What If the "Sharing Economy" Organized a Strike, and Nobody Came?

Nerval's Lobster writes "In Boston, a number of UberX drivers reportedly planned to strike yesterday afternoon in response to a rate cut. (UberX is a low-cost program from Uber, which is attempting to "disrupt" the traditional cab industry via a mobile app that connects ordinary drivers in need of cash with passengers who want to go somewhere.) Uber tried to preempt the strike with a blog posting explaining that the rate cut actually translated into more customers and thus more revenue to drivers, but it needn't have bothered: according to local media (the same media that reported a strike was in the making) a strike failed to materialize. Many of the biggest firms of the so-called 'sharing economy,' such as Uber and Airbnb, are locked in battle with some combination of deeply entrenched industries and government regulators. But if the 'labor' that drives the sharing economy becomes more agitated about its compensation, it could create yet another interesting wrinkle. The Boston strike may have fizzled, but that doesn't mean another one, in a different city, won't enjoy more success." Free (or freer) entry makes occupation-based roadblocks harder to enforce, though, so Uber and other crowd-sourcing matchmakers are tougher to pin down and disrupt in the way that more tightly controlled enterprises are. (Not that city councils and other bodies aren't trying to corral crowd-sourced undertakings into their regulatory purviews, putting a damper on some of that freewheeling disintermediation.)

Comments

Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine much same as a public transit strike (or a mail strike or a strike by any other kind of service used by the public):
- Many users would be somewhat inconvenienced, but they would deal with it
- Some people would be severely inconvenienced (you'd have the kid who couldn't visit his dying grandmother one last time and the student who had to drop out of university on the news)
- A small group of people would lose faith in the whole idea and never use it again
- You’d see a drop in usage, followed by a gradual climb back to pre-strike numbers as the reasons and motivations to use the service haven’t really changed

Re:Easy

[alexander_686]

Or maybe switch to an alternative sharing app?

The reason why there are unions – and their ultimate weapon the strike – is to redress the power balance between labor and the firm. The other choice is for workers to quite their current firm and join another but that is expensive. Need to find a new job, learn new skills, etc. And in the bad old days, worry about company towns, blacklists, etc.

I don’t see that high of a barrier to entry so I don’t see the firm having that much power. It’s the labor that’s got the capital (cars, spare rooms, etc.) in this example. If Uber cranks shafts labor it would not be that hard for a rival to launch another app. Yes, Uber would have some type of power due to it’s networking affects but those can crumble quickly.

Re:Easy

[OakDragon]

...you'd have the kid who couldn't visit his dying grandmother one last time and the student who had to drop out of university on the news...

Quick, somebody call President Obama!

Re:Easy

[bluefoxlucid]

The reason why there are unions – and their ultimate weapon the strike – is to get the workers to hand over part of their paycheck and make the union organizers rich.

1% 1% 1%

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason why there are unions – and their ultimate weapon the strike – is to redress the power balance between labor and the firm. The other choice is for workers to quite their current firm and join another but that is expensive.

Oh, is that what it is? That must be why my workplace - where joining a union will get you fired - hasn't given a pay increase in 5 years, and I was given a written warning for taking the breaks that I'm legally entitled to.

Re:Easy

[AK Marc]

Unions were created when employers would rather kill 10 workers than spend $100 on a safety widget. And when strikes happened, the employers would call in private security with a license to kill. That the union bosses had to be more ruthless than mob bosses to deal with the amoral employers is the fault of the employers. They got the unions they deserved, and no worse.

It's always hilarious to me when the free market nutjobs defend corporations as freedom to assemble and such, but unions should be illegal. What, you shouldn't be free to assemble workers, only free to assemble capital?

Re:Easy

[AlphaWolf_HK]

I don't think anybody wants unions to be illegal. My personal opinion is that you shouldn't be forced to contribute to their political lobbying (union dues invariably do this) as a condition of employment, nor should you be forced to strike if you as an individual don't want to.

Those two are freedom of speech and assembly respectively, yet not going along with them can cost you your job if you're in a union shop.

Re:Easy

[Joining Yet Again]

1. Everything is politics. Just by existing, a union is being political;
2. Freedom of assembly MUST mean that employees have a right to agree not to work with someone who isn't in the union - otherwise it isn't freedom of assembly;
3. Nobody can force you to strike. But the rest of the workforce can refuse to work with those who won't take part in an agreed strike. Again, freedom of assembly.

You can't say, "I agree with unions except to the extent that they decide to do stuff I don't like." It's not up to you. They're choosing to assemble freely, and will do so as they please.

Re:Easy

[AK Marc]

Because standing up to employers got you shot, unions started out as political organizations. OSHA and such wouldn't exist if unions didn't petition for them. Separating unions from politics is as easy as separating the Democrats or Republicans from politics.

nor should you be forced to strike if you as an individual don't want to.

If you sign a contract (in a right to work state) indicating that if the union votes to strike, you will strike, you should never be held to the contract you signed of your own free will? Why do you hate contracts?

Re:Easy

[BitZtream]

Uhm, the 'license to kill' thing you are referring to was the Pinkertons ... and a strike and what they did have no relation. They didn't go to anyones homes and shoot people, they shot at the mob breaking the fence down at the factory they were striking in front of.

Today, we'd just let the cops shoot them for destruction of property.

If you think modern unions are a good thing, you're an idiot to stupid to realize you're just feeding someone else money to use you as their pawn in a game of politics.

Re:Easy

[BitZtream]

OSHA and such wouldn't exist if unions didn't petition for them.

Not only is that bullshit, there is absolutely nothing to back up that claim.

If you sign a contract (in a right to work state) indicating that if the union votes to strike, you will strike, you should never be held to the contract you signed of your own free will? Why do you hate contracts?

Uhm, you need to get a clue. 'Right to work' does EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you're implying. The Right to Work means the union can not force you to be part of their strike, nor can you be required to join a union in order to get a job. Unions are toothless in right to work states because they can't force anyone to participate in their games. This is why ... there generally aren't any unions in right to work states, they are pointless, union says strike! and the people go on strike ... only to be replaced immediately by people who are happy to get paid rather than hang out with those people who clearly make enough money that they can bitch about work rather than get paid to work.

Do you ever make a post here that isn't ridiculously inaccurate?

Re:Easy

[AK Marc]

Uhm, you need to get a clue. 'Right to work' does EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you're implying.

You can still sign those contracts in right to work states. What you can't do in right to work states is fire someone for quitting the union. When you learn the meanings of the big words, feel free to come back and play.

Re:Easy

[AK Marc]

Modern unions are what corporations deserve for past evils. Unions exist *solely* because of worker mistreatment at the hands of employers. You are just upset because unions generally vote the opposite of your personal preference. You are no less political, you just oppose the unions because their ideas conflict with yours, not how they do it.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

"They made the U.S. a horrible place to engage in any business that could easily be outsourced to another country"
LOL

Shutup and go work in a deathtrap coal mine you fucking freemarket turd. Oh wait; there are health and safety laws that make it illegal to work in a deathtrap?
Go move to China and work in a shithole, getting paid shitall in a deathtrap factory.

Then come back here and tell us all how bad unions have made it to work in America.

Fuck you assholes are so wilfully blind.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was the above marked as "Troll"?

Re:Easy

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Because standing up to employers got you shot, unions started out as political organizations. OSHA and such wouldn't exist if unions didn't petition for them. Separating unions from politics is as easy as separating the Democrats or Republicans from politics.

Actually that's not how they started nor is it why. The first unions formed along racial lines by white people who were tired of minorities (mainly Chinese or "yellow" people) taking their jobs for lower wages:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/LaborUnions.html

Not surprisingly, therefore, black leader Booker T. Washington opposed unions all his life, and W. E. B. DuBois called unions the greatest enemy of the black working class. Another interesting fact: the “union label” was started in the 1880s to proclaim that a product was made by white rather than yellow (Chinese) hands. More generally, union wage rates, union-backed requirements for a license to practice various occupations, and union-backed labor regulations such as the minimum wage law and the Davis-Bacon Act continue to reduce opportunities for black youths, females, and other minorities.

And OSHA has never actually proven to be beneficial. Workplace accidents were on a very linear decline both before and after OSHA was formed, but merely because the trend continued, people in favor of OSHA just assumed that OSHA was the cause when in reality it was not. That trend began when employers for the most part realized that they could attract more talent if they would make their work environment safer. This started rather famously with the DuPont black powder manufacturing (which was very dangerous work) in the mid 1800's. There never was a government mandate for safety in that case; it was entirely a voluntary decision by a corporation (and we all know corporations are evil, right?)

If you sign a contract (in a right to work state) indicating that if the union votes to strike, you will strike, you should never be held to the contract you signed of your own free will? Why do you hate contracts?

To call that a straw man would be quite an understatement. That last bit aside: First, in a right to work state there is never a requirement to sign such a contract to begin with unless they want to, so nobody really does. Second, people can and do strike in right to work states (I remember Qwest doing that 8ish years ago here in Arizona) so it isn't as if you have to pay dues to some union boss just for the privilege of being able to do so.

