When Your Boss Is An Algorithm (ft.com)

Slashdot reader Presto Vivace shares an article on FT.com about "workers without a workplace, striking against a company that does not employ them...managed not by people but by an algorithm that communicates with them via their smartphones." And what they are rebelling against is an app update... They might be free to choose when to work but not how to work or, crucially, how much they are paid... Some gig-economy workers and unions are bringing this question to court. They argue that these companies' algorithms exert so much control over workers that they are really employees in the eyes of the law and thus owed hourly minimum wages, sick pay, holiday pay and the like.
The article offers a detailed look at historical precedents for today's strict "service level assessments," noting that for the companies, "algorithmic management solves a problem: how to instruct, track and evaluate a crowd of casual workers you do not employ, so they deliver a responsive, seamless, standardized service." But for workers in the gig economy -- 800,000 in the U.S. alone -- the question becomes whether reporting to an algorithm in an app is liberating -- or exploitative?

Comments

I think it's fair

[johnsmithperson123]

You are, essentially, a contractor in the gig economy. You accept a certain task for a certain payment. So when you get down to it, they're contractors.

Re:I think it's fair

[careysub]

Absolutely. And companies like Uber are recruiting real live people to devote their actual working lives and resources to supporting the company's profit-making business, with specific promises of the terms of work and pay. Then changing them (always in the negative direction) without warning, or appeal.

This is why company's everywhere need regulation. Crazy abuse of workers for profit will happen unless standards are imposed and enforced, otherwise it is always a race to the bottom. Uber sounds like it is turning into a sweatshop on the street.

Re: I think it's fair

[BarbaraHudson]

When the company using them exercises as much control as to how the contractor does the job ad they would over an employee, the "independent" of "independent contractor" is missing.

Re:I think it's fair

[JoeMerchant]

Oblig: http://marshallbrain.com/manna...

Manna - management by algorithm - the final precursor step to total automation.

Re:I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Under the Law in the US, the difference between contractor and employee the contractor must meet the following 4 cases:

1: A definite, Limited term contract with a solid start and end date.
2: A definite, specific job that does not change for the length of the contract. "Accounts Payable Clerk" Is specific enough, "General Labor" is not.
3: The contractor is not working as a direct report to a company employee. To change what the employee is doing, they need to go through the contracting company.
4: The contractor cannot be interviewed by, hired, or fired by a company employee they are a direct report to.

If a Contractor does not meet all 4, the employer is committing wage theft and tax fraud. These are Class III Felonies.

Re:I think it's fair

[TechyImmigrant]

Absolutely. And companies like Uber are recruiting real live people to devote their actual working lives

Every one of the Uber/Lyft drivers I have used have professed to doing it to supplement income from their primary job.

Re:I think it's fair

[SoftwareArtist]

The terms "contractor" and "employee" have legal definitions. The question is which one applies here. Uber says, "We're a software company, not a taxi company. The only thing we do is make a phone app to help independent drivers find business." If that were true, every driver would be setting their own prices, and they'd all be competing with each other on price. Because that's part of the legal definition of a contractor, and the maker of a phone app has no business telling independent drivers how much they have to charge the people they transport.

So either Uber is lying and the drivers are actually employees, or else they're coordinating a massive price fixing scheme. There are lawsuits in progress alleging both of these things.

Re:I think it's fair

[Dutchmaan]

Oblig: http://marshallbrain.com/manna...

Manna - management by algorithm - the final precursor step to total automation.

..or total subjugation by our man made god... once a system is in place where we've given up our free will to a machine and generations are born into and accepting that system, it will be almost impossible to escape it.

Re:I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't encourage him.

Re:I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

W2 vs 1099 classification essentially uses duck-typing, so they are or aren't contractors if and only if a sufficient number of the IRS Rules for employee classification agree. Excerpted from link:

Facts that provide evidence of the degree of control and independence fall into three categories:

1. Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
2. Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)
3. Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another.

The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination.

Re:I think it's fair

[K. S. Kyosuke]

On the other hand, having humans do the work they can do best at the time and having machines do all the rest seems an inevitable outcome of the kind of technological progress that started with the pottery wheel as a replacement for humans trying to approach surfaces of revolution with hand molding. And if machines can now do management better than humans, what's the alternative? To keep the old structures in place even if the price is nation-wide economic inefficiency?

Re:I think it's fair

[PPH]

3: The contractor is not working as a direct report to a company employee. To change what the employee is doing, they need to go through the contracting company.

"the contracting company"

The IRS seems to have trouble wrapping its little pea brain around the fact that some people are sole proprietors and manage their own employment contracts. Same thing for #4. I negotiate the terms of my contract with my customer. As a part of that negotiation, I am "interviewed" by the customer and can be "hired" (enter into a contract with) or "fired" (contract terminated by) them.

Re: I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, their regular job doesn't pay a living wage, and neither does Uber or they would quit their regular job and do Uber full time. The "gig economy" is a symptom, not a solution, for the rising numbers of the precariate - people who are living with a precarious job because the benefits of the rising economy don't float all boats.

Re:I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

If algorithms didn't make better decisions than people we wouldn't use them. If anything is worthy of unquestioning faith it's Math. That isn't to say that Math is worthy of unquestioning faith, but it's more worthy than any alternative.

Re: I think it's fair

[TechyImmigrant]

Yes. I would not be surprised if that is true.

Re:I think it's fair

[swell]

funny phrase: "Crazy abuse of workers for profit will happen unless standards are imposed and enforced"

It's not crazy if it profits the abuser- just common sense. But it seems immoral. And standards are imposed, but this new concept has delayed proper legal analysis.

If I could enslave workers in a similar fashion and profit by it (to the tune of billions of shekels), I would be sorely tempted.

Re:I think it's fair

[Cederic]

4: The contractor cannot be interviewed by, hired, or fired by a company employee they are a direct report to

That's insane and impossible.

I need some software writing. I decide to engage a contractor to do it for me. Talking to them beforehand is interviewing them, so I can't do that. Asking them take on the work in return for payment is hiring them, so I can't do that. Deciding they're a complete fuckwit, something I couldn't tell beforehand because I couldn't interview them, I can't terminate their contract because that would be firing them.

How exactly do I engage them then?

Utter fucking nonsense.

Re: I think it's fair

[ShanghaiBill]

In other words, their regular job doesn't pay a living wage

That depends on how you want to live. Even minimum wage in America is more than is earned by 80% of the world. People don't work a second job to survive, they do it to improve their life and afford extra things.

and neither does Uber or they would quit their regular job and do Uber full time.

Who wants to sit in a car seat for eight hours a day? Also, demand for rides has a peak in the morning, a peak in the afternoon, and a peak in the evening. Other times are dead. It makes no sense for all the drivers to work all the time. They would spend most of the time idle, earning nothing.

The "gig economy" is a symptom, not a solution

Then what is the solution?

Re: I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Any system that enslaves humanity instead of serving it is broken and must be tweaked or replaced. Capitalism is broken in the way you describe. Regulations are tweaks.

Re: I think it's fair

[RabidReindeer]

That depends on how you want to live. Even minimum wage in America is more than is earned by 80% of the world. People don't work a second job to survive, they do it to improve their life and afford extra things.

"Minimum wage" doesn't mean "survival wage". You need at least a survival wage to pay for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, health care and so forth.

If a minimum wage job doesn't pay a survival wage - and such is the consensus on US minimum wages - then you darned well will get pushed into working a second, or even third jobs.

It really doesn't matter how much better USA minimum wage pays than pay in Kolkata if the cost of living in the USA is significantly higher than it is in Kolkata. Which it is, hence the popularity of outsourcing skilled jobs to places like India. People over there can earn a comfortable living on less than the US minimum wage because their living expenses are lower - they're not just taking advanced programming jobs for $10/hour because they're selfless public benefactors.

Re:I think it's fair

[HiThere]

Well, I think you think you are making sense.

I'm not even arguing against your conclusions here, though I do disagree, I'm arguing against your argument, which is incoherent. If I step through it carefully each piece seems to make sense, but the rules of deduction are not clear, and, at a guess, could be "I know what conclusion I want, so head in that direction.".

I'm reminded of a story about Euler who once when asked to prove a statement said "To the true mathematician it is intuitively obvious that e to the pi i equals minus one". (Well, actually he said it in French, which I don't speak, and he was referring to symbols drawn on the blackboard, which I can't type into Slashdot's Unicode ignoring system.) His statement turned out to be true, but his proof was a bit lacking. You'd need to prove to me that your conclusion was true to get me to accept it, and your proof is a bit lacking.

Re: I think it's fair

[HiThere]

I'll agree that Capitalism is broken, but what's a decent replacement system. Remember, you don't only need to consider the ideal outcome, but also it's instabilities. E.g., bureaucracy tends to shift into despotism and Aristocracy. Democracy is unstable between Dictatorship and Anarchy. Socialism tends to convert into Monarchy (as do dictatorships). Etc.

Now Capitalism is an incomplete system, needing a host system to be parasitic upon, but it can parasitise multiple hosts. It can easily embed itself into Democracies, Republics, Socialisms, and Monarchy. With a little work it can embed itself into Dictatorships. Etc.

I don't have a good answer, do you feel you have?

P.S.: I didn't mention Communism, because there has never been a successful Communism at larger than the village level, and those weren't based on Marxism, but usually on some Christian sect (among the ones I know of). And those were unstable, rarely lasting two generations without converting to a different form, though often the conversion was relatively benign.

Re: I think it's fair

[ShanghaiBill]

If a minimum wage job doesn't pay a survival wage - and such is the consensus on US minimum wages - ...

Not everyone is a head of household. The whole point of a minimum wage is for it to be a minimum, which means unskilled, entry level teenagers. If you come out of 13 years of free education (K-12) with no useful knowledge or skill other than flipping burgers, then maybe you should wait a while before starting a family.

Re:I think it's fair

[Goglu]

We're a software company, not a taxi company.

Actually, Uber accepted to become a taxi company (and get a taxi licence) in Québec. So THEY ARE a taxi company (that also has a software division).

Re:I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying guys like Andrew Joseph Stack III are not fully justified in what they did. The Special status W11 "exemptions" for contracted IT labor, which make hiring an IT consultant on a W11 risky from being criminally prosecuted standpoint, are full on BS. The entire objective of those exemptions is to enable companies like WIPRO and CSC to get huge, and to keep the IT market from progressing at a normal pace, to keep us from continuously improving our craft. It's wage arbitrage pure and simple. Imagine telling construction workers they had the same limitations, they'd Riot. Because of laws like this, we are forced to keep making mistakes and not improving our craft or trade which largely today is about scamming investors and people on the street by selling "apps".

Henry Ford walked into the communities his factories employed and tried to control everyone for their betterment, e.g. he'd have people inspecting houses, asking why they were not tidy, why they drank too much, why the kids weren't clean, and so forth. The flip side of that coin is what we have today, which is companies like Meyers deploying HRMS systems so automate the hiring, firing, and exploitation of droves of part time workers. Go look at the studies that show how difficult it is just to find staff that aren't on drugs and can read\write these days, it's incredibly difficult. There are people who have been so abused they will never, ever trust an employer no matter how good they are to them, they've been ruined. That is what a 50 years of consistently removing labor protections has caused.

