
Uber loses court appeal against drivers' rights - andrewingram
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41940018
======
cabaalis
I have a US perspective so I'm interested in why this ruling was made. If the
driver doesn't want to drive on a given day, there's no one he has to call.
There's no approval of the time off. He just won't get paid because he isn't
doing work.

In the US, one central tenant of being an employee vs a contractor is that
your employer has power over your schedule, working location, and your work
methods, which I see none of in Uber (which I did drive for back in 2016.)
Uber drivers are allowed to drive for other groups and have other jobs.

So what basis was this decision made, if not "they are complaining and the
right thing to do is something, plus Uber=bad?"

~~~
doctor_fact
On what basis?

“92. ... The drivers provide the skilled labour through which the organisation
delivers its services and earns its profits. We base our assessment ... in
particular on the following considerations. (1) The contradiction in the Rider
Terms between the fact that ULL purports to be the drivers’ agent and its
assertion of “sole and absolute discretion” to accept or decline bookings. (2)
The fact that Uber interviews and recruits drivers. (3) The fact that Uber
controls the key information (in particular the passenger’s surname, contact
details and intended destination) and excludes the driver from it. (4) The
fact that Uber requires drivers to accept trips and/or not to cancel trips,
and enforces the requirement by logging off drivers who breach those
requirements. (5) The fact that Uber sets the (default) route and the driver
departs from it at his peril. (6) The fact that UBV fixes the fare and the
driver cannot agree a higher sum with the passenger. (The​ ​supposed​
​freedom​ ​t​​o​ ​agree​ ​a​ ​lower​ ​fare​ ​is​ ​obviously​ ​nugatory.) (7)
The fact that Uber imposes numerous conditions on drivers (such as the limited
choice of acceptable vehicles), instructs drivers as to how to do their work
and, in numerous ways, controls them in the performance of their duties. (8)
The fact that Uber subjects drivers through the rating system to what amounts
to a performance management/disciplinary procedure. (9) The fact that Uber
determines issues about rebates, sometimes without even involving the driver
whose remuneration is liable to be affected. (10) The guaranteed earnings
scheme (albeit now discontinued). (11) The fact that Uber accepts the risk of
loss which, if the drivers were genuinely in business on their own account,
would fall upon them. (12) The fact that Uber handles complaints by
passengers, including complaints about the driver. (13) The fact that Uber
reserves the power to amend the drivers’ terms unilaterally.”

~~~
SyneRyder
Wow. If this ruling holds, it could also suggest that App Store developers are
employees of Apple / Google in the UK. Several of those points apply just as
much there, just replace driver with 'developer' and passenger with
'customer':

* "controls the key information (in particular the passenger’s surname, contact details and intended destination) and excludes the driver from it"

* "determines issues about rebates, sometimes without even involving the driver whose remuneration is liable to be affected"

* "handles complaints by passengers, including complaints about the driver"

* "subjects drivers through the rating system to what amounts to a performance management/disciplinary procedure"

~~~
kitd
The difference is that apps are in competition with each other and the app
store is more like a marketplace for developers. There is no physical
interaction between developer and buyer.

Uber could never call itself a "marketplace" for drivers. It operates much
more like a driver agency.

Edit: there are genuine online booking agencies for drivers in London, like
[http://www.kabbee.com](http://www.kabbee.com), which act as a front-end for
independent minicab drivers. I think this is much more that way it should
operate if the drivers weren't employees, as Uber argues.

~~~
Natsu
Drivers are in competition with one another in a way, though, in that any
given passenger can only ride with one of them at any given time.

~~~
grouchoboy
But they can not decide the price of their service. I think this is a great
difference.

------
koolba
The flip side of this is that if Uber considers drivers as employees they
could also prevent them from driving for their rivals.

I think the shift toward the "gig economy" is going to see the creation of a
third classification of worker that sits between employee and contractor,
likely with the negatives of both. The financial services sector has a version
of this by employing large numbers of contractors indirectly through body
shops. I wouldn't be surprised if we go that route here too with Uber/Lyft
owning the platform yet deferring employment costs to a separate company.
Their providers would be businesses, not people, and to sign up to be a driver
one would apply at one of those businesses.

~~~
danpalmer
In certain areas Uber strongly incentivizes drivers to only drive for Uber.
This is done by making driving only cost-effective at 40+ hours a week.