And just by that last example alone, you can pretty plainly see that people don't have to answer to two separate bosses and forfeit part of their paycheck in order to seek redress against an employer that they see as being unfair. They can if they'd like to as well, by the way, as those workers did formalize a union and had another strike in 2012 (at this time the company was named CenturyLink.)

Re:Easy

[AlphaWolf_HK]

2. Freedom of assembly MUST mean that employees have a right to agree not to work with someone who isn't in the union - otherwise it isn't freedom of assembly;

Absolutely, and they have the right to quit their job if they don't like you, but forcing you to leave at their behest is definitely crossing the line. This is actually the basis upon which the first successful unions were formed in the 1800's - keeping Chinese laborers from taking their jobs, later extended to keeping blacks from taking their jobs.

The nice thing about a right to work state is that unions don't have the power to force you out of a job. If the union itself doesn't like it, it is free to leave. Unions can and do exist in right to work states, they even have strikes on occasion. In right to work states unions are focused on being a collective rather than being focused on having power over both their members and their employers. Some say unions are toothless in right to work states, and I would say that is also correct because they don't have the ability to bite their own members - nor should they anyways.

Re:Easy

[Lennie]

The union should just make their own app.

Re:Easy

[Joining Yet Again]

I don't understand why forcing you to leave is crossing the line, sorry - as long as the "force" is simply refusing to work with you. The language is off: to use a car analogy, because /. seems to find them funny, it's like saying I'm "forcing" you not to use my car just because I won't give you the keys. In fact, I have the privilege to simply not give you the keys - it's my car!

Any democracy will end up creating compromises which don't please the minority. The union is a trade-off, where the workers enjoy power in numbers, but some workers will sometimes lose out short term on some things. Overall, the labour movement has benefitted workers. As with any power structure, Churchill's maxim still applies: it is the worst, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Re:Easy

[rujholla]

Modern unions have outlived their usefulness. I agree there was worker mistreatment at the hands of employers, and if that kind of mistreatment returns, then bring back the unions. Currently they are just leeches sucking the lifeblood out of the workers they are supposedly in place to protect.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you insist on a car analogy: Your boss has 10 cars. As part of the conditions of your job, you, and 9 other people, need to use 1 to get your work done. Those 9 people form a club, and make a club rule that for anyone to drive for your boss, they must be a dues paying member of that club. Not to mention, they also make rules that your boss can't have those cars maintained by anyone not a member of that club, or one similar. And they all walk out, until their demands are met.

Re:Easy

[alexander_686]

Well, at this point I would argue that a co-op structure would be betterthen a union structure. After all, at this point there is not much "managment".

Re:Easy

[bluefoxlucid]

Unions were created when employers would rather kill 10 workers than spend $100 on a safety widget.

Employers would still rather do that, except that now they know re-staffing workers is expensive; and now we have government regulations and inspectors that make safety failures crippling (OSHA will shut down your business immediately, the minute the inspector decides it can't function as-is, until the issue is resolved and they have inspected and signed off on it).

Re:Easy

[Joining Yet Again]

And the problem is what, exactly?

The boss' strength is in owning 10 cars - the workers' strength is in being able to bargain collectively. Even with your example of a most degenerate union, which does nothing but require membership and collect dues, there is no force: it's still voluntary freedom of assembly. You can say that it's short of optimal productivity, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to arrange it - just as Microsoft shovels out shit by the fuckton, but that doesn't mean we say they shouldn't. The workers are offering their labour, and whatever redresses the balance in their favour is up to them to decide.

In practice, of course, unions do way more than the above.

Re:Easy

[aestrivex]

The 9 members of the club have no deficit of power. The boss has no deficit of power, if he doesn't like the terms he can fire the 9 workers (assuming that this is a toy example and he is not liable to be sued for discrimination and so forth).

The deficit of power in the story obviously belongs to the 1 guy who doesn't want to associate himself with the club because he wants to make money while the other guys prevent him from doing so while they negotiate with the boss. That guy, gets screwed.

In the right to work environment (which exists in a considerable number of non-right-to-work states for certain industries), that guy gets what he wants, while the union gets what they want (namely, the employer negotiating for terms, or else firing them and getting new workers, or whatever -- obviously the latter is a risk of collective bargaining).

In the *non* right to work environment, such as that seen for some public industries in many blue states (for instance, many teachers unions), everyone is required to be unionized and it tends to be true that the union is out of control.

In spite of being leftish in the grand scheme of things, my public school education with so many unionized teachers that were utterly incompetent, but protected from being fired for seniority or disability reasons, leaves me utterly unsympathetic towards the plight of organized labor. I hear occasionally from older people that I "don't understand how hard it is," that career stability is important and it would be heartless to simply fire the underperforming school teachers. Guess what, the younger generation is broke too. Of course, the root of the selfishness is the assumption that education is teacher-centric, and that therefore it is ok for public services to suffer just so that teachers who taught me nothing and wasted my time can retain their employment. This is a pervasive assumption among unions and people who defend unions.

It is worth saying here that not all unions are evil and corrupt bastards. But enough of them are that I'd rather just smash them all and start over.

Re:Easy

[AK Marc]

Not unlike corporations, sucking their 10% out of the economy at the cost of the workers.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what you want. You want Unions to be illegal. Look at the word "union." If union membership is not compulsory than some employees will choose to not join the union. If some workers don't join the union than there is no unity and the union doesn't exist. Its right there in the definition of the fucking word "Union."

You are basically saying "I want unions to be legal as long as they are not actual unions"
It's like saying "I like pizza but only the kind that isn't made from dough."

Now I want you to do a little thought experiment. I want you to read the following sentence out-loud:
"Every single one of my political beliefs is carefully crafted to increase the wealth of the 1% at the expense of everything else"
I want you to think about that if your capable of it. Every time a political thought pops into your head think "Does this help me or does it help some rich fuck"
Then you can think: "does having this belief make me a chump ass bitch"
This probably will never filter through your thick fucking rube scull, but I figure I could give it a try.

If there are any lefties or at least people with common sense please note I was being an asshole to alphawolf on purpose. Reactionaries seem to always want to fellate there oppressors so I figure treating them like shit and I might get through.

I think I read somewhere that conservatives and liberals get abused as children at about the same rate the difference is conservatives tended to enjoy it.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

And another thing:

The Randroid Jargon Argument:
I'll put this labor debate using Ayn Rand's jargon so you fuckwits can understand. People should be free to do what they please as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. If some 9 year old Bangladeshi with a hook worm decides to work for 3cents a day, that affects the price of labor over here. In other words his free choice harms me. This effect is called an "externiality." I did not take part in the exchange between the 9 year old and his boss, yet I am harmed by it. That is the justification for unions. The right of workers to collectively bargain supersedes the right of an individual not pay dues. This is due to the fact that if an individual decides to not pay dues he is participating in an action that harms the other workers.

The practicality argument for unions:
We could go back and forth all day about inherent, unalienable, god given and/or [insert metaphysical bullshit here] rights. We could talk about rights until were blue in the face. But I live in the real world. As a resident of the real world I like things like indoor plumbing and vaccinations. To afford these things I need a decent wage. But there is one little little problem with the free market price of labor. This is important so I'm putting it on its own line:

The free market price of labor is a bowl of rice and a bale of straw to sleep on.

What I mean by that, is, If you allow the market to decide the price of labor the bottom tier worker will end up in abject poverty. You get appendicitis at the sweat shop, tough shit, get the fuck out, and go die in an alley. I'll hire that strapping lad over there with the good appendix. If you don't believe me(and I know you don't because your a randroid fuckwit) I have to tell you about this new thing they invented: empirical evidence. The way empiricism works is you come up with a theory lets say "The free market price of labor will produce unicorns and rainbows" The next step is you look at the world around you. You can do this by opening up a history book or buying a plane ticket to India. Lets look at some examples shall we. In El Salvidor a bunch of people died when the garbage dump they were living on had an avalanche. In India the class war is so intense that the lowest cast the untouchables literally have to eat shit. Or look up the potato famine in Ireland. Ireland was exporting food during the entire ordeal. The third step in empiricism if the theory does not predict the real world ITS WRONG.

I once mentioned some of these problems to a Libertarian once. You know what he said: "None of those examples count because they weren't in a true free market" This thought is so divorced from reality its hard to comprehend.

So how do we compensate for the market effects on labor? Here are some solutions that have been tried:
1. Minimum wage
2. Collective bargaining AKA unions
3. Having a revolution, beheading all the former elite, redistributing wealth and letting the process begin anew.

I kind of like 1 and 2.

The problem is these red state rubs live a relatively comfortable life due essentially to the new deal coalition and the progressive era of politics. They are blissfully unaware that the social safety net is being slowly removed from beneath them. The question is how bad does it have to get before Americans start to realize the American dream is gone. I give it another 20-30 years. I prefer if we started to fix this shit now.

Re:Easy

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Even in a right to work environment, nobody has taken away the ability to bargain collectively. Rather, they can't say "Ok, we strike because we want this guy removed, and now you aren't allowed to let us go either; you're stuck with us, and further we're also going to harass anybody who chooses to continue to work".

