5 ms·

The heavy spin is necessary to preserve the image that Uber represents the drivers. Uber really just provides technical infrastructure and marketing, and rakes

by gnu8 12y ago

The heavy spin is necessary to preserve the image that Uber represents the drivers. Uber really just provides technical infrastructure and marketing, and rakes off most of the profit. Almost all of that wealth should be flowing back to the drivers who provide Uber's actual service. The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates.

wozniacki 12y ago
I am perfectly aware that we live in deeply partisan times. Partisan in not just political ideologies but also in ways we see the world and our place in it. At times, it seems all middle ground has vanished. But that discussion is for another time. Unionizing is a contentious issue not just for the employers but also for the consumers, especially when you look at how unions - in the industries and sectors where they have a stranglehold on affairs - seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers. As a disinterested observer, I ask this in good faith : Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons? Are they not just self-serving instruments and political vote banks? I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my experience as a consumer.
- freehunter 12y ago
  Unionizing wasn't such a contentious issue when employers were working their employees to death and paying them in credit to be used at the company store.
  - pc86 12y ago
    Which they're obviously not now, so I'm not sure what your point is.
    - cmc31 12y ago
      Isn't this essentially how Wal Mart operates in the US today?
      - freehunter 12y ago
        When I was in college I worked at a regional Wal Mart competitor where I made minimum wage (not enough to live on) but got a nice discount if I bought from the store itself (which made my wages about enough to live on). It's as close to the old "company store" as they can legally get away with these days.
  - ihnorton 12y ago
    That is incorrect. Unionizing was strongly opposed throughout the industrial revolution. Look up Pinkerton's efforts, the Haymarket incident, many others.
    - freehunter 12y ago
      Yeah, of course the bosses didn't want it. It hurt them and their profits. But back then, the people wanted it. The difference between then and now is, now when the bosses say "you don't want a union", the workers actually believe them.
- debacle 12y ago
  > I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my experience as a consumer. Unionization has nothing to do with your experience as a consumer. > seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers. That's entirely the fucking point of unions - to serve the members.
- rtpg 12y ago
  There's been enough studies showing that people having more than 0 weeks of vacation is beneficial, good for productivity, etc. Unions have secured that for people in the US who would otherwise not have access to this. A lot of social movements granting more vacation time to people in France happened through generalised strikes caused by unions. The argument goes that since people can be more productive when well rested and not sick, then companies can in theory pass the savings onto customers. Whether this happens in practice is slightly independent of unions getting health care and vacation for the workers.
- justin66 12y ago
  > seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers. Serving the interests of the union members - representing them in their negotiations with management, to be precise - is a union's reason for being. They might also hold their members to a standard of professional ethics, depending on the union, and that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but that's not the immediate goal. > Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons? The example that leaps to mind, in part because the comparison is so easy, is the press. In my town the difference in quality of output between journalists who are members of the guild and those who are not is quite noticeable. Whether you want to credit that to the union, or the fact that better journalists are also better career strategists or something, is up to you. You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions. They are there for the workers, that might or might not play out well for the consumer.
  - wozniacki 12y ago
    "...that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but that's not the immediate goal." "You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions. They are there for the workers, that might or might not play out well for the consumer." Bah Humbug! Then why am I - as the consumer - should want to foster the growth and strengthening of unions? To create another entrenched interest group whose influence I cannot hope to counter, using my already significance-dwindled vote, in a state that is already rife with the influence of such powerful unions? In California, the biggest special interest donor, the California Teachers Association, spent more than $118 million on campaigns in the state during the past five election cycles.[1] And what do the "consumers" get for that? The Golden State's fourth-graders ranked 47th in the nation in both math and reading. Eighth-graders ranked 45th in math and 42nd in reading.[2] Looking at states like California, it is not a stretch to extrapolate that unions - once they reach a critical mass - tend to indulge in a cycle of voracious self-fattening with their growing influence, election cycle after election cycle. As a consumer, I am supposed to help create more unions and enable this kind of behavior? [1] http://californiawatch.org/money-and-politics/states-top-100-political-donors-contribute-125-billion-16436 http://californiawatch.org/money-and-politics/states-top-100... [2] http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_24475260/california-students-score-at-bottom-nation-reading-math http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_24475260/california-students-s... edit: typo