Right now, we're talking about Uber Drivers, not software developers. So your post and my rant are off-topic.

Re: I think it's fair

[Gamer_2k4]

In other words, their regular job doesn't pay a living wage, and neither does Uber or they would quit their regular job and do Uber full time.

Don't you think that's presumptuous? I make very competitive money at my current job, and I intend to support my family solely on it once kids come into the picture, but until then, my income is supplemented by the job my wife works. That doesn't mean my job doesn't pay a living wage; it simply means that more money is more attractive than less money.

Re: I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why a moderately large tech company in Seattle thinks that US$10.00/hour for an Oracle certified database manager is an appropriate wage.

Re:I think it's fair

[JoeMerchant]

Algorithms decide and optimize as they are tuned to... they're also easy to cheat, game, and otherwise manipulate - human managers can adapt and compensate when worker bees start to game the system.

Re: I think it's fair

[ShanghaiBill]

Which is why a moderately large tech company in Seattle thinks that US$10.00/hour for an Oracle certified database manager is an appropriate wage.

If someone is willing to accept the job, then it is an appropriate wage.

Re: I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah. So you recognize that folks that cannot or will not educate themselves beyond burger flipping will get subsidized by folks that do, since minimum wage shouldn't be enough for any but high school kids. Hmm? You disagree with that too? Well shit, man, you've painted yourself into quite the corner, there. It's gotta be one or the other.

Re: I think it's fair

[diesalesmandie]

Which is why a moderately large tech company in Seattle thinks that US$10.00/hour for an Oracle certified database manager is an appropriate wage.

If someone is willing to accept the job, then it is an appropriate wage.

They may not have a choice, is it still acceptable then?

Re: I think it's fair

[matbury]

Re: alternatives to capitalism, funny that nobody ever mentions worker cooperatives in these conversations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Hundreds of millions of people are members of worker cooperatives globally and they have better standards of living than their capitalist counterparts. The largest worker owned corporation in the world is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... based in northern Spain (Basque country) with around 800,000 employees worldwide. Worker cooperatives are democratic and socialist, unlike capitalism corporations, and are not despotic, aristocratic, monarchic dictatorships; I think those adjectives are more reflective of capitalist corporations. Which would you rather work for?

Economist Richard Wolff has studies Mondragon and written about them, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/co...

Re:I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point that is being made (I don't know if it is correct though) is that you should deal with the contractor business.

You shouldn't ask Carl what he knows, or hire Carl, you should contract Programmers inc. to supply you with a competent programmer for 3 weeks. The fact that they send Carl is between Carl's employer (Programmers Inc.) and Carl.

However, that is not always reality, at least not in Europe. Even big contracting firms send out CVs of individual employees to potential costumers.

Re: I think it's fair

[SuricouRaven]

If you are comparing wages between countries, you need to adjust for cost of living too.

Re: I think it's fair

[ShanghaiBill]

They may not have a choice, is it still acceptable then?

Why would they not have a choice? The only reason I can see is if no one else was willing to pay them more, in which case they aren't worth more than $10 per hour. And what the hell do you mean by "unacceptable" anyway? Do you mean it should be illegal to pay "Oracle Certified Database Managers" the same as a burger flipper? Who is going to enforce that? Are we going to have special payroll police, with a list of professions, qualifications, and certifications, with a minimum salary for each?

Re: I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

God that's idiotic.

Re: I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice train of reasoning: "Not everyone is a head of household. The whole point of a minimum wage is for it to be a minimum, which means unskilled, entry level teenagers." (Your words, not mine).

So by this reasoning, a Oracle certified database manager is unskilled if he accepts a wage of USD10/hour? Or what? Stop mixing the apples and oranges.

Some companies outsource to other companies to get around the minimum wage in the country where they operate. They don't care about the workers, just the bottom line profit, and pocket lining of their executives not being outsourced. Someone that has fully bought into the "market solves it all" theory say this is fair. Sure, the next time you are fired and replaced by a worker around the world or forced to move there to continue to work for the same company for the new wage, get back to me and let me know how that worked out for you.

If you have a full time employment, and still cannot live off your wage, you are either living too luxurious for your income or your wage is too low.

Re: I think it's fair

[ixidor]

People don't work a second job to survive, they do it to improve their life and afford extra things. That's not always true. I am stuck paying child support, and buying the family healthcare plan at work, evean though i have a plan that is nearly free with the VA, and dependant has medicaid because mother is super poor. SO, yeah, i need uber $$ just to pay bills. Didn't want to depend on it, but has come to that. Oh, so get a better job.... yeah let go pluck one from the job tree.

Re: I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Libertarian Dream-World, employees have just as much power as employers. Jobs are plentiful and they can pick and choose the conditions that they want to work under.

In the Real World, that isn't so. The employer/employee relationship is almost always vastly biased towards the employer. Potential employees might have a mere handful of potential employers to choose from, especially if they found the expense of moving outside their immediate geographic range to be unacceptable.

Employers, meanwhile, often have dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of potential candidates, depending on how specialized the position in question is. And they often have deep enough pockets to expand that pool even more by bringing in people from outside the immediate geographic range.

Employees often have time pressure on them. No income, no eat. It's all very well to argue that a prudent person should not be living to close to the edge that that is an issue, but in reality, few people can withstand an extended siege and even to prepare for such conditions requires that you would have previously had enough income to afford putting funds aside. A significant group of the population at any given time is going to be starting from zero (or, in the case of student debts, even worse). Others may have had their savings ability sapped by external forces, such as uncovered health care for themselves or relatives.

On the other hand, few open positions in the average company are so critical that the company cannot afford to simply leave the position open and starve the candidates until one capitulates.

In short, just because someone MUST accept the job, that doesn't mean that it's going to pay an appropriate wage. "Appropriate" only applies if there is a true choice. When the choice is "accept or starve", there really is no choice.

Re:I think it's fair

[dywolf]

was looking for the Manna reference.
it's coming.

Re:I think it's fair

[silentcoder]

But it isn't really the same. Real freelancers/contractors are generally able to work for multiple companies, can negotiate the terms of their contracts and can select customers.
These guys are generally tied to a single one - which controls every aspect of their work just like a full-time employee. They have all the *risks* of being a contractor - but none of the rewards. I've been a contractor - and I made a lot more money than I do as an employee, which compensated for the lack of benefits (I ultimately chose the security for a fixed income over the generally higher income which can fluctuate wildly). But I got to negotiate terms. I got to operate through a registered company and pay company rather than income tax - and I could have multiple clients depending on workloads from various ones.

None of these things are available to these people. The justification for the huge difference between worker incomes and owner-incomes is the financial risk assumed by owners. What the gig economy is doing is to shift that risk onto the workers - so now you still have that massive income disparity (in fact it's bigger) but the vast majority of the risk is being carried by people who are not getting the rewards.
Instead of the company assuming the risk of paying somebody during a time that proves to be quiet - the worker now assumes the risk of being available during that time (as opposed to doing other, potentially more productive or profitable, things) and, if it's quiet making nothing.

There is also the problem that these companies operate in hundreds of countries with very different laws - and are effectively ignoring *all* those laws, and laws are not perfect either. In my country for example there is a law that if you're a contractor who earns more than 80% of your income from a single client and has less than 4 employees of your own, then you pay income tax - even if you're a registered company - which you can then claim back later (an arduous process). It was put in place to stop people from resigning their job, then continuing to do it as a contractor to dodge taxes.
But logically then - if you define such people as a 'employees' for tax purposes - then you ought to define that way for labour purposes as well ? Too bad the law is not consistent in that regard, tax law and labour law don't agree on the definition of an employee. So here, Uber drivers pay income tax like employees - but don't get labour rights like employees.

This is NOT a simple thing. It's a very new approach to business, which is beneficial in many ways (consumers certainly love these services for one) - but also introduces new and very complicated problems. We simply don't know how to address them yet. We also can't take the libertarian "just don't regulate anything" approach here - the concept didn't even exist when Austrian economics were a thing - there is absolutely no way in hell therefore that ANYTHING Von Mises or Hayek said could POSSIBLY be true about something they could never have imagined. No principle can scale to cover concepts that were inconceivable when the principle was formulated.
And that's without even considering all the empirical proof that nothing in libertarian/chicago school/Austrian school economics is right about anything anyway.

Re:I think it's fair

[silentcoder]

Then you live in a very wealthy city/neighbourhood because that is definitely not the norm. In most of the world for the vast majority of Uber drivers that's their only income - and frequently it earns less than the cost per kilometer of just fueling and maintaining a car.

So what actually happens is that some rich people go and buy a fleet of cars, then rent these out to people who use them to work as uber drivers. These agents make good money, while the uber drivers still have to pay the car rent out of their meagre share of Uber's income.
It's a lot cheaper to maintain a fleet of cars than a single one.

Re: I think it's fair

[silentcoder]

>That depends on how you want to live. Even minimum wage in America is more than is earned by 80% of the world. People don't work a second job to survive, they do it to improve their life and afford extra things.

Bullshit. Most Americans who work more than one job do, indeed, do it to survive. Nearly all those people are on welfare and, quite frequently, the REASON they have two or three jobs is because welfare-to-work laws say they can't get foodstamps if they don't.

Re:I think it's fair

[Errol backfiring]

even if the price is nation-wide economic inefficiency?

I don't think you mean what you say with this. economic means that it is about goods and services, people and work. financial is about money. So replacing humans with machines is a horrible thing to do economically, because more people get unemployed and if they hardly have an income, they cannot keep other people working either. The problem is off course that for one bloke at the top this pays off financially. Only if you believe the fairy tale of the "trickle down economy", you could say that there is an economic gain.

Re:I think it's fair

[TechyImmigrant]

>Then you live in a very wealthy city/neighbourhood because that is definitely not the norm.

I do but I only use ride hailing apps when I'm traveling, which I do a lot of.

Re:I think it's fair

[silentcoder]

Globally or just inside the US ? Which is hardly representative of Uber drivers - you do realize about 99.99% of them are not in America right ?

Re:I think it's fair

[TheCarp]

Frankly, I don't disagree.... but I think my state is on the right track by putting serious limits on what can be called a "contract" position and doesn't allow people to just be hired as contractors instead of employees. It HAS to either be temporary work or an actual external service as could be provided to multiple customers.

Just bringing someone in with all the trappings of employment and calling them a contractor doesn't cut it here, and I think that is entirely appropriate.

Re:I think it's fair

[TechyImmigrant]

Globally or just inside the US ? Which is hardly representative of Uber drivers - you do realize about 99.99% of them are not in America right ?

Globally. Big, North hemisphere cities mostly. I don't believe your 99.99% number, you made it up.

Re: I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why a moderately large tech company in Seattle thinks that US$10.00/hour for an Oracle certified database manager is an appropriate wage.

