6 ms·
"All the order did was state Uber & Uber Eats must treat drivers going forward as employees and Uber in response pulled out of the market." That they would cho
by LargeWu 4y ago
"All the order did was state Uber & Uber Eats must treat drivers going forward as employees and Uber in response pulled out of the market."
That they would choose not to do business there at all, rather than pay people what they were entitled, is very telling of an operation that's in the business of exploiting people.
- kspacewalk2 4y agoIs every organization that employs contractors instead of hiring them as employees "in the business of exploiting people"?
- Jweb_Guru 4y agoThe ones that call people "contractors" to get around employment laws pretty universally are in that business, yes. Is that controversial?
- noSyncCloud 4y ago> Is that controversial? No, of course not. These people aren't arguing in good faith.
- usr1106 4y agoOf course it is controversal. There are sucessful businesses like Uber, AirBnB, Amazon etc. that base their success on collecting profits and outsourcing social costs to others. They have a lot of customers among HN readers and quite some supporters. They also get some criticism.
- kazen44 4y agoHeck, there is an entire spectrum of politics which state that pocketing excess value from the productions of others is wage-theft and thus exploitative.
- abigail95 4y agoif uber is loss making there is no excess value and uber drivers own or rent their cars thus owning the means of production themselves
- LargeWu 4y agoThe car itself is not the means of production. The means of production is the Uber network. Without that you just have a car.
- UncleEntity 4y agoWhat does the Uber network produce exactly? The app doesn’t transport people from point A to point B which is the whole point of using it in the first place. They also specifically argue against any claims they are anything more than an intermediary between the producers and consumers.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoyah
- YZF 4y agoBack in the day if you were working as a contractor you'd quote a price that reflected your higher costs. Let's say I'm an employee in a software company, that company may offer health insurance, if may provide me with a laptop, it may provide me with an office, it may provide me with severance pay if it lays me off, it will cover the various overheads of said office (electricity, insurance, whatnot). So if I'm an employee and I make $100/hour and I switch to being a contractor for that same job the company might expect to pay me $150/hour or $200/hour. Companies that employ contractors in that manner are fine. If a contractor is paid $70/hour vs. the full time employee $100/hour before overhead that's exploitation. A business that bends the laws so it can get away with attacking the business model of companies that are decent while at the same time exploiting employees shouldn't have a right to exist, isn't that pretty much the business model of organized crime?
- usr1106 4y agoMost of them are. But that's not the only criterium: Amazon for example is in the business of exploiting people by employing them directly under such poor conditions that the implict assumption is that few will stay for 2 years.
- mahkeiro 4y agoNormal taxis are not employee either, so either they are all employees or none are.