7 ms·

The indentured servitude statement is apt: the GP implies that willful entrance into a contract of employment is by virtue of this willfulness incapable of bein

by ckw 4y ago

The indentured servitude statement is apt: the GP implies that willful entrance into a contract of employment is by virtue of this willfulness incapable of being exploitative. But indentured servitude is entered into in the same manner, and few would deny the exploitative nature of indentured servitude.

throwaway09223 4y ago
No, it isn't. There is no contract in this scenario whatsoever, equitable or otherwise. It's an absurd analogy.
- ckw 4y ago
  Do you mean gig workers enter into no contract, or indentured servants entered into no contract, or something else? Indentured Servitude: ‘Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an "indenture", may be entered voluntarily for eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed as a judicial punishment.’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude As for Uber drivers: it’s pretty hard to be an independent contractor without entering into a contract.
  - throwaway09223 4y ago
    Obviously I mean there's no contract demanding ongoing work performance from Uber drivers. Drivers can stop at any time. The only terms stipulate how they can work and under what terms, should they choose to do so. It is the polar opposite of an arrangement which demands continuing performance. It's even less restrictive than a typical employer-employee relationship.
    - ckw 4y ago
      GGP: How is it exploitative if the worker willfully enters into the contract? GP: But indentured servants enter willfully into their contracts, and indentured servitude is exploitative. So how is the willful nature of gig work relevant to the question of whether it is exploitative? You: GP has equated gig work with indentured servitude, and they are in no way comparable, because gig workers can quit whenever they choose. Me: GP did not equate indentured servitude and gig work, they used indentured servitude as a tool to show the flawed reasoning of GGP. You: Gig work is nothing like indentured servitude, because gig workers can quit whenever they want, and indentured servants can’t. Do you see the problem here?
      - throwaway09223 4y ago
        I see that you're making the same error, equating all contracts in ways that aren't reasonable. When I buy a stick of gum I'm also entering into a contract (of sale). It would be disingenuous and dishonest of me to claim that the 7-11 clerk is exploiting me in ways similar to indentured servitude (or I, him) simply because both scenarios involve a contract. The relevant aspect is whether the contract binds someone such that they cannot escape. Uber does not do this, period. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
        ckw 4y ago
        This is a really simple concept. There is a very small chance that the reason it’s difficult to understand is that you’re suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning, a stroke, or some other medical issue, so to the extent that you can easily eliminate those as possibilities, you should.
        throwaway09223 4y ago
        I accept your implicit concession, rude as it is.
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        What you're missing is that there's a limit to what contracts can legally do. I can certainly enter into a legal contract that requires someone to eat my feces for breakfast, but I bet you if I tried to enforce such a contract I'd be told the law won't do it. This here is why the idea of being able to walk away from a contract doesn't make the contract valid or legal, nor does it prevent the contract from being exploitative. Find another reason why it's not exploitative, because them being able to legally walk away from it isn't enough. Not even the LAW uses such a lax definition.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      > It's even less restrictive than a typical employer-employee relationship. Do you know why I still use taxi's over uber? Because when I hop in a taxi and tell the driver I'll be inside for a few minutes but I'd like a ride back and they can just keep the meter running, they give me a thumbs up and do exactly that. When I do this for an uber driver they tell me they're not _ALLOWED_ to do that and if I need a ride back I must call another uber and wait. And then I hear these companies talk about how these uber drivers really and truly have freedom to do what they want and they're totally not taking advantage of the tax code and pushing all the risk onto the uber driver (wear and tear on the vehicle, insurance, increased risk of car wrecks, etc)! Yeah, I call bullshit. They're starting to go after these companies because they take advantage of people who are taking long term risk for short term gain (money now vs repairs on the vehicle later). You know how Taxi companies do it? If you drive your own vehicle they get a small % of the fare for the dispatch service. If you don't want to drive your vehicle you can drive theirs and they take a larger % of the fare, but you aren't risking your own vehicle. Now tell me again how uber is somehow better for their workers? I refuse to use uber because Taxi drivers are human, uber drivers are an extension of ubers body.

by ckw 4y ago

throwaway09223 4y ago

No, it isn't. There is no contract in this scenario whatsoever, equitable or otherwise. It's an absurd analogy.

ckw 4y ago
Do you mean gig workers enter into no contract, or indentured servants entered into no contract, or something else? Indentured Servitude: ‘Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an "indenture", may be entered voluntarily for eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed as a judicial punishment.’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude As for Uber drivers: it’s pretty hard to be an independent contractor without entering into a contract.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  Obviously I mean there's no contract demanding ongoing work performance from Uber drivers. Drivers can stop at any time. The only terms stipulate how they can work and under what terms, should they choose to do so. It is the polar opposite of an arrangement which demands continuing performance. It's even less restrictive than a typical employer-employee relationship.
  - ckw 4y ago
    GGP: How is it exploitative if the worker willfully enters into the contract? GP: But indentured servants enter willfully into their contracts, and indentured servitude is exploitative. So how is the willful nature of gig work relevant to the question of whether it is exploitative? You: GP has equated gig work with indentured servitude, and they are in no way comparable, because gig workers can quit whenever they choose. Me: GP did not equate indentured servitude and gig work, they used indentured servitude as a tool to show the flawed reasoning of GGP. You: Gig work is nothing like indentured servitude, because gig workers can quit whenever they want, and indentured servants can’t. Do you see the problem here?
    - throwaway09223 4y ago
      I see that you're making the same error, equating all contracts in ways that aren't reasonable. When I buy a stick of gum I'm also entering into a contract (of sale). It would be disingenuous and dishonest of me to claim that the 7-11 clerk is exploiting me in ways similar to indentured servitude (or I, him) simply because both scenarios involve a contract. The relevant aspect is whether the contract binds someone such that they cannot escape. Uber does not do this, period. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
      - ckw 4y ago
        This is a really simple concept. There is a very small chance that the reason it’s difficult to understand is that you’re suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning, a stroke, or some other medical issue, so to the extent that you can easily eliminate those as possibilities, you should.
        throwaway09223 4y ago
        I accept your implicit concession, rude as it is.
      - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        What you're missing is that there's a limit to what contracts can legally do. I can certainly enter into a legal contract that requires someone to eat my feces for breakfast, but I bet you if I tried to enforce such a contract I'd be told the law won't do it. This here is why the idea of being able to walk away from a contract doesn't make the contract valid or legal, nor does it prevent the contract from being exploitative. Find another reason why it's not exploitative, because them being able to legally walk away from it isn't enough. Not even the LAW uses such a lax definition.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    > It's even less restrictive than a typical employer-employee relationship. Do you know why I still use taxi's over uber? Because when I hop in a taxi and tell the driver I'll be inside for a few minutes but I'd like a ride back and they can just keep the meter running, they give me a thumbs up and do exactly that. When I do this for an uber driver they tell me they're not _ALLOWED_ to do that and if I need a ride back I must call another uber and wait. And then I hear these companies talk about how these uber drivers really and truly have freedom to do what they want and they're totally not taking advantage of the tax code and pushing all the risk onto the uber driver (wear and tear on the vehicle, insurance, increased risk of car wrecks, etc)! Yeah, I call bullshit. They're starting to go after these companies because they take advantage of people who are taking long term risk for short term gain (money now vs repairs on the vehicle later). You know how Taxi companies do it? If you drive your own vehicle they get a small % of the fare for the dispatch service. If you don't want to drive your vehicle you can drive theirs and they take a larger % of the fare, but you aren't risking your own vehicle. Now tell me again how uber is somehow better for their workers? I refuse to use uber because Taxi drivers are human, uber drivers are an extension of ubers body.