28 ms·

What a strange comment. > Brazil's labor laws treat the "workers" as stupid people This has nothing to do with stupidity, intelligence or anything like that.

What a strange comment. > Brazil's labor laws treat the "workers" as stupid people This has nothing to do with stupidity, intelligence or anything like that. This has to do with leverage. A multi-national giant corporation like Uber has a lot of leverage over Brazilian workers. If Uber treats them like figurative slaves and gives them too little money, workers have very little they can do against this. It is government's responsibility to protect people from this power imbalance. Yes Uber should have a freedom to charge/pay whatever market accepts and workers should have freedom to negotiate their own benefits. But at the same time Uber needs to implement a minimum care for their workers, and if not government should be able to enforce them to do so.

gcbw3 6y ago
> What a strange comment. Welcome to brazil, where the middle class is almost bellow poverty line, but they still vote conservative because they dream they will become millionaires overnight, only if they just manage to elect the right-most wing candidate. You have a 99.99% employee base voting for the interest of the business owners. It's crazy.
- devtul 6y ago
  If you think it only makes sense to hold conservative values if you are rich, it only means you don't know what you are talking about.
  - gcbw3 6y ago
    when conservative means conservation of the oligopoly, then yes.
- ianmobbs 6y ago
  They're just doing what they've been told is best for them by Bolsonaro, the same way the largely-impoverished American South votes for Trump. (I assume it's a similar voting block in the UK for Johnson but I haven't looked it up)
- lvass 6y ago
  That's uncannily accurate in an entirely different manner. Many Brazilians "dream" they will become millionaires if the marxists get in power again, due to hyperinflation.
devtul 6y ago
Drivers are not bound in any way to Uber, Uber won't send slave hunters if they leave the app. If people continue to drive for Uber, doesn't that mean the app is still a net positive for them, or do you believe people would pay to work? Your comment is a great example of what the parent comment is saying, the belief that people are too damn dumb and they need protection.
- gpderetta 6y ago
  You do not really have an option if all options are bad. And less bad options will be outcompeted by worse options.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > And less bad options will be outcompeted by worse options. This is by definition the opposite of what "outcompeted" means.
    - gpderetta 6y ago
      The option is bad from the employee point of view, bit the company, having smaller expenses can outcompete its competition.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        That's true in the market for e.g. rides, but then that's good, customers get lower prices. Meanwhile their competition in the market for labor is mainly the likes of Walmart and Starbucks. There is no plausible mechanism for Uber to "outcompete" Walmart by offering cheaper rides because Walmart isn't in that line of business to begin with.
- karpierz 6y ago
  I believe that people will take deals that don't benefit them. But that's not the point here. The numbers are made up, but say Uber makes 10$ per ride and the driver makes 10$ per ride. If the drivers get together, they might be able to negotiate 15$ per ride, leaving 5$ per ride for Uber. However, it might be hard for the people to do that, so the government can step in to improve conditions for riders by negotiating for them as a block.
ldec 6y ago
>workers should have freedom to negotiate their own benefits This is likely where the comment of laws treating the workers as stupid people comes from - Brazilian labour laws are very rigid with an amazing amount of restrictions around negotiating different benefits, working hours, etc. If, however, you earn a higher salary then you fit into a different category of labour laws and are allowed more flexibility. The thinking seems to be "if you earn under this amount you probably didn't receive a good enough education to know what is good for you". Sometimes that may be true, but it is a very dangerous line of thinking.
lhorie 6y ago
Disclaimer: I work for Uber and I'm brazilian. Opinions are my own, etc. What the GP is criticizing is that they see this as a power move to increase government income through taxes. The underbrush is that this money is then stolen by corrupt government officials (it's common perception in brazil that that's just the way the brazilian government works). In this light, Uber is just the sucker-du-jour who gets to be "screwed over" in the latest corruption ploy. Uber's perspective in this type of matter is that there are a large number of drivers who don't do ridesharing full time or even on a consistent part time basis (for example, one's free to do it once or twice ever). An apt comparison might be someone who sells stuff on craigslist - yes you can do it full time, but people often do it for just extra cash, without considering it a "job" per se. So you can see why Uber might not like to restrict driving opportunities only to those who are willing to commit to a full-time employment arrangement. With all this said, I'm all for having drivers who are effectively working full time hours to be able to earn a reasonable income. I'm not too familiar w/ the state of lobbying in Brazil, but my understanding is that Uber is going to be lobbying in the US for a third employment category and one of the talking points of that proposal is to work towards income improvements for drivers. The position that drivers are not employees goes both ways: if they are considered Uber's clients, it behooves that Uber should do its darn best to provide the platform with the best payouts in the industry, lest drivers would flock to a better paying competitor.