I maintain that
A) The employer should have the right to let those workers go.
B) Those who continue to work shouldn't be subject to tyranny of the mob.

Re:Easy

[Meski]

You know, when this grandmother died, I said that this kid could have been my son.

Lube

[Anonymous Coward]

Needs more lube...

Labor is valueless

[i kan reed]

As long as the money is concentrated in very few hands, the price of labor basically becomes fiat of the wealthy. You, as a first world citizen, can't compete on price and survive.

Re:Labor is valueless

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Not to worry, statistics suggest that the luckless residents of the third world are having considerable trouble competing on price and surviving as well...

In certain specific cases, a sudden outbreak of competition-on-price (say, an outsourcing, or the liberalization of trade policy in a previously tariff-protected industry) may really show a group of first world workers how much they can't compete on price with some 3rd-worlders of similar skill; but in the longer term, it's not as though being unable to compete on price is exclusive to the first world: Unless you have some very-hard-to-reproduce talent (in which case you aren't competing on price), the expected price set by pure price competition will be whatever bare subsistence costs(any lower, and the labor will starve, any higher and somebody who is unemployed will be willing to work for bare subsistence...)

Re:Labor is valueless

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why most large cities have regulated taxi services. The end result is effectively similar to a union... driving a taxi provides livable wage. Or at least it has so far, until Uber, etc, eat their lunch.

It's incredible how people talk on-and-on about how the working class keeps getting shafted, but when it comes to supporting things like unions (public or private) or supporting things like Uber, they are incapable of putting two-and-two together.

Don't get me wrong. I think Uber is cool, and am glad its around It's certainly forcing traditional taxi cartels to enter the 21st century. But let's not be ignorant about what the taxi cartels do provide. The often times shitty experience you get from taxis--such as long wait times, etc--is a tax, and that tax goes toward the taxi cab drivers. Let's be honest about what we're really paying, and why.

Re:Labor is valueless

[i kan reed]

That glimmer of hope you provide is assuming money cannot be used to directly displace labor. It can. Or at least will.

Re:Labor is valueless

[cascadingstylesheet]

In certain specific cases, a sudden outbreak of competition-on-price (say, an outsourcing, or the liberalization of trade policy in a previously tariff-protected industry) may really show a group of first world workers how much they can't compete on price with some 3rd-worlders of similar skill; but in the longer term, it's not as though being unable to compete on price is exclusive to the first world: Unless you have some very-hard-to-reproduce talent (in which case you aren't competing on price), the expected price set by pure price competition will be whatever bare subsistence costs(any lower, and the labor will starve, any higher and somebody who is unemployed will be willing to work for bare subsistence...)

Except that there is very rarely pure price competition, which is why we didn't see ever increasing dystopia since the industrial revolution.

Sorry, you can't blame the current economy on too much capitalism. (Or too much robotics, for another favorite dystopian scenario).

No, something else happened circa 2008 to turn a recession into an ongoing malaise. And it sure as heck wasn't too much capitalism or too little government.

Re:Labor is valueless

[stenvar]

As long as the money is concentrated in very few hands,

It isn't. Even if it were, what does it have to do with Uber? What's driving down the wages in this case is that these drivers are offering a service that requires little special training and has a low cost of entry. Historically, through rent seeking and monopolization, they have been able to fleece their customers. Now that there is actual competition, their wages decrease, as they should. I as a customer do not owe a cab driver a good income, I owe him exactly and only as much as the cheapest guy willing to offer the service to me.

Furthermore, if I take my own usage of Uber as an example, they are getting more customers. I almost never take cabs because they are such a hassle and so unpredictable, but Uber is a much better experience.

Re:Labor is valueless

[sFurbo]

the expected price set by pure price competition will be whatever bare subsistence costs

The expected price will be the Nth highest benefit of any employer of employing such a person, where N is the number of people on earth capable of doing the job. Any lower, and some other employer will benefit from hiring the employee at a higher pay. Globalization increases N, but it also increases the number of companies that can employ you.

Re:Labor is valueless

[alexander_686]

I think what you mean is capital, not money.

Of course in the long run more and improved capital increases productivity and productivity gains are the main driver behind increasing wages. Which is not to say that capital wont displace today’s workers – see the luddites.

Re:Labor is valueless

[i kan reed]

But productivity isn't the same as outright replacement. It's not far to imagine a profitable business with zero employees in the near future.

Re:Labor is valueless

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say things like minimum wages, trust busting, and OSHA may have helped. The US radically transformed after the New Deal, and our standard of living INCREASED. But you keep believing something fundamental changed in 2008 (after the recession hit) if you want. I'll focus on facts.

Re:Labor is valueless

[ElectricTurtle]

Unions and/or licensing/regulation artificially limit and control the labor supply, artificially raising the price of the service. It is by nature inefficient at a minimum, but it usually goes beyond that to become corrupt and protect vested interests at the cost of consumer value.

People need to stop looking at "jobs" as a product, or "living wages" as an entitlement. If you really want "living wages" for every job, you're going to make a huge swath of work illegal. We've already done that, which is why youth unemployment, especially of/for minorities, has been at record levels. And it cuts people off at the knees, because now they have no entry-level foundation to build on. I'm amazed we have any economy at all at this point. (We probably wouldn't without commensurate slack being taken up by welfare and crime.)

Re:Labor is valueless

[tlhIngan]

It isn't. Even if it were, what does it have to do with Uber? What's driving down the wages in this case is that these drivers are offering a service that requires little special training and has a low cost of entry. Historically, through rent seeking and monopolization, they have been able to fleece their customers. Now that there is actual competition, their wages decrease, as they should. I as a customer do not owe a cab driver a good income, I owe him exactly and only as much as the cheapest guy willing to offer the service to me.

Furthermore, if I take my own usage of Uber as an example, they are getting more customers. I almost never take cabs because they are such a hassle and so unpredictable, but Uber is a much better experience.

For now. Because unless you can pick drivers, the better way to "strike" is to do stuff where there's a lot of flexibility. There are plenty of ways to protest that will hurt Uber more.

Like poor pre-planning - getting "lost" or purposely driving into gridlock which can turn a 20 minute car ride into a 40 minutes or more. Or taking roundabout routes, or driving dangerously, etc.

Or hell, having a jalopy and "breaking down". Add bonus points for breaking down and having a bunch of the driver's buddies fleece the customer.

All it takes is for a few people to experience this to get Uber's reputation down.

Right now things are good because it's early. Once greed and ways to beat the system come in, it'll degrade very quickly. Unlicensed cabs are still unlicensed cabs.

Re:Labor is valueless

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the observation is about the economy, but the individuals in the economy.

You can have a strong economy while many people are stuck on bare subsistence level, as we at the top generate most of the economic activity.

I would argue that we have seen increasing dystopia. In my view, all the various labor and socialist and communist movements IS that dystopia. They are a reaction/response to capitalism. I don't think it's a coincidence that socialism became a serious threat only after the Industrial Revolution

Re:Labor is valueless

[Anonymous Coward]

In certain specific cases, a sudden outbreak of competition-on-price (say, an outsourcing, or the liberalization of trade policy in a previously tariff-protected industry) may really show a group of first world workers how much they can't compete on price with some 3rd-worlders of similar skill; but in the longer term, it's not as though being unable to compete on price is exclusive to the first world: Unless you have some very-hard-to-reproduce talent (in which case you aren't competing on price), the expected price set by pure price competition will be whatever bare subsistence costs(any lower, and the labor will starve, any higher and somebody who is unemployed will be willing to work for bare subsistence...)

Except that there is very rarely pure price competition, which is why we didn't see ever increasing dystopia since the industrial revolution.

Sorry, you can't blame the current economy on too much capitalism. (Or too much robotics, for another favorite dystopian scenario).

No, something else happened circa 2008 to turn a recession into an ongoing malaise. And it sure as heck wasn't too much capitalism or too little government.

You mean, like the chief executives in The Cabal vowing that they would make the country suffer under a socialist/communist President? Yeah. that's what I was thinking too. That must be it, good ol Cabal. They sure know how to make ya smile don't they.

Re:Labor is valueless

[Ralph Wiggam]

That's "supply and demand". Labor is a resource just like anything else. As long as the supply of unskilled labor outpaces demand, wages (price) will not increase.

Re:Labor is valueless

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't aware that the laws of biology and physics had been canceled. Can you forward the memo?

A living wage is just that, the minimum wage on which people can LIVE. If a living wage is not paid by one's employer, the person must either die or receive the missing portion from another source. Right now that other source is the state in the form of food stamps and other benefits. Employers know that. McDonald's and Wal-Mart have entire departments dedicated to helping their workers get whatever they refuse to pay them from the state.

McDonald's bitches that if they paid a living wage the price of a BigMac would go up by whatever and the consumer would therefore have to pay more. Guess what? The consumer ALREADY pays more in the form of taxes that are then used to pay for benefits that help poorly paid MCDonald's employees.
And in reality McDonald's doesn't have to raise prices. They can also lower their profits (i.e. allocate more of their earnings towards paying for labor). They can afford it. There is no doubt about that.