If someone is willing to accept the job, then it is an appropriate wage.

That's why I fuck your wife for free but you have to pay.

Re:I think it's fair

[silentcoder]

I live in Cape Town South Africa. There are an estimated 7000 Uber drivers in this city, which is relatively small for Africa. There are an estimated 800-thousand Uber drivers in the US.
If a tiny city in Africa has almost 1% as many drivers as the entire USA - then that 99.99% figure seems like a very conservative estimate. I imagine the figures are significantly higher in cities and countries where car ownership is lower. Uber also is surprisingly big in poorer countries where it is frequently a major source of jobs, and transport cost reductions really matter since the cost of getting to work and back is a significant (20% or more) share of their total income.

Cape Town likely has one of the lowest rates in Southern Africa actually since it already has one of the best public transport networks on the continent between trains a high-quality buss service with dedicated lanes which are significantly cheaper than using a car (roughly 10% of the cost of JUST fuel). The number is much, much higher in bigger cities like Johannesburg where there are more commuters and the public transport networks are much more limited.
Now imagine a city like Lagos. Estimated population: 16 million people. Average income: $1.20 a day. Public transport system: non-existent. When I first visited Lagos in 2001 it was already the norm that private taxis were the primary way people commuted. Uber is perfectly placed to have essentially replaced them all there. I couldn't find a solid estimate on how many Uber drivers there are in Lagos but the one article I found stated that the number multiplied by 10 in the first 6 months since they started operations there in 2014. If that pattern held (a questionable assumption but without more data its the best we can do) that would mean the number will now be more than 40 times higher. I sincerely doubt it was less than 10-thousand to begin with.

That's just 3 cities outside the US in just one continent - there are 6 others. The odds that my number is not a massive underestimation are looking quite slim.

Re:I think it's fair

[K. S. Kyosuke]

And goods, services, people and work have no exchange value? All I mean is that a prerequisite for changes (usually growth) is some kind of surplus. If you're working your ass off as an early medieval peasant in the 900s just to not starve, not many more other things than bare survival can be accomplished. Likewise, wasting opportunity by having people do things that machines could do better with the same input is suboptimal even if the people provide no additional value. What you do with the output is beside the point here.

Re:I think it's fair

[Errol backfiring]

And goods, services, people and work have no exchange value?

Well, obviously, otherwise there was no economy. But if only one side determines the price (this is not equal to the value), it is nothing less than extortion. So don't mix economy with finance, and do not mix value with price. For example, the online casino that we call stock market offers no economic value at all, but has a huge financial impact. The fact that a real-economy bread is paid in the same currency as virtual-economy "futures" for grain that will never be planted is a huge problem. Seen from the bread that currency is worth something, and seen from the futures, it is worth nothing. Both are incompatible and just plain wrong and the situation is just waiting for a crisis to happen.

All I mean is that a prerequisite for changes (usually growth) is some kind of surplus.

No. The prerequisite for changes is a need for it. If you have really small communities, people learn to do everything themselves and hardly trade. Once the communities get larger, they see that some people are good at something and start dividing the work. Only in unmanageable societies you have the need for a common exchange thingy (=money). But if the money is not made by the society itself (or its representation), this opens up a big can of worms.

wasting opportunity by having people do things that machines could do better with the same input is suboptimal

Depends on the need and whether you like to do the job. Machines are by far better at taking a walk than I am. And if I use public transport to go to work, it saves me energy and I even don't have to pay attention to the road. But I rather use my bicycle. It pays off in a lot more things than just money.

Re: I think it's fair

[fish_in_the_c]

hmm... what is fair?
Do human beings have a right to eat? Do they have a right to be able to feed families? Is it ok for employers to try and create situations where employees don't have the resources to educate themselves and their children so they cannot move to other area's or develop better skills that might make them able to demand more for their pay? How safe should work be? After all, if I can find people to work someone for just enough money to eat and a there are lots of others who starve , aren't I doing them a favor, even if a few hundred of them die from dangerous equipment a year?

The deeper problem is really a factor of worldview.
Are human beings unique images of the eternal God , each of inestimable worth and in need of an opportunity to freely seek the expression of the good within themselves?
OR
Are human beings piles of chemicals, nothing more then an interesting happenstance of chance evolution, of no more value then dolphin a cat? Why or is slavery, sex slavery, prostitution and all the other crimes against humanity wrong? Is there such a thing as wrong or is a persons ability to do something the only factor that is important regardless of who and how we exploit each other as Darwinian theory would suggest.

Of coarse there is some room for spectrum in-between.

Any attempt to talk about minimum wage, or Just wage, or equality of persons, or 'rights' of any person has it's foundations in the first worldview. In the idea that there is such a thing as 'justice' and 'fairness' that exists exterior to and can be reasonably required of all people, can only be sustained as reasonable if human beings are something greater than the some total of their parts.

Once you have settles some of the larger issues then you can start to work out a definition of 'fair and just'. If you subscribe to the materialist world view any and everything is fair and just, so long as those in power can get away with it.

Re:I think it's fair

[TechyImmigrant]

So you did make it up. Come back when you have actual data rather than supposition.

Re:I think it's fair

[TechyImmigrant]

To be clear, if the US has 800,000 Uber drivers and 99.99% of drivers are elsewhere, then there are 8,000,000,000 Uber drivers. Which is everybody with 750,000,000 aliens from space added in, given that the world's population is about 7,125,000,000 humans.

Re: I think it's fair

[nctritech]

The problem with "worker choice" is that it is limited to what potential employers are offering them. In a "healthy" economic situation, supply and demand are well-balanced and the notion of making a choice works fine for either side. However, we're currently in a situation where a large pool of workers are competing for a significantly smaller pool of employer job offerings. Employers are able to dictate highly unfavorable terms to all potential workers because if Alice and Bob won't accept their terms, equally qualified Charlie probably will, so Alice and Bob must either accept those terms from someone to obtain gainful employment or stick to their principles and slowly go bankrupt and end up on welfare.

But what about the employers that aren't assholes? Well, that'd be nice, but we're on the dark side of capitalism now; all employers that are pursuing the almighty dollar during a huge glut of available labor will trend towards being assholes, otherwise they're not going to be able to compete.

The argument that "the worker can choose" in the current economic climate is akin to offering someone meals with cyanide, hemlock, arsenic, or they can opt not to eat any of those meals and die of slow starvation...but hey, "they had a choice! It was their choice!"

Re: I think it's fair

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

They may not have a choice, is it still acceptable then?

Ever hear the saying, "beggars can't be choosers?"

Re: I think it's fair

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Are we going to have special payroll police, with a list of professions, qualifications, and certifications, with a minimum salary for each?

There's already been talk of exactly that sort of thing due to the myth that men earn more than women for the same job.
Obama's New Equal-Pay Rules

Re:I think it's fair

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

I'm curious why Uber doesn't let the drivers set their own prices, that would seem to eliminate some of the complaints.

Allow drivers to set their own prices and view the prices of other drivers in the area. Customers get a list of drivers in the area with information like cost and estimated time to pick-up. They can choose to go with the cheap guy 15 minutes away, or the most-expensive driver that's just around the block.

Re: I think it's fair

[TimothyE.Wall]

Hear, hear! Nice catch, Mr. Coward (if that is your real name). Shanghai and his clones are not really talking about burger-flipping teenagers when they say, "burger-flipping teenagers". BFTs is just their poor-shaming dog whistle, and they blow on it to summon the pack who profit...or at least, believe that they do...from the ruthless exploitation of lesser human beings.

Re:I think it's fair

[silentcoder]

It's called estimation, and since I based that estimation on the best available data - you are full of shit. Americans can be so arrogant... you seriously think your relatively tiny country of 350 million people represent more than a tiny fraction of the drivers working for a company that operates in virtually every city on earth and employs thousands upon thousands of people in each of them ?
The very idea that America may represent MORE than what I estimated is prima facie ludicrous on it's face.

Now I may be off by a fraction of a percent or so, but I am definitely much closer to the truth than you. Uber doesn't publish exact figures, all we have is the data compiled by journalists which is non-exhaustive, but they all support my estimation - while you offer nothing to support your refusal to accept it.

Extrapolation from available data is not "supposition" and it's a fucking long ass way from "making it up". It may be 99.999% or it could be 99.98% - but it sure as hell isn't very much further off what I estimated - the maths simply would not work for any significant deviation from it. All the figures I did cite are the ones for which reliable data is available. The US number is known, as is the number for Cape Town. I stated up front and clearly what my logic was, on what basis I adjusted estimates - and my calculations are as exact as anybody can possibly be.

Since you have offered absolutely nothing whatsoever to support refuting it, and I have at least some evidence supporting it - I win and until the day Uber publishes exact country-by-country stats on number of drivers so we can get the real figure, my number is by far the most likely one you will find. Either way - even when that happens it will refine my number - it would not depart radically from it, it cannot - not if uber actually exists - anything else is a divide by zero error.

Re:I think it's fair

[silentcoder]

You need to learn to do estimations better. The American number is also an estimation - no exact number exists and due to how Uber operates it probably can't. You could get an exact number of how many have ever existed but right now the number of active ones would be hard to determine as it changes too often.

That said - let me correct your maths. For Uber to have the kind of response times, in as many cities as they do, considering the size of those cities and the level of demand - it's simply physically impossible for them to have less than 100-million or so drivers globally. 800-thousand is 0.8% of that - well within a reasonable margin of error for my Fermi estimation.

A hundred million employees it's big - but it wouldn't even make them the biggest employer in the world, and since they don't deem any of these people 'employees' and pay them a pittance and don't care about dealing with taxes or any of the overheads that come with employing people, it's not even a major challenge. It's only a third of the US population - and less than the employed population of the US by 17%.
The US is a big country in economic terms - but in geographic terms you're not even in the top-5 (Brazil is almost 4 times larger in surface area than the US) and in population terms you are so far down the list you barely count.
There are 1.5 Billion people in China, another Billion in India. The two most populous cities in the world is Mexico City and Sao Paulo in Brazil.

More than 70% of the people on this planet don't speak a word of English - that's just the ones who don't even know it as a second language, if you count first-language speakers only it drops to less than 20%.

The US is a geopolitical superpower - but in number of people you simply aren't an influence, and so you'll also never be an influence in anything that is derived from the number of people - such as, for example, the number of Uber drivers.

Another way to derive it. Take the known numbers. 7000 in Cape Town - population 3.4 million. 800-thousand in the US - population 350 Million. Notice the pattern there ? In both cases roughly 2000 out of every million people are an Uber driver. So that's 2 out of every 1000 people. A pattern that at least holds for the available data. That would give 200-million drivers for the world - give or take. Except we know that Uber isn't very big in China where their competition has most of the market so we can reasonably assume that they aren't as well represented there, so drop 1.5 billion of the total, and we should probably discount for cities with extremely good public transport as is found in Europe for example and assume the numbers will be lower there (it's only fair since I assumed them up for cities with worse public transport) - which if you factor it in brings us pretty close to my number of about 100-million world wide.
This is Fermi-estimation, it's a scientific technique for deriving the best possible answer from limited data - it isn't exact and it doesn't claim to be, but it's good enough for some things, like just figuring out what order of magnitude something is likely to be or say getting a rough estimate of how many Uber drivers are likely to be American.

