5 ms·

"I can't possibly act on this without being compelled to by law" Riiiiight.

by Nursie 6y ago

kmorgh 6y ago
As I understand, the board could (probably would) fire him if he added a $655M expense without having to legally pay that. I'm not sure what the alternative is here, other than becoming a social purpose company.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- PedroBatista 6y ago
  How about quitting? Yeah, we all for those poor people but only if it doesn't cost us much.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Quitting would be an act of protest in argument for a better alternative. Such as a government-mandated requirement.
  - kmorgh 6y ago
    You could argue he should quit because of personal ethical considerations. But it seems like this is a broader issue regarding exploitation within modern capitalism. Not just limited to Uber. In other words: if we allow it, it will happen. If not by Mr. Khosrowshahi, then someone else.
    - PedroBatista 6y ago
      I 100% agree, but in this case it's just another type-A guy making an observation perhaps so he can feel good with himself but not really doing anything. These people like to pretend they are poor empathetic souls but with no power, which is bullshit. If their ass is on the line or their business has an existencial threat, all of a sudden they know how to make the right phone calls and make things happen. I buy what he's trying to paint, but I don't buy his hypocrisy.
- Nursie 6y ago
  Depends on the board, and depends on the circumstance. If the $655M is pitched in terms of "This will save us from lawsuits that could cost billions, go some way towards shining up our tarnished image, increase driver retention and keep the money rolling in", then I imagine it may go down better. Particularly if it can be seen as a way to head off legislation that could cost them more. Personally I hope they get spanked and have to recognise that their drivers are employees with flexible hours, not some new category of conveniently cheap labour that doesn't have to be properly remunerated.
  - kmorgh 6y ago
    I agree, the question is unfortunately in many of these cases. Will the lawsuits actually cost us billions, or will we get a slap on the wrist and actually be better off in the end if we take that hit. Because we can grow faster now. See Google or Microsoft anti-trust.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dikei 6y ago
I think he also meant that Uber could not compete, if it does this alone without its competitors doing the same.
- Nursie 6y ago
  This is a bit rich from a company that has undercut many markets by classifying its workers as independent contractors. "I know we drove everyone that offered better pay and conditions out of the market, but now that we've done that we'd like the law tightened up so that same thing can't happen to us"
  - vmception 6y ago
    This is a bit rich when you think about who else would be an authoritative source to talk about these problems and draw a blank. Everyone already knows the public policy pundit's perspective, everyone already knows the gig economy worker's perspective. And yet, this platform is going to be much more elevated. There is something more to do than focus on the irony or vilify hypocrisy. Protectionist tactics are going to overlap with this, whoop de do. I think talking about the challenges have merit.
londons_explore 6y ago
> "I can't possibly act on this without being compelled to by law" I 100% support this... Laws are what keeps business an even playing field. We as people shouldn't hesitate to put laws in place to get what we want. We also shouldn't hesitate to get rid of laws when their purpose becomes less clear. We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to.
- Nursie 6y ago
  > We as people shouldn't hesitate to put laws in place to get what we want. Sure, I agree that's a good thing to aim for. > We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to. I disagree with this though. Law is slow moving and imprecise, we absolutely should expect companies to behave like decent human beings and honest actors in society, rather than rapacious sharks, probing for legal weaknesses to exploit in the name of the holy profit. The 'innovation' at Uber was really a willingness to push at the edges of employment law, and by doing so dodge costs that other companies who thought they were already on an even playing field had to cover. I think it's perfectly valid to call them out for crappy behaviour and hope the law gets clarified. What the Uber CEO is asking for here is the creation of a new category of worker that legitimises their bad practices, and he's dressing it up as some sort of virtue while also stating he's not going to do anything about it. It's moral posturing, not ethical behaviour.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >The 'innovation' at Uber was really a willingness to push at the edges of employment law That wasn't the innovation. Uber was able to create a fleet from rented capital and made billions because they did it so well, but it wasn't just the business model. On the consumer side, Uber made hailing a ride-share much cheaper, easier and safer than ever before, and it got rid of the old practice of taxi cabs refusing fares from certain neighborhoods. Uber also broke the taxi monopolies that had taken over municipal policies and hindered public transport.
naveen99 6y ago
That’s standard tax minimizing behavior from right to left.
9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
My take from the article is thay if Uber were to currently offer its "driver-partners" benefits like health insurance, they would legally be considered employees, which neither party wants.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Why don't Uber's 'employees who we don't call employees' not want their health insurance to be paid?
  - jpgvm 6y ago
    Some (not all) may not wish to be classified as employees for various reasons would be my guess. Health insurance is a separate concern and should probably be handled by the state rather than by random corporations anyway like every other 1st world country.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      >various reasons // But what? The only thing I can think of is to pay adherence to the letter of some other employment contract (which is probably a problem with that contract and possibly isn't enforceable? and adhering to the letter and not spirit is silly). What else?
      - jpgvm 6y ago
        If you are an independent contractor you are protected under a different set of rights vs an employee. The main right people are interested in when pursuing independent contracting is ability to set their own hours, both in amount and distribution. There is a separate argument for if this is actually true for Uber/Lyft/etc (as in do those companies exert too much control over their contractors for them to actually be considered contractors and not employees) but in principal this is why you might want -not- to be employed.
        pbhjpbhj 6y ago

"I can't possibly act on this without being compelled to by law" Riiiiight.

by Nursie 6y ago

"I can't possibly act on this without being compelled to by law" Riiiiight.

