4 ms·

This is a pretty disgusting level of paternalist condescension towards workers that's unfortunately all too common in these discussions. Believe it or not, not

This is a pretty disgusting level of paternalist condescension towards workers that's unfortunately all too common in these discussions. Believe it or not, not all blue-collar workers are stupid ignorami who don't understand what labor regulations means for them. As the article says: > Plenty of drivers said they understood Uber’s and Lyft’s political messaging. And some drivers who spoke to Recode made an articulate case for why they want to remain independent contractors. (A poll of 1,200 drivers by independent blog The Rideshare Guy last year showed that about 76 percent of respondents wanted to remain independent contractors rather than become employees.) That isn't to say that there isn't an issue with deceiving workers: Uber and Lyft hardly have a reputation for ethical business practices, and I wouldn't be surprised if their messaging was intentionally unclear here. On top of that, it's possible that restrictions on labor can be positive and I'm not ruling out any degree of labor paternalism as valuable to society. But your reductionist framing of blue-collar workers as simpletons who couldn't possibly disagree with you about _the way their own lives and employment should work_ is despicable. And frankly, the doublespeak involved in labeling restrictions on labor relationships as rights (and thus obviously and unambiguously positive) says much more about your ignorance than theirs.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
The GP didn't say this is exclusive to blue collar worker; they only used blue collar as an example. It is shockingly easy to convince any kind of workers to go against their own best interest, whether it comes to unions or employment regulations. E.g., I know plenty of white-collar workers in my country who believe they're being robbed by their country because their employers have to also pay for their socialized health insurance, naively assuming that if that was not the case, they could actually pocket that money.
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  Sure that's fair, but that only expands the circle of condescension, which is perhaps _slightly_ better because it weakens the element of class snobbery. The notion that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot who doesn't understand what's good for them as well as you understand what's good for them is what I'm pushing back against. The very phrase "voting against their own interests" is dripping with condescension and the presumption that you understand their lives better than they do. It's the same justification used for every historical and current violation of freedom in the social sphere: gay conversion therapy, the drug war, mores around gender roles, etc etc. The fact that economic constraints don't evoke the same immediate reaction as social ones doesn't mean that economic policy can't have an immense impact on people's lives, and cause or alleviate immense suffering. Now don't get me wrong: I'm not some extremist hyper-individualist believer in Homo Economicus, and I think there's plenty of scope for paternalism in policy. I think that it's entirely possible to talk to a specific person about their policy beliefs and come away with the view that they don't understand what's going on and are voting against their own interests. I just think that a little humility is in order when making assumptions about other people's lives and struggles a d choices, and applying this approach en masse with blanket statements like the GP comment (and your own, to a lesser degree) is a lot more likely to be ignorant of the realities of the variety and complexity of these people's lives.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > It's the same justification used for every historical and current violation of freedom in the social sphere: gay conversion therapy, the drug war, mores around gender roles, etc etc. It is. It doesn't mean the justification is always wrong, much like Stalin believing 2+2=4 doesn't disprove arithmetic. I agree with the call to humility and I generally not tell individuals I know better than them how they should live their lives, but my comment is a) on the systemic level, and b) based on direct and indirect experience. For instance, some of the evidence backing my belief is the experience of people close to me who went through periods of abusive employments, and whose stories I got to hear throughout it. For instance, one of those people was stuck under a verbally and mentally abusive boss who exploited the perception of local employment conditions to keep people underpaid and overworked. The irony is, the abused employees were also critical to that man's financial success, and they could've easily fixed the situation for themselves, if they got together. Unfortunately, they (including my close acquaintance) were all scared shitless and couldn't coordinate - everyone was essentially worried no one else would step up, and the lone person would lose the job. Having seen or heard of cases like this, and also having read here many stories that essentially boil down to "short-term rewards prevent people from taking actions beneficial to their career longer-term" (carrots work better in our industry, for now), I came to the conclusion that it's ridiculously easy to exploit workers. Now, since the context of this discussion is Uber, a notoriously morally bankrupt company, I don't think myself or the OP are too paternalistic with this sentiment. It's not intended as a criticism of workers (myself I'm not immune to this kind of pressure either), but exploitative employers.
    - nemo44x 7y ago
      Not to be a communist or anything but 2+2 does equal 4.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
swift532 7y ago
Sorry for the aside and the patronizing tone, but it's actually ignoramuses and not ignorami, as the word comes from the Latin verb meaning "we are ignorant", so it has no plural form.
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  Appreciate the correction. I think this is one of those things that I've heard multiple times and for some reason failed to retain; its worth noting that many dictionaries[1] recognize ignorami as a plural form, independent of the original Latin grammar. I'm usually a bit more of a prescriptivist than is probably rational, but I don't find myself too worked up about this error since the normalization of the error causes no loss of descriptive power (unlike, say, the transition from literally to figuratively). Anyway, thanks again! [1] eg Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignoramus https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignoramus
  - swift532 7y ago
    No reason to feel bad about it anyways, funnily enough the only reason why I know this is the folllowing sketch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo8FR8GGoJ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo8FR8GGoJ0
specialist 7y ago
Political messaging has numerous audiences. For instance, most of organized labor may understand that "Right To Work" legislation is Luntzian doublespeak, because their orgs have policy people to unravel the lies. But it's effective against non-union labor, editorial boards, and low-information voters. Providing much needed cover for corporate shilling legislators. "And frankly, the doublespeak involved in labeling restrictions on labor relationships as rights (and thus obviously and unambiguously positive) says much more about your ignorance than theirs." I don't think he said that.
braythwayt 7y ago
If I strip the outrage and emotional rhetoric from your comment, what I’m left with is a suggestion that not all workers were deceived into opposing labour regulation. Well, ok. And then there’s a suggestion that people talking about labourers are looking down their noses at labourers. Well, that is a thing. As is people looking down at “Apple fanboys,” or looking down at “People who buy whatever marketing tells them to buy,” or “People believing whatever Fox tells them to believe.” That is absolutely a thing, and it goes across almost all discussions about almost all topics. You can’t bring up interviewing without a bunch of people confidently stating that everyone else is doing it wrong and stupidly cargo-culting. But I don’t see the OP talking about the way that disinformation and political dark patterns as framing labourers as simpletons. If you want reductionism, when it comes to humans persuading other humans to do things, we are all simpletons. We all have what amount to zero-day vulnerabilities. We all can be stunningly brilliant in one area of our lives, but thicker than a block of wood in another. I don’t think there's anything condescending or paternalistic about saying this.
Der_Einzige 7y ago
A right, even and especially a positive right, is strictly always a curtailment of some form of freedom. The "right to life" means that no one has the freedom to kill you arbitrarily. The right to health care means that the market is not free to deny you health care. The right to freedom of religion means that the religious must make do without your religious donation. The NAP is literally impossible to not break over even the most trivial of things and if you seriously believe in it or similar you're far more ignorant than the person you accuse.
- the_watcher 7y ago
  Freedom of religion (at least in the US constitutional sense) is a negative right in that it obliges inaction (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof). Did you mean to imply it was a positive right? Miranda rights are positive rights (you have the right to). Much of the Constitutional rights are negative (shall not infringe on...)
jonas21 7y ago
Part of the issue is that there's great diversity in how rideshare drivers are using Uber and Lyft. As a result, it doesn't really make sense to speak of the interests of drivers as a whole. For example, in the Rideshare Guy survey, there's a pretty even distribution across the buckets of "How much of your total monthly income comes from driving?" About 24% responded "very little", while 19% responded "all or almost all", with the rest somewhere in between. The ones who responded "very little" are likely using Uber/Lyft in their spare time to supplement income from another job and might be better off as independent contractors. Those who rely on driving for "all or almost all" of their income are driving as their primary occupation, and might be better off as employees. I'd imagine that what's good for the first group on this issue might be bad for the second group and vice versa.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

