Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Uber, Lyft drivers strike in Los Angeles (latimes.com)
72 points by okareaman 8 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 96 comments

It's interesting how it's now fashionable to bash on Uber and Lyft. Seems everyone conveniently forgot about the medallion system Uber and Lyft disrupted.

Pre-Uber, either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very liquid).

The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid scheme aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber brought a breeze of fresh air: Someone could simply buy a car, calculate the depreciation and it's value on the market (since unlike medallions cars are relatively liquid assets!) do rideshare and calculate their profits or loss. They can get out of the game at anytime, and they know exactly how much they are going to get for the car they have should they sell it.

And I'm not even touching the usual pain points and often discriminatory practices of medallion drivers (refusing card payments, refusing rides to non-white passengers and to non-white neighborhoods...).

Its honestly not worth arguing about it. I have personally benefited with driving for uber as well as lots/most of drivers i have talked to. Its not perfect but it works great when you have kids and other things you have to worry about. The job was never meant to solve wealth inequality but it sure has helped a ton of people. Jesus my life would have been 100x better if i could have driven uber in college instead of working absolutely shit job with managers who hate you because you aren’t going to be stuck working this crap job until your 60 like them.

However if you go online you would think uber was killing peoples first born child. Internet forums are getting rather stupid over the past 5 years. You are mostly forced to use a few big ones that all have a hive mind of downvotes on anything contradictory to what the majority thinks. Unfortunately being the majority doesn’t make you right or even smart. Often times its the opposite. But i like to write up these posts so someone can downvote me and feel a little power.

Got injured and could no longer work a 9-5 office job. Uber and Airbnb kept me and family off street while I recovered.

Plenty bad things could be said. But I would probably be dead if not for the gig jobs.

sure, but the reason it's not worth arguing over is because large organization are exploitative by design. i'd argue it's the whole point of becoming big, as it's certainly not about being more service-oriented.


Just something that might interest you on the topic of organization.

yes, that’s part of the basis of my argument[0]. there is an optimum firm size, and it’s not ‘as big as possible’. no industry—-even capital-intensive ones like aerospace—-needs mega-corporations. we’re much better served by a heterogeneous mix of mid-sized companies, including in ridesharing. mid-sized companies are big and resilient enough to benefit from economies of scale and bring efficiency to a market, but are small and nimble enough to be responsive to customer and employee needs, not just to naked capital returns.

size (and other mechanisms, like the corporate veil) act to distance decision-makers from the consequences of their actions, so that they can pursue entirely greedy aims without remorse. we need to dismantle such systemic ruthlessness, and replace it with human-centered organization. it’s one of the core issues driving the economic contribution to sociopolitical disunity.

[0]: one of the points of a firm is to solve the coordination problem.

> The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid scheme aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants.

Uber (and Lyft) simply took over as the established rent seeker. At least with medallions, there were caps to prevent overcapacity in the system and your urban cores flooded with rideshare drivers. There is no such restriction with Uber and Lyft, so their revenue comes on the back of the externalities of underpaid drivers and unregulated congestion.

> At least with medallions, there were caps to prevent overcapacity

That's a really interesting way of describing an artificial monopoly specifically designed to increase earnings for a specific group of rent-seeking, wealthy medallion owners.

It's sort of like describing the De Beers corporation as ensuring the world is not littered with relatively-abundant diamonds. I suppose it might be true, but it certainly is not the point of the arrangement.

Besides medallions or a similar registration program, how would you balance vehicle capacity with limited street capacity? The "artificial monopoly" is a physical system, as two vehicles cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

I don't support medallions, by any means, but I do support a fair quota system to balance transportation availability with congestion management.

Offering higher pay at times of high capacity requirements, and lower pay at times when there is a surplus of drivers seems like a great solution to balance out when drivers should take shifts, while still letting people choose their own schedules and priorities. Which is exactly what the rideshare companies do

I thought Uber already did this with surge pricing? Or does it not take supply into account, only demand? Or is the extra money not going to the drivers?

> but I do support a fair quota system to balance transportation availability with congestion management.

The alternative is people using their cars and having to park it. Or taking their business elsewhere in more parking-friendly locations.

Toll roads.

