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

Non-Running Other

Report Thread

You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
Optional
Reply
  • registered
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 2:27pm CDT
    re: the droning
    Forum Index
    the droning wrote:

    supply and demand wrote:

    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.


    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.


    Yes and why is going on strike called whiny? It's probably more ballsy than anything 99.9% of the posters on these boards have done or will ever do.
  • registered
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 2:28pm CDT
    re: 800 dude
    Forum Index
    800 dude wrote:

    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.


    Well, exactly. What the drivers are attempting to do here is lower the supply of drivers who are willing to work for the current price, which would then push the standard price up to the point where, as you agree, "lots of people would pay more."

    Will it work? Beats me.

    Also, I guess we have different Uber experiences, because in certain cities, and particularly during peak times, I find there is often more than a 10 minute wait, or no cars available at all.
  • registered
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 2:28pm CDT
    re: 800 dude
    Forum Index
    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.


    LOL this is actually part of the strike. They no longer receive the same share of the surge pricing as they used to. Nice try at being informed. Bye Bye!
  • Not that simple
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 2:31pm CDT
    re: Gig schmig
    Forum Index
    Gig schmig wrote:

    Not that simple wrote:

    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?


    I find that hard to accept for several reasons. First is that we will probably never agree on what value is a living wage. Next, some jobs are not worth a living wage. Maybe a better way of saying this is that some jobs are worth significantly less. Mandating a living wage for them will cause cause a combination of things including 1. inflation which would raise the number required for a living wage., 2. automation which would eliminate the job (or reduce hours. If those things dod not happen then no one would want other living wage jobs that pay the same but are easier work. Another reason I find a mandated loving wage hard to accept is that I believe in freedom. This includes the freedom for an employer and employee to negotiate the wage.

    I'll agree to a living wage when you agree hat an employee must contribute to the employer's bottom line that is 25% more than a living wage (need to cover employer taxes, insurance, overhead etc).


    First, I think there are many necessary positions in businesses which do not generate $ value but which are necessary. The most basic example - taking out the trash, cleaning toilets.

    But, I'll agree to your arbitrary argument if you agree that no single human being deserves a wage of more than 20 times someone else's wage within the same economy. So if you pay an individual $10/hr, the contributions of those above them are worth at the most $200/hr.

    The point I'm trying to make is that you can't arbitrarily say people are worthless simply because you want more of the economic pie, which is what it boils down to after removing all of the superfluous (and invalid) arguments that simply because someone is the head of the organization they should get nearly all of the capital. The route run to its end becomes legalized slavery or feudalism or "insert economic policy here" that extracts all of the capital from the workers those at the top. I'm not advocating socialism though. I'm just advocating for some semblance of fairness to those willing to work instead of demonizing lower level workers.


    I never said or hinted that people are worthless. I never said I want more of the economic pie. I do think there are reasons some people are worth more.

    I can't agree to some arbitrary factor. I've seen too many businesses lose money and then someone turns it around saving not only investors but jobs as well. I've worked for organizations losing money with multiple lay-offs for years. If you let employees honestly vote, they would have overwhelming voted to raise the CEO's salary/bonus from $5M to $55M if the new CEO could turn the company around and generate enough profit to stop lay-offs, reinstate a 401K match, and provide raises. Some ideas really are worth much more. Here's a simple example. Let's suppose the accepted market rate for a singer is 10 cents per record/download sold. The IT programmer makes about $5 to put the download link on the website. If the sales are 1M downloads instead of 100,000 does the programmer really deserve 10 times as much? If the agreement was x amount per download then yes but it the agreement was x amount per hour to code the website then no. I am not bothered when someone voluntarily buys concert tickets or songs and makes an artist rich. I don't think the stage crew deserves more money because the audience is 75 rows instead of 50. Having said that however, a good artist/performer would share in the wealth from extra ticket sales but not necessarily in the same ratio.
    When the Phillies paid Harper $20M, do you think the grounds crew suddenly deserve $1M each?
  • registered
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 2:33pm CDT
    re: ghost of alan webb
    Forum Index
    ghost of alan webb wrote:

    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.[/quote]

    Fair point, I guess (although I think the undertones of that opinion are present even if it isn't being said explicitly).

    Maybe my comments would be better directed in a forum where people are more openly saying these things, but I still think it is an opinion worth fighting against. I'm done though.
  • registered
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 2:35pm CDT
    re: the magic rat
    Forum Index

    darn, there goes my "anonymity." I hope people don't hold my labor opinions against me when I post about 400m and 800m training haha.
  • 804 point 5 meter dude
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 2:38pm CDT
    re: the droning
    Forum Index
    the droning wrote:

    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.


    Great point, 800 dude.

    droning - if the wage (rate) of the driver is artificially increased and drivers are paid, given no new drivers then you would be correct. However, a higher wage will incentivize more people to become drivers. The $/ride will be higher, but more drivers means a lot less riders/driver. This will lower the overall total amount the drivers will earn as a lot more drivers will be able to pick up rides.

    Dynamic pricing really is amazing.
  • umm...wut?
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 2:39pm CDT
    re: Dril
    Forum Index
    Dril wrote:

    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.


    You're honestly telling me that you think people will do a job where they, on average, have costs that exceed their pay?