Like I said in my first post - you need to give about a percentage point of margin of error either way. So maybe it's a bit closer to 98%, that literally does not refute my point in the least. In fact, it only proves that the actual point I made was perfectly accurate. Because the point wasn't if it's 98% or 99.99% - it was that as a percentage of Uber drivers the Americans are literally an insignificantly small amount.

Re:I think it's fair

[TechyImmigrant]

You need to learn to do estimations better. The American number is also an estimation - no exact number exists and due to how Uber operates it probably can't. You could get an exact number of how many have ever existed but right now the number of active ones would be hard to determine as it changes too often.

That said - let me correct your maths. .

Please re-read. I was quoting the your numbers and showing them to be ridiculous.

Re:I think it's fair

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case they'd be a contracted employee, rather than a contractor or an at-will employee. Typically salaried employees are contracted employees for taxation purposes.

Re:I think it's fair

[TechyImmigrant]

You were not off by a fraction of a percent. You were off by several billion people.

Re:I think it's fair

[martinfb]

Agreed. So, if you do not want the job as described, they why would one accept the position - and then rebel?!

I have no fucking idea what this is about.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like most articles on Slashdot these days, I have no clue what they're talking about. Is this The Twilight Zone?

Re:I have no fucking idea what this is about.

[Blaskowicz]

It's about you working as a delivery worker, but you receive orders from a remote computer, through a smartphone. They're of the kind "you have 20 seconds to comply and accept to go to A to collect the package", "distance to B : 3.24 miles, estimated time of arrival : 12:40. 12:39 remaining.. 12:38 remaining...". BUT you can refuse that delivery in the first place ; it goes to a pool of checked-in delivery boys in the right area and time, not to you in particular.
But they ask you to register as an independent business, so that they don't concern themselves with such stuff as sick leave, paying for unemployment, health care, retirement ; parental leave, or even possibly the consequences of getting run over by a car?

So.. Very tempting if you have absolutely nothing to do and would like to deliver burgers or something dumb like that at 2 AM and earn a pittance, but it will be a new Uber-like scandal. The business model is : illegal employment, over the internet!

fiction becomes reality

[Hognoxious]

http://marshallbrain.com/manna...

...you'll just be another number.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasted punchline opportunity...

Temporary

[lorinc]

Whether it's liberating or exploitative doesn't really matter. Above all, it's temporary until the app replaces the workers entirely.

Get over it, you are a mediocre useless pile of flesh that is inefficient at best, and certainly unneeded to generate wealth.

Re: Temporary

[Anonymous Coward]

That is all of us in the long run, so we should restructure the political system to avoid paving over the world with literal emotionless economic robots that have the moral value of a rock.

Re:Temporary

[SoftwareArtist]

So if you only get exploited for the next 10 years, it doesn't matter? If all the drivers quit today, Uber and Lyft would go out of business tomorrow. They can't exist without those "useless" piles of flesh. Just because the humans may get replaced by automation in the future, that doesn't give anyone the right to exploit them today.

Re: Temporary

[Anonymous Coward]

What about "restructuring" the human population? It is plain to see we don't need that many people.

Re:Temporary

[TheBAFH]

and certainly unneeded to generate wealth.

...but certainly needed to consume wealth.

It's a gig for you and me

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's really the pig economy for the 1%.

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like your "boss" in the gig economy, don't work for them,

Yeah, if you don't like participating in our brain-dead economic nightmare, go fuck yourself. there are plenty of lemmings to replace you

so much for the human race

There is a simple solution

[burtosis]

Two can play at this game

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that job displacement in the economy is occurring quickly that it's hard to find a safe harbor where you can train or self train and be productive for a period of several years for a decent salary. Few people on /. cared when this was happening to musicians, journalists, and retail workers. But now it's all over IT as well, with the cloud as well as offshore outsourcing.

LOL - Related Links

[Anonymous Coward]

These aren't related at all. Slashdot is still buggy af.

World Reacts To The Worst Mass Shooting In U.S. History
The Case Against a Universal Basic Income
Mass Shooting In San Bernardino Kills At Least 14
PayPal Pulls North Carolina Plan After Transgender Bathroom Law
Terrorist Attack In Brussels Airport and Metro Station: At Least 34 Dead

Re:it's pretty simple

[50000BTU_barbecue]

I find people like you fascinating.

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

OP wants a pic.

I'm impressed.

[alexhs]

I'm impressed: you managed to not mention Ü... a single time in this summary. A....b isn't mentioned either, but this is expected. At least, all "related links" are about Ü... .
I think that company deserves its own icon, just as "the real-life Tony Stark". After all, Bitcoin has its own.

(Salt at your convenience)

All part of the plan

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Attract a candidate pool with good rates.
2. Get business up and running. Client base established.
3. Slowly but consistently push reimbursement down, expecting to lose candidates.
4. Maximize revenues by borderline exploitation, which has no relation to #1.

it was predicted in 2002

[Anonymous Coward]

reality in 2016

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Re:it's pretty simple

[WhiplashII]

1) The world does not owe you a living

2) If someone is willing to do your job as well as you for less money than you, they should have the job.

If the world followed these simple rules, people would quickly shuffle to the job where they produce the most benefit for society. Society as a whole would be better off, including the displaced workers once they find their niche.

When you have protectionism, such as unions, by definition you are stealing jobs from someone that needs it more. The whole argument about pay going up or down is a red herring; if pay decreased globally, then prices would also decrease globally. If pay rises, prices rise in step. The only thing that can make society better off as a whole is increased efficiency and increased production. Anything else is just theft from those weaker than you.

Better than many of my bosses/Can it be hacked?

[mykepredko]

I had never thought of it, but these types of apps/employment opportunities treat everybody in the organization exactly the same way and looks only their results. Bonuses/promotions/inducements are laid out as an algorithm for everyone to see and understand. If changes are to be made, then they have to be spelled out to a coder who then updates all the "bosses" at the speed of light - as a bonus these changes do not need to be interpreted by management and HR.

This is a hell of a lot better than some of the companies/managers/executives I've worked for.

If the question is that when the rules/conditions are changed, how do you push back? You're only option is to vote with your feet which may not be as bad as it first seems. Say a company like Uber suddenly triples their take from their "employees" because their marketing efforts in somewhere, let's say China, aren't going well and they're sinking a mountain of cash into it. The employees stop taking assignments from the app in response, essentially quitting - now the company, in real time, is getting a response that they've gone too far and now cannot provide the same level of service, upping complaints in the region causing them to back off the problem change, probably have to offer inducements to get the (productive) employees back and update their algorithm for making changes to eliminate this problem in the future.

Now, having said all this, I would wonder if this type of "employer" could be hacked? I could see a black hat offering a service where subscribing employees are given advantages like a lower take from the company (the numbers are fudged going into the company) or given prime assignments over other employees. This ends up treating some employees preferentially and leaving others out in the cold.

Going right back to the situation where some employees are treated favourably and others are essentially abused.

Plus ca change plus ca meme chose.

Re:Better than many of my bosses/Can it be hacked?

[sjames]

If the question is that when the rules/conditions are changed, how do you push back? You're only option is to vote with your feet which may not be as bad as it first seems. Say a company like Uber suddenly triples their take from their "employees" because their marketing efforts in somewhere, let's say China, aren't going well and they're sinking a mountain of cash into it. The employees stop taking assignments from the app in response, essentially quitting - now the company, in real time, is getting a response that they've gone too far and now cannot provide the same level of service, upping complaints in the region causing them to back off the problem change, probably have to offer inducements to get the (productive) employees back and update their algorithm for making changes to eliminate this problem in the future.

That works if you're working for extras, but fails miserably if you're working for food, clothing, and shelter. Sure, your clothes probably won't wear out before there's a correction, but your stomach and the bills won't wait that long.

Meanwhile, what happens when the algorithm settles into the ideal for the company and likewise for the other employers in the area and in that state you cannot make ends meet? The problem is that whatever the algorithm, it is hard coded to favor the company and probably only looks at the short term.

Re:Better than many of my bosses/Can it be hacked?

[lolococo]

I, for one, welcome our new algortihmic overlords!

Re:Better than many of my bosses/Can it be hacked?

[AmiMoJo]

It sounds nice in theory but there has to be human judgement in the loop somewhere. How do you measure productivity for a developer? Code lines? Applications developed? Time spent mentoring or helping junior devs? How does an algorithm judge code quality?

It's also really hard to eliminate bias in these systems, e.g. against part time workers or workers who recently took paternity/maternity leave.

Re:it's pretty simple

[50000BTU_barbecue]

"1) The world does not owe you a living"

Yet you feel the world owes cheap labor and no taxes to corporations? Why do you worship takers?

What is the purpose of science and technology if you feel like we should live like in the Middle Ages?

"2) If someone is willing to do your job as well as you for less money than you, they should have the job."

Sure, and that doesn't mean I should now starve in a world like ours. But to you and your delightful Bronze Age sensibility, it does.

Figures you're a software type.

contractor abuse is not an new thing or an app thi

[Joe_Dragon]

contractor abuse is not an new thing or an app thing. Also there are w2 like employee rules that uber and others have that are not part of the Algorithm.

FedEx and other shipping / delivery places list there workers as 1099's but control them like w2 works and they even say you must rent / buy our software / hardware / trucks / uniforms (in some states employees can not be changed for them at all). And the app part is just routeing.

Re:it's pretty simple

[PRMan]

Somebody needs to read the history that started the unions to begin with. People couldn't afford to live even WITH a job, moron.

but more and more places are trying the 1099 route

[Joe_Dragon]

but more and more places are trying the 1099 route.

We need to come down hard on that. To many places are abusing it so it time to make it very hard for someone to be an 1099 so that the places have to at least make the works W2's. Just think if some restaurant try the you get payed when people are in the place but you need to be there for your full shift and you need to work after closing to do clean up (off the clock but needed if you want to be on the work list for later).

Unions could make a comeback

[ErichTheRed]

If unions can successfully sell themselves as the only lever people have against things like the summary, then they could definitely make a comeback. Everything has a way of coming back in cycles, slightly improved. Look at the industry most of us work in (IT) -- virtual machines, containers, remote hosting -- all that stuff is decades old, and has been brought back with a better supporting environment. Until about the 1970s, even low-level factory workers could raise a family on one income and have a secure retirement on top of that. Wind the clock forward, and we have those same jobs paying just above minimum wage with no benefits, or they don't exist here and former factory workers have to take minimum wage jobs in retail, etc. This is directly attributable to a loss of union membership and leverage. Now, people in the gig economy don't even have stable employment; they have to stitch together tons of part time gigs to even come close to a solid wage. I feel that with automation and algorithmic management, this is going to get even worse.

