
Uber is forcing drivers in Seattle to listen to anti-union propaganda - mgiannopoulos
https://thenextweb.com/us/2017/03/13/uber-is-forcing-drivers-in-seattle-to-listen-to-anti-union-propaganda/
======
kstenerud
Blogspam that doesn't even get the original story right. According to the WSJ
that TNW is supposedly quoting, drivers are NOT being forced to listen to
anything.

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-gears-up-to-block-bid-
to-f...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-gears-up-to-block-bid-to-form-a-
union-in-seattle-1489237201)

~~~
ceejayoz
> Before accepting rides on his Uber app each day, Seattle driver Fasil Teka
> must first choose whether to listen to company-run podcasts on voting
> rights, collective bargaining and city council hearings.

No, technically not forced - the headline is misleading / clickbaity.

That said, drivers are going to be well aware that Uber's likely to be
collecting metrics on who listens and who doesn't, and I'd hardly trust them
to follow employment law to the letter.

~~~
mseebach
Conjecture. You have literally no evidence in support of that belief. Not
forced, full stop, the headline of the article is flat out wrong. If you
defend this shit just because you agree with the sentiment, you have no right
to an opinion about fake news.

EDIT: For the record, the parent has ghost-edited their post.

~~~
wmsiler
I would dial this back a bit. Worst case scenario, the commenter you are
responding to is committing confirmation bias by making negative assumptions
to match their existing negatives beliefs. Confirmation bias is easy to slip
into even if you know it exists, and this angry response isn't useful.

Best case scenario (which I think is more likely), they are simply
interpreting this story in context. Uber has several ethics scandals under
their belt including ones involving them gathering and analyzing data for
unethical purposes (guessing which of their customers have had one night
stands).

~~~
mseebach
How is this different from how fake news perpetuates? My foe has done bad
things A, B and C, therefore it's OK to not just _assume_ they are doing D as
well, but OK to present D _as fact_.

For the record, what I am reacting to is not the possibility of a belief that
Uber might do such a thing[1], but the defence of a naked lie.

1: I think such a belief is an extremely shallow reading of Uber as wanting to
do evil in and of itself, rather than willing to bend a lot of rules very very
far to serve their customers (and sometimes cross the line in creative data-
driven marketing), and have created a toxic corporate culture in the process
-- it's easy to see how 'break all the rules as long as you're winning' can do
that. I also don't think they will survive long, companies with less toxic
cultures (but no less friendly to the taxi-interest-captured regulatory bodies
or unions) will prevail because they can attract the better talent. Firing a
driver with good performance because he doesn't listen to the company podcast
is not even remotely consistent with that willingness. But that's not the
discussion we're having.

~~~
ceejayoz
This is a company who wrote software to detect and hide from law enforcement,
and you think it's not feasible they'd try and come up with a score for how
friendly a driver is to unionization? C'mon.

The headline is incorrect - they're not being forced - but it's hardly "fake
news" conspiracy theory to speculate that some drivers may feel pressured over
this.

~~~
mseebach
The word was 'forced'. You defended it. C'mon yourself.

Speculating what people might be doing, _especially_ when it sounds plausible,
then presenting it as fact, is _exactly_ fake news.

~~~
ceejayoz
My post literally stated (now edited to add "the headline is misleading /
clickbaity" to be even more crystal-clear on that point) that they're not
technically forced.

~~~
mseebach
I understand, and I understood before. You're defending the lie by saying that
it's only _technically_ incorrect. You do understand that the phrase means
that you think it's still substantially correct -- not that it conceivably
could be true?

~~~
ceejayoz
I believe it is substantially correct that Uber and companies like it engage
in ethically dubious and legally murky anti-union actions.

I believe it implausible that Uber didn't consider the pressure/intimidation
aspect that a daily prompt to listen to their propaganda entails when adding
it to the system.

------
OskarS
Imagine doing a podcast solely for your employees full of propaganda with the
purpose of preventing them from unionizing. Seems like a very disturbing
company culture.

~~~
freehunter
I worked quite a few retail jobs in college and the only ones who did not have
mandatory training on the horrors of unions were the ones that were already
unionized.

Walmart goes so far to avoid any talk of unions that the one time employees
unionized, they shut down that entire department for good, across every store.

~~~
Spooky23
The difference is that you were an employee of the store. Uber drivers are
supposedly free agents.

------
andy_ppp
It should be compulsory for everyone to be a member of a union as the HR staff
at Uber have recently shown. It's much better to let your Union representative
deal with sexual harassment charges than _your company 's_ internal
departments. In the UK there is ACAS as well but being a member of a union is
important for all sorts of reasons; fair pay and better working conditions are
just two.