A nice reform would be to make medallions non transferable, and have them expire if you don't prove certain amounts of rides over time

There is already an incentive to provide rides - the payment you get for giving the ride.

What does your system improve about the incentives?

It adds more regulation and low level bureaucracy.

Completely naive view of the situation, or you are just too young.

You don't need be 500k in debt to get started for uber as you needed to get a yellow cab medallion

Once you made that decsion (to mortgage you house to get a yellow cab medallion), you are bound to that job as a serf.... Modern day serfdom, that's what the yellow cab medallion system became to the large cities.

the only way out, was bankruptcy, or hope another person will pay just as much for that medallion. Often local mafiosi types were entangled with the system, and you had to deal with them as well.

Please, lets not glorify the pervious system, as it was much worse.

We can work and make this new system better, and force the large corps to provide more (benefits wise), but returning to the old medallion system is two steps back.

> and force the large corps to provide more (benefits wise)

They would need to make more money for that, and I'm not sure the consumer is ready to pay. Taxi fares in many cities used to be way higher with the medallions and ridership was abysmal.

This is the moral hazard of free-market economies without basic benefits. In an economy with real choice for labor, labor would walk when they're being abused with low pay and a minimum standard of living for labor would be priced into consumer prices. When there's no benefits, labor is always desperate to hold onto a job and put into situations where they accept jobs that they would rather not to not become homeless and benefit-less.

Not really. Drivers have the choice if they want to drive or not. If it is busy at certain times and rates are lower than don't drive at that time. If you don't want to have urban cores flooded with rideshare drivers find a way to improve busing or other competition in that space.

has overcapacity ever been a significant problem? I know drivers want more money but that doesn't mean customers would be willing to pay for it.

Uber and Lyft hare both non-profitable organizations. Even if rides were matched by some zero cost magic oracle, drivers would be making almost the same amount of profit, because that number’s defined by the next best alternative.

Really, what you find objectionable is not the presence of Uber or Lyft, but the fact that people are running independent businesses, competing with each other.

I don't understand your logic. We can't talk about problems with new things that are an improvement over old things?

> The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid scheme aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants

Only made possible by the local government who created an artificial scarcity in the medallion system. Sure there is probably a legitmate need for some government regualtion of taxi services, but what they did just set the table for that kind of predatory behavior to exist.

So we replaced something that sucked with something that sucks just as bad but it has an app.

What ever happened to creating something great, sustainable and that makes more than enough money but doesn't exploit for maximum profit.

Not even remotely close. The last time I had to call for a cab to come to my relatively nice neighborhood to get a ride somewhere I had to wait over an hour for them to show up.

With Uber it takes maybe 10 minutes max and the fare is 1/4 of the price of a traditional cab. Uber/Lyft have been a godsend compared to what was available before.

Don't Uber and Lyft lose money? I doubt there is an easy way to operate much more ethically and also make enough money to be sustainable

If your business lose money despite you not operating ethically in pursuit of money, maybe there is something wrong with economic system that don't let you crash.

> So we replaced something that sucked with something that sucks just as bad but it has an app.

I don't know that it sucks just as bad. If a medallion driver wanted to get out of the game he had to find a buyer. And often drivers considered their medallion their retirement naively thinking it could only go up in value. Then the city decides to emit 500 additional medallions and theirs stays on the market for years because if they match the city's price they'll lose money.

I believe it really does suck less. You just have to understand the enormous scale of suck that we are dealing with.

It went from super extreme suck to extreme suck.

> So we replaced something that sucked with something that sucks just as bad but it has an app.

Genuine question: have you ever lived in NYC?

> What ever happened to creating something great, sustainable and that makes more than enough money but doesn't exploit for maximum profit.

capitalism, eventually: creating something g̶r̶e̶a̶t̶, s̶u̶s̶t̶a̶i̶n̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ a̶n̶d̶ t̶h̶a̶t̶ m̶a̶k̶e̶s̶ m̶o̶r̶e̶ t̶h̶a̶n̶ e̶n̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ m̶o̶n̶e̶y̶ b̶u̶t̶ d̶o̶e̶s̶n̶'t̶ e̶x̶p̶l̶o̶i̶t̶ for maximum profit.

