20 ms·
Uber is forcing drivers in Seattle to listen to anti-union propaganda
- vinceguidry 10y agoThe interesting part of the article for me was the news that the Seattle city council voted to allow Uber drivers to unionize. It was illegal before? I thought the constitution guaranteed freedom of assembly. Do workers need permission to elect representatives to negotiate on their behalf?
- cperciva 10y agoCompanies can't unionize -- it's called anti-competitive behaviour. Depending on who you ask, Uber drivers aren't necessarily workers; they might be independent contractors, i.e., companies. EDIT: Also, depending on the definition of "allowed to unionize" here, it's possible that this goes beyond allowing collective bargaining to prohibiting Uber from hiring anyone who isn't "blessed" by the union.
- baq 10y agocalifornia most definitely thinks they're workers, even if they think they're companies. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/business/uber-contests-california-labor-ruling-that-says-drivers-should-be-employees.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/business/uber-contests-ca...
- hueving 10y ago>california most definitely thinks California is a state, it doesn't think. Please be more precise with commentary like this (e.g. state judicial rulings vs local laws vs state laws). In this particular case it's the California Labor Commissioner's office and it's a ruling for one case. From your article: >The ruling does not apply beyond Ms. Berwick and could be altered if Uber’s appeal succeeds. So this is a long ways away from being a law in California.
- bildung 10y agoLet me introduce you to a wonderful element of human language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche
- hueving 10y agoI appreciate the condescension, but saying that a state thinks something when referring to an enforcement ruling from a particular office is very misleading. In particular you can say the state both simultaneously thinks that they are contractors (how the rest of the Uber employees are treated) and it thinks that they are not (the ruling outcome of this one case). So saying a state thinks something when there are many conflicting internal positions is worthless and just ends up being a tool to push a particular political agenda.
- __realtime 10y agowhy are both your comments greyed out?
- gambiting 10y agoThat's what happens when comments get a lot of downvotes. You don't see a "karma" score on HN, but comments with negative number of votes get more and more grayed out until they are hardly visible.
- hnbroseph 10y agovery poor content, presumably.
- vinceguidry 10y agoIt's not so much the content, it's the tone. People don't like being talked down to, even if the points are relevant.
- 10y ago
- slowmotiony 10y agoIt's not really depending on who you ask and it's very surprising for me to read comments like yours on HN of all places, the law is very clearly laid out and some protest signs in Sillicon Valley do not change the reality. You can check the IRS website if you're confused about what the distinction is between a contractor and a worker.
- cperciva 10y agoSorry, I was unclear. I should have said "depending on the context and which law applies". The IRS definitions apply when you're dealing with the IRS (unless they don't, e.g., if you convince a court that the IRS is incorrectly applying the law) but they're not necessarily the same as the definitions which are legally relevant for antitrust purposes or for the purpose of Labour relations regulations.
- walshemj 10y agoActually the worker / employee distinction is complex and not as cut and dried as you think. This is a big part of the Uber/Delivered style of companies business model that is dodging the employer social security taxes.
- seanmcdirmid 10y agoThe taxes are never dodged. Either Uber pays them (W2) or the independent contractor does (1040). The bigger issue, st least under Obamacare, was if they were elegiabke for group health insurance if they worked more than 30 hours.
- walshemj 10y agoDepends on country often self employed get better tax breaks in return for less benefits - this is "real" self employed contractors not faux self employment like Uber et al
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
- walshemj 10y agoIt might have been just a gesture of solidarity rather than anything having legal standing
- quanticle 10y agoI was also confused by that part of the article, so I looked up the relevant legislation [1]. It seems that taxicab drivers are classified as independent operators, and so aren't subject to the same sorts of collective bargaining protections that traditional employees posess. This legislation appears (IANAL) to say that Uber (and other entities that contract with for-hire drivers) cannot include provisions in their contracts that prohibit collective bargaining. As a result, since Uber can't prohibit unionization through its contracts with drivers, it's now trying to prevent unionization through propaganda efforts. [1]: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~legislativeItems/Ordinances/Ord_124968.pdf http://clerk.seattle.gov/~legislativeItems/Ordinances/Ord_12...
