8 ms·

Terrible idea. My brother in law makes a living driving for Uber, it's how he supports his family.

eru 3y ago
The common fallacy is that if we ban anything that any employment that's not utopia, only utopian jobs will be left. Alas, that doesn't mean that everyone will have a utopian job.
underwater 3y ago
Am I missing the sarcasm? If your brother in law is relying on Uber, then employment protections would mean he doesn't lose his sole income unfairly and without notice. Uber argue that most gig workers are just doing it as a spur of the moment side hustle, and therefore the flexibility is necessary. But your anecdote is the opposite.
- jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
  That isn't how labor law works. Employees in his state are most likely at-will and can be fired without notice.
  - matsemann 3y ago
    Damn your labor laws over there are wild. And you just accept that? To me it sounds like drivers support Uber because of some dystopian Stockholm syndrome where it's their only hope in a failed system.
    - ffhhttt 3y ago
      Why so you think working for uber is fundamentally worse than being a part time low wage worker with almost no flexibility anywhere else?
      - matsemann 3y ago
        That's my point. You accept one bad thing because other things are also bad. Should instead solve both.
        ffhhttt 3y ago
        Right. But turning two things which are bad in different ways into one doesn’t seem to accomplish much besides limit whatever choice is left.
    - sneak 3y ago
      We accept it because philosophically and logically it makes perfect sense that either party to a transaction should be able to revoke consent at any time for any (or no) reason, absent an explicit contract to the contrary. Showing up for work on Monday is no guarantee you will show up on Tuesday. Correspondingly employing you on Monday is no guarantee you will be employed on Tuesday. I think it's a bit silly to expect any other state of affairs.
      - matsemann 3y ago
        Why is it silly? To me it sounds silly never really knowing if you have a job the next day, if you can pay your bills, your mortgage, buy food. That amount of insecurity is to me just insane. I can't fathom living like that.
        sneak 3y ago
        The scenario you describe is only possible if there is only one employer. The moment you have multiple employers to choose from (ie an actual market for labor) then the insecurity is removed. Indeed, for the most part, if you can deliver value, you can find someone to pay you for it and your bills will get paid.
        matsemann 3y ago
        Can you find a new job the very next day? Can everyone? Why not at least have a few weeks, what's the harm in that?
        sneak 3y ago
        "the very next day" is arbitrary - you were talking about bills, those are usually due monthly. It's not your employer's job to mitigate the risks an employee took on by not saving money. Everyone should have 90 days of expenses saved up.
        matsemann 3y ago

eru 3y ago

The common fallacy is that if we ban anything that any employment that's not utopia, only utopian jobs will be left. Alas, that doesn't mean that everyone will have a utopian job.

underwater 3y ago

Am I missing the sarcasm? If your brother in law is relying on Uber, then employment protections would mean he doesn't lose his sole income unfairly and without notice. Uber argue that most gig workers are just doing it as a spur of the moment side hustle, and therefore the flexibility is necessary. But your anecdote is the opposite.

jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
That isn't how labor law works. Employees in his state are most likely at-will and can be fired without notice.
- matsemann 3y ago
  Damn your labor laws over there are wild. And you just accept that? To me it sounds like drivers support Uber because of some dystopian Stockholm syndrome where it's their only hope in a failed system.
  - ffhhttt 3y ago
    Why so you think working for uber is fundamentally worse than being a part time low wage worker with almost no flexibility anywhere else?
    - matsemann 3y ago
      That's my point. You accept one bad thing because other things are also bad. Should instead solve both.
      - ffhhttt 3y ago
        Right. But turning two things which are bad in different ways into one doesn’t seem to accomplish much besides limit whatever choice is left.
  - sneak 3y ago
    We accept it because philosophically and logically it makes perfect sense that either party to a transaction should be able to revoke consent at any time for any (or no) reason, absent an explicit contract to the contrary. Showing up for work on Monday is no guarantee you will show up on Tuesday. Correspondingly employing you on Monday is no guarantee you will be employed on Tuesday. I think it's a bit silly to expect any other state of affairs.
    - matsemann 3y ago
      Why is it silly? To me it sounds silly never really knowing if you have a job the next day, if you can pay your bills, your mortgage, buy food. That amount of insecurity is to me just insane. I can't fathom living like that.
      - sneak 3y ago
        The scenario you describe is only possible if there is only one employer. The moment you have multiple employers to choose from (ie an actual market for labor) then the insecurity is removed. Indeed, for the most part, if you can deliver value, you can find someone to pay you for it and your bills will get paid.
        matsemann 3y ago
        Can you find a new job the very next day? Can everyone? Why not at least have a few weeks, what's the harm in that?
        sneak 3y ago
        "the very next day" is arbitrary - you were talking about bills, those are usually due monthly. It's not your employer's job to mitigate the risks an employee took on by not saving money. Everyone should have 90 days of expenses saved up.
        matsemann 3y ago