Uber drivers striking for benefits? Isn't the whole point of Uber that it is a casual, part time thing?

I do think this speaks to the growing trend of providing "living wages" for jobs that were never intended to be a main source of income. We see adults working in jobs that were meant as part time unskilled work. They want compensated as a skilled laborer and feel they have the right.

Actually, courts and state governments have several times said that this contractor idea is nonsense.

You work on their terms alone. They are just trying to get out of providing decent benefits. Many do this full-time and make very little. The companies want to avoid collective bargaining, so that you have some poor or middle class individual "negotiating" with a corporation worth $90 billion. Absurd. The whole point of Uber is to dominate an industry, which is why their IPO is worth that much for a company that is hemorrhaging money. Lyft just lost $1.18 B the quarter of its $24B IPO.

http://fortune.com/2018/07/21/uber-drivers-employees-new-york-unemployment/

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/uber-and-lyft-drivers-are-employees-not-contractors-new-california-bill-says/

zxcvzcvx wrote:

Actually, courts and state governments have several times said that this contractor idea is nonsense.

You work on their terms alone. They are just trying to get out of providing decent benefits. Many do this full-time and make very little. The companies want to avoid collective bargaining, so that you have some poor or middle class individual "negotiating" with a corporation worth $90 billion. Absurd. The whole point of Uber is to dominate an industry, which is why their IPO is worth that much for a company that is hemorrhaging money. Lyft just lost $1.18 B the quarter of its $24B IPO.

Using my own tools to perform a job when and if I want to in the manner that I choose (I don't have to follow Uber's route if I don't want to) is exactly what it means to be a contractor. The fact that some courts are influenced by politics doesn't change this.

What employee/employer relationship solely involves the employer saying "here's a job you can have if you want it and you will be paid $X," and the employee then getting to take or leave the offer?

And you all keep ignoring the fact that the pay is empirically good enough, given that people are willing to do it. If the pay was too low, people wouldn't drive for Uber, and Uber would have to raise the pay to get people interested. That isn't happening.

Step 1 - eliminate existing taxi driving firms by undercutting them and not paying your own drivers properly; made possible through aggressive, loss-making investments (uber has never made a profit, it’s all about disruption)

Step 2 - push for self-driving cars enabling you to all but eliminate your own workforce

Step 3 - profit

If Uber's goal was to eliminate taxis then good for them. Taxi service was horrible and every one of them drives like a maniac, and that wasn't going to change.

Luber Yft wrote:

I disagree, how do lower wages for the same amount of work lead to poor quality product? Uber/Lyft's transportation service is a far superior product to a traditional taxi. I would call those efficiency gains that provide a better product for the consumer. There used to be high wages for a lot of ditch diggers, until a bull dozer was invented that could 10x the work at 1/10 the price (and labor).

Uber and Lyft offer a product that in some ways is superior: it is quicker, easier to hail a ride.

But it is also inferior in other ways:

- insufficient background checks has proven out with high rates of assault by the drivers of Lyft and Uber compared to Taxis

- Uber and Lyft drivers have an accident rate far higher than taxis

From a societal standpoint, they are also skirting regulation that was intended to prevent taxis from making traffic crazy with a horde of circling drivers. This means traffic is worse, accident rates are higher, and pollution is higher.

Some taxi companies tried to make their own ride hailing app, but they were too late. I'd like to see more regions ban services like Lyft and Uber unless the driver has a medallion, but I would also like to see them hand out a few more medallions. Require medallion holders to use them personally a certain number of hours per month or lose them. One of the problems is that medallions have become valuable because people can rent them out, so people keep a medallion for 30 or 40 years and dont need to drive most of the time themselves.

We can have the best of both worlds: somewhere between the number of taxis we used to have and the number of ubers we have now on the road, robust safety systems, and the convenience of an app.

Corporate bootlickers are hilarious.

They'll say to strikers, "If you don't like the pay...QUIT!" and then also call them whiners for going on strike and not working at that job for a few days or weeks rather than just up and quitting permanently.

They'll also say, "You should have negotiated for better pay!" or something like that. Well, newsflash, the threat of strike, and then the act of carrying one out, is essentially a negotiating tactic.

Commenters won't shut up with all the "the world is a cold place, toughen up!" talk, and then when a worker decides to play tough themselves and not rollover in a fight against a giant company, suddenly the WORKER is the whiny snowflake? Give me a break.

I think it was aiming for irony. 20x is just as moronic as saying each position has to generate x value.

They can strike all they want but that doesn't mean that other drivers won't keep working to advantage of being able to charge more due to less drivers. This is how a free economy works, don't like your job then find a new one and if your employer can't find anyone to do the job for a certain price then they will be forced to raise their employees wages. But until that happens no one is forcing these people to have a job as an Uber driver.

the droning wrote:

Corporate bootlickers are hilarious.

