Not sure why you're being downvoted, this is what I've heard as well. It gets a person cash while they are in transitionary periods of time. There are not a lot of jobs you can get paid for almost immediately- most require startup time, training, applications, etc.
I'm asking this earnestly, do you ever follow up and ask if the added money/income offsets the additional wear and tear on their vehicles? Like do most of those folks you talk to understand the potential trade off? I would think the average rideshare driver understands that generally ("of course the added mileage decreases the value of the car!"), but I wonder how many folks take the time to quantify it, even roughly. Seems like a logical follow-up question when you're interviewing/making small talk with them.
Well it's the drivers themselves who voted to join the union, so presumably there's something they want to see changed. No need to speak for people who've already found their voice.
Not sure why you want to bring race into this, people from all backgrounds have the right to free association and deserve labor representation.
I have no issues with people unionizing, I think they should use their free association power as they see fit. What I take issue with is the "exploitation" framing. Everyone working for Uber is doing so voluntarily.
A union using their power to increase workers wages is not "reducing exploitation" they are using their bargaining power just as selfishly as corporations do.
When we talk about labor negotiations, that word should indicate theres no exploitation happening, its two parties negotiating and coming to an agreement.
> When we talk about labor negotiations, that word should indicate theres no exploitation happening
So in a world where no labor negotiation is happening, is exploitation possible? If Uber drivers had no legal recourse to form a union (or no avenue to otherwise participate in genuine negotiation with their employer), would it be fair to say that they might be in an exploitative employment relationship?
> Everyone working for Uber is doing so voluntarily.
Personally I don't feel that this precludes exploitation taking place. Exploiting someone is taking advantage of their hard circumstances or lack of alternatives to unethically profit (in the usage that I'm familiar with). For example I would consider hiding fare pricing breakdowns from employees and consumers, so that you can leverage their lack of information to increase your profit share, to be 'exploitative'; particularly if you hold a virtual monopoly on the taxi market in an area. For an example outside the gig-work world I'd point to price-gouging as another type of 'voluntary' exploitation; consumers may be 'consenting' to pay extremely elevated prices, but if they have no meaningful alternative and genuinely require what is being sold then it's not really 'consent' so much as 'resignation'. IMO true consent requires genuine options, not just that you signed your name on the dotted line.
Why are children mining rare minerals in Africa? Why are workers handling toxic waste in the name of recycling in Bangladesh? Surely they can all work from home and leave their jobs if it’s that exploitative
Spoken like someone who is financially well off and lives in an extreme bubble. Not totally surprising knowing the site we are on, but quite disgusting how anti-human and anti-worker most commentators are here. Makes sense that the public hates tech workers.
I suggest you talk to some of these workers next time, you don't have to be scared you won't catch the "poor."
There's no better option on the table? Desperate people have low labor elasticity, kind of definitionally.
It's a bit like a payday loan — the drivers need money _today_ and effectively borrow against the depreciation of their vehicle.
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/jle/vol59/iss1/8/
Banning payday loans tends to shift borrowers to worse forms of credit.
One imagines worsening the economics of ride share jobs will do the same.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, this is what I've heard as well. It gets a person cash while they are in transitionary periods of time. There are not a lot of jobs you can get paid for almost immediately- most require startup time, training, applications, etc.
that sounds like a benefit, not abuse.
All because you’re being exploited doesn’t mean you can’t voice your want to change things.
Some of these workers might find that the only gig that they can rely on is ride share for various reasons.
Various reasons necessarily include the successful business model of the ride share companies.
You might ask the same about any exploitive relation.
Why is there prostitution?
Why are slaves doing work for their masters?
Why are children going through our garbage in some distant country, if they hardly earn enough to eat?
i dont think the choice between driving Uber and working at Walmart is the same as being a slave or dying.
True, they are not the same. But they probably feel similarly coerced into accepting an unfair deal.
So yeah, the comparisons are hyperboles, but I totally feel why they're upset and hope collective bargaining helps better their situation.
Because the alternative is being homeless.
Food and shelter?
what a revealing question. why don't you ask one next time you're in a car?
I have, they mostly say they enjoy it, they can work when they want, scale up when they need more money, scale down when they dont, decent money etc.
flexible, supplemental income.
I'm asking this earnestly, do you ever follow up and ask if the added money/income offsets the additional wear and tear on their vehicles? Like do most of those folks you talk to understand the potential trade off? I would think the average rideshare driver understands that generally ("of course the added mileage decreases the value of the car!"), but I wonder how many folks take the time to quantify it, even roughly. Seems like a logical follow-up question when you're interviewing/making small talk with them.
no i respect people's intelligence enough to assume they wouldn't be working all day for $0
white savior complex is rampant in these threads. Insisting they know better for someone else.
> Insisting they know better for someone else
Well it's the drivers themselves who voted to join the union, so presumably there's something they want to see changed. No need to speak for people who've already found their voice.
Not sure why you want to bring race into this, people from all backgrounds have the right to free association and deserve labor representation.
I have no issues with people unionizing, I think they should use their free association power as they see fit. What I take issue with is the "exploitation" framing. Everyone working for Uber is doing so voluntarily.
A union using their power to increase workers wages is not "reducing exploitation" they are using their bargaining power just as selfishly as corporations do.
When we talk about labor negotiations, that word should indicate theres no exploitation happening, its two parties negotiating and coming to an agreement.
> When we talk about labor negotiations, that word should indicate theres no exploitation happening
So in a world where no labor negotiation is happening, is exploitation possible? If Uber drivers had no legal recourse to form a union (or no avenue to otherwise participate in genuine negotiation with their employer), would it be fair to say that they might be in an exploitative employment relationship?
> Everyone working for Uber is doing so voluntarily.
Personally I don't feel that this precludes exploitation taking place. Exploiting someone is taking advantage of their hard circumstances or lack of alternatives to unethically profit (in the usage that I'm familiar with). For example I would consider hiding fare pricing breakdowns from employees and consumers, so that you can leverage their lack of information to increase your profit share, to be 'exploitative'; particularly if you hold a virtual monopoly on the taxi market in an area. For an example outside the gig-work world I'd point to price-gouging as another type of 'voluntary' exploitation; consumers may be 'consenting' to pay extremely elevated prices, but if they have no meaningful alternative and genuinely require what is being sold then it's not really 'consent' so much as 'resignation'. IMO true consent requires genuine options, not just that you signed your name on the dotted line.
> Everyone working for Uber is doing so voluntarily.
How can you say this with straight face?
To pay for tomorrow perhaps.
Why are children mining rare minerals in Africa? Why are workers handling toxic waste in the name of recycling in Bangladesh? Surely they can all work from home and leave their jobs if it’s that exploitative
Surely this is a dark joke.
People need to eat, dude.
Sorry... What?
What makes it okay to exploit them?
[flagged]
i dont think selling labor for money is inherently exploitative. its a two sided voluntary exchange.
Spoken like someone who is financially well off and lives in an extreme bubble. Not totally surprising knowing the site we are on, but quite disgusting how anti-human and anti-worker most commentators are here. Makes sense that the public hates tech workers.
I suggest you talk to some of these workers next time, you don't have to be scared you won't catch the "poor."
so do you think all trade is inherently exploitative or do you think two parties can come to a mutually beneficial agreement?
I’d guess because most don’t correctly account for wear and tear and depreciation of their car when they do their mental profit calculation.
It's definitely not because of this. They are not stupid.
right, so the real answer is that all these poor immigrants are too stupid to realize they are losing money. lovely class solidarity there.