Re:Labor is valueless

[stenvar]

For now. Because unless you can pick drivers, the better way to "strike" is to do stuff where there's a lot of flexibility. There are plenty of ways to protest that will hurt Uber more. Like poor pre-planning - getting "lost" or purposely driving into gridlock which can turn a 20 minute car ride into a 40 minutes or more. Or taking roundabout routes, or driving dangerously, etc.

You'll get bad ratings or reported to the police. Good luck with that.

Right now things are good because it's early. Once greed and ways to beat the system come in, it'll degrade very quickly. Unlicensed cabs are still unlicensed cabs.

F*ck licensed cabs; they are a scam. I'll rather take public transit than to pay those bloodsuckers.

Re:Labor is valueless

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't really apply to jobs that cannot be shipped to the lowest cost labor market, like driving a taxi.

Re:Labor is valueless

[sociocapitalist]

Sorry, you can't blame the current economy on too much capitalism. (Or too much robotics, for another favorite dystopian scenario).

No, something else happened circa 2008 to turn a recession into an ongoing malaise. And it sure as heck wasn't too much capitalism or too little government.

It was precisely that.

It was too much capitalism in the overbalance of bank greed and too little government in the lack of regulation to control it.

Re:Labor is valueless

[jimbolauski]

McDonald's franchises do not make obscene profit margins, typicaly 10% which is average for the business sector. I know your socialism 101 professor told you that McDonalds has a 20% margin but they don't run stores just sell franchising opportunities and rent the buildings and land to the business owners. Doubling the franchise owner's employees wages would lead to a 30% increase in cost of their product. Mcdonlads franchises make 50 - 100k in profits a year off a 1.5 - 2 million dollar investment which means they are earning around 5-10% on that investment. Mcdonalds franchises are some of the more profitable franchises yet they are not the huge money makers people think they are and the wage increases will be pushed to the consumer.

Re:Labor is valueless

[Anonymous Coward]

that doesn't sound that hard. A robotic warehouse, with automated shipping and QC, linked to an ECommerce system built on turnkey software running on 3rd party managed software, with outsourced legal and marketing. The only person in the whole show for the company is the founder, who contracts the Ecommerce system, and handles sourcing all the procurement himself as all he sells is a small subset of products (sort of like a Pillows.Com would only sell Pillows and Pillow accessories).

either that, or you are a virtual seller using a 3PL. Then you are contracting everything out and all you do is buy and sell stuff.

Re:Labor is valueless

[Anonymous Coward]

And your answer in no way invalidates my point.

My point being that WE, through the state, make up for the money McD employees need and are not being paid. Furthermore, as the free-enterprise kind of guy you seem to be, why are you OK with the government subsidizing low paying industries? It's not just food stamps. It's a also the work tax credit, which is basically a negative tax for low income folks. Again, the government makes up for what McDonald's SHOULD be paying its worker if it was a true private enterprise.

Now if McD truly cannot financially pay those wages then the solution is obvious. McDonald's must close down. A company whose business model does not bring enough money to pay its workers without government subsidies, may they be direct or indirect, has no inherent "right" to stay alive. It must go bankrupt and clear the way for somebody else.

And finally, the franchisees could pay their workers extra if corporate agreed to lower the exorbitant royalties even a tiny bit. Right now, it's set at 12% on top of the initial franchising fees. And you must add a 4% advertising fee. 16% of every sale goes straight back to corporate.The average restaurant sends $400k back to the mothership every year. That's 4 to 8 times what the franchisee himself nets according to your own $50k-$100k range. So sorry buddy but the money is there. It's just a choice of where to allocate it..

Re:Labor is valueless

[Anonymous Coward]

But productivity isn't the same as outright replacement. It's not far to imagine a profitable business with zero employees in the near future.

What do you mean near future? We have those right now.

Companies like Patent Trolls and such are basically run by 1 guy with a couple of friends who occasionally sign paperwork but are not otherwise involved beyond kickbacks.

Re:Labor is valueless

[jimbolauski]

McDonald's is paying their employees what their labor is worth, there is no SHOULD. Unskilled labor is something that 97% of the workforce can do, it simply has little value because of that. The Government is not subsidizing McDonalds just their unskilled employees, your employer has no responsibility to pay you what you think you need to survive just what you and they agreed to before your employment started. If you think it is too little then ask for a raise or find an employer that will pay you what you you feel you deserve. The reason unskilled labor feels they have no power to negotiate is because they don't, anybody can do their job and more then enough people will gladly to the job for the wage McDonalds is offering. On the other hand we could do it your way where the government intervenes in private agreements between employees and employers and private agreements between franchise owners and the franchising companies. Just to make sure that unskilled workers get paid what skilled labor does. If that doesn't motivate people to better themselves I don't know what will, you can make $20 an hour flipping burgers or make $20 an hour after paying to go to a trade school.

Kinda like...

[retech]

...having a Democracy and no one votes. But with less spin and less FOX news.

Obligatory /. car analogy, tumblrwords, kitten photo link, memegenerator pic, #whogivesafuck

A Peek At The Market

[Austrian Anarchy]

Quite the opposite of what happens when a government monopoly on things has their labor go on strike, like mail (pre-internet, when it was really needed) or public transportation of today, the consumer has plenty of other choices and they exercise them.

Unfortunately, in the case of cabs, the big alternative is a government enforced heavily restricted set of providers (a peek at the Boston version here).

Re:A Peek At The Market

[iluvcapra]

Quite the opposite of what happens when a government monopoly on things has their labor go on strike, like mail (pre-internet, when it was really needed) or public transportation of today

It's a little scary to see a commenter automatically assume that the only people who ever go on strike are government workers -- proud private sector union employee here. The Taft-Hartley Act had the effect, in the US, of slowly killing the private sector union and leaving only government employees organized, so that union formation became a privilege or a bennie, as opposed to a protected right of anyone who works.

This is exactly how actions against private firms are supposed to operate. Uber drivers strike or boycott against Uber, a competitor snags available clients until Uber and the drivers reach an agreement. The fact that all Uber drivers are on the Internet makes them easier to organize, but it makes a picket harder to enforce: how do the strikers know for sure their buddy isn't taking Uber work while they're on "strike?"

Re:A Peek At The Market

[stenvar]

The Taft-Hartley Act had the effect, in the US, of slowly killing the private sector union and leaving only government employees organized, so that union formation became a privilege or a bennie, as opposed to a protected right of anyone who works.

Taft Hartley doesn't prevent workers from organizing, it limits the ability of unions from imposing their views on workers who don't share them. Since there seem to be enough of those to make unions much less effective, they have been declining in power.

but it makes a picket harder to enforce: how do the strikers know for sure their buddy isn't taking Uber work while they're on "strike?"

By what right should unions be able to "enforce" pickets or strikes? If I'm not a member of your union, you have no business interfering in my affairs or what work I choose to do.

Voluntary collective bargaining is a good thing. Unions imposing their views on non-members is not acceptable.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[Anonymous Coward]

Wooooosh!

You've written an idealogical response to a discussion of mechanics.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[Austrian Anarchy]

Quite the opposite of what happens when a government monopoly on things has their labor go on strike, like mail (pre-internet, when it was really needed) or public transportation of today

It's a little scary to see a commenter automatically assume that the only people who ever go on strike are government workers -- proud private sector union employee here. The Taft-Hartley Act had the effect, in the US, of slowly killing the private sector union and leaving only government employees organized, so that union formation became a privilege or a bennie, as opposed to a protected right of anyone who works.

This is exactly how actions against private firms are supposed to operate. Uber drivers strike or boycott against Uber, a competitor snags available clients until Uber and the drivers reach an agreement. The fact that all Uber drivers are on the Internet makes them easier to organize, but it makes a picket harder to enforce: how do the strikers know for sure their buddy isn't taking Uber work while they're on "strike?"

Okay, then substitute my examples with AT&T back when they were the government protected monopoly for long distance service in the US. Consumers did not have an easy alternative if they went on strike. In the current environment, they do, and Taft-Hartley has precious little if anything to do with that.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[Skuld-Chan]

I actually work under a union (SEIU 503):

My union doesn't impose their views on me - I'm not sure how that would actually work. They do send out a newsletter - I can either read it or not. Contrary to what you may think they don't shout their beliefs over loudspeaker.

You can't do anything (really) to prevent someone from crossing the line, but you can make it more difficult. While your co-workers are out working hard to keep management from decreasing your pay you sit on your ass reaping the benefits.

On your last point - I hate people who reap all the benefits that we worked hard for in our union, but don't participate at all. If you don't like working in a union shop - leave the company - that's your right to work :).

Unions worked hard for the weekend - remember that any time you have a day off.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[iluvcapra]

Taft Hartley doesn't prevent workers from organizing, it limits the ability of unions from imposing their views on workers who don't share them. Since there seem to be enough of those to make unions much less effective, they have been declining in power.

The operative parts of Taft-Hartley here would be:

1) The sanction of "Right to Work" laws and jurisdictions, which abridge the right to contract. If you own a company in a right-to-work state, the you're surrounded by a magic bubble that makes it impossible for you to ever sign a contract of adhesion with labor. Any other company can compel whatever terms they please -- cable companies have contract rights than employees.