I think a lot of the union bashing is a misinformation campaign. I would love to work in a unionized workplace, just for the convenience of paying a collective bargaining unit to ensure I get a fair salary and have some leverage against employers. Almost all the arguments against unions involve one of these:
- Corruption -- what political organization isn't corrupt? I'd deal with a low level of corruption if I were getting something that benefits me.
- Mediocrity -- as in "I'm a super-genius and employers are lining up to hire me for a high six-figure salary...no way will I help my colleagues by stooping down to their level." All I can say is this -- even if you are a super-genius, there will come a time where management finds a way to not pay you that huge salary regardless of your talent.
- Some anecdote -- the most common one is "I was at a trade show in a convention center, and the union electricians wouldn't let me plug my own things in." This one confuses me -- why wouldn't you want someone to do the job they are assigned to do while you do what you were there for?

Either the entire employment economy will collapse completely, or people are going to rediscover unions the same way they rediscovered VMs and ASPs. As employers slowly gain back all the leverage they lost, people are going to feel the squeeze and want something to restore the balance.

Re:Unions could make a comeback

[Anonymous Coward]

Unions are a great idea if correctly implemented. Something I don't quite understand, though, is why worker-owned co-operatives aren't a bigger thing. They're not always the right solution, but I mean, the dream is to have all your fellow employees fully invested and doing their level best. How better to arrange that than by giving them a direct financial stake in the business?

Re:Unions could make a comeback

[Anonymous Coward]

Until about the 1970s, even low-level factory workers could raise a family on one income and have a secure retirement on top of that
Before 1940 both adults usually worked and the children were expect to as well.

That sweet spot of 1945-1965 is not coming back without a major world war. I think you really underestimate the scale of WW2. Once Japan and Europe fixed themselves they were able to compete on price. The Americans got complacent on quality and cost. It cost them. You can see the start of it in china now. They need to get their quality game together or they will lose a lot. They still have cost but that game may be a currency manipulation game which only works to a point.

With too many jobs and not enough workers wages will rise. Flip it around and wages will fall. That is econ 251 stuff (macro economics).

You also also missed what uber like companies are doing. They are literally side stepping around unions. The point of a union is to extract value from a company and in theory give it to the workers. It is why uber basically insideouted the whole cab industry. Wages and costs to customers rose to match what the market would take and the business could bear. Uber removed one large cost variable. Most parts of the 'people overhead'. Instead of pay to wait it is pay only when working. Insurance does not need to be offered. SS is on the back of the employee (12% 'tax' btw).

why wouldn't you want someone to do the job they are assigned to do while you do what you were there for?
I have a few of these and my co-workers have a few of these also. The reason they react that way is because they do not want that job eliminated. They are fighting for that worker to work. If someone else can do that job then they do not need that person. The company can also use it against the worker 'you did not do xyz when it is your entire job to do xyz' thus putting the union in the position of saying 'yeah we can get rid of him'. But the union only exists if that person is there.

I have been considering getting into using uber. But after watching many videos on it of people who have stopped I will probably give it a skip. Most people compared it to a pay day loan scheme. You get a lot of money right now. But most of that money is going to disappear into gas/taxes/depreciation. Uber keeps 4/5ths of the ride and you pick up most of the costs. It is almost the perfect employee abuse machine.

Re:Unions could make a comeback

[PPH]

even if you are a super-genius, there will come a time where management finds a way to not pay you that huge salary regardless of your talent.

"management", "salary"

If you have these kinds of talents, you are doing it wrong. Go to work as a sole proprietor/consultant. You contract to provide a service and are paid a price based on its value to your customer. Or they can go elsewhere.

If unions can successfully sell themselves as the only lever people have against things like the summary

That's the plan. You (the employee) will be loyal to your union rather than your employer or profession. And they will extract value from that relationship in the form of political power.

Re:Unions could make a comeback

[Cederic]

- Corruption -- what political organization isn't corrupt? I'd deal with a low level of corruption if I were getting something that benefits me.

I now understand why you like unions. Some of us are honest, so fuck you and fuck your union.

Mediocrity

I don't need to be a super-genius to see the damage that union pay bargaining causes. Mediocre people getting the same wage as high productivity staff. Mediocre people getting paid more than someone far better than them purely because they've been in the role for longer. Sub-mediocre people not being sacked because of the union.

Fuck that. My employer has to attract staff to work for the company. Pay is one of those attractors, but not the only one. If the total package and working conditions don't meet my expectations then I can and will move on. My employer knows this, and works to prevent it.

This one confuses me

I'm not a monkey. I can pick up a chair and carry it. I can move my computer from one desk to another. I can safely use electrical equipment.

Why would I wait hours or days for someone to do that shit for me? Just why the fuck should some union of which I'm not even a member dictate what I can and can't do?

I would love to work in a unionized workplace, just for the convenience of paying a collective bargaining unit to ensure I get a fair salary and have some leverage against employers.

I'm fucking delighted that I don't work in a unionised workplace, where people let collective bargain remove any accountability or responsibility from them to do their job properly. It's awesome. People actually do the right thing, because they want to, and come to work to make a difference. The company succeeds and we all get paid well.

It's marvellous. You should try it some time.

Re:Unions could make a comeback

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism doesn't work. If you need to know why, just look at the history of everyplace it's been attempted.

Re:Unions could make a comeback

[Anonymous Coward]

The company succeeds and we all get paid well.

You're getting a sucker's share compared to the profits earned by the corporation. You're being made a fool by the investor class and thanking them for it.

It's marvellous. You should try it some time.

Once, when I was young and foolish, I thought as you do now. Decades of working in the real world have beaten the idealism out of me, what little there was to begin with. Those with the wealth and power in this world have mostly used evil means to get it. They lied, cheated, stole and in some cases murdered their way to wealth. You might think that you have what it takes to swim with the sharks, but I doubt it. At some point you're going to get your ass handed to you and hard and they will laugh as you bleed out into the financial gutter.

Re:Unions could make a comeback

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism doesn't work. If you need to know why, just look at the history of Depressions that required government "intervention" to prevent total chaos.
Also, if Communism doesn't work, why did the Russians beat the Americans into space and terrify then into a decades-long Cold War?
Why would you be terrified of something that doesn't work?

Re: Unions could make a comeback

[Anonymous Coward]

Famers collectives are a big thing e.g. Fonterra (anchor butter). And there are upmarket retail examples (waitrose/john lewis)

Re:Unions could make a comeback

[Anonymous Coward]

It's marvellous

Yes, your happiness with your situation is clear from your post!

Re:Unions could make a comeback

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not directly attributable to unions by any means. Globalization and the internet changed things much more. Unions got massively outnumbered and became irrelevant, if you can shut down the factory and get the same service for 10% of the price in India then unions have no bargaining power at all.

Re:Unions could make a comeback

[Anonymous Coward]

- Corruption -- what political organization isn't corrupt? I'd deal with a low level of corruption if I were getting something that benefits me.

I now understand why you like unions. Some of us are honest, so fuck you and fuck your union.

You're missing the point. The market has some degree of this corruption too - corporations are allowed to buy each other out and corner the market because the SEC does fuck-all about monopolies while high-level regulations deter competition and create centralizing forces. No offense but your "honesty" towards these entities comes across like Stockholm Syndrome. I'm here to put food on my family's table, not to feel good about how fair I'm being.

What has changed is that now we can use algorithms to organize the union, instead of trusting corruptible human leaders.

Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Aim your disc at the base of the spinning cone.

Re:it's pretty simple

[Joe_Dragon]

If someone is willing to do your job as well as you for less money than you, they should have the job.

so it's ok for someone to work under the table with no auto insurance driving some jalopy and when something go wrong the victims are on there own and the driver just goes to ER.

Re:it's pretty simple

[50000BTU_barbecue]

That's why I find this type of person fascinating; to me they're like any broken system, I want to know what went wrong and where.

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody needs to read the history that started the unions to begin with. People couldn't afford to live even WITH a job, moron.

This. Mod this shit up. There are too many people here that live in a fantasy land.

Oxymoron

[Anonymous Coward]

a crowd of casual workers you do not employ, so they deliver a responsive, seamless, standardized service

Standardized service requires anything but a casual worker, or the service is trivial and soon automatized.

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

no. driving without insurance is illegal. don't change the subject.

Re: it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

And now they won't be able to even with 3 jobs... Which they ain't gonna have because automation will take care of that. No union is going to be able to do anything about it: you can't stop progress. We've had decades to prepare and everybody sat on their butts and waved their hands laughing at "science fiction nonsense". Well guess what, now the times really are a-changin' and that's it: most of humanity is about to be made redundant. You can cry, you can scream, you can despair, pull your hair... To no avail. It's a done deal. Sorry, kids.

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I find this type of person fascinating; to me they're like any broken system, I want to know what went wrong and where.

Bad inputs maybe?

The counter argument to that

[rsilvergun]

is that in the absence of regulation free enterprise would drive down costs and result in better services without oppressive government rules and the risk of fascist dictatorships rising up out of the enormous power structures necessitated by widespread regulation.

Now, I could write two or three paragraphs debunking the above, but they would be dry and make people feel down. Deregulation is a nice, simple solution to a complex problem. Like most simple solutions to complex problems it causes more problems, but simple solutions feel great, make great sound bites and are easy to market.

It's the difference between Hilary boring everyone to tears saying she's gonna sweat the details on Donald Trump's wall. They're both solutions to our economic problems, but the latter is simpler, bolder and just feels better (as long as you don't think too much about it).

If anyone knows a way to make the hard work of solving complex problems marketable let me know.

Re:The counter argument to that

[buss_error]

Now, I could write two or three paragraphs debunking the above

Oh Ghu, please please do.

While I do think we have a bit of too much Government in many cases, I also think we shouldn't throw baby out with the bathwater.

Re:it's pretty simple

[WhiplashII]

I'll give you a hint: I was disabled, and literally did not have enough money for food. I went to the government for help. I was rejected, while other people (of a more politically favored class) that were not disabled at all were given money.

Eventually, I found a job were I could work somewhat. I then had to pay taxes to support those favored by the government, when I could barely afford rent.

You trust the government, because you have never been abused by it. You're probably also pretty good at getting others to give you what you want by talking.

I sucked at that, though I got better. The government, and unions, help a certain class of people by harming everyone else.

To me, you union/government guys guys are simply either inexperienced or insane. The path you chose has never worked. It has been proven mathematically impossible via simple, well understood economics. Yet you persist in believing that if only we gave all the power to "person X", whether a union boss, a President, or a scientist, everything would be better.

Anything that does not increase production hurts the majority, and only benefits a more powerful minority.