They'll say to strikers, "If you don't like the pay...QUIT!" and then also call them whiners for going on strike and not working at that job for a few days or weeks rather than just up and quitting permanently.

They'll also say, "You should have negotiated for better pay!" or something like that. Well, newsflash, the threat of strike, and then the act of carrying one out, is essentially a negotiating tactic.

Commenters won't shut up with all the "the world is a cold place, toughen up!" talk, and then when a worker decides to play tough themselves and not rollover in a fight against a giant company, suddenly the WORKER is the whiny snowflake? Give me a break.

I think something about American capitalist culture breeds a lot of these individual, people that only see through the eyes of a corporation, and not a lowly worker. I would bet more than any other society in history.

the droning wrote:

Corporate bootlickers are hilarious.

They'll say to strikers, "If you don't like the pay...QUIT!" and then also call them whiners for going on strike and not working at that job for a few days or weeks rather than just up and quitting permanently.

They'll also say, "You should have negotiated for better pay!" or something like that. Well, newsflash, the threat of strike, and then the act of carrying one out, is essentially a negotiating tactic.

Commenters won't shut up with all the "the world is a cold place, toughen up!" talk, and then when a worker decides to play tough themselves and not rollover in a fight against a giant company, suddenly the WORKER is the whiny snowflake? Give me a break.

You're confusing business with charity. The job of any business is to make money. Employees are only as valuable as their skill set. If you don't have a valuable skill set to offer then you will not make money because you are easily replaced. If you don't like working as an employee then come up with your own idea and start your own business. If you want to work as an employee and make money then figure out how to be valuable.

Gig schmig wrote:

The gig economy sucks and just takes advantage of people at their most vulnerable points. Why can't we all just agree as a society that if someone is willing to work, they should be paid a living wage? Why do we find this so hard to accept?

As someone who is generally liberal leaning seeing this put in these "why can't we all agree" terms actually made me question my beliefs.

Some jobs don't deserve a living wage...and I think uber driving is one of them. Maybe implement UBI or something to make up the difference.

I do think that these Gig economy or "ibusiness" are in for their day of reckoning. You shouldn't be allowed to shirk all responsibilites of a normal business simply by calling it "i" something or "air" something.

If someone wants to turn their home into a hotel they sould have to follow all zoning and business practices just like Holiday Inn.

Could I just start "Air Rock Quarry" and allow big trucks and heavy machinery to come into my neighborhood and excavate my half acre plot of land? No business license, no concern to the zoning, no worry about fees or anything.. they just pay me on the app so it's OK.

In theory this is true but in practice the power scales tip in favor of the companies offering these jobs, and the end result is what we saw when the industrial revolution reached its peak: barely livable wages with long working hours. I can't fully explain the dynamics that lead to is but ultimately, societies have shown themselves to be better off when the lowest jobs are forced to be a somewhat livable wage. The gig economy has grown in part because it can circumvent these minimum wage laws by paying on a per-gig basis.

zohan wrote:

I do think that these Gig economy or "ibusiness" are in for their day of reckoning. You shouldn't be allowed to shirk all responsibilites of a normal business simply by calling it "i" something or "air" something.

If someone wants to turn their home into a hotel they sould have to follow all zoning and business practices just like Holiday Inn.

Could I just start "Air Rock Quarry" and allow big trucks and heavy machinery to come into my neighborhood and excavate my half acre plot of land? No business license, no concern to the zoning, no worry about fees or anything.. they just pay me on the app so it's OK.

Yes, I think these disruptive companies have shown that regulations are often not helping anyone, and your example could probably be another example of that.

Airbnb is a prime example, now many people have enjoyed being able to stay in new places for less, and homeowners can make more money.

So in practice, we see that you've actually made a case for the exact opposite point you were trying to make.

Precious Roy wrote:

800 dude wrote:

An independent contractor strike is an antitrust violation. See FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers.

That is a boycott case. FTC has no jurisdiction over labor organizing.

You should read the case before you comment.

Gig schmig wrote:

The gig economy sucks and just takes advantage of people at their most vulnerable points. Why can't we all just agree as a society that if someone is willing to work, they should be paid a living wage? Why do we find this so hard to accept?

because people are A$$holes

The Uber drivers don't have a union. They're not trying to create a union. Labor law doesn't apply. They're a bunch of individuals making an agreement in restraint of trade.

800 dude wrote:

The Uber drivers don't have a union. They're not trying to create a union. Labor law doesn't apply. They're a bunch of individuals making an agreement in restraint of trade.

What agreement? They are a bunch of independent contractors who are all allowed to choose when they want to work or not to work.

What you are suggesting is that they should be forced to work at specific hours at a wage that does not suit them.