5 ms·

GGP: How is it exploitative if the worker willfully enters into the contract? GP: But indentured servants enter willfully into their contracts, and indentured

by 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.

by ckw 4y ago

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.