The rating system was one of the major innovations. In the taxi system, bad behavior had no direct consequence for the individual drivers, and so it was rampant.

It’s funny how random people on the internet pretend Uber and Lyft were magnanimous companies on a mission to reform the exploitative taxi industry for the benefit of drivers and riders.

Just because the taxi industry wasn’t perfect in your eyes - who are you by the way? What skin in the game do you have? - doesn’t mean that Uber and Lyft aren’t orders of magnitude more exploitative.

What skin do you have in the game?

My father drove a taxi before Uber/Lyft and that shit was way more exploitative. He was paid shit ($600/week was considered good), didn't get any flexibility (once you're on the clock, you're on the clock), he didn't get to choose his hours (they would assign times and fares by seniority, he mostly worked from the evening well into the night), he had to drive the company's disgusting cars that were constantly falling apart (which were also assigned by seniority and then he had to clean them, before and after his driving, usually because the previous driver left the car trashed), he had no recourse for shit customers that either wouldn't pay or would trash the car, and the taxi company gave zero shits about any of this because they had their medallions and that's all that mattered.

It was the worst job he ever had to subject himself to and this is a man that grew up in the Soviet Union (where he actually drove taxis part time to make extra money).

I'm sure it was nice if you were a taxi driver that happened to acquire your own medallion, got to work for yourself, providing dog shit service, and for rates of your choosing since the competition was artificially constrained. But that is a minority of the taxi drivers out there.

Skin in the game…I represented an Uber driver that Uber solicited out of 1 county where it was legal into another county where it was illegal, and the driver was arrested. Uber knew of the illegality, did not disclose the criminal nature to the driver and solicited the driver to break the law with a monetary incentive.

Uber has left numerous drivers in its wake with criminal records as a result of their illegal and sometimes criminal operations. As bad as it was for your father it doesn’t sound like the taxi driver paid him to commit criminal acts he was otherwise unaware he was committing.

> I'm sure it was nice if you were a taxi driver that happened to acquire your own medallion, got to work for yourself, providing dog shit service, and for rates of your choosing since the competition was artificially constrained. But that is a minority of the taxi drivers out there.

Yes and I’m sure being an investor in Uber pre-IPO without ever having to actually work much less drive and dump that dog shit on the public to cash out was very nice. But that is a minority of people under US capitalism.

> As bad as it was for your father it doesn’t sound like the taxi driver paid him to commit criminal acts he was otherwise unaware he was committing.

Just like 99.999% of Uber drivers haven't experienced that situation either. Do you really think that taxi companies of the past aren't guilty of even worse crimes? At least Uber is a big enough target that you can seek some sort of justice, good luck getting any sort of justice from the scumbag taxi companies.

I don't think anyone pretends Uber and Lyft are "magnanimous". They saw that the existing taxi industry was a bad deal for both drivers and riders and figured they could make money by giving drivers and riders a better deal.

I think you're assuming a zero-sum rule of the world where the only way Uber or Lyft can benefit is by taking away from their riders and drivers. That's not how any of this works.

> What skin in the game do you have?

The average HN user - usually in the upper middle class - are certainly on the beneficial side of this. They've received a cheap private chauffeur service, albeit decentralized, that they use to a greater extent than they would ever use taxi because of its affordability (ofc made possible by VC money and offloading costs to the drivers). The self-interested confirmation bias in HN threads about the gig/ride taxi industry must be seen in that light.

Approving competition is proof of privilege?

That lazy euphemism for systematically circumventing labour laws for profit kinda proves my point about confirmation bias.

In some American markets the taxi driver experience was fairly standardized. The driver paid a gate fee to rent a heavy-duty, professionally maintained, insured Crown Victoria for a fixed fee per shift, and earned regulated tariffs on fares. Those drivers had as much flexibility as any TNC driver, with less risk because they didn't need to use their own car. The nearest analog is the TNC programs where you rent a Corolla by the day.

If anyone think renters were making above minimum wage, I have a bridge to sell them.

The cost of renting was often so high the car had to stay on the road for 24h a day for it to maybe make a profit.