Hytosys 12y ago
>The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates. As a consumer who would much rather ride in a self-driving car than with a human driver, this notion pains my heart. Using unions to halt the progress of technology hurts us all. I'm crossing my fingers you were being sarcastic. This is a tech community, after all.
- rtpg 12y ago
  your "progress of technology" is based off of the exploitation of the lower class. I'd much rather our resources be allocated in a way that doesn't force people to work 3 jobs.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    If this was a different company in HN people would be clamoring that everyone else needs to get with the times and that this is just our favorite buzzword "disruption" at work. It doesn't apply to uber now, I guess just since they've crossed the invisible HN "us vs. them" threshold now that they have a lot of money.
  - Hytosys 12y ago
    I understand your point but there's a much less stifling middle ground. Unions can be grand things until a line is crossed. Higher wages for drivers? Sure. Safety and insurance? Absolutely. Prolonging the adaptation of a technology that will replace the dangerous alternative (humans operating cars)? Please, no: this job market is now dead for drivers. It's time to move on. Or should we go back to horse-drawn carriages in consideration of the unemployed buggy drivers?
    - rtpg 12y ago
      I'm sorry, but are we talking about the same company? Uber is not replacing taxi drivers with robots, it's replacing taxi drivers with taxi drivers. It's a dispatch service with a nice payment integration system. No matter how well it is done, there is no quantum leap to it.
Shivetya 12y ago
Unionize? What for? They aren't forced to work for Uber. Organize? The very same people, many of whom never did this type of work before, let alone organize, you expect them to step up and try to? As in, before Uber what were they doing, when Uber leaves what do you think they will be doing. Pretty much what they did before Uber, not be a taxi. Unions were a necessary part of life when industrialization first took off, now they are not. In heavily regulated countries they are abusive of both the public and private entities they have workers within.
- tim333 12y ago
  There's already been one organised protest when Uber tried to screw the drivers. Uber backed down. Seemed quite effective really. http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-new-york-city-office-protests-2014-9?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-new-york-city-office-pro...
- forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
  > Unions were a necessary part of life when industrialization first took off, now they are not. In heavily regulated countries they are abusive of both the public and private entities they have workers within. All you anti-union people make them out to be the devil. It's ridiculous.
rasz_pl 12y ago
>they all have smartphones and they all have UBER app installed, same app that spies on everything that happens on the phone, fancy that :)
PakG1 12y ago
before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars If Uber (or any other company) wants to replace them with self-driving cars, what stops them? My point here is that if self-driving cars have value in the future, they will be a secular trend that will come to pass whether or not a group of drivers are unionized. The only option a union might have to prevent this is get political power/influence to get lawmakers to prevent new self-driving services from cropping up. But if we go in that direction, you can see what that situation looks like when you see car dealerships and their battles with Tesla. If self-driving cars become a big reality, no union will save drivers. I sympathize with people losing income opportunities and jobs, but unions do not seem to be a feasible long-term answer here. They might prevent their specific employer from laying them off to replace them with self-driving cars. But they would not be able to stop the overall technological trend.
applecore 12y ago
Drivers already keep 80% of their fares through Uber.
- mylons 12y ago
  If you were playing poker at a casino, would you be content if the dealer took 20% of every pot?
  - notjackma 12y ago
    Many mobile developers defend Apple taking their 30% cut. Crazy, but true.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    If I only lost while gambling 20% of the time, I would be ecstatic. Meanwhile in my job as a consultant, I get paid 30% of what my clients are actually billed. Uber takes 20%. My employer takes 70%. I fail to see the outrage. What percentage do the cab companies take from their drivers?
    - readcloserq 12y ago
      You misinterpreted the poker analogy. When 20% is taken out of every pot, that includes the ones you lose. It doesn't mean you win with an 80% rate. When the rake is 20%, basically half the entire table's money is gone after 3-4 hours. (If you're going to criticize an analogy, you better understand the analogy.)
notjackma 12y ago
> Uber really just provides technical infrastructure Would it be accurate to say centralised technical infrastructure? Simply transferring the data to the US is already probably breaking local data protection laws. I don't think Uber operates a franchise model with local infrastructure so countries are right to be concerned that names, addresses, credit cards and movement of individuals is being stored in a foreign country and open to data-mining and other abuse.