~~~
RugnirViking
I agree. As someone who only recently entered the workforce, I have noticed
that people from the US seem to have a particular tendancy to dislike unions
whereas here in the UK they are often seen as a good thing. Anyone have any
thoughts as to why?

~~~
wavefunction
The US population has been under a sustained propaganda campaign for several
decades intended to promote a hyper-capitalist/libertarian agenda that serves
the interests of a very small number of people.

The media in the US promotes this message, both because its members have
themselves been awash in the propaganda their whole lives and also because the
media organs in this country are largely corporate.

Combine that with a general disinterest in critical thinking that has also
been "encouraged" by those same cynical forces described above to ensure that
they have an uneducated, incurious population that believes what they want.

So now you can see why income inequality is growing in the US.

~~~
Jabanga
It's ironic that the US population has continuously voted to increases social
welfare spending since the 1970s. Thanks to all of this socialism, the US now
has lower labour productivity growth than anytime in the past century.

~~~
cma
That is actually remarkable given that women entered the workforce en-masse
during that time. Rapidly increasing the work-force with the same basic needs
being serviced and still having any per-worker productivity growth.

Couldn't also have to do with the phase out of Bretton-Woods and the recovery
of Europe from WWII during that time?

And with all that social redistribution marginal-utility-wise productivity
must be off the charts. $1 in additional purchased products for consumption
sure provides a lot more utility to someone at the bottom than $1 in
additional products does for a billionaire.

~~~
Jabanga
>That is actually remarkable given that women entered the workforce en-masse
during that time.

The labour participation rate went from 60 percent in 1970 to 66 percent in
1992. At the same time, average hours worked per employed person declined from
about 1900 hours a year in 1970 to 1790 hours a year in 1992:

[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USAAHWEP](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USAAHWEP)

So there was no relative growth in the size of the work force.

Socialism destroys the economy. Believe it or not, forcibly confiscating the
earnings of highly productive people, to give without discrimination to less
productive people, is poison to an economy. And that is all social welfarism
amounts to:

[https://youtu.be/arOGHY27JwI](https://youtu.be/arOGHY27JwI)

Leftist authoritarianism that destroys incentives and breeds dependency.

But hey it's politically fashionable to defend welfare, because it makes it
look like you stick up for the underdog, so that's what the majority will
continue to do.

Any politician that promises more government "help", from the pocket of the
faceless taxpayer, will have a major advantage in any election. That's why
social welfare spending has increased so dramatically over the last 50 years.

~~~
cma
"People not included in the participation rate include those who do not want
to work or can't work. This includes people such as students, homemakers,
incarcerated people and retirees."

The labor participation rate doesn't include homemakers.

~~~
Jabanga
You misunderstand. It groups those who do not work and are looking for a job,
with those who work, as being part of the labour force, and thus
"participating". Nonparticipants are anyone not looking for work, like
homemakers, students, retirees, etc

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force_in_the_United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force_in_the_United_States)

------
jknoepfler
I started talking to uber drivers in Seattle about unionization / Seattle
regulations, and was surprised to discover nearly unanimous opposition to the
idea. The only person not opposed was a career taxi driver. Almost no one else
was or wanted uber to be a full time gig, and they wanted minimal
hassle/regulation/etc. between them and an easy source of side income.

Anecdotal, with an n around 10, so not worth much, but I found it surprising.
I suspect a lot of the Seattle unionization movement is thinly veiled rent
seeking from the taxi lobby.

~~~
Herodotus38
If I may give a weaker, counter example with anecdotal data from Seattle: I
have only used Uber three times, and the last time I asked the driver about
unionization and he was very for it (so an n of 1). He explained that all of
the risk is on the driver and that sometimes Uber makes it very hard to work.
He gave an example of a friend who was driving and ran over a rock while
pulling into an apartment complex. The protocol was that another driver came
and completed the ride for the user. However, his vehicle was now flagged as
'in an accident' when the problem was a flat tire, which his friend was able
to fix that day.

Unfortunately, by being flagged as an accident the friend couldn't work again
for a number of days as there was some sort of vetting process to ensure the
vehicle was working right (very reasonable imo). However, as explained to me,
there was some hang up with Uber where he couldn't get vetted for much longer
than usual and couldn't work. He thinks that being unionized would allow for
more driver friendly policies that would have prevented this.

------
vinceguidry
The interesting part of the article for me was the news that the Seattle city
council voted to allow Uber drivers to unionize. It was illegal before? I
thought the constitution guaranteed freedom of assembly. Do workers need
permission to elect representatives to negotiate on their behalf?