I understand this doesn't happen (or doesn't work) in some areas, New York
comes to mind, but I've never met an Uber driver in the UK for whom it a)
isn't a full time job, and b) who drives for other companies as well.

~~~
icebraining
_This is done by making driving only cost-effective at 40+ hours a week._

How do they do that?

~~~
koolba
Pay $x/unit if less than 10 units.

Pay $y/unit if between 10 and 40 units.

Pay $z/unit if between 40 and 60 units.

The values for x and y may be too low to be economical so a driver would need
to work more units (hours, miles, whatever) to get the higher z rate. That
would preclude them from working for a competitor as there a finite number of
hours per week.

~~~
icebraining
I'm not asking how they _could_ do that. danpalmer says Uber is already making
driving only cost-effective at 40+ hours a week, I'm asking how they are doing
so.

~~~
koolba
I’ve seen bonuses for driving at least X hours or Y rides per week. You can
only achieve them by being active as a driver for an extended period of time.

------
thisisit
Wow. This decision might upend the whole gig and sharing economy. Now every
company needs to tread carefully in UK. Uber is struggling to achieve proper
profitability even with "gig" and "sharing" economy and now this.

~~~
kuschku
Ending the "gig and sharing economy" is a good thing for society.

The sharing economy always was about exploiting workers (and externalizing
costs), and this has created an additional cost for society.

For example, DHL’s drivers are "self-employed", as result, in most countries
their healthcare is funded by themselves, or by society (instead of the
employer), and this means you (and your company) pay more taxes, just so that
Uber, DHL, Amazon and co can save money.

~~~
taway_1212
> The sharing economy always was about exploiting workers

Define "exploit". Depending on the definition, you could argue that all
economy is about exploiting workers.

~~~
PeterisP
The society has agreed upon a certain set of rights that all employers should
grant to all their workers, and a certain minimal set of "benefits" that every
working person should get - in this particular case, "holiday pay, paid rest
breaks and the minimum wage". Going below that level is considered
exploitative.

~~~
matz1
I'm in the opinion of if the government really care of it's citizen, they
should do it directly, by providing low cost/free basic necessity or basic
income, etc. This way their citizen is not "forced" to work with these company
you deemed "exploitative"

~~~
tom_mellior
> This way their citizen is not "forced" to work with these company you deemed
> "exploitative"

Yes. When the basic income comes, it will redefine all the parameters by which
we judge the qualities of jobs. But that doesn't mean that such jobs are not
exploitative _now_ , according to _current_ standards. Your snarky quotes are
unwarranted.

~~~
matz1
Still, the government can help their citizens Now, by providing cheap/free
basic necessity.

------
ed_blackburn
Hardly a surprise a contractor in the UK, I need to be careful I'm not
suddenly a "disguised employee". Uber do genuine independent contractors no
favours. I don't blame Uber. I blame successive UK govts. who won't make the
law clear and just let the courts decide on a case-by-case basis. My biggest
fear is that they'll come done hard on all contractors IT Consultants through
to taxi drivers.

~~~
kbart
I'm not intimately familiar with UK labor laws, but isn't they key difference
between contractor and a "disguised employee" is that _who_ gets the payment
money? If you get all the payment (excluding tax etc.) for a work done then
you are contractor, if the third entity takes a payment for _your_ work and
pays you percentage of it, then you must be employee and that third party -
employer - is responsible for taxes, insurance and other duties mandated by
labor laws. The latter part is what Uber tries to avoid at all cost. For the
same reason employment agencies are also not allowed to take fees for finding
a job and required to pay no less than minimum wage[0].

0\. [https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/rights-at-
work/agency...](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/rights-at-work/agency-
workers/can-your-agency-charge-you-fees/)

~~~
vidarh
I think roughly, you come out right if you think the way you're doing.

But it's a bit more subtle in that they're going after two different types of
abuses:

1\. Agencies that want to rent out contractors rather than contract out
employees even when they treat these people as employees.

2\. Relationships where one or both sides want an employee to be a contractor
to benefit from tax savings.

Uber seems to fall largely in 1, while e.g. IT contractors sometimes fall in
2, or is at risk of falling in 2.

In our case the consideration tends to be that tightening the rules means
there's a whole checklist of things that makes it more or less likely that
HMRC will deem us to be de facto employed or subject to IR35 (making us pay
taxes similar to if we are in employment).

