
Uber/Lyft drivers say they were misled into petitioning against workers rights - ryan_j_naughton
https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/6/27/18759387/uber-lyft-drivers-misled-companies-political-campaig
======
hannasanarion
It is shockingly easy to convince workers that rights are bad for them. The
same thing happens at many blue collar jobs.

~~~
wutbrodo
This is a pretty disgusting level of paternalist condescension towards workers
that's unfortunately all too common in these discussions. Believe it or not,
not all blue-collar workers are stupid ignorami who don't understand what
labor regulations means for them. As the article says:

> Plenty of drivers said they understood Uber’s and Lyft’s political
> messaging. And some drivers who spoke to Recode made an articulate case for
> why they want to remain independent contractors. (A poll of 1,200 drivers by
> independent blog The Rideshare Guy last year showed that about 76 percent of
> respondents wanted to remain independent contractors rather than become
> employees.)

That isn't to say that there isn't an issue with deceiving workers: Uber and
Lyft hardly have a reputation for ethical business practices, and I wouldn't
be surprised if their messaging was intentionally unclear here. On top of
that, it's possible that restrictions on labor can be positive and I'm not
ruling out any degree of labor paternalism as valuable to society.

But your reductionist framing of blue-collar workers as simpletons who
couldn't possibly disagree with you about _the way their own lives and
employment should work_ is despicable. And frankly, the doublespeak involved
in labeling restrictions on labor relationships as rights (and thus obviously
and unambiguously positive) says much more about your ignorance than theirs.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The GP didn't say this is exclusive to blue collar worker; they only used blue
collar as an example. It is shockingly easy to convince _any_ kind of workers
to go against their own best interest, whether it comes to unions or
employment regulations.

E.g., I know plenty of white-collar workers in my country who believe they're
being robbed by their country because their employers have to also pay for
their socialized health insurance, naively assuming that if that was not the
case, they could actually pocket that money.

~~~
wutbrodo
Sure that's fair, but that only expands the circle of condescension, which is
perhaps _slightly_ better because it weakens the element of class snobbery.
The notion that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot who doesn't
understand what's good for them as well as you understand what's good for them
is what I'm pushing back against. The very phrase "voting against their own
interests" is dripping with condescension and the presumption that you
understand their lives better than they do. It's the same justification used
for every historical and current violation of freedom in the social sphere:
gay conversion therapy, the drug war, mores around gender roles, etc etc. The
fact that economic constraints don't evoke the same immediate reaction as
social ones doesn't mean that economic policy can't have an immense impact on
people's lives, and cause or alleviate immense suffering.

Now don't get me wrong: I'm not some extremist hyper-individualist believer in
Homo Economicus, and I think there's plenty of scope for paternalism in
policy. I think that it's entirely possible to talk to a specific person about
their policy beliefs and come away with the view that they don't understand
what's going on and are voting against their own interests. I just think that
a little humility is in order when making assumptions about other people's
lives and struggles a d choices, and applying this approach en masse with
blanket statements like the GP comment (and your own, to a lesser degree) is a
lot more likely to be ignorant of the realities of the variety and complexity
of these people's lives.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _It 's the same justification used for every historical and current
> violation of freedom in the social sphere: gay conversion therapy, the drug
> war, mores around gender roles, etc etc._

It is. It doesn't mean the justification is always wrong, much like Stalin
believing 2+2=4 doesn't disprove arithmetic. I agree with the call to humility
and I generally not tell individuals I know better than them how they should
live their lives, but my comment is a) on the systemic level, and b) based on
direct and indirect experience.

For instance, some of the evidence backing my belief is the experience of
people close to me who went through periods of abusive employments, and whose
stories I got to hear throughout it. For instance, one of those people was
stuck under a verbally and mentally abusive boss who exploited the
_perception_ of local employment conditions to keep people underpaid and
overworked. The irony is, the abused employees were also critical to that
man's financial success, and they could've easily fixed the situation for
themselves, if they got together. Unfortunately, they (including my close
acquaintance) were all scared shitless and couldn't coordinate - everyone was
essentially worried no one else would step up, and the lone person would lose
the job.

Having seen or heard of cases like this, and also having read here many
stories that essentially boil down to "short-term rewards prevent people from
taking actions beneficial to their career longer-term" (carrots work better in
our industry, for now), I came to the conclusion that it's ridiculously easy
to exploit workers. Now, since the context of this discussion is Uber, a
notoriously morally bankrupt company, I don't think myself or the OP are _too_
paternalistic with this sentiment. It's not intended as a criticism of workers
(myself I'm not immune to this kind of pressure either), but exploitative
employers.

~~~
nemo44x
Not to be a communist or anything but 2+2 does equal 4.

------
tjpnz
Reminds me of what happened when they were passing the "Hobbit" law in NZ. The
companies that stood to gain from it got their people out to protest against
the unions, but few knew how the largely Hollywood written legislation might
affect them down the line. I actually know of one person who attended the
protests and got bitten by the law a few years later, in an entirely different
industry too.

------
tbrownaw
From what I vaguely recall hearing, most places don't like to have employees
that work more than half time but less than full time. Maybe fixing whatever
misincentives are causing this discontinuity would also help make the
contractor / employee difference less of an issue?