~~~
cperciva
Companies can't unionize -- it's called anti-competitive behaviour.

Depending on who you ask, Uber drivers aren't necessarily workers; they might
be independent contractors, i.e., companies.

EDIT: Also, depending on the definition of "allowed to unionize" here, it's
possible that this goes beyond allowing collective bargaining to prohibiting
Uber from hiring anyone who isn't "blessed" by the union.

~~~
slowmotiony
It's not really depending on who you ask and it's very surprising for me to
read comments like yours on HN of all places, the law is very clearly laid out
and some protest signs in Sillicon Valley do not change the reality. You can
check the IRS website if you're confused about what the distinction is between
a contractor and a worker.

~~~
walshemj
Actually the worker / employee distinction is complex and not as cut and dried
as you think.

This is a big part of the Uber/Delivered style of companies business model
that is dodging the employer social security taxes.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The taxes are never dodged. Either Uber pays them (W2) or the independent
contractor does (1040). The bigger issue, st least under Obamacare, was if
they were elegiabke for group health insurance if they worked more than 30
hours.

~~~
walshemj
Depends on country often self employed get better tax breaks in return for
less benefits - this is "real" self employed contractors not faux self
employment like Uber et al

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Ya, depends on the country. In the USA, self employed kind of sucks because
group health insurance is way cheaper than individual market insurance.

------
norea-armozel
I'm quite glad to see people are beginning to recognize the benefits of labor
unionization. I know that for some the idea of unions is horrendous but that's
due to how many unions have become just another boss where they call the shots
and not represent the grievances of their members. At its core the ability to
collectively bargain is the best thing anyone can do under capitalism whether
it's for wages and benefits as workers or lower prices on goods as consumers.
To impede or outlaw that behavior fundamentally is anti-market propaganda and
it should be met with fierce opposition by all.

------
Jabanga
No one is forced to drive for Uber. The title is misleading and inflammatory.
Fodder for the majority who are addicted to manufactured outrage.

Ironically, the title and the comments in hacker news are pro-union
propaganda.

~~~
davexunit
No one is _forced_ to do any job in the strict sense of the word, yet workers
are constantly exploited because people need to work _somewhere_ to make a
living and some of those places suck.

~~~
Jabanga
That doesn't make it exploitation. This attitude of promoting victimhood and
helplessness is intellectual dishonest and harmful.

------
throwawaysbdi
It sucks but places like Walmart have been doing this for ages

------
HeavenBanned
On the one hand, part of me thinks this is grimey, capitalistic slime-balling
on the part of Uber; using psychological warfare to make a buck.

And on the other hand, part of me thinks that trying to unionize Uber drivers
is a bad move. If I wanted to make a quick buck with a side-job, Uber would be
a great way for me to do that without having to trudge through the Gigs on
Craigslist, etc. etc. etc.

But if they unionize, it will become "just another job" and be tightly
regulated, making the ability to get a quick buck nearly impossible; turning
Uber into a full-fledged job with all the bureaucratic hooplah. While that
would protect the fraction of workers looking to make Uber their full-time
job, it would reduce the "Cowboy" nature of the job and make it hard for
people to get in and get quick work.

~~~
jamesblonde
I disagree. Here in Sweden, we actively discourage jobs that pay borderline-
poverty wages. Taxi rides should not be cheap. You are buying someone else's
time. That should be expensive for the middle-class.

~~~
patrickaljord
> That should be expensive for the middle-class.

So you're saying only rich people should get taxi rides? I thought Sweden
supported the poor more.

Also, you're aware that when the minimum wage is too high, it just means there
will be more unemployment, not that everyone gets a raise.

Now the debate is: are people happier with a job with a low wage or are they
happier at home doing nothing? Studies show that people are more depressed at
home when unemployed and have more chance to improve their condition and
salary by starting at lower paid jobs doing something. But many of the
supporters of high minimum wage would rather people stay at home than improve
themselves starting with lower paid jobs not because it helps the poor but
because it helps the high minimum wage supporters sleep better at night
knowing that although more people have no jobs, at least no one is being
underpaid... well... except for those not being paid at all.

~~~
js8
> So you're saying only rich people should get taxi rides?

I do agree with that, best if middle class people use public transport (or
worse, their own car).