2) The prohibition on secondary actions, sympathy strikes and boycotts.

3) The general complications arising from forming a union, the card check requirements, the arbitrarily high bar imposed on NLRB recognition of a collective bargaining unit. The NLRB's utter toothlessness in policing employer corruption and tampering in union votes would be a contributing issue to this, including intimidation, misinformation campaigns, pretense firings of organizers and activists...

By what right should unions be able to "enforce" pickets or strikes? If I'm not a member of your union, you have no business interfering in my affairs or what work I choose to do.

That's why the union has a contract with the employer, wherein the employer agrees to not hire anyone who isn't a member of the union. That's basically how it works.

Pickets and boycotts are mostly effective, because human beings have shame. It depends on the cause though; I work in the entertainment industry and in LA, everyone else does, so everyone understands what's at stake for the people on strike and people respect picket lines. Similarly, if hotel cleaning staff are protesting to make a living wage instead of $8 an hour, people will tend to be sympathetic. These kinds of strikes work. Striking public employees are a lot less successful; if the BART strike in SF had gone on for another week or two it probably would have rolled the union.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[iluvcapra]

You're aware that a strike doesn't have to act on a monopoly in order to be a strike, right? Most strikes don't.

A few years ago I picketed a studio that was hiring non-IATSE crews for projects paid for under a distribution agreement with NBC, a violation of NBC's contract. It was effective, it was definitely a strike, an no consumers were affected. Or do you think unions exist only to immiserate consumers?

Re:A Peek At The Market

[Austrian Anarchy]

You're aware that a strike doesn't have to act on a monopoly in order to be a strike, right?

Yes and I never said a word to indicate that I thought anything like that.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[jratcliffe]

Taft Hartley doesn't prevent workers from organizing, it limits the ability of unions from imposing their views on workers who don't share them. Since there seem to be enough of those to make unions much less effective, they have been declining in power.

The operative parts of Taft-Hartley here would be:

1) The sanction of "Right to Work" laws and jurisdictions, which abridge the right to contract. If you own a company in a right-to-work state, the you're surrounded by a magic bubble that makes it impossible for you to ever sign a contract of adhesion with labor. Any other company can compel whatever terms they please -- cable companies have contract rights than employees.

They don't at all abridge the right to contract. They just abridge the right of certain employees to force _other_ employees to contract. It's non-right-to-work jurisdictions that abridge the right to contract, by prohibiting employers from choosing NOT to contract.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[iluvcapra]

Nah nah, you don't understand what a right-to-work law is. It means an employer cannot require that you be a member of a labor org in order to work. Under current US labor law, there are no true closed shops, and a unions is required to offer membership to a nonmember employee once he's worked in the shop for more than 90 days.

An employee doesn't have a contract with the union that lets you work -- I'm an IA brother, and I have no contract with the IA -- the employer has a contract with the union that requires that they only hire union members, except under certain circumstances. A right-to-work law makes these provisions of union contracts unenforceable.

I've found that a lot of people in the US are profoundly ignorant of how labor unions work, and labor organization general. Everyone seems to think that employment norms just sortof emerged by magic sometime around World War II, and that unions are completely arbitrary entrenched interests that nobody wants, but some employers are just too stupid or corrupt to avoid, and the workers are all featherbedding lackeys. It just doesn't work that way; the problem is that everyone in the US seems to take their knowledge of unions from TV reports of public sector unions, with a liberal dash of things they say in On the Waterfront, The Godfather, and Blue Collar.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[iluvcapra]

Here, wiki has an okay overview. The system used to be more like you describe, between the passage of the Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley, but since the lat 1940s there've been no closed shops. Neither an employer nor a union can force you to join a union, at best they can make you pay an agency fee, which are dues less whatever the union spends on political action.

Compare this with the rights of a shareholder, who nominally is free to invest or not, but has no say over how his investment is used for political speech. Really what's happened over the past 70 years is rich people and the managerial class have convinced the government to slowly cripple bottom-up capital organizations, things like unions, community orgs, NGOs and social/environmental activists, tarring them as "special interests," while they walk away with all the money and spend it freely and without any limitation on political campaigns, often without the sort of consent on the part of their constituencies that they routinely accuse unions of breaching.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[stenvar]

The sanction of "Right to Work" laws and jurisdictions, which abridge the right to contract

Yes, we restrict the right to contract in certain ways. For example, you can't make a contract selling yourself into slavery. You can't make a contract charging unreasonable interest. And you can't make a "closed shop contract", for pretty much the same reasons. Note that the EU court of human rights has found that closed shop agreements violate freedom of association, so the US is hardly alone in this.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[stenvar]

My union doesn't impose their views on me - I'm not sure how that would actually work.

Well, that's because we have Taft Hartley, right to work, and a lot of other laws restricting the power of unions.

Unions worked hard for the weekend - remember that any time you have a day off.

The 5 day, 40h work week was introduced by Ford in 1926 in order to increase productivity, under no pressure from unions.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/HENRY_FORD:_Why_I_Favor_Five_Days'_Work_With_Six_Days'_Pay

In different words, you're a liar. But that's to be expected, I suppose.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[iluvcapra]

Yes, we restrict the right to contract in certain ways. For example, you can't make a contract selling yourself into slavery

The equation of a union security agreement with slavery is ridiculous and morally revolting. On the one hand we have generations under the lash, a decrepit neo-feudal economy, institutionalized rape, and genocide; and on the other hand, we have double time on Sundays. The comparison is idiotic.

Closed shops are not required for unions to work, unions as we know them are dispensable, the real issue is the construction of laws to target certain people and groups, namely the working poor, to systematically deprive them of political representation. Right-to-work doesn't help workers– it exists to protect employers, to realize producerist ideology, to keep capital unaccountable and ascendant over all other forms of human society.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[iluvcapra]

I'm not sure what your point is then... All your examples of strikes involve monopolies and service disruptions.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[iluvcapra]

The 5 day, 40h work week was introduced by Ford in 1926 in order to increase productivity, under no pressure from unions.

Well, that's what he said, anyways, obviously he'd have a pretty good reason not to seem stampeded into it. Unions had been agitating for a five-day week for decades and he didn't invent the thing, it was common the textile industry since the aughts, mainly because a significant number of Jews were involved in needle trades and they wanted to have Saturdays off for the sabbath. (Ford was of course a terrific anti-Semite, so this probably wasn't his justification.)

The catch with all of Ford's labor innovations were that they were always understood to be a gift on his part. It had to be his idea, and his time to give. The suggestion that labor had earned it, or that it was their due, was out of the question, and he reserved the right to withdraw his liberal labor practices at a moment's notice if anything displeased him.

A lot like Disney later on, he took the organizing of his business as a personal betrayal, because he'd always seen himself not as an employer or an economic actor, but as a sort of father who, through his benevolence, had earned the right to tell people how to live their lives. This was the same guy that mandated his employees go to dances, took it upon himself to organize their social lives and wasn't afraid of firing people for looking funny or having heterodox opinions. Unions are completely antithetical to this idea -- you should be able to live however you damn please and win high wages and benefits not as some gift, but through hard bargaining.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[BitZtream]

You can't do anything (really) to prevent someone from crossing the line, but you can make it more difficult. While your co-workers are out working hard to keep management from decreasing your pay you sit on your ass reaping the benefits.

Wow, just wow. I would LOVE to see you say that to the Teamsters union. Next thing you know, you're ass will be wearing cement shoes and talking to fish.

Unions worked hard for the weekend - remember that any time you have a day off.

Yea, because ... wait, what? Unions have nothing to do with the work week. There is absolutely nothing that prevents a company from requiring you to work more than 40 hours, and many many do, even those with unions.

The 40 hour work week can be traced back to Ford Motors, who found that by working 40 hour weeks, rotating shifts, and shutting down the main production line for servicing by a different crew on the weekends, productivity went through the roof. Unions didn't have dick to do with it.

On your last point - I hate people who reap all the benefits that we worked hard for in our union, but don't participate at all. If you don't like working in a union shop - leave the company - that's your right to work :).

Go fuck yourself you selfish prick. Who the fuck are you to tell someone else what they can and can't do. This shithead mentality is why states started with the whole right-to-work thing, effectively destroying the functionality of the union. Union politics were resulting in people unable to work because the union was preventing it to promote its own selfish needs. God you're an idiot, a hundred years of unions constantly fucking over their constituents and you're too ignorant of the history to even know you're getting fucked in the ass.

Unions have cost more money and jobs than they've ever helped.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[BitZtream]

So basically, you're trying to force your will on others by not allowing them to work for what you're unwilling to work for.

Spoiled asshole.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[iluvcapra]

You have to see it as an adverse selection problem. LLP was paying production people about half the going rate for the same work someone paid union scale. If everyone agreed to that it wouldn't do anyone any good. I mean there's some imposition of will going on here, but it's either our will or management's, there's no middle ground here where free people make a free exchange. They'd like you to believe that, but It's a sham, it's false consciousness.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[iluvcapra]

Wow, just wow. I would LOVE to see you say that to the Teamsters union. Next thing you know, you're ass will be wearing cement shoes and talking to fish

Stop watching TV and restrict your comments to things that happen in the real world.