- modeless 10y agoLaws to "allow" unions do not grant additional rights. In fact they take away rights. Specifically they make it illegal to do certain jobs without being a member of the union, creating a government-sanctioned monopoly. Union advocates say that people are better off without the right to work outside the union.
- jessriedel 10y agoWhile this can definitely be true, note that that "laws that allow union" can also take the form of lifting restrictions against anti-competitive behavior (i.e., restrictions against monopolies on the supply side of labor). Therefore, such laws really can be a reduction in regulation rather than a misleading way to describe increased regulation. Indeed, the "right to work" laws usually take the form of restrictions on the sorts of free contracts that employers and groups of employees can enter into. This is all depressingly similar to the choice of whether to call something a "subsidy", "tax cut", "welfare", or "entitlement". Although those terms can be given distinct objective definitions made with respect to either the status quo or an idealized laissez faire world, in practice the choice of terminology is political.
- modeless 10y ago> note that that "laws that allow union" can also take the form of lifting restrictions against competitive behavior (i.e., restrictions against monopolies on the supply side of labor) This wording doesn't make sense to me. Can you give an example?
- jessriedel 10y agoSorry, that should be "anti-competitive behavior". (Edited.) Thank you. In many places, there are laws against collusion by market participants, e.g., doctors can't talk with each other about their prices, the CEOs of GM and Toyota can't coordinate on whether to have a sale, and the CEOs of Apple and Google can't agree not to hire each other's employees (heh). These laws often impede the formations of unions, which are collective groups of employees who coordinate on wages, benefits, etc. By repealing anti-competitive laws, or paring them back so they do not apply to unions, this can allow unions to form where they would not. The argument is that allowing monopolies (or at least oligopolies) in the supply of labor is a way to balance the negotiating advantage that businesses have on account of natural monopolies/oligopolies in the demand for labor.
- HeavenBanned 10y agoOn the one hand, part of me thinks this is grimey, capitalistic slime-balling on the part of Uber; using psychological warfare to make a buck. And on the other hand, part of me thinks that trying to unionize Uber drivers is a bad move. If I wanted to make a quick buck with a side-job, Uber would be a great way for me to do that without having to trudge through the Gigs on Craigslist, etc. etc. etc. But if they unionize, it will become "just another job" and be tightly regulated, making the ability to get a quick buck nearly impossible; turning Uber into a full-fledged job with all the bureaucratic hooplah. While that would protect the fraction of workers looking to make Uber their full-time job, it would reduce the "Cowboy" nature of the job and make it hard for people to get in and get quick work.
- Insanity 10y agoI am wondering why it seems like you were downvoted? You expressed your opinion and to me, you made a fair point.
- RangerScience 10y agoThis is my worry as well.
- walshemj 10y agoWhy a lot of tv/film workers are freelancers but are still unionised IATSE (USA) and Prospect ex BECTU (UK)
- jamesblonde 10y agoI disagree. Here in Sweden, we actively discourage jobs that pay borderline-poverty wages. Taxi rides should not be cheap. You are buying someone else's time. That should be expensive for the middle-class.
- fennecfoxen 10y agoI'm going to go full-on link-to-Libertarian screed on this, so I apologise in advance, but... when regulations like this are realized, and unions protect a privileged set of existing members, the marginalized are in fact hardest hit. http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/11/think-the-sharing-economy-needs-more-reg http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/11/think-the-sharing-economy-...
- OskarS 10y agoImagine doing a podcast solely for your employees full of propaganda with the purpose of preventing them from unionizing. Seems like a very disturbing company culture.
- baq 10y agoi'd start unionizing out of spite.
- mdonahoe 10y agoWhat employees? Uber insists the drivers are contractors.
- strictfp 10y agoAt first I read 'disrupting' instead of 'disturbing'. Ahh, spooky
- freehunter 10y agoI worked quite a few retail jobs in college and the only ones who did not have mandatory training on the horrors of unions were the ones that were already unionized. Walmart goes so far to avoid any talk of unions that the one time employees unionized, they shut down that entire department for good, across every store.
- Spooky23 10y agoThe difference is that you were an employee of the store. Uber drivers are supposedly free agents.