gcbw3 6y ago

> What a strange comment. Welcome to brazil, where the middle class is almost bellow poverty line, but they still vote conservative because they dream they will become millionaires overnight, only if they just manage to elect the right-most wing candidate. You have a 99.99% employee base voting for the interest of the business owners. It's crazy.

devtul 6y ago
If you think it only makes sense to hold conservative values if you are rich, it only means you don't know what you are talking about.
- gcbw3 6y ago
  when conservative means conservation of the oligopoly, then yes.
ianmobbs 6y ago
They're just doing what they've been told is best for them by Bolsonaro, the same way the largely-impoverished American South votes for Trump. (I assume it's a similar voting block in the UK for Johnson but I haven't looked it up)
lvass 6y ago
That's uncannily accurate in an entirely different manner. Many Brazilians "dream" they will become millionaires if the marxists get in power again, due to hyperinflation.

devtul 6y ago

Drivers are not bound in any way to Uber, Uber won't send slave hunters if they leave the app. If people continue to drive for Uber, doesn't that mean the app is still a net positive for them, or do you believe people would pay to work? Your comment is a great example of what the parent comment is saying, the belief that people are too damn dumb and they need protection.

gpderetta 6y ago
You do not really have an option if all options are bad. And less bad options will be outcompeted by worse options.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > And less bad options will be outcompeted by worse options. This is by definition the opposite of what "outcompeted" means.
  - gpderetta 6y ago
    The option is bad from the employee point of view, bit the company, having smaller expenses can outcompete its competition.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      That's true in the market for e.g. rides, but then that's good, customers get lower prices. Meanwhile their competition in the market for labor is mainly the likes of Walmart and Starbucks. There is no plausible mechanism for Uber to "outcompete" Walmart by offering cheaper rides because Walmart isn't in that line of business to begin with.
karpierz 6y ago
I believe that people will take deals that don't benefit them. But that's not the point here. The numbers are made up, but say Uber makes 10$ per ride and the driver makes 10$ per ride. If the drivers get together, they might be able to negotiate 15$ per ride, leaving 5$ per ride for Uber. However, it might be hard for the people to do that, so the government can step in to improve conditions for riders by negotiating for them as a block.

ldec 6y ago

>workers should have freedom to negotiate their own benefits This is likely where the comment of laws treating the workers as stupid people comes from - Brazilian labour laws are very rigid with an amazing amount of restrictions around negotiating different benefits, working hours, etc. If, however, you earn a higher salary then you fit into a different category of labour laws and are allowed more flexibility. The thinking seems to be "if you earn under this amount you probably didn't receive a good enough education to know what is good for you". Sometimes that may be true, but it is a very dangerous line of thinking.

lhorie 6y ago

Disclaimer: I work for Uber and I'm brazilian. Opinions are my own, etc. What the GP is criticizing is that they see this as a power move to increase government income through taxes. The underbrush is that this money is then stolen by corrupt government officials (it's common perception in brazil that that's just the way the brazilian government works). In this light, Uber is just the sucker-du-jour who gets to be "screwed over" in the latest corruption ploy. Uber's perspective in this type of matter is that there are a large number of drivers who don't do ridesharing full time or even on a consistent part time basis (for example, one's free to do it once or twice ever). An apt comparison might be someone who sells stuff on craigslist - yes you can do it full time, but people often do it for just extra cash, without considering it a "job" per se. So you can see why Uber might not like to restrict driving opportunities only to those who are willing to commit to a full-time employment arrangement. With all this said, I'm all for having drivers who are effectively working full time hours to be able to earn a reasonable income. I'm not too familiar w/ the state of lobbying in Brazil, but my understanding is that Uber is going to be lobbying in the US for a third employment category and one of the talking points of that proposal is to work towards income improvements for drivers. The position that drivers are not employees goes both ways: if they are considered Uber's clients, it behooves that Uber should do its darn best to provide the platform with the best payouts in the industry, lest drivers would flock to a better paying competitor.