As a retired person, I used to enjoy driving for Lyft and Uber. I took a break during the worst of the pandemic. My car is no longer functional, so I expected to start driving again with a rental car, which a lot of people were doing before the pandemic. Lyft and Uber ignored me for a year despite my high rating, while they had driver shortages. Finally, Lyft reached out and qualified me to drive with a rental car. However, the suggested rental car options were all at normal rates, which means I'd have to drive 25 hours a week to pay for the rental car and more to pay for insurance. Totally not worth risking my life for.

Now I'm looking for ways to make money off the failure of these companies ("brain dead" as Steve Jobs would say)

Rental car companies don't have enough cars for their normal customers, I doubt they're in a hurry to rent them out at a discount for rideshare drivers.

It's not that Lyft is brain dead, they aren't a car manufacturer and they can't wave their hands and make more cars available. Even car manufacturers can't make enough cars available.


>Now I'm looking for ways to make money off the failure of these companies

short them and/or buy puts. it's risky though. the market can remain irrational longer than you can involve solvent, and as the recent meme stocks have shown, the market can be very irrational.

Shorting even an obvious piece of shit like Lyft is risky in this environment. We're talking about a company that has never earned a profit, has no prospects of ever making a profit, has a huge and rapidly accelerating annual loss on shrinking revenues, the share price of which has doubled in the past year (up 5% today alone). You're going head-to-head with all the lunatics in the world.

Nikola Motors is another obvious PoS that has had significant retracements up and down in share price for not any particularly sound fundamental reasons. I've been short it since the Hindenburg Research post came out and have made money, but it's been nail-biting at times.

I think buying puts is too expensive given that you've got to get the timing just right (and your upside is capped) and shorting Uber/Lyft is too fraught with "as the COVID recovery story changes good and bad, transportation companies are going to whipsaw some".

Bet with the macro trend, not against it.

That would be called betting against the fed. Excess liquidity trumps subpar fundamentals.

I am not a particularly financially savvy person, but I can learn. I found this thread about shorting Uber in 2019 that seems more compelling today:

Is Uber the perfect short? https://old.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/br6hl1/is_uber_the_...

Shorting stocks is always risky. Taking stock picking advise from anonymous people on the internet is a bad idea in general unless you don't care if you lose money.

Keep in mind, you’re retired. Shorts have infinite risk.

> so I expected to start driving again with a rental car

That's on you, then, for not understanding current market conditions.

The used car market right now is insane and rental agencies bounced off bankruptcies if they didn't actually go bankrupt.

All this means that renting a car is going to be quite expensive. I'd be surprised if anyone can make a profit doing rideshare with one.

Is there anything really stopping drivers from not striking? Unlike a union strike, Uber/Lyft drivers are striking on their own terms.

Presumably if everyone else is striking, rates will be really high and the drivers not striking will be making decent wage (ironically part of the reason to strike).

This is the same with a union. Unions' only sanction against people ignoring the strike is social pressure. Ultimately strikes will only work when enough people have decided to work together and take the action together, whether there is a union or not.

I'm in an Uber right now and the rate was noticeably cheaper than it has been. I had no idea about this strike until now. I asked my driver and wasn't aware of it either.

That's called scabbing.

It's not scabbing. The contractors "striking" aren't employees. And it's not a strike as defined by the law.

This kind of pedantry reminds me of people who want to call prisoners "detainees" and who want to call torture "enhanced interrogation".

Setting aside the implication you are trying to make that following employment law equals to agreeing with torture, it's not the same at all.

There's a legal definition of a strike, union and employment vs contractor. Just like there's a legal definition for prisoners and torture.

You can't get the rights associated with an unionized strike (anti scab laws) without the consequences of being unionized (dues for instance).

You're a scab if you are undermining the strike. No legal pedantry will suddenly wash that away. This is just common sense.

A scab is just a union term for people who disagree with them. It’s like being called racist when complaining about crime.

It's a pejorative for someone undermining other people's struggle for a better life. Either way, it's a sad state of affairs when HN threads constantly get derailed by a dozen or two very prolific reactionaries like yourself. Always the same names.

A scab is a scab, regardless of what legal trickery the owning class has engaged in to make striking illegal

If I am willing to work for less than someone else, it is wrong to insult me for that with terms such as "scab". I own my labor and other people own theirs. I would not take a job unless it were the best available to me.

