6 ms·

I don't see that at all. It's not that humans are replaceable as much as the fact that each driver's performance (and corresponding rating) is crucial to their

I don't see that at all. It's not that humans are replaceable as much as the fact that each driver's performance (and corresponding rating) is crucial to their continued employment. I have no problem with that at all given the fact that Uber's image and product both rely on having good customer experiences. If Uber were more concerned with providing a living to its employees, then they likely wouldn't last very long as a profitable business. $21/hour is a fair wage (a living wage in most locations, in fact), and that's all they really need to provide to be good corporate citizens. Not to mention the "people are interchangeable" concept actually dates back to at least the Industrial Revolution, and is not only not limited to startups, but is probably less prevalent in startups than in manufacturing or corporate jobs in general. So I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

alphaoverlord 13y ago
Contrast this with stack ranking and other metrics for developers and PMs. Can you now see the OPs reservations about such a system? Particularly as the article critiques the system as flawed.
marvin 13y ago
What's even more unsettling than the fact that many companies have this attitude towards their employees, is the degree to which members of HN unquestioningly defend this practice whenever the subject comes up. As long as only Uber does this, there really isn't a problem. But it will be a problem if it happens everywhere. I am not saying that this is a black-and-white thing. There are certainly nuances here, and in a purely economic sense, humans are often interchangable. The problem starts when this attitude uncompromisingly becomes part of how companies (read: people) do business. A purely utilitarian, "amoral", selfish attitude to the world has bad ramifications if widely adopted. Keep in mind that giving the boot to everyone below a 4.3 average rating means that if only one out of three customers conclude that your service was perfect, you will have your contract cancelled with no warning. It's easy enough to say "just have perfect performance, or otherwise just get another job" when you have a 5-year STEM education, grew up in a happy family and don't suffer from any serious condition or illness. But not everyone has it this easy. If this is the future of employment, there need to be simpler options for people who can't perform significantly better than "average" most of the time. You might be safe in your software development job since you can't easily be replaced, so you boss won't fire you if, say, you go through a really messy breakup and perform at 50% capacity for six months. Everyone in an uncompromising performance-measured job will be canned under such circumstances. And having a tough time is something that all people experience once in a while. As long as everyone could have their basic needs met when unemployed: Sure, make whatever labor structure is the most efficient. Otherwise, there needs to be a certain degree of compromise.
- goodcanadian 13y ago
  You raise some interesting points. As an employer, do I have a moral obligation to help an under performing employee through a bad period? Many, though not all, would say, "yes." Let me rephrase the question. Do I have a moral obligation to pay said employee more than the current value he is providing to me? Now, most economists would say, "No," though there may be an argument about the present value of what the employee can provide me with in the future, perhaps in terms of special skills or increased loyalty. Now, let me rephrase one last time. What if the cost of supporting this employee is make or break for my business? What if it is not just the under performing employee, but several others who would lose their jobs? What then is my moral obligation?
  - SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
    That was really my point, though you said it more eloquently: If Uber does less well (because of image problems), then it will provide a living for fewer people in the end. It's great to be loyal to employees, if you can. If you put your loyalty to your employees above the quality of the product you're providing, you may find you have no ability to pay any of your employees. Or in the case of Uber, that people stop hiring drivers.
  - taejo 13y ago
    > Do I have a moral obligation to pay said employee more than the current value he is providing to me? Now, most economists would say, "No," The problem here is that you're asking economists moral questions.
  - nhaehnle 13y ago
    Do I have a moral obligation to pay said employee more than the current value he is providing to me? Now, most economists would say, "No," I seriously doubt that. After having gotten to know some actual economists (you know, academics; not the ones who pretend to know about economics on TV) I have learned that most of them are actually quite different from the "hooray free markets all the way" stereotype. In fact, I would bet that most of them will say that you do have a moral obligation, and many (perhaps most) will say that it also makes economic sense to help an under-performing employee through a bad period. Real economists don't emphasize the short term.
wwweston 13y ago
> If Uber were more concerned with providing a living to its employees, then they likely wouldn't last very long as a profitable business. Well, in a competitive market, something has to fall to the cost of the inputs required to produce it. Whether it should be Uber's profit margins or driver's wages is probably a value judgment.
- SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
  Profit wasn't really my point. I said a lot more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200553

