Both sides have extremes. I think it balances out. You are following your own proclivities of reasoning, fixating on which messaging you're most enticed by or most repulsed by.
  - rtx 10y ago
    Calling out people for staying silent under Obama is not a tactic. It's just a way to highlight a person's motivation.
    - jakeogh 10y ago
      It's an intellectually honest way to point out inconsistency. The hypocrisy is asymmetric from my pov. I know people who were horrified Obama got elected and some indulged in variations of the 'he's Hitler' BS, but the current reaction by the extreme neo-left is a magnitude of order worse. There's plenty (a majority I bet) of Dems that are not making that mistake, but the echo chamber prevents them from speaking unless they are willing to piss off their peers.