- askAwayMan 10y agoCompanies like Amazon and Walmart do this as well. Amazon's contracts (when I was there) included terms for firing workers that tried to unionize.
- somethingsimple 10y agoIsn't that against federal law?
- throwawaysbdi 10y agoIt sucks but places like Walmart have been doing this for ages
- blitmap 10y agoNot that Uber isn't doing this to themselves... but I wonder who has the most to gain from all the bad press Uber is getting this past month.
- lithos 10y agoYou're asking to go silly places, and full conspiracy mode. So let's go there. I'd say Democrats, and the liberal press. What better way to show Republicans being bad, then how quickly companies go full abusive when they're in power and working hard to remove consumer/worker protections. Democrats would also love to get unions/workers out of the right. So they just need to show some soft support, and let it get quashed by ANY random republican with a chip on their shoulder (which is really any at this point). Not only that the CEO of Uber has shown early support for Trump, and most Americans are of the thought that CEO/Company are the same thing (so it's easy to make news of them showing support for anything). In this case the Liberal media would like nothing less than making it untenable for a CEO to show support of any cause (due to CEOs being brutal conservative monsters). They would probably love to see the fallout from such support (further media attention), to make boards consider barring their CEOs from being political in any way. That was an interesting mix of painful and fun to write.
- blitmap 10y agoI was thinking Lyft doesn't necessarily need Uber to fail, they're doing just fine?
- Shinchy 10y agoListen comrades.
- jlebrech 10y agowhy do they need a union, i thought they could choose their own rate?
- mariojv 10y agoUber drivers cannot choose their own pay rate, if that's what you mean. Recently, they've been unable to even choose if they want to accept Uber Pool rides (i.e. there's no indication when you're picking someone up if they're the first in an Uber Pool ride).
- andy_ppp 10y agoIt should be compulsory for everyone to be a member of a union as the HR staff at Uber have recently shown. It's much better to let your Union representative deal with sexual harassment charges than your company's internal departments. In the UK there is ACAS as well but being a member of a union is important for all sorts of reasons; fair pay and better working conditions are just two.
- witty_username 10y agoMaking it compulsory is bad as that means everybody will be forced to pay membership costs and can increase unemployment. Let companies decide what workers they want.
- andy_ppp 10y agoI mean salaries [1] for almost everyone other than executives and programmers haven't increased in 20 years. Corporate profits on the other hand are at record levels - so basically in my opinion workers are being screwed. [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...
- witty_username 10y agoEconomies are not zero-sum. The gain of corporations doesn't mean workers are being "screwed". Corporate profits are good; they mean more return to shareholders.
- xg15 10y agoShareholders, who are for the most part not workers. If living costs raise and the quality of available jobs worsens (e.g. less job security) but your wage stays the same that's objectively a loss.
- witty_username 10y ago
- kstenerud 10y agoBlogspam that doesn't even get the original story right. According to the WSJ that TNW is supposedly quoting, drivers are NOT being forced to listen to anything. https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-gears-up-to-block-bid-to-form-a-union-in-seattle-1489237201 https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-gears-up-to-block-bid-to-f...
- ceejayoz 10y ago> Before accepting rides on his Uber app each day, Seattle driver Fasil Teka must first choose whether to listen to company-run podcasts on voting rights, collective bargaining and city council hearings. No, technically not forced - the headline is misleading / clickbaity. That said, drivers are going to be well aware that Uber's likely to be collecting metrics on who listens and who doesn't, and I'd hardly trust them to follow employment law to the letter.
- mseebach 10y agoConjecture. You have literally no evidence in support of that belief. Not forced, full stop, the headline of the article is flat out wrong. If you defend this shit just because you agree with the sentiment, you have no right to an opinion about fake news. EDIT: For the record, the parent has ghost-edited their post.
- ceejayoz 10y agoSure. No evidence except centuries of union busting, Uber's flouting of regulations, metrics on everything, digging into ride records without permission to prove points to journalists, etc.
- icebraining 10y agoI agree that the headline is over the top. That said, Uber now even tracks users when outside the car. Since they can't know for sure if it's being tracked, it's inevitable that the drivers will feel pressured, and Uber knows that.
