Can HackerNews please stop sympathizing with nationalist unions? The perpetual civil war that was the 20th century ended quite some time ago. You can stop fighting those battles now. The losers of that fight have been preordained and now everything just has to play out How do I know this? Simple.
When automated cars happen, services like Uber win and antique systems of unions will run to pedantic legal protectionism. When did HackerNews become the hub of pro-nationalist union propaganda anyways?
"Can HackerNews please stop sympathizing with nationalist unions?"
Nationalist? There's nothing nationalistic about taxi driver unions. In my experience taxi drivers are usually foreign.
Not to mention that you've attributed all of hacker news to one hive mind that should agree with whatever you think. I would imagine most people here are rather insulted by that notion
You've also presented no real facts or arguments for why Stallman's article is pro-union propaganda. On the other hand, he's presented many compelling arguments for why Uber is an invasion of privacy when compared to a normal taxi service.
I agree unions are not helpful: what we should really have is a sound set of labor laws that oblige companies to treat workers fairly instead of leaving them to bargain for it.
So taxi drivers are going back to their native countries at the end of every shift?
Unions, especially service unions revolving around local physical transportation, depend entirely on nationalism. Without a sympathetic federal entity that can supersede local definitions of what work is, you're just a ragtag pack of misfits.
And owning a cellphone in general is an invasion of privacy. To single out Uber and ignore the NSA entirely is the hallmark of a hit piece's attempt at deflection.
You can't force anyone to treat anyone fairly. All negotiations between two people are exactly that: Between two people. Adding an arbiter only centralizes corruption and makes it easier for the already powerful to get even cheaper labor. Cubans get paid $30 a week while the arbiter mechanism takes the rest.
I think the problem is HackerNews is full of people who grew up in free market capitalism and are now fantasizing about what life would be like under mythical unicorn unionism. It's like some kind of forbidden fruit around here.
>Unions, especially service unions revolving around local physical transportation, depend entirely on nationalism. Without a sympathetic federal entity that can supersede local definitions of what work is, you're just a ragtag pack of misfits.
I'm not so sure that's the case ultimately. If all of Uber's drivers banded together and simply decided not to drive until their terms were met, they'd likely have a good deal of leverage over Uber without any government intervention required. That is the basic concept of unions. Of course, companies have historically tried to circumvent or supress unionized labor in the past, to varying degrees of success.
> If all of Uber's drivers banded together and simply decided not to drive until their terms were met, they'd likely have a good deal of leverage over Uber without any government intervention required
I have experience with unions and I can tell you that if every Uber driver on earth were to protest right here, right now.. and all you will be doing is creating job openings for other people who will happily get paid less to get the job done.
Driving people to and fro isn't exactly a highly skilled job and there is no shortage of people who are made poor because of a car payment.
Comments like this are just more proof of HackerNew's magical thinking regarding unions.
>> I have experience with unions and I can tell you that if every Uber driver on earth were to protest right here, right now.. and all you will be doing is creating job openings for other people who will happily get paid less to get the job done.
It depends on how many within the pool of potential Uber drivers join the union, and consequently how great the impact on supply is. If the majority of current Uber drivers agree to representation by a union, I'm not sure they will be so easily replaceable.
>> Driving people to and fro isn't exactly a highly skilled job and there is no shortage of people who are made poor because of a car payment.
User's brand and pricing relies on skilled drivers, since the driver has to be efficient, knowledgable, and courteous enough to warrant high ratings (Uber drops drivers with low ratings). It also requires drivers who have access to a vehicle that meets Uber's standards.
I'm not sure the job is as low skill as you characterize.
It's low enough that robots will do it in 5 years. No amount of down votes is going to stop that. Lol @ hacker news burying this obvious technical advancement in the name of mythical unicorn unionism.
>>> You can't force anyone to treat anyone fairly. All negotiations between two people are exactly that: Between two people.
Are you sure that wage agreements between a corporate entity like Uber and individual drivers can really be described as "negotiations between two people"? Are you sure that individual drivers are more likely to see their interests represented when they negotiate as individuals vs. when they negotiate as a collective?
>>> Adding an arbiter only centralizes corruption and makes it easier for the already powerful to get even cheaper labor.
I'm not sure this really aligns with the history of labor unions, at least not in the US. The "already powerful" as you describe them have often gone to great links to suppress unionization.
So you believe that corporations are people and that individuals with low skill sets and spare time even know how to represent, let alone index, what their best interests actually area?
And if you think mythical unicorn unison is the anti-corporate underdog, you should really come live in a highly pro-union state sometime outside of the SanFran bubble and watch your job opportunities vanish to seniority and petty local politics.