by gnu8 12y ago

wozniacki 12y ago

I am perfectly aware that we live in deeply partisan times. Partisan in not just political ideologies but also in ways we see the world and our place in it. At times, it seems all middle ground has vanished. But that discussion is for another time. Unionizing is a contentious issue not just for the employers but also for the consumers, especially when you look at how unions - in the industries and sectors where they have a stranglehold on affairs - seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers. As a disinterested observer, I ask this in good faith : Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons? Are they not just self-serving instruments and political vote banks? I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my experience as a consumer.

freehunter 12y ago
Unionizing wasn't such a contentious issue when employers were working their employees to death and paying them in credit to be used at the company store.
- pc86 12y ago
  Which they're obviously not now, so I'm not sure what your point is.
  - cmc31 12y ago
    Isn't this essentially how Wal Mart operates in the US today?
    - freehunter 12y ago
      When I was in college I worked at a regional Wal Mart competitor where I made minimum wage (not enough to live on) but got a nice discount if I bought from the store itself (which made my wages about enough to live on). It's as close to the old "company store" as they can legally get away with these days.
- ihnorton 12y ago
  That is incorrect. Unionizing was strongly opposed throughout the industrial revolution. Look up Pinkerton's efforts, the Haymarket incident, many others.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    Yeah, of course the bosses didn't want it. It hurt them and their profits. But back then, the people wanted it. The difference between then and now is, now when the bosses say "you don't want a union", the workers actually believe them.
debacle 12y ago
> I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my experience as a consumer. Unionization has nothing to do with your experience as a consumer. > seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers. That's entirely the fucking point of unions - to serve the members.
rtpg 12y ago
There's been enough studies showing that people having more than 0 weeks of vacation is beneficial, good for productivity, etc. Unions have secured that for people in the US who would otherwise not have access to this. A lot of social movements granting more vacation time to people in France happened through generalised strikes caused by unions. The argument goes that since people can be more productive when well rested and not sick, then companies can in theory pass the savings onto customers. Whether this happens in practice is slightly independent of unions getting health care and vacation for the workers.
justin66 12y ago
> seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers. Serving the interests of the union members - representing them in their negotiations with management, to be precise - is a union's reason for being. They might also hold their members to a standard of professional ethics, depending on the union, and that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but that's not the immediate goal. > Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons? The example that leaps to mind, in part because the comparison is so easy, is the press. In my town the difference in quality of output between journalists who are members of the guild and those who are not is quite noticeable. Whether you want to credit that to the union, or the fact that better journalists are also better career strategists or something, is up to you. You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions. They are there for the workers, that might or might not play out well for the consumer.
- wozniacki 12y ago
  "...that might or might not benefit you as a consumer, but that's not the immediate goal." "You're focused on the wrong thing vis a vis unions. They are there for the workers, that might or might not play out well for the consumer." Bah Humbug! Then why am I - as the consumer - should want to foster the growth and strengthening of unions? To create another entrenched interest group whose influence I cannot hope to counter, using my already significance-dwindled vote, in a state that is already rife with the influence of such powerful unions? In California, the biggest special interest donor, the California Teachers Association, spent more than $118 million on campaigns in the state during the past five election cycles.[1] And what do the "consumers" get for that? The Golden State's fourth-graders ranked 47th in the nation in both math and reading. Eighth-graders ranked 45th in math and 42nd in reading.[2] Looking at states like California, it is not a stretch to extrapolate that unions - once they reach a critical mass - tend to indulge in a cycle of voracious self-fattening with their growing influence, election cycle after election cycle. As a consumer, I am supposed to help create more unions and enable this kind of behavior? [1] http://californiawatch.org/money-and-politics/states-top-100-political-donors-contribute-125-billion-16436 http://californiawatch.org/money-and-politics/states-top-100... [2] http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_24475260/california-students-score-at-bottom-nation-reading-math http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_24475260/california-students-s... edit: typo