~~~
londons_explore
A 90 percent time worker is a lazy worker...

~~~
usrnm
Only if he gets 100% of the salary. A 90% worker for 90% of the money sounds
perfectly reasonable

~~~
londons_explore
Sounds reasonable, but doesn't work out.

All the other people in the office see that employee as "lazy Bob". The guy
who isn't around every 2nd Friday. They guy who works slower than everyone
else. They guy who always seems to be randomly missing from important
meetings, and then doesn't know what's going on.

A 90% time employee is worth far less than 90% to the company.

Source:. Worked at a company where employees could either take a few days off
after a bout of overtime, or get paid extra. Those who took days off were seen
as lazy, not committed, and wouldn't get promotions or roles of
responsibility.

~~~
x3ro
That's a lot of anecdotal evidence framed as facts.

I for one have been working 80% for two years (Germany) and have never felt
more productive and motivated. And not only that, but I've also been able to
use my Fridays off to acquire skills I would otherwise not have had the time
or motivation to learn.

None of my colleagues ever complained about me seeming lazy or slow, quite the
opposite, really.

~~~
Traster
I think one of the reasons that your experience is so different is that
Americans tend to have a very different work culture than other countries. It
partly stems from the fact they get almost no holiday and are often encouraged
not to take the holiday they're allowed anyway. Whereas in Europe the idea
that you wouldn't take holiday you're entitled to is just crazy.

~~~
CaptainZapp
_Whereas in Europe the idea that you wouldn 't take holiday you're entitled to
is just crazy._

And depending on the country it's outright illegal.

In Switzerland, for example, which has one of the more liberal (as in employer
friendly) employment laws in Europe an employer can not compensate vacation
days with money, except in very exceptional circumstances (i.e end of
employment and employee has remaining vacation days).

------
everly
Most Uber/Lyft drivers would be happy as independent contractors _if the
companies didn 't keep reducing rates/incentives_.

The mileage/time rates of pay have been slashed drastically and Lyft recently
removed Primetime rate increases altogether, so drivers now get essentially no
additional money for driving during the busiest times.

~~~
lotsofpulp
As independent contractors, they are free to not accept work at an
unacceptable price.

~~~
rchaud
Except that if they turn down enough rides, they'll be kicked off the platform
entirely.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Then the platform will fail due to lack of supply of labor. It’s not ideal,
but these freedoms of both parties are part and parcel of independent
contracting.

~~~
rchaud
No it won't. Uber and Lyft offer significant incentives to boost driver
recruitment at the start, and then start peeling them back once those drivers
have invested time and rides on the platform. The whole demand/supply
equilibrium thing is Econ 101; it belongs in textbooks, because it's
oversimplified and doesn't match how business operates in real world
conditions.

~~~
lotsofpulp
How does it not apply in the real world? Are there an infinite number of
licensed drivers in the US for them to churn through?

I’m also not aware of any consensual transaction not subject to supply and
demand. Could you provide an example?

~~~
rchaud
\- predatory pricing, where a product is sold below its true cost, to undercut
competitors. Similar to 'dumping' in international trade. Example would be
Walmart's undercutting of Target and other pharmacies for Birth Control pills
in Wisconsin [0].

You could argue Uber does this as well, as it built market share on the backs
of billions in investor capital, as opposed to setting its prices based on
demand and supply. In the Econ 101 world, it wouldn't be possible to scale to
the size of Uber while losing billions every year, with profitability nowhere
in sight.

in terms of other examples:

\- minimum wages (pretty much every country has this)

\- letting banks borrow from the Fed at an effective 0% rate, and letting them
profit by arbitraging that capital by charging "market rates" to consumers

\- minimum price guarantees for farmers (again, almost every country has this)

All of these distort the demand-supply relationship as described in economic
theory, where all actors have equal bargaining power, equal access to
information and where every concept must be prefaced with "all other things
remaining equal". That's why it is ultimately "theory". It provides the basic
conceptual grounding, but beyond that, everybody has to do their own
estimations about what price to charge, because of the various distortions
specific to their business environment.

Back to Uber, no, they don't need an infinite number of drivers in the US.
They just need enough drivers to replace those that leave their network. They
can do that by offering attractive sign-up bonuses, and then start cutting
fares once the drivers are settled and it's harder for them to leave because
of the potential loss of income.

[0]:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20090426041649/http://www.kxmc.c...](https://web.archive.org/web/20090426041649/http://www.kxmc.com/t/minnesota/166862.asp)

------
specialist
Honest question:

Why aren't Uber drivers considered franchisees?

Or a concessionaire? My cousin ran a concession in my town's largest
sportsball stadium. The way the deal is structured, my cousin was paying Ogden
(the host company) for the privilege of working there.

