15 ms·

Drivers are not getting cut off after one or two bad rides, they are cut off after consistently low ratings. With a rating threshold of 4.7 an Uber driver can h

Drivers are not getting cut off after one or two bad rides, they are cut off after consistently low ratings. With a rating threshold of 4.7 an Uber driver can have 7.5% of their rides be rated at 1 star (with the rest at 5) and still meet the minimum threshold. We're not talking about one bad day here. Not to mention that once they drop below the 4.7 threshold they still have 2 weeks to get back above it. There are plenty of Uber drivers who have no problem staying employed, we are just hearing from the vocal minority. You seem to be implying that by firing under-performers Uber is somehow mistreating its workers. I would argue that's simply false. In environments with literally hundreds of people waiting at the door to take your job the environment is going to be more competitive, and it should be. This is not a blue-collar only thing, sales works the same way in many organizations. It does not mean fired salespeople are being mistreated, its just the way business works. I really don't agree with your conception of a business as a entity that has social responsibility to its employees. Businesses exist to return value to shareholders, not to employees (although they may occasionally be shareholders also). If treating employees extremely well is good for business (e.g. Google) then businesses will do it. This usually exists in an environment where there is a surplus of demand for the employees you want. If there is a surplus of supply, employees don't tend to be treated like that (e.g. Cable Assembly Factory - a place I once worked for 2 years). Its unreasonable to expect a business to be generous to its employees at the expense of its shareholders, it just doesn't make for a very efficient business or a very efficient marketplace.

pron 14y ago
> In environments with literally hundreds of people waiting at the door to take your job the environment is going to be more competitive... True. > ... , and it should be. No. A current employee is not a replaceable part of machinery, and should not be treated the same as a prospective employee. The difference is that an employer has responsibilities to their current employees, and little responsibility to prospective employees. Now I'm starting to think that all my analogies to families were not so ill conceived. Hiring someone is not unlike marriage. The fact that there are plenty of fish in the sea, does not mean that your wife should live in a competitive environment. Once you marry her you take it upon yourself to forsake all others -- even if they are better -- unless you wish to divorce, which can be messy, as it should be. > Businesses exist to return value to shareholders, not to employees. I don't think so. I know this is how businesses are often described (especially in America), but this is not some universal truth. In Germany, so I've read, employees get up to half of the board seats, with shareholders having a one seat advantage ([1] and [2]). EDIT: [Here's a direct quote from [3]: "On the assumption that the primary goal of employers is to maximise profits in the interests of shareholders, codetermination can reorient the company's goals in the interests of workers. A better balance may be struck so that the company interests are not so one sided. For unions, codetermination is part of democratising the economy. It is also a way for workers to better the terms and conditions of their contracts in an orderly and regulated way." In short, "businesses exist to return value to shareholders, not to employees" is far from being an axiom of society. It is certainly not the necessary order of things or a divine decree.] > Its unreasonable to expect a business to be generous to its employees at the expense of its shareholders... I think it is not only most reasonable, but the right thing to do. In fact, shareholders should expect this as custodians of a very important social structure - the workplace. Going back to the family analogy (which seems more apt by the minute), while it is the parents who decide to start a family for their own selfish goals (maybe it's their biological calling, and maybe they think it will give them purpose in life), it is most reasonable, and even expected, that they should be generous to their children at their own expense. I think both parties, shareholders and employees, should get whatever is fair from their arrangement. What is considered fair should be decided by accepted values and by negotiations, where each party exerts whatever power it has to achieve a stronger position. It is true, however, that if you stop viewing the workplace as a social contract, it stops looking like a family, and people start looking like replaceable machine parts. > ... it just doesn't make for a very efficient business or a very efficient marketplace. I think Germany is doing fine. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination [2] http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relations/Across-Europe/Board-level-Representation2 http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relat... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
- drusenko 14y ago
  You're right, that's not the way a business' objectives are usually understood in the US, and it's a thought-provoking discussion. I think we could certainly go back to employers having a bit more responsibility towards their employees. That being said, we need to distinguish business from charity. While a business may have certain obligations to the productive members of its work-force, I don't see any obligations towards the unproductive ones, and that is where the argument crosses the line into charity. As an employer, I don't give you a paycheck because you're my family member and I want to support you. I do it because we are in a mutually-beneficial relationship. And it couldn't work any other way -- if you stopped firing the bad apples, your business would literally crumble.
  - pron 14y ago
    > I don't see any obligations towards the unproductive ones, and that is where the argument crosses the line into charity. No one is arguing that you do, but there's a long, long way from assuming responsibilities towards your employees to charity. It's not a line that's easily crossed. > I do it because we are in a mutually-beneficial relationship. Absolutely, but this argument is the one most abused by exploiters. The fact that the worker receives some benefit from the relationship does not mean that the arrangement is fair. Ironically, it is Americans (as well as people in other industrialized nations) who insist on a fair distribution in the ultimatum game[1], while many of them have very strong beliefs about how much exactly workers "deserve". [1] http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/ http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/...
- jamiequint 14y ago
  > "I think both parties, shareholders and employees, should get whatever is fair from their arrangement. What is considered fair should be decided by accepted values and by negotiations, where each party exerts whatever power it has to achieve a stronger position." I actually agree with this. In this case the drivers have no power since many other drivers are willing to step in to take their place. Uber has all the power, so they are going to do nothing about what this small group of driver's demands. Life goes on. > "No. A current employee is not a replaceable part of machinery, and should not be treated the same as a prospective employee." Unfortunately in this economy drivers are pretty close to commodity labor. If you don't want to be treated like commodity labor its best to not be commodity labor.

