3 ms·

> the way Uber is set up, there's absolutely no reason for Kalanick to give an Eff about the driver's situation. Except, you know, "being a human" > loyalty

> the way Uber is set up, there's absolutely no reason for Kalanick to give an Eff about the driver's situation. Except, you know, "being a human" > loyalty cuts both ways. Uber drivers can immediately drop Uber and simply work for Lyft. They have complete and utter independence from the Uber company. That's actually not that different from being an employee, where you can usually quit on short notice and start working somewhere else as well – at least on the lower end of the market. But it's wrong to consider these relationships as symmetrical in terms of power. Uber (or any employer) has vastly more power over an individual driver than the other way around. That's because loss of the gig can mean financial ruin for the driver, but the company wouldn't even notice it. That's why unions are needed to create a balance of power.

computerex 10y ago
I don't know whether we need unions or not - but until we do, Uber can hardly be faulted for playing the free market. The CEO has a board to answer to and they care about maximizing profits, like any other for profit organization.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  >Uber can hardly be faulted for playing the free market. Why? Seems like we should be holding them responsible in any way we can (even if that's just talking bad on a message board) for their bad actions. I don't know why we need to give them a pass on actions we don't deem moral just because it's legal.
  - computerex 10y ago
    I don't think the actions are immoral. If I were in his shoes, I'd probably do the same thing. This is how capitalism works.
    - zepto 10y ago
      Yes, and being shamed for immoral acts is how society works. Capitalists need to either take that into account, or accept the consequences.
- matt4077 10y ago
  Even ignoring that, by that standard, he is among the worst human being ever with around -80 billions of "profit" so far... ...and ignoring that Uber is structured specifically to make the board toothless – proof: major VCs invested in Uber have to resort to public blog posts because they can't get answers nor actions using the standard tools of corporate governance... ...there's nothing wrong with faulting people for immoral but legal actions they take. Uber and its ilk are inflicting harm on the lower middle class by driving down the income and security of taxi drivers. The spoils go to middle-class customers (now) and VCs (theoretically, someday). Is that a good deal for society overall? Nobody knows. Wal-mart has similarly driven down prices and arguably made life easier for many people. It's also killed Main Street, created an underclass of employees earning minimum wage, and led to the consolidation of power within oligopolies in many markets. It's not a sustainable solution because boycotts and other means of regulating companies without the power of law just don't work. But there's nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's probably a necessary on the way to actual regulation by laws.

computerex 10y ago

I don't know whether we need unions or not - but until we do, Uber can hardly be faulted for playing the free market. The CEO has a board to answer to and they care about maximizing profits, like any other for profit organization.

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
>Uber can hardly be faulted for playing the free market. Why? Seems like we should be holding them responsible in any way we can (even if that's just talking bad on a message board) for their bad actions. I don't know why we need to give them a pass on actions we don't deem moral just because it's legal.
- computerex 10y ago
  I don't think the actions are immoral. If I were in his shoes, I'd probably do the same thing. This is how capitalism works.
  - zepto 10y ago
    Yes, and being shamed for immoral acts is how society works. Capitalists need to either take that into account, or accept the consequences.
matt4077 10y ago
Even ignoring that, by that standard, he is among the worst human being ever with around -80 billions of "profit" so far... ...and ignoring that Uber is structured specifically to make the board toothless – proof: major VCs invested in Uber have to resort to public blog posts because they can't get answers nor actions using the standard tools of corporate governance... ...there's nothing wrong with faulting people for immoral but legal actions they take. Uber and its ilk are inflicting harm on the lower middle class by driving down the income and security of taxi drivers. The spoils go to middle-class customers (now) and VCs (theoretically, someday). Is that a good deal for society overall? Nobody knows. Wal-mart has similarly driven down prices and arguably made life easier for many people. It's also killed Main Street, created an underclass of employees earning minimum wage, and led to the consolidation of power within oligopolies in many markets. It's not a sustainable solution because boycotts and other means of regulating companies without the power of law just don't work. But there's nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's probably a necessary on the way to actual regulation by laws.