The 40 hour work week can be traced back to Ford Motors, who found that by working 40 hour weeks

Uh, the 8 hour day can be traced, in American history, to labor agitation going back to the 1830s. The AFL made an 8 hour day part of its platform in 1886. The United Mine Workers won an 8 hour day through collective bargaining in 1898, and many organized skilled trades won an 8 hour day around this period. Citing Ford as the creator of the 8 hour day is like saying John Glenn invented powered flight. Ford, at best, was an 8-hour day concern troll who undertook the change to mollify trade unionists who were attempting to organize the auto industry at the time.

Who the fuck are you to tell someone else what they can and can't do.

Well, the capitalist/propertarian status quo ante is based on the idea that "you can tell someone else what they can and can't do" if you're an employer, because you own. Trade unionism is a reaction to that, it's based on the idea that a union can tell someone else what they can and can't do because it has strength in numbers, and it fights for a just cause: for a fair and equitable stake for labor. Both positions are founded in moral sentiments.

This shithead mentality is why states started with the whole right-to-work thing, effectively destroying the functionality of the union.

The "right-to-work thing" traces its roots to the fact that wage-earning is considered socially low-status in the south, to the extent that politicians could kick factory workers in the teeth and nobody would raise a finger in protest. There was also the fear at the time that African-Americans would begin to join unions, as the racist attitude that had prevailed in organized labor through the first half of the century abated, and that they would serve as a cradle for racial "agitation" and activism.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[stenvar]

The equation of a union security agreement with slavery is ridiculous and morally revolting.

Save me your faux outrage. The point is that there are many kinds of contracts that are prohibited by law because they are deemed to have undesirable consequences. Closed shop agreements are in that category. There is no absolute freedom to write any contract you like.

Furthermore, union security contracts are considered a violation of the European convention of human rights because it interferes with an individual's right to freedom of association. So the analogy is, in fact, valid: it's a human rights violation according to an important legal authority, even one with good progressive credentials.

And that's not even taking into account the other injustice, namely the fact that closed shop agreements often amount to organizing a mob to break the law in order to pressure a private property owner to enter into contracts he doesn't want to enter into (and usually hurting worker interests in the process).

the real issue is the construction of laws to target certain people and groups, namely the working poor, to systematically deprive them of political representation

What the law "deprives" people of is of being compelled to support an organization they don't want to be represented by, and the less money you have, the more important it is not to be compelled to give money to political organizations you don't want to give money to.

Just because you believe that "the working poor" are represented by unions doesn't mean that they agree.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[stenvar]

And simple market economics brought you what decades of union action failed to do.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[jratcliffe]

I'd be fine with dropping right to work laws, if we at the same time dropped the laws that required companies to negotiate with unions. So long as we're keeping laws that tell employers "you aren't free to refuse to sign contracts that aren't done on an individual basis," then leaving employees free to say that they don't want to be part of the union seems entirely reasonable.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[iluvcapra]

I'd be fine with dropping right to work laws, if we at the same time dropped the laws that required companies to negotiate with unions

While we're at it, we should drop the laws that require companies to negotiate with their vendors. They should be able to name their price and get whatever they want :)

This is special pleading on your part -- everybody acknowledges that corporations must negotiate with each other, as must individuals, but somehow for you, unions are different and their rights may be disregarded.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[stenvar]

Your misrepresentations and the moderation of my factual response shows again that union supporters are a bunch of thugs. Thanks for confirming that part too.

Re:A Peek At The Market

[jratcliffe]

I'd be fine with dropping right to work laws, if we at the same time dropped the laws that required companies to negotiate with unions

While we're at it, we should drop the laws that require companies to negotiate with their vendors. They should be able to name their price and get whatever they want :)

This is special pleading on your part -- everybody acknowledges that corporations must negotiate with each other, as must individuals, but somehow for you, unions are different and their rights may be disregarded.

Companies are free to tell a vendor: $x per unit - take it, or we find another vendor. They're not free to tell a union - $x per hour, take it, or we find new employees.

What "sharing economy"?

[timeOday]

Are they still trying to maintain the transparent fiction that this is anything but a taxi company that doesn't want to be called one, for regulatory purposes? They talk about driver earnings per hour, yet want to be treated like some college buddies carpooling home for thanksgiving break. It's a crock.

Re:What "sharing economy"?

[WillAffleckUW]

Have to agree.

Look, nobody likes taxes, licensing restrictions, having to clean your car, or requiring you don't just hang out at the airport where people will pay tons of money.

The reasons we have those is that unlicensed cabs were a big problem.

What gets me is how many people around here actually drive to the airport, with just one bag, when it's usually faster and easier to take the light rail or bus there, instead of paying $20.

Re:What "sharing economy"?

[Anonymous Coward]

They talk about driver earnings per hour, yet want to be treated like some college buddies carpooling home for thanksgiving break

They recruit "customers" by pretending to be a ride board. They recruit "drivers" by pretending to be a cab company. Many businesses recruit customers by pretending to be their friend, to want a special relationship with the individual customer, so there's nothing specially surprising about that.

Their relationship to their drivers is much more interesting. They're not trying to recruit full-time drivers, but just people looking to make some extra money in their spare time, which is a very different relationship than a taxi company has with its employees. The rate cut is a nice demonstration of that - Uber's found that they have more people signing up to drive than they have passengers to drive for, and they're testing how low they can go before they start losing fares. My guess is: pretty damn low. People working "in their spare time," will often do so for less than minimum wage, especially if they have the impression that they're working for themselves. Drive around town, meet interesting people, and have them pay gas money? Sure! This is the reason the "strike" and likely any future attempts will fail. There's always going to be someone willing to do the job for a little less money under slightly worse conditions, and if the barriers to entry are low, then there's nothing to keep them from moving in.

Re:What "sharing economy"?

[Darinbob]

It's hard to predict your arrival times, so I tend to take a shuttle service when going to the airport while giving them the time my flight leaves so they plan it, but when returning home I'll take the light rail since it doesn't matter if I'm late.

Can I RTFA?

[Anonymous Coward]

3/5 of links are back to slashdot
1/5 link to twitter ("according to local media")
1/5 link to a blog ("a blog posting") which I can't load at the moment.

While I do like seeing how slashdot stories interconnect, I would like to get outside opinions as well. Preferably more informative ones than a blog and twitter post.

Naked capitalism at work

[argStyopa]

To wit: strikes require firm, centralized control to take effect, because there are almost always defectors, people at the desperate end of the bell curve who will defect for personal gain.

Then again, the logic of a strike is such that either:
a) it's broadly sustainable, even with a few defections, because the working conditions/pay are bad enough that improvement is generally recognized to be needed, or
b) it's only sustainable with strongarm central enforcement, in which case a strike is more a matter of economic coercion than justice for the workers.

Re:Naked capitalism at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Strikes don't require strong-arm enforcement because strikes require an affirmative vote by the union members. The reason why you need centralization in the form of a union is because you want to make sure that most of the members are committed to the strike. Union membership alone solves the defector problem.

So it's not defectors you need to worry about, it's non-union members filling the labor gap during the strike. This is why government unions have it easier... government employees can't be fired as easily as private security employees because of the 4th Amendment (employment has a property right component when employed by the state, and requires rigorous due process). Which means if you hire stop-gap workers you'll be stuck with too many employees after the strike is over.

Also, skilled unions can strike easier, again because it's more difficult for employers to fill the labor gap.

A loooonnnggggg time ago there used to be something called the "closed-shop", where union contracts _required_ that employers only hire union members. But conservatives passed a law which banned that practice in the 1930s, although they prefer that most people remain ignorant about that, as most people still believe that closed-shops are still common.

Re:Naked capitalism at work

[stenvar]

Yes, and (a) is a good strike, one that helps workers, employers, and buyers to reach an equitable and efficient agreement. But (b) is not just "coercion", it is blackmail by a special interest group; it's little different from the mafia.

Re:Naked capitalism at work

[Man On Pink Corner]

But conservatives passed a law which banned that practice in the 1930s, although they prefer that most people remain ignorant about that, as most people still believe that closed-shops are still common.

Can you elaborate on that? My understanding is that there are still a lot of states without right-to-work laws. (Not trolling or arguing, just unsure what you're referring to.)

Re:Naked capitalism at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you assert that large groups of people have never worked in deplorable working conditions because they wanted food and shelter?

Re:Naked capitalism at work

[AK Marc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#U.S._states_with_right-to-work_laws Roughly half are and half aren't. Federal law makes closed shops illegal. But feds don't ever enforce it, they leave it to the states.

cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[Joe_Dragon]

look at pizza where they pay low and don't really pay the costs of useing a car much less auto insurance that covers pizza drivers.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Texas-Family-Awarded-32M-in-Deadly-Dominos-Delivery-Crash-221784091.html

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[stenvar]

Seems to me that a $32M judgment against Domino's will provide a strong incentive to actually fix this. And if they don't and another accident happens, judges and juries will give even harsher sentences.