pron 14y ago

> In environments with literally hundreds of people waiting at the door to take your job the environment is going to be more competitive... True. > ... , and it should be. No. A current employee is not a replaceable part of machinery, and should not be treated the same as a prospective employee. The difference is that an employer has responsibilities to their current employees, and little responsibility to prospective employees. Now I'm starting to think that all my analogies to families were not so ill conceived. Hiring someone is not unlike marriage. The fact that there are plenty of fish in the sea, does not mean that your wife should live in a competitive environment. Once you marry her you take it upon yourself to forsake all others -- even if they are better -- unless you wish to divorce, which can be messy, as it should be. > Businesses exist to return value to shareholders, not to employees. I don't think so. I know this is how businesses are often described (especially in America), but this is not some universal truth. In Germany, so I've read, employees get up to half of the board seats, with shareholders having a one seat advantage ([1] and [2]). EDIT: [Here's a direct quote from [3]: "On the assumption that the primary goal of employers is to maximise profits in the interests of shareholders, codetermination can reorient the company's goals in the interests of workers. A better balance may be struck so that the company interests are not so one sided. For unions, codetermination is part of democratising the economy. It is also a way for workers to better the terms and conditions of their contracts in an orderly and regulated way." In short, "businesses exist to return value to shareholders, not to employees" is far from being an axiom of society. It is certainly not the necessary order of things or a divine decree.] > Its unreasonable to expect a business to be generous to its employees at the expense of its shareholders... I think it is not only most reasonable, but the right thing to do. In fact, shareholders should expect this as custodians of a very important social structure - the workplace. Going back to the family analogy (which seems more apt by the minute), while it is the parents who decide to start a family for their own selfish goals (maybe it's their biological calling, and maybe they think it will give them purpose in life), it is most reasonable, and even expected, that they should be generous to their children at their own expense. I think both parties, shareholders and employees, should get whatever is fair from their arrangement. What is considered fair should be decided by accepted values and by negotiations, where each party exerts whatever power it has to achieve a stronger position. It is true, however, that if you stop viewing the workplace as a social contract, it stops looking like a family, and people start looking like replaceable machine parts. > ... it just doesn't make for a very efficient business or a very efficient marketplace. I think Germany is doing fine. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination [2] http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relations/Across-Europe/Board-level-Representation2 http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relat... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany

drusenko 14y ago
You're right, that's not the way a business' objectives are usually understood in the US, and it's a thought-provoking discussion. I think we could certainly go back to employers having a bit more responsibility towards their employees. That being said, we need to distinguish business from charity. While a business may have certain obligations to the productive members of its work-force, I don't see any obligations towards the unproductive ones, and that is where the argument crosses the line into charity. As an employer, I don't give you a paycheck because you're my family member and I want to support you. I do it because we are in a mutually-beneficial relationship. And it couldn't work any other way -- if you stopped firing the bad apples, your business would literally crumble.
- pron 14y ago
  > I don't see any obligations towards the unproductive ones, and that is where the argument crosses the line into charity. No one is arguing that you do, but there's a long, long way from assuming responsibilities towards your employees to charity. It's not a line that's easily crossed. > I do it because we are in a mutually-beneficial relationship. Absolutely, but this argument is the one most abused by exploiters. The fact that the worker receives some benefit from the relationship does not mean that the arrangement is fair. Ironically, it is Americans (as well as people in other industrialized nations) who insist on a fair distribution in the ultimatum game[1], while many of them have very strong beliefs about how much exactly workers "deserve". [1] http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/ http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/...
jamiequint 14y ago
> "I think both parties, shareholders and employees, should get whatever is fair from their arrangement. What is considered fair should be decided by accepted values and by negotiations, where each party exerts whatever power it has to achieve a stronger position." I actually agree with this. In this case the drivers have no power since many other drivers are willing to step in to take their place. Uber has all the power, so they are going to do nothing about what this small group of driver's demands. Life goes on. > "No. A current employee is not a replaceable part of machinery, and should not be treated the same as a prospective employee." Unfortunately in this economy drivers are pretty close to commodity labor. If you don't want to be treated like commodity labor its best to not be commodity labor.