My old boss

[Anonymous Coward]

- Didn't come out to our site to meet me in person for the first 2 years I worked in the position.
- Rarely responded to emails or calls when I asked for his input on a certain situation.
- Didn't check my KPIs.
- Didn't do my performance reviews (local HR had to do them and they didn't even know what my duties were).
- Got angry when I talked with the local HR manager about getting a raise after my first year for doing awesome on my KPIs and having sterling feedback from coworkers on-site. (I didn't get that raise, my boss 'vetoed' it).
- Had me work 6 days a week with 10 hours a day in the office (it was a manufacturing plant that worked nearly 24/6 and sometimes 24/7).
- Got angry when I requested PTO usage that was part of my employment contract (10 paid days per year).
- Denied my PTO usage repeatedly.
- Claimed that if I was going to 'be allowed' to use my PTO, I would need to be 'on-call and ready to arrive at the office within 30 minutes'.
- Sabotaged my chances with other positions in the company (not even promotions, but lateral moves to get me out of that shit job).
- Got angry when I gave 4 (yes four) weeks notice that I was resigning.
- Never hired a replacement.
- Got angry at me on my last day at the company because he didn't hire a replacement for me to train.

So yeah, sign me up for an AI boss.

Re:My old boss

[Anonymous Coward]

Please define your acronyms next time.

Re:My old boss

[ledow]

PTO = paid time off?

Sorry, I judge you just as much as your boss for tolerating it. "First 2 years" I take to mean that you were there for longer than that? Far too long.

Your boss, however, got tons of excellent work out of you for almost no extra compensation without ever taking any responsibility. He's laughing all the way to the bank.

I swear half the problem with bad workplaces and bosses is people never saying "Fuck off" (or equivalent) to their stupid demands.

Corporate Boards are a HUUUGE problem

[bussdriver]

Corporate law has changed over time and not for the better. Corporations are defined by law; therefore they exist by regulation which owes all it's force to the power of governments (external governments included.)

The corporate board used to not be easily stacked with friends of the CEO... and that was historically the case. Also, it was less likely that a small population of buddies were on boards of each other's corporation in the past, which is a huge conflict of interest. Changing that would be new; however, modern times created a problem which needs to be addressed. People forget the problems of government power/corruption are human organization problems which exist in every organization.

Some nations such as Germany require by corporate law that boards have a significant portion of the board be WORKERS or their union. This makes so much sense it is hard to understand why it isn't mentioned in the USA.

The intended purpose of a corporation is to provide gainful employment; however, legally we define it as solely looking out for the share holders. That can be altered; in the past, there was a moral aspect in society which to some degree infected management. Ethics essentially has been removed from the culture and what remains is removed in MBA school.

The balance of powers within government systems has to be extended to everything within their grasp otherwise the loopholes will allow for the creation of monsters beyond the power of the system and will corrupt and hijack the government which defines/regulates them. It's like an unchecked disease becoming an epidemic and then killing off everybody at the CDC. That is where we are today...

Re:Corporate Boards are a HUUUGE problem

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point, people are so brainwashed they think doubleplusgood for corporations should be good for them, which is not true in and of itself.
The mental gymnastics required to keep justifying the stretching imbalances of power would make Mao proud!
Of course, getting laid off is because of laziness, until it happens to your own family.
That all other means of sustainment has been stolen from the people, is your own fault too of course.

Re:Corporate Boards are a HUUUGE problem

[waspleg]

The intended purpose of a corporation is and has always been to make money above all else. Some people might have ethics, (largely) companies do not. Many other countries (mostly in Europe) do capitalism in a way that is far more beneficial to the worker than America does.

Other places like China/India are trying to out-evil us in the race to the bottom. India has a massive worker strike going on, probably the largest in history, I saw that on imgur, not covered in major media.

It should be obvious that the only reason a company would use an algorithm to manage people would be because it's cost effective - regardless of how exploitative that is likely to be as a result. I'm not sure a computer could care less about people than almost any given fortune 500 board of directors already doesn't. Sociopathy seems to be a requirement and seen as a boon for investors (who are mostly YOU and your retirement fund managers that you've never met).

Re:Corporate Boards are a HUUUGE problem

[swillden]

The intended purpose of a corporation is to provide gainful employment

That's a bizarre reinterpretation. The purpose of a corporation is to facilitate pooling of capital to enable the undertaking of large projects that no single person could fund, and to shield investors from potential losses -- which has pros and cons, but on balance is good. Capital would be much harder to raise if investors had to risk everything on each investment.

Large projects, such as making a product and distributing it on very large scales, usually do require employing people, usually a lot of people, but there's nothing employment-related in the concept of a corporation. Indeed, some corporations are capital-intensive and labor-light, employing very few people.

Re:Corporate Boards are a HUUUGE problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies start from humble beginnings, usually individual family enterprises and over many decades could build up to mega-corporation size. The people who founded the company, if they had the least bit of business knowledge (a given), would have total control over every board member and have since the beginning of time. What universe have you been living in?

Re:Corporate Boards are a HUUUGE problem

[serviscope_minor]

The intended purpose of a corporation is and has always been to make money above all else.

How do you explain the existence of the barious non profit corporation structures, and structures such as members clubs and so on?

Re:Corporate Boards are a HUUUGE problem

[bussdriver]

The problem is the corporation doesn't scale that well and when huge in size serious problems surface.

In previous generations some management felt responsible for their employee's jobs. This still tends to happen in small biz because they actually know the employees; while in larger corporations they do not-- it resembles conditions similar to the Milgram Experiment and other unpleasant discoveries about human nature... (like the Stanford Prison Experiment) plus just having abstractions amplify tiny flaws into bigger problems (see the work of Dan Ariely.)

Corporate law in the USA defines corps as for their shareholders and nothing else; it's optional for management to IGNORE the legal definition and be human. Easier to do as one gets removed further from this kind of society's top interest: employment.

Society will clash with our current system's warped values and it won't be tolerated anymore. Change will happen somehow. A.I. will force the matter as our economic system drives away all the jobs due to it being built around values society only allowed for the sake of jobs in the first place.

It's exploitative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us have been saying this from the start. For such a supposedly intelligent era, people sure suck at critically analyzing the benefit ratios of situations, and seem to be incapable of mentally following events to future outcomes. This is all effing absurd, and i guarantee you those actually employed by these companies are rolling in freedom of time and money. You are serfs to them, nothing more, and only that until you can be replaced by software, too.

Re:it's pretty simple

[ooloorie]

Yet you feel the world owes cheap labor and no taxes to corporations?

First of all, stop hiding behind the term "corporations"; we're talking about employers here.

And it's not difficult to figure out how this works. If I can hire you to mow my lawn for $10/h, I may do that. If I have to pay your $50/h, I'll mow the lawn myself or get rid of it. Trying to force me to give you a $50/h job isn't going to work. It's no different with employers.

Why do you worship takers?

You tell me, since it's you who "worships takers", namely the idea that government can somehow force employers to pay employees more than they are wroth.

What is the purpose of science and technology if you feel like we should live like in the Middle Ages?

The end of the Middle Ages was brought about by the Enlightenment, the idea that each individual is the steward of their own destiny, capable of making their own decisions, and responsible for the consequences of their choices. It is you who argues about a pre-Enlightenment view of man and society.

Kant: "nlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance."

Re:it's pretty simple

[ooloorie]

Somebody needs to read the history that started the unions to begin with. People couldn't afford to live even WITH a job, moron.

You'd be amazed at all the social institutions that made sense a century ago but that are obsolete now.

Re:it's pretty simple

[ooloorie]

The only thing that's "broken" here is that you are reasoning like a Luddite. I.e., it's you who's broken, not me.

The world doesn't owe anyone anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Survival of the fittest, modified by an element of dumb luck. This has been the way the universe operates since the Big Bang. The powerful have as much right to exploit us if they can as we have to overthrow them if we can. No more, no less. They owe us nothing, and we owe them nothing. Most people these days are takers if they can get away with it.

Civil society is mutual loyalty based on mutual obligation. Symbiosis. This is a fragile thing. In the times we live in, it is effectively dead. It died a slow death over the past few decades. We need to learn to live without it. It was good while it lasted, but it's over.

I prefer a soulless algorithm to a soulless boss who, aside from lacking a soul, is all too human. I can in theory reverse engineer an algorithm and game it. This is harder to do with people. And people without souls tend to rise to positions of power.

Re:The world doesn't owe anyone anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Survival of the fittest, modified by an element of dumb luck. This has been the way the universe operates since the Big Bang. The powerful have as much right to exploit us if they can as we have to overthrow them if we can. No more, no less. They owe us nothing, and we owe them nothing. Most people these days are takers if they can get away with it.

Isn't this exactly what government imposed regulations are? The employees banding together and lobbying for their interest? I mean, in a democracy the government are the people, and the people decided that in order for you to play the game you must follow the rules imposed on you.

I think it's funny how people invoke survival of the fittest/strongest without also mentioning strength-in-numbers. If I have more power by joining with other like-minded people, then that's exactly what I'm going to do. And then we're going to win. Survival of the fittest at it's best!

Civil society is mutual loyalty based on mutual obligation. Symbiosis. This is a fragile thing. In the times we live in, it is effectively dead. It died a slow death over the past few decades. We need to learn to live without it. It was good while it lasted, but it's over.

Can you be more specific? When did it die? Through what process? I, personally, believe it is alive and kicking. Maybe the balance of power has shifted a bit one way or another, but it's there. Your argument is equivalent to saying evolution is over just because you might not notice it happening. Like everything else in our world, the balance is constantly changing, and what worked at one point in time, might not work in another.

I found your arguments to be too simplistic.

Re:The world doesn't owe anyone anything.

[Hognoxious]

I can in theory reverse engineer an algorithm and game it.

You can't, in theory or practice, kick an algorithm in the groin until it vomits. Then stamp on its ankles and knees.

Re:it's pretty simple

[Lumpy]

Because he is a sadist.

He is one of those morons that buys into the bullshit that you work hard you will be rich.

Reality: working hard means you work hard and say poor. to become rich you have to be an asshole and a bullshitter.

100% of all the rich in this world got there by bullshitting others or being an asshole and taking from others. Not paying honest wages is how you get richer faster, and employees like me that will say "fuck you" to my employer and go work for the competition because they will pay me more? I really piss his type off because I see through them and see what they really are. Scam artists trying to convince me that they are doing ME a favor.

Reality is a worker is doing the company a FAVOR, not the other way around.

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, the single most potent factor that has increased production is rising power of individuals through higher standard of living which ties to personal security. When that slowed in the 80s in much of the western world so did economic progress. You look at other economies that were starting at diidly and how their strength has grown - its NOT producers but consumers that drive economies. Why? Capital is dirt cheap, labor is easily multiplied. Economics as you see it hasn't worked for 50 years.

Re:it's pretty simple

[Lumpy]

to him? yes! It's not his problem, and he gets even cheaper labor!

The world owes no one anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

The world does not owe CEOs a living. The employees/gig workers do not owe CEOs a living. But if there is a mutual benefit, we can do business together for the time being.

The powerful and privileged are inclined to think the world owes them. Next thing they know, they've traded in the limo for a tumbrel. But this too is vanity, a vexation of spirit.

Re: The world owes no one anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

You might find out to your chagrin that the contractual power of a CEO is very, very high. That of common workers is about zero.