So what exactly is the problem?

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[Kurast]

And I have yet to understand why pizzas are delivered in the US using cars, instead of motorcycles or bikes like the rest of the world.

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[mrchaotica]

Because delivery drivers use their personal vehicle, they usually only have one personal vehicle, and it's usually a car.

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[NoImNotNineVolt]

As a former pizza delivery driver, I can tell you that motorcycles or bikes just wouldn't work.
It's raining out? No pizza for you. Snowing, you also gotta come pick it up yourself. Really cold out? Really hot out? No delivery.
You'd like 6 large pies, 6 2L bottles of soda, and a couple order of wings and breadsticks? Sure, we'll bring it by in 3 deliveries.
Also, I can't imagine the additional airflow resulting from not being enclosed in a passenger compartment will do wonders to keep your pizza piping hot while it travels to your residence.

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[NoImNotNineVolt]

You'd like 6 large pies, 6 2L bottles of soda, and a couple order of wings and breadsticks? Sure, we'll bring it by in 3 deliveries.

Alternate solution: Sure, let me just put on my aviator goggles and scarf, then load up my sidecar here...

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[coyote_oww]

As a motorcyclist -
Rain and cold are doable (for ever so slightly more money, for cold weather gear).
Snow is not, just not enough people with the equipment and skill to do it safely.
Large deliveries are doable, with mild modifications to the bike. My bike has a luggage mount that could be fitted with a cage that could hold 8-12 pies or so. You could fit 15lbs or so of stuff on the tail, and use a tank bag for transaction material. Most bikes could reasonably handle 150lbs of cargo, which is way more than you need for pizza delivery. If Domino's provided the bikes, it wouldn't be a big deal to fit them with a rack specially designed for pizza.

It would take a change in mind set on the part of Domino's. Realistically they'd have to provide the motorcycles. That is never going to happen for an entirely separate reason - you couldn't insure the operation. The extra insurance money would eat the fuel savings many times over. Also finding riders would be harder than finding drivers - although with reasonable benefits I'd seriously consider changing careers. Riding around all day beats sitting in a cube, hands down.

In CA, you'd probably get faster delivery too, due to lane sharing.

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[Anonymous Coward]

Rain and cold are doable (for ever so slightly more money, for cold weather gear).

He wasn't referring to the rain being uncomfortable for him, he was referring to it wetting the cardboard and ruining the box, as well as the pizza. The cold wind rushing over the pizza would cool it rapidly, too.

Snow is not, just not enough people with the equipment and skill to do it safely.

Same basic problem as above.

If Domino's provided the bikes...

There's the problem with that one, as you've noted.

Also finding riders would be harder than finding drivers - although with reasonable benefits I'd seriously consider changing careers. Riding around all day beats sitting in a cube, hands down.

Are you aware that pizza delivery people are actually paid below the cost of running their vehicle? There was a study on it a few years ago, but I'm unable to find it. They just don't get enough to get by, even when you take into account how much they get paid per mile/kilometre when using their own vehicles, they actually end up out of pocket.

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[AK Marc]

When someone has to die to address the problem, there's a problem. When you advocate a chain of deaths to fix the problem, that's a problem.

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[TheRaven64]

Most pizza delivery motorcycles have a large enclosed box on the back that can hold a stack of pizzas. It's thick, insulated, plastic and so keeps them warm. You seem to be missing the grandparent's 'like the rest of the world' comment when you say that motorcycles 'just wouldn't work'. They do in a lot of places...

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[Anonymous Coward]

And I have yet to understand why pizzas are delivered in the US using cars, instead of motorcycles or bikes like the rest of the world.

Because we prefer the subtle taste of processed cheese with charred flesh as our pizza China Syndromes its way out the back of our skulls.

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[stenvar]

Oh, stop being such an disingenuous ass. I didn't "advocate a chain of deaths" to fix anything. People will die no matter what; the question is how we can minimize deaths. You seem to live in a dream world where inspections and fines prevent deaths, but companies laugh at them. They'll pay the silly little fines and go on doing whatever is cheapest. The threat of a $38M judgment, on the other hand, is quite a strong deterrent.

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[AK Marc]

So increase fines and kill fewer people.

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[stenvar]

Tell you what: you work out the level of fines and enforcement needed to provide the same deterrent effect as a $38M judgment, and then we can talk again about which approach is more rational and effective.

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[lxs]

It's raining out? No pizza for you. Snowing, you also gotta come pick it up yourself. Really cold out? Really hot out? No delivery.

The entire US population must be really spoiled and lazy, because in the rest of the world a guy on a scooter will deliver your order in all those conditions.

Also, I can't imagine the additional airflow resulting from not being enclosed in a passenger compartment will do wonders to keep your pizza piping hot while it travels to your residence.

They have insulated boxes on the back. Your food will arrive steaming hot.

And they usually have a car on standby to fill the big orders.

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[NoImNotNineVolt]

The entire US population must be really spoiled and lazy, because in the rest of the world a guy on a scooter will deliver your order in all those conditions.

Scooters? ... Scooters???

I don't know how it works over on your side of the pond, but here, most pizza delivery drivers are male. And again, I don't know how it works over there, but here, guys on scooters are mocked relentlessly. Scooters are fundamentally incompatible with the traditional American mentality. We have cycles with 8.2L V10 engines, and you expect us to ride scooters?!

I'm sure that someone that owns one of these, these, or these would just love to bolt one of those awesome looking insulated boxes to the back of their bike. And I'm sure those uber-rich pizza delivery drivers don't mind having "a car on standby to fill the big orders".

Re:cutting drivers pay can end up badly

[Cochonou]

Wow. The US are really like nowhere else.
Anyway, in Europe, this scooter is one of the most popular cycle models in Europe. And regardless of your tastes in transportation method, Domino's will provide the scooters.

Welcome!

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to Slashdot!

It's a lot like a car...

I just liked the word 'disintermediation'

[Tex Bravado]

Nothing of substance to add.

Two kids, one cake

[Okian Warrior]

Look, nobody likes taxes, licensing restrictions, having to clean your car, or requiring you don't just hang out at the airport where people will pay tons of money.

The reasons we have those is that unlicensed cabs were a big problem.

Unlicensed cabs were a big problem because cabs and customers were not regulated.

The government stepped in and cleaned up the cabs, enforcing a standard of quality control of the cabbies but not the customers. It's the "regulation" model, and it was appropriate for its time, but it only addressed half the issue: a customer could jump out and run away without paying, could slit the seat, could vomit in the seat, or do other unsavory things.

Over time the regulation became less enforced, watered down, corrupt, and fewer people cared. This has resulted in the situation we have now, where many cabs are filthy and disgusting, the cabbie will screw you out of money in various ways (jimming the meter, taking the long route, &c), and it's not particularly safe.

In game theory terms, it's two kids dividing a cake: mom tells one kid to divide the cake equally, then leaves.

With the rise of ubiquitous communication we can now go to a newer model: both cabbies and customers can be vetted by the system. The cabbies are reviewed by the feedback of customers, and the customers are reviewed by the cabbies. Anyone who slits a seat or vomits will get a bad review and won't have access to the drivers in the future. Anyone who drives a filthy car will get a bad review and not have access to passengers in the future.

The game-theory model is different. Instead of one side promising to obey regulation, it's two sides regulating each other. It's the "one child divides the cake, the other child chooses which piece to eat" model.

This is an example of bad regulation which stifles innovation. Cab regulation ensured quality and was done with the best of intentions, but it's been subverted and there's now a better way.

We should embrace the better way.

Re:Two kids, one cake

[c0d3g33k]

That's pretty much how Airbnb works, and the experience so far has been a joy. Two thumbs up for the better way.

Re:Two kids, one cake

[Anonymous Coward]

One other thing to consider - there's a lot of room for discrimination. It already happens in many cities that cabbies (many of whom are black themselves) avoid picking up black fares for fear of having to drive to a bad neighborhood. There are regulations that are supposed to ensure that any fare can get a ride to where they need to go. In the Uber world, though, there's every likelihood that some of the people most in need of a taxi service will be shut out, because no one will want to drive them to where they are going.

Re:Two kids, one cake

[notknown86]

Kind of like how a "better way" for books led to a cottage industry in the creation of positive book reviews...

Books, mind you, have the distinct advantage of not having a large knife in the glove box.

Re:Two kids, one cake

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlicensed cabs were a big problem because cabs and customers were not regulated.

The government stepped in and cleaned up the cabs, enforcing a standard of quality control of the cabbies but not the customers. It's the "regulation" model, and it was appropriate for its time, but it only addressed half the issue: a customer could jump out and run away without paying, could slit the seat, could vomit in the seat, or do other unsavory things.

How many cabbies clamor for more customer regulations? Any of them? Hmm. You make a compelling argument but it is not grounded in the reality of the taxicab market in any big city i have ever been to (which is most of them). If you try to run away on a fare, vandalize the cab, etc. the driver can/should call the police, file a report against you, use the in-cab video to generate evidence against you, and ultimately prevent you from doing it again (by letting the police punish you accordingly). Existing laws (and a few new ones) allowed for plenty of protection for the drivers and cab companies.