For #2 and to avoid IR35 there are a whole lot of considerations such as what
costs we incur, whether or not we use our own equipment, whether or not we
have sales and marketing costs; whether we employ someone; how many clients we
have; if we have our own office for the company etc. that centre around
whether or not the company has an existence independent from any given client.

The reason this is important for us too, is that one avenue for a business
like Uber to avoid problems with #1 is to try to restructure around not
pretending that drivers clients are the people they drive, but that their
client is Uber but that they're still independent. If they try stunts like
that, it may result in rule changes detrimental to other, genuine contractors
too.

------
manigandham
Another case of a small vocal minority creating unwanted regulation for the
rest. Over several years and 1000s of rides in the US, 100% of the drivers
I've asked liked being independent and did not want to be employees. Many of
them already had other jobs or were students or retirees that liked making
money on the side.

For some reason, people keep forgetting that being a professional driver is
easily available through Uber Black or any number of other transportation
companies. Anyone who wants a full-time driving job can already get one.

Rulings like these will end up hurting the vast majority of drivers who will
now have to show up for full-time shifts at locations and times that Uber
determines, while earning less money. Good luck to them.

~~~
mrtksn
Is it an absolute must to go to work everyday if you are formally employed?
Isn't it possible have the same flexibility if you put it on your employment
contract?

~~~
manigandham
Of course FT employment comes with vacation and sick time, but why would you
get the same flexibility? Uber is 100% in charge of determining where and when
you work, and you get paid the same hourly/salary regardless of how much work
there is, so they'll optimize for riders as much as possible.

In the long run it might be better for Uber, more tightly controlled supply
will mean cheaper and better rides while drivers make less. I can see surge
pricing becoming pure profit when you can just order drivers to be at a
certain place instead.

~~~
mrtksn
What about 0 hour contracts? What about literally writing down the flexibility
you want in the contract?

If you think about it, it's kind of ridiculous to pretend that drivers are
running businesses and employing themselves while all they do is ride a car
just like an employee. If there's a reason for employees to have certain
right, the same reasons should apply to the Uber drivers, therefore they
should receive the same benefits.

~~~
manigandham
Why would Uber accept those contracts? There are plenty of drivers, they're
not going to hire you if you stipulate all these conditions, especially if
they're paying a flat wage.

> _it 's kind of ridiculous_

Why? Many people are individual contractors, what is different about providing
transportation as a service?

~~~
mrtksn
Well, there could be other cases where a business may have disproportional
power and use it to exploit the elements of the society. That's when the
regulations kick in and in this case this is the way the British prefers their
society be regulated and protected.

Also, there being many people is not an argument, there are many people doing
all kind of things and they stop when measures are taken.

~~~
manigandham
I'm not sure what your comment is about. What other cases? There are plenty of
issues with monopolies but in _this case_ there was a small group that sued
and now the ruling affects all drivers. When 99% of a group does not want
measures, then it is absolutely a valid argument.

~~~
mrtksn
Can I see the source of the "99% of a group does not want measures" argument?

Anyway, even if that was the case(source please) you can't go against the law.
If you ask heroine addicts they would probably want more heroine but if the
society decides that it's not O.K. to use heroine, you shouldn't expect your
drug business to operate just because the heroine users are happy with it. If
you have a problem with the society's choice you can follow the regular
democratic routes.

~~~
manigandham
It's in the article: 68 drivers in the lawsuit compared to all drivers
affected.

Nothing was against the law, the drivers were contractors. Whether that
classification is correct is what the case was about, and _now_ that the court
ruled against, the drivers are must now be treated as employees.

This isn't society's choice. Full-time driver employment already exists, but
is not something that Uber provided. These few people chose to drive for Uber
anyway and demand full-time employment, and then sued for it. They won their
case and now all drivers are affected by it. The democratic route would mean
majority voting, which is the opposite of what happened with this case.

~~~
mrtksn
how do you know that other drivers are against? why do you think that the
court’s decision was not based on the rule of the law?

You are making too many assumptions. Your motivation looks ideological,
apparently the british society choose not to go full libertarian.

~~~
manigandham
You're conflating many things throughout this thread. What does "based on the
rule of the law" or "libertarian" have to do with anything?

There was nothing illegal happening with drivers classified as contractors.
_Whether_ that classification should change is what was being reviewed by this
tribunal and they've decided on a change. No rule of law was ever broken, the
situation has changed, just like many rules and regulations are updated and
companies adapt from before the change to after.

In this case, a very small group create change that affects 100% of the
drivers. The fact that only 68 total drivers joined this suit, started by only
2 originally, is a clear signal that it was at the very least not the full
intent of the entire driving workforce. Perhaps they should've taken a vote
before passing this ruling, especially since these people demanded something
from Uber that was already easily attainable elsewhere (eg: a fulltime driving
job).

~~~
mrtksn
So you think that it was equally possible that they could have been classified
as au pairs? These things have a legal framework.

And the low number could have easily be do to the disproportionate power of
the company over the drivers. You can't claim that if 68 people are taking
action those who don't take action are against those 68.

And "Libertarian" has to do with the way the relationship between the
businesses, the workers and the clients is regulated. Your argument about
demand and supply is invalid because UK doesn't function purely on libertarian
principles so the state has the right to say if these people are contractors
or employees.

------
pimmen
It’s interesting how Uber takes two very contradictory moral stands. ”We offer
the ability for drivers to meet passengers, they should be glad they have this
opportunity in the first place to make money.”

”The UK says that we have the ability to start a business, register a
trademark and use the public infrastructure but they just don’t get that we’re
way too cool and special for these ”labor law-thingies”. Doesn’t anyone care
about how we feel about all of this?!”

------
setgree
I personally don't care for the frame of "Uber vs drivers' 'rights'". I wold
say that "Uber loses appeal against mandatory employment conditions" is more
accurate, i.e. that employing drivers is now conditional on providing them
paid holidays and such.

FWIW paid holidays in particular make little sense for this kind of employment
given that labor input is so variable.

------
hoppyluke
The article says drivers are entitled to minimum wage. I thought Uber drivers
choose their own hours so I don't see how this will work?

~~~
MarkCole
The minimum wage in the UK isn't a fixed monthly amount. It's a fixed hourly
amount. So for someone aged over 25 they should receive £7.50 an hour

The drivers will still be able to set their own hours, just they should be
getting a minimum of £7.50 an hour for those they work.

~~~
hoppyluke
If drivers can decide how long they are willing to work, even if there aren't
many/any passengers around, then Uber has no way to control costs.

Unless they already have something in place to manage how many drivers are on
the road in an area at any time? I thought that was just controlled by
supply/demand, but that gets skewed by Uber needing to still pay minimum page
when there is an over-supply.

~~~
lovich
And food producers are skewered by having to meet safety requirements when
they could save money by ignoring them. Sucks for Uber that their business
model doesn't win 100% of the time, but you don't allow individual entities to
just ignore laws that set minimums whenever it's not the best for them.

------
chewbacha
So, now the self-driving Uber is gonna come even sooner right? This is a huge
financial incentive to ditch the driver altogether.

------
londons_explore
I don't understand why Uber doesn't let drivers choose if they want to be
employed or contractors?

Those who choose _employed_ would have strict working hours, performance
requirements, etc. and if they miss any target even once would be fired. They
would be free to reapply immediately with no penalty.

~~~
Cthulhu_
> I don't understand why Uber doesn't let drivers choose if they want to be
> employed or contractors?

I do. Employees are a cost and a liability. They have to be paid
weekly/monthly instead of per gig. They would have to be paid even when
there's no rides. They have to be paid for if they end up sick, unable to
work, on pregnancy leave. They need to have payments in their retirement fund.
In the UK's case, they need to pay for the NHS. They need to buy them a car,
and pay for upkeep, maintenance, damages and fuel.

And they would fall under normal worker protection, so no, they wouldn't be
fired if they missed any target even only once, there's procedures and legal
requirements and such before formally firing someone.

So it's completely in Uber's interests to only do contractors, no obligations
or extra costs except for whenever they do a ride, and I'm fairly sure the
compensation per ride is much lower than is necessary to operate a business.

Where is the employee's benefits in this? Does Uber pay much more than they
would earn working for a regular taxi company? I mean sure it's a job that
people can do whenever they choose, but not doing it is a luxury. Assume most
people need a 40 hour work week, or the income of one. Can't get that with
Uber without working 80+ hours a week, and even then it depends on luck,
supply, demand.

~~~
doctor_fact
And employees have to be given paid holiday. And you have to pay them PAYE (so
~18% employer's side National Insurance Contributions). And if they're self-
employed below the VAT threshold, they don't have to charge 20% VAT.

Muuuuuuch cheaper.

------
CryptoPunk
What is it going to take to let people offer to work for whatever wage they
want? A ride sharing dApp on a blockchain? Or is the British government going
to ban peer-to-peer networks too?

>>When are we going to let companies pay their employees Slave wages, you
mean.

So it's okay if they offer to work for a "slave wage" as a self-employed small
business owner, but if they work through a third party, then it's not okay?
How it taking away an option in their interest? You're reducing the avenues
through which they can sell their labour, which cannot possibly be to their
advantage.

>>It's not going to happen - we tried that before, and it didn't work.
Remember the industrial revolution? Real good working conditions and pay in
those factories, eh?

It worked incredibly well. Wages grew rapidly throughout the industrial
revolution. What do you expect would have happened if a $15/hr minimum wage
were instituted in 1875, when per capita GDP was $1,000?

>>The universal basic income.

It doesn't make sense that people should be denied the freedom to offer to
work for whatever wage they want until universal welfare is implemented.

~~~
vidarh
> A ride sharing dApp on a blockchain? Or is the British government going to
> ban peer-to-peer networks too?

There'd be no need to ban peer-to-peer networks - the payment method does not
change anything. If there is an employer-employee relationship it'd break the
law if they don't follow the regulations for such a relationship. If the
drivers are genuinely small businesses, it wouldn't.

> So it's okay if they offer to work for a "slave wage" as a self-employed
> small business owner, but if they work through a third party, then it's not
> okay?

The implication is in part that the paperwork necessary to operate as a small
business acts as a deterrent for people to enter into it without at least some
degree of understanding of what they're entering into.

It is providing what you're arguing for (the ability to set whatever salary
you want), but at the same time protecting society against some of the worst
exploitation by providing some hoops you have to jump through.

> How it taking away an option in their interest? You're reducing the avenues
> through which they can sell their labour, which cannot possibly be to their
> advantage.

This is nonsensical. If I offer to pay you to work in conditions that are
guaranteed to be lethal, according to your arguments it can't possibly be to
their advantage, because I'm reducing the avenues through which they can sell
their labour. Clearly reducing the avenues alone is insufficient to determine
whether or not the decision is to their advantage.

> It worked incredibly well. Wages grew rapidly throughout the industrial
> revolution.

And through most of the period, worker activism grew rapidly as well. In a
great many cases, workers _died_ during actions taken to improve working
conditions and salaries. The fantasy that those improvements are purely down
to lack of regulation is just that. It took repeated bloodshed to bring about
those improvements, and a lot of regulations that were often also paid for in
blood.

If there is any takeaway from the growth in wages during the industrial
revolution, it is that aggressive direct action by workers provides results.

~~~
CryptoPunk
A DAO on the blockchain can be indistinguishable from a platform run by a
company from the point of view of the driver.

>>This is nonsensical. If I offer to pay you to work in conditions that are
guaranteed to be lethal, according to your arguments it can't possibly be to
their advantage, because I'm reducing the avenues through which they can sell
their labour.

There are no jobs that are guaranteed to be lethal. If there were, there are
only two conditions under which someone would work them:

1\. They are mentally incapable of making decisions for their own life, and
thus should be placed under conservatorship where they are not free to make
their own decisions.

2\. The jobs is fraudulently advertised.

In either case you don't need to resort to creating mandatory minimum
employment standards like minimum wage. What you're effectively endorsing is
conservatorship for the entire population.

>>And through most of the period, worker activism grew rapidly as well. In a
great many cases, workers died during actions taken to improve working
conditions and salaries.

I'm dubious about this claim. It sounds like another pop-history claim that is
baseless. Do you have a source?

I remember reading that workplace injuries were decreasing throughout the
industrial revolution era. From what I understand regulations had no positive
impact on this upward trajectory in safety.

What did definitely happen during the industrial revolution is that life
expectancy rapidly rose. The famines and starvation that frequently occurred
prior to to the 16th century became increasingly uncommon as the economy of
the West industrialized.

>>If there is any takeaway from the growth in wages during the industrial
revolution, it is that aggressive direct action by workers provides results.

The opposite is true. There were very few labour regulations and no minimum
wages instituted during the Industrial Revolution (thanks largely to legal
doctrines of substantive due process guaranteeing the freedom to contract in
place since the Supreme Court Lochner ruling). After the propaganda victory of
the socialist parties and labour unions, extensive labour regulations were
introduced.

This has accelerated since the creation of the OSHA in 1970. The last 40 years
have seen wage growth stagnate and life expectancy to even decline for some
demographics.