    You have a really dim view of the working class if you think they're that stupid.
  • 1 year ago 05/08/2019 2:50pm CDT
    re: the magic rat
    Forum Index
    the magic rat wrote:

    800 dude wrote:

    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.


    Well, exactly. What the drivers are attempting to do here is lower the supply of drivers who are willing to work for the current price, which would then push the standard price up to the point where, as you agree, "lots of people would pay more."

    Will it work? Beats me.



    That would only work if a large number of them quit permanently, which is not what they're going for.
  • registered
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 2:55pm CDT
    re: not a finance guy, are you
    Forum Index
    not a finance guy, are you wrote:

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


    The people that started Uber or bought shares early are seriously going to be profiting off of the IPO.

    The entity is losing money for the time being. Not the owners.
  • Moo Goo
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 3:00pm CDT
    re: DoctorGrubHub
    Forum Index

    I heard on Bloomberg radio that most of the drivers are done driving after 6 months. That is when they come to senses. There is a huge turner over because it's a total scam. They make you buy a new car and what you think you're earning during the 6 months is mostly coming out of depreciation on your car. But they keep sucking people in. But let's be clear. This is a job that requires no skill other than sitting on a chair and pushing pedals. It's not a hard job. Frustrating? Yes. Takes a lot of time? Yes. Will the drivers be replaced by driver less cars? Yes. Uber actually said it's in a process of replacing all of the drivers down the line with no drivers.
  • not a finance guy, are you
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 3:04pm CDT
    re: X-Runner
    Forum Index
    X-Runner wrote:

    not a finance guy, are you wrote:

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


    The people that started Uber or bought shares early are seriously going to be profiting off of the IPO.

    The entity is losing money for the time being. Not the owners.


    Investors are not profiting. They are paying $90 billion to subsidize cheaper rides and higher wages in hopes of someday making a profit. Demanding they lose even more money than they currently are will only put them out of business sooner and then everybody loses.
  • Moo Goo
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 3:06pm CDT
    re: Precious Roy
    Forum Index

    There isn't enough profit margin for taxi driving for a bunch of insiders and HQ employees to get filthy rich while treating the drivers with what they think is a fair wage and compensation. The drivers will lose. That is the whole intent from the start. The insiders with MBAs and Ivy League degrees get filthy rich on the backs of clueless. Then these folks have the galls to tell you how the world is unfair and inequitable for the brown people.
  • math it out
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 3:12pm CDT
    re: not a finance guy, are you
    Forum Index
    not a finance guy, are you wrote:

    X-Runner wrote:

    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.


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


    right...so they should just turn over the company stock to the drivers...it's worthless right?

    it's like the baseball team owners that used to whine that they were losing money every year...but then selling their teams for 10x what they paid for it.

    or movie studios claiming they lost money on Lord of the Rings...

    if you want to win the argument, start by not being so obviously ridiculous....
  • disruption
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 3:49pm CDT
    re: Friirifif
    Forum Index
    Friirifif wrote:

    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.


    Or the internet which allowed people to steal movies and music, and the market decided it was ok that.... oh wait
  • Zero Sum Game
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 3:50pm CDT
    re: doesn't that defeat the point?
    Forum Index

    I like the idea of the gig economy, I wouldn't do it now, but when I was younger and less secure financially, I would have loved a way to make a few bucks here and there part time here and there when I felt like it. Not every job has to pay a living wage, some jobs should be available to supplement your full time income. If your only full time job prospect in this economy is Uber driver, you've made some poor choices in life and Uber is not to blame.

    That being said, Uber is a pretty sh!tty company, I'll defend the idea of the gig economy in general, but not Uber in particular.
  • 1 year ago 05/08/2019 3:52pm CDT
    re: X-Runner
    Forum Index
    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.


    That reminds me of a TheOnion headline something like, "Inspiring: This Restaurant Shares a Portion of its Revenues with Employees"
  • zohan
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 4:04pm CDT
    re: disruption
    Forum Index
    disruption wrote:

    Friirifif wrote:

    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.


    Or the internet which allowed people to steal movies and music, and the market decided it was ok that.... oh wait


    Yeah, I don't think the neighbors will find my Air Rock Quarry such a great innovated idea. I don't think the businesses that run actual rock quarries and follow the proper safety and regulations would find my big new idea all that refreshing.

    Zoning laws exist for a reason. Safety regulations exist for a reason.
  • registered
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 4:44pm CDT
    re: umm...wut?
    Forum Index
    umm...wut? wrote:

    Dril wrote:

    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.


    You're honestly telling me that you think people will do a job where they, on average, have costs that exceed their pay?

    You have a really dim view of the working class if you think they're that stupid.


    Yes I'm honestly telling you that. With no better alternatives the drivers will take a job with an expected value of
  • registered
    1 year ago 05/08/2019 4:49pm CDT
    re: Dril
    Forum Index

    ... of less than 0. The drivers revenues are stochastic/unknown/subject to variance while the costs are known. The driver's hope is that with some luck their earnings will be high enough above average to actually make a buck. Uber preys on this hope and is exploiting low-skilled labor in an economy that has continually been hard on the low-skilled segment.

    You are obviously dim if you cant conceive an explanation as to why someone would take a job that may net them less than $0.