The GP didn't say this is exclusive to blue collar worker; they only used blue collar as an example. It is shockingly easy to convince any kind of workers to go against their own best interest, whether it comes to unions or employment regulations. E.g., I know plenty of white-collar workers in my country who believe they're being robbed by their country because their employers have to also pay for their socialized health insurance, naively assuming that if that was not the case, they could actually pocket that money.

wutbrodo 7y ago
Sure that's fair, but that only expands the circle of condescension, which is perhaps _slightly_ better because it weakens the element of class snobbery. The notion that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot who doesn't understand what's good for them as well as you understand what's good for them is what I'm pushing back against. The very phrase "voting against their own interests" is dripping with condescension and the presumption that you understand their lives better than they do. It's the same justification used for every historical and current violation of freedom in the social sphere: gay conversion therapy, the drug war, mores around gender roles, etc etc. The fact that economic constraints don't evoke the same immediate reaction as social ones doesn't mean that economic policy can't have an immense impact on people's lives, and cause or alleviate immense suffering. Now don't get me wrong: I'm not some extremist hyper-individualist believer in Homo Economicus, and I think there's plenty of scope for paternalism in policy. I think that it's entirely possible to talk to a specific person about their policy beliefs and come away with the view that they don't understand what's going on and are voting against their own interests. I just think that a little humility is in order when making assumptions about other people's lives and struggles a d choices, and applying this approach en masse with blanket statements like the GP comment (and your own, to a lesser degree) is a lot more likely to be ignorant of the realities of the variety and complexity of these people's lives.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > It's the same justification used for every historical and current violation of freedom in the social sphere: gay conversion therapy, the drug war, mores around gender roles, etc etc. It is. It doesn't mean the justification is always wrong, much like Stalin believing 2+2=4 doesn't disprove arithmetic. I agree with the call to humility and I generally not tell individuals I know better than them how they should live their lives, but my comment is a) on the systemic level, and b) based on direct and indirect experience. For instance, some of the evidence backing my belief is the experience of people close to me who went through periods of abusive employments, and whose stories I got to hear throughout it. For instance, one of those people was stuck under a verbally and mentally abusive boss who exploited the perception of local employment conditions to keep people underpaid and overworked. The irony is, the abused employees were also critical to that man's financial success, and they could've easily fixed the situation for themselves, if they got together. Unfortunately, they (including my close acquaintance) were all scared shitless and couldn't coordinate - everyone was essentially worried no one else would step up, and the lone person would lose the job. Having seen or heard of cases like this, and also having read here many stories that essentially boil down to "short-term rewards prevent people from taking actions beneficial to their career longer-term" (carrots work better in our industry, for now), I came to the conclusion that it's ridiculously easy to exploit workers. Now, since the context of this discussion is Uber, a notoriously morally bankrupt company, I don't think myself or the OP are too paternalistic with this sentiment. It's not intended as a criticism of workers (myself I'm not immune to this kind of pressure either), but exploitative employers.
  - nemo44x 7y ago
    Not to be a communist or anything but 2+2 does equal 4.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

