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

True, zoning laws are outdated and repressive and like taxis, this was never going to improve without this kind of disruption

I'm not confusing anything. I'm saying it is ridiculous that some people view strikers as whiners because they are trying to get paid more. Why is the only answer, "Stop doing it and find a new job"? What is the problem with trying to get paid more? If you want to say employees are only as valuable as their skill set...fine. These employees are going on strike to try and demonstrate that their skill set is more valuable than the company is trying to say it is. I've been in plenty of situations where the wait for an Uber was really long or none were available at all. I wouldn't say there is currently an excess of labor for that job.

So, maybe the drivers will be proven right, maybe they'll be proven wrong. But the very act of trying to get paid more is about as capitalist as you can get. It's the vitriol directed their way that I don't get. So, I just have to assume the people shouting are corporate fetishist bootlickers.

gig workers do not have a schedule wrote:

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.

No, that's not remotely what I'm saying. I'm saying that the strike is an agreement in restraint of trade.

In the FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers case, the FTC got an injunction against a whole bunch of independent contractor trial lawyers who did public defender work. They had engaged in a strike just like the uber driver strike, trying to get higher wages from the superior court. That was illegal because they were a bunch of independent contractors engaged in a wildcat strike rather than unionized employees acting in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement and federal labor law. Labor law allows people to do things (agreements in restraint of trade) that would otherwise be illegal under the antitrust laws, but you have to actually follow labor law. It's not as simple as, "we're labor, therefore we can do what we want."

What's silly about the strike is that dynamic pricing ensures that drivers are getting as much as the market will give them. If compensation goes up, artificially, then drivers will spend lots of time circling, unable to find riders, and they will make less money.

I think the drivers are seeing the investors getting $90 billion off of the work of the drivers and think maybe they should get a slice.

Uber can't do this without human drivers ... yet.

800 dude wrote:

No, that's not remotely what I'm saying. I'm saying that the strike is an agreement in restraint of trade.

In the FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers case, the FTC got an injunction against a whole bunch of independent contractor trial lawyers who did public defender work. They had engaged in a strike just like the uber driver strike, trying to get higher wages from the superior court. That was illegal because they were a bunch of independent contractors engaged in a wildcat strike rather than unionized employees acting in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement and federal labor law. Labor law allows people to do things (agreements in restraint of trade) that would otherwise be illegal under the antitrust laws, but you have to actually follow labor law. It's not as simple as, "we're labor, therefore we can do what we want."

Independent contractors do not have a set schedule. They are allowed to choose the hours they wish to work and not to work. None of them can be forced to drive.

Regardless of all of that, in some jurisdictions Uber drivers are indeed employees. In other jurisdictions the applicability of US labor and antitrade law is completely irrelevant.

X-Runner wrote:

I think the drivers are seeing the investors getting $90 billion off of the work of the drivers and think maybe they should get a slice.

Yeah it's called their wage that they already receive.

800 dude wrote:

What's silly about the strike is that dynamic pricing ensures that drivers are getting as much as the market will give them. If compensation goes up, artificially, then drivers will spend lots of time circling, unable to find riders, and they will make less money.

How does it ensure that? There is no mechanism for a customer to bid more than the quoted price for a ride if they want to get picked up sooner than someone else. There are almost certainly customers out there who would pay more for the service. Not to mention that Uber rides tend to be less expensive than taxis to begin with.

And, I'll add...if you think the strike is "silly" because the drivers are going to end up hurting themselves...fine! I can understand that point.

But I'm talking about the people who are making arguments against it as if workers shouldn't even be able to fight for their own personal wellbeing or that it some how makes them crybabies when they do so.

the droning wrote:

But I'm talking about the people who are making arguments against it as if workers shouldn't even be able to fight for their own personal wellbeing or that it some how makes them crybabies when they do so.

No one is making that argument. You've made your point, don't need to keep repeating it.

not a finance guy, are you wrote:

X-Runner wrote:

I think the drivers are seeing the investors getting $90 billion off of the work of the drivers and think maybe they should get a slice.

Yeah it's called their wage that they already receive.

Well, they want a higher wage if they think some will profit heavily off of their backs.

Do you have an issue with people collectively striking for better pay or benefits?

If they are replaceable with other people than they will be replaced.

If they are needed they will get paid more.

If the drivers need the money now they will cave.

Many of these drivers do not rely on this as their primary income. They can afford to strike.

The Uber investors really can't afford bad publicity right before they go public and sell their shares. That will be costly.

It's business both ways.

X-Runner wrote:

not a finance guy, are you wrote:

Yeah it's called their wage that they already receive.

Well, they want a higher wage if they think some will profit heavily off of their backs.

They're not profiting. They're losing $2 billion a year.

ghost of alan webb wrote:

the droning wrote:

But I'm talking about the people who are making arguments against it as if workers shouldn't even be able to fight for their own personal wellbeing or that it some how makes them crybabies when they do so.

No one is making that argument. You've made your point, don't need to keep repeating it.

Are you being serious? Just from this message board thread:

- I didn't protest or make a scene. I just said "no thank you" and took a different job. Most other people do the same. Not sure why this relatively simple process has to be turned into a public spectacle with mass participation.

- Because unfair! That wasn't how it worked out for me, I had to go find a better job. Waaaaa!

You either have your head in the sand or are being disingenuous of you say there isn't always a very vocal reaction of this sort from a lot of people anytime there is a well-publicized strike.

the droning wrote:

How does it ensure that? There is no mechanism for a customer to bid more than the quoted price for a ride if they want to get picked up sooner than someone else. There are almost certainly customers out there who would pay more for the service. Not to mention that Uber rides tend to be less expensive than taxis to begin with.

When a supply curve and a demand curve meet, you have a price. Lots of people would pay more, but they aren't forced to.

Bidding to get picked up sooner wouldn't work very well because a car is rarely more than a minute or two away.

the droning wrote:

ghost of alan webb wrote:

No one is making that argument. You've made your point, don't need to keep repeating it.

Are you being serious? Just from this message board thread:

- I didn't protest or make a scene. I just said "no thank you" and took a different job. Most other people do the same. Not sure why this relatively simple process has to be turned into a public spectacle with mass participation.

- Because unfair! That wasn't how it worked out for me, I had to go find a better job. Waaaaa!

You either have your head in the sand or are being disingenuous of you say there isn't always a very vocal reaction of this sort from a lot of people anytime there is a well-publicized strike.

Bad Wigins (who posted the "waaaaa") was being sarcastic. Try harder.

ghost of alan webb wrote:

Bad Wigins (who posted the "waaaaa") was being sarcastic. Try harder.

Do you want me to stop trying to make my point or do you want me to try harder? Make up your mind.

But ok, maybe I misread that one particular comment, but again, if you're saying there isn't a large outcry from a certain segment of the population calling strikers whiny babies, I'm not sure what reality you're living in.

the droning wrote:

ghost of alan webb wrote:

Bad Wigins (who posted the "waaaaa") was being sarcastic. Try harder.

Do you want me to stop trying to make my point or do you want me to try harder? Make up your mind.

But ok, maybe I misread that one particular comment, but again, if you're saying there isn't a large outcry from a certain segment of the population calling strikers whiny babies, I'm not sure what reality you're living in.

There isn't. Or rather, there aren't any in this thread, so you're arguing with no one and therefore don't need to keep reiterating that argument.

Fast food workers that complain that they can’t make a decent salary.

so don't do it, then wrote:

If the benefits didn't outweigh the costs you list, there simply would be no Uber drivers.

This is flat wrong. Sorry. Nice try at playing economics though! Now go back to HS.