> I thought Sweden supported the poor more.

It has nothing to do with support of the poor. In India, taxis are incredibly
cheap, and there is no shortage of poor people. Poor people can drive buses
and trams, too, you know.

> Also, you're aware that when the minimum wage is too high, it just means
> there will be more unemployment

No, it doesn't. It was never empirically proven that there is a connection
between minimum wage and unemployment. (You are simplifying the whole economy
to the labor market, but there is also demand side.)

~~~
patrickaljord
That's amazing, you're basically saying better services should be for the rich
only while the poor should use lower public services while saying at the same
time that you support the poor. Incredible. That's what socialism always does,
pretends to help the poor but in the end only the elite benefits from it.

> No, it doesn't. It was never empirically proven that there is a connection
> between minimum wage and unemployment.

When it comes to low skill jobs, yes, increasing the minimum wage does create
more unemployment as the middle class is not able to pay for them anymore,
only the super rich. That's a well no fact, you can look it up.

~~~
jamesblonde
That's not a fact. It's nonsense you believe to be a fact. Luxembourg, Sweden,
Norway, Germany all have low unemployment rates (and higher total employment
rates than the US) and have higher minimum wages. Economies adapt to higher
minimum wages, they may lose jobs in the short term, then adapt and total
employment can return to former levels if the correct policies are in place.

Btw, when you say socialism pretends to help the poor, but helps the elite,
that doesn't help your case. By all objective measures, the poor are better
off in western european social democratic countries than in a free-for-all
capitalist society, like the US. There are other models, like Singapore that
also work well, FYI.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Germany all have low unemployment rates (and
> higher total employment rates than the US) and have higher minimum wages.

France, Belgium and Ireland all have a higher minimum wage and higher
unemployment rates than the US. Clearly the unemployment rate is affected by
multiple factors. The issue is whether a higher minimum wage increases
unemployment, not whether you can counteract it with other policies --
applying the other policies without raising the minimum wage could result in
even less unemployment.

> Btw, when you say socialism pretends to help the poor, but helps the elite,
> that doesn't help your case.

There are a huge number of nominally socialist policies in the US that really
exist at the behest of large corporations. Mortgage interest tax deduction --
"help people own a home", really makes home ownership more expensive and
transfers tax dollars to mortgage banks. Ditto student loan interest
subsidies. Affordable housing subsidies -- placate political demand for lower
housing costs without _actually_ lowering market rate housing costs for low-
middle income working people, transfers tax dollars to landlords, encourages
low income people to rent rather than own. Social security -- no progressive
rate structure, tax cutoff for millionaires, benefits based on lifespan and
historical income which both disadvantage lower income people. Tax deductions
for employer-provided health insurance -- implicit subsidy to large insurance
companies. Affordable Care Act -- _huge_ tax dollar subsidy to large insurance
companies, effectively prohibits people from saving money with high deductible
insurance plans that are less profitable to same insurance companies, and
discourage overconsumption and overpayment to medical companies.

Skepticism is warranted.

------
Shinchy
Listen comrades.

------
jlebrech
why do they need a union, i thought they could choose their own rate?

~~~
mariojv
Uber drivers cannot choose their own pay rate, if that's what you mean.
Recently, they've been unable to even choose if they want to accept Uber Pool
rides (i.e. there's no indication when you're picking someone up if they're
the first in an Uber Pool ride).

------
blitmap
Not that Uber isn't doing this to themselves... but I wonder who has the most
to gain from all the bad press Uber is getting this past month.

~~~
lithos
You're asking to go silly places, and full conspiracy mode. So let's go there.

I'd say Democrats, and the liberal press. What better way to show Republicans
being bad, then how quickly companies go full abusive when they're in power
and working hard to remove consumer/worker protections.

Democrats would also love to get unions/workers out of the right. So they just
need to show some soft support, and let it get quashed by ANY random
republican with a chip on their shoulder (which is really any at this point).

Not only that the CEO of Uber has shown early support for Trump, and most
Americans are of the thought that CEO/Company are the same thing (so it's easy
to make news of them showing support for anything). In this case the Liberal
media would like nothing less than making it untenable for a CEO to show
support of any cause (due to CEOs being brutal conservative monsters). They
would probably love to see the fallout from such support (further media
attention), to make boards consider barring their CEOs from being political in
any way.

That was an interesting mix of painful and fun to write.

~~~
blitmap
I was thinking Lyft doesn't necessarily need Uber to fail, they're doing just
fine?