swift532 7y ago

Sorry for the aside and the patronizing tone, but it's actually ignoramuses and not ignorami, as the word comes from the Latin verb meaning "we are ignorant", so it has no plural form.

wutbrodo 7y ago
Appreciate the correction. I think this is one of those things that I've heard multiple times and for some reason failed to retain; its worth noting that many dictionaries[1] recognize ignorami as a plural form, independent of the original Latin grammar. I'm usually a bit more of a prescriptivist than is probably rational, but I don't find myself too worked up about this error since the normalization of the error causes no loss of descriptive power (unlike, say, the transition from literally to figuratively). Anyway, thanks again! [1] eg Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignoramus https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignoramus
- swift532 7y ago
  No reason to feel bad about it anyways, funnily enough the only reason why I know this is the folllowing sketch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo8FR8GGoJ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo8FR8GGoJ0

specialist 7y ago

Political messaging has numerous audiences. For instance, most of organized labor may understand that "Right To Work" legislation is Luntzian doublespeak, because their orgs have policy people to unravel the lies. But it's effective against non-union labor, editorial boards, and low-information voters. Providing much needed cover for corporate shilling legislators. "And frankly, the doublespeak involved in labeling restrictions on labor relationships as rights (and thus obviously and unambiguously positive) says much more about your ignorance than theirs." I don't think he said that.

braythwayt 7y ago

If I strip the outrage and emotional rhetoric from your comment, what I’m left with is a suggestion that not all workers were deceived into opposing labour regulation. Well, ok. And then there’s a suggestion that people talking about labourers are looking down their noses at labourers. Well, that is a thing. As is people looking down at “Apple fanboys,” or looking down at “People who buy whatever marketing tells them to buy,” or “People believing whatever Fox tells them to believe.” That is absolutely a thing, and it goes across almost all discussions about almost all topics. You can’t bring up interviewing without a bunch of people confidently stating that everyone else is doing it wrong and stupidly cargo-culting. But I don’t see the OP talking about the way that disinformation and political dark patterns as framing labourers as simpletons. If you want reductionism, when it comes to humans persuading other humans to do things, we are all simpletons. We all have what amount to zero-day vulnerabilities. We all can be stunningly brilliant in one area of our lives, but thicker than a block of wood in another. I don’t think there's anything condescending or paternalistic about saying this.

Der_Einzige 7y ago

A right, even and especially a positive right, is strictly always a curtailment of some form of freedom. The "right to life" means that no one has the freedom to kill you arbitrarily. The right to health care means that the market is not free to deny you health care. The right to freedom of religion means that the religious must make do without your religious donation. The NAP is literally impossible to not break over even the most trivial of things and if you seriously believe in it or similar you're far more ignorant than the person you accuse.

the_watcher 7y ago
Freedom of religion (at least in the US constitutional sense) is a negative right in that it obliges inaction (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof). Did you mean to imply it was a positive right? Miranda rights are positive rights (you have the right to). Much of the Constitutional rights are negative (shall not infringe on...)

jonas21 7y ago

Part of the issue is that there's great diversity in how rideshare drivers are using Uber and Lyft. As a result, it doesn't really make sense to speak of the interests of drivers as a whole. For example, in the Rideshare Guy survey, there's a pretty even distribution across the buckets of "How much of your total monthly income comes from driving?" About 24% responded "very little", while 19% responded "all or almost all", with the rest somewhere in between. The ones who responded "very little" are likely using Uber/Lyft in their spare time to supplement income from another job and might be better off as independent contractors. Those who rely on driving for "all or almost all" of their income are driving as their primary occupation, and might be better off as employees. I'd imagine that what's good for the first group on this issue might be bad for the second group and vice versa.