"Scab" is a hate term that has been used to justify violence against so-called scabs. Epithets for gays have served a similar purpose in the past and are now considered to say more about the speaker than the target.

It’s incredibly irresponsible to compare homophobia to a worker not cooperating with a strike.

Why? "Scab" is a term meant to dehumanize. Something like "replacement worker" or "picket line crosser" or "strike-breaker" should be preferred.

Replacement worker is just as dehumanizing.

"Worker" is treating people as resources and not people

Don’t scabs usually come from outside the company? Like if uber hired new drivers at high rates.

Everything has a name, Lieutenant Dan.

I think it is actually happening now, at least in my area. There are less drivers, and rides cost more because of it.

I wonder which way the financials tip for Uber/Lyft. If Uber/Lyft are losing money over fewer riders willing to pay the higher price? Or if people need to go where they're going anyway and will pay the premium during the (limited time) strike?

In my case, it was not because of the strike, but just fewer drivers. I assume because covid meant less rides, and that meant less drivers signing on.

I was willing to pay a premium to drink without risking a DUI. I don't know how many others would make the same decision, but with things opening up I suspect the number will be growing. Conversely, In the begining of the pandemic I had many medical visits that were super cheap and fast because the only people on the road were uber drivers.

I think surge pricing is almost perfect free market, and the only thing that could be better is more competitors in the app side of it. Most drivers already drive for uber and lyft, and choose whichever they think is the best deal for them at the moment. If there were 4 or 5 viable competitors then it would be perfect. Not as great from a user perspective, but also not awful. Many people I know have uber and lyft and check prices/times on both before picking one.

I am really surprised all of the traditional taxi companies have not got together and made an app yet. Uber made things so much better in every way that matters from a rider's perspective. They didn't even need to compete on price, all they needed was a way to get a ride, and know how long it was going to take to get to you, and trust that the price was the price. Anyone who ever needed a taxi in anywhere but a classy urban area hates taxis.

That said, I think operating at a loss on purpose to drive out competition should be illegal. I'm not sure how that could be enforced while it's happening, but it's usually obvious after the fact. In which case I think jail time is warranted.

If this was the case, Uber/Lyft would likely simply charge the higher price all the time, paying the drivers the same amount they pay normally, and pocket the difference.

This only appears limited to Los Angeles. Uber and Lyft appear to be working as usual in other major cities.

Similar problems in the Bay Area where I am. San Francisco and Los Angeles are huge markets and leading indicators. Uber bet on the idea the self-driving taxis would be a thing and they didn't have to make many concessions to human drivers. Self-driving cars is not working out the way it looked a few years ago, so I am pessimistic about their business model.

Uber/Lyft was such an important factor in my daily equation during my 20s (2010's). I remember those black car rides for $8. Haven't opened the Uber/Lyft apps in about 2 years. I can imagine using it again for business travel when it's not linked to my personal credit card though.

So now we find ourselves back at the beginning. I remember a rick and Morty where they save the purge planet and at the end the people make it a purge planet again. This sounds like that.

The problem uber and lyft set out to solve was not solved. Maybe it was corporate greed, government regulations, bad marketing, whatever, in the end it seems the rideshare industry will end up with unions and medallions. Whatever the case, they were on to it until it became this whole big thing.

So how do you solve this problem? That's easy. Let people with cars give rides for money if that's what they want and find a way for them to network to make that efficient. A FOSS uber like network would solve it. The drivers that wouldn't be happy wouldn't be able to strike, they'd just quit. The drivers that liked it would keep doing it. Everyone would be happy and nobody would rent seek, government or corporation or cartel or guild or union or anybody, the supply and demand for ride sharing and pricing would solve itself naturally. But how do you market that when everyone finds the services they use from YouTube ads? Hmm I wonder.

I drove for uber briefly. Wasn't impressed with their integrity (the promo I signed up on said get X if you drive for us, then it was after you do Y, then Y and Z).

I drove purely for fun but that rubbed me the wrong way so I wrapped it up.

Uber is mostly on the up and up. Lyft is the sketchier of the two. They use tricks on the drivers to direct them where they want them, such as luring a driver into a high demand area with a fake ride (which gets cancelled) and then suggesting, since you are here, why don't you wait for a ride.