- Jabanga 10y agoNo one is forced to drive for Uber. The title is misleading and inflammatory. Fodder for the majority who are addicted to manufactured outrage. Ironically, the title and the comments in hacker news are pro-union propaganda.
- Synaesthesia 10y agoNobody is claiming that they're forced to work for Uber.
- justaman 10y agoLyft is the better platform anyway. The CEO of Lyft isnt a turd either.
- vorpalhex 10y agoWell no, but as the title said, if you'd like to continue being an employee for Uber in the Seattle area, it sounds like you have to at least pretend to listen to outright propaganda. Imagine if before you were allowed to sit down at your desk to work in the morning you had to listen to pro-genocide propaganda. It's obviously not something you want to listen to, it's not related to your work, and it's an abuse of the basic system of business. These kind of tactics are shortsighted and will absolutely hurt uber.
- davexunit 10y agoNo one is forced to do any job in the strict sense of the word, yet workers are constantly exploited because people need to work somewhere to make a living and some of those places suck.
- Jabanga 10y agoThat doesn't make it exploitation. This attitude of promoting victimhood and helplessness is intellectual dishonest and harmful.
- hnbroseph 10y ago> No one is forced to drive for Uber. The title is misleading and inflammatory. that is not what the title says. > the title and the comments in hacker news are pro-union propaganda i'm sure you can find or provide anti-union propaganda to suit your agenda.
- norea-armozel 10y agoI'm quite glad to see people are beginning to recognize the benefits of labor unionization. I know that for some the idea of unions is horrendous but that's due to how many unions have become just another boss where they call the shots and not represent the grievances of their members. At its core the ability to collectively bargain is the best thing anyone can do under capitalism whether it's for wages and benefits as workers or lower prices on goods as consumers. To impede or outlaw that behavior fundamentally is anti-market propaganda and it should be met with fierce opposition by all.
- jknoepfler 10y agoI started talking to uber drivers in Seattle about unionization / Seattle regulations, and was surprised to discover nearly unanimous opposition to the idea. The only person not opposed was a career taxi driver. Almost no one else was or wanted uber to be a full time gig, and they wanted minimal hassle/regulation/etc. between them and an easy source of side income. Anecdotal, with an n around 10, so not worth much, but I found it surprising. I suspect a lot of the Seattle unionization movement is thinly veiled rent seeking from the taxi lobby.
- leggomylibro 10y agoOne of the reasons why Uber, and maybe some of those drivers, were opposed to the idea of the unionization push was the restriction on voting rights; iirc, only drivers with at least 6 months experience (or thereabouts) would have a say in the direction of the union. That takes a lot of power from people who just want to use it as a form of supplementary income now and then, and those people aren't unreasonable for thinking that a union would continue to champion the interests of those 'career drivers' over them, if it got going. I wouldn't call that rent-seeking behavior from the "taxi lobby," but it would disproportionately benefit people who saw their jobs with Uber as full-time taxi drivers.
- Twirrim 10y agoThis seems an example of how the US approach to unions is completely broken. In the UK, unions exist that cover pretty much every single industry. Membership is, however, entirely optional. If the union has a sufficient sized membership (percentage based, I think), then they have to be involved in various types of management discussions, but that's it. If you don't want to be in a union, you don't have to be, and you don't have to make payments out of your wages.
- Herodotus38 10y agoIf I may give a weaker, counter example with anecdotal data from Seattle: I have only used Uber three times, and the last time I asked the driver about unionization and he was very for it (so an n of 1). He explained that all of the risk is on the driver and that sometimes Uber makes it very hard to work. He gave an example of a friend who was driving and ran over a rock while pulling into an apartment complex. The protocol was that another driver came and completed the ride for the user. However, his vehicle was now flagged as 'in an accident' when the problem was a flat tire, which his friend was able to fix that day. Unfortunately, by being flagged as an accident the friend couldn't work again for a number of days as there was some sort of vetting process to ensure the vehicle was working right (very reasonable imo). However, as explained to me, there was some hang up with Uber where he couldn't get vetted for much longer than usual and couldn't work. He thinks that being unionized would allow for more driver friendly policies that would have prevented this.