>> So you believe that corporations are people and that individuals with low skill sets and spare time even know how to represent, let alone index, what their best interests actually area?
No and probably not, which is why your assertion that "negotiations should be between two people" doesn't really apply in this scenario
I never said negotiations SHOULD be between two people. I said that they are.
Tell me, when is the last time you engaged in a negotiation with more than one person at the same time? And if you did, why are you intentionally crushing your odds like that? Have you ever conducted a negotiation in your life?
This article has an interesting angle to it but some of the points made are more opinion than actual objective issues.
Uber being the new and disruptive company that it is, is of course going to have some kinks and issues along the way. However like any unicorn tech company it's about establishing themselves in the market first and clearing up some things as they go along or at a later date. Name me a breakout tech company that hasn't had some sort of scandal or major issue at some point.
Some Of The authors points:
"It requires you to let Big Brother track you, with a portable phone."
Phones can be traced and pinpointed by big brother regardless of what apps are installed, as long as you've got signal you're not anonymous. Tracking is an integral part of the uber value proposition and experience.
"Uber requires you to identify yourself, both to order a cab and to pay."
I can't speak for other cities but here in London people do taxi runs, dispute fares just to take the piss and drivers can face racism from passengers. Identification and thus accountability through Uber is refreshing.
"Uber also records where you get the cab and where you go with it."
So if an Uber Driver was to take a lone women somewhere unrequested, the fact the journey is tracked could only help this women and the police. By law here in the UK cab drivers have to take the quickest route possible, again the tracking provides safety and security for the passenger from being over charged.
"Drivers are starting to complain that they’re left with little money for their work."
Uber is not for all drivers. Here in London every Uber driver I talk too who has a hybrid electric car loves driving for the company. They make more money from Uber then they did driving for tradition cab companies. If it doesn't work for a driver with a petrol intensive engine, nothing is keeping them tied to the company.
"Its practice of identifying passengers enables drivers to find out who the passenger is. This makes some women scared to use Uber."
It's practice of identifying cab drivers and their car registration details enables users to have an arsenal of information to hand to the police should a driver be rouge.
I cannot help but think that bot the tracking and identification that's so integral into Uber actually creates a safer and more enjoyable experience for users and for drivers. Uber drivers here in London tell me that the people who use Uber tend to be a higher quality and more pleasurable person to drive. I once left a driver with a 1 star rating and someone from uber got in touch with me right away, to say they don't really care about who's driving for them is nonsense.
15 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 50.4 ms ] threadWhen automated cars happen, services like Uber win and antique systems of unions will run to pedantic legal protectionism. When did HackerNews become the hub of pro-nationalist union propaganda anyways?
Nationalist? There's nothing nationalistic about taxi driver unions. In my experience taxi drivers are usually foreign.
Not to mention that you've attributed all of hacker news to one hive mind that should agree with whatever you think. I would imagine most people here are rather insulted by that notion
You've also presented no real facts or arguments for why Stallman's article is pro-union propaganda. On the other hand, he's presented many compelling arguments for why Uber is an invasion of privacy when compared to a normal taxi service.
I agree unions are not helpful: what we should really have is a sound set of labor laws that oblige companies to treat workers fairly instead of leaving them to bargain for it.
Unions, especially service unions revolving around local physical transportation, depend entirely on nationalism. Without a sympathetic federal entity that can supersede local definitions of what work is, you're just a ragtag pack of misfits.
And owning a cellphone in general is an invasion of privacy. To single out Uber and ignore the NSA entirely is the hallmark of a hit piece's attempt at deflection.
You can't force anyone to treat anyone fairly. All negotiations between two people are exactly that: Between two people. Adding an arbiter only centralizes corruption and makes it easier for the already powerful to get even cheaper labor. Cubans get paid $30 a week while the arbiter mechanism takes the rest.
I think the problem is HackerNews is full of people who grew up in free market capitalism and are now fantasizing about what life would be like under mythical unicorn unionism. It's like some kind of forbidden fruit around here.
I'm not so sure that's the case ultimately. If all of Uber's drivers banded together and simply decided not to drive until their terms were met, they'd likely have a good deal of leverage over Uber without any government intervention required. That is the basic concept of unions. Of course, companies have historically tried to circumvent or supress unionized labor in the past, to varying degrees of success.
I have experience with unions and I can tell you that if every Uber driver on earth were to protest right here, right now.. and all you will be doing is creating job openings for other people who will happily get paid less to get the job done.
Driving people to and fro isn't exactly a highly skilled job and there is no shortage of people who are made poor because of a car payment.
Comments like this are just more proof of HackerNew's magical thinking regarding unions.
It depends on how many within the pool of potential Uber drivers join the union, and consequently how great the impact on supply is. If the majority of current Uber drivers agree to representation by a union, I'm not sure they will be so easily replaceable.
>> Driving people to and fro isn't exactly a highly skilled job and there is no shortage of people who are made poor because of a car payment.
User's brand and pricing relies on skilled drivers, since the driver has to be efficient, knowledgable, and courteous enough to warrant high ratings (Uber drops drivers with low ratings). It also requires drivers who have access to a vehicle that meets Uber's standards.
I'm not sure the job is as low skill as you characterize.
Are you sure that wage agreements between a corporate entity like Uber and individual drivers can really be described as "negotiations between two people"? Are you sure that individual drivers are more likely to see their interests represented when they negotiate as individuals vs. when they negotiate as a collective?
>>> Adding an arbiter only centralizes corruption and makes it easier for the already powerful to get even cheaper labor.
I'm not sure this really aligns with the history of labor unions, at least not in the US. The "already powerful" as you describe them have often gone to great links to suppress unionization.
And if you think mythical unicorn unison is the anti-corporate underdog, you should really come live in a highly pro-union state sometime outside of the SanFran bubble and watch your job opportunities vanish to seniority and petty local politics.
No and probably not, which is why your assertion that "negotiations should be between two people" doesn't really apply in this scenario
Tell me, when is the last time you engaged in a negotiation with more than one person at the same time? And if you did, why are you intentionally crushing your odds like that? Have you ever conducted a negotiation in your life?
Uber being the new and disruptive company that it is, is of course going to have some kinks and issues along the way. However like any unicorn tech company it's about establishing themselves in the market first and clearing up some things as they go along or at a later date. Name me a breakout tech company that hasn't had some sort of scandal or major issue at some point.
Some Of The authors points: "It requires you to let Big Brother track you, with a portable phone." Phones can be traced and pinpointed by big brother regardless of what apps are installed, as long as you've got signal you're not anonymous. Tracking is an integral part of the uber value proposition and experience.
"Uber requires you to identify yourself, both to order a cab and to pay." I can't speak for other cities but here in London people do taxi runs, dispute fares just to take the piss and drivers can face racism from passengers. Identification and thus accountability through Uber is refreshing.
"Uber also records where you get the cab and where you go with it." So if an Uber Driver was to take a lone women somewhere unrequested, the fact the journey is tracked could only help this women and the police. By law here in the UK cab drivers have to take the quickest route possible, again the tracking provides safety and security for the passenger from being over charged.
"Drivers are starting to complain that they’re left with little money for their work." Uber is not for all drivers. Here in London every Uber driver I talk too who has a hybrid electric car loves driving for the company. They make more money from Uber then they did driving for tradition cab companies. If it doesn't work for a driver with a petrol intensive engine, nothing is keeping them tied to the company.
"Its practice of identifying passengers enables drivers to find out who the passenger is. This makes some women scared to use Uber." It's practice of identifying cab drivers and their car registration details enables users to have an arsenal of information to hand to the police should a driver be rouge.
I cannot help but think that bot the tracking and identification that's so integral into Uber actually creates a safer and more enjoyable experience for users and for drivers. Uber drivers here in London tell me that the people who use Uber tend to be a higher quality and more pleasurable person to drive. I once left a driver with a 1 star rating and someone from uber got in touch with me right away, to say they don't really care about who's driving for them is nonsense.
> It requires passengers to run a nonfree program (an app).
> That app requires running other nonfree software (in the case of Android, Google Play).
> It requires you to let Big Brother track you, with a portable phone. This is sort of implied by #1
> [...] some women [are] scared to use Uber. Not because this may not be the case, it just doesn't affect me.
> Uber is an unregulated near-monopoly, so it can cut rates for drivers arbitrarily.
> Some [drivers] are trying to unionize.
> Uber plans to do away with human cab drivers.
> With real taxis, you can flag one on the street or phone in any fashion
Comments from the article, if true (I have no idea if the individual ones here are or not), should affected whether or not I use Uber:
> Drivers are starting to complain that they’re left with little money for their work.
> [Uber drivers] have to work 15 hours a day
> Uber executives and staff have stalked passengers in various ways.
> Journalist Sarah Lacy writes about how an Uber executive said he would punish her critical journalism by using lies to smear her family life.
This seems fairly alarmist, even for Stallman (I don't mean that to be an ad hominem), but it's just not very convincing to me.