Do you have any source for this? This sounds so incredibly dodgy that I can't really believe it.

Just personal experience. I have other examples, like creating fake hot zones to lure drivers away from crowded areas and cancelling my ride when the rider didn't show up right before the time when I would have been paid for waiting. Uber did none of these things. I still like Lyft though because they have a lot of government contracts and I like helping poor and sick people to their doctor appointments.

Edit: I don't blame the people at Lyft. I blame their AI, which is designed by people, but can operate in ways they haven't anticipated.

Lyft doesn't create fake rides.

Source: work there.

Do you understand how your ride scheduling software works? I can be even more specific: I was travelling south on 280 near Daly City sometime in the fall of 2019. I got a pickup in what turned out to be a cemetary. I refused to go into the dark cemetery figuring it was a mistake. The ride was cancelled then a message came up suggesting I stay and wait there because there was high demand in that neighborhood. Look it up. You keep logs don't you?

Edit: It was a pickup at the Golden Gate National Cemetery around 10 PM. I have an alt email in my profile. Contact me if you need more information.

We keep logs of course, but we have strict privacy guidelines that prevent me or any employees from looking at random rides of users. We have annual training that reminds us of such (and for good reason--imagine how creepy it would be if Lyft employees could look at the ride histories for any users).

We match drivers with riders based on some algorithms and heuristics that try to optimize for some metrics which I won't go into for obvious reasons. In order to match a driver with a rider, there must be a real ride request from a real user account. It's that simple. What you claim simply does not exist, and would be so blatantly unethical that someone even suggesting such a thing would raise a ton of eyebrows immediately and might get them fired, and persisting to push such an idea would almost certainly get them fired.

You reference an "AI" in your other comments. That's not how AIs work. It is not a Skynet-level artificial intelligence that decides what the policy is, but rather an optimization problem that is solved with certain constraints. There is no system on Earth with anywhere near the level of agency and intelligence that you're implying it would have to have in order to be able to modify the source code of a system to create the concept of fake users and riders.

Well I was a driver not a rider and I didn't pick anyone up. You should be able to look at what drivers are doing it seems. It's a mystery to me how I got a pickup in a cemetery late at night. Someone ordered it. The ride was cancelled shortly after I got there. Seems fishy to me that I got a message suggesting I wait in that neighborhood because of high demand right after the ride was cancelled. I've written software for a lot of years, and there's times when it does something unexpected. Consider this a bug report then.

There's no bug that could possibly cause that behavior. Someone requested a ride and then cancelled it. Maybe they requested both an Uber and a Lyft and went with the one that was going to pick them up faster. Or they just changed their minds and cancelled the ride for some other reason.

Also, we value driver privacy as much as rider privacy, so the same privacy guidelines apply there. The only way to get someone to look at a specific event is to file a support ticket and have the support agent go through our system. Any other method of access is basically forbidden.

My problem with Uber is I had great records. The offer was get $XXX when you start driving with us. Period. I went through the process. No payment.

So I followed up. Ohh they said, it's actually get $XXX when you do 5 rides or whatever.

Fine, I did that. No payment.

Then they said it's actually $XXX if ... at that point I was just like peace out. This was ages ago so they may have cleaned up their act, but I was not impressed.

> such as luring a driver into a high demand area with a fake ride (which gets cancelled)

That would be fraud. I strongly doubt they're creating and cancelling fake rides.

Why can't it be a bug in their AI? No human at Lyft is directing rides. It's the paper clip problem - tell it to optimize profit and it finds ways.

Another alternative in some areas of Los Angeles not mentioned in the article is Metro Micro that seems to be newer: https://micro.metro.net/

Though I've been taking Metro buses as they aren't currently charging for that.

Sounds like this just incentives the drivers who don’t care to hop on and make more money then they normally would.

I wonder if it's possible to write an Uber-like app for union membership.

People make an account, and when there are enough people in that area and in that industry to make it feasible to do a union vote, you get a notification and can organize a vote quickly so that there's less time for anti-union propaganda to go out.

Yet people always assume that a tech union will look exactly like the AFL-CIO of yesteryear, without any new ideas.

Applications are open for YC Winter 2022

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact