5 ms·

In the US, I think it's Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It's referenced from the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing https://e

In the US, I think it's Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It's referenced from the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

abduhl 6y ago
That’s an interesting question actually. Can a third party who technically has no say in setting the actual price of a product be said to be engaging in price fixing by refusing to enter into a market, even if done collectively?
sudosysgen 6y ago
I'm, to say the very least, not sure that the Sherman Anti-trust Act prevents collective bargaining.
- fastball 6y ago
  Given that the price in question is put on consumers and Uber only takes a cut, this indeed sounds more like price-fixing than collective bargaining.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Collective bargaining is always price fixing on the price of labour. So is the minimum wage. It also explicitly legal, and generally good for the common person. In general, price fixing of the cost of labour is only found to be illegal price fixing when the people fixing the price are not (or not only) employees/workers. Which isn't the case here.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Collective bargaining applies when you are demanding things from an employer. But in this case, drivers colluding to not accept ride-shares under a certain price would be demanding a price from the consumer (which again, ride-share companies are only taking a fraction of, so it really is a price-fix on the consumer). And under such a scenario where that was allowed by the Ubers/Lyfts of the world, drivers would certainly be private contractors, and therefore business entities in their own right. So price-fixing.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Two things. Firstly, if you consider that Uber is only an intermediary and nothing else, then the consumer is the employer. Making this collective bargaining, Employers are consumers in the labour market. Price fixing is always against the interests of a pure consumer, including collective bargaining. Unions are beneficial because (and only if) the vast majority are workers much moreso than consumers. Secondly, as we have seen, since the money is paid to Uber, and Uber decides how much the rides cost and to who they are assigned when, as well as the fact as Uber pays drivers, and in combination with the fact that drivers are the core business of Uber, they are indeed employees, and this is collective bargaining. In both cases, it is collective bargaining. If the consumer is the rider, and they directly pay with a cut to Uber the fare, as well as decide the price they are offering and control how the ride goes, then the driver is the employee. In the real world and according to California statute, the driver is the employee (of Uber). Therefore, it is collective bargaining.
        fastball 6y ago
        So if you live in a town with three welders, and those three welders come together and agree that they will not ever weld for below $X/h in the town (which is significantly above market price of nearby, equivalent towns), then that is not price-fixing, because the people that want welding services are suddenly "welder employers" because they are buying a service? I... don't think that's right. The price of rides is determined by the market. Uber arguably has the least say of the three stakeholders – their goal is to merely "make the market". Riders demand low-prices, drivers demand high ones. Uber doesn't really "choose" a price, they just find the happy medium that the market demands. Uber pays drivers in the same way that Stripe "pays" me when I make a sale of my app – that is to say, not at all. Stripe pays me, but they are clearly not my employer. Uber is collecting payments and then disbursing them, as literally any marketplace does. Does Steam "employ" all the game developers that sell on their platform? Does Etsy employ all the independent makers? Apple's App Store? Twitch? Amazon? Patreon? The core business of Uber is an app/marketplace for transport, not drivers. This is obvious when you consider the fact that Uber also provides things like scooters and e-bikes through their app (and in London, now boat services!), which obviously don't involve mostly independent driver-contractors. To compare this to Steam again – the core business of Steam is not "game developers", even though their core business would not exist without game developers. Their business is a marketplace. I actually really like the Steam comparison because it literally ticks all the same boxes you are ticking for Uber: they set prices, accept/disburse payments, and wouldn't exist without 3rd parties and their labor. But nobody is claiming that Steam should start paying health/holidy/etc benefits for all the indie game developers that sell games on their platform.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

In the US, I think it's Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It's referenced from the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

abduhl 6y ago

That’s an interesting question actually. Can a third party who technically has no say in setting the actual price of a product be said to be engaging in price fixing by refusing to enter into a market, even if done collectively?

sudosysgen 6y ago

I'm, to say the very least, not sure that the Sherman Anti-trust Act prevents collective bargaining.

fastball 6y ago
Given that the price in question is put on consumers and Uber only takes a cut, this indeed sounds more like price-fixing than collective bargaining.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Collective bargaining is always price fixing on the price of labour. So is the minimum wage. It also explicitly legal, and generally good for the common person. In general, price fixing of the cost of labour is only found to be illegal price fixing when the people fixing the price are not (or not only) employees/workers. Which isn't the case here.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Collective bargaining applies when you are demanding things from an employer. But in this case, drivers colluding to not accept ride-shares under a certain price would be demanding a price from the consumer (which again, ride-share companies are only taking a fraction of, so it really is a price-fix on the consumer). And under such a scenario where that was allowed by the Ubers/Lyfts of the world, drivers would certainly be private contractors, and therefore business entities in their own right. So price-fixing.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Two things. Firstly, if you consider that Uber is only an intermediary and nothing else, then the consumer is the employer. Making this collective bargaining, Employers are consumers in the labour market. Price fixing is always against the interests of a pure consumer, including collective bargaining. Unions are beneficial because (and only if) the vast majority are workers much moreso than consumers. Secondly, as we have seen, since the money is paid to Uber, and Uber decides how much the rides cost and to who they are assigned when, as well as the fact as Uber pays drivers, and in combination with the fact that drivers are the core business of Uber, they are indeed employees, and this is collective bargaining. In both cases, it is collective bargaining. If the consumer is the rider, and they directly pay with a cut to Uber the fare, as well as decide the price they are offering and control how the ride goes, then the driver is the employee. In the real world and according to California statute, the driver is the employee (of Uber). Therefore, it is collective bargaining.
      - fastball 6y ago
        So if you live in a town with three welders, and those three welders come together and agree that they will not ever weld for below $X/h in the town (which is significantly above market price of nearby, equivalent towns), then that is not price-fixing, because the people that want welding services are suddenly "welder employers" because they are buying a service? I... don't think that's right. The price of rides is determined by the market. Uber arguably has the least say of the three stakeholders – their goal is to merely "make the market". Riders demand low-prices, drivers demand high ones. Uber doesn't really "choose" a price, they just find the happy medium that the market demands. Uber pays drivers in the same way that Stripe "pays" me when I make a sale of my app – that is to say, not at all. Stripe pays me, but they are clearly not my employer. Uber is collecting payments and then disbursing them, as literally any marketplace does. Does Steam "employ" all the game developers that sell on their platform? Does Etsy employ all the independent makers? Apple's App Store? Twitch? Amazon? Patreon? The core business of Uber is an app/marketplace for transport, not drivers. This is obvious when you consider the fact that Uber also provides things like scooters and e-bikes through their app (and in London, now boat services!), which obviously don't involve mostly independent driver-contractors. To compare this to Steam again – the core business of Steam is not "game developers", even though their core business would not exist without game developers. Their business is a marketplace. I actually really like the Steam comparison because it literally ticks all the same boxes you are ticking for Uber: they set prices, accept/disburse payments, and wouldn't exist without 3rd parties and their labor. But nobody is claiming that Steam should start paying health/holidy/etc benefits for all the indie game developers that sell games on their platform.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]