alphaoverlord 13y ago

Contrast this with stack ranking and other metrics for developers and PMs. Can you now see the OPs reservations about such a system? Particularly as the article critiques the system as flawed.

marvin 13y ago

What's even more unsettling than the fact that many companies have this attitude towards their employees, is the degree to which members of HN unquestioningly defend this practice whenever the subject comes up. As long as only Uber does this, there really isn't a problem. But it will be a problem if it happens everywhere. I am not saying that this is a black-and-white thing. There are certainly nuances here, and in a purely economic sense, humans are often interchangable. The problem starts when this attitude uncompromisingly becomes part of how companies (read: people) do business. A purely utilitarian, "amoral", selfish attitude to the world has bad ramifications if widely adopted. Keep in mind that giving the boot to everyone below a 4.3 average rating means that if only one out of three customers conclude that your service was perfect, you will have your contract cancelled with no warning. It's easy enough to say "just have perfect performance, or otherwise just get another job" when you have a 5-year STEM education, grew up in a happy family and don't suffer from any serious condition or illness. But not everyone has it this easy. If this is the future of employment, there need to be simpler options for people who can't perform significantly better than "average" most of the time. You might be safe in your software development job since you can't easily be replaced, so you boss won't fire you if, say, you go through a really messy breakup and perform at 50% capacity for six months. Everyone in an uncompromising performance-measured job will be canned under such circumstances. And having a tough time is something that all people experience once in a while. As long as everyone could have their basic needs met when unemployed: Sure, make whatever labor structure is the most efficient. Otherwise, there needs to be a certain degree of compromise.

goodcanadian 13y ago
You raise some interesting points. As an employer, do I have a moral obligation to help an under performing employee through a bad period? Many, though not all, would say, "yes." Let me rephrase the question. Do I have a moral obligation to pay said employee more than the current value he is providing to me? Now, most economists would say, "No," though there may be an argument about the present value of what the employee can provide me with in the future, perhaps in terms of special skills or increased loyalty. Now, let me rephrase one last time. What if the cost of supporting this employee is make or break for my business? What if it is not just the under performing employee, but several others who would lose their jobs? What then is my moral obligation?
- SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
  That was really my point, though you said it more eloquently: If Uber does less well (because of image problems), then it will provide a living for fewer people in the end. It's great to be loyal to employees, if you can. If you put your loyalty to your employees above the quality of the product you're providing, you may find you have no ability to pay any of your employees. Or in the case of Uber, that people stop hiring drivers.
- taejo 13y ago
  > Do I have a moral obligation to pay said employee more than the current value he is providing to me? Now, most economists would say, "No," The problem here is that you're asking economists moral questions.
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  Do I have a moral obligation to pay said employee more than the current value he is providing to me? Now, most economists would say, "No," I seriously doubt that. After having gotten to know some actual economists (you know, academics; not the ones who pretend to know about economics on TV) I have learned that most of them are actually quite different from the "hooray free markets all the way" stereotype. In fact, I would bet that most of them will say that you do have a moral obligation, and many (perhaps most) will say that it also makes economic sense to help an under-performing employee through a bad period. Real economists don't emphasize the short term.

wwweston 13y ago

> If Uber were more concerned with providing a living to its employees, then they likely wouldn't last very long as a profitable business. Well, in a competitive market, something has to fall to the cost of the inputs required to produce it. Whether it should be Uber's profit margins or driver's wages is probably a value judgment.

SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
Profit wasn't really my point. I said a lot more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200553