4 ms·

"exploiting THEIR workers." - The UK has full employment right now. If they're working uber, they're doing it because they like working for Uber.

loriverkutya 7y ago
Yeah, because everybody in the UK who are working fulltime for a company likes to do it.
TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
The UK definitely does not have “full employment” unless you have a very stretched meaning of the word “full”. Even if you think the level of unemployment is okay, the level of underemployment reveals things are very far from rosy.
- UK-Al05 7y ago
  Full employment is includes the fact people are going to be out of work for other reasons like in the process of switching jobs. Also you have to remember that people work for best option they have right now. If uber wasn't their best option they simply move to a better job. If you ban uber you simply remove the current best option for most people working for uber.
  - gjulianm 7y ago
    Above you said "they're doing it because they like working for Uber". Now you say it's just the best option they have. That's quite different > If uber wasn't their best option they simply move to a better job. Simply? You know there are costs and risks associated with changing jobs, right? > If you ban uber you simply remove the current best option for most people working for uber This is blackmail and using workers as hostages. If Uber were a decent company, it would have hired the workers they need instead of the fraud that is the partner scheme. In this situation of Uber losing license to operate, the drivers would either be still employed or be fired and get severance packages and unemployment benefits. This is why a lot of people dislike and want the "gig economy startups" gone: they ignore the rules in the name of "user experience", exploit their workers to keep prices down and eat up the market, and then use the position they have to force their views on public policy. Governments must stop them and make them pay what they should have paid if they were operating correctly.
    - UK-Al05 7y ago
      People who want Uber banned are often middle-class people following their left-wing ideology pretending to be on side of the working class worker. That or black cab drivers. If you actually listen to vast majority workers working Uber they're ok with it. They enjoy the flexibility and the lack of obligations. If people want more fixed work they can get it at the moment. Essentially you are taking the choice away from these people to work for uber, based on your own version of your morals and not theirs. Your imposing your own morals on people who don't want your morals. That can be dangerous.
      - gjulianm 7y ago
        They seem very happy indeed. So happy they have recently striked over pay and conditions [1]. A MIT study also showed the big profits they have (26% make more than minimum wage in the US!) [2]. >Your imposing your own morals on people who don't want your morals. You are wrong. It is not morals. It is the law. Uber is bypassing laws, full stop. 1: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/08/uber-drivers-strike-over-pay-and-conditions https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/08/uber-driv... 2: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/02/mit-study-shows-how-much-driving-for-uber-or-lyft-sucks/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/02/mit-study-shows-how-much-d...
        UK-Al05 7y ago
        According to a government report[1] 68% of workers are satisfied working for ride-sharing services. Which admittingly isn't super high, but not awful either. But the most important thing like is the independence it gives. 1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/687553/The_characteristics_of_those_in_the_gig_economy.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... The laws are created by a minority of people who don't always vote in favour of the public. You regulate it like a normal job, and the thing they like about it most will be removed.
        gjulianm 7y ago
ivanbakel 7y ago
What a ridiculous position - the UK only has full employment right now in part because of the tactics of companies like Uber. Gig-economy companies pump the "self-employed" figures with poor wages, hidden costs, and no employment benefits. You could pay the whole country a penny a day if all you cared about was boosting a number metric. It wouldn't somehow translate to worker satisfaction.
- UK-Al05 7y ago
  You have to remember that people work for the best option they have right now. If uber wasn't their best option they simply move to a better job. If you ban uber you simply remove the current best option for most people working for uber. You would worsen the conditions for them.
  - ivanbakel 7y ago
    As was pointed out in the other reply - if you claim that full employment means that people always have other opportunities than Uber, then there is no harm in axing Uber. That there are worse actors than Uber in the job market is a terrible defense of it.

loriverkutya 7y ago

Yeah, because everybody in the UK who are working fulltime for a company likes to do it.

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago

The UK definitely does not have “full employment” unless you have a very stretched meaning of the word “full”. Even if you think the level of unemployment is okay, the level of underemployment reveals things are very far from rosy.

UK-Al05 7y ago
Full employment is includes the fact people are going to be out of work for other reasons like in the process of switching jobs. Also you have to remember that people work for best option they have right now. If uber wasn't their best option they simply move to a better job. If you ban uber you simply remove the current best option for most people working for uber.
- gjulianm 7y ago
  Above you said "they're doing it because they like working for Uber". Now you say it's just the best option they have. That's quite different > If uber wasn't their best option they simply move to a better job. Simply? You know there are costs and risks associated with changing jobs, right? > If you ban uber you simply remove the current best option for most people working for uber This is blackmail and using workers as hostages. If Uber were a decent company, it would have hired the workers they need instead of the fraud that is the partner scheme. In this situation of Uber losing license to operate, the drivers would either be still employed or be fired and get severance packages and unemployment benefits. This is why a lot of people dislike and want the "gig economy startups" gone: they ignore the rules in the name of "user experience", exploit their workers to keep prices down and eat up the market, and then use the position they have to force their views on public policy. Governments must stop them and make them pay what they should have paid if they were operating correctly.
  - UK-Al05 7y ago
    People who want Uber banned are often middle-class people following their left-wing ideology pretending to be on side of the working class worker. That or black cab drivers. If you actually listen to vast majority workers working Uber they're ok with it. They enjoy the flexibility and the lack of obligations. If people want more fixed work they can get it at the moment. Essentially you are taking the choice away from these people to work for uber, based on your own version of your morals and not theirs. Your imposing your own morals on people who don't want your morals. That can be dangerous.
    - gjulianm 7y ago
      They seem very happy indeed. So happy they have recently striked over pay and conditions [1]. A MIT study also showed the big profits they have (26% make more than minimum wage in the US!) [2]. >Your imposing your own morals on people who don't want your morals. You are wrong. It is not morals. It is the law. Uber is bypassing laws, full stop. 1: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/08/uber-drivers-strike-over-pay-and-conditions https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/08/uber-driv... 2: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/02/mit-study-shows-how-much-driving-for-uber-or-lyft-sucks/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/02/mit-study-shows-how-much-d...
      - UK-Al05 7y ago
        According to a government report[1] 68% of workers are satisfied working for ride-sharing services. Which admittingly isn't super high, but not awful either. But the most important thing like is the independence it gives. 1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/687553/The_characteristics_of_those_in_the_gig_economy.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... The laws are created by a minority of people who don't always vote in favour of the public. You regulate it like a normal job, and the thing they like about it most will be removed.
        gjulianm 7y ago

ivanbakel 7y ago

What a ridiculous position - the UK only has full employment right now in part because of the tactics of companies like Uber. Gig-economy companies pump the "self-employed" figures with poor wages, hidden costs, and no employment benefits. You could pay the whole country a penny a day if all you cared about was boosting a number metric. It wouldn't somehow translate to worker satisfaction.

UK-Al05 7y ago
You have to remember that people work for the best option they have right now. If uber wasn't their best option they simply move to a better job. If you ban uber you simply remove the current best option for most people working for uber. You would worsen the conditions for them.
- ivanbakel 7y ago
  As was pointed out in the other reply - if you claim that full employment means that people always have other opportunities than Uber, then there is no harm in axing Uber. That there are worse actors than Uber in the job market is a terrible defense of it.