Hytosys 12y ago

>The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates. As a consumer who would much rather ride in a self-driving car than with a human driver, this notion pains my heart. Using unions to halt the progress of technology hurts us all. I'm crossing my fingers you were being sarcastic. This is a tech community, after all.

rtpg 12y ago
your "progress of technology" is based off of the exploitation of the lower class. I'd much rather our resources be allocated in a way that doesn't force people to work 3 jobs.
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  If this was a different company in HN people would be clamoring that everyone else needs to get with the times and that this is just our favorite buzzword "disruption" at work. It doesn't apply to uber now, I guess just since they've crossed the invisible HN "us vs. them" threshold now that they have a lot of money.
- Hytosys 12y ago
  I understand your point but there's a much less stifling middle ground. Unions can be grand things until a line is crossed. Higher wages for drivers? Sure. Safety and insurance? Absolutely. Prolonging the adaptation of a technology that will replace the dangerous alternative (humans operating cars)? Please, no: this job market is now dead for drivers. It's time to move on. Or should we go back to horse-drawn carriages in consideration of the unemployed buggy drivers?
  - rtpg 12y ago
    I'm sorry, but are we talking about the same company? Uber is not replacing taxi drivers with robots, it's replacing taxi drivers with taxi drivers. It's a dispatch service with a nice payment integration system. No matter how well it is done, there is no quantum leap to it.

Shivetya 12y ago

Unionize? What for? They aren't forced to work for Uber. Organize? The very same people, many of whom never did this type of work before, let alone organize, you expect them to step up and try to? As in, before Uber what were they doing, when Uber leaves what do you think they will be doing. Pretty much what they did before Uber, not be a taxi. Unions were a necessary part of life when industrialization first took off, now they are not. In heavily regulated countries they are abusive of both the public and private entities they have workers within.

tim333 12y ago
There's already been one organised protest when Uber tried to screw the drivers. Uber backed down. Seemed quite effective really. http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-new-york-city-office-protests-2014-9?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-new-york-city-office-pro...
forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
> Unions were a necessary part of life when industrialization first took off, now they are not. In heavily regulated countries they are abusive of both the public and private entities they have workers within. All you anti-union people make them out to be the devil. It's ridiculous.

rasz_pl 12y ago

>they all have smartphones and they all have UBER app installed, same app that spies on everything that happens on the phone, fancy that :)

PakG1 12y ago

before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars If Uber (or any other company) wants to replace them with self-driving cars, what stops them? My point here is that if self-driving cars have value in the future, they will be a secular trend that will come to pass whether or not a group of drivers are unionized. The only option a union might have to prevent this is get political power/influence to get lawmakers to prevent new self-driving services from cropping up. But if we go in that direction, you can see what that situation looks like when you see car dealerships and their battles with Tesla. If self-driving cars become a big reality, no union will save drivers. I sympathize with people losing income opportunities and jobs, but unions do not seem to be a feasible long-term answer here. They might prevent their specific employer from laying them off to replace them with self-driving cars. But they would not be able to stop the overall technological trend.

applecore 12y ago

Drivers already keep 80% of their fares through Uber.

mylons 12y ago
If you were playing poker at a casino, would you be content if the dealer took 20% of every pot?
- notjackma 12y ago
  Many mobile developers defend Apple taking their 30% cut. Crazy, but true.
- freehunter 12y ago
  If I only lost while gambling 20% of the time, I would be ecstatic. Meanwhile in my job as a consultant, I get paid 30% of what my clients are actually billed. Uber takes 20%. My employer takes 70%. I fail to see the outrage. What percentage do the cab companies take from their drivers?
  - readcloserq 12y ago
    You misinterpreted the poker analogy. When 20% is taken out of every pot, that includes the ones you lose. It doesn't mean you win with an 80% rate. When the rake is 20%, basically half the entire table's money is gone after 3-4 hours. (If you're going to criticize an analogy, you better understand the analogy.)

notjackma 12y ago

> Uber really just provides technical infrastructure Would it be accurate to say centralised technical infrastructure? Simply transferring the data to the US is already probably breaking local data protection laws. I don't think Uber operates a franchise model with local infrastructure so countries are right to be concerned that names, addresses, credit cards and movement of individuals is being stored in a foreign country and open to data-mining and other abuse.