The cabbie side, on the other hand, was riddled with all the tricks you mentioned (and more), that sound obvious when you say them but are basically undetectable to an average customer who doesn't know better. And what to do? Hmm.

Re:Two kids, one cake

[lexman098]

Yeah so that sounds nice, but the law is the law. The "right" thing to do is to get rid of the original regulation. If the system you describe is so great then no one will have a problem with that. You can't just allow some cab companies to skirt the law and not others.

Re:Two kids, one cake

[khallow]

What's wrong with this particular discrimination? Is the health and property of the cabbie not important?

Re:Two kids, one cake

[BitZtream]

And when you finally realize its not a better way because you got fucked over by some unlicensed hack ... then what will you say?

Re:Two kids, one cake

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the health and property of the cabbie not important?

Not any more than anybody else. What matters is the economy, the capitalist's version of the greater good. If it's more profitable and/or efficient to disregard and trample over an individual's health and property, then the invisible hand of the market (the capitalist's version of Big Brother) will move to make it so, and since it's Big Brother/Invisible Hand who does it, it must be the best thing for all of us.

The cabbie who might value his own health and property and disagree and resist, will become "outdated and couldn't adapt", "needs to get with the times", "holding on to obsolete business models that needs to die off", "lazy and entitled", "should have known better", "your own fault for being competed out of relevance", "not facing the music", etc.

Re:Two kids, one cake

[khallow]

What matters is the economy, the capitalist's version of the greater good.

Not in this example. Note that the previous poster used the code word, "discrimination". While there is a genuine problem with racism and other sorts of bigotry, what's going on here is that the poster wanted cabbies to be forced to do something even though it was dangerous due to the failure of social policy (here, the policing of dangerous neighborhoods).

The cabbie who might value his own health and property and disagree and resist, will become "outdated and couldn't adapt", "needs to get with the times", "holding on to obsolete business models that needs to die off", "lazy and entitled", "should have known better", "your own fault for being competed out of relevance", "not facing the music", etc.

In practice, it depends on whether the self-centered behavior strengthens the business model. It often does making your numerous straw man quotes irrelevant.

Re:Two kids, one cake

[Anonymous Coward]

A---
Taxi had an unlincensed hack.

Re:Two kids, one cake

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in this example. Note that the previous poster

Note that I wasn't replying to the previous poster. I was replying to your question "Is the health and property of the cabbie not important?"

used the code word, "discrimination". While there is a genuine problem with racism and other sorts of bigotry, what's going on here is that the poster wanted cabbies to be forced to do something even though it was dangerous due to the failure of social policy (here, the policing of dangerous neighborhoods).

Again, I wasn't replying to the previous poster. But on the topic of dangerous neighborhoods, that is not due to social policy. The level of danger or risk present is simply what the market decided was acceptable. If neighborhoods were really that dangerous, the free market will find solutions without social policy.

In the case of cabbies, smart cabbies in a capitalist world would install security features in their cars (from a light in the back that tells other cars to call the cops if you flash it, to installing a cage in your car to physically isolate yourself from the passengers, to cabbies exercising their 2A and packing heat themselves for self defense) and accept the fares from seemingly risky people.

Those who go about discriminating and give up on business will be competed out of the market, in which point your "health and property" hardly matter since you can't pay to keep them.

In practice, it depends on whether the self-centered behavior strengthens the business model. It often does making your numerous straw man quotes irrelevant.

No it does not. In practice, self-centered behavior often does not strengthen the business model. Thus, my quotes are very insightful and not straw mans at all.

See, one characteristic of self-centered behavior is disregarding providing value to others. Sometimes the self-centered even actively try to take value away from others. This runs opposite to how most businesses work - by providing value to their customers.

Re:Two kids, one cake

[khallow]

Note that I wasn't replying to the previous poster. I was replying to your question "Is the health and property of the cabbie not important?"

So what? I was. My comment there was justification for why I said what I said.

But on the topic of dangerous neighborhoods, that is not due to social policy.

Whatever. I think I can summarize the rest of any debate as - you think it's capitalism, I think you're just blind to reality.

No it does not. In practice, self-centered behavior often does not strengthen the business model. Thus, my quotes are very insightful and not straw mans at all.

Stupid. To consider the original example, if the cabbie never takes rides into a bad area, they get two huge benefits: a) less risk to themselves and their primary business asset, their cab, and b) they get to make more high margin (and tip) rides to the better parts of NYC.

See, one characteristic of self-centered behavior is disregarding providing value to others. Sometimes the self-centered even actively try to take value away from others. This runs opposite to how most businesses work - by providing value to their customers.

A breezy assertion which was easily deflated by pointing to the real life example in question. If you ever want to use reason on this part of your thought process, you can start by reading my previous paragraph.

Re:Two kids, one cake

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? I was. My comment there was justification for why I said what I said.

What do you mean "so what"? Likewise, I was justifying why I said what I said.

Whatever. I think I can summarize the rest of any debate as - you think it's capitalism, I think you're just blind to reality.

Then I will respond in kind and summarize: you think wrong.

Stupid. To consider the original example, if the cabbie never takes rides into a bad area, they get two huge benefits: a) less risk to themselves and their primary business asset, their cab, and b) they get to make more high margin (and tip) rides to the better parts of NYC.

I made a general statement about what happens on the free market, and you respond with a specific example in NYC, which has tons of regulations, far from being a free market. "Stupid" is better applied to you thinking what you said refutes what I said.

A breezy assertion which was easily deflated by pointing to the real life example in question.

See above, the "real life example" you gave is far from being a free market.

I can easily bring up some other real life examples. Well I actually did, the signals in the back of the car, cages, bring a gun.

If you ever want to use reason on this part of your thought process, you can start by reading my previous paragraph.

Right back at you.

Re:Two kids, one cake

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah so that sounds nice, but the law is the law. The "right" thing to do is to get rid of the original regulation. If the system you describe is so great then no one will have a problem with that. You can't just allow some cab companies to skirt the law and not others.

Of course someone will have a problem! The established players don't like it.

The fact that established players have money, which is the most important thing to have in a plutocratic democracy, means that the rules are constantly being changed to exclude competitors and favor the existing players.

Local markets vs. global markets

[Anonymous Coward]

Great soundbite, but wrong in some cases. Notably, wrong in the case being discussed.

A livery driver in New York makes many times more than a livery driver in India. But they do not compete for the same customers. An autoric driver in Delhi isn't competing to pick up the passenger in midtown Manhattan.

An UberX driver competes with taxi drivers and limo drivers and maybe rideshare programs. With bicycles. But not with non-first-world citizens.

Re:Local markets vs. global markets

[Anonymous Coward]

With sufficiently high unemployment, local v global becomes irrelevant in that you're competing against others struggling to pay their bills.

someone please explain...

[slashmydots]

...what the hell any of this is or means. What is Uber? What is it doing that's illegal? What is a sharing economy? Who's giving out free cab rides? I'm someone who lives in a 100,000 person city where you just call the damn cab company on the phone and they show up and 99.9% of cars on the road are not cabs.

If you don't show up to your own strike...

[Anonymous Coward]

You tip the balance of power towards the group you were striking against.

Any labor organizer will tell you - people showing up is 90% of any labor movement. It shows management you mean business.

So, what ARE the rates we are talking about?

[jtara]

It's funny how none of this on either side mentions what the actual rates are.

Anybody know?

Re:So, what ARE the rates we are talking about?

[jtara]

As I understand it, these are all drivers/cars that are licensed to carry the public - either "black cars" (licensed livery drivers in licensed livery cars) or licensed taxi drivers driving licensed taxis. These can be fairly costly licenses to maintain, and so I have to assume these are full-time drivers.

Why is there a controversy over rates?

These drivers are using UberX to fill-in when they don't have any full-fare opportunities. They can take it or leave it, it's up to them.

I think there is some confusion with a third-tier of Uber service (not sure if rolled-out anywhere yet?) for ride-sharing amongst the public, in places where they can legally do that.

How do UberX rates compare to the rates these drivers would normally command?

Only cab consortiums!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The free market (a subset of freedom, and, as China is showing, possibly the single most important one, if measuring increasing lifespans is your primary metric, as all caring folk do) responds to inefficiencies.

Once again the difference between the concepts of freedom and democracy appears.

You regularly see politicians talk about the holiness of spreading democracy, and rarely of freedom, because freedom means freedom from them. "Democracy" is just the modern twist where they have an additional vote layer to jump thru before wielding power they shouldn't.

They would

[Anonymous Coward]

Resort to force.

Here in Spain something similar happened.

The air traffic controllers had been negotiating some working conditions for a year, after such the government(state run ariports) essentially said "you get nothing and what are you going to do ,uh?".So the air controllers went on strike.

What follows is a massive propaganda campaign demonicing them and saying they are overpayed and basically cheating everyone else out of their tax money.

Ah, they also declared state of emergency, for the sacond time since 1975, and called the ARMY in to force the controllers back to work.Which they did,