What we now call the gig economy.

~~~
joeblau
I'm not 100% sure on this but I think when you start a franchise, the model is
that you pay an huge up front price for being able to use the brand. I think
that's kind of what the New York taxi license model is; Pay $1,000,000, now
you too can drive a cab.

I think the dream of the gig economy is that you can use your own tool/skill
to work when you want. Think of it more like cutting the grass or shoveling
snow in your neighborhood for $15-$30 bucks depending on the area (If you had
a neighborhood like that).

~~~
specialist
Ugh. Licensing fees. Of course. I should have consulted wiki first. (Thank you
for illuminating me.)

I'm stuck on the drivers providing their own hardware to secure the privilege
of working.

Other pejoratives don't quite capture this arrangement. Share cropping, dealer
channel (value added reseller), multi-level marketing.

Maybe "gig economy" is the pejorative.

~~~
joeblau
Yeah maybe — it should really just be the entrepreneurial economy. I think one
of the big challenges is that most people jumping into this type of work want
the freedom of an entrepreneur and the "safety" of an employee. There seem to
be services that offer full-time employee like benefits[1], but I'm not sure
how effective they are.

As an entrepreneur, it is a "bring your own tools" type of system. When I did
contract development, I had to bring my own laptop, my own software, and use
that to produce and bill the client. I think the challenge in this new system
is that the pricing dynamics aren't fluid. You know what, as I'm typing this I
wonder if building a system that lets the entrepreneurs somehow control the
prices will maybe help set an equilibrium.

[1] - [https://www.trupo.com](https://www.trupo.com)

------
sharperguy
If uber and lyft drivers are employees, what about people who post on youtube
or twitter, since they are creating revenue for the company and being paid?

~~~
j4kp07
Fortunately, "creating revenue" is not a factor in determining if someone is
an employee or independent.

------
Paraesthetic
Interestingly, the text messages Uber and Lyft sent are factually accurate in
that being made an employee will limit the ability of drivers to choose their
own working hours. What they dont tell them is that they will also have better
entitlements and cost the company more.

~~~
detaro
Since when are companies forbidden from letting workers choose their working
hours?

~~~
slfnflctd
When it will destroy their business if they do so.

------
TheMagicHorsey
This is stupid.

Uber and Lyft said the right thing. If they are forced to take on drivers as
employees, they aren't going to hire these random people who are driving for
them now, and they aren't going to hire them to work flexible schedules.

They are going to hire the best people they can get for an employee's salary
and benefits ... and that isn't going to be the same people benefitting now.

People seem to think that they are going to get the jobs once those jobs
become more desirable. No, they won't. Once its a more desirable job, it's
going to get the best worker willing to work for that wage. Not the hodgepodge
who are driving now.

Something similar goes through the heads of teachers that demand higher
salaries. If salaries get really high, existing teachers won't be the ones
parents will want to hire. They'll hire really highly skilled people that are
currently in other more lucrative careers. If you look at Finland where
teaching is a well compensated job, the people teaching are similar to people
going into lucrative consulting or programming jobs. It's not the bottom
performers from third tier universities, as in the US.

~~~
danpalmer
I think it's disingenuous of Uber and Lyft to tie working hour flexibility to
employee status. Yes many full-time employees don't have that level of
flexibility, but being a full-time employee does not de-facto prevent you from
having that flexibility. They tie the two issues together in order to get
their "contractors" on their side.

Also, you mention twice "these aren't the people they will hire", in the
context of Uber/Lyft drivers and teachers, but labour isn't infinite. There
aren't millions of highly qualified people sitting around unemployed waiting
for these jobs to pay better – those people are employed in other jobs that do
pay better. If teachers were paid more it may incentivise many to get better
qualifications and training (that they can't currently justify). If the US
pays terrible salaries for teachers, no one is going to want to go to an
expensive university and rack up large student debt in order to get a teaching
job.

The causality may be the other way around from what you're suggesting.

~~~
aianus
> Also, you mention twice "these aren't the people they will hire", in the
> context of Uber/Lyft drivers and teachers, but labour isn't infinite.

Neither is the demand for Uber's services.

If prices for rides go up to pay for mandatory drivers' vacation and sick pay
and dental insurance, the reality is they will, as a group, have even less
money than before because customers will switch back to cabs, public transit,
or worse, driving drunk.

~~~
vidarh
If Uber's prices can't pay for reasonable wages for their drivers, then it
might well be for the best to remove that competitive pressure on employers
that can.

To me it seems like awful public policy to let companies get away with paying
too little, as society ends up effectively subsidizing competition against
employers that treat their workers better, through benefits and lower taxes.
In doing so we're also hiding the real costs of a lot of products and services

~~~
danpalmer
Agreed, plus (un)employment is used as a fairly common headline statistic
which strongly informs government policy. If you have 2% unemployment but 20%
of the workforce without healthcare and working multiple jobs, it's much
easier to ignore the problem than if you had 20% unemployment – a figure that
would likely trigger a huge and immediate government response as it indicates
a crisis, even though those people may not be that much worse off given social
security programs (although I don't know much about the US social security
programs).

------
unstatusthequo
Anyone remember that "Man Show" episode where they had women signing up to end
women's sufferage?This headline reminded me of that.