Re:it's pretty simple

[ooloorie]

so it's ok for someone to work under the table

Not at all; people in the gig economy, of course, are required to pay taxes, like any other independent contractor.

with no auto insurance

That's illegal for people in the gig economy just like for everybody else.

driving some jalopy

The Uber and Lyft cars I have taken have been a lot nicer than any taxi I have ever been in.

something go wrong the victims are on there own and the driver just goes to ER.

In fact, gig companies like Uber and Lyft are much better in that regard than taxi drivers: their drivers and passengers are wirelessly monitored through the entire trip and evaluated by passengers afterwards; so, an Uber or Lyft driver gets penalized seriously for dangerous driving. I have had taxi drivers run a string of red lights, go at twice the speed limit, and get out of the car and get into fist fights with other drivers, and they know they can get away with it because there are no consequences. Taxis are seriously scary.

Re: it's pretty simple

[BarbaraHudson]

Those unions that you hate so much gave enough people a better job that even non-union companies had to offer better wages and conditions than they otherwise would have. Now with 40 years of union-busting Reaganomics taking away these jobs, the end game is upon us.

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

If the world followed these simple rules, people would quickly shuffle to the job where they produce the most benefit for society.

Au contraire.

Most jobs today require nearly a decade of education. The impulse response of the labor market is extremely viscous and the latency in market supply following a surge in demand is 3-5 years. When most investment bubbles are driven by fads which last less than 5-10 years, you have a labor market where success or failure is a matter of luck or skill at forecasting 3-5 years into the future when selecting the focus of your vocational training.

If we followed the true spirit of laissez-faire capitalism then we never would have adopted the 40 hour work week or occupational safety regulations.

Re:it's pretty simple

[sjames]

And now the abused becomes the abuser.

Sure, it can be hacked

[rsilvergun]

and you'll be caught in about 1 year when most businesses do their yearly reconciliation accounting process and compare Amount of work done to amount of money in. Big data will spot your patters (which will need to be simple and repetitive to make any money at whatever scheme you come up with). The full force of our "justice" system will come down on you like a ton of bricks. In exchange for a year of "sticking it to the man" you'll do 10 years in prison. Maybe 20 if you don't plead out (you'll plead, everybody does).

Company's like Uber are owned/operated by members of the ruling class. You do not f with the ruling class for very long. Once in a while somebody like Madoff does it by joining the ruling class. Like any organization they're vulnerable from within. But you should let your hacker fantasies go. It's just not how things go in the real world...

Re:Sure, it can be hacked

[BcNexus]

I say: Hal it like Tinder, if not for anything else, as an exercise for academia or Defcon.

Re:Sure, it can be hacked

[mykepredko]

I wasn't thinking in terms of actual fraud (which, I agree, would be found pretty quickly) but preference in getting (better) opportunities - to the same level as somebody getting favourable treatment/opportunities from a human boss?

Is that against the law? Maybe the person who created the exploit (but I doubt they would be found in a country with an extradition treaty with the U.S.) but I don't see how the employee subscribing to the service could be sued.

Re:Sure, it can be hacked

[fish_in_the_c]

unauthorized access , or tampering with a computer equipment is a crime in the united states, against the law, of coarse depends on your jurisdiction. But basically unless you are talking about some kind of 'social hack' anything that accessed Uber's software without their prior written consent and did anything they didn't like to it could land you with huge fines or in jail.

Re:it's pretty simple

[HornWumpus]

In the 80s much of the economic growth moved to the underdeveloped parts of the world. China, India, eastern Europe, Brazil etc.

They have a mixed record of putting the growth to good use. Don't ignore the successes. Eastern Europe is full of them. They still have cheap costs, but have growing 'consumer classes'. China is the obvious 300 pound gorilla in the room, they will find their own way, eventually. India? The same, but different.

But in the long run what were we (the developed world) going to do? Developed world middle class takes a beating, developing world middle class gets it's start (where corruption doesn't doom the effort). Economics is working, but putting it too bluntly gets you ignored, as the short term losers have votes.

It all turns on China. They have a banking mess, real estate and stock bubble to clear in the short run. Capital flight from China is creating a real estate bubble on the west coast of North America. That could turn real ugly...when the Chinese middle class realize they've been boned by the exchange rate peg (lose half the value of their hard snuck-out overseas investments at about the same time their domestic holdings take a beating).

Re:it's pretty simple

[Cederic]

How young are you?

It hit IT long before it hit musicians, journalists or retail workers. H1B visas in the US came long after offshoring, long after the UK IT industry seriously damaged itself by cutting off the supply of local talent.

Cloud? Mostly irrelevant. The only reason the IT industry hasn't been in massive decline for two decades is that the growth in technology dependence has kept pace with the growth in offshore and outsource stupidity.

I stopped programming for a living in 2003 because there were too many skilled software engineers competing for few too roles that weren't experiencing any wage growth. Outsourcing killed the programmer career in the UK.

"Now it's all over IT"? Shit, the industry barely got started before it was all over.

Current Law

[Anonymous Coward]

The rights of an independent contractor are already part of American law due in part to the IRS. No acts of supervision are allowed. For example control of access to a workplace is enough to have a person considered an employee under the law. If you are a sales person you can not be denied the right to sell on only the hours or places you choose to sell. That is what independent means. You are not under the control of a company. Also where is that contract? If you are an independent contractor you should have a written contract that benefits both you and the company in a reasonable way. If no contract exists you are an employee. What scab companies count on is the employee not knowing their legal rights. And it gets better. If you are injured and they do not have Workman's compensation covering you you very well may be able to sue the business owners for full compensation for your losses and injuries. Even if you have signed an agreement stating that you are an IDC the company can still be considered an employer if they make any effort or take any action of supervision over you. That can be a blessing as Workman's comp. payments are often a gimmick that only protects employers. False use of the IDC status costs billions to Workman's Comp as well as Unemployment Insurance agencies and turning in companies that use the gimmick could actually make you rich as you are preventing theft and collecting money for the government. If also endangers the public. Suppose you have a deal going to hang storm shutters for a company that sells storm shutters. They list you as an IDC. You do not have a business permit as you claim to work for the company. While working you fall and are badly hurt. The home owner gets stuck for your injuries. Phone sales and telemarketing also falsely use the IDC gimmick. They can not provide the work space, the phones, the desks, or have any control over when and how you work if you are a real IDC.

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet you persist in believing that if only we gave all the power to "person X", whether a union boss, a President, or a scientist, everything would be better.

This is where you show your level of comprehension is tainted by your own biases. That is not what people want, just because they pursue a strategy you don't like. In fact, contrary to your belief, the idea which you oppose is about taking power away from others, due to the potential for exploitation.

Giving some absolute power to another? Not really what is being pursued. There may be some who behave that way, but it's not everybody by far. You've just fallen into the trap of coming up with an accusation that doesn't bear out in reality, but since it's so terrible, it feels genuine. But really, all it says, is that people who are capable of malevolence know to cover their true nature under a papering of other ideals. It doesn't mean the ideals have no value.

(And no, you're not the only one falling into the same trap either. And don't get me started on the poor historical analysis going on. The Middle Ages actually had a wide variety of mores and values, but some of them did include the notion of particular rights as well as organized groups who existed to defend each other. Or even just revenge for those harmed.)

The government is the problem, not Uber or Lyft

[Anonymous Coward]

The government has no right to inhibit you from working (as they will often do to people unable to pay child support by suspending drivers licenses and similar), but at the same time you are not or should not be entitled to a job or compensation thereof for not having one. If Uber or Lyft aren't paying enough click the uninstall button. There are lots of jobs that don't pay enough to live off. So don't take those jobs! There are a lot of people who need first time jobs or jobs to hold them over between proper paying jobs. This is the job market for such people.

At the same token nobody should be obliged to pay taxes. This is nothing more than theft and those who wish to have insurance against loss of employment can fund such programs themselves. I don't like Uber or Lyft, but neither are worse than any taxi company in existence. The industry itself created the legislation to limit competition. We should be eliminating these unnecessary regulations that were put in place by nothing less than the FUD spread by the the taxi companies themselves in order to limit competition.

We should eliminate the laws which have brought us monopolies and duopolies, limited competition, and/or ensured small companies can't compete. Internet service providers are a great example of this and particularly cable TV (local governments granted monopolies to attract cable companies to lay cable TV lines in the 1980s). This gave these companies first mover advantage end entrenched their monopolistic position in the market by preventing competition from coming in until after they'd paid of debts. It's near impossible as the evidence shows us to enter a market with an entrenched monopoly. First mover advantage would have existed regardless of the government, but it's the government that entrenched these companies such that there could be no competition.

If you care about freedom and liberty above all else then you should come to New Hampshire and partake in the Free State Project. There was no real hope for freedom or liberty anywhere else in the world. It's only because of a migration concept and the formation of the Free State Project that there is hope that we can create a liberty/freedom utopia over the long haul. This idea that sprung into existence several years ago is really coming to fruition now. 10% of people who've signed up (20,000 not including people who already lived in NH) have already moved. We need a lot more people to migrate to form an independent state (nation), but in the mean time a lot can be done with even just a comparatively small number of movers. In part because the state locks up the most number of people. By limiting New Hampshire's government we can solve most problems. There is no where left in NH you can move today and not find other immigrants for freedom. We can do this- but we need your help!

Re: it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

And now they won't be able to even with 3 jobs...

The concept of jobs as we understand it is an achronism. You can have 200 "job" in one week and 0 "jobs" in the next. You have that FREEDOM, if government and unions stop keeping you down. That's the magic of the gig economy.
--
roman_mir

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The world does not owe you a living

The world? That's a planet, it exists, without consciousness or reason, as far as we know.

Humans, however, have consciousness, and the capacity to reason.

This means that expectations can be put upon them. Each of us can and does owe the others.

Don't like it? Live an existence without thinking.

2) If someone is willing to do your job as well as you for less money than you, they should have the job.

If the world followed these simple rules, people would quickly shuffle to the job where they produce the most benefit for society. Society as a whole would be better off, including the displaced workers once they find their niche.

You neglect the clear problem with this ideal. Shuffling to another job is not without friction. You are not considering the situation properly, but just assuming, like a physicist or philosopher, that you have a perfect sphere to use.

When you have protectionism, such as unions, by definition you are stealing jobs from someone that needs it more.

Where can I find this definition?

The whole argument about pay going up or down is a red herring; if pay decreased globally, then prices would also decrease globally. If pay rises, prices rise in step. The only thing that can make society better off as a whole is increased efficiency and increased production.

So decreased exploitation does not make society better off? Decreased injury does not make society better off? Decreased fraud? Decreased risk? Oh wait, you could argue they do make for increased efficiency and production.

But no, pay decreases do not lead to price decreases, see the Great Depression where warehouses were full. They didn't sell off. They didn't even lower prices because of an inventory glut. They just kept hoarding.

Anything else is just theft from those weaker than you.

You do know why taxes aren't theft, don't you?

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Most jobs today require nearly a decade of education

That means people who finished ninth grade?