The Nirvana fallacy has cost generations improvements in their quality of
life.

~~~
vidarh
> A DAO on the blockchain can be indistinguishable from a platform run by a
> company from the point of view of the driver.

And it's entirely irrelevant. If the driver is genuinely acting as an
independent company, then it's not a problem. If the driver is being treated
as an employee, then some entity is the employer and that entity is on the
hook for the legal requirements, and it'll be down to courts to figure out who
to hold responsible.

> There are no jobs that are guaranteed to be lethal. If there were, there are
> only two conditions under which someone would work them:

You're evading the question by being pedantic. Reduce "guaranteed to be
lethal" to whatever threshold you prefer and it stands.

> I'm dubious about this claim. It sounds like another pop-history claim that
> is baseless. Do you have a source?

Each and every history book that covers the labour movement and workers
rights. I'm not going to fill in gaps in what is high school level history for
you. Go read some wikipedia pages for that matter.

> The opposite is true. There were very few labour regulations and no minimum
> wages instituted during the Industrial Revolution (thanks largely to legal
> doctrines of substantive due process guaranteeing the freedom to contract in
> place since the Supreme Court Lochner ruling).

Lochner post-dates the most significant gains in US labor history by decades.

> After the propaganda victory of the socialist parties and labour unions,
> extensive labour regulations were introduced.

... and so did this. By the 1920's the support for socialism in the US was
rapidly headed for collapse.

> This has accelerated since the creation of the OSHA in 1970. The last 40
> years have seen wage growth stagnate and life expectancy to even decline for
> some demographics.

Nonsense. Ca. 1920 or so the US lost it's leadership in labour rights
improvements, and especially so after World War II when the social democrats
had gained massive influence in Western Europe, and most European countries
built universal healthcare systems and expanded unemployment rights and other
welfare dramatically while the US mostly stood still.

If you want to blame US stagnation in the last 40 years on something, consider
that the US is lagging further behind Europe in workers rights and welfare
than it ever has, so whatever the cause is, you'll have to look elsewhere.

~~~
CryptoPunk
>>And it's entirely irrelevant.

I explained the relevance:

>So it's okay if they offer to work for a "slave wage" as a self-employed
small business owner, but if they work through a third party, then it's not
okay? How it taking away an option in their interest? You're reducing the
avenues through which they can sell their labour, which cannot possibly be to
their advantage.

To rephrase: when DAOs are created, drivers will be able to offer their
services without meeting these arbitrary employment standards, without going
through a company, and just as easily as going through a company. How is
making it illegal for a company to hire them under terms that don't meet
employment standards in their interest, when doing so won't prevent them from
working for terms that don't meet these standards, and when all it will do is
reduce the avenues through which they can work for terms that don't meet the
standards (translation: all it will do is reduce their market power)?

Maybe I'm still not clearly communicating my point. If it's not clear what I'm
asking please let me know and I'll try to rephrase it.

Either way, could you please address my argument?

>>You're evading the question by being pedantic. Reduce "guaranteed to be
lethal" to whatever threshold you prefer and it stands.

The pedantry is in you making this a point about how I worded the beginning of
my argument and ignoring the bulk of my argument, and its substance, that
applies to any threshold. Here it is again:

\--

If there were, there are only two conditions under which someone would work
them:

1\. They are mentally incapable of making decisions for their own life, and
thus should be placed under conservatorship where they are not free to make
their own decisions.

2\. The jobs is fraudulently advertised.

In either case you don't need to resort to creating mandatory minimum
employment standards like minimum wage. What you're effectively endorsing is
conservatorship for the entire population.

\--

I really don't have the patience to deal with bad faith debating. Just know
that if you win the public relations campaign through rhetoric and sophistry,
but you're advancing the wrong cause, you're hurting yourself too. So there is
no sense in debating disingenuously about public policy using these tactics.
Western Europe and the US have seen wage growth stagnate over the last 40
years due to the kind of behaviour you're exhibiting now.

Our human society only functions at all due to the extraordinary efforts of
numerous people to cooperate and honestly debate issues to reach a consensus
on the right way forward.

Even a small portion of the population acting in bad faith to push their own
narrow interests at the expense of society at large is enough to cause the
whole thing to break down, because it's nearly impossible for society at large
to arrive at a consensus on the truth about complex topics when there is a
significant amount of misinformation being injected into the debate. Please be
part of the solution.