As I understand, the board could (probably would) fire him if he added a $655M expense without having to legally pay that. I'm not sure what the alternative is here, other than becoming a social purpose company.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
PedroBatista 6y ago
How about quitting? Yeah, we all for those poor people but only if it doesn't cost us much.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Quitting would be an act of protest in argument for a better alternative. Such as a government-mandated requirement.
- kmorgh 6y ago
  You could argue he should quit because of personal ethical considerations. But it seems like this is a broader issue regarding exploitation within modern capitalism. Not just limited to Uber. In other words: if we allow it, it will happen. If not by Mr. Khosrowshahi, then someone else.
  - PedroBatista 6y ago
    I 100% agree, but in this case it's just another type-A guy making an observation perhaps so he can feel good with himself but not really doing anything. These people like to pretend they are poor empathetic souls but with no power, which is bullshit. If their ass is on the line or their business has an existencial threat, all of a sudden they know how to make the right phone calls and make things happen. I buy what he's trying to paint, but I don't buy his hypocrisy.
Nursie 6y ago
Depends on the board, and depends on the circumstance. If the $655M is pitched in terms of "This will save us from lawsuits that could cost billions, go some way towards shining up our tarnished image, increase driver retention and keep the money rolling in", then I imagine it may go down better. Particularly if it can be seen as a way to head off legislation that could cost them more. Personally I hope they get spanked and have to recognise that their drivers are employees with flexible hours, not some new category of conveniently cheap labour that doesn't have to be properly remunerated.
- kmorgh 6y ago
  I agree, the question is unfortunately in many of these cases. Will the lawsuits actually cost us billions, or will we get a slap on the wrist and actually be better off in the end if we take that hit. Because we can grow faster now. See Google or Microsoft anti-trust.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dikei 6y ago

I think he also meant that Uber could not compete, if it does this alone without its competitors doing the same.

Nursie 6y ago
This is a bit rich from a company that has undercut many markets by classifying its workers as independent contractors. "I know we drove everyone that offered better pay and conditions out of the market, but now that we've done that we'd like the law tightened up so that same thing can't happen to us"
- vmception 6y ago
  This is a bit rich when you think about who else would be an authoritative source to talk about these problems and draw a blank. Everyone already knows the public policy pundit's perspective, everyone already knows the gig economy worker's perspective. And yet, this platform is going to be much more elevated. There is something more to do than focus on the irony or vilify hypocrisy. Protectionist tactics are going to overlap with this, whoop de do. I think talking about the challenges have merit.

londons_explore 6y ago

> "I can't possibly act on this without being compelled to by law" I 100% support this... Laws are what keeps business an even playing field. We as people shouldn't hesitate to put laws in place to get what we want. We also shouldn't hesitate to get rid of laws when their purpose becomes less clear. We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to.

Nursie 6y ago
> We as people shouldn't hesitate to put laws in place to get what we want. Sure, I agree that's a good thing to aim for. > We shouldn't lobby companies to improve working conditions or look after the environment - we should put laws in place to force them to. I disagree with this though. Law is slow moving and imprecise, we absolutely should expect companies to behave like decent human beings and honest actors in society, rather than rapacious sharks, probing for legal weaknesses to exploit in the name of the holy profit. The 'innovation' at Uber was really a willingness to push at the edges of employment law, and by doing so dodge costs that other companies who thought they were already on an even playing field had to cover. I think it's perfectly valid to call them out for crappy behaviour and hope the law gets clarified. What the Uber CEO is asking for here is the creation of a new category of worker that legitimises their bad practices, and he's dressing it up as some sort of virtue while also stating he's not going to do anything about it. It's moral posturing, not ethical behaviour.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >The 'innovation' at Uber was really a willingness to push at the edges of employment law That wasn't the innovation. Uber was able to create a fleet from rented capital and made billions because they did it so well, but it wasn't just the business model. On the consumer side, Uber made hailing a ride-share much cheaper, easier and safer than ever before, and it got rid of the old practice of taxi cabs refusing fares from certain neighborhoods. Uber also broke the taxi monopolies that had taken over municipal policies and hindered public transport.

naveen99 6y ago

That’s standard tax minimizing behavior from right to left.

9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago

My take from the article is thay if Uber were to currently offer its "driver-partners" benefits like health insurance, they would legally be considered employees, which neither party wants.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Why don't Uber's 'employees who we don't call employees' not want their health insurance to be paid?
- jpgvm 6y ago
  Some (not all) may not wish to be classified as employees for various reasons would be my guess. Health insurance is a separate concern and should probably be handled by the state rather than by random corporations anyway like every other 1st world country.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    >various reasons // But what? The only thing I can think of is to pay adherence to the letter of some other employment contract (which is probably a problem with that contract and possibly isn't enforceable? and adhering to the letter and not spirit is silly). What else?
    - jpgvm 6y ago
      If you are an independent contractor you are protected under a different set of rights vs an employee. The main right people are interested in when pursuing independent contracting is ability to set their own hours, both in amount and distribution. There is a separate argument for if this is actually true for Uber/Lyft/etc (as in do those companies exert too much control over their contractors for them to actually be considered contractors and not employees) but in principal this is why you might want -not- to be employed.
      - pbhjpbhj 6y ago