Re:it's pretty simple

[50000BTU_barbecue]

I want a work-free society that uses the technology and resources we have. You want a serf-based "work or die" Bronze Age mentality.

I'll let you decide who is the "Luddite" here. You may want to spend the rest of your weekend (get it?) to reflect upon why you are such a horrendous person.

Student Labor/Interns/College Football Players

[ememisya]

There comes a time in every exploitative industry where the industry operators are making so much money from workers under questionable circumstances that everyone clearly sees that this is a job, not a volunteering opportunity with benefits. Uber, Deliveroo and the like finally got there it would seem. Time to pay their fair share.

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I was disabled, and literally did not have enough money for food. I went to the government for help. I was rejected

Yet you did not starve to death.

Given that we now know you are willing to lie about life or death scenarios for your advantage, why should we trust any of your other claims?

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

... what went wrong and where.

After the world war, the US unionists went to France and Italy to re-build Europe, which is why those countries have iron-clad wages and labour laws, unions and 4 or 6 weeks of paid holidays every year. Bereft of people-power, the US middle class toyed with the idea of communism, with many converts worshiping it as a religion. Whether naive or anti-capitalists, those people became victims of the witch-hunts in the 1950s conducted by politicians like Joe McCarthy, using the recent ban on communism (1941) to deprive people of their 1st and 5th amendment rights. Gradually this class warfare ended and congress continued protecting the working class until the 1980s, where the "greed is good" meme overwhelmed the rights of the people and government empowered the corporations first and then, via RICO and civil forfeiture laws, empowered itself. The arrival of the 'war on terror' allowed the government to empower itself over the people even further. The already, high-standing of corporations, empowered them to aid the harassment of the people and profit from it.

Upside is, it can be fixed

[Anonymous Coward]

Software update rollback.

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

... you have made no commitment to your "boss" ...

And when you make a commitment to your boss, who is going to protect it? You're really promoting the liberalism idea of everything being decided by the courts. So, you're going to take time-off from your new job and hire a lawyer to sue your old boss for breach of contract? You've got a contract haven't you, one that doesn't force you into arbitration before a money-hungry arbiter?

... they serve no purpose anymore.

Your boss has the benefit of the company accountant, the company lawyer, the company HR drone, the company CEO. In an efficient marketplace for labour, the same services will arise for the employees because an entire company against one employee is not an informed or consensual transaction. Unions are an attempt to fill this need and your generalization is blatant company protectionism.

... don't work for them ...

Sounds good, we can sell coffee , 40 hours a week, for a $15/hour wage. But who's going to buy this coffee, all those middle-class contractors now working for a $13/hour wage?. And they will be the lucky few not contracted to work 60 hours a week for a $9/hour wage.

Since contractors have to pay their own insurance, pensions, sick leave, tools, training and uniforms, there's no way an efficient marketplace for labour allows the "boss" to set the wages, let alone, set them below minimum wages. All those ex-employees will be forced into jobs selling coffee, which might not be a bad idea: The "boss" will then have to pay whatever price the middle-class contractors desire.

Manna - this was done years ago (fiction)

[cpm99352]

As geeks, you should aready know this story.

Re:Manna - this was done years ago (fiction)

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew somebody was going to mention that.

I have trouble attributing any predictive power to a story where the the rich stay rich despite everyone to whom they could sell anything being imprisoned in government poorhouses.

Re:Manna - this was done years ago (fiction)

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeat after me:

Slashdot is not a geek site.

Re:Manna - this was done years ago (fiction)

[umghhh]

The story is an utopia or an attempt to show what the author thinks are solutions. Read "second species" that follow the story. There is more to it there.
As for the 1% star trek like society and 99% living in poverty - this is not real poverty - they have food and shelter so this does not compare with the times where extreme poverty and food shortages caused revolutions or at least riots. Surely bored humans can be dangerous but rather in unorganized way. The reasons they would stay unorganized are listed in the "second species" too.
BTW you can just as well wonder what society would allow and could stand immigration of the sort that happens at the end of the book. We see what happens in Germany, Sweden and Austria - there is no way all these billions of people would be allowed to (what can be understood as) paradise and this paradise would not collapse. Unless of course the paradise is putting all people brains on the shelf and the whole paradise is just VR. Just a thought of mine after reading this again.
There is no escape poverty and misery by technological progress. Even if successful this will make some to migrate to places where that is not so (edges of the inhabited universe). And success of that is limited by how much energy we can produce, how much we can consume without the world collapsing under the waste and most importantly - the humanity knows only two relatively stable misery states: growth and when that is finished a short period of peaceful decline before collapse which is then caused by external factors that declining society cannot cope with like savages from behind limes or ecological and/or economic disaster (Vikings in Greenland). It never happened any other way. Maybe in the future this will be different but I doubt. "savages from beyond Limes" are quite interesting subject on its own too. The problem with them is not that the are worse than natives - they just dilute the society to the point there is no institutional memory to support common works like sanitation or water supply and they usually have no mercy for the natives too which becomes important when they become majority. I wonder how this will come about with the elite owning the robots.

Re:it's pretty simple

[ooloorie]

I want a work-free society that uses the technology and resources we have.

Maybe that's what you want, but taxes and unions are the antithesis of a "work free society".

I'll let you decide who is the "Luddite" here

You're right: you're not a Luddite, you're simply an idiot, and a greedy, selfish, and despicable one at that.

Re:it's pretty simple

[SuricouRaven]

I anticipated the flood of programmers back when I was in school - it was such a 'cool field' I knew the market would be flooded. So I decided to go into the comparatively boring area of networking instead.

But this then met with my total lack of ambition an fear of risk-taking, so now I work a crappy-pay job as a low level IT technician, which I keep because it is conveniently local and very stable.

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the comparison with pre-union days is invalid. You forget that Western countries offer welfare/social security to their citizens these days. The choice for those in the gig economy is between welfare or 'gigging', and one can be certain that if the former pays more than the latter, workers will switch to it (welfare). Who in their right mind would work to earn less than one could receive on welfare?

Re:it's pretty simple

[goose-incarnated]

"1) The world does not owe you a living"

Yet you feel the world owes cheap labor and no taxes to corporations? Why do you worship takers?

What is the purpose of science and technology if you feel like we should live like in the Middle Ages?

"2) If someone is willing to do your job as well as you for less money than you, they should have the job."

Sure, and that doesn't mean I should now starve in a world like ours. But to you and your delightful Bronze Age sensibility, it does.

Figures you're a software type.

You are arguing with a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. I highly doubt that this will end well for you - "Never wrestle with a pig..."

Re:it's pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's what you want, but taxes and unions are the antithesis of a "work free society".

I'd suggest you head for Somalia. Not many taxes there.

Your apparently religious dislike of unions is silly. A union is just a collection of people getting together to have some collective power. Just like any company.

A union has the same strengths and weaknesses as a company. Both can have a corrupt leadership. Both can overcharge. Both can scam other parties. Both can monopolise. Both can get "too big to fail". Both have "market discipline". etc. etc

another rant by a Greedy Pig

[Anonymous Coward]

Another rant by a Greedy Pig..
You fail to realize that by virtue of being born or living in the US you are already hugely entitled with opportunity benefits and you want more.
In most other country's you would have to survive on less than $2 US a day. Want to start a company there? You can't! because it is a caste system and you should know your place in society and stay there!

  It you think US company's are so evil, why don't you start your own, lazy pig, and make one that is better and more fair in your vision?

Maybe the people running the company are getting the bigger share of profits because they had the balls to do something, rather then accepting a paycheck from someone else's company built by Not You and on their own hard work, ambition, and money management skills.

For those that despise the 1%, You are the Effing 1% you dim witted sloth.
What do you think will happen if you get your way and the rich are taxed at 95%?
If that's the way you want it, start sending 95% of your paycheck to India, because YOU ARE the 1% in the global perspective if you live in the US.

LIBERTY is about working and providing for YOUR SELF and the OPPORTUNITY to do so.
NOT about working for someone else. Wan't to get ahead? Do it the American way! Roll up your sleeves and Get To Work doing it for yourself!
Quit your whining about not being GIVEN ENOUGH from your chosen provider and make yourself your provider.

Humans Still Behind Algorithm Setting Wages

[Koreantoast]

While the article is a good description of what's going on in the new gig economy, I don't think it fully fleshes out the fact that the labor terms like wages, fees, etc. are still being set by human beings. If Uber or UberEats changes the wages, it wasn't an algorithm that decided this, but it was a manager somewhere who set these numbers. This is really no different than if you had a traditional employer who hires you at a promise of one wage but then hides a little clause in your contract that allows him to lower your wage on his whim. Maybe its a necessity, like in the case where Uber can't seem to make any profit, but that doesn't mean it isn't exploitative or misleading at best.

binding arbitration

[phorm]

This is why company's everywhere need regulation

It's also why "Binding Arbitration only" clauses need to be made illegal everywhere (as they are where I live). It's a complete end-run around the legal system and always favour the corporation unjustly

Re:it's pretty simple

[fish_in_the_c]

This whole argument basically comes down to:
Do you believe humans have intrinsic value ( if so where what cause that value, historically deity ( aka images of the Living God loved by Him) , is there another source?)
OR
From a materialist standpoint, human beings are just resources to be consumed and destroyed by whatever processes happen to be of no more particularly value then there interchangeability in the process. Survival of the fittest, might makes right.

It's all about the jobs; think broader

[bussdriver]

No label covers it better than the modern "corporation". Which includes non-profit corporations and anything else government chooses to define in detail... and it is defined way beyond simply an investment shield.

From a broader, society perspective:

Hunter/Gatherer societies had no need for jobs. The food supply was your "employer" and supported your survival.
There was a tendency to worship the provider, which was nature so they strongly trend to pagan.

Money based societies all depend upon jobs. The employers supply your job to get money so you can survive. There is a tendency to worship the provider; which here are the "job creators" and so on.

Society's perspective is always about survival, so the purpose of corporation is to be "job creators" and what the business produces is secondary. Even the most business biased preach "job creators" and rain dance or virgin sacrifices etc. The "invisible hand of the market" alludes to god (not original intent) like nature does for the hunter society... leave nature alone to play out so we can benefit from being a part of it... this doesn't work in an artificial man-made unbalanced system but I'll not prod the libertarians any further... anyhow, there are similarities between drastically different economic systems.

Economy: look at the purposeless crap that is produced as well as the frivolous services and how the post WW2 / post depression engineering of the consumer society we have today. We force CREATE demand in order to provide enough jobs so too many people don't starve and bring the whole system down. What we all really need and want is job creation (survival in this society which means reasonably keeping up with the neighbors) most people don't really care about the economy. A.I. will bring a lot of aspects out that weren't being considered by the masses before.

Re:It's all about the jobs; think broader

[swillden]

Society's perspective is always about survival, so the purpose of corporation is to be "job creators" and what the business produces is secondary.

Those of us who like to eat, wear clothing, communicate electronically and a million and one other things beg to disagree. The stuff that businesses produce is rather important at every level of Maslow's hierarchy.